Document Modesto_doc_0c039eb7d9

City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for: City of Modesto PO Box 642 Modesto, CA 95353 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, California 94610 June 2019 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for: City of Modesto PO Box 642 Modesto, CA 95353 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, California 94610 June 2019 ---PAGE BREAK--- Horizon Water and Environment. 2019. City of Modesto, Wastewater Master Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report. June. (HWE 15.043) Oakland, CA. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan i June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary 2 Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 3 1.1 Overview of CEQA 4 1.1.1 Intent and Scope of this Document 5 1.2 CEQA 6 1.2.1 Notice of 7 1.2.2 Scoping Comments and 8 1.2.3 Draft EIR 9 1.2.4 Public Review and Meetings 10 1.2.5 Final EIR 11 1.3 Organization of this 12 1.4 Submittal of 13 1.5 Proposed Program Location and 14 1.6 Existing Wastewater System 15 1.6.1 Collection 16 1.6.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants 17 1.6.3 Stormwater/Sanitary Systems 18 1.6.4 History of Previous Wastewater Master 19 1.6.5 Planning Challenges 20 Chapter 2 Program 2-1 21 2.1 Overview 22 2.2 Purpose and 23 2.3 Location and 24 2.4 Projected Wastewater Flows 25 2.5 Proposed Program 26 2.5.1 River Trunk Realignment 27 2.5.2 Collection System Components 28 2.5.3 Treatment Plant 29 2.5.4 Construction Methods 30 2.5.5 Construction Schedule and 31 2.5.6 Project Operations 32 2.6 Permits and Approvals 33 Chapter 3 Introduction to the Environmental 3-1 34 3.1 Overview 35 3.2 EIR Study Area and Program 36 3.3 Characterization of Baseline Conditions 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan ii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 3.4 Significance of Environmental Impacts 1 3.4.1 Terminology Used in Impact Analyses 2 3.4.2 Program-Level Analysis 3 3.4.3 Project-Level 4 3.4.4 Overall 5 3.5 Mitigation Measures 6 3.6 Resource Areas Eliminated from Further 7 3.6.1 Forestry 8 3.6.2 Mineral 9 3.6.3 Public 10 3.6.4 Recreation 11 3.6.5 12 Chapter 4 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 4-1 13 4.1 Overview 14 4.2 Regulatory 15 4.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 16 4.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 17 4.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 18 4.3 Environmental 19 4.3.1 Regional and 20 4.3.2 Program 21 4.4 Impact 22 4.4.1 23 4.4.2 Criteria for Determining 24 4.4.3 Environmental Impacts 25 Chapter 5 Agricultural 5-1 26 5.1 Overview 27 5.2 Regulatory 28 5.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 29 5.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 30 5.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 31 5.3 Environmental 32 5.4 Impact 33 5.4.1 34 5.4.2 Criteria for Determining 35 5.4.3 Environmental Impacts 36 Chapter 6 Air Quality 6-1 37 6.1 Overview 38 6.2 Regulatory 39 6.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 40 6.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 41 6.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 42 6.3 Environmental 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan iii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 6.3.1 Regional 1 6.3.2 Existing Air Quality Conditions 2 6.3.3 Air 3 6.3.4 Sensitive Receptors 4 6.4 Impact 5 6.4.1 6 6.4.2 Criteria for Determining 7 6.4.3 Environmental Impacts 8 Chapter 7 Biological Resources 7-1 9 7.1 Overview 10 7.2 Regulatory 11 7.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 12 7.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 13 7.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 14 7.2.4 Habitat Conservation 15 7.3 Environmental 16 7.3.1 Regional 17 7.3.2 Surveys and 18 7.3.3 Vegetation and Land Cover – Study 19 7.3.4 Vegetation and Land Cover – River Trunk Realignment 20 Project 21 7.3.5 Special-Status Species 22 7.3.6 Sensitive Natural 23 7.3.7 Wildlife Movement 24 7.4 Impact 25 7.4.1 26 7.4.2 Criteria for Determining 27 7.4.3 Environmental Impacts 28 Chapter 8 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural 8-1 29 8.1 Overview 30 8.2 Regulatory 31 8.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 32 8.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 33 8.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 34 8.3 Environmental 35 8.3.1 Prehistory 36 8.3.2 37 8.3.3 History 38 8.3.4 39 8.4 Impact 40 8.4.1 41 8.4.2 Criteria for Determining 42 8.4.3 Environmental Impacts 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan iv June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 9 Geology, Soils, and 9-1 1 9.1 Overview 2 9.2 Regulatory 3 9.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 4 9.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 5 9.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 6 9.3 Environmental 7 9.3.1 Local Geology 8 9.3.2 Soils 9 9.3.3 10 9.4 Impact 11 9.4.1 12 9.4.2 Criteria for Determining 13 9.4.3 Environmental Impacts 14 Chapter 10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy 10-1 15 10.1 Overview 16 10.2 Regulatory 17 10.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 18 10.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 19 10.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 20 10.3 Environmental 21 10.3.1 Energy Resources and 22 10.4 Impact 23 10.4.1 24 10.4.2 Criteria for Determining 25 10.4.3 Environmental Impacts 26 Chapter 11 Hazards and Hazardous 11-1 27 11.1 Overview 28 11.2 Regulatory 29 11.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 30 11.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 31 11.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 32 11.3 Environmental 33 11.3.1 Schools 34 11.3.2 Existing Hazards and Hazardous Materials 35 11.3.3 Airports and Private Strips 36 11.3.4 Wildfire 37 11.4 Impact 38 11.4.1 39 11.4.2 Criteria for Determining 40 11.4.3 Environmental Impacts 41 Chapter 12 Hydrology and Water 12-1 42 12.1 Overview 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan v June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 12.2 Regulatory 1 12.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 2 12.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 3 12.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 4 12.3 Environmental 5 12.3.1 Topography and Climate 6 12.3.2 Surface Water Hydrology 7 12.3.3 Water 8 12.3.4 Stormwater 9 12.3.5 Groundwater Levels, Flows, and 10 12.3.6 Floodplains and Dam Inundation Areas 11 12.3.7 Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant 12 12.4 Impact 13 12.4.1 14 12.4.2 Criteria for Determining 15 12.4.3 Environmental Impacts 16 Chapter 13 Land Use and 13-1 17 13.1 Overview 18 13.2 Regulatory 19 13.2.1 Local Laws, Regulations, and 20 13.3 Environmental 21 13.3.1 Modesto 22 13.3.2 Unincorporated Stanislaus 23 13.4 Impact 24 13.4.1 25 13.4.2 Criteria for Determining 26 13.4.3 Environmental Impacts 27 Chapter 14 Noise and Vibration 14-1 28 Overview 29 Noise and Vibration Concepts and 30 14.2.1 31 14.2.2 32 Regulatory 33 14.3.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 34 14.3.2 State Laws, Regulations, and 35 14.3.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 36 Environmental 37 14.4.1 Regional and Local Noise Setting 38 14.4.2 Existing Noise and Vibration 39 Impact 40 14.5.1 41 14.5.2 Criteria for Determining 42 14.5.3 Environmental Impacts 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan vi June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 15 Population and 15-1 1 15.1 Overview 2 15.2 Regulatory 3 15.2.1 Local Laws, Regulations, and 4 15.3 Environmental 5 15.3.1 Population 6 15.3.2 7 15.3.3 8 15.4 Impact 9 15.4.1 10 15.4.2 Criteria for Determining 11 15.4.3 Environmental Impacts 12 Chapter 16 Transportation and Traffic 16-1 13 16.1 Overview 14 16.1.1 Transportation and Traffic Terminology 15 16.2 Regulatory 16 16.2.1 State Laws, Regulations, and 17 16.2.2 Local Laws, Regulations, and 18 16.3 Environmental 19 16.4 Impact 20 16.4.1 21 16.4.2 Criteria for Determining 22 16.4.3 Environmental Impacts 23 Chapter 17 Utilities and Service 17-1 24 17.1 Overview 25 17.2 Regulatory 26 17.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and 27 17.2.2 State Laws, Regulations and 28 17.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and 29 17.3 Environmental 30 17.3.1 Water Service 31 17.3.2 32 17.3.3 Stormwater 33 17.3.4 Solid 34 17.3.5 Communications 35 17.4 Impact 36 17.4.1 37 17.4.2 Criteria for Determining 38 17.4.3 Environmental Impacts 39 Chapter 18 Other Statutory Considerations 18-1 40 18.1 Overview 41 18.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 42 18.3 Growth 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan vii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 18.4 Cumulative 1 18.4.1 Approach to Analysis: Combined 2 18.4.2 Cumulative Impact 3 18.4.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis 4 Chapter 19 19-1 5 19.1 Overview 6 19.2 CEQA 7 19.3 Alternatives Development Process 8 19.3.1 Project Objectives 9 19.3.2 Significant Environmental Impacts Prior To Mitigation 10 19.3.3 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 11 19.4 Alternatives 12 19.4.1 Alternative 1: No Program 13 19.4.2 Alternative 2: Deferred Implementation 14 19.4.3 Alternative 3: Primary Treatment and Solids Handling 15 Facilities to the North of Jennings Plant 16 19.4.4 Alternative 4: River Trunk Realignment Project Design 17 Alternative 18 19.4.5 Alternative 5: River Trunk Realignment Project Design 19 Alternative 20 19.4.6 Comparison of 21 19.4.7 Alternatives Considered and 22 19.4.8 Environmentally Superior 23 Chapter 20 20-1 24 Chapter 21 Report 21-1 25 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan viii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 List of Tables 1 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ES-15 2 Table 2-1. Projected Population for City’s Sewer Service 3 Table 2-2. Existing and Projected Wastewater Flows for the Sutter Plant 4 5 Table 2-3. Summary of Proposed 6 Table 2-4. Summary of New and Replacement Trunk Sewers 7 Table 2-5. Summary of Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation Sites 8 Table 2-6. Summary of Proposed Lift Station Capacity Expansions 9 Table 2-7. Summary of Construction Work Areas for River Trunk 10 Realignment Project (Phase 11 Table 2-8. Anticipated Permit and Regulatory Requirements for the River 12 Trunk Realignment Project 13 Table 6-1. Attainment Status of the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality 14 15 Table 6-2. Air Monitoring Data for 2013–2015 16 Table 6-3. Sutter Plant Odor Complaints for 17 Table 6-4. Applicable SJVAPCD Construction and Operational Project-Level 18 Significance Thresholds under 19 Table 6-5. Estimated Project Construction Emissions 20 Table 6-6. Estimated Project Operation 21 Table 7-1. Special-Status Plant and Animal Species Known to Occur Within 22 the Vicinity of the Study 23 Table 8-1. Previously Conducted Cultural Studies within the Proposed 24 River Trunk Realignment Project Study 25 Table 8-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Proposed 26 River Trunk Realignment Project Study 27 Table 9-1. Regional Faults in Proximity to the Program Study 28 Table 9-2. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 29 Table 10-1. Greenhouse Gas Overview and Global Warming 30 Table 10-2. Summary of Energy Sources for the Modesto Irrigation District, 31 Turlock Irrigation District, and 32 Table 10-3. River Trunk Realignment Project GHG 33 Table 10-4. River Trunk Project Fossil Fuel 34 Table 11-1. Existing Hazardous Material Sites within 1/4-Mile of Proposed 35 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan ix June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 12-1. Beneficial Uses for Water Bodies Potentially Affected by the 1 Proposed Program 2 Table 12-2. Section 303(d), Category 5 Listings for Water Body Segments 3 Potentially Affected by the Proposed 4 Table 13-1. City of Modesto General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning 5 Districts of Program-Level WWMP 6 Table 14-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels 7 Table 14-2. State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise 8 Environment 9 Table 14-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise 10 11 Table 14-4. Exterior Noise Level Standards 12 Table 14-5. Cumulative Duration Allowance 13 Table 14-6. Non-residential Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the River 14 Trunk Realignment Project 15 Table 14-7. Construction Equipment and Vibration 16 Table 14-8. River Trunk Realignment Project Construction Noise Levels 17 Table 15-1. Population Growth Trends for the Cities of Modesto and Ceres, 18 Empire, and Unincorporated Stanislaus 19 Table 15-2. Housing Unit Growth in Modesto, Ceres, and Empire (2015- 20 21 Table 15-3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation of Stanislaus County (2014- 22 23 Table 15-4. Economic Forecast for Stanislaus County (2015-2040) 24 Table 15-5. Projected Population for City’s Sewer Service 25 Table 16-1. Per-Lane Roadway Segment 26 Table 16-2. Roadway Segments with Existing (2014) Daily Level of Service of 27 E or F 28 Table 17-1. Projected Water Supplies 29 Table 17-2. Projected Water Demand for the City of Modesto, 30 Table 17-3. Projected Water Demands by Use Type in the City of Modesto, 31 32 Table 18-1. Resource Topics Eliminated from Further Consideration in the 33 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts 34 Table 18-2. Geographic Scope for Resources with Cumulative Impacts 35 Relevant to the Proposed Program 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan x June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 18-3. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects that Might 1 Cumulatively Affect Resources of Concern for the Proposed 2 Program 3 Table 18-4. Planning Documents Considered for Cumulative Impact Analysis.................18-17 4 Table 19-1. Summary of Alternatives in Comparison to the Proposed 5 Program 6 7 List of Figures 8 Figure ES-1. Project ES-3 9 Figure 1-1. Project 10 Figure 1-2. Wastewater Master Plan Sewer Service Study Area 11 Figure 1-3. Existing Sutter Plant Site 12 Figure 1-4. Existing Jennings Plant Site 13 Figure 1-5. Existing Wastewater Collection 14 Figure 2-1. River Trunk Realignment 15 Figure 2-2. River Trunk Pump Station Site Plan 16 Figure 2-3. River Trunk Pump Station Section 17 Figure 2-4. River Trunk Pump Station - Top Plan Layout 18 Figure 2-5. Shackelford Pump Station Site 19 Figure 2-6. Proposed Collection System 20 Figure 2-7. Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation 21 Figure 2-8. Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation and Reliability 22 Figure 2-9. Storm Drain 23 Figure 2-10. Facilities Proposed for Demolition at Sutter Plant 24 Figure 2-11. Site Plan for Proposed Tuolumne River Pipeline 25 Figure 2-12. Proposed Alignment for Third Outfall 26 Figure 2-13. Proposed Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities at 27 Jennings Plant 28 Figure 2-14. Overview of New/Modified Facilities at Jennings Plant 29 Figure 2-15. Modesto WWMP Construction Phasing 30 Figure 4-1. Representative Views of the Program Area 31 Figure 5-1. Important Farmland 32 Figure 5-2. Williamson Act 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xi June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Figure 7-1. Occurrences of Special-Status Plants Within Five-Mile Vicinity of 1 Project 2 Figure 7-2. Occurrences of Special-Status Animals and Critical Habitat 3 Within Five-Mile Vicinity of Project Site 4 Figure 8-1. River Trunk Realignment Project Pedestrian 5 Figure 11-1. City of Modesto Emergency Evacuation 6 Figure 11-2. Modesto City-County Airport Planning Area Boundary Map 7 Figure 11-3. Schools and Airports in the Proposed Program 8 Figure 11-4. Hazardous Materials Sites within 0.25 Mile of Proposed 9 10 Figure 11-5. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Program 11 Figure 12-1. Surface Waters and FEMA Flood Zones in the Program 12 Figure 12-2. Mean Discharge at USGS Gage 11290000 (Tuolumne 13 River at Modesto, CA), Water Years 14 Figure 12-3. Mean Discharge at USGS Gage 11274550 (San Joaquin 15 River Near Crows Landing, CA), Water Years 1995-2016 16 Figure 12-4. Stanislaus County Dam Inundation Hazards 17 Figure 13-1. General Zoning Districts in the WWMP Study Area 18 Figure 14-1. Proximity of Sensitive Receptors to Trenching Activities, River 19 Trunk Realignment Project 20 Figure 16-1. Roads and Highways in the Study Area 21 Figure 18-1. Cumulative 22 Figure 19-1. Site Layout for Alternative 23 Figure 19-2. Alternative 4 24 Figure 19-3. Alternative 5 25 26 Appendices (provided on CD) 27 Appendix A Scoping Summary and Notice of Preparation 28 Appendix B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results 29 Appendix C Biological Resources Technical Information 30 Appendix D Cultural Resources Technical Information 31 Appendix E Noise and Vibration Modeling Results 32 Appendix F Tribal Cultural Resources Technical Information 33 Appendix G Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page intentionally left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Acronyms and Abbreviations 1 2 °F degrees Fahrenheit 3 µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 4 A 5 A attainment 6 AB Assembly Bill 7 ACE Altamont Commuter Express 8 ADWF average dry weather flows 9 AF acre-foot 10 af/yr acre-feet per year 11 ALUCP airport land use compatibility plan 12 ATCM airborne toxic control measure 13 B 14 B beneficial 15 Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan 16 BAU business as usual 17 bgs below ground surface 18 BMP best management practice 19 BNR biological nutrient removal 20 BOD biological oxygen demand 21 BP business park 22 BPS best performance standard 23 C 24 C commercial 25 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 26 CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model 27 Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency 28 Ca/lEPA California Environmental Protection Agency 29 CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 30 Cal OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 31 Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration 32 CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 33 Caltrans California Department of Transportation 34 CAP climate action plan 35 CARB California Air Resources Board 36 CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring 37 CBC California Building Standards Code 38 CCIC Central California Information Center 39 CCR California Code of Regulations 40 CCTS Central California Taxonomic System 41 CCTV closed-circuit television 42 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 43 CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife 44 CDOC California Department of Conservation 45 CEC California Energy Commission 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xiii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 1 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 2 CESA California Endangered Species Act 3 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 4 cfs cubic feet per second 5 CGS California Geological Survey 6 CH4 methane 7 CIP capital improvement project 8 CIPP cured-in-place-pipe 9 City City of Modesto 10 CMP Congestion Management Process for the Stanislaus County Region 11 California Natural Diversity Database 12 CNEL community noise equivalent level 13 CNPS California Native Plant Society 14 CO carbon monoxide 15 CO2 carbon dioxide 16 CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents 17 Court U.S. Supreme Court 18 CPD Comprehensive Planning District 19 CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 20 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources 21 CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency 22 Central Valley Flood Protection Board 23 CWA Clean Water Act 24 cy cubic yard 25 D 26 DAF dissolved air flotation 27 dB decibel 28 dBA A-weighted decibel 29 DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane 30 DEIR draft environmental impact report 31 DMC Delta-Mendota Canal 32 DOF California Department of Finance 33 DPM diesel particulate matter 34 DPWD Del Puerto Water District 35 DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control 36 DWR California Department of Water Resources 37 E 38 EIR environmental impact report 39 EO Executive Order 40 ESA Endangered Species Act 41 ESA environmental site assessment 42 ESU evolutionarily significant unit 43 F 44 FD federally delisted 45 FE federally endangered 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xiv June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 1 FFR fixed film reactor 2 F&G Code California Fish and Game Code 3 FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 4 FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 5 FR Federal Register 6 FT federally threatened 7 FTA Federal Transit Administration 8 G 9 g unit of measure for ground shaking, expressing the acceleration of movement 10 relative to the acceleration of gravity 11 GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts 12 General Permit General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 13 Activity 14 General Plan Proposed (or Alternative) Urban Area General Plan 15 GHG greenhouse gas 16 GIS geographic information systems 17 GSA groundwater sustainability agency 18 GSP groundwater sustainability plan 19 Guidance Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts 20 for New Projects under CEQA 21 GWP global warming potential 22 H 23 H2O atmospheric water 24 H2S hydrogen sulfide 25 HAP hazardous air pollutant 26 HAZCOM hazardous materials communication 27 HCM Highway Capacity Manual 28 HCP habitat conservation plan 29 HDD horizontal directional drilling 30 HDPE high-density polyethylene 31 HFCs hydrofluorocarbons 32 hazardous materials and waste management plan 33 hp horsepower 34 HSC Health and Safety Code 35 HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 36 Hz Hertz 37 I 38 I industrial 39 in inch 40 in/sec inches per second 41 IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 42 J 43 Jennings Plant Jennings Road Secondary and Tertiary Treatment Plant 44 K 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xv June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 km kilometer 1 L 2 LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission 3 Ldn day-night sound level 4 Leq equivalent steady-state sound level 5 lf linear feet 6 LID low-impact development 7 Lmax maximum sound level 8 Lmin minimum sound level 9 LOS level of service 10 LS less than significant 11 LSM less than significant with mitigation 12 M 13 MAP model accreditation plan 14 MAX Modesto Area Express 15 MBR membrane bioreactor 16 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 17 MEI maximally exposed individual 18 mgd million gallons per day 19 mg/L milligrams per liter 20 MID Modesto Irrigation District 21 MLD most likely descendent 22 MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 23 MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting plan 24 MMT million metric tons 25 Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant 26 MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system 27 msl mean sea level 28 MT CO2e million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 29 MU mixed use 30 N 31 N nonattainment 32 N nitrogen 33 N2O nitrous oxide 34 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 35 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 36 NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 37 NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 38 NFIP National Flood Insurance Program 39 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 40 NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 41 NI no impact 42 NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 43 NO2 nitrogen dioxide 44 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 45 NOP notice of preparation 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xvi June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 NOX nitrogen oxides 1 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2 NPL National Priorities List 3 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 4 NRHP National Register of Historic Places 5 NSF National Science Foundation 6 NSPS Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources 7 North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program 8 O 9 O2 oxygen 10 O3 ozone 11 O&M operations and maintenance 12 OBD on-board diagnostic 13 OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 14 OES Office of Emergency Services 15 OS open space 16 OSHA U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 17 P 18 Pb lead 19 PD planned development 20 PFCs perfluorocarbons 21 PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company 22 PM2.5 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 2.5 micrometers or less 23 PM10 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less 24 ppm parts per million 25 PPV peak particle velocity 26 Proposed Program 2016 Wastewater Master Plan 27 PST Pacific Standard Time 28 PUA planned urbanizing area 29 Pub. Res. Code Public Resources Code 30 PVC polyvinyl chloride 31 PWWF peak wet weather flow 32 R 33 R residential 34 R-1 low-density residential 35 RC regional commercial 36 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 37 RMP risk management plan 38 ROG reactive organic gases 39 ROWD report of waste discharge 40 RPD Redevelopment Planning District 41 RPS renewable portfolio standard 42 R&R rehabilitation and replacement 43 RST Stanislaus Regional Sustainability Toolbox 44 RTP regional transportation plan 45 Regional Water Quality Control Board 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xvii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 S 1 SAR second assessment report 2 SB Senate Bill 3 SBAPCD Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District 4 SC (Endangered) state candidate for listing as endangered 5 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 6 SCP Salida Community Plan 7 SCS sustainable communities strategy 8 SE state endangered 9 SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 10 SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 11 SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 12 SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 13 SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 14 SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant 15 Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program 16 SO2 sulfur dioxide 17 SOI sphere of influence 18 S-P specific plan 19 SPFC State Plan of Flood Control 20 SR State Route 21 SRWA Stanislaus Regional Water Authority 22 SSC state species of special concern 23 SSO sanitary sewer overflow 24 ST state threatened 25 StanCOG Stanislaus Council of Governments 26 StaRT Stanislaus Regional Transit 27 Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association 28 SU significant and unavoidable 29 Sutter Plant Sutter Avenue Primary Treatment Plant 30 stormwater pollution prevention plan 31 State Water Resources Control Board 32 SWSP Surface Water Supply Project 33 T 34 TAC toxic air contaminant 35 TCP traditional cultural property 36 TCR tribal cultural resource 37 TDS total dissolved solids 38 TID Turlock Irrigation District 39 TMDL total maximum daily load 40 TMP traffic management plan 41 TRRP Tuolumne River Regional Park 42 TSO time schedule order 43 U 44 U unclassified 45 UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 46 U.S. United States 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Table of Contents Wastewater Master Plan xviii June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 USC U.S. Code 2 USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 5 UST Underground Storage Tank 6 UV ultraviolet 7 UWMP urban water management plan 8 V 9 VdB vibration velocity in decibels 10 VELB Valley elderberry long-horned beetle 11 VERA voluntary emission reduction agreement 12 VOC volatile organic compound 13 VR village residential 14 W 15 WAS waste activated sludge 16 WDR waste discharge requirement 17 WMP water management plan 18 WQCF Water Quality Control Facility 19 WSA water supply assessment 20 WWMP 2016 Wastewater Master Plan 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan ES-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The City of Modesto (City), as lead agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact 3 Report (DEIR) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with 4 information about the environmental effects of the proposed Wastewater Master Plan 5 (WWMP or Proposed Program). This DEIR was prepared in compliance with the California 6 Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the State CEQA Guidelines 7 (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). 8 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 9 The Proposed Program updates and revises the City’s 2007 Wastewater Master Plan. The City 10 periodically reevaluates its wastewater system through development of a wastewater system 11 capital improvement program (CIP), which addresses existing deficiencies and replacement 12 needs. The Proposed Program is intended to accommodate the wastewater collection service 13 needs of the population and land uses described in the City’s Urban Area General Plan 14 (General Plan) and community plans of service areas outlying the City’s urban area or sphere 15 of influence, and accounts for SOI boundary adjustments, zoning revisions, updated growth 16 projections, and sewer demand information through 2057. The Proposed Program would 17 also accommodate wastewater treatment needs for those same customers through 2035. 18 PROGRAM LOCATION 19 The Proposed Program is located in the City of Modesto, California (Figure ES-1). The City’s 20 wastewater service area includes all incorporated areas of Modesto, a portion of north Ceres, 21 the unincorporated community of Empire, the Beard Industrial Park District, and 22 unincorporated “islands” in Stanislaus County that are served by agreement. The City’s 23 primary treatment facilities (Sutter Plant) are located in the southern portion of Modesto just 24 north of the Tuolumne River. Other secondary and tertiary treatment facilities (Jennings 25 Plant) are located on City-annexed property located about 6.5 miles southwest of the City 26 proper, and the Primary Effluent Outfall and Cannery Segregation Line Outfall, which are 27 pipelines, are located in unincorporated Stanislaus County. 28 PROGRAM BACKGROUND 29 Existing Wastewater System 30 The City operates and maintains the wastewater collection system servicing the urban area 31 of Modesto. The City’s wastewater collection system is divided into two separate systems: the 32 domestic system and the segregated cannery process water system. The City’s wastewater 33 system consists of approximately 40 sewer lift stations and more than 600 miles of pipelines 34 ranging from 6 to 66 inches in diameter. Of the 600 miles of pipeline, 69 miles are trunk lines 35 (pipelines greater than 15 inches in diameter), and 15 miles of trunk lines connect cannery 36 food processors directly to land disposal (application) areas. Most of the City’s wastewater 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 system flows by gravity, but in some areas, lift stations (also referred to as pump stations) 1 are necessary to convey wastewater generated within the service area to the Sutter Avenue 2 Primary Treatment Plant (Sutter Plant) and the Jennings Road Secondary and Tertiary 3 Treatment Plant (Jennings Plant). 4 Once wastewater makes its way to the Sutter Plant, the wastewater undergoes primary 5 treatment, which includes several steps. The primary effluent is pumped through the Primary 6 Effluent Outfall (and sometimes through the Cannery Segregation Line) to the secondary 7 treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant. During the secondary treatment phase, 8 microorganisms metabolize biological matter. Once secondary treatment is complete, 9 effluent either is applied to approximately 2,500 acres of agricultural ranch land owned by 10 the City or is discharged to the San Joaquin River or stored in the City’s ponds. Any water that 11 is discharged to the San Joaquin River (typically between October and May) is first disinfected 12 with chlorine and then dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide. 13 The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Effluent System (NPDES) surface water discharge 14 permit (Order R5-2017-0064, NPDES No. CA0079103), recently issued in June 2017, allows 15 up to 14.9 million gallons per day (mgd) of tertiary-treated wastewater discharges to the San 16 Joaquin River year-round. The City is not permitted to discharge secondary treated 17 wastewater to the San Joaquin River. Algae typically grows in the storage reservoirs in 18 October and November, which generates high suspended solids concentrations that typically 19 exceed discharge limitations. The City, however, has addressed this issue by installing 20 dissolved air flotation units to remove algae, which gets discharged to the southwest corner 21 of the recirculation channel. Installation of the DAF units has allowed the City to extend the 22 discharge season into October and November. The City constructed the first two phases of 23 tertiary treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant. The City is also participating in the North 24 Valley Regional Recycled Water Program which is currently being constructed 25 and will provide recycled water to the Delta-Mendota Canal. Once the project is 26 completed, up to 14.9 mgd of tertiary treated water at the Jennings Facility would be 27 conveyed by pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal. 28 More information about the various components of the City’s existing wastewater treatment 29 system is provided in Chapter 1 of this DEIR. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 26 88 12 99 99 33 120 132 152 152 165 140 5 5 205 580 101 Del Rio Modesto Turlock CALIFORNIA Program Location STANIS AN T LAUS COUN OUNTY SUTTER PLANT JENNINGS PLANT PROPOSED THIRD OUTFALL EXISTING PRIMARY EFFLUENT OUTFALL AND CANNERY SEGREGATION LINE Program Area Miles 20 0 5 0 1 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure ES-1. Project Location Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1 The overall purpose of the Proposed Program is to meet existing and future wastewater 2 treatment demands for the City and its customers in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus 3 County, through 2035. The Program is also intended to meet existing and future wastewater 4 collection service needs for the City and its customers in outlying service areas through 2057. 5 The objectives of the Proposed Program as a whole are as follows: 6  To implement the City’s economic goals and General Plan by planning for, and 7 providing, sewer infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective manner to serve new 8 and existing development. 9  To repair and replace aging wastewater infrastructure. 10  To ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure and services are available to serve 11 new growth within the General Plan and City’s sphere of influence, and planned 12 wastewater demands. 13  To plan for state-of-the-art facilities that reliably and economically meet the changing 14 regulatory requirements. 15 For collection system components, the objectives of the Proposed Program are: 16  To extend service to new customers. 17  To increase sewer capacity to convey peak wet weather flows for a 10-year storm 18 event and, where required, to serve future customers. 19  To reduce wet weather flow volumes by removing cross connections with 20 stormwater sewers. 21  To replace, repair, or rehabilitate existing trunk sewers, and to reduce infiltration and 22 inflow of stormwater into the sanitary sewers. 23  To improve sewer collection reliability by providing new and redundant 24 infrastructure improvements, including sewer trunk lines and lift stations, in known 25 deficient areas at critical areas within the existing system. 26 For treatment plant components, the objectives are: 27  To reduce flooding impacts at the Sutter Plant site and increase treatment process 28 operational flexibility and efficiencies. 29  To increase the capacity of the outfalls connecting the primary and secondary 30 treatment plants, and to provide increased reliability for the existing outfall. 31  To increase treatment systems efficiency, reliability, and functionality for both 32 domestic and cannery process stream flows. 33  To increase or modify treatment systems to remain in compliance with existing 34 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s NPDES requirements and plan 35 for potential future permitting regulations. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 1 The Proposed Program involves numerous improvements to the City’s collection system and 2 upgrades to the Sutter and Jennings plants. These include collection system and treatment 3 plant CIPs located throughout the City’s service area and unincorporated Stanislaus County. 4 One project, the River Trunk Realignment Project, is evaluated at a project level of detail. All 5 other components are evaluated at a program level of detail. Program-level components are 6 projects that the City would likely construct in the future, but design of these components has 7 not been advanced to a level at which a detailed evaluation can be completed. As such, a more 8 general, program-level analysis of these components is included in this DEIR. 9 RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT 10 The existing River Trunk is approximately 5 miles long and generally parallels the right bank 11 (north side) of the Tuolumne River. It begins near the intersection of Beard Avenue and 12 Nathan Avenue and terminates at Sutter Plant, conveying nearly 50 percent of the City’s 13 domestic wastewater to the Sutter Plant. This trunk line is subject to severe corrosion and 14 isolated sections of the line have failed or are close to failure. This project entails realigning 15 the majority of the River Trunk line such that it would be further inland from the Tuolumne 16 River (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Program Description). This project includes construction 17 of two pump stations: the River Trunk Pump Station which would be located at the corner of 18 B Street and Beard Street, and the Shackelford Pump Station which would be located west of 19 Zeff Road and immediately east of the Tuolumne River. This project also involves installation 20 of a 48-inch siphon at the Dry Creek crossing using trenchless methods, River Trunk force 21 main, gravity pipelines along Tuolumne River Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Neece Drive, and 22 Pelton Avenue. From the Shackelford Pump Station, wastewater would be conveyed through 23 existing siphons that cross Tuolumne River to the Dryden Golf Course. A new force main 24 would be installed beneath the golf course, traverse westerly, and terminate at the Dryden 25 Golf Course parking lot where it would tie in with the gravity system described above. 26 COLLECTION SYSTEM COMPONENTS 27 The City would install several types of collection system components including the following: 28  New and Upgraded Sewers. The City would construct a number of new and 29 upgraded sewer lines throughout Modesto. These components are needed either to 30 correct an existing or future capacity deficiency during peak wet weather flows or to 31 accommodate anticipated and planned growth. 32  Sewer Rehabilitation. Based on continued monitoring and inspection, the City has 33 identified several sewer lines in need of rehabilitation. Deteriorating sewer lines may 34 require rehabilitation to avoid failure and to improve functionality. Rehabilitation 35 may include installing a liner or flexible coating on the interior of the pipeline. Sewer 36 rehabilitation could also include slip lining or cured-in-place-pipe methods. 37  Lift Stations. The Proposed Program includes constructing seven new lift stations 38 and upgrading four existing lift stations. Upgrades of existing lift stations may include 39 the replacement of undersized pumps, installation of new or larger emergency 40 electrical generators, and elimination of overflows. If necessary, the lift station 41 structure may need to be enlarged to accommodate proposed upgrades. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Stormwater/Sanitary Sewer Cross-Connect Disconnections. Another component 1 of the Proposed Program focuses on decreasing peak flows in the sanitary system by 2 disconnecting up to 60 interconnections between the storm sewers and sanitary 3 sewers. After storm events, these cross-connections typically show substantially 4 increased peak flows. Improvements may include installing new storm drainage 5 pipes, detention basins and various underground storage and percolation methods. 6  Small Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects. Aside from the City- 7 wide storm drain disconnection improvements, the City proposes other 8 improvements to the overall collection system. The new City-wide program would 9 focus on small pipeline rehabilitation and replacement projects as identified by 10 relatively recent closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage. These projects would be 11 conducted outside of the WWMP scope of work, and focus on the City’s 6-inch and 8- 12 inch-diameter sewer mains. This effort also includes some larger pipelines; however, 13 the specific locations of the pipelines that require rehabilitation and repair have not 14 yet been identified or prioritized yet. However, based on CCTV data collected, there 15 was enough evidence to create a program to address these smaller mains on an 16 annual basis. It is anticipated that most of these pipeline rehabilitation and 17 replacement projects are in the older parts of the City including portions of 18 downtown Modesto. 19 TREATMENT PLANT COMPONENTS 20 Sutter Plant Components 21 The following primary treatment facilities are near or exceeding their useful life and are 22 vulnerable to flooding as they are located within the 100-year floodplain: the primary 23 clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying beds. Under the Proposed Program, these 24 facilities would be decommissioned after the new primary treatment and solids handling 25 components at the Jennings Plant are complete. Similar to existing condition, the Sutter Plant 26 would continue to provide influent pumping, screening, and grit removal. The following 27 components are planned at the Sutter Plant: 28  Influent Pump Station Improvements 29  Primary Effluent Pump Station Replacement 30  Demolition of identified Sutter Treatment Facilities 31  Flood Protection Improvements 32 Outfall Pipelines 33 Under the Proposed Program, the City would conduct three major outfall improvement 34 projects to accommodate increased capacity and improve reliability of the existing outfall 35 pipelines. 36  New Tuolumne River Crossings (at the Cannery Segregation Line Outfall and Primary 37 Effluent Outfall) 38  New Primary Effluent Outfall Pipeline 39  Slip Lining of a Portion of the Cannery Segregation Line Outfall 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Jennings Plant Components 1 CIPs proposed at the Jennings Plant include various modifications to the secondary and 2 tertiary treatment facilities and construction of new primary treatment and solids processing 3 facilities including digesters and drying beds. Such improvements would increase the 4 impermeable surface area of the Jennings Plant by approximately 27 acres. The following 5 CIPs are proposed at the Jennings Plant: 6  Biological Nutrient Removal /Tertiary Phase 3 Expansion 7  Secondary Treatment Modifications 8  Cannery Segregation Treatment Facilities Upgrade 9  Interim Waste Activated Sludge Handling Facilities 10  Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities Relocation 11 CONSTRUCTION METHODS 12 Construction of proposed improvements to the City’s collection system and treatment 13 facilities would involve several types of activities: site preparation; demolition and removal 14 of some existing facilities; earthwork (grading and excavation); pipeline installation; and 15 facility construction. Pipeline construction would primarily occur using open trench 16 methods. However, in areas where pipelines would cross waterways including Dry Creek and 17 Tuolumne River, trenchless installation methods would be employed. 18 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 19 Construction of the overall WWMP would occur over an approximately 25-year period, 20 beginning in 2018 and completed in 2030 to 2035. As described in Chapter 2, Program 21 Description, program-level components would be constructed in phased manned in which 22 critical components are planned in the near-term. Construction of the River Trunk 23 Realignment Project is anticipated to begin in 2018 and be completed within an 18-month 24 period. 25 PERMITS AND APPROVALS 26 In addition to use by the City, the EIR for the Proposed Program will be used by various 27 regulatory agencies issuing permits, as well as other approvals and consultations for the 28 Proposed Program. Specifically, information about the Proposed Program and the 29 environmental analysis will be used by several agencies as part of their decision-making 30 processes. Agencies that may use the EIR as part of their decision-making process for the 31 Proposed Program include the following: 32  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 34  National Marine Fisheries Service 35  State Water Resources Control Board 36  Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 37  California Department of Fish and Wildlife 38  California Department of Transportation 39  California State Lands Commission 40  Central Valley Flood Protection Board 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Stanislaus County 1  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2  Modesto Irrigation District 3  Turlock Irrigation District 4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 5 SCOPING COMMENT PERIOD 6 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Proposed Program was prepared pursuant to the State 7 CEQA Guidelines (Section 15082) and circulated to the Office of Planning and Research’s State 8 CEQA Clearinghouse on June 10, 2016. The scoping period continued for 30 days and 9 concluded on July 10, 2016. 10 The Notice of Preparation presented general background information on the Proposed 11 Program, the scoping process, and environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. 12 Approximately 50 copies of the Notice of Preparation were mailed to a broad range of 13 stakeholders, including state, federal, and local regulatory agencies and jurisdictions and 14 nonprofit organizations. 15 The City accepted written comments during the 30-day scoping period, June 10 to July 10, 16 2016. A scoping meeting was held on June 22, 2016, which one person attended. During the 17 scoping period, one comment letter was received. This comment and oral comments received 18 at the scoping meeting were considered in the environmental impact evaluation. 19 DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 20 The City has prepared this DEIR, as informed by public and agency input received during the 21 scoping period, to disclose significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed 22 Program. Where any such impacts are significant, feasible mitigation measures and 23 potentially feasible alternatives that substantially lessen or avoid such effects are identified 24 and discussed. The public review period provides the public an opportunity to provide input 25 to the lead agency on the DEIR. 26 The DEIR will undergo public review for the period specified in the Notice of Availability of 27 the DEIR. During this period, the City will hold a public meeting. The date, time, and exact 28 location of the public meeting will be included in the Notice of Availability of this DEIR. 29 SUBMITTAL OF WRITTEN COMMENTS 30 The City is circulating this DEIR for public review and comment for the period specified in the 31 Notice of Availability. As discussed above, the City will host a public meeting during this 32 period. The purpose of public circulation is to provide agencies and interested individuals 33 with opportunities to comment on or express concerns regarding the contents of this DEIR. 34 Specific dates, times and locations for the meeting will be provided in the Notice of 35 Availability. 36 Written comments concerning this DEIR can be submitted at the public meeting described 37 above or at any time during the DEIR public review period. All comments must be received 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 by 5:00 p.m. on the final date of public review as identified in the Notice of Availability, and 1 directed to the name and address listed below: 2 Jim Alves, Acting Senior Civil Engineer 3 City of Modesto Utilities Department 4 P.O. Box 642 (1010 Tenth Street) 5 Modesto, CA 95353 6 [EMAIL REDACTED] 7 Submittal of written comments via e-mail (Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format) is 8 preferred. Written comments received in response to this DEIR during the public review 9 period will be addressed in a Response to Comments section of the Final EIR. 10 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 11 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b) requires that an Executive Summary identify “areas 12 of controversy known to a lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public.” 13 There are no major areas of known controversy related to the Proposed Program or this EIR. 14 To date, while not considered controversial, the following questions or concerns have been 15 raised regarding the Proposed Program during the scoping period: 16  Future plans for managing stormwater/flooding once the storm drain/sewer cross- 17 connections have been removed in Modesto. 18  Questions about how the WWMP evaluated leaking pipes. 19  Future disposition of the Sutter Plant after treatment facilities have been 20 decommissioned. 21  Potential flooding impacts at the Jennings Plant. 22  Disposition of discharges from the Cannery Segregation Outfall to the City’s ranch 23 lands. 24  Need for a new third outfall pipeline and redundancy. 25  WWMP area boundary and its relation to the Proposed and “Alternative” General Plan 26 Update Land Use Map boundaries. 27 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 28 This section presents the significant impacts that were identified in the DEIR. This is not a 29 comprehensive discussion of impacts of the Proposed Program; the reader is directed to 30 Table ES-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, at the end of this chapter for 31 additional information. Environmental resource topics with the potential for one or more 32 significant environmental impacts and which are evaluated in detail in this DEIR include the 33 following: 34  Aesthetics and Visual Resources 35  Agricultural Resources 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Air Quality 1  Biological Resources 2  Cultural and Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources 3  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 4  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Use 5  Hazards and Hazardous Materials 6  Hydrology and Water Quality 7  Land Use and Planning 8  Noise and Vibration 9  Population and Housing 10  Transportation and Traffic 11  Utilities and Service Systems 12  Cumulative Impacts 13 Chapters 4 through 18 of this DEIR address each of these environmental resource topics and 14 the impacts of the Proposed Program in more detail. 15 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 16 The purpose of the alternatives analysis in an EIR is to describe a range of reasonable 17 alternatives to the Proposed Program that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the 18 Proposed Program while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the Proposed 19 Program's significant effects. The range of alternatives considered must include those that 20 offer substantial environmental advantages over the Proposed Program and may be feasibly 21 accomplished in a successful manner considering economic, environmental, social, 22 technological, and legal factors. 23 The following alternatives have been evaluated for their potential feasibility and their ability 24 to achieve most of the Proposed Program objectives while avoiding, reducing, or minimizing 25 significant impacts identified for the Proposed Program: 26  Alternative 1: No Program Alternative 27  Alternative 2: Deferred Implementation Alternative 28  Alternative 3: Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of the 29 Jennings Plant Alternative 30  Alternative 4: River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 4A 31  Alternative 5: River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 1 32 In addition, several alternatives were considered, but ultimately eliminated from further 33 analysis for one or more of the following reasons: they would not sufficiently meet the 34 Proposed Program objectives; they were determined to be infeasible; or they would 35 not avoid or substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Program. 36 Refer to Section 20.6, “Alternatives Considered and Eliminated,” in Chapter 20, Alternatives, 37 for a description of these alternatives. 38 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE 39 Under this alternative, no new wastewater infrastructure would be constructed or upgraded. 40 Operation of the City’s collection system and treatment facilities would continue similar to 41 existing conditions. Under this alternative, the existing collection system and treatment 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 facilities would continue to operate. Existing sewer mains, trunk lines, and lift station that are 1 currently under capacity would continue functioning but capacity issues may worsen over 2 time. 3 While this alternative would not meet any of the Program objectives, it would avoid all of the 4 impacts associated with construction and operation of the Program. No new facility 5 construction or ground disturbing activities would occur. Impacts anticipated to be reduced 6 include: construction-related and operation-related air pollutant and GHG emissions, traffic 7 delays and congestion, noise and vibration effects, conversion of farmland to non-agricultural 8 uses, and impacts on biological resources. However, by not addressing existing wastewater 9 collection and treatment system deficiencies, significant environmental impacts could occur 10 over time. For example, the potential for sanitary sewer overflows and subsequent water 11 quality impacts would increase. The Sutter Plant facilities would also continue to be subject 12 to damage during a 100-year flood event, which could have adverse effects on the Sutter 13 Plant’s operations. 14 ALTERNATIVE 2: DEFERRED IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE 15 Under the Deferred Implementation Alternative, the schedule of all program-level WWMP 16 components would be delayed by 5 years, compared to the schedule for implementation of 17 the Proposed Program. Under this alternative, new wastewater collection and treatment 18 infrastructure would be constructed or upgraded as indicated for the Proposed Program, but 19 some CIPs would be implemented at a later date. Because necessary improvements may not 20 occur in a timely fashion, some development relying upon the new infrastructure would need 21 to be postponed. This alternative would delay the City’s ability to meet Program objectives 22 and thus would not fully meet objectives aimed to provide sewer infrastructure in a timely 23 and cost-effective manner to serve new growth within the General Plan and City’s SOI. While 24 this alternative would not necessarily avoid significant impacts of the Proposed Program, 25 extending the overall schedule would reduce the severity of construction impacts for the 5- 26 year period. Construction-related impacts such as traffic congestion and delays, air pollutant 27 emissions, and noise and vibration would be reduced when compared to the Proposed 28 Program. 29 ALTERNATIVE 3: PRIMARY TREATMENT AND SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES TO THE NORTH 30 OF JENNINGS PLANT ALTERNATIVE 31 This alternative was evaluated in the City’s Wastewater Treatment Master Plan (Carollo 32 Engineers 2016) and entails purchasing of approximately 50 acres of land to the north of the 33 Jennings Plant. Instead of constructing the new primary treatment facilities east of the 34 proposed Biological Nutrient Removal/tertiary treatment facilities, as proposed under the 35 Proposed Program, these facilities would be constructed on purchased land to the north of 36 the Jennings Plant along the alignment of the two existing outfall pipelines. Compared to the 37 Proposed Program, this alternative would involve less complex yard piping since the new 38 primary treatment and solids handling facilities would be sited adjacent to the existing outfall 39 pipelines and could more directly tie into the secondary treatment facilities. 40 This alternative would result in similar impacts as the Proposed Program but construction- 41 related air quality impacts, GHG emissions, and hazards and hazardous material impacts 42 would be reduced since less pipeline construction would occur. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 ALTERNATIVE 4: RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 4A 1 Alternative 4A from the Preliminary Design Report (Carollo Engineers 2015), referred to as 2 Alternative 4 in this EIR, was carried forward for analysis because it would achieve most of 3 the Program objectives and would reduce one or more significant environmental impacts. 4 Alternative 4 would generally follow the same alignment as the proposed River Trunk 5 Realignment Project, and would not involve construction of the Shackelford Pump Station. 6 Rather, the existing pipeline that would otherwise tie into the Shackelford Pump Station 7 under the Proposed Program, would tie into existing sewer lines that cross the Tuolumne 8 River. This alternative would include rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk within Sutter Avenue, 9 and also would involve constructing the River Trunk Pump Station at a different 10 location than under the Proposed Program, between Highway 99 and 7th Street. 11 This alternative would result in less construction impacts than the Proposed Program since 12 it would not involve construction of the Shackelford Pump Station. As such, construction- 13 related impacts pertaining to noise, air quality, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, 14 biological resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials would be less 15 than the Proposed Program. 16 ALTERNATIVE 5: RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1 17 The alternative would replace the Beard Brook Siphon with an 1,800-linear-foot, triple barrel 18 inverted siphon. Capacity deficiencies in the River Trunk would be mitigated by constructing 19 a peak-flow diversion structure that diverts flows to the Cannery Segregation Line (CSL) 20 during wet weather events, such that capacity in the CSL can be used to convey peak domestic 21 wastewater flows. A second diversion structure would be constructed upstream of the Sutter 22 Plant to divert the flows back to the River Trunk for primary treatment. Additionally, the 23 alternative would mitigate capacity deficiencies in the Sutter Trunk by replacing the existing 24 sewer with a new 24-inch diameter gravity sewer. The existing River Trunk also would be 25 rehabilitated to correct its deteriorating condition. 26 This alternative would generally result in less construction impacts air quality, GHG 27 emissions, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, and other topics) than the Proposed 28 Program as it would entail less pipeline construction. However, this alternative would not 29 correct existing issues associated with operations and maintenance access and vulnerability 30 issues of the River Trunk and CSL due to their location along the Tuolumne River. 31 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 32 Of the alternatives, the No Program Alternative would be environmentally superior because 33 it would generally reduce or avoid most impacts of the Proposed Program. Consistent with 34 the CEQA Guidelines, the following paragraphs describe the environmentally superior 35 alternative amongst the other alternatives. 36 Both Alternative 4 (River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 4A) and Alternative 37 5 (River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 1) would result in less environmental 38 impacts than the proposed River Trunk Realignment Project. Between these two alternatives, 39 Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior because it would result in substantially less 40 environmental impacts than Alternative 4. Alternative 5 would involve less new pipeline 41 construction and would not involve new pump station construction. As a result, construction- 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary Wastewater Master Plan ES-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 related disturbance on sensitive receptors (including noise and vibration, air pollutant and 1 GHG emissions, and traffic impacts) would be less. Construction footprint impacts would also 2 be less under Alternative 5 biological and cultural resources impacts) in comparison to 3 Alternative 4. 4 In comparing Alternative 3 (Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of 5 the Jennings Plant) to Alternative 2 (Deferred Implementation Alternative), Alternative 2 6 would be environmentally superior because, on the whole, this alternative would reduce 7 construction impacts at a given time since some CIPs would be delayed, though they would 8 eventually occur. Under Alternative 3, the construction timeframe for collection system 9 components would be the same as the Proposed Program and would therefore would result 10 in greater construction impacts collectively compared to Alternative 2. 11 On the whole, when comparing the EIR alternatives against the Proposed Program, the 12 Proposed Program best meets the goals and objectives of the Program. 13 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE 14 The impacts of the Proposed Program, proposed mitigation, and significance conclusions 15 before and after mitigation are discussed in detail in Chapters 4 through 18 of this DEIR. 16 Table ES-1 summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance 17 identified in this document. 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impact AES-1: Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas LS LS LS None required Impact AES-2: Damage to Scenic Resources LS LS LS None required Impact AES-3: Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of Site and Surroundings During Construction LSM CS, SP, OP: LSM JP: LS LSM Mitigation Measure AES-1: Locate Staging Areas Away from Public Areas and Install Screening (CS, SP, OP, River Trunk Project) Impact AES-4: Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of Site and Surroundings During Program Operation LS CS, OP, SP, JP: LS LS None required Impact AES-5: Permanent Source of Substantial Light or Glare LS CS, OP, SP, JP: LS LS None required Agricultural Resources Impact AG-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to Non-agricultural Use SU CS, JP: SU OP: LS SP: NI NI None Impact AG-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williamson Act Contract LS CS, JP, OP: LS SP: NI NI None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact AG-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non-agricultural Use LS LS LS None required Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan SU SU SU None available Impact AQ-2: Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation LSM LSM LS Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Enhanced Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Implement Control Measures for Operation Emissions of PM10 and for Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) (Program-level Components) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact AQ-3: 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 SU SU SU Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Enhanced Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Implement Control Measures for Operation Emissions of PM10 and for Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) (Program-level Components) Impact AQ-4: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Enhanced Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Implement Control Measures for Operation Emissions of PM10 and for Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) (Program-level Components) Impact AQ-5: Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Impacts on Special-Status Plants LSM SP, JP: LS OP, CS: LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Perform Focused Surveys for Special-status Plant Species (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Impacts on Special-status Plant Species (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-2: Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods and Western Spadefoot LSM LSM NI Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat (Program-level Components) Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Minimize and Compensate for Impacts on Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat (Program-level Components) Impact BIO-3: Impacts on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid Impacts on VELB Habitat (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Implement VELB Compensatory Mitigation, if Necessary (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Transplant Elderberry Shrubs if Avoidance Is Not Feasible (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact BIO-4: Impacts on Special-status Fishes LSM SP, JP: LS OP, CS A-1 and A-2: LSM OC: NI LSM Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1: Prepare and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-5: Impacts on Western Pond Turtle LSM OP, CS, SP, JP: LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for and Minimize Impacts on Western Pond Turtle (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-6: Impacts on Burrowing Owl LSM LSM LS Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owls and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (Program-level Components) Impact BIO-7: Impacts on Golden Eagle and Bald Eagle LS LS LS None required Impact BIO-8: Impacts on Raptors, Including Special-status Species LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Raptors, Including Special-status Species (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for Loss of Raptor Foraging Habitat (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-9: Impacts on Special-status Passerine Species and Birds Protected under the MBTA LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-10: Impacts on Special-status Mammals LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact BIO-11: Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities LSM OP, CS: LSM SP, JP: LS LSM Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1: Prepare and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Minimize and Compensate for Impacts on Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-12: Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands LSM SP, JP: LS OP, CS: LSM LSM Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1: Prepare and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods (OP, CS Components A-1 and A-2, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-14: Obtain Regulatory Permits for Work Activities Taking Place in Wetlands and Waters of the United States and the State (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-13: Impacts on Wildlife Movement, Established Wildlife Corridors, or the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Western Pond Turtle (OP, CS, JP, SP, River Trunk Project) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Mitigation Measures BIO-9: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owls and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (OP, SP, JP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Avoid, Minimize, or Compensate for Impacts on Raptors, including Special- status Species (SP, JP, CS except A-1 and A-2) Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for Loss of Raptor Foraging Habitat (OP, CS, SP, JP, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (OP, SP, JP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Install Temporary Trench Plates over Open Trenches (OP, SP, JP, CS, River Trunk Project) Impact BIO-14: Conflict with Local Ordinances or Policies Protecting Biological Resources LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Perform Project-specific Site Assessment for Biological Resources (Program- level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Perform Surveys for Special-status Plant Species (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Minimize Impacts on Special-status Plant Species (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid Impacts on VELB Habitat (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Implement VELB Compensatory Mitigation, if Necessary (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Transplant Elderberry Shrubs if Avoidance Is Not Feasible (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Western Pond Turtle (OP, CS, SP, JP, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measures BIO-9: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owls and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (Program-level Components)) Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Avoid, Minimize, or Compensate for Impacts on Raptors, including Special- status Species (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for Loss of Raptor Foraging Habitat (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands (SP, JP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-14: Obtain Regulatory Permits for Work Activities Taking Place in Wetlands and Waters of the United States and the State (OP, CS, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Install Temporary Trench Plates over Open Trenches (Program-level Components, , River Trunk Project) Cultural Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Impacts on Known Historic, Archaeological, or Tribal Resources LS LS NI None required Impact CR-2: Impacts on Previously Undiscovered Archaeological Resources LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for Construction Workers Prior to Beginning Work (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact CR-3: Disturb Any Human Remains, Including those Interred Outside of Dedicated Cemeteries LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for Construction Workers Prior to Beginning Work (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact CR-4: Impacts on Paleontological Resources LS LS LS None required Impact CR-5: Potential for Substantial Adverse Impact on Tribal Cultural Resources LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for Construction Workers Prior to Beginning Work (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impact GEO-1: Cause Damage to Facilities and Exposure of People to Hazards from Strong Seismic Events, Including Ground Shaking or Landslides LS LS LS None required Impact GEO-2: Result in Risk to Property and Life from Expansive Soils LS LS LS None required Impact GEO-3: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil LS LS LS None required Impact GEO-4: Result in Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse Due to Seismic Activity or an Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil LS LS LS None required Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources Impact GHG-1: Potential to Generate a Substantial Amount of GHG Emissions SU SU LS None Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Emissions of GHGs SU SU LS None ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact GHG-3: Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary Consumption of Energy During Construction, Operation, and/or Maintenance LS LS LS None required Impact GHG-4: Cause a Substantial Increase in Energy Demand and the Need for Additional Energy Resources LS LS LS None required Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Create a Substantial Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials during Construction LS LS LS None required Impact HAZ-2: Create a Substantial Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials during Operation LS LS LS None required Impact HAZ-3: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment during Construction LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact HAZ-4: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment during Operation LS LS LS None required Impact HAZ-5: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or Proposed School LS LS LS None required Impact HAZ-6: Location on a Site Which Is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a Result, Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment LS LS NI None required Impact HAZ-7: Location in an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 Miles of a Public Airport or in the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip, Resulting in a Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working in the Program Area LS LS LS None required Impact HAZ-8: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact HAZ-9: 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 NI NI NI None required Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD/WQ-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality during Construction LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1: Prepare and Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact HYD/WQ-2: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality during Operation LS LS B None required Impact HYD/WQ-3: 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 LS LS LS None required Impact HYD/WQ-4: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area Such as to Result in Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding On- or Off-Site LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact HYD/WQ-5: 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 LS LS LS None required Impact HYD/WQ-6: Place Within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows LSM SPR, OP: NI OC: NI LSC: LSM SP, JP: LS LS Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-2: Conduct Flood Flow Study for Benson Lift Station (Component LS Impact HYD/WQ-7: 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 LS LS LS None required Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1: Divide an Established Community LS LS LS None required Impact LU-2: Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Noise and Vibration Impact NOI-1: Expose Persons to Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established in a Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or in the Applicable Standards of Other Agencies LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Employ Noise-Reducing Construction and Maintenance Practices (Program- level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Limit Nighttime Construction Noise (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prepare Project-level Noise Analysis for Operation of Proposed Sutter Plant Components (SP) Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Employ Noise-Reducing Methods During Operations (SP) Impact NOI-2: Expose Persons to Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Implement Vibration Reduction Measures (River Trunk Project, Program- level Components) Impact NOI-3: Substantial permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Proposed Program LSM SPR, OC, OP: NI JP: LS LSC, SP: LSM LS Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prepare Project-level Noise Analysis for Operation of Proposed Sutter Plant Components (SP) Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Employ Noise-Reducing Methods During Operations (SP, LSC) ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact NOI-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Proposed Program SU LSM SU Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Employ Noise-Reducing Construction and Maintenance Practices (Program- level Components, River Trunk Project) Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Limit Nighttime Construction Noise (Program-level Components, River Trunk Project) Impact NOI-5: Expose People Residing or Working in the Program Area to Excessive Noise Levels Associated with a Public Airport LS LS LS None required Population and Housing Impact PH-1: Induce Substantial Population Growth, Both Directly and Indirectly, during Construction LS LS LS None required Impact PH-2: Displace Substantial Numbers of People or Existing Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere NI NI NI None required Impact PH-3: Long-term Inducement of Substantial Population Growth, Both Directly and Indirectly LSM LSM LSM Mitigation Measures AES-1, AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-15, CR-1 through CR-3, HYD/WQ-1, and NOI-1 through NOI-5. Transportation and Traffic Impact TR-1: Conflict with Applicable Circulation Plans, Ordinances, or Policies Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-31 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Impact TR-2: Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program LS LS LS None required Impact TR-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses LS LS LS None required Impact TR-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access LS LS LS None required Impact TR-5: Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities, or Otherwise Decrease the Performance or Safety of Such Features LS LS LS None required Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTL-1: Require or Result in the Construction of New Stormwater Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects LS LS LS None required Impact UTL-2: Require New or Expanded Water Supply Entitlements NI NI NI None required Impact UTL-3: Require Additional Permitted Landfill Capacity to Accommodate the Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs LS LS LS None required Impact UTL-4: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste LS LS LS None required ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Executive Summary * Key to Significance Levels: B = beneficial; NI = no impact; LS = less than significant; LSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable Key to program-level components: CS = Collection System; JP = Jennings Plant; LSC = Lift Station Components; OC = Other Components; OP = Outfall Pipelines; SPR = New/Upgraded Sewer Pipelines and Pipeline Rehabilitation; SP = Sutter Plant Wastewater Master Plan ES-32 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Level of Significance after Mitigation* Mitigation Measure(s) Overall Program Program-level Components** River Trunk Realignment Project (Project- level Components) Cumulative Impacts Impact CUM-1: Cumulative Impacts on Aesthetics LSM Mitigation Measure AES-1 Impact CUM-2: Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture SU None available Impact CUM-3: Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources LSM Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-15 Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 Impact CUM-4: Cumulative Impacts on Cultural, Paleontological Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources LSM Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 Impact CUM-5: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality LSM Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 Impact CUM-6: Cumulative Impacts related to Noise and Vibration SU Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 Impact CUM-7: Cumulative Impacts related to Transportation and Traffic LS None required Impact CUM-8: Cumulative Impacts on Utilities and Service Systems B None required 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 1-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The City of Modesto (City) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as 3 lead agency to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with 4 information about the environmental effects of implementation of the proposed 2016 5 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and the 2016 Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, 6 which are collectively referred to as the proposed 2016 Wastewater Master Plan (Proposed 7 Program or WWMP). The Proposed Program updates and replaces the City’s 2007 8 Wastewater Master Plan. The Wastewater Master Plan is intended to accommodate the 9 wastewater collection service needs of the population and land uses of the City along with 10 the City’s other sanitary sewer customers in unincorporated areas north Ceres, 11 community of Empire, and other isolated areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence) of 12 through 2057, and to accommodate wastewater treatment needs for those same customers 13 through 2035. 14 The following sections provide an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act 15 (CEQA) requirements, organization of the DEIR, and process in which comments may be 16 submitted on this DEIR. The last section describes the City’s existing wastewater system. 17 1.1 Overview of CEQA Requirements 18 CEQA’s basic purposes are to (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15002[a]): 19 1. Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant 20 environmental effects of the Program’s proposed activities. 21 2. Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. 22 3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring implementa- 23 tion of feasible mitigation measures or Program/project alternatives that would 24 substantially lessen any significant effects that the Program (or a particular project) 25 would have on the environment. 26 4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the Program 27 in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 28 With certain strictly limited exceptions, CEQA requires all state and local government 29 agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have 30 discretionary authority before approving or carrying out projects. CEQA establishes both 31 procedural and substantive requirements that agencies must satisfy to meet CEQA’s 32 objectives. For example, the agency with principal responsibility for approving or carrying 33 out a project (the lead agency) must first assess whether a proposed project would result in 34 significant environmental impacts. If there is substantial evidence that the project would 35 result in significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires that the agency prepare an 36 environmental impact report (EIR), analyzing both the proposed project and a reasonable 37 range of potentially feasible alternatives. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 As described in the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, 1 Section 15121-a]), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential 2 environmental effects of a proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures and 3 alternatives to the project that could reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. 4 Other key CEQA requirements include developing a plan for monitoring the implementation 5 of identified mitigation measures and carrying out specific public notice and distribution 6 steps to facilitate public involvement in the environmental review process. As an 7 informational document used in the planning and decision-making process, an EIR’s purpose 8 is not to recommend either approval or denial of a project. Note that an EIR does not expand 9 or otherwise provide independent authority of the lead agency to impose mitigation 10 measures or avoid project-related significant environmental impacts beyond the authority 11 already within the lead agency’s jurisdiction. 12 1.1.1 Intent and Scope of this Document 13 In proposing to conduct the various activities identified in Chapter 2 of this DEIR, the City is 14 proposing to carry out and approve a discretionary project subject to CEQA (State CEQA 15 Guidelines Section 15378). This DEIR was prepared to disclose further details of the 16 Proposed Program, as well as the significant effects of the proposed capital improvement 17 projects (CIPs) on the environment. The DEIR analysis considers most Program components 18 at a program level of detail, and one individual component at a project-specific level of detail. 19 The City will use the analyses presented in this DEIR, the public response to the DEIR, and the 20 whole of the administrative record, to evaluate the Proposed Program’s environmental 21 impacts and to further modify, approve, or deny approval of the Proposed Program. 22 Responsible agencies under CEQA, such as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 23 Board (Central Valley California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Central 24 Valley Flood Protection Board and other agencies listed in Section 2.6, may use the 25 EIR to support their decisions to issue permits or make other types of approvals for the 26 Proposed Program. 27 This DEIR evaluates the majority of the Proposed Program at a program level of detail, as 28 defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a): 29 A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be 30 characterized as one large project and are related either: 31 Geographically, 32 As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, 33 In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general 34 criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 35 As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or 36 regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects 37 which can be mitigated in similar ways. 38 As described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), for program-level components, 39 subsequent activities implemented under the Proposed Program may require additional 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 environmental review if those activities would have effects that were not examined in this 1 program EIR. 2 One portion of the Proposed Program, the River Trunk Realignment Project, has been 3 evaluated at a project level of detail, as this project is ripe for implementation, and sufficient 4 information exists to allow for a project-level evaluation without the need for further CEQA 5 compliance beyond this EIR. 6 1.2 CEQA Process 7 1.2.1 Notice of Preparation 8 A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Proposed Program was prepared pursuant to the State 9 CEQA Guidelines (Section 15082) and circulated to the Office of Planning and Research’s State 10 CEQA Clearinghouse on June 10, 2016. The scoping period continued for 30 days and 11 concluded on July 10, 2016. The NOP presented general background information on the 12 Proposed Program, the scoping process, and the environmental issues to be addressed in the 13 EIR. Approximately 50 copies of the NOP were mailed to a broad range of stakeholders 14 including state, federal, and local regulatory agencies and jurisdictions, non-profit 15 organizations, and school districts. The NOP is included in this DEIR in Appendix A, Scoping 16 Summary. 17 1.2.2 Scoping Comments and Meetings 18 The City accepted written comments during the 30-day scoping period, June 10 to July 10, 19 2016. A scoping meeting was held on June 22, 2016, at which one person attended the 20 meeting. During the scoping period, one comment letter was received. This comment along 21 with oral comments received at the scoping meeting were considered in the environmental 22 impact evaluation. Copies of comment letters received during the scoping period are included 23 in Appendix A, Scoping Summary. 24 1.2.3 Draft EIR 25 The City has prepared this DEIR, as informed by public and agency input received during the 26 scoping period, to disclose significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed 27 Program. Where any such impacts are significant, feasible mitigation measures and 28 potentially feasible alternatives that substantially lessen or avoid such effects are identified 29 and discussed. The public review period provides the public an opportunity to provide input 30 to the lead agency on the DEIR. 31 1.2.4 Public Review and Meetings 32 The DEIR will undergo public review for the period specified in the Notice of Availability of 33 the DEIR. During this period, the City will hold a public meeting. The date, time, and exact 34 location of the public meeting will be included in the Notice of Availability of this DEIR. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 1.2.5 Final EIR 1 Written and oral comments received in response to the DEIR will be addressed in a Response 2 to Comments document which, together with the DEIR and any related changes to the 3 substantive discussion in the DEIR, will constitute the Final EIR. The Final EIR, in turn, will 4 inform the City’s exercise of its discretion as a lead agency under CEQA in deciding whether 5 or how to approve the Proposed Program. 6 1.3 Organization of this DEIR 7 This DEIR contains the following components: 8 Executive Summary. A summary of the Program, a description of the issues of concern, 9 Project alternatives, and a summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures 10 are provided in this chapter. 11 Chapter 1, Introduction. This chapter describes the purpose and organization of the EIR 12 and its preparation, review, and certification process. 13 Chapter 2, Program Description. This chapter summarizes the Program, including a 14 description of the Program purpose and objectives, a brief description of the Program 15 area and study area, and proposed actions that would be taken under the Project. 16 Chapter 3, Introduction to the Environmental Analysis. This chapter is an introduction to 17 the impact analysis conducted in this DEIR. This chapter also identifies resource topic 18 areas determined not to be affected by the Program and therefore have been dismissed 19 from further analysis in this Draft EIR. 20 Chapters 4-18 describe the environmental resources and environmental impacts of the 21 Program. Each of these chapters describes the existing local and regional setting and 22 background information for the resource topic area under consideration to aid the reader 23 in understanding the conditions that could be affected by the Proposed Program. In 24 addition, each of these chapters includes a discussion of the criteria used in determining 25 the significance levels of the Program’s environmental impacts. Each of these chapters 26 also provides mitigation measures to reduce, where feasible, the adverse effects of 27 significant impacts. 28 Chapter 19, Other Statutory Considerations, addresses the Proposed Program’s 29 contribution to cumulative impacts, outlines the Proposed Program’s growth-inducing 30 impacts, and identifies significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from 31 the Proposed Program. 32 Chapter 20, Alternatives Analysis. This chapter describes the process by which 33 alternatives to the Proposed Program were developed and screened, evaluates their 34 likely environmental impacts, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. 35 Chapter 21, Report Preparation, lists the individuals involved in preparing this DEIR. 36 Chapter 22, References, provides a bibliography of printed references, websites, and 37 personal communications used in preparing this DEIR. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Appendix A, Scoping Summary. This appendix contains the NOP issued by the City, 1 materials from the scoping process, a summary of comments received during the scoping 2 period, and copies of all comments submitted. 3 Appendix B contains supporting documentation for the air quality and global climate 4 change impacts evaluation. 5 Appendix C contains the supporting documentation for the biological resource impacts 6 evaluation. 7 Appendix D contains the supporting documentation for the cultural resource impacts 8 evaluation. 9 Appendix E contains the supporting documentation for the noise and vibrations impacts 10 evaluations. 11 Appendix F contains the supporting documentation for the evaluation of tribal cultural 12 resources. 13 1.4 Submittal of Comments 14 The City is circulating this DEIR for public review and comment for the period specified in the 15 Notice of Availability. As discussed above, the City will host a public meeting during this 16 period. The purpose of public circulation is to provide agencies and interested individuals 17 with opportunities to comment on or express concerns regarding the contents of this DEIR. 18 Specific dates, times and locations for the meeting will be provided in the Notice of 19 Availability, which will be posted on the City’s website (www.modestogov.com), and in a 20 newspaper notice. 21 This CEQA document is also available for review at the aforementioned City website. Hard 22 copies can be reviewed at the City’s Utilities Department offices in Modesto, California. To 23 arrange to view documents during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 24 through Friday), call (209) 577-5395. This DEIR also can be reviewed electronically at the 25 Stanislaus County library (1500 I Street, Modesto, California), which is serving as a document 26 repository. 27 Written comments concerning this DEIR can be submitted at the public meeting described 28 above or at any time during the DEIR public review period. All comments must be received 29 by 5:00 p.m. on the final date of public review as identified in the Notice of Availability, and 30 directed to the name and address listed below: 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Jim Alves, Associate Civil Engineer 1 City of Modesto Utilities Department 2 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 4600 3 Modesto, CA 95354 4 P.O. Box 642, Modesto, CA 95353 5 [EMAIL REDACTED] 6 Submittal of written comments via e-mail (Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format) is 7 preferred. Written comments received in response to this DEIR during the public review 8 period will be addressed in a Response to Comments section of the Final EIR. 9 1.5 Proposed Program Location and Setting 10 The Proposed Program is located in the City of Modesto, California. The City’s wastewater 11 service area includes all incorporated areas of Modesto, a portion of north Ceres, the 12 unincorporated community of Empire, and unincorporated “islands” in Stanislaus County 13 that are served by agreement (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Note that although not shown in 14 Figure 1-2, the City also provides wastewater service to an approximately 128-acre property 15 southeast of the East Whitmore Avenue and Crows Landing Road intersection and the 16 County’s Public Safety Center located on a 95-acre parcel southeast of the East Hackett Road 17 and Crows Landing Road intersection. The City’s wastewater treatment facilities are located 18 on City-annexed property located about seven miles southwest of the City proper, and the 19 Primary Effluent Outfall and Cannery Segregation Line Outfall, which are pipelines, are 20 located in unincorporated Stanislaus County. 21 1.6 Existing Wastewater System 22 The City operates and maintains the wastewater collection system servicing the urban area 23 of Modesto. The City’s wastewater collection system is divided into two separate systems: the 24 domestic system and the segregated cannery process water system. The City’s wastewater 25 system consists of approximately 40 sewer lift stations, more than 600 miles of sanitary lines 26 ranging from 6 to 66 inches, 69 miles of trunk lines (pipelines greater than 15 inches in 27 diameter), and an additional separate 15 miles of trunk lines connecting cannery food 28 processors directly to land disposal (application) areas. Most of the City’s wastewater system 29 flows by gravity, but in some areas, lift stations (also referred to as pump stations) are 30 necessary to convey wastewater generated within the service area to the Sutter Avenue 31 Primary Treatment Plant (Sutter Plant) and the Jennings Road Secondary and Tertiary 32 Treatment Plant (Jennings Plant). Key facilities at the Sutter and Jennings Plants are shown 33 in Figures 1-3 and 1-4. 34 Once wastewater makes its way to the Sutter Plant, the wastewater undergoes primary 35 treatment which includes several steps. The first step involves removing large objects and 36 debris such as rags, paper, and plastics, through use of bar screens. After the screening 37 process, the grit (sand and other inorganic particles) settles out and is removed. Once grit 38 and debris are dried, the material is hauled to the Fink Road Landfill (4000 Fink Road in 39 Crows Landing) for disposal. Next, the wastewater enters primary settling tanks where solids 40 are settled out and the floating material (including grease, floatable trash, and other material) 41 is skimmed off. The settled solids removed from the wastewater (referred to as biosolids) are 42 then conveyed to the Sutter Plant’s anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digestion involves a 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 sequence in which microorganisms break down the biosolids in the absence of oxygen. 1 Digester-produced gas is the primary fuel source for the digester boiler; however, if there is 2 not enough of this source available, the boiler can utilize natural gas. 3 Digester-produced gas that exceeds the need of the boiler is flared. Once broken down, the 4 digested solids are dewatered in drying beds and, once dry, are hauled to the Jennings Plant 5 for application on City-owned land to irrigate fodder crops. 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 26 88 12 99 99 33 120 132 152 152 165 140 5 5 205 580 101 Del Rio Modesto Turlock CALIFORNIA Program Location STANIS AN T LAUS COUN OUNTY SUTTER PLANT JENNINGS PLANT PROPOSED THIRD OUTFALL EXISTING PRIMARY EFFLUENT OUTFALL AND CANNERY SEGREGATION LINE Program Area Miles 20 0 5 0 1 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 1-1. Project Location Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- MC HENRY AVE OAKDALE RD H ST E W HITMORE AVE YOSEMITE BLV S 9TH ST E BRIG GSMORE AVE EL VISTA AVE W HA T CH RD K ST PARADISE RD E HATCH RD PELANDAL E A VE SCENI C DR S CARPENTER RD D ST W BRIGGS MORE AVE MITCHELL RD N C A RPENTER RD CLAUS RD HWY 99 (OFF RAMP) S H WY 99 DALE RD TULLY RD NORTH AVE MAZE BLV CARVER RD KANSAS AVE MURPHY RD BENTLEY RD COFFEE RD BECKWITH RD BLUE GUM AVE CHAPMAN RD SHOEMAKE AVE ROSELLE AVE AMERICAN AVE CALIFORNIA AVE LANGWORTH RD ELEANOR AVE WOODLAND AVE NORTH CERES EMPIRE BEARD INDUSTRIAL PARK BRET HARTE Sutter Plant Legend Study Area Boundary* Sphere of Influence MMSD No. 1 Sewer Service Area Sewer Service by Agreement City Limits Roads 0 1 2 Miles City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 1-2. Wastewater Master Plan Sewer Service Study Area Source: City of Modesto 2016 Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 260 0 260 130 Feet 7 12 11 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 29 9 30 31 32 28 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 12/13 18/19 2 4 3 1 7/8 9 10 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 11 24 5/6 Prepared by: Figure 1-3. Existing Sutter Plant Site Plan Source: Carollo 2016a City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Collection Storage Yard Collection & Electrical Admin & Lab Building Water Well 15A Overflow Parking Crane Storage Building Septic Receiving Station Digester 1 Digester 2 Digester 3 Digester 4 Digester 5 Electrical Sub-Station 1 Ferric Chloride Station Maintenance (Staff Building) Maintenance (Shop Building) Emergency Generator #1 Electrical Sub-Station 2 Pumping Plant No. 3 Headworks Air Handling Building Odor Control Biofilter Sludge Thickener No. 1 (abandoned) Sludge Thickener No. 2 (abandoned) Gravity Belt Thickener Building Polymer Mixing Primary Clarifier 1 Primary Clarifier 2 Sludge Handling Building Collection Storage Yard Vac Con Dump Site Water Well 15B Aeration Basin/Holding Basin Emergency Generator #2 Outfall Control Building Solid Waste Storage Outfall Pump Station Outfall Control Valves Emergency Holding Basin Sludge Drying Beds 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. # Sludge Drying Bed Number LEGEND ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 160 0 160 80 Feet 16 17 18 15 20 23 24 27 28 19 30 31 33 38 34 35 42 41 39 50 51 49 48 46 47 40 4 10 11 6 37 36 32 43 44 45 1 13 3 21 22 2 14 25 26 29 5 8 7 9 12 Outfall Flowmeter Pit East Recirculation Channel Facultative Pond #1 North Channel FFR Effluent Box Recirculation Diversion Box Facultative Pond Inlet Box Recirculation Prepared by: Figure 1-4. Existing Jennings Plant Site Plan Source: Carollo 2016a City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR LEGEND Existing Admin Building 1. Existing Control Building 2. Recirculation Channel Pump Station 3. Existing Aeration Maintenance Shop 4. Existing Maintentance Garage 5. Primary Effluent Electrical Building (Phase 2) 6. Existing Can-Seg Electrical Building 7. Existing Can-Seg Pump Station 8. Primary Effluent Pump Station (Phase 1) 9. Primary Effluent Pump Station (Phase 2) 10. Dilution Pump Station (Phase 2) 11. Dilution Water Metering Facility 12. FFR Mix Box 13. FFR MCC Building 14. FFR Pump Station 15. FFR #1 16. FFR #2 17. FFR #3 18. Fine Screens (Phase 1) 19. Oxidation Ditch (Phase 1) 20. WAS Pump Station (Phase 1) 21. Mixed Liquor Pump Station (Phase 1) 22. Electrical Building (Phase 1) 23. Membrane Tanks (Phase 1) 24. Membrane Skids (Phase 1) 25. Operations Center (Phase 1) 26. UV Electrical Bldg (Phase 1) 27. In-Vessel UV (Phase 1) 28. Diversion Valves and Booster Pumps (Phase 1) 29. Operations Center (Phase 2) 30. Generator (Phase 2) 31. PE Flow Meter (Phase 2) 32. Main Electrical Bldg (Phase 2) 33. Fine Screens (Phase 2) 34. Distribution Box (Phase 2) 35. Biofilter Odor Control (Phase 2) 36. Potable Water System Well 37. Aeration Blower Bldg (Phase 2) 38. CIP Drainage Storage Tank (Phase 2) 39. Plant Drain Pump Station (Phase 2) 40. Tertiary Maintenance Shop (Phase 2) 41. BNR Aeration Basins (Phase 2) 42. WAS Pump Station (Phase 2) 43. RAS Pump Station (Phase 2) 44. Membrane Tanks (Phase 2) 45. Membrane Blower Bldg (Phase 2) 46. Static Loop (Phase 2) 47. MBR Support Generator (Phase 2) 48. Hydropneumatic Tank (Phase 2) 49. UV Bldg (Phase 2) 50. Tertiary Effluent Pump Station (Phase 2) 51. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The primary effluent is then pumped through the Primary Effluent Outfall (and sometimes 1 through the Cannery Segregation Line) to the secondary treatment facilities at the Jennings 2 Plant. During this treatment phase, microorganisms metabolize biological matter. The 3 secondary treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant include three fixed film reactors (140 4 diameter each), three facultative ponds (approximately 334 acres), approximately 600 acres 5 of wastewater storage ponds, 100-acre aerated recirculating channel and a chlorination and 6 dechlorination facility. Incoming primary effluent first is treated in the fixed film reactors 7 where microorganisms break down the biological matter, then enters the recirculating 8 channel, and then enters the three facultative ponds. 9 Once secondary treatment is complete, effluent either is applied to approximately 2,500 acres 10 of agricultural ranch land owned by the City or undergoes tertiary treatment. 11 The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Effluent System (NPDES) surface water discharge 12 permit (Order R5-2017-0064, NPDES No. CA0079103), recently issued in June 2017, allows 13 up to 14.9 million gallons per day (mgd) of tertiary treated wastewater discharges to the San 14 Joaquin River year-round. The City is not permitted to discharge secondary treated 15 wastewater to the San Joaquin River. Algae typically grows in the storage reservoirs in 16 October and November, which generates high suspended solids concentrations that typically 17 exceed discharge limitations. The City, however, has addressed this issue by installing 18 dissolved air flotation (DAF) units to remove algae, which gets discharged to the southwest 19 corner of the recirculation channel. Installation of the DAF units has allowed the City to 20 extend the discharge season into October and November. As described further in Section 1.6.2 21 below, the City has constructed the first two phases of tertiary treatment facilities at the 22 Jennings Plant. As described further in Chapter 19, Other Statutory Considerations, the City is 23 also participating in the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program which is 24 currently being constructed and will provide recycled water to the Delta-Mendota Canal. 25 Once the project is completed, up to 14.9 mgd of tertiary treated water at the 26 Jennings Facility would be conveyed by pipeline to the Delta-Mendota Canal. 27 The following subsections provide more detail about the City’s collection and wastewater 28 treatment facilities. 29 1.6.1 Collection System 30 The City’s lift stations are all underground but have some aboveground components 31 including one or more control panels and a small radio antenna (up to 25 feet tall). The 32 control panels are typically comprised of metal boxes approximately five feet high, three feet 33 wide, and one foot thick. For underground lift stations, the above-ground portion includes a 34 small on-store structure that is several feet long, several feet wide, and several feet high. Some 35 lift stations also have ancillary facilities on-site such as back-up generators, storage structure, 36 restroom facility, and/or a wash station facility. The locations of the City’s lift stations, major 37 trunk lines, and collection system pipelines are shown in Figure 1-5. As shown in Figure 1-5, 38 five major trunk lines convey flows to the Sutter Plant: the West Trunk, Emerald Trunk, Sutter 39 Trunk, River Trunk, and South Trunk. The trunk sewers range in diameter from 10 inches to 40 66 inches. The Cannery Segregation Line parallels the River Trunk line and conveys cannery 41 process water from the Beard Industrial Park area to the Sutter Plant. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 1.6.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants 1 Sutter Avenue Primary Treatment Plant 2 Figure 1-3 shows the current site plan of the Sutter Plant. Wastewater is transmitted to the 3 Sutter Plant via several trunk sewer lines. Initial wastewater treatment begins at the 4 headworks, which includes influent pumping, screening, grit removal, and primary 5 clarification. Excess trash, debris, rags, sand, and other inorganic particles are hauled to a 6 landfill for disposal, while removed biosolids are processed in anaerobic digesters then dried 7 in sludge drying beds. In 2015 and 2016, the Sutter Plant removed approximately 3,000 to 8 4,000 tons of biosolids annually, or about half of the organic load from received wastewater. 9 After the biosolids dry for approximately one year at the Sutter Plant’s drying beds, they get 10 delivered to the City-owned ranch lands to the south of the Jennings Plant. Primary treated 11 wastewater (effluent) is then conveyed to the Jennings Plant for further treatment and/or 12 disposal. 13 Existing Primary Effluent Outfall 14 Effluent from the Sutter Plant is routed underneath the Tuolumne River through the 54-inch 15 lined Primary Effluent Outfall and 60-inch Cannery Segregation Line Outfall pipelines. From 16 the Sutter Plant, the effluent is pumped through a river undercrossing to a point where it 17 flows by gravity for a total length of approximately 6.5 miles south to the Jennings Plant. At 18 the Jennings Plant, domestic effluent undergoes secondary and tertiary treatment. Both 19 effluent outfall pipelines run predominately in a northeast to southwest direction between 20 the two treatment plants. During the canning season (July through September or early 21 October), canning segregated flows received at the Sutter Plant are pumped and sent directly 22 to the Jennings Plant and get applied to ranch land. 23 Jennings Road Secondary Treatment Plant 24 Figure 1-4 shows the current site plan of the Jennings Plant. Situated on the eastern side of 25 the San Joaquin River and approximately 5 miles northeast of Patterson, the Secondary Plant 26 further treats incoming effluent that derives from the Sutter Plant. Wastewater enters the 27 Jennings Plant from the Primary Effluent Outfall (and occasionally the Cannery Segregation 28 Line Outfall) where it undergoes a multi-step biological treatment process involving three 29 fixed film reactor towers, 300 acres of oxidation ponds, and 100 acres of recirculation ponds. 30 Processed effluent is then transferred to 1,200 acres of storage ponds. The stored effluent is 31 used to irrigate approximately 2,500 acres of fodder crops on City-owned ranch land, which 32 also receives an annual application of dried and digested biosolids from the Sutter Plant. 33 Between 2009 and 2014, the average application rate to the City-owned ranch lands was 34 approximately 5.5 feet per year (Pers. Comm. Eve 2017). Excess effluent not used for 35 irrigation is stored, disinfected in a chlorination/dechlorination facility, and seasonally 36 discharged (October through May) to the San Joaquin River (City of Modesto 2016a). 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS KIERNAN AVE COVERT RD BACON RD BECKWITH RD NORTH AVE WOODLAND AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD WHITMORE AVE SHOEMAKE AVE BLUE GUM AVE KANSAS AVE STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE AVE CLAUS RD LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD FINNEY RD ALBERS RD HWY 99 HWY 99 HWY 99 BRIGGSMORE AVE 9TH ST SYLVAN AVE PELANDALE AVE BANGS AVE North Trunk Rumble Trunk Rose\Celeste Trunk Sonoma Trunk Lakewood Trunk Empire Trunk Cannery Segregation Line South Trunk Sutter Plant Sutter Trunk Emerald Trunk West Trunk Santa Rosa Trunk River Trunk ?Î R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS 10'' 18'' 45'' 21'' 18'' 10'' 15'' 27'' 18'' 15'' 36'' 30'' 66'' 18'' 12'' 15'' 10'' 10'' 48'' 27'' 30'' 12'' 15'' 10'' 45'' 10'' 21'' 18'' 48'' 15'' 39'' 12'' 30'' 21'' 14'' 30'' 30'' 12'' 27'' 10'' 24'' 60'' 10'' 10'' 51'' 12'' 10'' 24'' 36'' 12'' 24'' 10'' 10'' 54'' 10'' 30'' 33'' 15'' 33'' 10'' 10'' 36'' 12'' 18'' 12'' 18'' 10'' 12'' 18'' 21'' 27'' 10'' 26'' 15'' 18'' 18'' 24'' 12'' 18'' 10'' 18'' 10'' 39'' 12'' 15'' 12'' 12'' 15'' 12'' 12'' 30'' 32'' 12'' 24'' 12'' 18'' 36'' 18'' 10'' 10'' 10'' 12'' 12'' 18'' 32'' 10'' 15'' 12'' 12'' 15'' 15'' 21'' 15'' 12'' 18'' 30'' 10'' 10'' 10'' 10'' 10'' 18'' 10'' 12'' 10'' 15'' 15'' 33'' 12'' 18'' 12'' 10'' 10'' 15'' 15'' 10'' 10'' 12'' 12'' 24'' 24'' 12'' 27'' 16'' 16'' 10'' 10'' 30'' 12'' 36'' 33'' 10'' 15'' 30'' 18'' 30'' 27'' 48'' 24'' 30'' 42'' 27'' 27'' 54'' 12'' 24'' 12'' 36'' 33'' 36'' 12'' 39'' 30'' 60'' 21'' 60'' 16'' 10'' 15'' 10'' Beard Industrial Park Empire North Ceres R7 LS Legend Sewer Main 8" or Smaller 9" to 18" 20" to 36" Larger than 36" Lift Station LS LS Private Sewer Main Private Lift Station Roads Sewer Tributary Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8/Northern Ceres Area 9 Area 10 1 0 1 0.5 Miles Figure 1-5. Existing Wastewater Collection System Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The City completed construction of the Phase 2 Tertiary Treatment facility at the Jennings 1 Road site in 2015, which is now treating a blend of primary effluent from the Sutter Plant and 2 recirculation water1 from the Jennings Plant. Each plant has secondary biological reactors for 3 biological oxygen demand (BOD) removal and nitrification/denitrification, membrane 4 filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. At full operation, the Phase 1 facility has 5 production capacity of 2.3 mgd and is designed for year-round discharge. 6 The Phase 2 facility has production capacity of 12.6 mgd. This facility utilizes membrane 7 bioreactor (MBR) filtration and ultraviolet disinfection facilities to produce higher quality 8 effluent. This facility was constructed in an effort to maintain NPDES discharge permit 9 compliance and improve operations as growth continues in the Modesto area. 10 1.6.3 Stormwater/Sanitary Systems Connections 11 The City’s storm drainage system includes catch basins that convey rainwater to rockwells or 12 to a storm drainage system that consists of storm drain piping and basins. Rockwells are fairly 13 deep holes drilled into the soil and allow water to seep into the ground and above the water 14 table. 15 In several areas of the City where there are no rockwells or rockwells are ineffective, the 16 stormwater and sanitary systems are directly connected (also referred to as combined 17 systems). These connections, known as inflow, allow excess stormwater to flow directly to 18 the Sutter Plant. In addition to the intended connections, stormwater inadvertently enters 19 sanitary lines through cracks in pipelines and loose pipe fittings, known as infiltration. The 20 infiltration and inflow of stormwater (via groundwater) reduces the collection capacity of the 21 sanitary system for wastewater flow during storm events. Though the City’s sanitary sewer 22 collection system is anticipated to receive some infiltration, the system has not been designed 23 to handle substantial inflows from direct connections. 24 1.6.4 History of Previous Wastewater Master Plans 25 The City prepared a Wastewater Master Plan in 1995, followed by a Master EIR in 1997, that 26 evaluated the environmental impacts of that plan. One major component of the 1995 plan 27 included the segregation of wet industry wastes. Subsequently, in 2007, the City updated the 28 Wastewater Master Plan and prepared a Master EIR. The Proposed Program updates and 29 replaces the 2007 Wastewater Master Plan. For the purposes of this document, an EIR has 30 been prepared for the Proposed Program. As described in Chapter 3, Introduction to the 31 Environmental Analysis, this DEIR includes a number of components evaluated at a program 32 level and one near-term component that is evaluated at a project level of detail. 33 1.6.5 Planning Challenges 34 This section describes challenges the City faces in planning a sufficient wastewater 35 infrastructure to meet its needs. Specific anticipated wastewater treatment demands and 36 1 Recirculation is the process of recirculating water as a way of reducing the load of organic waste in the water and increasing the amount of oxygen in the water. The water is piped back to the beginning of the treatment process and added to the raw wastewater. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 planned growth are described in Section 2.4, Projected Wastewater Flows, of Chapter 2, 1 Program Description. 2 The City of Modesto conducts a periodic review of the City’s growth trends to identify 3 potential areas of new growth, infill development, and urban infrastructure serving the area. 4 Previous reviews recognized existing and planned sanitary sewer infrastructure as a 5 potential constraint to the urban growth of the City. Some of these deficiencies were 6 addressed in the City’s 2007 Wastewater Master Plan and Capital Improvement Program. The 7 City has made a number of improvements since the 2007 Wastewater Master Plan but still 8 faces the challenges associated with aging infrastructure, providing reliability of critical 9 facilities and, for future growth, providing increased capacity and extending infrastructure 10 when it is needed. 11 Existing and Projected Collection System Capacity Deficiencies 12 According to the most recent review (2015) for City growth trends, the existing collection 13 system lacks sufficient capacity to meet current and projected demands mostly in the lower 14 reaches of the conveyance system. Pipes that lack adequate capacity sometimes generate 15 backwater effects and cause wastewater surcharges or could result in overflows. Depending 16 on the location within the service area, required sanitary sewer system improvements 17 include upgrading or replacing sewer mains, trunk lines, and lift stations necessary to convey 18 wastewater to treatment facilities. For example, according to a preliminary design report 19 focused on the River Trunk Alignment, Beard Brook Siphon and Cannery Segregation line 20 (Carollo Engineers 2015), segments of the River Trunk line recently failed on the Gallo 21 property and have created a sinkhole; other sections of this trunk line are severely corroded. 22 The Beard Brook Siphon, which conveys effluent for the River Trunk line across Dry Creek, 23 also has insufficient hydraulic capacity during wet weather flow conditions due to clogging 24 of grease and debris. 25 Storm Drain Connections to Collection System 26 As previously described, in some areas of Modesto where rockwells or storm drains were not 27 available, connections between the storm drain system and sanitary system were installed, 28 primarily as mitigation to stormwater flooding in certain neighborhoods. These connections 29 often capture some of the excess stormwater, which is conveyed to the Sutter Plant. Such 30 connections have caused capacity issues both in the collection system and Sutter Plant and, 31 during large rain events, have not effectively reduced flooding in neighborhoods where cross 32 connections are located. 33 Inadequate Flood Protection and Aging Facilities at the Sutter Plant 34 The primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant (primary clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, 35 and drying beds) are aging and require upgrading. The primary clarifiers were originally 36 designed to treat cannery process water as well as domestic wastewater but since cannery 37 flows are now treated at the Jennings Plant, the clarifiers are oversized. As a result, the 38 clarifiers have caused odor concerns and other operational issues (Carollo Engineers 2015). 39 In addition, critical primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant are situated within the 40 100-year floodplain. Based on the Sutter Treatment Facility Feasibility Study (Carollo 41 Engineers 2015), the City has determined that reducing flooding effects on the existing 42 primary treatment facilities would be largely infeasible as opposed to relocating these 43 facilities. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Increase Hydraulic Capacity, Reliability and Redundancy at the Sutter and Jennings Plants 1 Some existing treatment facilities lack the hydraulic capacity and/or effectiveness to meet 2 projected service demands under all hydrologic conditions. During the last 10 years, the City’s 3 wastewater demands at the Sutter plant have decreased by about 25 percent for various long- 4 and short-term reasons. While previous issues involved a lack of immediate treatment 5 capacity for projected future growth demands, current issues now primarily involve the 6 reliability and redundancy of treatment infrastructure to meet existing and future demands. 7 Capacity and reliability for future industrial demand is of particular importance. 8 Improvements to facility headworks (initial treatment stage) capacity are necessary as well 9 as other conveyance structures at the Sutter Plant. Existing facilities may also require 10 maintenance upgrades of treatment processes to effectively handle existing and future 11 volume of wastewater and increase systems reliability. 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 1. Introduction Wastewater Master Plan 1-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 2-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 2 1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 2 2.1 Overview 3 This chapter describes the City’s 2016 proposed Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP; Proposed 4 Program) and discusses its purpose and objectives, location, proposed actions, and necessary 5 permits and approvals. Background reports used to prepare this chapter include the 6 following: 7  City’s Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, prepared by Carollo Engineers in 8 association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. Final Draft (April 2016a) 9  City’s Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, prepared by Carollo Engineers in 10 association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. Final Draft (December 2016b) 11  City’s River Trunk Realignment Project Basis of Design Report, prepared by Carollo 12 Engineers (July 2016c) 13  City’s River Trunk Realignment, Beard Brook Siphon and Cannery Segregation Line 14 Improvement Project Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Carollo Engineers 15 (September 2015) 16 2.2 Purpose and Objectives 17 The City periodically reevaluates its wastewater system through development of a 18 wastewater system Capital Improvement Program, which addresses existing deficiencies and 19 replacement needs. The last WWMP was completed in 2007. The proposed WWMP revises 20 the prior document to account for new General Plan and sphere of influence (SOI) boundary 21 adjustments, zoning revisions, updated growth projections, updated sewer demand 22 information, regulatory requirements, CIPs completed to date, and identifies new CIPs. The 23 overall purpose of the Proposed Program is to meet existing and future wastewater 24 treatment demands for the City and its customers in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus 25 County, through 2035. The Program is also intended to meet existing and future wastewater 26 collection service needs for the City and its customers in outlying service areas through 2057. 27 The objectives of the Proposed Program as a whole are as follows: 28  To implement the City’s economic goals and General Plan by planning for, and 29 providing, sewer infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective manner to serve new 30 and existing development. 31  To repair and replace aging wastewater infrastructure. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  To ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure and services are available to serve 1 new growth within the General Plan and City’s SOI, and planned wastewater 2 demands. 3  To plan for state-of-the-art facilities that reliably and economically meet the changing 4 regulatory requirements. 5 For collection system components, the objectives of the Proposed Program are: 6  To extend service to new customers. 7  To increase sewer capacity to convey peak wet weather flows for a 10-year storm 8 event, and where required, to serve future customers. 9  To reduce wet weather flow volumes by removing cross connections with 10 stormwater sewers. 11  To replace, repair, or rehabilitate existing trunk sewers, and to reduce infiltration and 12 inflow of stormwater into the sanitary sewers. 13  To improve sewer collection reliability by providing new and redundant 14 infrastructure improvements, including sewer trunk lines and lift stations, in known 15 deficient areas at critical areas within the existing system. 16 For treatment plant components, the objectives are: 17  To reduce flooding impacts at the Sutter Plant site and increase treatment process 18 operational flexibility and efficiencies. 19  To increase the capacity of the outfalls connecting the primary and secondary 20 treatment plants, and to provide increased reliability for the existing outfall. 21  To increase treatment systems efficiency, reliability, and functionality for both 22 domestic and cannery process stream flows. 23  To increase or modify treatment systems to remain in compliance with existing 24 Central Valley NPDES requirements and plan for potential future 25 permitting regulations. 26 2.3 Location and Setting 27 The City is in Stanislaus County, California, in the central San Joaquin Valley. The City is 28 centrally located within California, approximately 70 miles southeast of Sacramento, 85 miles 29 east of San Francisco, 90 miles northwest of Fresno, and 35 miles west of the foothills of the 30 Sierra Nevada range. See Figure 1-1 for the Proposed Program location. The Tuolumne River 31 flows westerly through the southern portion of the City. Dry Creek, a tributary to the 32 Tuolumne River, runs through the central portion of the City before draining into the 33 Tuolumne River near South 9th Street and River Road. 34 The proposed wastewater collection system and Sutter Avenue Primary Treatment Plant 35 (also referred to as “Sutter Plant”) components would occur within the City and its 36 wastewater service area. The City’s wastewater service area (Figure 2-1) includes all 37 incorporated areas of Modesto, a portion of north Ceres, the unincorporated community of 38 Empire, the Beard Industrial Park District, and unincorporated “islands” in the County within 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Modesto that are served by agreement. The Sutter Plant is in the southwestern portion of 1 Modesto adjacent to the north bank of the Tuolumne River. The Jennings Road Secondary and 2 Tertiary Treatment Plant (also referred to as “Jennings Plant”) is located on City-owned land, 3 approximately 6.5 miles southwest of Modesto on the eastern side of the San Joaquin River. 4 For the purposes of this DEIR, the term “study area” refers to the City’s wastewater service 5 area, the City’s sphere of influence, the proposed third outfall pipeline, the Jennings Plant, and 6 the approximately 2,500 acres of City-owned agricultural lands to the south of the Jennings 7 Plant. The term “Program area” refers to areas where proposed components would occur 8 including the City proper and unincorporated Stanislaus County. 9 2.4 Projected Wastewater Flows 10 Table 2-1 summarizes the current and projected population (through 2035) in the City’s 11 sewer service area and estimated populations through the Collection System Master Plan’s 12 build-out year (2057). These projections take into consideration recent average annual 13 growth rates for Modesto and unincorporated areas of the County within its sewer service 14 area, and growth estimates for future developed areas in the City’s sewer service area. For 15 example, between 1990 and 2000, the City’s population increased at an average annual 16 growth rate of 1.4 percent but between 2000 and 2010, the City’s annual average growth rate 17 slowed down to 0.6 percent (Carollo Engineers 2016a). Estimated population values between 18 2015 and 2057 are based on an annual population growth of 1.3 percent per year which are 19 derived from the California Department of Finance’s population estimates. 20 Table 2-1. Projected Population for City’s Sewer Service Area 21 Year Estimated Sewer Service Population 2015 209,200 2020 223,100 2025 238,000 2030 253,900 2035 270,900 2040 288,972 2045 308,250 2050 328,814 2055 350,750 2057 359,929 Source: California Department of Finance estimates, as cited in Carollo Engineers 2016a. Extrapolation 22 to buildout year of 2057 is based on an assumed 1.3 percent population increase between 2035 to 2057 23 (Eve, pers. comm. 2017a). As noted above, the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan used a planning 24 horizon year through 2035; while the Collection System Master Plan used a build-out scenario through 25 the year 2057. 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 2-2 identifies existing and projected wastewater flows for the City’s sewer service 1 area. The projected flows take into consideration both the projected sewer service population 2 values presented in Table 2-1 as well as anticipated industrial and commercial growth areas, 3 which are based on the 2009 Urban Growth Policy Review Report and the City’s General Plan. 4 As part of the projected wastewater flow monitoring effort, wastewater generation 5 coefficients were established based on the average wastewater flow generated by existing 6 and land use types. These coefficients were then used to estimate average dry weather flows 7 (ADWF) throughout build-out of the City’s sewer service areas. With respect to estimating 8 existing and projected peak wet weather flows (PWWF), the City ran a 10-year, 24-hour 9 design storm through the hydraulic model which was calibrated for both dry weather and 10 wet weather conditions. The PWWF also took into account wet weather infiltration and 11 inflow that occurs during and after rainfall events and used a peak infiltration and inflow rate 12 of 1,000 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) (Carollo Engineers 2016a). 13 As shown in Table 2-2, the current collection system does not have adequate capacity to serve 14 future development anticipated through the build-out timeline. The projected build-out flows 15 were estimated based on the City’s preliminary land development plans prepared in 2015. In 16 the next 35 years, flows are expected to increase by 60 percent. 17 Table 2-2. Existing and Projected Wastewater Flows for the Sutter Plant (MGD) 18 Wastewater Flows (mgd) Existing (based on 2014 flows) Projected Flows through 2035 Projected Build- Out Flows (2057) Average Dry Weather Flowa 21.4 25.6 34.4 Peak Wet Weather Flowb 68.6 85.0c 77.1d a Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is the average flow over any five weekday period between the months of 19 June and October. For the Master Plan, ADWF was calculated based on historical flow data at the Sutter 20 Plant and dry weather flow data from the City’s flow monitoring program. 21 b Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) is the highest observed flow that occurs following a storm event and is used 22 as the basis for establishing the Sutter Plant’s hydraulic capacity and sizing upgrades. 23 c Projected PWWF for 2035 assumes that storm drain cross sections are still in place and have not been fully 24 removed. 25 d Projected PWWF for 2057 assumes that storm drain cross connections have been removed. 26 Sources: Carollo Engineers 2016a, 2016b; Eve, pers. comm. 2017b. 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( River Trunk Pump Station Gallo Property Southern Pacific Railroad Modesto Municipal Golf Course Shackelford Pump Station Dryden Golf Course Sutter Plant Tu o lu m ne R iv er Dry Creek HWY 99 S 7TH ST S 9TH ST RIVER RD ROUSE AVE ZEFF RD SUTTER AVE RD ROSELAWN AVE NEECE DR HERNDON RD PARADISE RD LEON AVE COLORADO AVE PELTON AVE AVON ST TUOLUMNE BLV SIERRA DR OREGON DR B ST KERR AVE CROWS LANDING RD MAIN ST CALIFORNIA AVE CHICAGO AVE JOHN ST NADINE AVE HAMMOND ST SOUTH AVE MUSICK AVE ROBERTSON RD BRIGGS AVE CENTER ST BENSON AVE SONORA AVE ALAMO AVE PECOS AVE CRATER AVE DONALD ST EL PASO AVE PINE TREE LN HOLM AVE SANTA FE AVE SUNSET AVE KENNETH ST W HATCH RD ROSEDALE AVE MAMILANE G ST LEO AVE HOUSER LN BOULDER AVE JANOPAUL AVE HOSMER AVE LUCCHESI LN RIO GRANDE AVE HILLSIDE DR YOSEMITE AVE 7TH ST LARKIN AVE WESTERN WY S SANTA CRUZ AVE H ST HARRIS AVE SNEAD DR PARADISE AVE BOWIE AVE NIAN WY ALTURAS AVE 6TH ST VALENTE WY SOUZA AVE 9TH ST 4TH ST LEGION PARK DR D ST HUDSON LN TURNER ST MONTEREY AVE CRIPPEN AVE FIGARO AVE 1ST ST PUEBLO AVE TONILANE SAM AVE PANAMA DR SCHOOL AVE WALNUT WY SPENCER AVE HAYS ST VICKSBURG ST RITSCH LN AVALON AVE BAROZZI AVE VICTOR WY SEYBOLD AVE GARDEN AVE SUNSET BLV 2ND ST KENDEE RD FRESNO AVE 5TH ST MERCED AVE STEELE AVE LOMBARDO AVE 10TH ST BEWLEY AVE FAUSTINA AVE EUGENE AVE LOMBARDY DR THRASHER AVE S MADISON ST E ST MADERA AVE TIOGA DR MARSEILLE LN AURORA ST ALWAY DR VITO AVE KAZMIR CT ELSIE ST ASH ST MAYETTE AVE C ST ANTHONY AVE FOSTER DR BEARD ST JOSILANE ROSEMONT AVE BEVERLY DR JEELU WY THOMAS ST BRISTLECONE WY MARSHALL AVE ANNILANE 3RD ST LATIMER AVE THERON WY RYDER WY WHEATLEY AVE LARSEN DR 11TH ST SOLAR AVE S MARTIN LUTHER KING DR AVE BEDFORD AVE WY BUNKER AVE TOULON DR MOCK AVE PLACID LN TYRUS ST MIDDLECOFF AVE MANCINI WY YVONNE LN ERICKSON AVE CASCADE AVE F ST DALLAS ST MARNI WY STONE PINE WY ORLANDO DR S JEFFERSON ST ACACIA ST CLIFF DR RED PINE DR ROUSE CT JEAN ST GLACIER AVE CULLEN AVE WINEPRESS LN RITSCH CT LUCK DR SUPERIOR AVE ERIE AVE ALCAMO AVE PECOS CT RADLEY PL MONTAGUE CT BLUEJAY WY VLACH WY JOYCE AVE WESLEY DR S ALTURAS AVE SHERIDAN ST JANOPAUL LN TRENARY WY CROCKETT AVE S MORTON BLV ELLEN AVE PERFIDIA ST FLORETTE AVE CANNES AVE YELLOW PINE DR FLORES AVE HAWES CT AERON ST UNDERPASS (S 9TH ST) SIGNATURE CT KIRSCHEN DR HOLT WY LN LITA CT RITA CT FALLEN LEAF LN OBOE LN CLEMENTA WY HERNDON CT CLAY CT GALLO PARK WY RAINIER AVE MONACO DR CHEATHAM CT WISENOR AVE PINE MEADOW CT PARSONS CT AVON CT ROSELAWN CT CRATER AVE LATIMER AVE SONORA AVE HWY 99 THRASHER AVE PECOS AVE YVONNE LN PECOS AVE 0 500 1,000 250 Feet ¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_2-1_ProjectPhases.mxd 7/24/2017 PG Figure 2-1 River Trunk Realignment Project City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Phase 1 Forcemain System Gravity System Phase 2 Gravity System Phase 3 Forcemain System Gravity System Existing Shakelford FM ( Trenchless Pits Work Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2.5 Proposed Program Characteristics 1 The Proposed Program involves numerous improvements to the City’s collection system and 2 upgrades to the Sutter and Jennings plants. These include collection system and treatment 3 plant CIPs located throughout the City’s service area and unincorporated Stanislaus County. 4 Table 2-3 indicates proposed WWMP components evaluated throughout this DEIR. With the 5 exception of one project, the River Trunk Realignment Project, all other components are 6 evaluated at a program level of detail. In general, program-level components are projects that 7 the City would likely construct in the future, but the design of these components has not been 8 advanced to a level at which a detailed evaluation can be completed. As such, a more general, 9 program level analysis of these components is included in this DEIR. 10 Section 2.4.1 provides an overview of the River Trunk Realignment Project. Sections 2.4.2 and 11 2.4.3 describe other collection system and treatment plant components, respectively, which 12 are evaluated at a program level of detail. 13 Table 2-3. Summary of Proposed Components 14 Project ID No. Project Name River Trunk Realignment Project (project level) 1 Dry Creek Crossing and Pipeline to River Trunk Pump Station 2 Gravity Pipelines 3 Shackelford Pump Station and Force Main Collection System Components (program level) New and Upgraded Sewer Pipelines W-1 West Trunk W-3 West Trunk W-4 West Trunk W-6 West Trunk W-7 West Trunk D-1 thru D-5 Dale Trunk R-1 Rumble Trunk R-2 Rumble Trunk S-1 Sutter Trunk DT-1 J Street Trunk DT-2 Kimble Street SR-4 Santa Rosa Trunk EM-4 Empire Trunk EM-3 Empire Trunk SO-1 thru SO-3 Sonoma Trunk ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project ID No. Project Name SO-4 Sonoma Trunk L-1 thru L-6 Lakewood Trunk U-1 thru U-4 Ustick Trunk N-1 and N-2 North Trunk N-3 thru N-5 North Trunk N-6 North Trunk N-7 thru N-9 North Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Components A-3 Carver Trunk C-1 West Trunk B-2 Woodland Trunk D-2 Emerald Trunk A-2 Sutter Trunk S-4b/C-2 Sutter Trunk and South Trunk C-3 Downtown Tributary D-1 Downtown Tributary A-1 Rose Celeste/Santa Rosa B-1 Crows Landing Trunk RT-9 River Trunk RT-10 River Trunk RT-11 River Trunk & Cannery Segregation Line RT-12 Cannery Segregation Line Diversion Structures SR-6 Santa Rosa Tributary Trunk Lift Station Components LS #29 - Rose & Celeste Rose-Celeste LS #3 - Benson Benson LS #64 Dakota LS #63 Kansas LS #60 Chapman LS #67 Litt Road LS # 59 Pelandale Road LS #61 Wood Sorrel LS #62 Whitmore/Carpenter ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project ID No. Project Name LS #65 Kiernan Avenue LS #30 Rumble LS #39 Woodland Treatment Plant Components (program level) Sutter Plant Modifications SP-1 Influent Pump Station Components SP-3 Primary Effluent Pump Station Replacement SP-4 Demolition of Sutter Treatment Facilities SP-5 Flood Protection Components Outfall Pipelines OP-1.1 New Tuolumne River Crossings OP-1.2 New Primary Effluent Outfall OP-3 Slip-lining a Portion of the Cannery Segregation Line Jennings Plant Components JP-1.1 Phase 3 of Tertiary Treatment Facility JP-2.1 Fixed Film Reactors Rehabilitation JP-2.2 Dredging JP-2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation Piping JP-3.1 Aerators in Recirculation Channel JP-3.2 Nutrient Feed System JP-3.3 Effluent Channel Berm and Effluent Pipeline JP-3.4 Dredging JP-3.5 Pond Aerators JP-4.1 Aerobic Digester JP-4.2 Solids Processing Building (waste activated sludge [WAS] thickening and biosolids dewatering facilities) JP-4.3 Sludge Cake Drying Beds JP-5.1 Primary Treatment Facilities JP-5.2 Yard Piping and Structures JP-5.3 Anaerobic Digesters JP-5.4 Solids Processing Building (WAS thickening and biosolids dewatering facilities) JP-5.5 Sludge Cake Drying Beds ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2.5.1 River Trunk Realignment Project 1 As part of the River Trunk Realignment Project, the majority of the River Trunk line would be 2 realigned further inland from the Tuolumne River. Originally constructed in 1940, the 3 existing River Trunk is approximately five miles long and generally parallels the right bank 4 (north side) of the Tuolumne River. It begins near the intersection of Beard Avenue and 5 Nathan Avenue and terminates at Sutter Plant, conveying nearly 50 percent of the City’s 6 domestic wastewater to the Sutter Plant. The entire alignment is subject to heavy corrosion 7 and isolated sections of the pipeline have recently failed or are close to failure. A segment of 8 the River Trunk line at the Gallo property failed and created a sinkhole. In addition, the Beard 9 Brook Siphon, a portion of the River Trunk line that conveys wastewater from eastern 10 Modesto, below Dry Creek, and to the western end of the River Trunk line, routinely 11 experiences grease blockages. Such blockages increase the risk of the facility overflowing and 12 increase odor issues. 13 By realigning the River Trunk line, this project would improve the accessibility, capacity, and 14 reliability of the River Trunk system, and extend the useful life of the existing infrastructure. 15 Figure 2-1 shows the proposed components of the River Trunk Realignment project. This 16 project includes the following components: 17  Dry Creek Crossing and Pipeline to River Trunk Pump Station 18  River Trunk Pump Station 19  River Trunk Force Main 20  Gravity Pipelines along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Neece Drive, and 21 Pelton Avenue 22  Shackelford Pump Station and force main 23 Elements of the River Trunk Realignment Project are described in more detail below. 24 Dry Creek Crossing and Pipeline to River Trunk Pump Station 25 As shown in Figure 2-1, a new 48-inch siphon would be installed to replace the existing Dry 26 Creek crossing. This pipeline would begin at the parking lot located at the Gallo property, 27 cross beneath Dry Creek, traverse vacant land between the creek and 9th Street, and terminate 28 at the proposed River Trunk Pump Station. Trenchless pipeline construction methods would 29 be employed, whereby insertion pits would be established at the Gallo property, to the west 30 of Dry Creek, on either side of 9th Street, and at the River Trunk Pump Station site. The 31 pipeline would flow by gravity and allow the existing siphon to be used for cannery 32 segregation flows if necessary. Pile drivers would be used during the horizontal drilling 33 process. 34 River Trunk Pump Station 35 The River Trunk Pump Station would be constructed at the corner of B Street and Beard 36 Street. As shown in Figure 2-2 the facility would be oriented in the center of the site and a 37 circular driveway would be established around the pump station. Access to the site would 38 occur via B Street. The access road would be paved, and crushed rock would be placed on 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 other areas of the site. Perimeter fencing would be installed and a security gate would allow 1 staff vehicles to enter and exit the site. Stormwater runoff would be directed to the manhole 2 located upstream of the wet well. Landscaping consisting of low-lying shrubs and small trees 3 may be planted in the non-paved areas of the pump station site. 4 Due to close proximity to the planned Tuolumne River Regional Park, which will consist of 5 over 500 acres of parkland along 7 miles of the Tuolumne River, a biofilter would be installed 6 at the pump station to control odor. For additional information about the Tuolumne River 7 Regional Park, refer to Chapter 19, Other Statutory Considerations. The biofilter would include 8 duplex blowers and connection for a portable biofilter unit such that the odor control 9 facilities remain operational when the biofilter media from the permanent biofilter is 10 replaced. 11 Based on preliminary design of the River Trunk Pump Station, the facility would have five 12 208 horsepower (hp) centrifugal submersible pumps (4 on duty and 1 standby pump) that 13 would be located underground in fully enclosed structures that would mute any generated 14 sounds. The interior diameter of the facility would be approximately 60 feet and have a depth 15 of 75 feet. As shown in Figure 2-3, the pump station would include a wet well, and two 16 intermediate floors at elevations of 50 feet (Level 1) and 70 feet (Level Within the wet 17 well, the influent pipe would be installed at an invert elevation of approximately 23 feet and 18 an isolation gate would be installed to control flow into the wet well during self-cleaning. The 19 pump motors would be controlled by variable frequency drives which provide pump speed 20 modulation that matches the diurnal flow pattern within the collection system. The backup 21 generator would be sound-buffered and would be operated infrequently, primarily in the 22 event of power outages or for periodic maintenance. Operator access would be provided 23 through a 3-foot wide access hatch and ladder located on Level 1. In addition, a vent shaft 24 would be installed to vent the wet well, and odor control ducts would connect to the vent to 25 help remove and treat odors. 26 Level 1 of the pump station would contain five 60-inch-diameter access hatches located 27 directly above each pump to allow pump removal. The pump hatches would be installed in a 28 trench to improve operations and maintenance staff access around the access hatches and 29 discharge piping. Two monorail systems and exhaust and supply air ducting would also be 30 installed. 31 Level 2 of the pump station would house heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 32 equipment, three ducted centrifugal exhaust fans, HVAC air ducts that supply air and exhaust 33 air within the pump station, and a 6-foot hatch to assist in the pump removal process. 34 Figure 2-4 shows the top level of the pump station. Aboveground components would include 35 a monorail system that allows the submersible pumps from Level 1 to be lifted to grade, and 36 the pumps could be delivered to a truck bed and/or trailer. Three make-up air units would 37 be sized and installed on the top level to supply air to the pump station in accordance with 38 National Fire Protection Association standards. The five pump discharge pipes would connect 39 with the 36-inch force main located at the top of the site. Although not shown in Figure 2-4, 40 lighting would also be installed to illuminate the wet well and generator locations. The 41 exterior of the pump station building would be comprised of earth tones with a matte finish. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 An overflow structure would also be located approximately 60 feet upstream of the influent 1 pipeline connecting to the River Trunk Pump Station. In the event of a loss of service, this 2 structure would allow flows to backup and overflow to the existing River Trunk pipelines. 3 The River Trunk pump station may require on-site exterior lighting. New lighting at these 4 facilities would be consistent with outdoor lighting currently used at the two wastewater 5 treatment plants. New lighting at these facilities would be directed inward to avoid glare or 6 spillover effects and may be motion-activated where beneficial and effective. Exterior coating 7 of new pump stations would appear similar to similar structures seen throughout Modesto, 8 and that earth tones with non-reflective finishes would be used to coat aboveground 9 components at lift stations and pump station sites. 10 River Trunk Force Main 11 Two force mains would be constructed to convey flows from the River Trunk Pump Station 12 to a discharge structure in Tuolumne Boulevard. One force main would be 30 inches in 13 diameter and the second would be 42 inches in diameter. The approximate alignment of these 14 force mains is depicted in Figure 2-1. From the pump station, the force mains would continue 15 south and then traverse underneath the Southern Pacific Railroad and 7th Street, and continue 16 west and along Tuolumne Boulevard where it would tie into a discharge structure. For both 17 force mains, trenchless pipeline construction methods would be used at the railroad crossing 18 and 7th Street crossing. 19 Gravity Pipelines along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Neece Drive, and 20 Pelton Avenue 21 The new River Trunk gravity pipeline would extend from the pipeline junction structure at 22 Tuolumne Boulevard and Neece Drive, beneath Tuolumne Boulevard (from Neece Drive to 23 Paradise Road), and continue south beneath Colorado Avenue (from Tuolumne Boulevard to 24 Dryden Golf Course and the Sutter Plant). This pipeline would be 42 inches along Tuolumne 25 Boulevard. Along Colorado Avenue, the pipeline would vary in size between 48 inches, 54 26 inches, and 60 inches down to the Sutter Plant. 27 In addition, a new 15-inch-diameter gravity flow pipeline would be installed beneath 28 Tuolumne Boulevard from Paradise Road to Colorado Avenue. This pipeline would serve as 29 a peak wet weather diversion for the existing Sutter Trunk such that during peak wet weather 30 events, flows that top the passive weir would be diverted down Tuolumne Boulevard to the 31 River Trunk line. 32 New gravity pipelines would also be installed near the northwestern side of the Dryden Golf 33 Course. These would extend from Neece Drive to the Dryden Golf Course parking lot, continue 34 south beneath Roselawn Avenue, and west on Pelton Avenue to Colorado Avenue. 35 Shackelford Pump Station and Force Main 36 As shown in Figure 2-1 the Shackelford Pump Station would be located west of Zeff Road and 37 immediately east of the Tuolumne River. Figure 2-5 shows the site plan for the Shackelford 38 Pump Station. From Zeff Road, the access road to the pump station would be paved and 39 crushed rock would be used to cover other areas of the site. Perimeter fencing would be 40 installed to secure the site and a gate would be installed to allow vehicles to enter/exit the 41 site. The pump station would consist of a rectangular wet well (approximately 24 feet deep), 42 and operate with two on-duty pumps and one standby pump (each 37.7 hp). The pumps 43 would be located underground in fully enclosed structures that would mute any generated 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 sounds, and the backup generator would sound-buffered and would be operated 1 infrequently, primarily in the event of a power outage or for periodic maintenance. 2 Aboveground components at the Shackelford Pump Station include the electrical building 3 (approximately 15.5 feet tall) and generator (approximately 8 feet tall). The surrounding 4 fence and/or gate and would be about 8 feet tall and the retaining wall would be about 6 feet 5 tall. The exterior coating of these aboveground facilities would be coated with unobtrusive 6 earth tones with matte finishes. 7 This pump station would deliver wastewater to the new River Trunk Pipeline by conveying 8 wastewater flows through existing dual 18-inch siphons that were recently installed. These 9 siphons would convey flow across the Tuolumne River. From the west end of the siphons, a 10 new 20-inch-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) force main would be installed 11 beneath the Dryden Park Golf Course, traverse westerly, and terminate at the Dryden Park 12 Golf Course parking lot. At this point, the force main would tie into the new gravity pipeline 13 system described above. 14 The Shackelford pump station may require on-site exterior lighting. New lighting at these 15 facilities would be consistent with outdoor lighting currently used at the two wastewater 16 treatment plants. New lighting at these facilities would be directed inward to avoid glare or 17 spillover effects, and may be motion-activated where beneficial and effective. Exterior 18 coating of new pump stations would appear similar to similar structures seen throughout 19 Modesto, and that earth tones with non-reflective finishes would be used to coat 20 aboveground components at lift stations and pump station sites. 21 2.5.2 Collection System Components 22 New and Upgraded Sewers 23 In addition to the River Trunk Realignment Project, the City plans to install a number of new 24 and upgraded sewer lines throughout the City’s service area. Proposed locations of new and 25 replacement sewer lines are shown in Figure 2-6. Table 2-4 summarizes the major trunk 26 and sub-trunk lines to be installed or replaced. 27 These components are needed either to correct an existing or future capacity deficiency 28 during peak wet weather flows or to accommodate future growth anticipated. 29 Future growth areas in the City’s service area are also referred to as Comprehensive Planning 30 Districts [CPDs]). 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- RIVER TRUNK PUMP STATION SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 20 0 40 10 Feet Prepared by: Figure 2-2. River Trunk Pump Station Site Plan Source: Carollo 2016c City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Top Plan El. 89.0 Level 2 El. 70.0 Level 1 El. 50.0 Pipe Invert El. 23.0 Bottom Trench El. 14.8 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 2-3. River Trunk Pump Station Section Source: Carollo 2016c Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhaust Louver Structure Monorail 6’ (Sq.) Pump Hatch 20” Plug Valve and ARV Inlet Gate Operator Staircase Structure 36” Force main Make-up Air Unit (Typ. of 3) City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 2-4. River Trunk Pump Station – Top Plan Layout Source: Carollo 2016c Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 SSFM CROWS LANDING ROAD TUOLUMNE RIVER SHACKELFORD PUMP STATION SITE PLAN FIGURE 20 20 0 40 10 Feet Prepared by: Figure 2-5. Shackelford Pump Station Site Plan Source: Carollo 2016c City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Ú 3 Ú R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS 12'' 15'' 18'' 21'' 15'' 24'' 10'' 10'' 12" 15'' 10'' 10'' 15'' Woodland LS 39 15'' 10'' 27'' 10'' 12'' KIERNAN AVE COVERT RD BACON RD BECKWITH RD NORTH AVE WOODLAND AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD WHITMORE AVE SHOEMAKE AVE BLUE GUM AVE KANSAS AVE STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE AVE CLAUS RD LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD FINNEY RD ALBERS RD Whitmore/Carpenter LS 62 Scenic LS 31 D-3 D-4 R-2 10'' R-1 24'' U-3 SO-4 EM-1 15'' River Trunk PS Shackelford PS ?Î RT 48'' RT 48'' RT 21'' RT 54'' RT 60'' RT 14'' RT 72'' W-4 S-1 W-3 U-1 U-4 L-2 N-6 N-4 N-7 U-2 SO-1 L-4 SO-3 L-6 SO-2 N-1 N-3 N-9 L-1 N-5 L-3 N-8 D-1 N-2 W-6 W-7 L-5 D-5 D-2 W-1 W-4 SR-1 DT-1 EM-3 EM-4 DT-2 EM-2 15'' 18'' 18'' 12'' 18'' 15'' 15'' 10'' 15'' 18'' 18'' 15'' 24'' 10'' 48'' Hahn LS 19 Rumble LS 30 Benson LS 03 Rose and Celeste LS 29 Dakota Ave LS 64 Chapman Rd LS 60 Pelendale LS 59 Wood Sorrel LS 61 Kansas Ave LS 63 Litt Rd LS 67 Keirnan Ave LS 65 Beard Industrial Park Empire North Ceres LS LS LS LS Legend Lift Station Upgrade in Progress Pipeline Upgrade in Progress New Service Lift Station Improvement New Service Pipeline Improvements Capacity Lift Station Improvements Capacity Pipeline Improvements Lift Station Sewer Main Sphere of Influence Tributary Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8/Northern Ceres Area 9 Area 10 4000 0 4000 2000 Feet Figure 2-6. Proposed Collection System Improvements Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 2-4. Summary of New and Replacement Trunk Sewers 1 Project No. Trunk Line General Location Description Key Objective Area 1 W-1 West Trunk Carpenter Rd.to Sutter Plant New 5,200 linear feet (lf) of 48-inch (in) pipeline Increase capacity to accommodate long-term growth in Area 1 W-3 West Trunk Along North Ave. to McDonald Ave. New 4,200 lf of 15-in main New service to serve future CPDs W-4 West Trunk Along North Ave. to McDonald Ave. New 8,300 lf of 6-in force main to connect LS 64 to Project No. W-3 New service to serve future CPDs W-6 West Trunk Kansas Ave. New 4,300 lf of 15-in main New service to serve future CPD area W-7 West Trunk Paradise Rd. & Carpenter Rd. New 2,900 lf of 10-in pipeline New service to serve existing developed County area in southwest area D-1, D-3, D- 4 and D-5 Dale Trunk West of Healthcare Way D-1: New 1,200 lf of 15-in diameter pipeline west of Kaiser Permanente D-3: 1,700 lf of 12-in diameter pipeline in Chapman (between Kiernan Ave. and MID Lateral 6 Canal D-4: 2,200 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline in Chapman Rd. from Kirnan Ave. to south Pirrone Rd. D-5: 1,500 lf of 8-in diameter pipeline (runs parallel to MID Lateral 6 Canal) New service for future growth in Kiernan-Carver and Kiernan- Carver North CPDs R-1 Rumble Trunk Claremont Ave. & Maud Kemp Terrace 5,100 lf of 24-in diameter pipeline from Claremont Ave. to Don Caster Ln. Increase capacity for existing and some new growth R-2 Rumble Trunk McHenry Ave 900 lf of 10-inc diameter pipeline to serve future development in the Pelandale/McHenry CPD New service to serve future CPDs ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project No. Trunk Line General Location Description Key Objective Area 3 S-1 Sutter Trunk Jefferson between Maze Blvd. and Oak St. Replace 16-in with 18-in diameter pipeline Increase capacity Area 4 DT-1 J Street Trunk McHenry Ave. to 12th St. Replace 2,400 lf of 12-in pipeline with 15-in pipeline Increase capacity. The current trunk exceeds the maximum d/D criteria (pipe flow exceeds design standard for pipe capacity) under PWWF, which causes the existing pipeline to surcharge. DT-2 Kimble Street Kimble St. and Floto St. Replace 1,000 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline with 12-in-diameter pipeline Increase capacity; the current trunk exceeds the maximum d/D criteria under PWWF. Area 5 SR-4 Santa Rosa Trunk Coffee Rd. between Fairmont Ave. and Lucern Ave. Replace 1,600 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline with 15-in diameter pipeline. Increase capacity Area 6 EM-4 Benson Ave. Trunk Monterey Ave. to Oregon Dr. Replace 1,400 lf of 15-in pipeline with 18-in pipeline Increase capacity EM-3 Hoover and Doherty Hoover Ave. and Doherty Ave. Replace 1,800 lf of 10-in pipeline with 12-in pipeline Increase capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project No. Trunk Line General Location Description Key Objective SO-1 through SO-3 Sonoma Trunk New alignment north of Sylvan Rd.to south of Kiernan Ave SO-1: 3,300 lf of 24-in pipeline (from existing trunk west in Sylvan Ave. and north) SO-2: 2,600 lf of 18-in diameter pipeline to area north of Mabel Ave SO-3: 2,800 lf of 15-in diameter pipeline from SO-2 to area south of Claribel Rd. New service for growth (Roselle-Claribel CPD) SO-4 Sonoma Trunk Sylvan Ave, Oakdale Rd. & Wood Sorrel Dr New 3,100 lf of 8-in pipeline; will extend north from a 27-in diameter sewer in Wood Sorrel Dr. New service for existing development and new growth L-1 through L-6 Lakewood Trunk North of Sylvan Rd.to south of Kiernan Ave. L-1: 900 lf of 18-in diameter pipeline in Litt Rd. north of Sylvan Ave. L-2: 1,700 lf of 15-in diameter pipeline in Litt Rd. L-3: 800 lf of 12-in diameter pipeline from Plainview Rd. and hits Litt Rd. L-4: 3,00 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline from south of Claribel Rd.to Plainview Rd. L-5: 300 lf of 8-in diameter pipeline from intersection of Ruffed Goose Ln. and Crested Bobwhite St, to Claus Rd. L-6: 400 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline in Merle Ave. New service for growth Area 10 U-1 Ustick Trunk Ustick Ave. from Imperial to Whitmore Replace 12-in diameter pipeline with 1,200 lf of 15-in diameter pipeline Increase capacity U-2 through U-4 Ustick Trunk Whitmore Ave. from Ustick Ave. to west of Carpenter U-2: New 1,000 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline U-3: New 400 lf of 4-in diameter force main U-4: 3,400 lf of 10-in diameter pipeline New service for growth ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project No. Trunk Line General Location Description Key Objective N-1 through N-5 North Trunk Bangs Ave, east of Carver Rd N-1: 2,800 lf of 27-in diameter pipeline in Bangs Ave. (between Tully Rd. and Carver Rd) N-2: 6,100 lf of 24-in diameter pipeline along Bangs Ave. from McHenry Ave. to Tully Rd. N-3: 1,600 lf of 21-in diameter pipeline from MID Lateral 6 Canal to McHenry Rd. N-4: 3,100 lf of 18- in diameter pipeline from Coffee Rd. to MID Lateral 6 Canal N-5: 2,400 lf of 15-in diameter pipeline from east of Oakdale Rd. to Coffee Rd. New service for future growth & existing development (in Kiernan/Carver, Kiernan/McHenry, and Hetch Hetchy CPDs) N-6 North Trunk Tully Rd. at Bangs Ave 3,5000 lf of 10-in sewer main already installed; additional 800 lf of 10-in main to be installed New service for growth & existing development N-7 through N-9 North Trunk American Ave. & Kiernan Ave. N-7: 3,100 lf of 15-in pipeline in American Ave. (between Kiernan Ave. and Bangs Ave.) N-8: 5,600 lf of 10-in pipeline north of Kiernan Rd. from American Ave. to Carver Ave. N-9: 6,300 lf of 8-in pipeline parallel to Kiernan Ave. between Carver Rd. and Stratos Way New service for growth within Kiernan/Carver North CPD Source: Carollo Engineers 2016a 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Sewer Rehabilitation 1 Based on continued monitoring and inspection, the City has identified several sewer lines in 2 need of rehabilitation. Deteriorating sewer lines may require rehabilitation to avoid failure 3 and to improve functionality. Rehabilitation may include installing a liner or flexible coating 4 on the interior of the pipeline. Sewer rehabilitation could also include slip lining or cured-in- 5 place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These construction methods are described in more detail in 6 Section 2.4.3 below. Proposed locations of rehabilitated sewer lines are shown in Figure 2-7 7 and Figure 2-8. Table 2-5 summarizes the proposed sewer rehabilitation components. 8 Table 2-5. Summary of Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation Sites 9 Project No. Sewer Line General Location Description Key Objective Area 1 A-3 Carver Trunk Roseburg/Haney Ave Rehabilitate 3,000 lf of 18-in pipeline with cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) method recommended Preserve existing pipe integrity and extend usable life C-1 West Trunk Woodland Ave. to Sutter Plant Rehabilitate 7,500 lf of 54- and 60-in diameter pipeline with slip- lining recommended Repair existing pipe surface to preserve integrity and extend usable life Area 2 B-2 Woodland Trunk Mercy Ave. to Emerald Ave Rehabilitate 7,500 lf of 18-, 27-, and 54-in diameter pipeline with CIPP and slip-lining methods recommended Repair existing pipe surface to preserve integrity and extend usable life D-2 Emerald Trunk Briggsmore Ave. at Tully Rd Rehabilitate 110 lf of 30-in diameter pipeline with CIPP method recommended Preserve pipe usable life Area 3 – Sutter Trunk A-2 Sutter Trunk At the Sutter Plant Rehabilitate 2,200 lf of 24- and 30-in diameter pipelines with CIPP method recommended Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life C-2/S-4b Sutter Trunk Jefferson St. under H-99 Rehabilitate 400 lf of 16-in diameter pipeline with CIPP method recommended Increase pipe integrity at a critical crossing Area 4 C-3 Downtown Tributary 9th St. from Needham to 7th St. Rehabilitate with CIPP method recommended Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life D-1 Downtown Tributary 12th St. from south of D St. Morton Blvd. Rehabilitate 1,800 lf of 21/24/27- in diameter pipeline with CIPP method recommended Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Project No. Sewer Line General Location Description Key Objective Area 5 A-1 Rose Celeste/ Santa Rosa Scenic Dr.to Oregon Dr Rehabilitate 8,800 lf of 16/18/24/30 diameter pipe and force main with CIPP method recommended Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life SR-6 Santa Rosa Trunk Miller Ave. between Conejo Ave. and Phoenix Ave. Rehabilitate 1,000 lf of 18-inch- diameter pipeline. Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life Area 9 B-1 Crows Landing Trunk W. Hatch Rd. at Spokane St. to Cascade Ave. Rehabilitate 5,600 lf of 30-in diameter pipeline with CIPP method recommended Repair existing pipe to preserve integrity and extend usable life Area 3 – River Trunk RT-9 River Trunk Sutter Ave. Rehabilitate 1,300 lf of 24-in pipe – no recommended method yet determined Preserve pipe usable life RT-10 River Trunk Open space (golf course) Rehabilitate 15,000 lf of 48/60/66-in pipes - no recommended method yet determined Preserve pipe usable life RT-11 River Trunk & CSL Open space along Tuolumne River bank Riverbank armament Increase reliability of both pipelines with improved stability and prevention of future river bank erosion RT-12 CSL Diversion Structures Open space along Tuolumne Blvd. near Calaveras Ave New diversion structure Provide mechanism to divert flow between River Trunk and CSL for flow reliability management and maintenance purposes. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS KIERNAN AVE COVERT RD BACON RD BECKWITH RD NORTH AVE WOODLAND AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD WHITMORE AVE SHOEMAKE AVE BLUE GUM AVE KANSAS AVE STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE AVE CLAUS RD LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD FINNEY RD ALBERS RD C-1 D-2 B-2 C-1 A-1 A-1 B-1 C-3 D-1 A-3 HWY 99 HWY 99 ?Î Beard Industrial Park Empire North Ceres C-1 A-2 C-1 Detail B Detail B C-2/S-4B Highway 99 Detail A Detail A LS Legend Structural Rehabilitation Lift Station Sewer Main Tributary Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8/Northern Ceres Area 9 Area 10 4000 0 4000 2000 Feet Prepared by: Figure 2-7. Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation Improvements Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-32 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LSR7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS R7 LS KIERNAN AVE COVERT RD BACON RD BECKWITH RD NORTH AVE WOODLAND AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD WHITMORE AVE SHOEMAKE AVE BLUE GUM AVE KANSAS AVE STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE AVE CLAUS RD LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD FINNEY RD ALBERS RD RT-9 S-6 CT-1 RT-10 HWY 99 HWY 99 ?Î RT-12 Beard Industrial Park Empire North Ceres C-2/S4-B S4-A Highway 99 Detail A Detail A C-2B CT-1 C-2A Highway 99 Detail B Detail B RT-10 CSL Diversion Structure RT-12 Detail C Detail C LS Legend Structural Rehabilitation Reliability CSL Diversion Structure Lift Station Sewer Main Tributary Areas Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Area 8/Northern Ceres Area 9 Area 10 4000 0 4000 2000 Feet Figure 2-8. Proposed Sewer Rehabilitation and Reliability Improvements Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-34 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-35 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Lift Stations 1 The Proposed Program includes constructing 7 new lift stations and upgrading 4 existing lift 2 stations. Upgrades of existing lift stations may include the replacement of undersized pumps, 3 installation of new or larger emergency electrical generators, and elimination of overflows. If 4 necessary, the lift station structure may need to be enlarged to accommodate proposed 5 upgrades. Figure 2-6 shows the locations of the lift stations in need of upgrades and the new 6 lift stations. As described in Chapter 1, the majority of the City’s lift station elements are 7 belowground; aboveground elements typically include one or more control panels, a small 8 radio antenna (up to 25 feet tall), and some may have a storage structure and restroom 9 facility. The impervious surface area of each lift station is generally less than 1 acre. A 10 concrete masonry unit wall or security gates consisting of wrought iron or steel tube would 11 also be constructed around the perimeter of each lift station site. Depending on site 12 conditions, landscaping may also be installed in front of a lift station. Table 2-6 summarizes 13 the location, description, and key objective of each lift station component. 14 Table 2-6. Summary of Proposed Lift Station Capacity Expansions 15 Project No. Lift Station General Location Description Key Objective LS #29 – Rose & Celeste Rose-Celeste Rose Ave. and Celeste Dr. Replace existing pump station Increase capacity LS #3 - Benson Benson Hillside and Trenary Replace existing pump station Increase capacity LS #64 Dakota Dakota Rd. & Beckwith Ct. to serve future CPD New pump station Growth LS #63 Kansas Kansas Ave. & Altamont Ct. New pump station Growth LS #60 Chapman North of Chapman Dr. Replace existing lift station at new location Growth LS #67 Litt Rd. Along future Lakewood Trunk New pump station Growth LS #59 Pelandale Rd. Pelandale Ave. at Virginia Corridor New pump station Growth & existing development LS #61 Wood Sorrel Sylvan Ave. at Wood Sorrel Dr. New pump station Existing development and growth LS #62 Whitmore/Carp enter Along future Whitmore alignment between Ustick and Carpenter New pump station Growth LS # 65 Kiernan Ave. North of Kiernan Ave. around Carver Rd. New pump station Growth and some existing development LS# 30 Rumble Rumble Rd. near Bay Ln. Replace existing pump station Increase capacity LS # 39 Woodland Woodland Ave. & Poust Rd. Improve Increase capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-36 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 1 Stormwater/Sanitary Sewer Cross-Connect Disconnections 2 Another component of the Proposed Program focuses on decreasing peak flows in the 3 sanitary system by disconnecting up to 60 interconnections between the storm sewers and 4 sanitary sewers. Figure 2-9 shows the general locations of the sanitary sewer 5 disconnections. After storm events, these cross-connections typically increase substantially 6 with peak flows. Improvements may include installing new storm drainage pipes, detention 7 basins and various underground storage and percolation methods. Other improvements may 8 include: 9  Removal of piping connecting storm drainage and sanitary systems; 10  Installation of storm drainage pipelines (typically 24 to 36 inches in diameter) to 11 convey storm water runoff to existing drainage facilities; 12  Installation of storm drainage pipeline (42 to 78 inches in diameter) to provide 13 interim underground storage; 14  Installation of underground horizontal drainage systems to provide interim 15 underground storage; or 16  Installation of more rockwells to provide short-term holding capacity and 17 percolation. 18 19 Small Pipeline Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects 20 Aside from the City-wide storm drain disconnection improvements, the City proposes other 21 improvements to the overall collection system. The new City-wide program would focus on 22 small pipeline rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) projects as identified by relatively 23 recent closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage. These projects would be conducted outside 24 of the WWMP scope of work, and focus on the City’s 6-inch and 8-inch sewer mains. This 25 effort also includes some larger pipelines; however, the specific locations of the pipelines that 26 require rehabilitation and repair have not yet been identified or prioritized yet. However, 27 based on CCTV data collected, there was enough evidence to create a program to address 28 these smaller mains on an annual basis. It is anticipated that most of these pipeline 29 rehabilitation and replacement projects are in the older parts of the City including portions 30 of downtown Modesto. Throughout this DEIR, this CIP is referred to as 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- Planned for Removal Removed in late 2015 Planned for Removal Planned for Removal in 2017 99 132 108 132 Yosemite Blvd Yosemite Blvd Maze Blvd Maze Blvd E Briggsmore Ave E Briggsmore Ave E Briggsmore Ave E Briggsmore Ave Legend Sewer Main 8" or Less 9" to 18" 20" to 36" Larger than 36" Storm Drain Cross Connection Subcatchments Study Area Boundary 2,500 0 2,500 1,250 Feet Figure 2-9. Storm Drain Cross-Connections Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-38 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-39 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2.5.3 Treatment Plant Components 1 Several of the primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant are aging and require major 2 upgrades to maintain long-term and reliable service. In addition, as previously described, the 3 Sutter Plant is vulnerable to flooding due to its proximity to the Tuolumne River. As such, a 4 major component of the Proposed Program involves decommissioning critical primary 5 treatment and solids handling facilities at the Sutter Plant and constructing those facilities at 6 the Jennings Plant. Specific details about proposed components at each treatment plant are 7 provided below. 8 Sutter Plant Components 9 The following primary treatment facilities are near or exceeding their useful life and are 10 vulnerable to flooding as they are located within the 100-year floodplain: the primary 11 clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying beds. Under the Proposed Program, these 12 facilities would be decommissioned after the new primary treatment and solids handling 13 components at the Jennings Plant are complete. Similar to existing condition, the Sutter Plant 14 would continue to provide influent pumping, screening, and grit removal. Some capacity 15 upgrades to the Sutter Plant facilities are needed to accommodate future growth. The 16 following components at the Sutter Plant are planned: 17  Influent Pump Station Improvements (SP-1): Under this CIP, the influent pump 18 station would remain at the current location and a fifth pump would be installed to 19 provide sufficient capacity anticipated by 2035. The pump would provide capacity of 20 approximately 27 mgd, to allow for a firm capacity of 108 mgd and a total capacity of 21 135 mgd. The new pump would be installed within the existing facility footprint and 22 is currently anticipated to be constructed in 2027. 23  Primary Effluent Pump Station Replacement (SP-3): The existing Primary Effluent 24 Pump Station, which conveys primary effluent to the Primary Effluent Outfall, does 25 not have adequate capacity to handle future PWWF. As such, the pump station would 26 be replaced with a new effluent pump station that is designed to accommodate the 27 projected PWWF and a dry PWWF of 48.6 mgd. The new pump station would be 28 located at the southern end of the plant (refer to no. 37 on Figure 2-10). The facility 29 would be designed to withstand a 100-year flood and is expected to include odor 30 control provisions, though such provisions have not been determined at this time 31 (Pers. Comm. Eve 2017b). This CIP is anticipated to be constructed between 2023 and 32 2024. 33  Demolition of Sutter Treatment Facilities (SP-4): After the new primary treatment 34 facilities at the Jennings Plant are constructed and fully operating, several primary 35 treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant would be decommissioned and demolished in 36 2027-2028. As shown in Figure 2-10, the following facilities would be 37 decommissioned and demolished: 38  Anaerobic Digester Nos. 1 through 5 39  Polymer Mixing Building 40  Primary clarifier Nos. 1 and 2 41  Aeration Basin/Holding Basin 42  Emergency Generator No. 2 43  Solid waste storage 44  Existing Primary Effluent Pump Station (including electrical support system) 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-40 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Flood Protection Improvements (SP-5): Many of the Sutter Plant facilities are 1 located within the 100-year floodplain and are not floodproofed. Therefore, the City 2 would conduct flood protection improvements for wastewater treatment facilities 3 that are expected to remain at the Sutter Plant and are not currently designed to 4 withstand a 100-year flood. The following facilities would be floodproofed: 5  Administration and laboratory building 6  Crane storage building 7  Septic receiving station 8  Electric Sub-stations 1 and 2 9  Emergency Generator No.1 10  Portions of the Headworks (Dryden box, grit chambers, and odor control 11 blowers) 12  Odor Control biofilter 13  Vac Con Dump site 14  Pumping Plant No. 3 15 In addition, the City may need to seal or raise manholes and other appurtenances 16 onsite. These flood protection improvements would be conducted on a case-by-case 17 basis and will be prioritized based on a more detailed evaluation. 18 Plant improvements may require on-site exterior lighting. New lighting at these facilities 19 would be consistent with outdoor lighting currently used at the two wastewater treatment 20 plants. New lighting at these facilities would be directed inward to avoid glare or spillover 21 effects and may be motion-activated where beneficial and effective. Exterior coating of new 22 pump stations at the Sutter Plant would appear similar to similar structures seen throughout 23 Modesto, and that earth tones with non-reflective finishes would be used to coat 24 aboveground components at lift stations and pump station sites. 25 Outfall Pipelines 26 Under the Proposed Program, the City would conduct three major outfall improvement 27 projects to accommodate increased capacity and improve reliability of the existing outfall 28 pipelines. These projects are described below. 29 New Tuolumne River Crossings (OP-1.1) 30 The existing river crossings for the Cannery Segregation Line Outfall and Primary Effluent 31 Outfall are presumed to be in poor condition from corrosion and were constructed in such a 32 way that the alignment configurations are not conducive to lining. Therefore, the pipelines 33 are unable to be loaded under pressure necessary to convey increased flow. The existing pipe 34 crossings under the Tuolumne River would be replaced with new pipe crossings that would 35 allow the pipes to operate under pressure to increase the outfall’s flow capacities. In addition, 36 a new river crossing for the new primary effluent outfall (described below) would also be 37 constructed under this CIP. This project is planned to be constructed in the next 5 years. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- Third Outfall Existing Domestic Outfall Outfall Pump Station Not Part of Site Decomissioning 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 35 40 39 32 31 30 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 27 33 28 8 9 10 11 12 29 38 37 36 34 JOHN ST DONALD ST KENNETH ST HAYS ST CRATER AVE THOMAS ST HANCOCK ST HAMMOND ST W HATCH RD SUTTER AVE CARTWRIGHT CT 0 500 1,000 250 Feet ¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_2-10_Sutter_Plant_Demolition.mxd 7/28/2017 PG Figure 2-10 Facilities Proposed for Demolition at Sutter Plant City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Facilities to be Demolished Retained Facilities New Structure Existing Pipeline New Pipeline Third Outfall Facilities Retained 1. Collection Storage Yard 2. Collection and Electrical 3. Admin and Lab Building 4. Water Well 15A 5. Overflow Parking 6. Crane Storage Building 7. Septic Receiving Station 13. Electrical Sub-Station 1 14. Ferric Chloride Station 15. Maintenance (Staff Building) 16. Maintenance (Shop Building) 17. Emergency Generator #1 18. Electrical Sub-Station 2 19. Pumping Plant No. 3 20. Headworks 21. Air Handling Building 22. Odor Control Building 23. Sludge Thickener No. 1 (abandoned) 24. Sludge Thickener No. 2 (abandoned) 25. Gravity Belt Thickener Building 26. Polymer Mixing 30. Collection Storage Yard 31. Vac Con Dump Site 32. Water Well 15B 35. Outfall Control Building 39. Emergency Holding Basin 40. Sludge Drying Beds Facilities To Be Demolished 8. Digester 1 9. Digester 2 10. Digester 3 11. Digester 4 12. Digester 5 27. Primary Clarifier 1 28. Primary Clarifier 2 29. Sludge Handling Building 33. Aeration Basin/Holding Basin 34. Emergency Generator #2 36 Solid Waste Storage 37. Outfall Pump Station 38. Outfall Control Valves ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-42 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-43 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Constructing the pipeline crossings would entail trenchless methods including horizontal 1 directional drilling (HDD), microtunneling, or pipe bursting. These methods are described in 2 more detail in Section 2.4.4, below. Figure 2-11 shows a preliminary site plan for the new 3 Tuolumne River crossings including the approximate locations of the jacking pits, junction 4 structures, and force main alignments. As shown in Figure 2-11, the northern jacking pit 5 would be west of the Sutter Plant drying beds and just north of the Tuolumne River; the 6 southern jacking pit and junction structure would be at the southwest corner of the Hatch 7 Road and Monticello Lane intersection. It is anticipated that each force main would be 48 8 inches in diameter and would be approximately 550 feet long. Two of these force mains 9 would connect with the existing Primary Effluent Outfall and the Cannery Segregation Line 10 Outfall at the upstream and ends of the crossings. Approximately 1,450 feet of 11 force main would be installed at the upstream side and 1,200 of force main would be installed 12 at the end of the crossings. In addition, four pipeline junction structures would 13 be installed: two at the upstream side of the crossing and two at the end of the 14 crossing. Approximately 2,300 feet of the existing outfall pipelines, including 500 feet of the 15 existing river crossing, would be abandoned. 16 New Primary Effluent Outfall Pipeline (OP-1.2) 17 A new primary effluent outfall pipeline would be constructed to convey primary effluent 18 flows from the Sutter Plant to the new primary treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant. 19 Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12 show the preliminary alignment of the new primary effluent 20 outfall. The new pipeline would be approximately 9 miles long and 54 inches in diameter. 21 From the Tuolumne River crossing, the new outfall pipeline would continue south on 22 Carpenter Road, west on Keyes Road, south on Jennings Road, and then continue west and 23 terminate at the Jennings Plant. 24 This CIP is needed to accommodate increased capacity for domestic flows. The new outfall 25 pipeline would accommodate the projected 2035 PWWF of 85 mgd. Currently, Pumping Plant 26 No. 3, which conveys Cannery Segregation flows around the Sutter Plant and to the Cannery 27 Segregation Line Outfall, is undergoing improvements to allow for year-round diversion. 28 Once upgrades to Pumping Plant No. 3 are complete, the Cannery Segregation Line Outfall 29 will no longer be able to convey domestic flows during peak flow events (which currently 30 operates in this fashion). The third outfall pipeline would also provide redundancy for 31 Cannery Segregation flows. For example, in the event that one of the two existing outfalls fails, 32 the City would need to combine domestic and Cannery Segregation flows into one pipeline 33 and require that all Cannery Segregation flows be treated at the Jennings Plant, which has a 34 treatment capacity of 2 mgd. Incoming Cannery Segregation flows greater than 2 mgd would 35 overwhelm the treatment process at the Jennings Plant and could result in a discharge 36 violation. 37 Slip Lining of a Portion of the Cannery Segregation Line Outfall (OP-3) 38 In the long-term (2027 to 2028), the City anticipates that improvements to the existing 39 Cannery Segregation Line Outfall would be needed. Although the condition of the Cannery 40 Segregation Line’s interior is unknown and is primarily used to convey cannery process 41 water flows, the outfall was used to convey domestic flows before 1999 and is currently used 42 to convey domestic flows during the wet weather season. As such, some pipe deterioration 43 may have occurred over the years. In the future, a condition assessment of the Cannery 44 Segregation Line may be needed to confirm whether lining is necessary. The City currently 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-44 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 anticipates that lining would be needed for half of the pipeline’s length. This effort would 1 involve slip-lining the existing outfall pipeline with a plastic liner to improve its condition and 2 reliability. 3 Jennings Plant Components 4 CIPs proposed at the Jennings Plant include various modifications to the secondary and 5 tertiary treatment facilities and construction of new primary treatment and solids processing 6 facilities including digesters and drying beds. These Program improvements would 7 accommodate planned growth for domestic and commercial wastewater flows through 2035. 8 Figure 1-4 shows the existing site plan of the Jennings Plant. Such improvements would 9 increase the impermeable surface area of the Jennings Plant by approximately 27 acres. 10 Additional detail about each CIP is provided below. 11 Biological Nutrient Removal/Tertiary Phase 3 Expansion 12 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)/Tertiary Phase 3 Expansion (JP-1.1) The City plans 13 to expand tertiary treatment facilities by 2027 to reliably meet BOD loading limits and to 14 increase tertiary effluent. In June 2017, the Central Valley issued a renewed NPDES 15 permit (Order R5-2017-0064, NPDES No. CA0079103) that allows tertiary treated 16 wastewater discharge to the San Joaquin River. Currently, the NPDES permit allows 17 discharges of up to 14.9 mgd, and upon completion of the Phase 3 upgrades, the City will be 18 permitted to discharge up to 19.1 mgd year-round. In the near future, the Central Valley 19 is expected to issue a new waste discharge requirement (WDR) that decreases the 20 secondary effluent BOD limit for land application from 300 to 40 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 21 The tertiary facilities were designed to be expanded in three phases (Phases 3-5). The first of 22 these phases, the proposed Phase 3 expansion, would be required within the planning period. 23 Figure 2-13 shows the general location of the expanded tertiary treatment facilities. 24 Secondary Treatment Modifications 25 Within the next 5 years, the City plans to complete the following modifications at the Jennings 26 secondary treatment plant facilities: 27  Fixed Film Reactor (FFR) Rehabilitation (JP-2.1). This CIP involves replacing the 28 damaged portion of the existing FFR media as well as the rotary distributor, and air 29 supply fans to increase the FFRs’ performance. The pumps in the FFR pump station 30 would be replaced with variable frequency drives to meet minimum hydraulic 31 loading requirements. In addition, the FFR Effluent Box would be expanded and a new 32 connection piping would be installed. 33  Dredging (JP-2.2). The digestion pits of the facultative ponds are currently full. 34 Dredging of the digestion pits in Facultative Pond No. 3 would be required to restore 35 treatment capacity. Approximately 2,100 dry tons of solids would be removed from 36 this pond. The solids would be dewatered and disposed off-site at an appropriate 37 facility. 38  Dissolved Air Flotation Piping (JP-2.3). Under this CIP, the City would modify DAF 39 effluent piping to convey flow to the Irrigation Forebay, which is used for Ranch Land 40 irrigation. The DAFs remove algae and suspended solids from the pond effluent. 41 These modifications are also shown in Figure 2-14. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 2-11. Site Plan for Proposed Tuolumne River Pipeline Crossings Source: Carollo 2016a City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: 400 0 400 200 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-46 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Route for Third Outfall Sutter Plant Tuolumne River Pipe Crossings Existing Route Jennings Plant Sutt Plan Tuolumne Rive T e MODESTO MODESTO Existing Primary Effluent Outfall and Cannery Segregation Line Conceptual Alignment of Proposed Third Outfall Pipeline Tuolumne River Pipe Crossings Sutter Plant Jennings Plant Tuol um n e R iv er S a n J oaq ui n R iver Tuol um n e R iv er S a n J oaq ui n R iver Route for Third Outfall Existing Route LEGEND 4000 0 4000 2000 Feet City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 2-12. Proposed Alignment for Third Outfall Pipeline Source: Carollo 2016a Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-48 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Digesters Potential Future Digester RS PE PS WAS TWAS DS Digester Control Building Primary Sludge Pump Station Flow Splitting Structure Bypass to Recirculation Channel Flow Junction Structure Primary Clarifiers Existing Domestic Outfall Flow Crossover Structure Existing Can Seg Outfall Third Outfall Existing Primary Effluent Pump Station PE Sludge Cake Drying Beds Sludge Thickening/ Dewatering Facility Phase 3-5 BNR/Tertiary Facilities Aerobic Digester for Interim WAS Handling LEGEND New Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities Existing New Tertiary Treatment Facilities New Interim WAS Handling Facilities Future Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Sludge Can Seg Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Primary Sludge Waste Activated Sludge Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Digested Sludge RS PE PS WAS TWAS DS Figure 2-13. Proposed Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities at Jennings Plant Source: Carollo 2016a City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: 200 0 200 100 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-50 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Digesters Potential Future Digester RS PE PS WAS TWAS TWAS DS DS Sludge Thickening/ Dewatering Facility Aerobic Digester Digester Control Building Primary Sludge Pump Station Flow Junction Structure Bypass to Recirculation Channel Flow Splitting Structure Primary Clarifiers Existing Domestic Outfall Existing Can Seg Outfall Third Outfall PE BNR/Tertiary Phase 3 Existing Primary Effluent Pump Station Irrigation Pump Station Fixed Film Reactor Pump Station Fixed Film Reactors Irrigation Reservoir Mixing Box Storage Pond No. 1 Storage Pond No. 2 Treatment Pond No. 1 Treatment Pond No. 2 Treatment Pond No. 3 with Aerators Irrigation Forebay Storage Pump Station Storage Forebay Chlorine Contact Tank Forebay Relocated Compost Facilities Recirculation Channel with Aerators San Joaquin River Storage Afterbay BNR/Tertiary Treatment DAF Effluent Pipeline to Irrigation Forebay Dissolved Air Flotation Facility DAF Raw Water Pump Station Effluent Line to Treatment Pond No. 3 Berm in Effluent Collector Sludge Cake Drying Beds 1,000 ft LEGEND RS PE PS WAS TWAS DS BNR/Tertiary Phase 3 Interim WAS Handling Facilities Future Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities Modified Secondary Treatment Facilities Existing Facilities Existing Future Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Sludge Can Seg Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Primary Sludge Waste Activated Sludge Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Digested Sludge Figure 2-14. Overview of New/Modified Facilities at Jennings Plant Source: Carollo 2016b City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Prepared by: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-52 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-53 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Cannery Segregation Treatment Facilities Upgrade 1 The City may begin accepting additional cannery segregation flow from the canneries during 2 the canning season. Up to approximately 25 percent of the current peak canning season flows 3 and loads are anticipated; this is equivalent to an additional 5 mgd. To allow for new 4 discharges to the cannery segregation system or enable the system to reduce BOD loading, 5 several upgrades are necessary. A portion of the existing secondary treatment infrastructure 6 would be upgraded and designated for treating the additional flow. 7  Aerators in Recirculation Channel (JP-3.1). Approximately sixty 50-horsepower 8 (hp) surface mechanical aerators, or another aeration system, would be installed in 9 the Recirculation Channel to increase treatment capacity. A new electrical system, 10 including transformers, motor control centers, and new ductbanks, would replace the 11 mostly abandoned existing electrical service. 12  Nutrient Feed System (JP-3.2). This would consist of installing new chemical feed 13 pumps and storage tanks.Effluent Channel Berm and FFR Effluent Pipeline (JP- 14 3.3). A berm in the existing effluent channel would be added to keep effluent from the 15 designated domestic pond (Facultative Treatment Pond No. 3) separate from the 16 designated Cannery Segregation ponds (Facultative Treatment Ponds No. 1 and 17 The recirculation channel would be designated for cannery segregation flow and 18 therefore, a new FFR effluent pipeline to Facultative Pond No. 3 would also be 19 installed. 20  Dredging (JP-3.4). The digestion pits of the facultative ponds are currently full. The 21 Recirculation Channel also has large amounts of biosolids accumulated on the bottom 22 of the channel. Dredging of the digestion pits of Facultative Ponds No. 1 and 2 and the 23 Recirculation Channel would be required to restore treatment capacity. 24 Approximately 16,000 dry tons of solids would be removed from these facilities. 25 Dredging and dewatering work would be performed by another party and solids 26 disposal would occur offsite. 27  Pond Aerators (JP-3.5). Under this project, twelve new 50-hp surface mechanical 28 aerators would be installed to meet the BOD loading limit. As part of this effort, new 29 electrical systems, transformers, and motor controls would be installed to support 30 the aerators. Existing electrical hardware would be either abandoned or removed. 31 Interim Waste Activated Sludge Handling Facilities 32 Within the next five years, the City plans to install interim WAS handling facilities to treat 33 WAS prior to the primary treatment and solids handling facilities relocation to the Jennings 34 Plant. Figure 2-13 shows the location of the proposed interim WAS handling facilities. 35  Aerobic Digester (JP-4.1). A 2-MG aerobic digester would stabilize WAS from the 36 Phases 1 and 2 BNR/tertiary treatment processes. Eight fifty-horsepower surface 37 aerators and the associated electrical system would provide mixing and oxygen to the 38 process. 39  Solids Processing Building (JP-4.2). Under this, the biosolids dewatering and WAS 40 thickening equipment would be constructed and enclosed in a new solids processing 41 building. Two sieve drum concentrators, which are used to thicken and reduce the 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-54 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 WAS volume before and after the digester, would be installed in the building. One 1 would thicken WAS before anaerobic digestion, while the other would thicken 2 digested sludge prior to dewatering. The sludge would then be directed to a belt filter 3 press or similar process equipment to dewater the digested sludge. 4  Sludge Cake Drying Beds (JP- 4.3). Sludge cake, which is dewatered digested sludge, 5 would be solar-dried in new drying beds to reduce its volume and weight and to treat 6 it to Class B1 standards for land application at the City's approximately 2,500-acre 7 ranch lands. The new drying beds would be constructed on City-owned land that was 8 formerly used as a composting facility to the east of the BNR/tertiary treatment 9 facilities. Five acres of drying beds would be required for WAS treatment. The drying 10 beds would consist of an asphalt-paved area with concrete containment walls and 11 piping for drainage and decant return to the existing tailwater pump station. To 12 accommodate additional flows, the tailwater pump station would be rehabilitated as 13 the drying bed facilities are constructed. Once the biosolids have dried and treated to 14 Class B standards, they would be applied to the City’s ranch lands; no additional land 15 would need to be acquired. 16 Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities Relocation 17 Figure 2-13 shows the locations of proposed primary treatment and solids handling facilities 18 to be constructed at the Jennings Plant. These facilities would replace the aging facilities at 19 the Sutter Plant and would be constructed just east of the existing Jennings Plant facilities. 20 The City currently plans to construct these components between 2023 and 2025. 21  New Primary Treatment Facilities (JP-5.1). Three 110-foot diameter clarifiers and 22 primary sludge and scum pumping equipment would be installed. 23  Yard Piping Structures (JP-5.2). This CIP includes installing new yard piping to 24 connect new primary treatment and solids handling facilities to the existing 25 secondary treatment facilities. Flow splitting structures would also be installed. 26  Anaerobic Digesters (JP-5.3). Under this CIP, three new anaerobic digesters and a 27 Digester Control Building would be constructed. The digesters would be 115 feet in 28 diameter and have a 31-foot side-water depth, and would treat WAS and primary 29 sludge from the new clarifiers and new Digester Control Building. The building would 30 include electrical, mechanical, instrumentation and controls, digester mixing, and 31 heating equipment. 32  Solids Processing Building (JP-5.4). The two existing sieve drum concentrators 33 would thicken WAS before it is sent to the digesters. Afterward, four belt filter 34 presses, three new and one existing from the interim WAS handling project, or 35 another process, would dewater the digested sludge before it is sent to the sludge 36 cake drying beds. The WAS thickening and biosolids dewatering equipment would be 37 located in an enclosed building constructed during interim WAS handling project. 38 1 The disposal of biosolids is regulated by the federal biosolids rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 503), which identifies allowed uses for Class A biosolids (contain no detectible levels of pathogens) and Class B biosolids (treated but contain higher levels of detectible pathogens than Class A biosolids). Class B biosolids are currently produced at the Sutter Plant. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-55 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Sludge Drying Beds (JP-5.5). The 5-acre drying beds constructed as part of 1 component JP-4.3, described above, would be expanded to 18.6 acres. Dewatered 2 digested sludge would be solar-dried in new beds just east of the new primary plant. 3 The drying beds would be asphalt-paved areas with concrete containment walls and 4 piping for drainage and decant return to the existing tailwater pump station. Dried 5 sludge would meet Class B standards and would eventually be applied to City’s ranch 6 land. 7 Lighting and Landscaping 8 Jennings Plant improvements may require on-site exterior lighting. New lighting at this 9 facility would be consistent with outdoor lighting currently used at the two wastewater 10 treatment plants. New lighting at the Jennings Plant would be directed inward to avoid glare 11 or spillover effects, and may be motion-activated where beneficial and effective. 12 2.5.4 Construction Methods 13 Construction of proposed improvements to the City’s collection system and treatment 14 facilities would involve several types of activities: site preparation; demolition and removal 15 of some existing facilities; earthwork (grading and excavation); pipeline installation; and 16 facility construction. These activities are described below. As indicated in Section 2.4.5, 17 Construction Schedule and Phasing, construction would occur throughout the Program 18 planning period and within the construction period for each component, there would be 19 periods of more intensive activity and associated peaks in construction traffic, typically 20 during ground-disturbing activities, followed by longer periods of reduced activity. 21 Site Preparation and Demolition 22 Site preparation would include clearing and grubbing at each CIP site. Clearing and grubbing 23 would be conducted using standard excavators, bulldozers, and hand labor. Depending on the 24 CIP project, other site preparation work may involve demolition of existing 25 facilities/structures, excavation, import, and placement of fill, and compaction. Demolition of 26 primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant primary clarifiers and digesters) would 27 involve removal and proper disposal of all mechanical and electrical equipment, and 28 demolition of above- and below-ground structures. An estimated 14,000 cubic yards of 29 building material would be demolished at the Sutter Plant. Demolition waste would consist 30 of concrete, steel, and other miscellaneous building materials. Some or all of the waste would 31 require disposal at a landfill or hazardous waste facility. An estimated 12,000 cubic yards of 32 material would be excavated, and approximately 48,000 cubic yards of material would be 33 backfilled at the Sutter Plant. Once these facilities have been demolished, the site would be 34 leveled so that the site could be used for future facilities. 35 To the extent feasible, excavated soil would be reused on-site. If required, fill would be 36 delivered to the project sites by conventional haul trucks with a capacity of up to 20 cubic 37 yards (cy) per load. Fill material would be placed with an excavator and compacted with a 38 compactor/roller. 39 Pipeline Construction 40 Pipeline construction activities would take place using either open trench or trenchless 41 methods. These activities are described below. In general, typical equipment utilized during 42 pipeline installation includes excavators and backhoes, loaders, tractor trailer trucks for 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-56 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 hauling equipment, concrete trucks, graders, asphalt pavers and rollers, compaction 1 equipment, and various smaller service vehicles. 2 Open Trench. For new pipelines that would be installed beneath existing streets, the general 3 process for pipeline installation involves digging a trench, installing the pipe, and backfilling 4 the trench (“cut and cover”). In existing streets, the cut-and-cover method involves removing 5 the asphalt, roadway base, and underlying soil; all materials are replaced at the completion 6 of the program. The depth and width of the trenches would vary depending upon the size of 7 the pipe and take into consideration the presence of other existing utility lines. For the new 8 effluent outfall pipeline, the width of the trench would be approximately 8 feet wide and 9 approximately 11 feet deep. Depending on the time of year and soils underlying the CIP site, 10 groundwater dewatering work may be required. 11 In general, the maximum length of an open trench would be the distance necessary to 12 accommodate the amount of pipe that can be laid in one day. For new sewer pipelines, 13 typically 200 to 400 feet can be laid with one crew working. A typical crew size includes 5 14 workers. In the event that multiple crews are working on a particular pipeline project, more 15 than 400 feet of new pipeline can be installed. For the new outfall pipeline, average pipeline 16 construction would progress at a rate of 100 feet per day. 17 To the extent feasible, pipeline construction activities would occur within the limits of the 18 City or County right-of-way boundaries, City utility easement, and/or construction easement. 19 The width of the construction area varies both on the extent of applicable easements and 20 pipeline diameter. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, the approximate width of the 21 construction areas would be 20 feet. Depending on the project location, construction crews 22 may close one lane of traffic temporarily during pipe installation. 23 Trenchless Methods. Where new or replacement sewer pipelines and outfall pipelines 24 would cross creeks Dry Creek and Tuolumne River) or where open trench methods 25 would be problematic due to the presence of underground utilities, railroad crossings, or 26 other right-of-way issues; the City would use trenchless pipeline installation methods 27 including HDD, microtunneling, or pipe bursting. New sewer pipeline construction may also 28 entail slip-lining or CIPP methods. In addition, pile drivers would be used for horizontal 29 drilling. These methods are summarized below. 30  HDD involves the use of a drill rig that is tilted at the top at an angle of 10-15 degrees 31 from the surface. A small pilot hole is drilled along a pre-determined horizontal and 32 vertical alignment from the entry pit to exit pit. A slurry consisting of water clay is 33 then drilled via a drill string; the pressure along with the rotating drill bit excavates 34 the material. The excavated material is transported back to the entry pit along the 35 outside of the drill string. 36  Microtunneling requires the construction of insertion pits, pipe jacking (pipes pushed 37 behind the small tunneling machine), and application of a lubricant to maintain 38 pressure and prevent the shafts and the tunnel from collapsing. The tunneling 39 machine is controlled by a computer and is typically accurate. The construction crews 40 first establish the launch pit and a receiving pit on either side of the waterway or 41 utility crossing. Temporary dewatering may be needed at the pits. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-57 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Pipe bursting is another trenchless method in which an insertion pit and receiving pit 1 are established on both sides of the waterway and/or utility or road crossing. 2 Temporary groundwater dewatering may be needed at the pit excavation areas. A 3 mechanically applied bursting tool is used to apply force on the existing pipe which 4 breaks either by brittle fracture or by splitting. At the same time, a new pipe is pulled 5 in to replace the existing pipe and the back end of the bursting head connects with 6 the new pipe. The front end is connected to a cable or pulling rod that is pulled from 7 the receiving pit. The bursting head is pulled through the existing pipe debris and 8 creates a temporary cavity. 9  CIPP lining is a trenchless method used to rehabilitate cracked, broken or failed sewer 10 pipes. A resin-saturated felt tube consisting of polyester, fiberglass cloth or another 11 substance for resin impregnation, is inverted or pulled into a damaged pipe typically 12 from the upstream side. The liner and resin is pressed into cracks, joints, and lateral 13 connection flares to lock the liner into place. 14  Sliplining is conducting by installing a smaller (referred to as a “carrier pipe”) into a 15 larger (‘host pipe’), grouting the annular space between the two pipes, and sealing the 16 ends. 17 Construction of Lift Stations and Other Aboveground Facilities 18 Most of the lift station upgrades would be constructed within the existing footprint of lift 19 station structures. For new lift stations, construction activities would generally involve 20 excavation, shoring, and possible groundwater dewatering. Other new aboveground facilities 21 to be constructed such as primary clarifiers and anaerobic digesters, would entail excavation 22 for foundations of the structures and conventional concrete and steel methods. Construction 23 may also include sheeting and shoring work for necessary piping and underground utility 24 connections. Other activities would likely include connecting mechanical, structural, and 25 electrical instruments. 26 River Trunk Realignment Project Construction 27 Construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project would occur in three different phases. 28  Dry Creek Crossing and Pipeline to River Trunk Pump Station (Phase The 29 first phase of the project includes constructing a new 48-inch-diameter pipeline 30 crossing at Dry Creek, the River Trunk Pump Station at Morton Boulevard, a new 31 gravity pipeline along B street that connects to the River Trunk Pump Station, and a 32 portion of the new River Trunk force main. Currently, the City is considering two 33 different approaches for establishing a dry and stable work area for the River Trunk 34 Pump Station: designing the temporary shoring system to be part of the 35 permanent pump station, or design a temporary shoring system to create a dry 36 and stable work area and construct permanent structural walls for the pump station 37 separately (Carollo Engineers 2016c). Pile drivers would be used during the 38 horizontal drilling process and during construction of the wet well. 39  Gravity Pipelines (Phase The second phase of the project includes constructing 40 the Tuolumne and Neece junction structure and gravity pipelines beneath Tuolumne 41 Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, and across the Dryden Golf Course. This phase also 42 includes constructing the force main from the River Trunk Pump Station to the 43 Tuolumne and Neece junction structure. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-58 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Shackelford Pump Station and Pipeline (Phase The third phase of the project 1 includes constructing the new Shackelford Pump Station located west of Crows 2 Landing Road and east of the Tuolumne River. This pump station will pump flows 3 through a new force main under Tuolumne River using recently constructed inverted 4 siphons. From the Tuolumne River crossing, a new force main would be installed 5 through the Dryden Park Golf Course, continue west, and terminate at a manhole in 6 Roselawn Avenue where the flow would be conveyed by gravity to the new River 7 Trunk line at Colorado Avenue and Pelton Avenue. Pile driving would be required 8 during construction of the wet well and pump station. 9 During the first phase of the project, both open trench and trenchless pipeline installation 10 methods would be used. Open trench methods would mostly be employed for pipeline 11 segments planned within the road right-of-way. Trenchless construction methods would be 12 used to install the 48-inch pipeline beneath Dry Creek and the two pipeline crossings at 7th 13 Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing. Trenchless methods would also be used to 14 install the overflow structure at the River Trunk Pump Station site. The Gallo Winery parking 15 lot would be used as a staging area and another potential staging area would be located on a 16 vacant lot located between Tuolumne Boulevard and South 7th Street. Table 2-7 summarizes 17 work areas associated with Phase 1 of the River Trunk Realignment Project. 18 Table 2-7. Summary of Construction Work Areas for River Trunk Realignment Project 19 (Phase 1) 20 River Trunk Realignment Project – Phase 1 Work Areas Approximate Area (square feet) River Trunk Pump Station 57,000 Insertion Pits Near Tuolumne Blvd. 1,000 Insertion Pits Located South of Potential Staging Area 1,000 Potential Staging Area Near Tuolumne Blvd. 13,600 Gallo Staging Area 28,600 21 Pipeline construction activities are estimated to require excavation of approximately 102,400 22 cubic yards of soil and the pump stations would require roughly excavation of 15,900 cubic 23 yards of soil. While much of this material would be reused as backfill, approximately 45,500 24 cubic yards of soil would require off-site disposal. Approximately 19,555 cubic yards of soil 25 would be imported. Table B-1 in Appendix B (which contains air quality modeling results) 26 summarizes key construction characteristics cut and fill quantities, depth of excavation, 27 construction equipment, and duration) of each element for the River Trunk Realignment 28 Project. 29 2.5.5 Construction Schedule and Phasing 30 Construction of the overall Proposed Program is anticipated to last for up to approximately 31 25 years, beginning in 2019 and completed in 2030 to 2035. Figure 2-15 presents the 32 proposed schedule and phasing for construction of the Program components. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 2‐15. Modesto WWMP Construction Phasing Construction Timeframe/Phasing Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 River Trunk Realignment Project 1 Dry Creek Crossing and Pipeline to River Trunk Pump Station 2 Gravity Lines 3 Shackelford Pump Station and Force Main Collection System Improvements New and Upgraded Sewer Pipelines W‐1 West Trunk W‐3 West Trunk W‐4 West Trunk W‐6 West Trunk W‐7 West Trunk D‐1, D‐3, D‐4, and DDale Trunk R‐1 Rumble Trunk R‐2 Rumble Trunk S‐1 Sutter Trunk DT‐1 J Street Trunk DT‐2 Kimble Street SR‐4 Santa Rosa Trunk EM‐4 Empire Trunk EM‐3 Empire Trunk SO‐1 thru SO‐3 Sonoma Trunk SO‐4 Sonoma Trunk L‐1 thru L‐4 Lakewood Trunk L‐5 Lakewood Trunk L‐6 Lakewood Trunk U‐1 thru U‐4 Ustick Trunk N‐1 and N‐2 North Trunk N‐3 thru N‐5 North Trunk N‐6 North Trunk N‐7 thru N‐9 North Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Improvements A‐3 Carver Trunk C‐1 West Trunk B‐2 Woodland Trunk D‐2 Emerald Trunk A‐2 Sutter Trunk S‐4b/C‐2 Sutter Trunk and South Trunk C‐3 Downtown Tributary D‐1 Downtown Tributary A‐1 Rose Celeste/Santa Rosa B‐1 Crows Landing Trunk RT‐9 River Trunk RT‐10 River Trunk RT‐11 River Trunk & CSL RT‐12 CSL Diversion Structures SR‐6 Santa Rosa Trunk Lift Station Improvements LS #29 ‐ Rose & CeleRose‐Celeste LS #3 ‐ Benson Benson LS #64 Dakota LS #63 Kansas LS #60 Chapman LS #67 Litt Rd LS # 59 Pelandale Rd LS #61 Wood Sorrel LS #62 Whitmore/Carpenter LS #65 Kiernan Ave LS #30 Rumble LS #39 Woodland Treatment Plant Improvements Sutter Plant Modifications SP‐1 Influent Pump Station Improvements SP‐3 Primary Effluent Pump Station Replacement SP‐4 Demolition of Sutter Treatment Facilities SP‐5 Flood Protection Improvements Outfall Pipelines OP‐1.1 New Tuolumne River Crossings OP‐1.2 New Primary Effluent Outfall OP‐3 Slip‐lining a Portion of the Cannery Segregation Line Jennings Plant Improvements JP‐1.1 Phase 3 of Tertiary Treatment Facility JP‐2.1 Fixed Film Reactors Rehabilitation JP‐2.2 Dredging JP‐2.3 Dissolved Air Flotation Piping JP‐3.1 Aerators in Recirculation Channel JP‐3.2 Nutrient Feed System JP‐3.3 Effluent Channel Berm and Effluent Pipeline JP‐3.4 Dredging JP‐3.5 Pond Aerators JP‐4.1 Aerobic Digester JP‐4.2 Solids Processing Building (WAS thickening and biosolids dewatering facilities) JP‐4.3 Sludge Cake Drying Beds JP‐5.1 Primary Treatment Facilities JP‐5.2 Yard Piping and Structures JP‐5.3 Anaerobic Digesters JP‐5.4 Solids Processing Building (WAS thickening and biosolids dewatering facilities) JP‐5.5 Sludge Cake Drying Beds Phase 1 Project No. Facility Name ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-60 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-61 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 River Trunk Realignment Construction Schedule 1 As described above, construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project would be completed 2 in three phases. Phase 1 of the project, which involves construction of the pump station and 3 pipeline crossing at Dry Creek, would occur over a 30-month period. The second phase of the 4 project, which involves construction of the gravity pipelines, would occur over a 12-month 5 period. The third phase, which entails construction of the Shackelford Pump Station and force 6 main, would take place over an 18-month period. 7 Construction Schedule for Other Program-level Components 8 The City would construct the program-level components in several phases and are referred 9 to as Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. The CIPs are scheduled based on priority such that critical 10 components are planned in the near-term. 11 In the near-term (between 2019 and 2020), the City plans to upgrade and rehabilitate several 12 sewer trunk lines including the Crows Landing Trunk, Woodland Trunk, River Trunk, and 13 others. The City also plans to construct the third phase expansion of the tertiary treatment 14 facilities and secondary treatment plant components at the Jennings Plant within the next 5 15 years. 16 As shown in Figure 2-15 many CIPs are anticipated to occur in Phase 2 (between 2021 and 17 2025). Note that the bars presented in Figure 2-15 represent the general construction 18 timeframe in which a particular CIP would take place (not the actual construction duration). 19 Several sewer trunk pipelines would be replaced and upgraded including the Ustick Trunk, 20 North Trunk, and Rumble Trunk. In addition, the City plans to complete five lift station 21 projects, the Primary Effluent Pump Station Replacement, the new Primary Effluent Outfall 22 pipeline, and the new primary treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant. 23 Under Phase 3 (2026-2030), the City anticipates completing three sewer upgrade projects 24 and three lift station projects. Within this timeframe, the City would complete improvements 25 to the Influent Pump Station, demolish several facilities at the Sutter Plant, and conduct flood 26 protection improvements for facilities that would remain at the plant. A portion of the 27 Cannery Segregation Line would also be slip-lined within this timeframe. 28 Lastly, Phase 4 (2031-2035) would primarily include sewer line and lift station upgrades that 29 are necessary for accommodating future growth areas. 30 Construction activities would generally occur Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 31 5:00 p.m., excluding City-observed holidays. However, it is possible that some construction 32 activities may need to occur on weekends or outside of the hours indicated above (after 5pm 33 or before 7am). 34 2.5.6 Project Operations 35 Operation of the Proposed Program would primarily involve inspection and maintenance of 36 the City-wide wastewater system. Following implementation of the Proposed Program, 37 standard operating procedures and treatment methods currently performed at the Sutter 38 Plant would be relocated to the Jennings Plant. All wastewater sanitation activities would be 39 centralized and conducted at the Jennings Plant but in a manner similar to existing 40 operations. Compared to existing conditions, systemwide electricity use at the Jennings Plant 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-62 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 would increase to operate the new primary treatment and solids handling facilities, 1 secondary treatment modifications, and tertiary treatment upgrades, 2 Approximately 60 current staff working at the Sutter Plant are expected to relocate to the 3 Jennings Plant. All other current Collection Systems staffing positions are expected to remain 4 at the Sutter Plant, and would utilizing the existing buildings and space for wastewater 5 collections operations and maintenance needs. The majority of staff relocating to the Jennings 6 Plant would be responsible for operating the newly constructed plant facilities. In general, 7 operation and maintenance activities would increase at the Jennings Plant due to 8 construction of new BNR/Tertiary Phase 3 facilities, modifications to the secondary 9 treatment facilities, and new primary treatment and solids handling facilities. Operation and 10 maintenance activities at the Jennings Plant would result in greater commute trips and 11 chemical deliveries to and from the plant, and less commuter and chemical delivery trips to 12 and from the Sutter Plant. Because the new drying beds would be situated at the Jennings 13 Plant, the truck trip length to and from the City’s ranch lands would be substantially shorter 14 compared to existing conditions as biosolids are currently hauled from the Sutter Plant to the 15 ranch lands near the Jennings Plant. 16 2.6 Permits and Approvals 17 Table 2-8 below summarizes permits and approvals anticipated to be needed for 18 implementation of the River Trunk Realignment Project. 19 Table 2-8. Anticipated Permit and Regulatory Requirements for the River Trunk 20 Realignment Project 21 Regulatory Agency Law/Regulation Purpose Permit/Authorization Type California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Applies to activities that will substantially modify a river, steam, or lake; includes reasonable conditions necessary to protect those resources Streambed Alteration Agreement California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Section 660 of the California Streets and Highways Code Applies to pipeline construction activities that occur beneath Caltrans right-of-way Encroachment permit California State Lands Commission General Lease-Public Agency Use Required for forcemain crossing the Tuolumne River Approval of improvements under General Lease Central Valley Flood Protection Board Water Code 8710, California Code of Regulations Title 23 Required for Dry Creek pipeline crossing and forcemain crossing the Tuolumne River Encroachment Permit ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-63 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Regulatory Agency Law/Regulation Purpose Permit/Authorization Type San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 8021 Limit fugitive dust emissions from construction Construction Notification Form Union Pacific Railroad N/A Required for pipeline crossing beneath Union Pacific Railroad License Agreement 1 With respect to other components of the Proposed Program, the EIR may be used by various 2 regulatory agencies issuing permits or other approvals, or conducting consultations for 3 individual Proposed Program components. Many of these agencies are similar to those 4 described above for the River Trunk Realignment Project; agencies that may use the EIR as 5 part of their decision-making process for the larger Proposed Program include the following: 6  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 8  National Marine Fisheries Service 9  State Water Resources Control Board 10  Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11  California Department of Fish and Wildlife 12  California Department of Transportation 13  California State Lands Commission 14  Central Valley Flood Protection Board 15  Stanislaus County 16  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 17  Modesto Irrigation District 18  Turlock Irrigation District 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 2. Program Description Wastewater Master Plan 2-64 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 3-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 3 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2 3.1 OVERVIEW 3 Chapters 4 through 18 of this DEIR describe the potentially affected environmental resources 4 and potential environmental impacts (and applicable mitigation measures) of the Proposed 5 Program. The regulatory setting discussion in each chapter identifies applicable federal, state, 6 and local plans, policies, and regulations.1 Each chapter also describes the existing 7 environmental setting and background information on the resource topics to help the reader 8 understand the conditions that could be affected by the Proposed Program. In addition, each 9 chapter includes a discussion of the methodology and criteria used in determining the 10 significance levels of the Proposed Program’s environmental impacts. Finally, for identified 11 significant impacts, where feasible, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the adverse 12 effects of significant impacts. 13 This chapter summarizes the EIR study area, describes the DEIR’s consideration of baseline 14 conditions, describes terminology used throughout this DEIR, clarifies how program-level 15 versus project level-analyses are presented in this DEIR, defines who is responsible for 16 implementing proposed mitigation measures, and describes resource sections that have been 17 eliminated from further consideration in the DEIR. 18 3.2 EIR STUDY AREA AND PROGRAM AREA 19 The study area for this DEIR encompasses the sewer service area for the WWMP that would 20 be addressed by the various CIPs, including the limits of the City of Modesto, a portion of 21 north Ceres, Beard Industrial Park District, and the unincorporated community of Empire. 22 The study area also includes areas within the City’s sphere of influence, the proposed 23 alignment of the third outfall, the Jennings Plant, and the approximately 2,500 acres of City- 24 owned ranch lands south of the Jennings Plant. 25 As noted in Chapter 2, the term “Program area” refers to areas where proposed CIPs would 26 be constructed, including the City proper and unincorporated Stanislaus County. All proposed 27 CIPs are within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Modesto or unincorporated Stanislaus 28 County. No CIPs are planned in north Ceres or other communities in the City’s sewer service 29 area. 30 3.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF BASELINE CONDITIONS 31 Under CEQA, the environmental setting, or “baseline,” serves as a gauge to assess changes to 32 existing physical conditions that would occur as a result of a Proposed Program. In 33 1 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. This discussion is included in Chapter 13, Land Use and Planning. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 3. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis Wastewater Master Plan 3-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 accordance with State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15125), for purposes of this EIR, the 1 environmental setting is generally the existing physical conditions in and around each CIP 2 site as those conditions exist at the time the NOP was published (2016). 3 3.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4 According to CEQA, an EIR should define the threshold of significance and explain the criteria 5 used to determine whether an impact is above or below that threshold. Significance criteria 6 are identified for each environmental resource topic to determine whether implementation 7 of the Program would result in a significant environmental impact when evaluated against 8 the baseline conditions as described in the environmental setting. The significance criteria 9 vary depending on the environmental resource topic. In general, effects can be either 10 significant (above threshold) or less than significant (below threshold). In some cases, a 11 significant impact will be identified as significant and unavoidable if no feasible mitigation 12 measure(s) is/are available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. If the 13 Program is subsequently adopted despite identified significant impacts that would result 14 from the Program, CEQA requires the lead agency to prepare and adopt a statement of 15 overriding considerations describing the social, economic, and other reasons for moving 16 forward with the program despite its significant impact(s). (See generally State CEQA 17 Guidelines Sections 15092, 15093, 15126.2) 18 3.4.1 TERMINOLOGY USED IN IMPACT ANALYSES 19 This DEIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the Proposed 20 Program: 21  A finding of no impact is made when the analysis concludes that the Program would 22 not affect the particular environmental resource or issue. 23  An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that there would 24 be no substantial adverse change in the environment and that no mitigation is 25 needed. 26  An impact is considered significant if the analysis concludes that there could be a 27 substantial adverse effect on the environment. 28  An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes 29 that there would be no substantial adverse change in the environment with the 30 inclusion of the mitigation measures described. 31  An impact is considered significant and unavoidable if the analysis concludes that 32 there could be a substantial adverse effect on the environment and no feasible 33 mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 34  Mitigation refers to specific measures or activities adopted to avoid, minimize, rectify, 35 reduce, eliminate, or compensate for an impact. 36  A cumulative impact can result when a change in the environment results from the 37 incremental impact of a project when added to other related past, present, or 38 reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative impacts may result 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 3. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis Wastewater Master Plan 3-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 from individually minor but collectively significant projects. The cumulative impacts 1 analysis in this DEIR focuses on whether the Proposed Program’s incremental 2 contribution to other significant cumulative impacts caused by past, present, or 3 probable future projects is cumulatively considerable significant). 4  Because the term “significant” has a specific usage in evaluating impacts under CEQA, 5 it is used only to describe the significance of impacts and is not used in other contexts 6 within this document. Synonyms such as “substantial” have been used when not 7 discussing the significance of an environmental impact. 8 3.4.2 PROGRAM-LEVEL ANALYSIS 9 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, the DEIR impact analysis considers most 10 Proposed Program components at a program level of detail, with one individual component 11 considered at a project-specific level of detail. Table 2-1 provides an overview of all projects 12 considered throughout the DEIR. Each resource chapter includes an impact summary table 13 that clearly identifies the impact significance by project or program component. 14 The Proposed Program includes a number of components for each of the sewer service areas 15 which would be designed and implemented over the 20-year planning period. These are 16 discussed at a more general, program level of detail in this DEIR, and many would likely 17 require additional environmental review prior to approval, as described below. Where 18 appropriate, environmental impacts of program-level components are discussed under the 19 following subheadings for each impact statement: 20  Collection System Components – new and upgraded sewer lines, sewer 21 rehabilitation, lift stations, stormwater/sanitary sewer disconnections, and other 22 small pipeline rehabilitation and replacement projects. 23  Outfall Pipelines – new Tuolumne River pipeline crossings for the Cannery 24 Segregation Line and Primary Effluent Outfall (OP-1.1), new primary effluent outfall 25 pipeline extending from the Sutter Plant to the Jennings Plant (OP-1.2), and slip lining 26 a portion of the Cannery Segregation Line (OP-1.3). 27  Sutter Plant Components – influent pump station components (SP-1), primary 28 effluent pump station replacement (SP-3), demolition of Sutter Treatment facilities 29 (SP-4), and flood protection components (SP-5). 30  Jennings Plant Components – modifications to the tertiary treatment facilities, 31 secondary treatment facility modifications, Cannery Segmentation Line facilities 32 upgrades, interim WAS handling facilities, and new primary treatment facilities. 33 For some resource sections, the impact analyses are discussed collectively and no subheading 34 is shown. In other sections, additional subheadings have been established for sub-categories 35 of collection system components. 36 Potential Need for Additional Future Analysis 37 As described in Section 2.5, “Proposed Program Characteristics,” in Chapter 2, Program 38 Description, program-level components are projects that the City would likely construct in 39 the future, but the design of these components has not been advanced to a level at which a 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 3. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis Wastewater Master Plan 3-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 detailed evaluation can be completed. As the planning process for a specific component 1 reaches a more defined stage, the City will review the component’s consistency with this EIR 2 to determine whether substantial changes to the program-level component, the 3 circumstances under which the program component is being undertaken, or new information 4 have been identified that require additional environmental review (Pub. Res. Code Section 5 21166; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162). Depending on the level and nature of new 6 impacts, the City would then undertake the appropriate level of analysis under CEQA. 7 3.4.3 PROJECT-LEVEL ANALYSIS 8 The DEIR evaluates one near-term component, the River Trunk Realignment Project, at a 9 project level of detail. This component is discussed under the following subheading: 10  River Trunk Realignment Project – This project is typically discussed individually. 11 However, in some resource sections, the impact analysis for the River Trunk 12 Realignment Project has been combined with the evaluation of program-level 13 components. 14 3.4.4 OVERALL CONCLUSION 15 At the end of each impact analysis in which discussions are organized by the different WWMP 16 components, a summary of the conclusions has been provided under the following 17 subheading: 18  Overall Conclusion – This section considers the impacts of all the various WWMP 19 components as a whole; in general, the overall conclusion reflects the greatest level 20 of impact identified for the various components. 21 3.5 MITIGATION MEASURES 22 As lead agency, the City will be responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures identified 23 in this DEIR and adopted by the City are fully implemented as part of the Proposed Program. 24 Mitigation measures would be incorporated into contract specifications to be implemented 25 by either contractors or City staff, and monitored by the City. A mitigation monitoring and 26 reporting program (MMRP) will be developed which identifies the responsible parties for 27 carrying out requirements specified in the mitigation measures throughout the design, 28 construction, and operation phases of the Program. The MMRP will be adopted by City 29 Council with certification of the Final EIR. 30 3.6 RESOURCE AREAS ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 31 The following CEQA checklist resource topics have been eliminated from further analysis 32 based on the nature and scope of the Proposed Program activities. A brief summary and 33 description of these resource topics are below. 34 3.6.1 FORESTRY RESOURCES 35 The Proposed Program would not result in the loss of forest lands or the conversion of 36 forestland to non-forest use. Stanislaus County does not have lands zoned for forestland/ 37 timberland, as indicated in its General Plan DEIR (ICF International 2016). For this reason, 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 3. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis Wastewater Master Plan 3-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 the Proposed Program would not impact forest lands and would not conflict with lands zoned 1 for forest land or timberland uses. 2 3.6.2 MINERAL RESOURCES 3 Based on review of the Stanislaus County General Plan (2016) and California Department of 4 Conservation (CDOC) Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Mineral Lands Classification 5 mapping (CDOC 2016), there are no known mineral resource zones, historic or active mines 6 or quarries within the study area. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed 7 components would not directly affect mineral production sites or prevent future availability 8 of mineral resources. As a result, the Proposed Program would have no impact on mineral 9 resources. 10 3.6.3 PUBLIC SERVICES 11 Public services include police, fire, schools and parks serving the study area. The Proposed 12 Program involves upgrades to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system and 13 would accommodate growth projected within the City’s sewer service areas, including that 14 projected in the City’s General Plan (2008). During construction, incidents could require law 15 enforcement, fire protection, or emergency services; however, many proposed components 16 are located within the urban area of Modesto, which is currently served by existing public 17 services like police and fire protection, schools and parks. The Jennings Plant and ranch lands 18 in unincorporated Stanislaus County receive police and fire protection services from 19 Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, California Highway Patrol, and two fire protection 20 districts (Mountain View and Westport). No CIPs are planned in north Ceres or other 21 communities in the City’s sewer service area. The potential temporary increase in such 22 incidents would not be substantial and would not result in the need to construct new or 23 physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or response 24 times or meet performance objectives. Operation and maintenance activities described in 25 Chapter 2, Program Description, would be substantially the same in nature as existing 26 maintenance and operation activities, while additional facilities would be constructed that 27 would require operations and maintenance, this would only require a small number of 28 additional staff and would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in service calls 29 for police or fire protection, etc. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Program would not 30 substantially change the demand for public services in a manner which would create a need 31 for new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or 32 response times or meet performance objectives of public service providers. Construction and 33 operation of the Proposed Program would therefore have a less than significant impact on 34 public services. 35 3.6.4 RECREATION 36 The Proposed Program would not directly generate increased demand for recreational 37 facilities. Increased demand for parks or recreation facilities due to population growth are 38 addressed in Chapter 15, Population and Housing. Construction of the new outfall pipeline 39 crossings (component no. OP-1.1) would involve construction at St. Salazar Park, where the 40 new force mains would connect with the existing Primary Effluent Outfall and Cannery 41 Segregation Line. Some stormwater/sanitary sewer cross-connect disconnection 42 improvements would occur in open space areas and could temporarily affect park amenities 43 such as J.M. Pike Park and Catherine Everett Park. Any park amenities affected by 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 3. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis Wastewater Master Plan 3-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 construction would be replaced after construction is completed. The temporary closure of 1 any of these facilities could result in a short-term increase in use of other nearby parks and 2 recreational facilities. Given the number of other parks and recreational facilities in Modesto 3 that would be accessible while the few above-mentioned parks are temporarily unavailable, 4 the Proposed Program would not substantially increase the use of any existing parks or 5 recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of those facilities would occur or be 6 accelerated. No CIPs are planned in north Ceres or other communities in the City’s sewer 7 service area. In addition, the Proposed Program does not include recreational facilities and 8 would not directly require the construction or expansion of any such facilities. Therefore, 9 based on the above discussion, there would be a less-than-significant impact on recreational 10 uses or facilities. 11 3.6.5 WILDFIRE 12 The Proposed Program is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified 13 as very high fire hazard severity zones. The California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL 14 FIRE) has determined that there are no very high fire hazard severity zones in local 15 responsibility areas. The Program area is an urban and agricultural setting. As stated above 16 in Section 3.6.1, the County does not have any forestland or timberland. As such, the Proposed 17 Program would have no wildfire effects. 18 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 4-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 4 1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 2 4.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the existing aesthetic resources within the study area and pertinent 4 federal, state, and local plans and policies regarding the protection of visual and scenic 5 resources. The impacts on scenic resources, public views of scenic vistas, visual character of 6 the study area, and nighttime views from construction and operation of the Proposed 7 Program are evaluated, and mitigation is proposed to address the impacts found to be 8 significant. 9 The term “aesthetics” refers to visual resources and the quality of what can be seen or overall 10 visual perception of the environment, and may include such characteristics as building scale 11 and mass, design character, and landscaping. Visual impacts are analyzed through an 12 examination of views and/or viewsheds. Views refer to visual access and obstruction of 13 prominent visual features, including both specific visual landmarks and panoramic vistas. 14 Viewsheds refer to the visual qualities of a geographic area. The geographic area is defined 15 by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that give an area visual boundary and 16 context. Viewshed impacts are typically characterized by the loss and/or obstruction of 17 existing scenic vistas or other major views in the area of the Program area that are available 18 to the general public. Sensitive viewers are individuals or groups who are particularly 19 affected by changes to the aesthetics of the surrounding area. View analysis is based upon 20 relative visibility with regard to viewing location and proposed on-site development. 21 4.2 REGULATORY SETTING 22 4.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 23 Other than the National Historic Preservation Act, which is discussed in Chapter 8, Cultural 24 and Paleontological Resources, there are no federal regulations pertaining to visual resources 25 that would affect this Program. 26 4.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 27 California Scenic Highway Program 28 The California Scenic Highway Program was established in 1963 under Sections 260–263 of 29 the Streets and Highways Code. The Scenic Highway Program includes a list of highways that 30 are either designated or eligible for designation as scenic highways (California Department 31 of Transportation [Caltrans] 2017a). In Stanislaus County, the only designated scenic 32 highway is Interstate 5 (Caltrans 2017b). There are no highways near the study area that are 33 eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 4.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 1 Stanislaus County General Plan 2 The Stanislaus County General Plan’s Conservation/Open Space Element encourages the 3 protection and preservation of natural and scenic areas throughout the County (Stanislaus 4 County 2016). Although the Conservation/Open Space Element does not identify specific 5 policies concerning the preservation of scenic views of aesthetic resources, the following goal 6 and policy apply to the Proposed Program: 7 Goal One. Encourage the protection and preservation of natural and scenic areas 8 throughout the County. 9 Policy One. Maintain the natural environment in areas dedicated as parks and open 10 space. 11 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 12 Chapter VII of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019a), 13 “Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation,” establishes policies which are 14 intended to guide development within the City’s Planning Districts. The pertinent aesthetic 15 and visual resource policies from the general plan are listed below. 16 Policy VII-B.7[a]. Visual corridors of the river will be protected and enhanced. 17 Policy VII-B.7[b]. Visual corridors and access points on the riverfront will be 18 recreated through development. 19 Policy VII-B.7[q]. The scenic resources of Public Trust lands and resources shall be 20 considered as protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development 21 shall be cited and designed to protect scenic views associated with Public Trust lands 22 and resources. 23 Additionally, the City’s inventory of Landmark Preservation Sites (listed in Section V-8 of the 24 General Plan Master EIR [City of Modesto 2019b] and further discussed in Chapter 8, Cultural, 25 Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources, of this DEIR) includes not only historic 26 structures, but also several landmark trees. 27 Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan 28 A joint powers authority comprised of the City, the City of Ceres, and Stanislaus County (the 29 County) adopted the Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Master Plan in December 2001 30 (EDAW 2001a). This plan is intended to shape development of active- and passive-use 31 parkland along the river corridor, including its span through Modesto. The TRRP Master Plan 32 EIR (EDAW 2001b) refers to the Tuolumne River as “a significant natural landscape feature” 33 that has unique trees and rock outcroppings. The plan further states: 34 The visual experience of the river corridor includes areas that are of high visual 35 quality, and other areas where the visual environment has been degraded by urban 36 development. Along the river corridor, the area with the highest existing visual 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 quality is the eastern-most portion of the park, which supports a majestic, mature oak 1 woodland on the north bank. 2 Public visual access to the river, parks, and enhanced/restored riparian areas is and will be 3 provided throughout the regional park. The 185-acre Carpenter Road Area is envisioned to 4 include a regional sports field to the north of the Sutter Plant and a network of trails weaving 5 through meadows and riparian terraces to the west of the plant. Under this Plan, visual access 6 would be provided from a river overlook and a canoe and kayak launch area would be 7 established south of the Sutter Plant along the Tuolumne River. The plan describes the 8 possibility of expanding the riparian corridor south of the Sutter Plant. 9 In addition, the plan envisions a new paved pedestrian and bicycle path (referred to as 10 “Riverwalk”), which would be established along the entire right-bank of the Tuolumne River. 11 The proposed Shackelford force main alignment would overlap geographically with a portion 12 of the future Riverwalk path. 13 The TRRP Master Plan specifically designates several land-based “vista points” within 14 proposed park development and enhancement areas, but the plan does not specify policies in 15 relationship to these features. Specifically, one vista point is designated at the corner of 16 B Street and South Morton Boulevard, just west of the proposed River Trunk Pump Station. 17 Another vista point is designated on the west bank of Dry Creek near the River Trunk 18 Realignment project. The TRRP Master Plan also identifies several “river overlooks” within 19 the park-enhancement areas. Proposed WWMP components would not be located in 20 proximity to these river overlooks. 21 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 22 4.3.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL 23 Modesto is located in the Central Valley, a broad and generally flat area bordered by the Sierra 24 Nevada mountain range to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. Due to the region’s flat 25 topography and openness, extensive views are accessible across the valley. Modesto is 26 rural in nature, characterized by its predominantly agricultural lands and associated 27 infrastructure. Features that contribute to the rural and agricultural character of the area 28 include orchards, row crops, vineyards, cleared fields, hay bales, farm structures, farming and 29 ranching equipment (such as tractors), and farmhouses. Pockets of urban development 30 bordering the agricultural areas provide contrast to this rural character. Agricultural and 31 residential/urban areas in the Modesto region have abrupt boundaries, lacking transition and 32 beginning where the other ends. The City’s visual quality is low-to-moderate because of the 33 general lack of visual continuity and coherence. Modesto’s historic downtown is one square 34 mile and has a historic-style main street at the city center, surrounded by old, established 35 neighborhoods and mature trees and landscaping. 36 Agriculture and industrial buildings, such as silos, warehouses, and factory buildings, remain 37 visually prominent and contribute to the overall visual quality of the region. Recent 38 development, including big-box and chain commercial shopping areas, is commonly seen on 39 the outskirts of Modesto. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of Modesto, and the Stanislaus River runs 1 roughly parallel to the northern boundary of the Modesto urban area. Dry Creek drains into 2 the Tuolumne River from the northeast in the southeastern portion of Modesto. 3 4.3.2 PROGRAM VICINITY 4 Sutter Plant 5 The Sutter Plant is located near the southern end of Modesto along the northern bank of the 6 Tuolumne River. Lands immediately north and west of the Plant are vacant and flat. These 7 parcels are dedicated and planned to be developed as part of the Tuolumne River Regional 8 Park (described above in the Regulatory Setting). Bellenita Park is located northwest of the 9 Plant’s sludge drying beds. The Sutter Plant and vacant lands give this area a quasi-utilitarian 10 and rural visual character. 11 Primary viewers of the Sutter Plant include residents and motorists on John Street, as well as 12 recreationists at Bellenita Park. While views of the Plant are accessible from this park and 13 John Street across the undeveloped land, mature trees along the Plant’s western drying beds 14 partially screen views of the Plant from this area. Near the intersection of John Street and 15 Hays Street, motorists and residents have clearer views of the Plant. From this vantage point 16 (see Figure 4-1, Photo views of the circular digesters (up to 32 feet tall, and approximately 17 60 to 104 feet wide in diameter) and other Plant facilities across the vacant land are 18 accessible. No views of the Tuolumne River are accessible from these public roads. Due to the 19 presence of wastewater infrastructure and vacant ruderal lands with some mature trees, the 20 visual quality is considered low-moderate. As some views of the Plant are partially screened 21 by mature trees and due because vacant land provides a buffer between nearby roads and 22 the Plant itself, the visual sensitivity is moderate. 23 South of the Sutter Plant and Tuolumne River, land uses predominantly include residential 24 uses and an auto wrecking company. As the Tuolumne River sites about 15-20 feet lower in 25 elevation, views looking toward the Plant from Hatch Road and residences are screened by 26 riparian vegetation and trees. 27 Other viewers of the Sutter Plant include on-water recreationists such as kayakers and 28 boaters that use the Tuolumne River. 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 4-1. Representative Views of the Program Area Photo 2. West facing view of the River Trunk Realignment Project at the intersection of Tuolumne Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. Photo 1. Southeast facing view of the Sutter Plant from the corner of John Street and Hayes Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 4-1. Representative Views of the Program Area Photo 3. West facing view of the River Trunk Pump Station site at 9th Street and South Morton Boulevard. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 River Trunk Realignment 1 The proposed River Trunk Realignment begins at a parking lot at the Gallo Winery property 2 located east of Dry Creek, continues west across Dry Creek and vacant lands between the 3 creek and 9th Street, and jogs northwest to the triangular parcel at B Street and South Morton 4 Boulevard where the River Trunk Pump Station site is located. From the pump station, two 5 pipelines would continue westward: a gravity line that follows B Street, which becomes 6 Tuolumne Boulevard; and a force main that extends south and across a vacant parcel 7 currently being developed as part of the Tuolumne River Regional Park, across the Union 8 Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, and eventually Tuolumne Boulevard. The gravity system 9 would continue west on Tuolumne Boulevard to Paradise Avenue, and extend south on 10 Colorado Avenue to the Dryden Golf Course, eventually terminating at the Sutter Plant. The 11 Shackelford Pump Station site is on a vacant parcel located east of the Tuolumne River and 12 west of Zeff Road and Crows Landing Road. The Shackelford force main system would 13 traverse the Dryden Golf Course and connect with another gravity system that extends from 14 Neece Drive, crosses the golf course parking lot, continues south on Roselawn Avenue, west 15 on Pelton Avenue and connects with the gravity line on Colorado Avenue. The following 16 paragraphs describe the visual character, visual quality, and visual sensitivity of the River 17 Trunk project site by its phasing. 18 Dry Creek Crossing and Alignment from Gallo Winery to River Trunk Pump Station 19 Site. The northeastern segment of the alignment is surrounded by industrial facilities 20 including warehouses, storage facilities, and parking lots. Beard Brook Park is located just 21 north of the eastern portion of the alignment. Viewer groups in this portion of the project 22 alignment include motorists and workers at the industrial facilities themselves. Motorists 23 have short duration views of the area and workers have longer duration views, though are 24 accustomed to the industrial setting. Due to the industrial and working character of the 25 eastern portion of the alignment, the visual quality is relatively low and the visual sensitivity 26 is also low. 27 Gravity Pipelines. The gravity pipeline system along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado 28 Avenue, Neece Drive, Roselawn Drive, and Pelton Avenue is surrounded by residential uses. 29 Primary viewers of this section of the project include mostly residents, motorists, 30 recreationists at the Modesto Municipal Golf Course. Modesto High School’s sports fields are 31 situated near the alignment at Tuolumne Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. High school 32 athletes and recreationists using those fields have partial views of the alignment as well. 33 Residential views along the gravity pipeline alignment typically include views of other 34 residences, landscaping and trees lining the road, electric power lines, and cars. A typical view 35 from the perspective of a motorist traveling on Tuolumne Boulevard is shown in Figure 4-1, 36 Photo 2. The visual quality is characteristic of the surrounding residential uses and is 37 considered moderate. Since residents tend to have longer duration views of their immediate 38 surroundings, the visual sensitivity is moderate to high. 39 Shackelford Force Main Alignment. Viewer groups in the vicinity of the Shackelford force 40 main alignment include recreational golfers at the Dryden Golf Course. Recreationists at 41 Dryden Golf Course have a higher expectation for quality views; existing views from the golf 42 course consist of a manicured greenway and mature trees. For this reason, the visual quality 43 is high and the visual sensitivity for golfers is high. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Shackelford Pump Station Site. The Shackelford pump station site is a vacant parcel located 1 east of the Tuolumne River and accessible from Zeff Road and Crows Landing Road from the 2 east. Surrounding land uses include auto sale centers to the north and east. Existing views 3 looking toward the site include ruderal vegetation on the site and riparian vegetation lining 4 the river in the distance. Viewer groups of the site include motorists traveling on Zeff Road 5 and Crows Landing Road and workers at the auto sale centers. Typical views include auto 6 shops, other commercial uses, vacant lands to the west of Crows Landing Road, electric lines 7 and distant views of riparian vegetation along the river. The visual quality is low-moderate 8 and the visual sensitivity is also low-moderate. 9 Jennings Plant and Surrounding Lands 10 The following section describes the visual setting of the Jennings Plant and land uses along 11 the proposed primary effluent outfall pipeline alignment. Jennings Plant is located 12 approximately 7 miles southwest of the Sutter Plant, and is accessible from Jennings Road to 13 the east. From the Tuolumne River crossing, the new primary effluent outfall pipeline 14 alignment would extend south along Carpenter Road, west on Keyes Road, south on Jennings 15 Road, west and terminate at the Jennings Plant. 16 Both the Jennings Plant and the new primary effluent outfall pipeline alignment are 17 surrounded by agricultural lands and this area’s visual character is defined by the flat and 18 openness of the rural region. The numerous orchards, row crops, electric distribution lines, 19 and alternating roads create a rectilinear grid-like pattern. This pattern offers expansive 20 views across the valley floor and open lands. Residences, agricultural buildings, and mature 21 trees are scattered along public roads. While the San Joaquin River is not visible from most of 22 the Jennings Plant, the riparian trees and vegetation along the river banks can be seen from 23 a distance at certain vantage points along Jennings Road. 24 The Jennings Plant facilities are not visible from the nearest public roads in the area including 25 Jennings Road to the east and Keyes Road to the north. Plant facilities like the clarifiers and 26 pump stations are located at the interior of the Plant and are approximately 0.5 mile away 27 from Jennings Road or more. From these distances, the Plant structures are hardly noticeable. 28 Therefore, the visual sensitivity of this area is low. 29 4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 30 4.4.1 METHODOLOGY 31 The visual impact analysis evaluates the visual changes that would occur from construction 32 and operation of the Proposed Program, using the standards of quality, consistency, and 33 symmetry typically used for a visual assessment. The evaluation is based on a review of the 34 local plans and policies discussed in Section 4.2.3, as well as maps, site photographs, and 35 aerial photographs. 36 Visual effects were assessed based on the Program’s potential to substantially alter scenic 37 resources or to degrade the visual character of the site. The evaluation of temporary or short- 38 term visual impacts considers whether construction activities could substantially degrade 39 the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area, as well as the duration 40 over which any such changes would occur. Because of their short-term nature, construction 41 activities occurring in an area for less than one year are typically considered to have a less- 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 than-significant effect on visual quality. However, construction activities occurring in an area 1 for over one year have been evaluated for potentially significant visual impacts. 2 Proposed activities with long-term visual effects, such as constructing new or altered 3 structures, grading roads, removing trees, and introducing new sources of light and glare can 4 permanently alter the landscape in a manner that could affect the existing visual character or 5 quality of the area, depending on the perspective of the viewer. In determining impact 6 potential, the assessment considers the visual sensitivity of the project area. Since damage to 7 scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and other features of the built or natural 8 environment would typically constitute a long-term effect, the potential for project 9 implementation to damage scenic resources is evaluated solely as a long-term effect and is 10 not included in the analysis of construction-related impacts. 11 4.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 12 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on aesthetics if it would: 13  Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; 14  Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 15 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; 16  In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 17 of public views of the site and its surroundings; or 18  Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime 19 or nighttime views in the area. 20 4.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 21 Impact AES-1: Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas (Less than Significant) 22 No designated scenic vistas or viewpoints exist in the study area. However, some components 23 including the River Trunk Pipeline Realignment and River Trunk Pump Station would be 24 visible from vista points and the planned Riverwalk pathway identified in the TRRP Master 25 Plan. While not all of those vista points and recreational trails have been developed, some are 26 publicly accessible, including the vista point planned on the parcel south of B Street just 27 southwest of the proposed River Trunk Pump Station and the vista point planned west of Dry 28 Creek in Beard Brook Park near the River Trunk Pipeline Realignment. From the future vista 29 point along B Street, most viewers would be facing southward toward the Tuolumne River. 30 While the pump station would be visible from this future viewpoint, such views would not be 31 adversely affected because views are anticipated to be focused southward (away from the 32 pump station). In addition, the majority of the pump station would be below ground, and 33 aboveground components associated with the pump station would be similar in character to 34 other industrial facilities in the vicinity. From the future vista points near Dry Creek, 35 recreationists may have temporary views of pipeline construction activities. Once 36 construction is completed, however, the pipelines would not be visible since they would be 37 below ground, and construction in any given area is anticipated to be short term (less than 38 one year). For these reasons, impacts on existing scenic vistas would be less than significant. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact AES-2: Damage to Scenic Resources (Less than Significant) 1 As noted in Section 4.2.2, the only state-designated scenic highway in Stanislaus County is 2 Interstate 5 which is over 6 miles away from the Proposed Program components including 3 those at the Jennings Plant. As such, the various Proposed Program components would not 4 be located in proximity to or visible from a scenic highway and there would be no impact on 5 scenic resources located along a scenic highway. Furthermore, based on information 6 available for the Proposed Program, there would be no work in proximity to any of the trees 7 listed in the City’s Landmark Preservation Sites inventory. This impact would be less than 8 significant. 9 Impact AES-3: Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of Site and 10 Surroundings During Construction (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 11 Collection System Components, Sutter Plant Components, and Outfall Pipelines 12 Construction of proposed collection system and Sutter Plant components, and outfall 13 pipelines would be visible to various receptors near the construction work areas. For the 14 various collection system components, nearby residents, patrons at nearby businesses, 15 motorists, and recreationists using public roads would have temporary views of construction 16 activities including heavy equipment operation, materials stockpiling, earth movement 17 associated with trenching and grading, and pipeline and other associated materials. Views of 18 these operations may be perceived as a degradation of the City’s visual character. While such 19 activities would be temporary and effects on the area’s visual character would cease after 20 construction is complete for a given CIP, disturbance could be significant for individual 21 projects particularly if construction extends for over a year in a given area. Therefore, this 22 impact would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 (Locate Staging 23 Areas Away from Public Areas and Install Screening), which requires that staging areas 24 be sited away from public areas and that work areas are maintained as clean as practical, 25 would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 26 Jennings Plant Components 27 No sensitive viewers are located in the vicinity of the Jennings Plant, as the closest public road 28 is approximately 0.5 mile away and access to the plant is restricted to plant staff. Some distant 29 and occasional views of construction activities may be available from public roads. Therefore, 30 construction of the proposed tertiary, secondary and primary treatment components would 31 hardly be visible and would not substantially degrade the visual character or visual quality of 32 the surrounding area. Construction-related effects on the Jennings Plant and surrounding 33 area’s visual character or visual quality would be less than significant. 34 River Trunk Realignment Project 35 As shown in Figure 2-1, the River Trunk Realignment Project includes construction of gravity 36 pipelines, force mains, and two new pump stations. Staging and work areas have been 37 established on a vacant parcel between Tuolumne Boulevard and 7th Street, the River Trunk 38 Pump Station site, and the parking lot on the Gallo property just east of Dry Creek. Pipeline 39 construction activities would be mostly visible from public roadways including South Morton 40 Boulevard, B Street, Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pelton Avenue, Roselawn 41 Avenue, and Neece Drive. Construction of the River Trunk Pump Station would be visible 42 from B Street and 9th Street, and construction of the Shackelford Pump Station would be 43 visible from Crow’s Landing Road. Pipeline construction activities would generally progress 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 at a rate of 100 feet per day. For the gravity system, staging areas would be sited within the 1 construction zone or the staging areas shown in Figure 2-1. 2 Project construction would be temporarily visible to adjacent residents, motorists, patrons 3 at nearby businesses, golfers at Dryden Golf Course and Modesto Municipal Golf Course, and 4 recreationists using the sports fields at Modesto High School. These viewer groups would 5 have views of trenching and excavation, staging and stockpiling of construction materials and 6 equipment, pipeline installation, and other construction activities associated with the new 7 pump stations over the construction duration (approximately 30 months). 8 Existing residences located along the gravity pipeline alignment, motorists using nearby 9 roads, and golfers at Dryden Golf Course would have close-up views of pipeline construction 10 activities and equipment. Motorists would have fleeting views due to the speed of travel. For 11 residents, views of pipeline construction activities would generally be of short duration since 12 construction equipment would advance onto the next segment and areas affected by pipeline 13 installation work would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Of the viewer groups, 14 golfers at the Dryden Golf Course have a higher expectation of scenic views and would have 15 close-up views of pipeline construction activities that occur on the golf course. 16 Motorists traveling on 9th Street and B Street would have short duration views of construction 17 activities at the River Trunk Pump Station, and motorists and business patrons along Crow’s 18 Landing Road would have fleeting views of construction work at the Shackelford Pump 19 Station. 20 While such activities would be temporary and effects on the area’s visual character would 21 cease after construction is complete, given the project’s overall duration of approximately 30 22 months, visual disturbance at Dryden Golf Course and along public roads could be substantial. 23 This impact is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would 24 reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 25 Overall Conclusion 26 Considering the various WWMP components as a whole, construction-related impacts to 27 visual character and quality would be significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 28 AES-1 for the applicable Program components, impacts would be less than significant with 29 mitigation. 30 Mitigation Measure AES-1: Locate Staging Areas Away from Public Areas and 31 Install Screening. 32 Applies to Collection System Components, Sutter Plant Components, Outfall Pipelines, 33 and River Trunk Realignment Project 34 For components located in residential areas and near public parks, the City shall 35 implement the following measures. Construction staging areas for equipment, vehicle 36 parking, and material storage will be sited as far as possible from residences, major 37 roadways, parks and other public areas. With the exception of designated staging 38 areas for the River Trunk Realignment Project, to the extent practicable, staging areas 39 for Program components shall be sited in areas where existing topography and 40 vegetation can help screen views of the staging area. Where on-street or on-site 41 staging areas are necessary, chain-link fencing with slats (either earth tone or another 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 neutral color) or other screening methods shall be installed around designated 1 staging areas to screen views of equipment and materials. 2 Impact AES-4: Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of Site and 3 Surroundings During Program Operation (Less than Significant) 4 Collection System Components and Outfall Pipelines 5 Once constructed, all proposed pipeline components including replaced sewer lines, 6 rehabilitated sewer lines, stormwater/sanitary sewer disconnections, and outfall pipeline 7 components would be underground and would not be visible. Underground components 8 would therefore have no impacts on the visual character of the surrounding area. 9 Upgraded or replaced lift stations would appear similar to existing lift stations. As described 10 in Chapter 1, Introduction, all of the City’s existing lift stations are underground with the 11 exception of ancillary facilities including control panel boxes, small radio antenna, back-up 12 generators, and security fencing surrounding the site. Upgraded or replaced lift stations 13 would also be underground. Minor modifications associated with upsizing the lift station or 14 pump station would be limited to the existing footprint of existing lift station sites. 15 Aboveground elements would consist of one or more control panels, a small radio antenna 16 (up to 25 feet tall), and some facilities would include a single restroom or wash station and 17 back-up generators. The control panels would be comprised of metal boxes approximately 18 5 feet tall, 3 feet wide, and 1 foot thick. All lift station sites would be surrounded by either a 19 concrete masonry unit wall or security fencing consisting of wrought iron or steel poles, and 20 possibly some landscaping. New and upgraded lift stations would be sited in residential or 21 agricultural areas. In agricultural areas, these facilities would not be substantially noticeable 22 and would not significantly degrade the existing visual character of the area. In addition, 23 given the small size of these facilities and because these are commonly seen throughout the 24 City already, introduction of new lift stations in residential areas would not substantially alter 25 the visual character or quality of an individual site. Therefore, this impact would be less than 26 significant. 27 Sutter Plant Components 28 At the Sutter Plant, once demolition of primary treatment facilities such as the digesters and 29 clarifiers is complete, those facilities would no longer be visible from the residential area to 30 the northwest of the plant and could thereby improve the visual character and quality of this 31 area. Upgrades to the existing influent pump station and replacement of the effluent pump 32 station would not be noticeable from any public viewpoints, other than occasional on-water 33 recreationists from the Tuolumne River. Since the facility upgrades would appear similar to 34 the existing pump stations, these components would not substantially alter the visual 35 character or quality of the area. The impact would be less than significant. 36 Jennings Plant Components 37 For the same reasons provided in Impact AES-3, proposed CIPs at the Jennings Plant would 38 not substantially change the appearance of the existing plant because, in general, no public 39 views of the plant are available. While there is a possibility that distant or partial views of the 40 new plant facilities could be accessible from nearby public roads, this would not be 41 considered a significant impact because the appearance of the plant would not be 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 substantially changed. Impacts on the visual character of the surrounding area would be less 1 than significant. 2 River Trunk Realignment Project 3 Similar to the impact discussion provided above, once construction of the River Trunk 4 Realignment Project is complete, all pipelines would be below ground and would not be 5 visible. The River Trunk Pump Station and Shackelford Pump Station would introduce a new 6 quasi-industrial structure to the Program area. Figure 2-4 shows a rendering of the 7 aboveground layout of the River Trunk Pump Station. As shown in this figure, aboveground 8 features would include the staircase structure, make-up air units, the 36-inch force main and 9 five air valves, an exhaust louver structure, and monorail structure where access vehicles can 10 enter and exit the facility. Motorists traveling on Morton Street, B Street, and 9th Street would 11 have fleeting views of the facility. 12 At the Shackelford Pump Station, aboveground elements include the electrical building 13 (approximately 15.5 feet tall) and generator (approximately 8 feet tall). The surrounding 14 fence and/or gate would be about 8 feet tall and the retaining wall would be about 6 feet tall. 15 Motorists on Zeff Road and Crow’s Landing Road would have short duration views of the 16 Shackelford Pump Station. Introduction of the two pump stations would be located in 17 industrial areas and would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the 18 sites, particularly since the visual quality is low to low-moderate at these sites. In addition, 19 similar to lift stations seen throughout the City, unobtrusive earth tones with matte finishes 20 would be used to coat aboveground features. For these reasons, this impact would be less 21 than significant. 22 Overall Conclusion 23 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, impacts of the constructed facilities on visual 24 character and quality would not be substantial. Impacts would be less than significant. 25 Impact AES-5: Permanent Source of Substantial Light or Glare (Less than 26 Significant) 27 Collection System Components and Outfall Pipelines 28 As described above under Impact AES-4, once constructed, all pipelines and sewer 29 disconnection projects would be underground and would therefore not result in a new source 30 of substantial light or glare. Similar to other existing lift stations, aboveground elements of 31 these facilities would be painted by non-reflective paint and would not include features that 32 generate daytime glare. Outdoor lighting at new lift stations would be directed inward to 33 avoid glare or spillover effects. Depending on the types of land uses surrounding lift stations, 34 some lighting would be motion activated. In areas where there are less sensitive receptors, 35 lighting may be left on continually. These design features would ensure that this impact 36 would be less than significant. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 4. Aesthetics and Visual Resources Wastewater Master Plan 4-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Sutter Plant Components, Jennings Plant Components, and River Trunk Realignment 1 Project 2 Plant improvements and the new River Trunk and Shackelford pump stations may require 3 on-site exterior lighting. New lighting at these facilities would be consistent with outdoor 4 lighting currently used at the two wastewater treatment plants. New lighting at these 5 facilities would be directed inward to avoid glare or spillover effects. Depending on adjacent 6 receptors, some lights would be on continually and some lights may be motion activated. 7 Exterior coating of new pump stations would appear similar to similar structures seen 8 throughout Modesto, and that earth tones with non-reflective finishes would be used to coat 9 aboveground components at lift stations and pump station sites. These design 10 features/approaches would ensure that permanent light and glare impacts would be less 11 than significant. 12 Overall Conclusion 13 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, and the design approaches that will be used 14 to minimize effects related to lighting and glare, impacts would be less than significant. 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 5-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 5 1 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 2 5.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the regulatory setting and environmental setting, and impacts of the 4 Proposed Program related to agricultural resources. 5 The regulatory and environmental settings and impact analysis for agricultural resources 6 were developed through a review of: 7  The California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC’s) Stanislaus County Important 8 Farmland Map (2017a) and Williamson Act Lands GIS data for Stanislaus County 9 (2016a); 10  The Stanislaus County General Plan (2016); 11  The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019); 12  The City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan Final Draft (Carollo 13 Engineers 2016); 14  The Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission Policies and Procedures 15 (Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCO] 2015); and 16  Other regulations and planning documents for outlying communities. 17 5.2 REGULATORY SETTING 18 5.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – 40 CFR Part 503 20 The federal standards for Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 Code of Federal Regulations 21 [CFR] Part 503, Subpart B – Land Application) includes regulations for bulk sewage sludge 22 application to agricultural land. These standards are intended to ensure that agricultural 23 resources of value are not adversely affected by the application of metals and other 24 contaminants that could impose long-term effects on the land. While these regulations do not 25 explicitly address any loss of agricultural lands, they describe and regulate the application, 26 concentration, location and rate of bulk sewage sludge and septage that the U.S. 27 Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) categorizes as pollutants (USEPA 1999). These 28 regulations establish ceiling concentrations for metals and pathogen and vector attraction 29 reduction standards; management criteria for the protection of water quality and public 30 health; and annual and cumulative discharge limitations of persistent pollutants such as 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 heavy metals. These regulations are intended to protect livestock, crop and human health and 1 water quality protection. 2 5.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 3 California Department of Conservation – Farmland Mapping and Monitoring 4 Program 5 Developed by the California Department of Conservation, the Farmland Mapping and 6 Monitoring Program (FMMP) provides consistent, timely and accurate data for use in 7 assessing agricultural land resource status in California. The program utilizes a combination 8 of geographic information systems (GIS), aerial imagery, local agency comments, and other 9 relevant information to combine soil quality data and current land use information to 10 produce Important Farmland Maps. 11 The FMMP maps out five different farmland categories as well as urban, nonagricultural and 12 natural vegetation, semi-agricultural and rural commercial land, rural residential land. These 13 five categories are listed below (CDOC 2004): 14  Prime Farmland – lands with the best combination of physical and chemical features 15 able to sustain long-term production of crops. The land must be cropped and 16 supported by a developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate 17 quality during the grow season. It must also have been used for production during the 18 previous four years. 19  Farmland of Statewide Importance – lands similar to Prime Farmland but with minor 20 shortcomings such as greater slope or less ability to store moisture. 21  Unique Farmland – soils of lower quality that are used for producing California’s 22 leading agricultural crops. These lands are usually irrigated but may include non- 23 irrigated orchards or vineyards. 24  Farmland of Local Importance – lands such as dryland grains and irrigated pastures 25 that are not considered Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or 26 Unique Farmland. 27  Grazing Land – land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of 28 livestock 29 California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) 30 The California Land Conservation Act, more commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, was 31 passed in 1965 as a means to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging 32 “premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses” (Government Code Section 33 51220[c]). Through this act, local governments and landowners may choose to forgo the 34 possibility of developing their lands, or convert their property into nonagricultural or non- 35 open space use for a set amount of time determined in a contract. In return, they would 36 receive lower property taxes. Contracts have an initial term of ten years with renewal 37 occurring automatically each year after that. Local governments are permitted to negotiate 38 longer initial contract terms that exceed ten years (CDOC 2014). 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 According to the 2015 Stanislaus County Agricultural Report, 575,549 acres of the County are 1 registered under Williamson Act contracts. This accounts for approximately 60 percent of the 2 total amount of acres within the county (Stanislaus County 2015). The following land 3 classifications are found either within or around the planned locations of the Proposed 4 Program components: 5  Williamson Act – Prime Agricultural Land 6  Williamson Act – Non-Renewal 7  Non-Williamson Act – Urban and Built-Up Land 8 Williamson Act lands designated as “non-renewal” are lands in which either the local 9 government or landowner have initiated the nonrenewal process. 10 State Water Resources Control Board – Water Quality Order No. 2004-0012- 11 DWQ 12 The State Water Resources Control Board issued Water Quality Order No. 2004-0012-DWQ, 13 which establishes general waste discharge requirements for biosolids use as soil amendment 14 in agricultural, horticultural, or other land reclamation activities. These biosolids are 15 differentiated by two classes. Class A biosolids are defined as meeting the vector attraction 16 and also the pollution concentration limits specified in 40 CFR Part 503 and pathogen 17 reduction standards (40 CFR Part 503.32(a)). This class of biosolids generally must be 18 reduced virtually non-detectible levels of pathogens and must comply with the strictest 19 standards for vector attraction an, odors and other standards pertaining to metals. Class B 20 biosolids are defined as meeting the vector attraction and meeting pollution concentration 21 limits specified in 40 CFR Part 503 as well as pathogen reduction standards specified in 40 22 CFR Part 503.32(b). Class B biosolids must be treated but contain higher levels of detectible 23 pathogens than Class A biosolids. The General Order establishes biosolid pollutant discharge 24 limits for constituents including arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, 25 selenium, and zinc. The General Order also contains various land application constraints. For 26 example, after biosolids have been applied in a field, for at least 12 months after, public access 27 is restricted and grazing of milking animals (used for producing unpasteurized milk for 28 human consumption) is prevented. restricting the timeframe in which lands can be grazed or 29 used for growing and harvesting food crops. The General Order also establishes staging and 30 application guidelines whereby applied biosolids must be at least 10 feet away from property 31 lines, 500 feet away from domestic water supply wells, 50 feet from public roads and 32 occupied residences, 100 feet from surface waters, wetlands or creeks, and other buffer 33 restrictions. 34 5.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 35 Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 36 The Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission’s (LAFCO’s) mission is to 37 “discourage urban sprawl, preserve open space and prime agricultural lands, promote the 38 efficient provision of government services and encourage the orderly formation of local 39 agencies” (LAFCO 2012). In order to achieve their mission as well as to meet Government 40 Code Section 56668(e) requirements, which requires LAFCO to consider the effect of a 41 proposal on the maintenance of the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, they 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 adopted the Agricultural Preservation Policy on September 26, 2012. The amended policy, 1 adopted in 2015, contains the following goals (LAFCO 2015): 2  Guide development away from agricultural lands where possible and encourage 3 efficient development of existing vacant lands and infill properties within an agency’s 4 boundaries prior to conversion of additional lands; 5  Fully consider the impacts a proposal will have on existing agricultural lands; 6  Minimize the conversion of agricultural land to other uses; and 7  Promote preservation of agricultural lands for continued agricultural uses while 8 balancing the need for planned, orderly development and the efficient provision of 9 services. 10 On March 25, 2015, LAFCO amended the policy to include specific regulations regarding the 11 use of in-lieu fees for acquiring and managing agricultural conservation easements (LAFCO 12 2015). LAFCO shall consider this policy, in addition to its existing goals and policies, as an 13 evaluation standard for review of any proposals that could reasonably be expected to induce, 14 facilitate, or lead to the conversion of agricultural land (LAFCO 2015). As required by the 15 policy, a plan for agricultural preservation must be provided with any application for a sphere 16 of influence expansion or annexation to a city or special district (“agency”) providing one or 17 more urban services (i.e. potable water, sewer services) that includes agricultural lands. Once 18 the plan is provided, LAFCO will then evaluate it based on specific criteria that must be met 19 (LAFCO 2015). The following applications or proposals are considered exempt from LAFCO’s 20 requirement for a plan for agricultural preservation: proposals that include lands owned 21 by a city or special district and currently used by that agency for public uses; and 22 proposals which have been shown to have no significant impact to agricultural lands 23 including those in which lands are substantially developed with urban uses and proposals 24 intended to provide irrigation water to agricultural lands (LAFCO 2015). 25 Stanislaus County General Plan 26 The Stanislaus County General Plan’s Land Use and Agricultural Elements (2016) includes 27 goals and policies that are intended to promote and protect local agricultural resources. The 28 main goals of the Agricultural Element are to strengthen the agricultural sector of the local 29 economy, conserve the county’s agricultural lands for agricultural uses, and protect the 30 natural resources that sustain agriculture in Stanislaus County. The following goal and 31 policies related to agricultural land include: 32 Land Use Element 33 Policy 16. Agriculture, as the primary industry of the County, shall be promoted and 34 protected. 35 Agricultural Element 36 Goal 1. Strengthen the agricultural sector of our economy. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policy 1.10. The County shall protect agricultural operations from conflicts with non- 1 agricultural uses by requiring buffers between proposed non-agricultural uses and 2 adjacent agricultural operations. 3 Implementation Measure 1: The County shall require buffers and setbacks for 4 all discretionary projects introducing or expanding non-agricultural uses in or 5 adjacent to an agricultural area consistent with the guidelines presented in 6 Appendix of the Agricultural Element. 7 Goal 2. Conserve our agricultural lands for agricultural uses. 8 Policy 2.5. To the greatest extent possible, development shall be directed away from 9 the County’s most productive agricultural areas. 10 Policy 2.14. When the County determines that the proposed conversion of 11 agricultural land to non-agricultural uses could have a significant effect on the 12 environment, the County shall fully evaluate on a project- specific basis the direct and 13 indirect effects, as well as the cumulative effects of the conversion. 14 Policy 2.15. In order to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land resulting from a 15 discretionary project requiring a General Plan or Community Plan amendment from 16 “Agriculture” to a residential land use designation, the County shall require the 17 replacement of agricultural land at a 1:1 ratio with agricultural land of equal quality 18 located in Stanislaus County. 19 Buffer and Setback Guidelines 20 Appendix A of the Stanislaus County General Plan includes buffer and setback guidelines that 21 are intended to physically avoid conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural uses 22 (Stanislaus County 2016). While these guidelines do not necessarily apply to the Proposed 23 Program since the City owns the Jennings Plant and the approximately 2,500 acres of 24 agricultural lands south of the plant, the guidelines include the following: 25  All projects shall incorporate a minimum 150-foot wide buffer. All buffers shall 26 incorporate a solid wall and vegetative screen consistent with the following 27 standards: 28  Fencing: A 6-foot high wall of uniform construction shall be installed along any 29 portion of a buffer where the project site and the adjoining agricultural operation 30 share a common parcel line. 31  Permitted uses within a buffer area shall include: public roadways, utilities, drainage 32 facilities, landscaping, parking lots and similar low human intensity uses. Walking and 33 bike trails shall be allowed within buffers provided they are designed without rest 34 areas. 35  Landscaping within a buffer setback shall be designed to exclude turf areas which 36 could induce activities and add to overall maintenance costs and water usage. 37  A landowner’s association or other appropriate entity shall be required to maintain 38 buffers to control litter, fire hazards, pests, and other maintenance problems when a 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 project consists of multiple parcels which may be held, or have the potential to be 1 held, under separate ownership. 2  The Board of Supervisors may authorize the abandonment and reuse of buffer areas 3 if agricultural uses on all adjacent parcels within a 150-foot radius of the project site 4 have permanently ceased. 5 Stanislaus County Farmland Mitigation Program 6 Stanislaus County has established a Farmland Mitigation Program (FMP) as Appendix B of its 7 general plan (Stanislaus County 2016). The purpose of the FMP is to aid in mitigating the loss 8 of farmland resulting from residential development in the unincorporated areas of Stanislaus 9 County by requiring the permanent protection of farmland based on a 1:1 ratio to the amount 10 of farmland converted. The FMP is designed to utilize agricultural conservation easements 11 granted in perpetuity as a means of minimizing the loss of farmland. These guidelines apply 12 to any development project requiring a General Plan or Community Plan amendment from 13 Agriculture to a residential land use designation of the Stanislaus County General Plan. As 14 such, the Proposed Program would not be subject to the FMP. 15 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 16 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019) contains the following agricultural 17 resources policies that are relevant to the Proposed Program: 18 Policy VII-D.3[a]. If a subsequent project is within the Baseline Developed Area 19 or Downtown Area as identified on the General Plan Growth Strategy Diagram 20 (Figure II-1), consider the project to have minimal effect on the conversion of 21 agricultural lands, and no mitigation for that impact will be required. 22 Policy VII-D.4[a]. Do not annex agricultural land unless urban development 23 consistent with the General Plan has been approved by the City. 24 Policy VII-D.4[b]. Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands 25 designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. 26 Policy VII-D.4[d]. Where necessary to promote planned City growth, encourage 27 development of those agricultural lands that are already compromised by 28 adjacent urban development or contain property required for the extension of 29 infrastructure or other public facilities, before considering urban development on 30 agricultural lands that are not subject to such urban pressures. 31 Policy VII-D.4[e]. For any subsequent project that is adjacent to an existing 32 agricultural use, the project proponent may incorporate measures to reduce the 33 potential for conflicts with the agricultural use. Potential measures to be 34 implemented may include the following: 35 Include a buffer zone of sufficient width between proposed residences and 36 the agricultural use. 37 Inform residents about the possible exposure to agricultural chemicals. 38 (City of Modesto 2019) 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 Stanislaus County consists of a flat topography, good-to-excellent soil quality, favorable 2 climate, and availability of natural water (City of Modesto 2019). Agriculture has become the 3 County’s leading industry, generating over $3.88 billion in agricultural commodities in 2015 4 alone (Stanislaus County 2016). Approximately 768,046 acres of land throughout the County 5 is categorized as farmland, with approximately 4,143 farms in operation. The County’s 6 leading commodities are currently almond crops and milk (Stanislaus County 2015). Modesto 7 is at the center of Stanislaus County’s rich agricultural landscape. As the largest city in the 8 County, Modesto is comprised of mostly urban and built-up land with its contiguous areas 9 comprised of agricultural lands (CDOC 2017a). 10 Based on the most recent CDOC FMMP report, Stanislaus County has 249,967 acres of Prime 11 Farmland, 33,172 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 116,210 acres of Unique 12 Farmland, and 26,029 acres of Farmland of Local Importance (CDOC 2016b). Figure 5-1 13 shows Farmland in the Program vicinity. While the majority of proposed components would 14 be located in urban and built-up areas of Modesto or along existing roadways, new lift 15 stations along with some pipeline segments would be constructed on land classified as 16 Farmland, as shown on Figure 5-1. 17 The proposed Tuolumne River Pipeline crossings would be constructed on land classified as 18 Vacant or Disturbed Land. A portion of the new outfall pipeline alignment from the south 19 jacking pit and junction structure to the 60-inch force main connection would be constructed 20 along an existing roadway (Monticello Lane) with Prime Farmland directly to the west (CDOC 21 2016a). The new outfall pipeline would be installed within road-rights-of-way but would be 22 surrounded by designated Prime Farmland that is under Williamson Act contracts. A small 23 portion of the outfall pipeline alignment would also traverse through non-enrolled land 24 (CDOC 2011). 25 5.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 26 5.4.1 METHODOLOGY 27 Impacts to agricultural resources from the Proposed Program components were assessed by 28 reviewing the 2015 Stanislaus County Agricultural Report, the General Plan policies of 29 Stanislaus County and the City of Modesto, Williamson Act maps, FMMP maps, and relevant 30 federal and state regulations. 31 Improvements in the Proposed Program include replacement or upgrade of existing facilities 32 and construction of new facilities such as sewer lines, lift stations, treatment plant 33 improvements at the Sutter and Jennings Plants. Existing facilities are considered developed 34 and are not expected to have agricultural resources impacts since construction would occur 35 within the existing footprint of existing facilities. New facilities in the Proposed Program may 36 be in developed areas, or within the public right-of-way, which are not expected to have 37 agricultural resource impacts. However, new facilities proposed in non-developed areas will 38 require the analysis outlined in the following sections. The effects of construction, operation, 39 and maintenance of the proposed facilities on existing agricultural resources was evaluated 40 according to the significance criteria below. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 5.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 1 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on agricultural resources if it 2 would: 3  Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance 4 (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 5 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; 6  Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or 7  Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or 8 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. 9 5.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 10 Impact AG-1: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 11 Statewide Importance to Non-agricultural Use (Significant and Unavoidable) 12 Figure 5-1 shows Farmland and the general location of pipeline alignments and locations of 13 future facilities associated with the Proposed Program lift stations). Program 14 components were planned to serve future developed areas. However, these locations are 15 preliminary and the exact alignments and locations of Program facilities are dependent upon 16 County- and City-approved development plans and land ownership and/or easement 17 agreements. Future roads and land uses would be refined as part of the development 18 planning process and would identify future rights-of-way to be used for utility alignments 19 and facilities, including Program components. In addition, some areas may be converted from 20 Farmland to developed areas prior to construction of Program components. For the purpose 21 of this analysis, Program components preliminarily located in or near Farmland areas were 22 evaluated as if they would be located in Farmland, despite the potential for changes in their 23 actual location or land use designation. Therefore, the evaluated impact area and potential 24 impacts discussed below may overstate the Proposed Program’s actual impact. 25 In addition, Program components located within the Baseline Developed Area or Downtown 26 Area as identified in the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019), are considered to 27 have minimal effect on agricultural lands and do not require mitigation for conversion of 28 Farmland (City of Modesto 2019). 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LS #60 LS #65 LS #59 LS #30 LS #61 LS #67 LS #29 LS #3 LS #39 LS #63 LS #62 River Trunk Pump Station Shackelford Pump Station Sutter Plant ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 132 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_5-1_Important_Farmland.mxd 10/19/2017 PG Figure 5-1 Farmland Designations City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles WWMP Study Area River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance Unique Farmland Farmland of Local Importance ·I}þ 33 Main Map Inset Map Source: CDOC 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Collection System Components 1 While the majority of proposed sewer pipelines would be constructed within existing 2 roadways, some pipeline improvements would extend beyond roadways and onto land that 3 is designated Farmland, as shown on Figure 5-1. All pipeline improvements would be 4 installed to serve areas anticipated for growth and would involve open trench methods. 5 Ground disturbing activities associated with pipeline improvements would be temporary and 6 agricultural lands would be restored to pre-construction conditions following project 7 completion. Thus, installation and operation of new pipeline segments associated with the 8 Proposed Program would not permanently impact existing agricultural land, and this impact 9 would be less than significant. 10 Upgrades or replacement of existing lift station components would occur on urban and built- 11 up land area or other types of non-agricultural use lands. Under current conditions, 12 construction of new stations LS #60, LS #61, LS #62, LS #63, LS #65, and LS #67) would 13 take place either adjacent to or on land that is designated as Farmland, as shown on Figure 5- 14 1 (CDOC 2016a). Given that these lift stations would serve future growth areas, the locations 15 of these facilities are preliminary and may change. In addition, lift stations would be 16 constructed in existing or planned development areas and likely located along roadways. 17 However, due to proximity of Farmland and because the exact location of these lift stations 18 has not yet been determined, it is conservatively assumed that these CIPs could result in the 19 permanent conversion of up to 1 acre of Farmland. This impact would be significant. 20 Considering LAFCO’s Agricultural Preservation Policy (2015) and pursuant to Policy 2.15 in 21 the Stanislaus County General Plan, the County policy requires that agricultural land 22 converted to residential use be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with agricultural land of equal quality 23 in Stanislaus County. However, since the Proposed Program is not a residential project, these 24 policies do not apply to the Program. While the Stanislaus County’s Farmland Mitigation 25 Program provides a mechanism for establishing agricultural easements, the City has 26 determined that this program is infeasible for the following reasons: Stanislaus County 27 policy is to mitigate the loss of and preserve Prime Farmland through the County’s Farmland 28 Mitigation Program, which is designed to address loss of farmland resulting from impacts of 29 residential development, and the County policy is not to burden and increase the cost of new 30 and improved public infrastructure that is needed by the community; and the purchase 31 of an agricultural conservation easement over other off-site agricultural land would not 32 ultimately avoid or reduce the impact of converting Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses 33 caused by the Proposed Program because there still would be a net reduction in the total 34 amount of Prime Farmland and therefore the easement over other land would not reduce the 35 impact to a level of insignificance. No other feasible mitigation measures, such as restoration 36 of Prime Farmland that has been previously converted or participation in another 37 agricultural conservation easement program, have been identified to further reduce this 38 impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 39 Outfall Pipelines 40 The proposed Tuolumne River Pipeline Crossings would be constructed and operated on land 41 that is designated as Vacant or Disturbed Land. The preliminary alignment of the southern 42 trenchless pit occurs on land designated as Farmland. Similar to the discussion above, 43 ground-disturbing activities associated with pipeline installation would be temporary and 44 agricultural lands would be restored to pre-construction conditions following the completion 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 of pipeline installation, resulting in no permanent impacts to Farmland. Therefore, this 1 impact would be considered less than significant. 2 With the exception of a small portion of the pipeline extending from the southern jacking pit 3 to West Hatch Road, the third outfall pipeline would be mostly installed within existing 4 County roads using the open trench method. A large portion of the alignment is bordered by 5 Farmland. This new outfall pipeline would require an excavated trench with an approximate 6 width and depth of 8 feet and 11 feet. During pipeline construction, removal of topsoil using 7 heavy equipment would have potential to adversely affect long-term soil characteristics and 8 productivity of adjacent Farmland through compaction and removal of topsoil. However, 9 since the new outfall pipeline would be underground and disturbance to topsoil on Farmland 10 would be temporary, Farmland could be returned to pre-construction conditions after 11 construction is complete, impacts to Farmland would be less than significant. 12 Sutter Plant Components 13 All proposed components associated with the Sutter Treatment Plant would occur on land 14 that is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Therefore, these components would not 15 convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- 16 agricultural use. There would be no impact. 17 Jennings Plant Components 18 The majority of the components associated with the Jennings Plant would occur on 19 urban/built-up land, while the Phase 3-5 BNR/Tertiary, primary treatment and solids 20 handling facilities would be built on Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land. 21 Construction of new Sludge Cake Drying Beds (Component Nos. JP-4.3 and JP-5.5) would 22 occur on Farmland located to the east of the Jennings Plant and future dewatering facility. 23 The sludge drying beds would be constructed in two different phases. As described in 24 Chapter 2, Program Description, the 5 acres of drying beds constructed to support the interim 25 WAS facilities would be expanded to 18.6 acres. The drying beds would be asphalt-paved 26 areas with concrete containment. Construction of these beds and their associated facilities 27 would result in permanent conversion of approximately 18.6 acres of Farmland, which is 28 considered a significant impact. As described above for collection system improvements, the 29 County’s Farmland Mitigation Program is infeasible because it was intended to provide a 30 mechanism for residential development projects to mitigate impacts associated with loss of 31 Prime Farmland, and the cost of purchasing an agricultural easement over other off-site 32 agricultural land would not ultimately avoid or reduce impacts due to converting Prime 33 Farmland to non-agricultural land. For these reasons, this impact would be significant and 34 unavoidable. 35 River Trunk Realignment Project 36 The entire River Trunk Realignment Project would be constructed on land that is either 37 designated as urban and built-up land, or as vacant land. The Shackelford Pump Station would 38 be constructed on vacant land adjacent to the Dryden Golf Course, while the River Trunk 39 Pump Station would be constructed primarily on urban and built-up land. Figure 5-1 provides 40 a visual reference to where the Project would be built, as well as the land use designations 41 for this particular area as established by the FMMP (CDOC 2016a). As a result, the River Trunk 42 Realignment Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 43 Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 Considering all of the WWMP components as a whole, while construction-related impacts of 2 several components would be temporary, some WWMP components would result in 3 permanent conversion of Farmland. As described above, the Stanislaus County’s Farmland 4 Mitigation Program is infeasible because it was intended to provide a mechanism for 5 residential projects (not public infrastructures projects) to mitigate impacts associated with 6 loss of Prime Farmland. No further feasible mitigation has been identified that could further 7 reduce the Proposed Program’s impacts related to permanent conversion of Farmland. 8 Restoration and/or recovery of Farmland from existing urban uses to offset the loss of 9 Farmland could mitigate the loss caused by the Proposed Program. However, such a measure 10 would be unreasonably costly and inefficient and would, therefore, be infeasible. Therefore, 11 the Proposed Program’s overall impact would be significant and unavoidable. 12 Proposed Program Impact AG-2: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural 13 Use or a Williamson Act Contract (Less than Significant) 14 Collection System Components and Jennings Plant Components 15 Most collection system components would take place within developed (non-agricultural) 16 areas of Modesto and would not conflict with lands zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson 17 Act contract. However, some pipeline segments would be located on lands designated as non- 18 enrolled Williamson Act lands and zoned for agricultural uses (Stanislaus County 2017). 19 Ground disturbing activities associated with pipeline improvements would be temporary and 20 likely along roadways or other developed areas. Additionally, ground disturbance to land 21 zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act would be restored following project 22 construction activities. Therefore, there would be no permanent impacts to agricultural lands 23 or Williamson Act contracts from pipeline installation. 24 Some lift stations intended to serve future growth areas on the outskirts of Modesto would 25 occur on land zoned for agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract, as shown in 26 the California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Lands map (CDOC 2011) and 27 Figure 5-2. Construction of new lift stations (LS #63, LS #64, LS #65, and LS #67) would be 28 built on General Agriculture 40-acre zoned land (Stanislaus County 2006) and LS #67 (at Litt 29 Road) on land that also has a Williamson Act contract. However, these lift stations would be 30 built along existing roadways and would therefore not conflict with surrounding existing 31 agricultural zoning. 32 As for the Jennings Plant, a large portion of the existing plant is designated as urban and built- 33 up land but the area planned for development of expanded tertiary treatment and primary 34 treatment facilities would occur on land under non-enrolled Williamson Act land with 35 potential for conflict with Williamson Act contracts. However, according to Stanislaus County 36 Ordinance Section 21.20.030, a Tier Three conditional use permit can be obtained for new 37 facility construction planned on lands zoned for agricultural uses, including those subject to 38 a Williamson Act contract. Allowable uses include construction of public facilities. As such, 39 the proposed Jennings Plant improvements would meet conditional uses stated under Tier 40 Three of this ordinance. Note that the requirements associated with County zoning do not 41 apply to actions undertaken by the City; regardless, the City’s actions would be consistent 42 with the County’s existing zoning (considering that public facilities are a conditionally 43 approved use). 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 For these reasons, the conflicts with Williamson Act lands and land zoned for agricultural 1 uses from these Proposed Program components would be less than significant. 2 Sutter Plant Components 3 Construction of the Sutter Plant components would occur on land that is not zoned for 4 agricultural use or under any Williamson Act contract. As a result, these components would 5 have no impact. 6 Outfall Pipelines 7 The outfall pipeline crossings at Tuolumne River would be installed on lands designated as 8 non-enrolled Williamson Act lands and zoned for agricultural uses. The new outfall pipeline 9 would be approximately 9 miles in length and 54 inches in diameter. From the southern 10 trenchless pit, this pipeline would be installed underground via open trench construction and 11 would extend west on West Hatch Road, continue south along Carpenter Road, west on Keyes 12 Road and south on Jennings Road, then continue west where it would terminate at the 13 Jennings Plant. The pipeline alignment would be bordered by land that is zoned for General 14 Agriculture, and the majority of land surrounding the pipeline is enrolled under Williamson 15 Act contracts as Prime Farmland, although there are portions that are non-enrolled. 16 Construction of the pipeline would mostly occur within the limits of County road right-of-way 17 boundaries. Similar to the discussion above, pipeline installation would only result in 18 temporary impacts and would not conflict with use of lands zoned for agricultural use or 19 under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 20 River Trunk Realignment Project 21 The River Trunk Realignment Project would involve the construction of components on land 22 predominantly zoned for low density residential uses and commercial – industrial uses. In 23 addition, none of the lands traversed by the River Trunk Realignment Project are under a 24 Williamson Act contract. Based on this information, this project would not conflict with land 25 zoned for agricultural use, or land that is under a Williamson Act contract. There would be 26 no impact. 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LS #60 LS #65 LS #59 LS #30 LS #61 LS #67 LS #29 LS #3 LS #39 LS #63 LS #62 River Trunk Pump Station Shackelford Pump Station Sutter Plant ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 132 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_5-2_Williamson_Act_Lands.mxd 8/31/2017 PG Figure 5-2 Williamson Act Contracts City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles WWMP Study Area River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations Williamson Act Contracts 2016 ·I}þ 33 Main Map Inset Map Source: CDOC 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, while some WWMP components have 2 potential to conflict with Williamson Act contracts, the WWMP facilities would be 3 conditionally allowable uses on County lands zoned for agricultural uses, including those 4 subject to a Williamson Act. In conclusion, conflicts with lands zoned for agricultural uses and 5 conflicts with Williamson Act lands would be less than significant. 6 Impact AG-3: Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to 7 Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non- 8 agricultural Use (Less than Significant) 9 The Proposed Program would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth 10 during construction but could indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non- 11 agricultural uses as a result of land development which would be facilitated by the Proposed 12 Program. The impacts of development of the urban area of Modesto have been previously 13 considered in the City of Modesto’s General Plan Master EIR. As described in Impact AG-1, the 14 Stanislaus County’s Farmland Mitigation Program is infeasible because the program was 15 intended to provide a mechanism for residential development projects (not public 16 infrastructure projects) to mitigate impacts associated with loss of Prime Farmland, and the 17 purchase of an agricultural conservation easement over other off-site agricultural land would 18 not ultimately avoid or reduce impacts of converting Prime Farmland to non-agricultural 19 uses caused by the Proposed Program. In addition, the specifics regarding future 20 development that may result in agricultural conversion are not known at this time. 21 This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 15, Population and Housing, under Impact 22 PH-3. 23 While there is a potential for the Proposed Program to indirectly convert farmland to non- 24 agricultural uses as a result of land development facilitated by the Proposed Program, the 25 Proposed Program would benefit existing farmlands for the following reason. At WWMP 26 build-out, the amount of biosolids produced at the Jennings Plant would increase to 27 approximately 9,000 tons per year (Pers. Comm. Eve 2017). As described in Chapter 2, 28 currently 3,000 to 4,000 tons per of biosolids are generated at the Sutter Plant so the Program 29 would result in an increase of 5,000 to 6,000 tons/year of biosolids. Once dried out, the 30 biosolids would be used as compost and applied on the ranch lands adjacent to the Jennings 31 Plant similar to current conditions, which would have a beneficial effect on agricultural 32 production. The Proposed Program would involve no other changes that could result in 33 conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. 34 Therefore, while the Proposed Program could indirectly result in the conversion of farmland 35 to non-agricultural uses, provided that the Proposed Program would also benefit existing 36 agricultural lands in the Program area due to the increased amount of biosolids generated at 37 the Jennings Plant, on the whole, this impact would be less than significant. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 5. Agricultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 5-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 6-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 6 1 AIR QUALITY 2 6.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter evaluates the Proposed Program’s air quality impacts. The chapter first 4 describes the air quality regulatory and environmental settings and then evaluates the 5 Proposed Program’s air quality impacts. The impact evaluation begins by describing the air 6 quality significance criteria and the methodology used to evaluate significance, and then 7 presents the impact evaluation. Mitigation measures are identified for impacts that are 8 determined to be significant. 9 Air quality is descri20bed for a specific location as the concentration of various pollutants in 10 the atmosphere. Air quality conditions at a particular location are a function of the type and 11 amount of air pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the regional 12 air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. 13 Key sources used in preparing this chapter are as follows: 14  Stanislaus County General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element (Stanislaus County 15 2016a); 16  City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019); 17  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Mitigation Measures 18 guidance document (SJVAPCD 2017a); and 19  SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015a). 20 6.2 REGULATORY SETTING 21 6.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 22 The Clean Air Act is implemented by USEPA and sets ambient air limits, the National Ambient 23 Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, 24 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate pollution 25 which is subdivided into particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less 26 (PM10) and particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Of 27 these criteria pollutants, particulate matter and ground-level ozone pose the greatest threats 28 to human health. Table 6-1 shows the current attainment status for NAAQS. 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 6-1. Attainment Status of the Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 Contaminant Averaging Time Concentration State Standards Attainment Status1 Federal Standards Attainment Status2 Ozone (O3) 1-hour 0.09 ppm N (Severe) See footnote 3 8-hour 0.070 ppm N 0.075 ppm N (Extreme) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm U/A 35 ppm U/A 8-hour 9.0 ppm U/A U/A Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm A 0.100 ppm5 U/A Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm A 0.053 ppm U/A Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 0.25 ppm A 0.075 ppm U/A 24-hour 0.04 ppm A 0.14 ppm U/A Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm U/A Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 A Annual arithmetic mean 20 µg/m3 N Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour 35 µg/m3 N (Moderate) Annual arithmetic mean 12 µg/m3 N N (Moderate) Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 A Lead (Pb)6 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 A Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm U Vinyl Chloride6 (chloroethene) 24-hour 0.010 ppm A Visibility-Reducing Particles 8-hour (10:00 to 18:00 PST) See footnote 4 U A – attainment N – nonattainment U – unclassified ppm – parts per million µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter PST – Pacific Standard Time km – kilometer PM10- particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 microns or less PM2.5- particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 2.5 microns or less Notes: 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 1. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour averages), NO2, PM10, and visibility- 1 reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe CO, Pb, H2S, and vinyl 2 chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour average all standards 3 except for Pb and the PM2.5 and PM10 annual standards), some measurements may be excluded. In particular, 4 measurements are excluded that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determines would occur an average of less 5 than once per year. 6 2. National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. National air quality standards 7 are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at levels determined to be protective of public health 8 with an adequate margin of safety. National standards other than for O3, particulates, and those based on annual 9 averages are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent 10 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is less 11 than or equal to one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily 12 concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year 13 average of the ninety-ninth percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 14 is attained when the 3-year average of ninety-eighth percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national 15 particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The 16 national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The 17 annual PM2.5 standard is met by spatially averaging annual averages across officially designated clusters of sites and 18 then determining whether the 3-year average of these annual averages falls below the standard. 19 3. The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by USEPA on June 15, 2005. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour 20 ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. However, the attainment status has 21 not yet been updated based on this revised 8-hour standard. It is likely that the region will remain in nonattainment. 22 4. Statewide Visibility-Reducing Particle Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to 23 produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per km when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is 24 intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment resulting from regional haze and is equivalent to 25 a 10-mile nominal visual range. 26 5. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the ninety-eighth percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 27 monitoring station within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). 28 6. CARB has identified Pb and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure below which 29 there are no adverse health effects determined. 30 Sources: SJVAPCD 2017b, CARB 2017a, USEPA 2017 31 USEPA and, in California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate various 32 stationary sources, area sources, and mobile sources. USEPA has regulations involving 33 performance standards for specific sources that might release criteria pollutants and/or toxic 34 air contaminants (TACs), known at the federal level as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These 35 regulations are 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), 36 and 40 CFR Part 63, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). 37 Large sources of emissions may be classified as major sources and are subject to the Clean 38 Air Act Title V program. In addition, USEPA has regulations involving emission criteria for off- 39 road sources, such as emergency generators, construction equipment, and vehicles as well as 40 other releases of toxic chemicals. 41 6.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 42 California Clean Air Act 43 CARB sets standards for criteria pollutants in California that are more stringent than NAAQS 44 and includes the following additional contaminants: visibility-reducing particles, hydrogen 45 sulfide (H2S), sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The Proposed Program is located in the San Joaquin 46 Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and managed by SJVAPCD, which manages air quality in Stanislaus 47 County for attainment and permitting purposes. 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CARB is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for 1 other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB 2 also establishes passenger vehicle fuel specifications. 3 Statewide Truck and Bus Regulations 4 On December 12, 2008, CARB approved a regulation to substantially reduce emissions of 5 diesel particulate matter (DPM), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and other pollutants from existing 6 on-road diesel vehicles operating in California. The regulation requires affected trucks and 7 buses to meet performance standards and requirements between 2011 and 2023. Affected 8 vehicles included on-road, heavy-duty, diesel-fueled vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 9 rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation was updated in 2011 and 2014 with 10 revisions that provide more compliance flexibility and reflect the impact of the economic 11 recession on vehicle activity and emissions. Heavy-duty trucks used during construction of 12 Proposed Program components would be required to comply with this regulation. 13 In-use, Off-road Diesel Vehicle Regulation 14 In 2007, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in-use, off-road, 15 heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. The regulation imposes limits on vehicle idling and 16 requires fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, repowering, or installing exhaust 17 retrofits to older engines. In December 2011, major amendments were made to the 18 regulation, including modifications to the compliance dates for performance standards and 19 establishing requirements for compliance with verified diesel emission control strategy 20 technologies that reduce PM and/or NOX emissions. 21 Heavy-duty Vehicle Inspection Program 22 The heavy-duty vehicle inspection program requires heavy-duty trucks and buses to be 23 inspected for excessive smoke and tampering and for compliance with engine certification 24 labels. Any heavy-duty vehicle a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 25 6,000 pounds) traveling in California, including vehicles registered in other states and foreign 26 countries, may be tested. Tests are performed by CARB inspection teams at border crossings, 27 California Highway Patrol weigh stations, fleet facilities, and randomly selected roadside 28 locations. Owners of trucks and buses found to be in violation are subject to penalties starting 29 at $300 per violation. Heavy-duty trucks used during construction of Proposed Program 30 components would be subject to the inspection program. 31 Heavy-duty On-board Diagnostic System Regulations 32 In 2004, CARB adopted regulations requiring on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on all 2007 33 and later model year heavy-duty engines and vehicles vehicles with a gross vehicle 34 weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds) in California. CARB subsequently adopted a 35 comprehensive OBD regulation for heavy-duty vehicles model years 2010 and beyond. The 36 heavy-duty OBD regulations were updated in 2010, 2013, and 2016 with revisions to 37 enforcement requirements, testing requirements, and implementation schedules. Heavy- 38 duty trucks used during construction of proposed components would be required to comply 39 with the heavy-duty OBD regulatory requirements. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 California Standards for Diesel Fuel Regulations 1 State regulations require diesel fuel with sulfur content of 15 parts per million (ppm) or less 2 (by weight) to be used for all diesel-fueled vehicles that are operated in California. The 3 standard also applies to non-vehicular diesel fuels. The regulations also contain standards for 4 the aromatic hydrocarbon content and lubricity of diesel fuels. 5 Airborne Toxic Control Measures 6 CARB regulates TACs by requiring implementation of various airborne toxic control 7 measures (ATCMs), which are intended to reduce emissions associated with toxic substances. 8 Relevant ATCMs to the Proposed Program are as follows: 9  ATCM for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 Horsepower 10 and Greater 11  ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 12  ATCM to Reduce Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines Standards for 13 Nonvehicular Diesel Fuel 14  ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines 15  Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations 16 In addition to ATCMs, TACs are controlled under several regulations in California, including 17 the Tanner Air Toxics Act, Air Toxics Hot Spots Information Act, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2588: 18 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act. In addition, Proposition 65 (the Safe 19 Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1996) requires that the state publish a list of chemicals 20 known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. Proposition 65 requires 21 businesses to notify Californians about substantial amounts of chemicals in the products they 22 purchase or that are released into the environment. 23 6.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 24 At the local level, responsibilities of air quality districts include overseeing stationary-source 25 emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality 26 monitoring stations, overseeing agricultural burning permits, and reviewing air 27 quality−related sections of environmental documents under CEQA. The air quality districts 28 are also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that 29 address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws, as well as for ensuring that the 30 NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are met. 31 Local governments are essential partners in the effort to reduce air pollutant emissions. The 32 local governments have influence through their planning and permitting processes, local 33 ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 1 The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is comprised of a single air district, the San Joaquin 2 Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and is made up of eight counties in 3 California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare 4 and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern. SJVAPCD has local air quality 5 jurisdiction over the Proposed Program and in other counties under its jurisdiction. 6 SJVAPCD’s recommended CEQA thresholds are outlined in its Guidance for Assessing and 7 Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015a). SJVAPCD has adopted attainment plans to 8 address ozone and PM. 9 1-Hour Ozone 10 Although USEPA revoked its 1979 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005, many planning 11 requirements remain in place, and the SJVAB must still attain this standard before CAA 12 Section 185 fees (which are required when attainment is not reached) can be rescinded. 13 SJVAPCD’s most recent 1-hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone 14 Standard (SJVAPCD 2013), demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2017. 15 In July 2016, USEPA made a final determination that the SJVAB has attained the 1-hour ozone 16 NAAQS based on the most recent 3-year data period (2012−2014) of sufficient, quality- 17 assured, and certified data (SJVAPCD 2017c). For the SJVAB to be officially designated as an 18 attainment area, SJVAPCD must verify that attainment is due to permanent and enforceable 19 emission reductions and prepare a maintenance plan. 20 8-Hour Ozone 21 SJVAPCD’s far-reaching 2007 Ozone Plan demonstrates attainment of USEPA’s 1997 8-hour 22 ozone standard by 2023. USEPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, 2012. The 23 district has prepared a 2016 Ozone Plan to address USEPA’s 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 24 which the SJVAB must attain by 2032 (SJVAPCD 2016a). This extremely stringent standard is 25 nearing the SJVAB’s naturally occurring background concentrations of ozone. The 2016 plan 26 identifies that, without mobile sources transitioning to near-zero emission levels through the 27 implementation of transformative measures such as ultra-low tailpipe emissions standards 28 (which SJVAPCD does not have the authority to implement), attainment of the federal 29 standards is not possible (SJVAPCD 2016a). 30 PM10 31 PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets, made up of multiple 32 components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. PM10 is 33 typically found near roadways and around dusty industrial sites. Based on PM10 34 measurements from 2003-2006, USEPA found that the SJVAB has reached attainment of 35 federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted the 36 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, which demonstrates that the 37 SJVAB will continue to meet the PM10 standard. USEPA approved the document and, on 38 September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance (SJVAPCD 39 2017d). The District is in the process of developing the 2017 PM10 Maintenance Plan to 40 demonstrate the maintenance of the standard for an additional ten-year period of 2020 41 through 2029 (SJVAPCD 2017d, 2017e). 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 PM2.5 1 PM2.5 is found in smoke and haze. Changes in the federal PM2.5 air quality standard (in 1997, 2 2006, and 2012) and recent drought conditions in California have resulted in the 3 development of multiple PM2.5 air quality plans by SJVAPCD. The 2008 and 2015 PM2.5 Plans 4 have been prepared to achieve attainment of USEPA’s first PM2.5 standard, set in 1997. The 5 attainment deadline for the 1997 standard has been delayed to 2020 (SJVAPCD 2015b). 6 USEPA lowered the PM2.5 standard in 2006. Although SJVAPCD’s 2012 PM2.5 Plan showed 7 attainment of this standard by 2019, USEPA reclassified SJVAPCD to serious nonattainment 8 for the 2006 PM2.5 standard in January 2015, and SJVAPCD must prepare a revised plan to 9 address this nonattainment. 10 On September 15, 2016, SJVAPCD adopted the “2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 11 standard” to address another PM2.5 standard issued by USEPA in 2012 and USEPA’s 12 determination that the SJVAB is a moderate nonattainment area for the 2012 federal PM2.5 13 standard. SJVAPCD continues to work with USEPA on issues surrounding these plans, 14 including USEPA implementation updates and is in the process of developing an attainment 15 strategy to address the multiple PM2.5 standards (1997, 2006, and 2012) (SJVAPCD 2017d, 16 2017e). 17 SJVAPCD Rules 18 The Proposed Program may be subject to the following district rules. These rules have been 19 adopted by SJVAPCD to reduce emissions throughout the SJVAB: 20  Rule 2010 – Permits Required. This rule requires an applicant to obtain an 21 Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate for certain types of stationary air 22 pollution sources. 23  Rule 2201 – New and Modified Stationary-Source Review Rule applies to all new 24 stationary sources and all modifications to existing stationary sources subject to 25 SJVAPCD permit requirements that, after construction, emit or may emit one or more 26 pollutants regulated by the rule. 27  Rule 2280 – Portable Equipment Registration applies to portable emissions units 28 that may operate in participating districts throughout California. The rule requires 29 applicable portable equipment to be registered. 30  Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits describes which major 31 sources must obtain a Title V operating permit. Generally, major sources are those 32 stationary sources with the potential to emit greater than identified designated limits 33 of criteria pollutants 10 tons per year (tpy) of NOx or VOC, 100 tpy of CO, or 70 34 tpy of PM10 or Sox) and major toxic sources with the potential to emit greater than 35 10 tpy of any single hazardous air contaminant or 25 tpy of any combined hazardous 36 air contaminants. 37  Rule 3135 – Dust Control Plan Fees requires the applicant to submit a fee in 38 addition to a dust control plan. The purpose of this rule is to recover SJVAPCD’s cost 39 for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Rule 4001 – New Source Performance Standards applies to new or modified 1 sources of air pollution that must comply with standards, criteria and requirements 2 for the applicable sources. This incorporates by reference the federal NSPS. 3  Rule 4002 – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants applies 4 to sources of air pollution that must comply with standards, criteria and 5 requirements for the applicable sources of TACs. This incorporates by reference the 6 federal NESHAPs. 7  Rule 4101 – Visible Emissions prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants into 8 the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air 9 contaminants. 10  Rule 4102 – Nuisance applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air 11 contaminants or other materials. In the event that the project or construction of the 12 project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation of this rule and subject to 13 SJVAPCD enforcement action. 14  Rule 4201 – Particulate Matter Concentration applies to any source operation 15 which emits or may emit dust, fumes, or total suspended particulate matter. 16  Rule 4202 – Particulate Matter - Emissions Rate limits particulate matter 17 emissions by establishing allowable emission rates. 18  Rule 4301 – Fuel Burning Equipment limits the concentration of combustion 19 contaminants and specifies maximum emission rates for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 20 oxide and combustion contaminant emissions. 21  Rule 4311 – Flares This rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds 22 (VOCs) and NOX from the operation of flares. 23  Rule 4565 – Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations applies to 24 facilities that generate these materials and operator who landfills, land applies, 25 composts or co-composts these materials. Specific control requirements are 26 applicable to these facilities. 27  Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit volatile 28 organic compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. 29  Rule 4701 – Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 1 limits the emissions of NOX, 30 CO, and VOCs from internal combustion engines. These limits are not applicable to 31 standby engines as long as they are used fewer than 200 hours per year for 32 testing during non-emergencies). 33  Rule 4702 – Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2 limits the emissions of NOX, 34 CO, and VOCs from spark-ignited internal combustion engines. 35  Regulation VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions is a series of rules (Rules 8011–8081) 36 designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human 37 activity, including construction, road construction, bulk materials storage, landfill 38 operations, and other activities. This regulation is discussed in more detail below. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Rule 9410 – Employer-Based Trip Reduction requires large employers to establish 1 an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan, which is a set of measures that 2 encourages employees to use alternative transportation and ridesharing for their 3 commutes. 4  Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review is intended to reduce a project’s impact from 5 indirect sources such as on-road and off-road vehicles on air quality through project 6 design elements or mitigation by payments of applicable off-site mitigation fees. 7 Compliance with Rule 9510 is designed to reduce construction exhaust NOX and PM10 8 emissions by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively. Compliance with Rule 9510 is 9 designed to reduce operational emissions of NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3 percent 10 and 50 percent, respectively. This rule is only applicable to certain development 11 projects that exceed size requirements at buildout 25,000 square feet of light 12 industrial space). 13 Fugitive Dust Measures (Regulation VIII) 14 The Proposed Program would also be required to implement the mandatory control 15 measures listed in Table 2 of the SJVAPCD’s Mitigation Measures guidance document 16 (SJVAPCD 2017a) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. These measures are not considered 17 mitigation measures under CEQA because they are required by law. 18 The Regulation VIII requirements (some of which are not applicable to the Proposed 19 Program) are listed below: 20  All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively used for 21 construction purposes, will be effectively stabilized for dust emissions using water or 22 a chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or 23 vegetative ground cover. 24  All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads will be effectively 25 stabilized for dust emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant. 26  All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, 27 and demolition activities will be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions by 28 utilizing an application of water or by presoaking. 29  With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the 30 building will be wetted during demolition. 31  All materials transported off site will be covered or effectively wetted to limit visible 32 dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container 33 will be maintained. 34  All operations will limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from 35 adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is 36 expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to 37 limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface 1 of outdoor storage piles, piles will be effectively stabilized to prevent fugitive dust 2 emissions utilizing sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant. 3  Within urban areas, trackout will be immediately removed when it extends 50 or 4 more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. 5  Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will prevent carryout and trackout. 6 Stanislaus County General Plan 2015 7 The Stanislaus County General Plan 2015 Conservation/Open Space Element (Stanislaus 8 County 2016a) identifies air quality–related goals and policies. These are aimed at reducing 9 criteria pollutant emissions and improving regional air quality by requiring all development 10 projects to include reasonable air quality mitigation measures, reducing motor vehicle 11 emissions, and increasing public awareness of air quality problems and solutions. 12 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 13 Chapter VII of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019), includes 14 policies pertaining to air quality. The following are relevant to the Proposed Program: 15 Policy VII-H.2[h]. Consult with the SJVAPCD during CEQA review for discretionary 16 projects with the potential for causing adverse air quality impacts. 17 Policy VII-H.2[m]. Implement measures to reduce the temporary, yet potentially 18 significant, local air quality impacts from construction activities. Potential measures to 19 be implemented may include those measures shown in Section V-2 of the Final Master 20 Environmental Impact Report. 21 City of Ceres General Plan 22 The City of Ceres General Plan’s Chapter 4, Agricultural and Natural Resources (2018) contains 23 the following goals and policies related to air quality that may be relevant to the Proposed 24 Project: 25 Goal 4.G: Protect and improve air quality in the Ceres area, and protect residents from 26 harmful effects of air pollution. 27 Policy 4.G.4: Proposed Projects. Solicit and consider comments from local and 28 regional agencies on proposed projects that may affect regional air quality, and 29 submit development proposals to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District for 30 review and comment pursuant to CEQA prior to consideration by the City. 31 Policy 4.G.8: Noxious Odors. Do not permit new residential development within a 32 half-mile radius of emitters of noxious odors. Require that any new potential odor 33 source locating within project screening trigger levels of sensitive receptors, as 34 established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District, undertake a detailed odor 35 analysis. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policy 4.G.9: Cumulative Impacts. Address impacts of new development projects 1 that may individually have insignificant impacts on air quality, but which together 2 with other projects in the Planning Area may be cumulatively significant by requiring 3 mitigation at the plan level for area-wide plan development. 4 Policy 4.G.13: Thresholds of Significance. Use the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 5 District’s thresholds of significance for determining and mitigating project air quality 6 impacts and related thresholds of significance for use in environmental documents. 7 Policy 4.G.14: Construction Mitigation. Require mitigation measures as a condition 8 of obtaining permits to minimize dust and air emissions impacts from construction. 9 Require contractors to implement dust suppression measures during excavation, 10 grading, and site preparation activities. Techniques may include, but are not limited 11 to: 12 o Site watering or application of dust suppressants; 13 o Phasing or extension of grading operations; 14 o Covering of stockpiles; 15 o Suspension of grading activities during high wind periods (typically 16 winds greater than 25 miles per hour); and 17 o Revegetation of graded areas. 18 6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 19 This section presents information on the existing physical environmental conditions in the 20 Program vicinity related to air quality. This information will be used to determine impacts 21 that could result from construction and operation of the Proposed Program, as presented in 22 Section 6.4. Modesto is home to roughly 300,000 people and contains multiple busy roads 23 and highways, railroads, and an airport. The Sutter and Jennings Plants and food processing 24 plants operate in the study area and agricultural land uses are located around the edge of the 25 City proper. 26 6.3.1 REGIONAL SETTING 27 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 28 Modesto is located in the SJVAB, which forms the southern half of California’s Central Valley 29 and is approximately 250 miles long and averages 35 miles wide. The SJVAB is bounded by 30 the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to 31 the south. The SJVAB contains all of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, 32 and Tulare Counties, as well as a portion of Kern County. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Climate and Topography 1 The Modesto area has an inland Mediterranean climate that is characterized by hot, dry 2 summers and cool winters. Summer high temperatures average in the 90s and often exceed 3 100 degrees Fahrenheit 4 Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the Bay-Delta region, the 5 surrounding mountain ranges restrict air movement through and out of the valley. Wind 6 speed and direction influence the dispersion and transportation of pollutants; the greater the 7 wind flow, the lower the accumulation. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB 8 is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversion, leading to higher 9 concentrations of emitted pollutants (SJVAPCD 2015a). 10 Precipitation and fog tend to reduce pollutant concentrations. Ozone is formed when 11 chemical compounds such as VOCs and NOX (collectively known as ozone precursors) react 12 with sunlight. Clouds and fog block the solar radiation for the ozone-forming reaction. Annual 13 precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley decreases from north to south, averaging 14 approximately 20 inches in the north, 10 inches in the central portion, and less than 6 inches 15 in the south (SJVAPCD 2002). In the Modesto area of the SJVAB, the average annual 16 precipitation is approximately 12 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2017). 17 6.3.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS 18 Air Monitoring Data 19 USEPA, CARB, and local air districts operate an extensive air monitoring network to measure 20 maintenance of or progress toward attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS. Table 6-2 shows the 21 most recent three years of available data for PM10, PM2.5 and ozone. 22 Table 6-2. Air Monitoring Data for 2013–2015 23 Monitoring Station Pollutant Standard 2015 2014 2013 No. Exceed1 Maximum Concentration 1 No. Exceed1 Maximum Concentration1 No. Exceed1 Maximum Concentration1 Stanislaus County Modesto- 14th Street PM10 24-hour 31.1/0 85.6 µg/m3 37.6/0 122.5 µg/m3 57.7/0 73 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour * 44.0 µg/m3 17.0 58.2 µg/m3 37.6 83.2 µg/m3 Ozone 8-hour 24/16 0.093 ppm 24/12 0.090 ppm 13/2 0.082 ppm Ozone 1-hour 5/0 0.111 ppm 1/0 0.103 ppm 0/0 0.088 ppm Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; * = There was insufficient (or no) data available to determine the value. 1. Indicates the number of exceedance days recorded annually at this monitoring station for a particular constituent compared to that constituent’s NAAQS and CAAQS. The first number is the state value and the second number is the federal value if they are different. Used National Maximum Source: CARB 2017b 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Existing Sources of Air Pollution and Odors 1 Existing sources of air pollution and odor in the Modesto area include: heavy duty trucks, 2 passenger vehicles, farm equipment, off-road equipment, food processing plants, industrial 3 facilities, waste management facilities, the county airport, and agricultural operations. Air 4 pollution transported from the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento areas may account for 5 roughly a quarter of the pollution in the Modesto area (SJVAPCD 2017e). 6 Existing Emissions from City’s Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Facilities 7 Monitoring data or comprehensive estimates of existing emissions of criteria pollutants or 8 TACs from the City’s collection system and treatment facilities is not available. The types of 9 emissions associated with the wastewater collection and treatment facilities include the 10 following: 11  Fugitive emissions of volatile organic compounds and odors from sewer pipes where 12 such emissions can escape to the surface through pipe breaks, cross connections to 13 the storm drain, malfunctioning catch basins, or similar escape routes. Wastewater 14 may contain small amounts of volatile toxic air contaminants (particularly from 15 industrial waste discharge) that can escape into the air. 16  Criteria pollutant and TAC emissions from burning diesel fuel to run emergency 17 generators at lift stations and treatment plants. 18  Criteria pollutant and TAC emissions from burning natural gas or digester waste gas 19 for boilers to heat the anaerobic digesters. 20  Criteria pollutant and TAC emissions from burning waste gas from anaerobic 21 digesters at the Primary Plant using the flare. Unburned hydrocarbons may be 22 emitted. Hydrogen sulfide in the digester gas has been reduced by addition of ferrous 23 chloride to the flow, but some hydrogen sulfide remains. It produces sulfur dioxide 24 when burned. 25  Odors from the headworks of the Sutter Plant, in the event that the biofilters on the 26 headworks do not function properly or odors otherwise escape the building 27  Odors from biosolids handling (including sludge drying) at the Sutter Plant. 28  Potential fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, or volatile TACs 29 from wastewater as it goes through treatment. 30  Routine emissions of chlorine and sulfur dioxide as a result of the chlorination and 31 dechlorination processes at the Jennings Plant for treated effluent that is discarded to 32 the San Joaquin River. 33  Potential accidental releases of chlorine and sulfur dioxide at the Jennings Plant. 34 The wastewater facilities are a potential source of odors. Sources of odors include headworks, 35 anaerobic digestion, sludge handling, and other miscellaneous operations. SJVAPCD was 36 contacted to obtain a list of all odor complaints received in the past 3 years associated with 37 the Sutter Plant. Table 6-3 summarizes the odor complaints. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 6-3. Sutter Plant Odor Complaints for 2014-2017 1 Complaint Date Unconfirmed Confirmed Summary of Cause Corrective Action Taken 10/9/2016 X 10/7/2016 X 10/6/2016 X 10/5/2016 X 9/15/2016 X WWTP Operations Notified 7/27/2016 X 5/4/2016 X WWTP Operations 5/4/2016 X WWTP Operations 4/28/2016 X WWTP Operations Notified 4/19/2016 X WWTP Facility Notified 2/29/2016 X WWTP Facility Notified 10/23/2015 X 9/23/2015 X 9/11/2015 X 7/29/2015 X WWTP Operations 3/27/2015 X 3/13/2015 X 1/28/2015 X WWTP Operations WWTP Facility Notified 1/10/2015 X 11/26/2014 X 11/26/2014 X 11/22/2014 X 11/18/2014 X WWTP Operations 11/18/2014 X WWTP Operations 11/16/2014 X WWTP Operations 11/14/2014 X WWTP Operations 11/3/2014 X WWTP Operations Call between SJVAPCD & WWTP 10/31/2014 X 10/23/2014 X WWTP Operations Notified 10/23/2014 X WWTP Operations Notified 10/19/2014 X ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Complaint Date Unconfirmed Confirmed Summary of Cause Corrective Action Taken 10/16/2014 X 10/13/2014 X 10/9/2014 X WWTP Operations Notified 10/9/2014 X WWTP Operations Notified 10/7/2014 X WWTP Operations 10/7/2014 X WWTP Operations 10/6/2014 X WWTP Operations Meeting with WWTP 10/6/2014 X WWTP Operations Notified 10/3/2014 X WWTP Operations 10/2/2014 X 9/11/2014 X 9/11/2014 X 7/28/2014 X WWTP Operations Cannery waste sent to Jennings Plant 7/23/2014 X WWTP Operations Delayed treatment of tomato waste Notes: = State Water Resources Control Board; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant 1 Source: SJVAPCD 2017g 2 6.3.3 AIR POLLUTANTS 3 Carbon Monoxide 4 CO is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. CO is formed by the incomplete 5 combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air. Ambient CO concentrations normally 6 are considered a localized effect and typically correspond closely to the spatial and temporal 7 distributions of vehicular traffic, forming pollutant hot spots. CO concentrations are also 8 influenced by wind speed and atmospheric mixing. Under inversion conditions, CO 9 concentrations can be distributed more uniformly over an area to some distance from 10 vehicular sources. CO binds with hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in blood, and 11 reduces the blood’s capacity for carrying oxygen (O2) to the heart, brain, and other parts of 12 the body. At high concentrations, CO can cause heart difficulties in people with chronic 13 diseases, impair mental abilities, and cause death. 14 Nitrogen Oxides 15 NOX is a family of gaseous nitrogen compounds and are precursors to the formation of 16 ozone (O3) and PM. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), the major component of NOX, is a reddish-brown 17 gas that is toxic at high concentrations. NOX result primarily from the combustion of fossil 18 fuels under high temperature and pressure. Fuel combustion, primarily from on-road and off- 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 road motor vehicles, and industrial sources are the major sources of this air pollutant 1 (SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2 2015a). 3 Volatile Organic Compounds 4 VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the 5 formation of smog and/or might themselves be toxic. VOC emissions are a major precursor 6 to the formation of O3. VOCs are also commonly referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG) 7 (SJVAPCD 2015a). 8 Ozone 9 O3 is a reactive gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. In the stratosphere, O3 exists naturally 10 and shields the earth from harmful incoming ultraviolet radiation. In the troposphere (the 11 lowest region of the atmosphere); however, it is a secondary pollutant that is formed when 12 NOX and VOCs react in the presence of sunlight. O3 at the earth’s surface causes numerous 13 adverse health effects and is a pollutant regulated by state and federal air quality agencies. It 14 is a major component of smog. High concentrations of ground-level O3 can adversely affect 15 the human respiratory system and aggravate cardiovascular disease and many respiratory 16 ailments. O3 also damages natural ecosystems, such as forests, foothill communities, and 17 agricultural crops, as well as some human-made materials, such as rubber and plastics 18 (SJVAPCD 2015a). 19 Particulate Matter 20 PM is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. PM is made up of 21 multiple components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. 22 Particle size is directly linked to the potential for causing health problems. PM10 is of concern 23 because these particles pass through the throat and nose and are deposited in the thoracic 24 region of the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause 25 serious health effects. PM10 is typically found near roadways and around dusty industrial 26 sites. Fine particles (PM2.5), which are found in smoke and haze, penetrate even more deeply 27 into the thoracic and alveolar regions of the lungs (SJVAPCD 2015a). 28 Sulfur Dioxide 29 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a “rotten egg” smell formed primarily by 30 the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Suspended SO2 particles contribute to poor 31 visibility and are a component of PM10 (SJVAPCD 2015a). 32 Lead 33 Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. 34 Historically, the major sources of Pb emissions have been mobile and industrial activities. The 35 health effects of Pb poisoning include loss of appetite, weakness, apathy, and miscarriage. Pb 36 poisoning can also cause lesions of the neuromuscular system, circulatory system, brain, and 37 gastrointestinal tract (SJVAPCD 2015a). 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 In the past, gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne Pb 1 through the use of leaded fuels. Because the use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out, 2 ambient concentrations of Pb have dramatically decreased. 3 Hydrogen Sulfide 4 H2S is associated with refining, geothermal activity, sewage treatment plants, oil and gas 5 production, and confined animal feeding operations. H2S is extremely hazardous in high 6 concentrations and can cause death (SJVAPCD 2015a). 7 Sulfates 8 Sulfates are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal 9 and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds result primarily from the 10 combustion of petroleum-derived fuels gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This 11 sulfur is oxidized to SO2 during the combustion process and subsequently converted to 12 sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to sulfates is comparatively 13 rapid and complete in urban areas of California because of their regional meteorological 14 features (SJVAPCD 2015a). 15 CARB’s sulfate standard is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory Effects 16 of sulfate exposure at levels that exceed the standard include decreased ventilatory function, 17 aggravation of asthmatic and increased risk of cardiopulmonary disease. Sulfates 18 are particularly effective in degrading visibility and, because they are usually acidic, can harm 19 ecosystems and damage materials and property (SJVAPCD 2015a). 20 Vinyl Chloride 21 Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas that does not occur naturally; it is formed when substances 22 such as trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene are broken down. Vinyl 23 chloride is used to make PVC, which is used in plastic products, such as pipes, wire and cable 24 coatings, and packaging materials (SJVAPCD 2015a). 25 Toxic Air Contaminants 26 TACs are air pollutants that can lead to serious illness or increased mortality, even when 27 present in relatively low concentrations. Hundreds of different types of TACs exist, with 28 varying degrees of toxicity. Many TACs are confirmed or suspected carcinogens or are known 29 or suspected to cause birth defects or neurological damage. For some chemicals, such as 30 carcinogens, no threshold exists below which exposure can be considered risk free. Examples 31 of TAC sources associated with the Proposed Program are fossil fuel combustion and 32 chemicals used in the wastewater treatment areas. 33 TACs associated with wastewater facilities include various TACs that are contaminants in the 34 wastewater received primarily from industrial sources. In addition, the wastewater 35 generates hydrogen sulfide and uses chlorine in the disinfection process. 36 Sources of TACs include stationary sources, area-wide sources, and mobile sources. USEPA 37 maintains a list of 187 TACs, identified federally as HAPs. These HAPs are included on CARB’s 38 list of TACs along with additional chemicals identified as TACs in California (CARB 2017c). 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), many 1 researchers consider DPM to be a primary contributor to health risk from TACs because 2 particles in the exhaust carry many harmful organics and metals, rather than being a single 3 substance like other TACs. Unlike many TACs, outdoor DPM is not monitored by CARB 4 because no routine measurement method exists; however, using the CARB emission 5 inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and results from several studies, 6 CARB has made preliminary estimates of DPM concentrations throughout the state 7 (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2001). 8 Existing buildings might contain asbestos, which can become airborne during demolition 9 activities. People exposed to low levels of airborne asbestos could be at an elevated risk 10 above background rates) for lung cancer and mesothelioma. The risk is proportional to the 11 cumulative inhaled dose (quantity of fibers); the risk increases with the time since first 12 exposure. Although various factors influence the disease-causing potency of the different 13 forms of asbestos (such as fiber length and width, fiber type, and fiber chemistry), all forms 14 are carcinogens. Existing regulations regarding demolition of asbestos-containing materials 15 (described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) require prescriptive measures 16 to ensure that public health is protected and exposure to asbestos is minimized. 17 6.3.4 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 18 Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population most susceptible to the effects of 19 poor air quality—children, the elderly, and individuals with preexisting serious health 20 problems affected by air quality asthma) (CARB 2005). Examples of locations that 21 contain sensitive receptors are residences, schools and school yards, parks and playgrounds, 22 daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Residences include houses, 23 apartments, and senior living complexes. Medical facilities can include hospitals, 24 convalescent homes, and health clinics. Playgrounds include play areas associated with parks 25 or community centers. 26 Many, if not all, of these sensitive land uses can be found in the immediate vicinity of program- 27 level components of the Proposed Program and the River Trunk Realignment Project. While 28 specific sensitive receptors may change or move over the life of the Proposed Program, Figure 29 11-3 in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Figure 13-1 in Chapter 13, Land Use 30 and Planning; and Figure 14-1 in Chapter 14, Noise and Vibration, show the locations of 31 existing schools, zoned residential areas, and other existing sensitive receptors in the study 32 area and River Trunk Realignment Project area. These figures provide a general context of 33 the proximity of Proposed Program components to sensitive receptors. 34 River Trunk Realignment Project 35 The nearest sensitive receptors to the River Trunk Realignment Project include homes on 36 Merced Avenue and Calaveras Avenue that are 170 and 250 feet, respectively, from the 37 pipeline alignment. A church, school, and a daycare are located at the intersection of 38 Calaveras Avenue and Tuolumne Boulevard, which are approximately 190, 280, and 260 feet 39 from the pipeline alignment, respectively. Work on the gravity lines, particularly those along 40 Tuolumne Blvd., Colorado Ave., and Pelton Ave. will take place in close proximity to numerous 41 homes. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The nearest sensitive receptors to the pump station sites are residences on C Street and 1 Pueblo Avenue, which are 800 feet and 1,100 feet from River Trunk Pump Station and 2 Shackelford Pump Station, respectively. In addition, the planned Tuolumne River Regional 3 Park, which will consist of over 500 acres of parkland along 7 miles of the Tuolumne River, 4 would be located immediately south of the River Trunk Pump Station. For additional 5 discussion regarding the Tuolumne River Regional Park planning effort, refer to Section 19.4, 6 “Cumulative Impacts.” 7 6.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 6.4.1 METHODOLOGY 9 Construction and operation-related air quality impacts of program-level components within 10 the SJVAB were evaluated qualitatively by considering the Proposed Program’s sources of 11 criteria pollutant, TACs, or odor emissions; proximity to sensitive receptors; and frequency 12 and duration of emissions. In addition, the existing SJVAB’s air quality attainment status and 13 applicable air quality plans were reviewed and considered in the impact analysis. Where 14 specific construction or operation-related details were lacking, impacts were conservatively 15 judged to be significant, and prescriptive mitigation measures were developed to ensure 16 significant impacts would be minimized. In addition, where applicable, specific guidance 17 documents and tools used to analyze the River Trunk Realignment Project’s air quality 18 impacts, particularly those related to the qualitative assessment of TACs and odors, were 19 used in the air quality analysis for program-level components. 20 As required by SJVAPCD, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2016.3.1, was 21 used to quantify criteria pollutant emissions from the River Trunk Realignment’s 22 construction and operation activities. These emissions were then compared to the SJVAPCD’s 23 thresholds to determine the significance of impacts on air quality. For other elements of the 24 Proposed Program, construction and operational impact significance were determined 25 qualitatively by considering the project emission sources and duration since specific details 26 of construction or operation for those program components have not yet been defined. 27 The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, 28 which are based on SJVAPCD New Source Review offset requirements for stationary sources. 29 As such, the impact analysis uses these thresholds of significance in the section below. 30 For TACs and odors associated with all of the Proposed Program components, impacts were 31 evaluated qualitatively using SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality 32 Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015a). The odor impact evaluation for WWMP construction 33 and operation was conducted qualitatively based primarily on whether the existing 34 operations had elicited any odor or nuisance complaints from SJVAPCD in the past 3 years. In 35 addition, other pertinent information regarding TAC and odor sources frequency of 36 emissions, type of sources) and the proximity to sensitive receptors was considered. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 6.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 1 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would: 2  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 3  Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected 4 air quality violation; 5  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which 6 the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air 7 quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds 8 for ozone precursors); 9  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or 10  Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 11 GAMAQI Thresholds 12 The SJVAPCD’s recommended CEQA thresholds are outlined in its GAMAQI (SJVAPCD 2015a) 13 and summarized in Table 6-4. SJVAPCD's thresholds for ROG and NOX, which are ozone 14 precursors, are 10 tons/year for each pollutant. Ozone precursor emissions are generated 15 from both heavy- and light-duty vehicle use. The SJVAPCD has determined that projects with 16 emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to 17 be in compliance with the applicable SJVAPCD air quality plans (SJVAPCD 2015a). 18 According to SJVAPCD’s guidance, impacts of operational and construction emissions are 19 considered to be less than significant if fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are below 20 the significance levels listed in Table 6-4. In addition, SJVAPCD Regulation VIII requires all 21 projects that involve earthmoving or travel on unpaved roads to implement fugitive dust 22 control measures. Implementation of these control measures would be sufficient to reduce 23 PM10 and PM2.5 impacts to a level considered less than significant. 24 These threshold limits apply to the annual emissions. These thresholds apply separately to 25 construction, operational permitted sources and activities, and operational non-permitted 26 activities. In other words, a project can emit up to 10 tons of NOX during construction, 10 tons 27 of NOX from permitted activities, and an additional 10 tons of NOX from non-permitted 28 activities for a total of 30 tons of NOX emissions and still be under the CEQA significance 29 threshold and would be considered less than significant. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 6-4. Applicable SJVAPCD Construction and Operational Project-Level Significance 1 Thresholds under CEQA 2 Pollutant Construction Emissions Threshold (tons/year) Operational Permitted Activities (tons/year) Operational Non-permitted activities (tons/year) Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 100 100 Oxides of nitrogen (NOX; ozone precursor) 10 10 10 Reactive organic gases (ROG; ozone precursor) 10 10 10 Sulfur oxides (SOX) 27 27 27 Particulate matter (PM10) 15 15 15 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 15 15 15 Source: SJVAPCD 2015a 3 The following quantitative TAC thresholds of significance are identified in the Guidance for 4 Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015a), with implementation of the 5 latest revisions to SJVAPCD’s risk management policy (SJVAPCD 2015c) also serving as 6 revisions to the CEQA thresholds: 7  Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 8 20 in 1 million, or 9  Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs result in a Hazard Index 10 greater than 1 for the MEI. 11 Due to the variable nature of construction activity, the generation of TAC emissions in most 12 cases would be temporary at any given location, especially considering the short amount of 13 time such equipment is typically operating within an influential distance that would result in 14 the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations. Chronic and cancer-related 15 health effects estimated over short periods are uncertain. Cancer potency factors are based 16 on animal lifetime studies or studies of workers with long-term exposure to the carcinogenic 17 agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from exposure 18 that would last only a small fraction of a lifetime. Some studies indicate that the dose rate may 19 change the potency of a given dose of a carcinogenic chemical. In other words, a dose 20 delivered over a short period may have a different potency than the same dose delivered over 21 a lifetime (OEHHA 2017). Given that the construction period for each program-level 22 component under the Proposed Program would vary and has not yet been defined, a 23 qualitative analysis was determined to be the appropriate level of detail required to 24 determine the impact of TAC emissions. 25 For operational TAC emissions, the Proposed Program’s facilities are required to be below 26 the health effects quantitative thresholds in order to obtain the required operating permits 27 consistent with SJVAPCD regulations regarding permitted sources. For construction and 28 operation, health risks from TACs were evaluated by identifying the Proposed Program’s 29 potential to generate TAC emissions and determining whether sensitive receptors could be 30 affected by those emissions. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 6.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air 2 Quality Plan (Significant and Unavoidable) 3 Stanislaus County and the City have planned for growth and adopted general plans for future 4 development (City of Modesto 2019, Stanislaus County 2016b). The City is currently in the 5 process of updating its general plan. The SJVAPCD develops its air quality plans to attain 6 Federal and State AAQS which are in part based on the population and growth estimates 7 provided by the local planning agencies, including the City and County. The SJVAPCD 8 established mass emission thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions to be 9 consistent with levels required to be consistent with the SJVAPCD air quality plans. Thus, 10 projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be 11 determined to not conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans 12 provided there are no individual measures listed in the air quality plans that the project 13 would conflict or obstruct. 14 The Proposed Program’s purpose is to repair, replace, and install new wastewater 15 infrastructure to support and accommodate new and existing development in the City’s 16 General Plan and SOI. The Proposed Program components would not directly add new 17 housing or substantial sources of employment to the region. The River Trunk Realignment 18 Project would involve facilities and operational uses consistent with and in support of the 19 planned uses in the City’s General Plan and SOI. 20 The Proposed Program, including the River Trunk Realignment Project, would follow all 21 federal, state, and local regulations and policies related to sources of air pollutants, including 22 applicable general plan policies. In addition, construction of the Proposed Program would 23 follow local air district regulations for fugitive dust, VOCs, and NOX emissions. As detailed in 24 Impact AQ-2, the River Trunk Realignment Project’s construction and operations would not 25 result in NOX emissions that exceed the 10 tons per year emission threshold. Thus, the River 26 Trunk Realignment Project would not contribute to any conflicts with applicable air quality 27 plans. Construction of various program-level CIPs may result in NOX emissions that exceed 28 the 10 tons per year emission threshold and could result in other criteria pollutant emissions 29 that exceed SJVAPCD’s thresholds; therefore, such components could obstruct 30 implementation of applicable air quality plans, which would be a significant impact. It is also 31 unknown at this time if the amount of operational emissions would exceed any significance 32 threshold. Mitigation measures that would address construction emissions and operational 33 emissions are discussed under Impact AQ-2. It is assumed that emissions from permitted 34 sources would be addressed under the applicable permit process and any excess emissions 35 would purchase offsets as required to obtain permits; however, this would not address 36 construction or operational emissions which do not require permits. 37 For the reasons described above, the overall Proposed Program and the various CIPs could 38 generate emissions greater than that accounted for in the applicable air quality plans. 39 Therefore, the Proposed Program could obstruct or conflict with applicable air quality plans 40 and would have a significant and unavoidable impact. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact AQ-2: Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an 1 Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation (Less than Significant with 2 Mitigation) 3 The SJVAPCD considers PM10 emissions to be the greatest pollutant of concern when 4 assessing construction-related air quality impacts. The SJVAPCD has determined that 5 compliance with its Regulation VIII and the implementation of all feasible control measures 6 specified in its GAMAQI (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2015a), constitute 7 sufficient mitigation to reduce construction-related PM10 emissions to less-than-significant 8 levels and to minimize adverse air quality effects. These mitigation measures are listed below 9 under Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. All construction projects must abide by 10 Regulation VIII. Consequently, this air quality analysis assumes that the City and its 11 contractors will comply with Regulation VIII and that such compliance will be sufficient to 12 eliminate any potentially significant air quality effects generated by construction activities. 13 Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce this impact to a less- 14 than-significant level. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce emissions from 15 exhaust, and SJVAPCD also recommends the measures listed below to reduce exhaust 16 pollutant emissions from heavy construction equipment: 17  Use aqueous diesel fuel in diesel equipment. 18  Use diesel particulate filters on diesel equipment. 19  Use cooled exhaust gas recirculation on diesel equipment. 20 Adherence to the mitigation measure and requirements above would reduce pollutant 21 emissions below significance thresholds and would ensure that impacts would be less than 22 significant. 23 The City does not consider cancer risk from diesel-fueled construction equipment to be an 24 issue. The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 70-year exposure period. 25 Construction activities are sporadic and short-term, and once construction activities have 26 ceased, the emissions have ceased as well. Because the exposure period to construction diesel 27 exhaust would be well below the 70-year exposure period, construction of the proposed 28 program is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk. This impact is considered less 29 than-significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. 30 All Program-level Components 31 Construction Impacts. The Proposed Program involves a range of new wastewater-related 32 facilities and infrastructure components spread throughout the City of Modesto and in nearby 33 surrounding communities and unincorporated County areas that are all within the SJVAB. 34 Construction activities for individual components would generate emissions of criteria air 35 pollutants via the use of heavy equipment, worker vehicle trips, and material hauling truck 36 trips. The City would comply with all SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including Regulation 37 VIII, Fugitive Dust Measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, 38 construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 39 Operational Impacts. Operation of the program-level components would include the 40 operation, inspection, and maintenance of new pump stations, lift stations and wastewater 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 treatment plant facilities. These activities would result in the direct emission of criteria air 1 pollutants through employee vehicle trips and infrequent use of backup generators primarily 2 during emergencies or power outages, and emissions of VOCs and combustion products 3 associated with wastewater treatment operations. This includes combustion of natural gas 4 for boilers to heat aerators, combustion of digester waste gas in boilers or a flare, release of 5 various VOCs during process operations, release of hydrogen sulfide or sulfur dioxide, and 6 release of chlorine. Removal of waste material and land application of biosolids would 7 generate fossil fuel combustion emissions from the vehicles used to transport the material 8 and generate fugitive dust during biosolids land application. The increased number of 9 employees required to support the Jennings Plant would be similar to those currently 10 operating the Sutter Plant. The operation and maintenance of other program-level facilities 11 would not require a substantial change in employees compared to existing conditions. 12 Emissions from the operation of emergency generator and other wastewater treatment plant 13 sources would not be substantial since any new or modified emergency generators and 14 wastewater treatment plant sources would go through the SJVAPCD permit process to ensure 15 that project emissions are below the appropriate significance threshold for permitted 16 sources and offsets provided if required. If the air quality thresholds of significance are 17 expected to be exceeded, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would be implemented to ensure 18 equipment with best available control technology would be installed to minimize potential 19 emissions. Thus, these operational impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 20 River Trunk Realignment Project 21 Construction Impacts. Similar to the program-level components, construction of the River 22 Trunk Realignment Project would result in construction-related emissions of fugitive dust 23 and/or criteria air pollutants. The River Trunk Realignment Project’s projected criteria air 24 pollutant emissions during construction are shown in Table 6-5. 25 Table 6-5. Estimated Project Construction Emissions 26 Year Emissions (tons per year) CO NOX ROG SOX Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 2018 4.9 8.2 1.1 0.014 0.29 0.13 0.27 0.035 2019 3.5 5.3 .51 0.0094 0.20 0.059 0.19 0.015 2020 1.6 2.3 0.24 0.0045 0.089 0.018 0.082 0.0047 2021 0.11 0.11 0.41 0.00023 0.0047 0.00078 0.0043 0.00021 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold (tons/year) 100 10 10 27 15 15 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Modeling conducted by Horizon Water and Environment in 2018 (Appendix 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Based on comparison to the significance thresholds, all pollutants, would be well below the 1 construction emission thresholds. As explained above, SJVAPCD has determined that those 2 projects with mass emissions less than the thresholds of significance would not create 3 additional violations of criteria pollutant emissions standards (SJVAPCD 2015a, SJVAPCD 4 2017f). In addition, because the River Trunk Realignment Project would be required to 5 implement SJVAPCD dust control measures, fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) would 6 be less than significant. Compliance with SJVAPCD’s required dust control measures would 7 not be considered a mitigation measure under CEQA because implementation of these 8 measures is required under Regulation VIII. Therefore, construction-related emissions would 9 result in a less-than-significant impact. 10 Operational Impacts. The River Trunk Realignment Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions 11 during operation are shown in Table 6-6. Emissions were estimated assuming that the 12 proposed pumps would be operating continuously year-round, which is a conservative 13 assumption. The River Trunk Realignment Project’s operational emissions would be below 14 CEQA significance thresholds and would therefore result in a less-than-significant impact. 15 Table 6-6. Estimated Project Operation Emissions 16 Emissions (tons per year) CO NOX ROG SOX Exhaust PM10 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Total 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.0007 0.026 0.0013 0.03 0.00034 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold (tons/year) 100 10 10 27 15 15 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Source: Modeling conducted by Horizon Water and Environment in 2018 (Appendix 17 Overall Conclusion 18 In conclusion, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3, the 19 Proposed Program’s overall impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 20 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control 21 Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10 22 The following controls are required to be implemented by the City or its contractor 23 at all construction sites. 24  All disturbed areas, including storage piles, that are not being actively used for 25 construction purposes will be effectively stabilized to avoid dust emissions 26 through application of water, a chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or by covering 27 these areas with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads will be effectively 1 stabilized to avoid dust emissions using water or a chemical 2 stabilizer/suppressant. 3  All land-clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land-leveling, grading, cut-and- 4 fill, and demolition activities will be effectively controlled to avoid fugitive dust 5 emissions through the application of water during work or by presoaking. 6  When materials are transported off-site, all material will be covered or effectively 7 wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space 8 from the top of the container will be maintained. 9  All operations will limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt 10 from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary 11 brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by 12 sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. The use of blower devices is 13 expressly forbidden.) 14  Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the 15 surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles will be effectively stabilized of fugitive 16 dust emissions using sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. 17  Within urban areas, trackout will be immediately removed when it extends 50 or 18 more feet from the site and at the end of each workday. 19  Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day will prevent carryout and 20 trackout. 21 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement Enhanced Control Measures for 22 Construction Emissions of PM10 23 The following measures will be implemented by the City or its contractor at 24 construction sites when required to mitigate significant PM10 impacts as determined 25 by SJVAPCD Air Quality Thresholds of Significance discussed above (note, these 26 measures are to be implemented in addition to Regulation VIII requirements). 27 1. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. 28 2. Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff. 29 The following measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large 30 in area, are located near sensitive receptors, or that warrant additional emissions 31 reductions for any other reason. 32 1. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment 33 leaving the site. 34 2. Install wind breaks at windward sides of construction areas. 35 3. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 miles per hour 36 (mph). 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 4. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at 1 any one time. 2 5. Regardless of the wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation 3 VIII’s 20% opacity limitation. 4 Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Implement Control Measures for Operation 5 Emissions of PM10 and for Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) 6 In compliance with SJVAPCD rules, when the Air Quality Thresholds of Significance 7 will be exceeded, the City or its contractor shall install equipment with Best Available 8 Control Technology, as indicated in a site-specific air quality analysis to reduce 9 emissions below the SJVAPCD significance threshold. Installed equipment with Best 10 Available Control Technology may include but not be limited to pumping, dewatering, 11 aerating, or heating equipment. This measure will be implemented at all new or 12 modified wastewater system sites when required to mitigate significant PM10 and 13 ozone impacts, due to exceedance of Air Quality Thresholds of Significance. 14 Impact AQ-3: Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria 15 Pollutant for Which the Project Region Is Non-Attainment Under an Applicable 16 Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (Significant and Unavoidable) 17 As discussed earlier, program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment Project 18 would be located in an area that is in non-attainment for federal and state ozone and PM2.5 19 standards and state standards for PM10. Thus, the combined emissions of past, present, and 20 probable future projects would have a significant cumulative impact on air quality in the 21 project area. No single CIP, however, would be sufficient in size, by itself, to cause 22 nonattainment of the regional air quality standards. The River Trunk Realignment Project 23 would result in emissions of ozone precursors (ROG, NOx,), and particulate matter (PM2.5, 24 PM10) below the significance thresholds for project-level impacts established by SJVAPCD 25 (2015a, 2017f). With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3, none of 26 the program-level components or the River Trunk Realignment Project would result in mass 27 emissions above the significance threshold. However, because these measures would not 28 completely avoid emissions, the Proposed Program could make a considerable contribution 29 to cumulative impacts related to criteria pollutant emissions for which the region is in non- 30 attainment, a significant impact. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 31 Impact AQ-4: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant 32 Concentrations (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 33 During construction activities for the proposed improvements, construction emissions have 34 the potential to affect sensitive receptors located at and near program-level component sites 35 and River Trunk Realignment Project work areas. These sensitive receptors include single- 36 family residential units and schools around proposed improvement sites. Therefore, 37 nuisances associated with fugitive dust and construction activity emissions would affect 38 adjacent residences. During operational activities, stationary emission sources would also 39 emit pollutants. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3, the 40 impact on sensitive receptors from fugitive dust and other pollutants would be less than 41 significant with mitigation. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact AQ-5: Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of 1 People (Less than Significant) 2 All Program-level Components 3 Construction Impacts. Construction activities of program-level components would not 4 generate permanent or long-term objectionable odors. The odors associated with the 5 operation of diesel-powered equipment for construction activities may be detected by nearby 6 sensitive receptors. These odors would be of relatively short duration in any given location 7 and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people at a given time, given that 8 construction of the various Proposed Program components would be spread out over time, 9 as well as factors such as the migration of construction equipment along pipeline routes 10 during construction. This impact would be less than significant. 11 Operational Impacts. The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI identifies common types of facilities that have 12 been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley and distances from these sources that 13 have the potential to result in significant odor impacts. For wastewater treatment facilities, 14 the screening level distance is 2 miles. Numerous residences and other sensitive receptors 15 are located within two miles of the Sutter Plant. As described in Section 6.3.2 (Table 6-3), 16 SJVAPCD has received and confirmed odor complaints associated with the City’s Sutter Plant 17 facilities in the last three years (SJVAPCD 2017g). Odors from lift stations are not expected to 18 be a concern because equipment is enclosed and underground. 19 The Proposed Program would include the replacement and operation of wastewater facilities 20 and equipment, which would generally have a beneficial effect on existing odor impacts by 21 ensuring that the City’s treatment and collection system is functioning more efficiently, 22 correctly, and reliably. Some program-level components are specifically designed to improve 23 and minimize past sources of odor by enhancing biofilters and moving to more advanced 24 treatment options that are less odorous methods. As discussed in Chapter 2, Program 25 Description, odor control provisions would be included at the Sutter Plant for the new outfall 26 pump station (SP-3), though these controls have not been defined at this time, and existing 27 odor control biofilters and blowers would be floodproofed. Furthermore, after new primary 28 treatment facilities have been constructed and are fully operating at the Jennings Plant, 29 primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant would be demolished. For these reasons, odor 30 issues would be expected to be reduced compared to baseline conditions, and this impact is 31 considered less than significant. 32 River Trunk Realignment Project 33 Construction Impacts. Similar to the program-level components, construction of the River 34 Trunk Realignment Project would not generate permanent or long-term objectionable odors. 35 While odors associated with operating diesel-powered equipment for construction activities 36 may be detected by nearby sensitive receptors, such odors would be of short duration and 37 would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than 38 significant. 39 Operational Impacts. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the River Trunk 40 Realignment Project includes the construction of odor controlling equipment (biofilter and 41 odor-controlling vents) to minimize the potential objectionable odors from the project’s 42 proposed facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project’s pump stations are 43 residences within 800 feet and the proposed regional park. By operating the odor controlling 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 equipment, this particular project would reduce odor emissions and result in a less-than- 1 significant impact. 2 Overall Conclusion 3 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, the River Trunk Realignment Project would 4 have less than significant odor effects, and odor issues would improve at the Sutter and 5 Jennings Plants in the long-term. Odor impacts of lift stations would not be substantial given 6 that the facilities are largely below ground. The Proposed Program’s overall impact would be 7 less than significant. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 6. Air Quality Wastewater Master Plan 6-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 7-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 7 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2 7.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter presents the environmental setting and impacts of the Proposed Program 4 related to biological resources. The biological resources include special-status plant and 5 wildlife species; sensitive natural communities, including jurisdictional wetlands and other 6 waters; and wildlife movement corridors. 7 7.2 REGULATORY SETTING 8 7.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 9 Endangered Species Act 10 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.; 50 11 CFR Parts 17 and 222) provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or 12 threatened throughout all or a substantial portion of their range, as well as protection of the 13 habitats on which they depend. The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 14 Administration’s (NOAA’s) NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries 15 Service (NMFS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA. In general, USFWS manages 16 terrestrial and freshwater species; NMFS manages marine and anadromous species. 17 Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of any fish or wildlife 18 species listed under the ESA as endangered or threatened, unless otherwise authorized by 19 federal regulations. The ESA defines the term “take” to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 20 shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 21 USC Section 1532). Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.) outlines the procedures 22 for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated 23 critical habitats. 24 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 25 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC Chapter 7, Subchapter II) protects migratory 26 birds. Most actions that result in take or the permanent or temporary possession, of a 27 migratory bird constitute violations of the MBTA. The MBTA also prohibits the destruction of 28 occupied nests. USFWS is responsible for overseeing compliance with MBTA. 29 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 30 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668; 50 CFR Part 22) prohibits 31 take of bald and golden eagles and their occupied and unoccupied nests. USFWS administers 32 the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Clean Water Act 1 The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC Section 1251) establishes the basic structure for 2 regulating discharges of pollutants (including dredged or fill material) into waters of the 3 United States including wetlands, and for regulating quality standards for surface 4 waters. The CWA provides policies for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 5 physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. 6 CWA Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., 7 including wetlands, without a permit from USACE. CWA Section 401 requires that an 8 applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities with the potential to result in a 9 discharge to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, obtain a state 401 water quality 10 certification. 11 Wetlands and Other Waters Potentially Exempt from USACE Jurisdiction 12 A number of exemptions from CWA regulations exist for areas that would otherwise qualify 13 as waters of the U.S. Certain areas, which meet the technical definition of wetlands, generally 14 are not considered waters of the U.S. (33 CFR 328.3(a)). Such potentially non-jurisdictional 15 areas include: 16  Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land; 17  Artificially irrigated areas, which would revert to upland, if the irrigation ceased; 18  Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and 19 retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, 20 irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; 21  Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water 22 created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic 23 reasons; and 24  Water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and 25 pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and 26 until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body 27 of water meets the definition of waters of the United States. 28 USACE and USEPA reserve the right to determine that a particular water body within the 29 categories is a water of the U.S. on a case-by-case basis. In general, potentially non- 30 jurisdictional waters such as ditches are delineated during a wetland delineation, and 31 submitted for verification by USACE. 32 7.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 33 California Fish and Game Code 34 The California Fish and Game Code (F&G Code) includes various statutes that protect 35 biological resources, including the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, the California 36 Endangered Species Act (CESA), and requirements for lake or streambed alteration 37 agreements. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The Native Plant Protection Act (F&G Code Sections 1900–1913) authorizes the Fish and 1 Game Commission to designate plants as endangered or rare and prohibits take of any such 2 plants, except as authorized under limited circumstances. 3 CESA (F&G Code Sections 2050–2098) prohibits state agencies from approving a project that 4 would jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed under CESA as endangered or 5 threatened. Section 2080 of F&G Code prohibits the take of any species that is state listed as 6 endangered or threatened, or designated as a candidate for such listing. CDFW may issue an 7 incidental take permit authorizing take of listed and candidate species if that take is 8 incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, subject to specified conditions. 9 F&G Code Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 protect native and migratory birds, including their 10 active or inactive nests and eggs, from all forms of take. In addition, Sections 3511, 4700, 11 5050, and 5515 identify species that are fully protected from all forms of take. Section 3511 12 lists fully protected birds, Section 5515 lists fully protected fish, Section 4700 lists fully 13 protected mammals, and Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians. 14 CDFW regulates activities that will interfere with the natural flow of, or substantially alter, 15 the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or stream. Section 1602 of the F&G Code requires 16 that CDFW be notified of lake or streambed alteration activities. If CDFW subsequently 17 determines that such an activity might adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource, 18 it has the authority to issue a streambed alteration agreement, including requirements to 19 protect biological resources and water quality. 20 7.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 21 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 22 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan was adopted in January 2019 (City of Modesto 23 2019). The Jennings Plant is not within the boundaries of the Urban Area General Plan, but 24 other Proposed Program components are within these boundaries. 25 The General Plan’s natural resource policies in the Open Space and Conservation element are 26 based on the realization that the remaining riparian and riverine corridors are perhaps the 27 most significant providers of wildlife habitat in the County. The General Plan seeks to protect 28 riparian and wetland habitats while allowing compatible uses where appropriate. 29 The General Plan identifies two areas within the study area to be preserved as natural 30 resources: the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. It also provides the following guidance 31 regarding wildlife and other natural resources: 32 Policy VII-E.2[a]. For proposed development consistent with the adopted Urban Area 33 General Plan on lands within the Baseline Developed Area and Downtown Area, 34 exclusive of lands within the Dry Creek and Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning 35 Districts, no further biological study is warranted unless habitat is present or if specific 36 information concerning the known or potential presence of significant biological 37 resources is identified in future updates of the California Natural Diversity Database 38 or through formal or informal input received from resource agencies or other 39 qualified sources. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Stanislaus County General Plan 2015 1 The following goals and policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element of the Stanislaus 2 County General Plan 2015 (2016) are relevant to the Proposed Program: 3 Conservation and Open Space Element 4 Goal One: Encourage the protection and preservation of natural and scenic areas 5 throughout the County. 6 Policy Three: Areas of sensitive wildlife and plant life vernal pools, 7 riparian habitats, flyways and other waterfowl habitats, etc.) 8 including habitats and plant species listed in the General Plan 9 Support Document or by state or federal agencies shall be 10 protected from development and/or disturbance. 11 Policy Four: Protect and enhance oak woodlands and other native 12 hardwood habitat. 13 Goal Ten: Protect fish and wildlife species of the County. 14 Policy Twenty-nine: Habitats of rare and endangered fish and wildlife 15 species, including special status wildlife and plants, shall be 16 protected. 17 Stanislaus County does not have a tree protection ordinance. 18 7.2.4 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 19 The PG&E San Joaquin Valley Operation & Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (PG&E 20 O&M HCP) (PG&E 2006) covers specific PG&E activities throughout nine counties in the San 21 Joaquin Valley, including Stanislaus County. The PG&E O&M HCP complies with the federal 22 and state ESA and addresses multiple species and critical habitats. The PG&E O&M HCP 23 outlines steps on minimizing, avoiding, and compensating for possible direct, indirect, and 24 cumulative adverse effects on threatened and endangered species that could result from 25 PG&E operation and maintenance activities in the San Joaquin Valley. The Proposed Program 26 lies within the PG&E O&M HCP boundaries but is not a covered activity under the PG&E O&M 27 HCP. 28 7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 29 7.3.1 REGIONAL SETTING 30 The Proposed Program is situated in the central San Joaquin Valley. The study area generally 31 has gently sloping terrain. The Tuolumne River flows westerly through the southern portion 32 of Modesto. Dry Creek, a tributary to the Tuolumne River, runs through the central portion of 33 Modesto before joining the Tuolumne River near South 9th Street and River Road. The San 34 Joaquin River is located adjacent to the Jennings Plant. Elevations range from approximately 35 40 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the Jennings Plant to approximately 120 feet above msl 36 in the eastern portion of the study area. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The landscape in the study area is dominated by the urban development and agriculture. 1 Other land uses in the study area include wastewater treatment facilities, transportation, and 2 open space. Natural habitats are mostly found along the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, and 3 along the San Joaquin River adjacent to the Jennings Plant. 4 7.3.2 SURVEYS AND METHODS 5 Horizon biologist Robin Hunter conducted a reconnaissance survey (a preliminary survey to 6 identify habitat types, potential special-status species habitat, and other biological resource 7 issues) of the alignment and staging areas for the River Trunk Realignment Project in June 8 2017. Reconnaissance surveys were not conducted for components that are evaluated in this 9 EIR at a program level because locations of some project components are conceptual, project 10 designs have not been finalized for the proposed CIPs, and some components would not be 11 constructed for a decade or more. For these reasons, reconnaissance surveys would 12 potentially be out of date and no longer accurate by the time components would be 13 constructed. 14 Instead, several documents covering biological resources in the vicinity of the Program were 15 reviewed for relevant habitat and setting information. This existing information is sufficient 16 to identify sensitive resources and evaluate impacts at a program level. These resources 17 include: 18  City’s Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft Master Environmental Impact 19 Report (City of Modesto 2007); 20  City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final Draft. (Carollo 21 Engineers 2016a); 22  City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. Final Draft. (Carollo Engineers 23 2016b); 24  Wastewater System Upgrades Project Draft Master Environmental Impact Report. 25 (City of Modesto 2014); and 26  North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program Draft Environmental Impact 27 Report/Statement (Bureau of Reclamation and City of Modesto 2015). 28 Special-status plant and animal species with the potential to occur within the Program were 29 identified through a review of the following resources: 30  USFWS list of federally endangered and threatened species that may occur in the 31 study area, and/or may be affected by the Proposed Program (USFWS 2017a); 32  CDFW’s queries for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles 33 within the study area and the quadrangles immediately adjacent to them, which are: 34 Salida, Riverbank, Brush Lake, Ceres, Manteca, Avena, Escalon, Oakdale, Waterford, 35 Denair, Turlock, Hatch, Crows Landing, Patterson, and Westley, Ripon (CDFW 2017); 36  California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 37 California queries for the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles within the study area and the 38 quadrangles immediately adjacent to them (CNPS 2017); and 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  eBird records for the study area (eBird 2017a). 1 Results from these database queries are provided in [Appendix C, Biological Resources 2 Analysis Supporting Information]. 3 7.3.3 VEGETATION AND LAND COVER – STUDY AREA 4 Descriptions of vegetation and land cover occurring in the study area are adapted from 5 previous documents related to the study area, including the 2008 Master EIR for the City’s 6 general plan (ICF Jones & Stokes 2008), the City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update 7 EIR (Turnstone Consulting 2006), and the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program 8 DEIR/Statement (Bureau of Reclamation and City of Modesto 2015). Wildlife typically 9 associated with these biological communities is also described below. 10 Urban 11 The majority of the study area consists of urban land cover. This includes roads, parking lots, 12 housing, landscaping, golf courses and commercial and industrial facilities. This habitat 13 consists of a wide range of ornamental/landscaped vegetation and some native plants. This 14 habitat supports a variety of urban-adapted wildlife. 15 Birds typical of urban habitats include American crow (Corvus scrub jay 16 (Aphelocoma californica), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Haemorhous 17 mexicanus), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), and oak titmouse 18 (Baeolophus inornatus). Common mammals include raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum 19 (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). 20 Agricultural Lands 21 Agricultural lands within the study area include pastures, orchards, and row crops. Pastures 22 are typically cultivated in grasses and/or legumes such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa), rescue 23 grass (Bromus catharticus), Johnson’s grass (Sorghum halepense), tall fescue (Festuca 24 arundinaceae), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis). The primary orchard crops in the 25 vicinity of the Program components are almond (Prunus dulcis) and English walnut (Juglans 26 regia) cultivars. 27 Pastures provide food, cover, and nesting habitat for wildlife species; the value of the habitat 28 varies with crop type and agricultural practices. Bird diversity can be high in irrigated 29 pastures (Hartman and Kyle 2010). Species commonly utilizing pasture lands include red- 30 winged blackbird, Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), European starling (Sturnus 31 vulgaris), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), American 32 crow, and American kestrel. Some pasture lands and crop fields provide suitable breeding 33 habitat for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). Small mammals such as gophers (Thomomys 34 spp.) and voles (Microtus spp.) present in pastures and row crops provide important prey 35 resources for raptors such as red-tailed hawk and Swainson’s hawk. 36 In orchards, understory vegetation is generally removed, which limits the abundance and 37 diversity of wildlife species in this habitat, but some wildlife adapted to agriculture may use 38 these habitats. Species such as the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) can occur in this 39 habitat type. American crow and yellow-billed magpies (Pica nuttalli), which forage on nut 40 crops, are often present (City of Patterson 2010). 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Riverine 1 The Tuolumne River and Dry Creek support multiple species of freshwater and anadromous 2 fish. Introduced freshwater species greatly outnumber native species in the Tuolumne River 3 and associated waterways. Largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides and M. 4 dolomieu), and sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) are abundant and occur in many aquatic habitats. 5 Anadromous fish rear and spawn in freshwater habitats and spend the remainder of their life 6 in marine habitats. The amount of time individuals spent as adults in the ocean or as juveniles 7 in freshwater various from species to species. Special-status fish in the Tuolumne River 8 include Chinook salmon (Central Valley fall- late fall-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit 9 [ESU]) Central Valley steelhead mykiss), 10 Sacramento splittail macrolepidotus), and hardhead (Mylopharodon 11 conocephalus). 12 Some irrigation ditches also provide riverine-type habitat, but these areas provide only 13 marginal habitat for aquatic species. 14 Valley Foothill Riparian 15 Riparian habitat in the study area is limited to the Tuolumne River, San Joaquin River, and 16 Dry Creek. Common species in this habitat include willows (Salix spp.), valley oak (Quercus 17 lobata), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), wild grape 18 (Vitis californicus), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Invasive species in riparian 19 areas include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and arundo (Arundo donax). Blue 20 elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) shrubs are common in this habitat, and are the 21 host plant for the federally-threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus 22 californicus dimorphus). 23 Riparian areas provide food, water, shelter, and migration corridors for a wide variety of 24 wildlife. Mammals such as raccoon, desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), deer mouse 25 (Peromyscus maniculatus), striped skunk, American beaver (Castor canadensis), and coyote 26 (Canis latrans) are common in riparian woodlands. Raptor species such as great horned owl 27 (Bubo virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo 28 lineatus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and 29 American kestrel (Falco sparverius) may nest and forage in riparian habitats. A wide variety 30 of passerine species use this habitat for breeding and foraging, including belted kingfisher 31 (Megaceryle alcyon), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), northern flicker (Colaptes 32 auratus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), bushtit, and Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes 33 bewickii). 34 Wetlands and Vernal Pools 35 Wetlands within the study area are located in transitions between aquatic and terrestrial 36 habitats, such as along the fringes of riverine habitat or in seasonally flooded grasslands. 37 Vernal pools are shallow, ephemeral waterbodies that form in depressions in grasslands, 38 pastures, and woodlands. Vernal pools support specialized species adapted to their 39 conditions. Conversion of natural habitats to agricultural and developed uses has eliminated 40 much of the vernal pool habitat in the Central Valley. While vernal pools are unlikely in areas 41 where Program activities would take place, they could not be ruled out as a possibility. This 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 habitat type was also included in the Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR (ICF 1 Jones and Stokes 2008) and other documents related to the study area. 2 In the study area, wetlands could occur adjacent to or within the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, 3 or the San Joaquin River. Vernal pools could potentially occur in pastures and grasslands. 4 Wetlands in the study area are dominated by bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp. and Scirpus 5 spp.,), cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.). Vernal pools 6 support a number of special-status species, such as vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta 7 and San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis). 8 Wetlands provide important habitat for birds and amphibians. Common wildlife species in 9 wetlands include bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), egrets (Ardea and Egretta spp.), sora 10 (Porzana carolina), American coot (Fulica americana), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius 11 phoeniceus). 12 Grassland 13 Grassland habitat consists of a mixture of annual and perennial grasses, and forbs. In the 14 Central Valley, grasslands are dominated by a variety of non-native annual grasses such as 15 wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) or foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), 16 with native grass species only infrequently present. Grasslands are relatively uncommon in 17 the study area and are generally somewhat disturbed Grasslands provide food and cover for 18 birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Many raptors may forage in this habitat. 19 7.3.4 VEGETATION AND LAND COVER – RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT AREA 20 Vegetation and land cover within the River Trunk Realignment Project footprint includes 21 Urban, Valley Foothill Riparian, Riverine, and Grassland. The majority of the River Trunk 22 Realignment Project takes place in existing roadways with low or no biological resource 23 value. The alignment crosses Dry Creek and its associated riparian area, as well as grassland 24 between the Gallo Staging Area and the Pump Station Area (Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project 25 Description). The majority of grassland habitat is disturbed, and has been disked. The pipeline 26 alignment also crosses through the Dryden Golf Course. This is an urban habitat that has more 27 biological resource value than roadways. 28 7.3.5 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES 29 For the purposes of this EIR, special-status plant and wildlife species refers to those species 30 that meet one or more of the following criteria: 31  Species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR 17.12 for 32 listed plants, 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals); 33  Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered 34 under ESA (76 Federal Register [FR] 66370); 35  Species that are listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened 36 or endangered under CESA (14 CCR 670.5); 37  Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (F&G 38 Code Section 1900 et seq.); 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Plants listed as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1, 2, 3, or 4; 1  Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA 2 Guidelines, Section 15380); 3  Animals fully protected in California (F&G Code Section 3511 [birds], 4700 4 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]); and 5  Nesting raptors protected in California (F&G Code Section 3503.5). 6 Special-status species known to occur within the general Proposed Program vicinity were 7 identified from the queries described in Section 7.3.2. A list of these species is provided in 8 Table 7-1, and Figures 7-1 and 7-2 show the occurrences of special-status plants 9 and animals, respectively, and critical habitat1 within a five-mile radius of the Proposed 10 Program. The potential for special-status species to occur in areas affected by the Proposed 11 Program was evaluated according to the following criteria: 12  None: the area contains a complete lack of suitable habitat, the local range for the 13 species is restricted, and/or the species is extirpated in this region. 14  Not Expected: suitable habitat or key habitat elements might be present but might 15 be of poor quality or isolated from the nearest extant occurrences. Habitat suitability 16 refers to factors such as elevation, soil chemistry and type, vegetation communities, 17 microhabitats, and degraded/substantially altered habitats. 18  Possible: the presence of suitable habitat or key habitat elements that potentially 19 support the species. 20  Present: either the target species was observed directly or its presence was 21 confirmed by diagnostic signs during field investigations or in previous studies in the 22 area. 23 7.3.6 SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES 24 Sensitive natural communities include those that are of special concern to resource agencies, 25 such as those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the F&G Code, or Sections 401 26 and 404 of the CWA. These include sensitive communities documented in the List of 27 Vegetation Alliances and Associations (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2010) 28 or that are tracked in the (CDFW 2017), riparian communities, and waters of the U.S. 29 and state, including wetlands. Sensitive natural communities within the study area include 30 wetland and riparian communities. Riparian communities are located along the Tuolumne 31 River, Dry Creek, and San Joaquin River. Wetlands are also associated with these 32 watercourses, and may also be found in non-riparian areas in the study area, such as 33 depressions or other low places in the landscape. These communities could be affected by 34 Program components that are constructed within or adjacent to riparian or wetland areas. 35 Vernal pools are a subset of wetlands that are unlikely in areas where Program activities 36 would take place, but could potentially occur in pastures and grassland in the study area. 37 1 Critical habitats are specific geographic areas identified by USFWS or NMFS that contain features essential to the conservation of a federally-listed species and that may require special management and protection. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 7.3.7 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS 1 Wildlife movement corridors are established migration routes between multiple locations 2 used by resident and migratory species. CEQA requires the analysis of a project’s potential to 3 substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 4 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors (see Section 7.4.2, 5 below). Hence, resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource in the 6 evaluation of projects. 7 The Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, and San Joaquin River are wildlife movement corridors. The 8 rivers themselves are a movement corridor for anadromous fish such as steelhead, and the 9 adjacent riparian areas allow for terrestrial wildlife movement. 10 7.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 11 7.4.1 METHODOLOGY 12 The Proposed Program includes four primary types of improvements, as identified in Chapter 13 2, Program Description: pipelines, lift stations, treatment plant components, and 14 disconnections of stormwater/sanitary sewer cross-connects. The Proposed Program may 15 affect biological resources through direct or indirect disturbance, modification, or 16 destruction of habitat that results in death, injury, or harassment of individuals or 17 populations of plant or animal species, or that impedes or prevents the dispersal of 18 individuals or populations of special-status species. Impacts on existing biological resources 19 were evaluated by comparing the quantity and quality of habitats present in the study area 20 under baseline conditions to conditions after construction of proposed components. The 21 River Trunk Realignment Project was analyzed at a project level of detail, while all other 22 components are evaluated at a program level of detail. Direct and indirect impacts on special- 23 status species were assessed based on the potential for the species or their habitat to be 24 disturbed or enhanced by construction of the Proposed Program. 25 Improvements included in the Proposed Program include replacement or upgrade of existing 26 facilities. Existing facilities are considered developed, and are not expected to have biological 27 impacts, impact habitat or riparian areas. New facilities in the Proposed Program may be in 28 developed areas, or within the public right of way, which again are not expected to have 29 biological resource impacts, however new facilities proposed adjacent to the Tuolumne River 30 and Dry Creek or in non-developed areas will require the analysis outlined in the following 31 sections. 32 In general, once construction is complete, operation and maintenance of the Proposed 33 Program including the River Trunk Realignment Project, as described in Chapter 2, would 34 continue similar to existing conditions. More staff would be required at the Jennings Plant in 35 the long-term; while the level of ongoing operation and maintenance activities would be 36 anticipated to increase from adding capacity to serve growth, this increased operation and 37 maintenance is not anticipated to cause disturbance to biological resources. Unless otherwise 38 stated below, impacts associated with operation and maintenance are considered unlikely or 39 less than significant, and are not discussed further. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 7-1 Special-Status Plant Species and Critical Habitat within 5 miles of the Proposed Program ¯ 0 1 2 Miles California alkali grass Colusa grass Delta button-celery Greene's tuctoria San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass alkali milk-vetch big tarplant heartscale lesser saltscale prairie wedge grass round-leaved filaree subtle orache vernal pool smallscale Study Area Boundary 5-mile Buffer Source: CDFW, July 2017 update ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 7-2 Special-Status Animal Species and Critical Habitat within 5 miles of the Proposed Program ¯ 0 1 2 Miles California tiger salamander Sacramento splittail Swainson's hawk Townsend's big-eared bat burrowing owl hardhead riparian brush rabbit song sparrow ("Modesto" population) steelhead - Central Valley DPS tricolored blackbird valley elderberry longhorn beetle vernal pool fairy shrimp vernal pool tadpole shrimp western pond turtle Study Area Boundary 5-mile Buffer Source: CDFW, July 2017 update Occurrences Steelhead Conservancy fairy shrimp Vernal pool fairy shrimp Critical Habitat ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 7-1. Special-Status Plant and Animal Species Known to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Study Area 1 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project PLANTS Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk- vetch - - 1B.2 Alkali playa, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Low ground, alkali flats, and flooded lands; in annual grassland or in playas or vernal pools. 0-168 meters. Blooms March through June Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in grassland, and vernal pools in the study area. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project in grassland. Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata heartscale - - 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps. Alkaline flats and scalds in the Central Valley, sandy soils. 3- 275 meters. Blooms April through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in alkaline grassland in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Atriplex coronata var. coronata crownscale - - 4.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. 1-590 meters. Blooms March through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in grassland and vernal pools in the study area. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale - - 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland. In alkali sink and grassland in sandy, alkaline soils. 0-225 meters. Blooms May through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in alkaline grassland in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Atriplex persistens vernal pool smallscale - - 1B.2 Vernal pools. Alkaline vernal pools. 3-115 meters. Blooms June through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in vernal pools in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Atriplex subtilis subtle orache - - 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline soils. 20-100 meters. Blooms June through September. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in alkaline grassland in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant - - 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Dry hills and plains in annual grassland. Clay to clay-loam soils; usually on slopes and often in burned areas. 30-505 meters. Blooms July through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists grassland in the study area. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. California round-leaved filaree - - 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Clay soils. 15- 1200 meters. Blooms March through May. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in grassland in the study area. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's jewelflower - - 1B.2 Pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland. 75- 1585 meters. Blooms February through May. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis Parry's rough tarplant - - 4.2 Valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. 0-100 meters. Blooms May through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in grassland and vernal pools in the study area. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Clarkia breweri Brewer's clarkia - - 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub. 215 – 1,115 meters. Blooms April through June. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Clarkia rostrata beaked clarkia - - 1B.3 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. North-facing slopes; sometimes on sandstone. 60-915 meters. Blooms April through May. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. Eryngium racemosum Delta button- celery - SE 1B.1 Riparian scrub. Seasonally inundated floodplain on clay. 1- 335 meters. Blooms June through October. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists along Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project along Dry Creek. rhombipetala diamond- petaled California poppy - - 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline, clay slopes and flats. 30- 625 meters. Blooms March through April. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in grassland in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Legenere limosa legenere - - 1B.1 Vernal pools. In beds of vernal pools. 1-880 meters. Blooms April through June. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in vernal pools in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Monardella leucocephala Merced monardella - - 1A Valley and foothill grassland. Known from riverbeds, moist sandy depressions; requires moist subalkaline sands associated with low elevation grassland. 35-100 meters. Blooms May through August. Not expected. This species is presumed extirpated and was last seen in Last seen in 1941. Not expected. This species is presumed extirpated and was last seen in Last seen in 1941. Neostapfia colusana Colusa grass FT SE 1B.1 Vernal pools. Usually in the bottoms of large, or deep vernal pools; adobe soils. 5-125 meters. Blooms May through August. None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017b). None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017b). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass FT SE 1B.1 Vernal pools. 10-755 meters. Blooms April through September. None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017c). None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017c). Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass - - 1B.2 Meadows and seeps, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools. Alkaline, vernally mesic. Sinks, flats, and lake margins. 1-915 meters. Blooms March through May. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in alkaline grassland and vernal pools in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedge grass - - 2B.2 Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps. Open moist sites, along rivers and springs, alkaline desert seeps. 300-2000 meters. Blooms April through July. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. None. The study area is not within the elevation range of this species. Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria FE SR 1B.1 Vernal pools. Vernal pools in open grasslands. 25-1325 meters. Blooms May through July. None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017d). None. Not within the current range for this species (USFWS 2017d). FISH Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt FT SE - Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom found at salinities > 10 ppt. Most often at salinities < 2ppt. None. The study area is outside the range of this species. None. The study area is outside the range of this species ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead - SSC - Low to mid-elevation streams in the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage. Also present in the Russian River. Clear, deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder bottoms and slow water velocity. Not found where exotic centrarchids predominate. Present. A recent occurrence is located within the study area within the Tuolumne River. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat is present in Dry Creek. mykiss irideus steelhead - Central Valley DPS FT - - Populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. Present. A recent occurrence is located within the study area within the Tuolumne River. This species may also stray into Dry Creek. Possible. This species may stray into Dry Creek. Chinook salmon (Central Valley fall- late fall-run ESU) - SSC - Populations spawn in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and tributaries. Require beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning. Also need cover, cool water and high dissolved oxygen. Present. This species occurs in the Tuolumne River and my stray into Dry Creek. Possible. This species may stray into Dry Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Chinook salmon (Central Valley spring- run ESU) Non- essential experi- mental pop-ulation See FGC 2080.2 to 2080.4. All spring-run Chinook salmon, including those that have been released or propagated, naturally or artificially, within the experimental population area, which is defined as the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to its confluence with the Merced River (exclusive). Require beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning. Also need cover, cool water and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Possible. A nonessential experimental population has recently been reintroduced to the San Joaquin River (NMFS 2013). Individuals may potentially stray into the Tuolumne River or Dry Creek. Possible. A nonessential experimental population has recently been reintroduced to the San Joaquin River (NMFS 2013). Individuals may potentially stray into Dry Creek. macrolepidotus Sacramento splittail - SSC - Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley, but now confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay and associated marshes. Slow moving river sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded vegetation for spawning and foraging for young. Possible. Within the extant range for this species (UC Davis 2017). Possible. Within the extant range for this species (UC Davis 2017). INVERTEBRATES Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp FE - - Endemic to the grasslands of the northern two-thirds of the Central Valley; found in large, turbid pools. Inhabit astatic pools located in swales formed by old, braided alluvium; filled by winter/spring rains, last until June. Not expected. No known populations of this species are located within the study area (USFWS 2012a). Marginally suitable habitat exists in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Branchinecta vernal pool fairy shrimp FT - - Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT - - Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in association with blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some preference shown for "stressed" elderberries. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area where elderberry bushes are present. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists where elderberry bushes are present. An elderberry bush was identified in the vicinity of the Dry Creek crossing exit pit, and several elderberry bushes were identified along the Tuolumne River in the vicinity of the Shackelford Pump Station. Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE - - Inhabits vernal pools and swales in the Sacramento Valley containing clear to highly turbid water. Pools commonly found in grass- bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are mud- bottomed and highly turbid. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES californiense California tiger salamander FT ST - Central Valley Distinct Population Segment federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties Distinct Population Segment federally listed as endangered. Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. Not expected. No known extant populations of this species in the study area (USFWS 2017e). None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Anniella pulchra northern California legless lizard - SSC - Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture content. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat exists in riparian areas in the study area. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project. Emys marmorata western pond turtle - SSC - A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in Dry Creek. Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard FE SE - Resident of sparsely vegetated alkali and desert scrub habitats, in areas of low topographic relief. Seeks cover in mammal burrows, under shrubs or structures such as fence posts; they do not excavate their own burrows. None. The study area is outside the current range for this species. None. The study area is outside the current range for this species. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin coachwhip - SSC - Open, dry habitats with little or no tree cover. Found in valley grassland and saltbush scrub in the San Joaquin Valley. Needs mammal burrows for refuge and oviposition sites. Not expected. The study area is outside the current range for this species (CDFW 2012). Not expected. The study area is outside the current range for this species (CDFW 2012). Rana draytonii California red- legged frog FT SSC - Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11- 20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation habitat. None. This species is considered extirpated from the Central Valley (USFWS 2002). None. This species is considered extirpated from the Central Valley (USFWS 2002). Spea hammondii western spadefoot - SSC - Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg- laying. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. None. No suitable habitat is present within the River Trunk Realignment Project Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake FT ST - Prefers freshwater marsh and low gradient streams. Has adapted to drainage canals and irrigation ditches. This is the most aquatic of the garter snakes in California. Not expected. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area, but there have been no occurrences within Stanislaus County. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat exists within Dry Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project BIRDS Aquila golden eagle - FP - Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Cliff- walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. Present. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (ebird.org 2017a). Flyover and foraging possible; no suitable nesting habitat. Possible. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (ebird.org 2017a). Flyover and foraging possible; no suitable nesting habitat. Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird - SC, SSC - Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony. Present. occurrences within the study area near the Jennings Plant. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl - SSC - Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low- growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Disking of grassland habitat within the Project alignment makes occupation by this species unlikely. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk - ST - Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. Present. occurrences within the study area near the Jennings Plant. Possible. Potentially suitable foraging habitat is present in grassland habitat, and potentially suitable breeding habitat is present along Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River Circus cyaneus northern harrier - SSC - Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas. Present. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (ebird.org 2017a). Flood irrigated pastures provide potential nesting habitat. Not expected. Marginally suitable habitat is present in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo FT SE - Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in riparian jungles of willow, often mixed with cottonwoods, with lower story of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. None. The study area is not within the current range of this species (USFWS 2017f). None. The study area is not within the current range of this species (USFWS 2017c). Dendroica petechia yellow warbler - SSC - Riparian plant associations. Prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for nesting and foraging. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Present. Species has been observed along the Tuolumne River in the study area (eBird 2017b). Not expected. Habitat along Dry Creek is marginally suitable for this species. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite - FP - Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. Present. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (eBird.org 2017a). Riparian areas and isolated mature trees in agricultural areas provide potential nesting habitat. Possible. Potentially suitable nesting habitat is present in along Dry Creek. Haliaeetus luecocephalus bald eagle FD SE, FP - Ocean shore, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering. Most nests within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old- growth, or dominant live tree with open branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter. Present. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (eBird.org 2017a). Flyover and foraging possible; no suitable nesting habitat. Possible. Species has been observed at the Jennings Plant (eBird.org 2017a). Flyover and foraging possible; no suitable nesting habitat. Icteria virens yellow- breasted chat - SSC - Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests in low, dense riparian, consisting of willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages and nests within 10 feet of ground. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. Not expected. Habitat along Dry Creek is marginally suitable for this species. Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike - SSC - Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub and washes. Prefers open country for hunting, with perches for scanning, and fairly dense shrubs and brush for nesting. Present. Species may nest in riparian areas. Possible. Potentially suitable foraging habitat is present in grassland habitat, and potentially suitable breeding habitat is present along Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto" population) - SSC - Emergent freshwater marshes, riparian willow thickets. Riparian forests, vegetated irrigation canals and levees. Inhabits cattails, tules and other sedges; also known to frequent tangles bordering sloughs. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the study area. Not expected. The River Trunk Realignment Project is not within the range for this population. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo FE SE - Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 feet. Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite. Not expected. Species has recently been observed in restored riparian habitat at the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge approximately 7 miles west of the study area (Howell et al. 2010). Some riparian areas in the study Area provide marginal breeding habitat. Due to the species rarity in the Central Valley and habitat quality, it is not expected to breed in the study area. Not expected. Habitat in Dry Creek and along the Tuolumne River is marginally suitable for this species. MAMMALS Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat - SSC - Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Not expected. Marginally suitable roosting habitat in existing buildings due to human presence. Not expected. Marginally suitable roosting habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat - SSC - Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc. Roosts in crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees and tunnels. Not expected. Marginally suitable roosting habitat exists in the study area. Not expected. Marginally suitable roosting habitat exists in the River Trunk Realignment Project. Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat - SSC - Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 feet above ground, from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging. Possible. Roosting habitat is present in riparian habitats. In the Central Valley, this species is strongly associated with riparian areas, especially with mature cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and sycamores (Platanus racemosa) (Pierson et al. 2006). Possible. Roosting habitat is present in riparian habitats. Neotoma fuscipes riparia riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat FE SSC - Riparian areas along the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers. Need areas with mix of brush and trees. Need suitable nesting sites in trees, snags or logs. Not expected. Known populations are limited to San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge and Caswell Memorial State Park (USFWS 2012b), which are approximately 7 and 5 miles west of the study area, respectively. Not expected. Known populations are limited to San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge and Caswell Memorial State Park (USFWS 2012b), which are approximately 7 and 5 miles west of the study area, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing Status State Listing Status Rare Plant Rank Habitat Potential to Occur in the Study Area Potential to Occur in the River Trunk Realignment Project Sylvilagus bachmani riparius riparian brush rabbit FE SE - Riparian areas on the San Joaquin River in northern Stanislaus County. Dense thickets of wild rose, willows, and blackberries. Not expected. The study area is not within the known range of this species (USFWS 2017g). Existing populations are limited to Caswell Memorial State Park and a region in the south Delta near Lathrop (Kelly et al. 2011). Not expected. The study area is not within the known range of this species (USFWS 2017g). Existing populations are limited to Caswell Memorial State Park and a region in the south Delta near Lathrop (Kelly et al. 2011). Taxidea taxus American badger - SSC - Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in riparian areas in the study area, and marginally suitable habitat exists in grasslands. Possible. Potentially suitable habitat exists in the Dry Creek riparian corridor. Marginally suitable to no habitat present in open-cut portions of the River Trunk Realignment. Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox FE ST - Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. Not expected. The study area is not within the known current range of this species and the study Area provides marginally suitable habitat (USFWS 2017h). Not expected. The study area is not within the known current range of this species (USFWS 2017h). 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 * List of Abbreviations for Federal and State Species-Status: Threat Ranks: FE = Federally endangered FT = Federally threatened FD = Federally delisted SE = State endangered ST = State threatened SC (Endangered) = State candidate for listing as endangered SSC = State species of special concern 1A = plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = plants are considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2B = plants are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 4 = plants of limited distribution - a watch list 0.1-Seriously threatened in California (more than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2-Moderately threatened in California (20–80 percent of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3-Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) CDFW (2017) used as the source for habitat descriptions and species status. Based on this information, qualified Horizon biologists determined the potential 1 to occur. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-31 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 7.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 1 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on biological resources if it would: 2  Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on 3 any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 4 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; 5  Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 6 community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or 7 USFWS; 8  Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands as defined 9 by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 10 etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; 11  Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 12 wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 13 impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 14  Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as 15 a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or 16  Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 17 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat 18 conservation plan. 19 7.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 20 Impact BIO-1: Impacts on Special-Status Plants (Less than Significant with 21 Mitigation) 22 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 23 No special-status plants are likely to occur within these Program components. Therefore, 24 impacts would be less than significant. 25 Outfall Pipelines and Collection System Components 26 Collection system components wholly within developed areas (such as paved streets) are not 27 anticipated to have impacts on special-status plants. Special-status plants may occur in the 28 vicinity of these Program components in habitats such as grassland, wetlands, vernal pools, 29 and valley and foothill riparian (Table 7-1). Impacts to special-status plants such as alkali 30 milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), 31 crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. coronata), lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula), vernal 32 pool smallscale (Atriplex persistens), subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis), big tarplant 33 (Blepharizonia plumosa), round-leaved filaree (California Parry's rough 34 tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis), Delta button-celery (Eryngium racemosum), 35 diamond-petaled California poppy rhombipetala), legenere (Legenere limosa), 36 and California alkali grass (Puccinellia simplex) could include removal of individuals, and 37 indirect effects from sedimentation or changes to hydrology. Indirect effects from erosion or 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-32 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 sedimentation from Program components’ construction could impact special-status plants in 1 the vicinity of vernal pools, riparian areas, wetland areas, or grasslands. These indirect 2 impacts could change the local hydrology which could alter the habitat for special status 3 plants, and reduce habitat suitability to these plants. Program components constructed in 4 grasslands could impact special-status species which grow in grasslands, if they are present 5 in the project footprint. Impacts to special-status plants during construction of certain 6 Program components would be minimized by using trenchless pipeline construction for 7 crossings of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek, where wetland and riparian habitat is 8 located. The only collection system components that would cross wetland or riparian habitat 9 are sewer rehabilitation components A-1 and A-2. A frac-out (described in Chapter 12, 10 Hydrology and Water Quality) during trenchless pipeline construction could result in impacts 11 to special-status plants such as removal of individuals or reduction in special-status plant 12 habitat quality. These impacts would be significant. 13 As described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, many potential water quality 14 impacts associated with the Proposed Program’s construction activities would be minimized 15 or avoided through compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 16 (NPDES) General Construction Permit. All components with a footprint greater than one acre 17 of disturbance area would be subject to this permit, which requires preparation and 18 implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan As described in Section 19 12.2 in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, the must, among other things, 20 present a list of BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and protect against 21 discharge of sediment and other construction-related pollutants to surface waters. The 22 also would include spill prevention and response procedures for any hazardous 23 materials used during construction. For Program components whose construction would 24 disturb less than one acre, the City of Modesto’s Standard Specifications require that all 25 projects less than one acre develop a Local or Erosion Control Plan and implement 26 stormwater BMPs during construction. Implementation of BMPs to prevent erosion and 27 potential discharge of sediment from construction sites, would avoid indirect impacts to 28 plants from erosion or sedimentation during Program activities. 29 Several mitigation measures are proposed to avoid, reduce, or compensate for impacts to 30 special-status plants. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 would reduce 31 impacts on special-status plants from a frac-out. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would minimize 32 the area of disturbance to habitat for special-status plants. Where disturbance within special- 33 status plant habitat cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would identify the extent 34 to which special-status plants are present and could be adversely affected by the project. For 35 special-status plants found to be present, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require 36 monitoring to confirm avoidance of identified special-status plant populations, and 37 compensatory mitigation should special-status plants be adversely affected. Implementation 38 of these measures would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 39 River Trunk Realignment Project 40 The footprint of the River Trunk Realignment Project supports grassland habitat that is 41 suitable for crownscale, big tarplant, round-leaved filaree, and Parry's rough tarplant. 42 Wetland and riparian areas associated with Dry Creek support habitat suitable for Delta 43 button-celery. Impacts to these special-status plant species could include removal of 44 individuals, and indirect effects from sedimentation or changes to hydrology. These impacts 45 would be significant. 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-33 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impacts to Delta button celery would be minimized by using trenchless pipeline construction 1 for the Dry Creek crossings where suitable habitat exists. As described above, preparation of 2 a would be required for this project. Implementation of BMPs to prevent 3 erosion and potential discharge of sediment from construction sites, would avoid indirect 4 impacts to plants from erosion or sedimentation during construction of this project. 5 Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 would reduce impacts on Delta button 6 celery from a frac-out. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would identify the extent to which special- 7 status plants are present and could be affected by the project component. Where special- 8 status plants may be directly or indirectly affected, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would identify 9 and implement avoidance-related measures for the project component’s design and/or 10 construction. For special-status plants found to be present, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would 11 require monitoring to confirm avoidance of identified special-status plant populations, and 12 compensatory mitigation should special-status plants be adversely affected. 13 Overall Conclusion 14 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, while no special-status plants are likely to 15 be present at the Sutter or Jennings Plants, some special-status plants may occur in the 16 vicinity of other Proposed Program components particularly in grassland, wetlands, vernal 17 pools, and valley and foothill riparian habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO- 18 1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and HYD/WQ-1 would minimize adverse effects on special-status species. In 19 conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Proposed 20 Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 21 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Perform Focused Surveys for Special-status Plant 22 Species. 23 Applies to Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk 24 Realignment Project 25 Prior to implementation of construction activities at a site with grasslands, valley and 26 foothill riparian, wetlands, or vernal pools, a qualified botanist will perform floristic 27 surveys for special-status plant species. 28 Floristic surveys shall occur during the appropriate blooming period(s) for all 29 special-status plant species with the potential to occur at the component site as 30 determined by the botanist. If special-status plants may be directly or indirectly 31 affected, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall be implemented. 32 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Impacts on 33 Special-status Plant Species. 34 Applies to Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk 35 Realignment Project 36 If special-status plants are detected, the City shall implement the following measures 37 to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on special-status plant species: 38  The component shall be redesigned or modified to avoid direct and indirect 39 impacts on special-status plant species, if feasible. Any special-status plant 40 species occurrences near a Program site will be protected by environmentally- 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-34 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 sensitive area fencing (orange construction barrier fencing) installed around 1 special-status plant species populations. The environmentally-sensitive area 2 fencing will be installed at least 200 feet from the edge of the population where 3 feasible, and where not feasible, the buffer will be large enough to adequately 4 protect populations from program activities. Where special-status plant 5 populations are located in wetlands, silt fencing also will be installed. The location 6 of the fencing will be marked in the field with stakes and flagging, and shown on 7 the construction drawings. The construction specifications will contain clear 8 language that prohibits construction-related activities, vehicle operation, 9 material and equipment storage, and other surface disturbing activities within 10 the fenced environmentally-sensitive area. 11  If avoidance is not feasible, the Program proponent will consult with either CDFW 12 or USFWS, or both, depending upon which has jurisdiction, to determine whether 13 transplantation of special-status plant species is feasible. If the agencies concur 14 that it is a feasible mitigation measure, the botanist will develop and implement a 15 Rare Plant Relocation, Management, and Protection Plan (Rare Plant Plan) in 16 coordination with the appropriate agencies. The Rare Plant Plan will include the 17 following components: relocation methods that will minimize the potential loss 18 of plants from relocation, management plans and success criteria by which the 19 mitigation can be measured for success, and regular monitoring to ensure that the 20 plants are successfully transplanted. Success criteria shall require that at least 21 75% of the plants survive. The Rare Plant Plan will include specific, measurable 22 triggers for adaptive management actions that will be necessary to ensure 23 survival. 24  The Rare Plant Plan will specify annual monitoring of the mitigation site for at 25 least five years after planting, and will assess factors such as population size and 26 density, recruitment, and individual plant health and vigor. Monitoring will also 27 assess whether the mitigation requires adaptive management actions, such as 28 collection and sowing of additional seed, tillage/disturbance within existing 29 populations to induce establishment, installation of container plants, and control 30 of exotic invasive vegetation (such as yellow star thistle) to ensure successful 31 plant establishment and survival. The site will be evaluated at the end of the 5- 32 year monitoring period to determine whether the mitigation has met the success 33 criteria identified in the Rare Plant Plan. If success criteria are not met at that 34 time, then mitigation activities and monitoring will continue until success criteria 35 are met. 36  As part of the Rare Plant Plan, the program proponent, in conjunction with a 37 qualified restoration ecologist and/or botanist and the consulting agency, if any, 38 will identify a suitable on- or off-site location for mitigation, and appropriate 39 methods for seed collection, propagation, relocation, maintenance, and 40 monitoring. Mitigation sites will be located within the range of the affected plant 41 and contain suitable habitat sites. For annual plant species, the seed crop from the 42 individuals to be lost will be collected and then sown on appropriate habitat 43 located on the mitigation site. The individuals will not be removed until seeds 44 have been collected. For perennial plant species, both the seed and the plants 45 themselves will be salvaged and relocated to the mitigation site. The individuals 46 will not be removed until seeds have been collected. Seed from the populations 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-35 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 that will be affected may be collected and propagated at a native plant nursery 1 prior to planting in order to increase the potential for establishment and survival. 2 Impact BIO-2: Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods and Western Spadefoot 3 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 4 All Program-level Components 5 Vernal pool branchiopods with the potential to occur in the study area include vernal pool 6 fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). These species could 7 potentially occur within vernal pools located in the study area. Western spadefoot (Spea 8 hammondii) also has the potential to occur in the study area and uses vernal pools as breeding 9 habitat. 10 Grasslands and pastures within the study area have the potential to support vernal pool 11 habitats. Proposed Program improvements that are not located in grasslands and pastures 12 are not anticipated to have impacts on vernal pool habitat or inhabitants. If construction of 13 Program components occurs in the microwatershed of vernal pools, such activity could result 14 in sedimentation and alteration of hydrology and drainage patterns, which could impact 15 habitat for vernal pool branchiopods and breeding habitat for western spadefoot. As 16 described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, many water quality impacts 17 associated with Proposed Program construction activities would be minimized or avoided 18 through compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. All components with a 19 footprint greater than one acre of disturbance area would be subject to this permit, which 20 requires preparation and implementation of a As described in Section 12.2 in Chapter 21 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, the must, among other things, present a list of BMPs 22 that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and protect against discharge of sediment 23 and other construction-related pollutants to surface waters. Compliance with this permit and 24 implementation of a would reduce the potential for sediments and contaminants to 25 enter pools or depressions where vernal pool branchiopods may occur and western 26 spadefoot may breed, but construction impacts of individual Program components could 27 nevertheless be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would 28 reduce these impacts to less than significant with mitigation. 29 River Trunk Realignment Project 30 There is no habitat for vernal pool branchiopods within the vicinity of the River Truck 31 Realignment Project; thus there would be no impact. 32 Overall Conclusion 33 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, no vernal pool branchiopods exist within 34 the vicinity of the River Trunk Realignment Project, vernal pools are present in other 35 locations throughout the study area and have potential to support vernal pool branchiopods. 36 In the event that construction of program-level components occur in the microwatershed of 37 vernal pools, impacts on vernal pool branchiopods and western spadefoot could occur. 38 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would minimize potential adverse 39 effects. In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the 40 Proposed Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-36 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Impacts on Vernal Pool Branchiopods, 1 Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat. 2 Applies to all Program-level components located in grasslands or pastures. 3 Prior to implementation of proposed CIPs in areas that could contain habitat for 4 vernal pool branchiopods, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct surveys 5 to determine whether vernal pools or seasonal wetlands will be directly or indirectly 6 affected by construction activities. If potential habitat for special-status invertebrate 7 species is found, the City shall avoid any habitats that may support special-status 8 species by establishing a buffer zone for each resource. The sizes of buffer zones shall 9 be determined in consultation with the USFWS. 10 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Minimize and Compensate for Impacts on 11 Branchiopods, Western Spadefoot, and Their Habitat. 12 Applies to all Program-level components located in grasslands or pastures. 13 If direct or indirect impacts to habitat with the potential to support vernal pool 14 branchiopods or potential western spadefoot breeding habitat cannot be avoided the 15 City shall implement the following measures: 16  After construction, restore surface topography and drainage to pre-construction 17 conditions; and 18  Provide off-site compensation for permanent, temporary, and indirect impacts at 19 ratios determined through consultation with USFWS and CDFW. The 20 performance standard shall be no net loss in acreage or habitat quality for vernal 21 pool branchiopods and no net loss in breeding habitat quality or acreage for 22 western spadefoot, as determined through consultation with USFWS and CDFW. 23 Impact BIO-3: Impacts on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Less than 24 Significant with Mitigation) 25 All Program-level Components 26 Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is a federally-threated species, which is dependent 27 on its host plant, elderberry. Elderberry shrubs may occur in riparian areas and along canals, 28 or occasionally in non-riparian areas. Impacts of Proposed Program components located 29 where elderberry shrubs are growing could include removal of elderberry shrubs, or ground 30 disturbance within the rooting zone of these shrubs. If these shrubs were occupied by VELB, 31 shrub removal or mortality could result in adverse effects on VELB. This would be considered 32 a significant impact. Trimming of elderberry shrubs could result in injury or death of eggs, 33 larva, or adults depending on the timing and extent of the trimming, a significant impact. No 34 adverse impacts to the VELB would occur if trimming does not remove stems/branches that 35 are ≥1 inch in diameter and is conducted between November and February (USFWS 2017i). 36 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7 would reduce impacts to 37 VELB and its habitat to less than significant with mitigation. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-37 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 River Trunk Realignment Project 1 During the reconnaissance survey, a blue elderberry shrub was observed near the exit pit for 2 trenchless pipeline construction on the west side of Dry Creek. VELB exit holes were not 3 observed on this shrub. Ground disturbance for this pit would be approximately 10 feet from 4 the dripline of this shrub. Individual elderberry shrubs also have the potential to occur in 5 riparian habitat along Dry Creek, but impacts to these shrubs and VELB would be avoided by 6 the use of trenchless pipeline construction techniques. 7 Several blue elderberry shrubs were observed along the Tuolumne River in the vicinity of the 8 Shackelford Pump Station. Ground disturbance for construction of the pump station would 9 be approximately 40 feet from the dripline of these shrubs. 10 Impacts on VELB and its habitat would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 11 BIO-5 through BIO-7 would reduce impacts to VELB and its habitat to less than significant 12 with mitigation. 13 Overall Conclusion 14 The Proposed Program has could affect elderberry shrubs which provide habitat for VELB. If 15 the shrubs are occupied and affected during construction, adverse effects on this federally- 16 listed species could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7 17 would minimize adverse effects. In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures 18 would reduce the Proposed Program’s overall impact to less than significant with 19 mitigation. 20 Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid Impacts on VELB Habitat. 21 Applies to all Program-level Components and River Trunk Realignment Project 22 The City and/or its contractor(s) shall avoid riparian habitat and/or elderberry 23 shrubs whenever possible. If an individual CIP is not within a riparian area, is located 24 on an existing site or other developed area, or within the public right of way, any 25 impacts to the VELB would not be expected to be substantial and therefore would not 26 require mitigation. For proposed improvements that may potentially impact VELB 27 habitat, following USFWS guidance, the Program sites and a 165-foot-wide buffer 28 surrounding such sites will be surveyed and mapped by a qualified biologist for the 29 presence of elderberry shrubs. If elderberry shrubs are present, to the extent feasible, 30 the Program shall adhere to avoidance measures outlined in USFWS’ Framework for 31 Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus 32 dimorphus) (USFWS 2017f). This shall include the following avoidance measures: 33  If elderberry shrubs are located in non-riparian area, a qualified biologist shall 34 evaluate the shrubs for exit holes. If exit holes are present, the shrubs are 35 considered suitable habitat and likely occupied. If exit holes are not present, the 36 biologist shall evaluate whether known VELB occurrences are located within 37 2,625 feet of the CIP, whether the project site is near suitable riparian habitat, and 38 any surrounding barriers to VELB dispersal. 39  The City shall fence and flag all areas to be avoided during construction activities 40 including all established elderberry shrubs within 165 feet of ground disturbing 41 construction that shall not be impacted by construction activities. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-38 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  No open-cut construction or other ground disturbance shall occur within 20 feet 1 of the dripline of elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1.0 inch or 2 greater in diameter at ground level. 3  A qualified biologist shall provide training for all contractors, work crews, and 4 any onsite personnel on the status of the VELB, its host plant and habitat, the need 5 to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for 6 noncompliance. 7  A qualified biologist shall monitor the work area at project-appropriate intervals 8 to assure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented. The 9 amount and duration of monitoring shall depend on the project specifics and 10 should be discussed with USFWS. 11  As much as feasible, all activities that could occur within 165 feet of an elderberry 12 shrub, shall be conducted outside of the flight season of the VELB (March - July). 13  If required, trimming of elderberry shrubs shall occur between November and 14 February and shall avoid the removal of any branches or stems that are ≥ 1 inch 15 in diameter. 16  Herbicides shall not be used within the drip-line of the shrub. Insecticides shall 17 not be used within 98 feet of an elderberry shrub. All chemicals shall be applied 18 using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method. 19  Mechanical weed removal within the drip-line of the shrub shall be limited to the 20 season when VELB adults are not active (August-February) and shall avoid 21 damaging the elderberry. 22  Erosion control shall be implemented and the affected area shall be re-vegetated 23 with appropriate native plants. 24 If elderberry shrubs cannot be avoided, implement Mitigation Measure BIO-6. 25 Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Implement VELB Compensatory Mitigation, if 26 Necessary. 27 Applies to all Program-level Components and River Trunk Realignment Project 28 The City shall implement the following measures. If feasible, any shrub that would be 29 adversely impacted by the project shall be transplanted to a USFWS-approved 30 location per Mitigation Measure BIO-7. 31 Impacts to VELB habitat shall be mitigated through purchase of compensatory 32 mitigation credits from a USFWS-approved mitigation bank, or through on- or off-site 33 mitigation. If on- or off-site mitigation is planned, a Compensatory Mitigation 34 Proposal shall be developed and shall be subject to approval by USFWS. 35 Mitigation ratios shall be based on impacts to VELB habitat, as well as impacts to 36 individual shrubs. One credit (unit) = 1,800 square feet. For habitat, the total amount 37 of permanent disturbance in square feet should be calculated, the appropriate ratio 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-39 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 applied, and the total number divided by 1,800. Impacts to riparian habitat shall be 1 mitigated at a 3:1 (acre(s) of credits: acre(s) of disturbance) ratio. For disturbance to 2 elderberry shrubs in non-riparian habitat, a 1:1 ratio shall be used. 3 Impacts to individual shrubs in riparian areas may be replaced by the purchase of 2 4 credits at a USFWS-approved bank for each shrub impacted regardless of the 5 presence of exit holes. Impacts to individual shrubs in non-riparian areas shall be 6 replaced through a purchase of 1 credit at a USFWS-approved bank for each shrub 7 that shall be impacted if exit holes have been found in any shrub on or within 165 feet 8 of the project area. 9 Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Transplant Elderberry Shrubs if Avoidance Is Not 10 Feasible. 11 Applies to all Program-level components and River Trunk Realignment Project 12 The City shall implement the following measures. If an elderberry shrub cannot be 13 avoided or if indirect effects shall result in the death of stems or the entire shrub, then 14 in addition to Mitigation Measure BIO-6, the shrub shall be transplanted. 15 Elderberry shrubs shall be transplanted as close as possible to their original location. 16 Elderberry shrubs may be relocated adjacent to the project footprint if: 1) the 17 planting location is suitable for elderberry growth and reproduction; and 2) the City 18 is able to protect the shrub and ensure that the shrub becomes reestablished. If these 19 criteria cannot be met, the shrub may be transplanted to an appropriate USFWS- 20 approved mitigation site. Any elderberry shrub that is unlikely to survive 21 transplanting because of poor condition or location, or a shrub that would be 22 extremely difficult to move because of access problems, may not be appropriate for 23 transplanting. The transplanting guidelines below shall be followed: 24  A qualified biologist shall be on-site for the duration of transplanting activities to 25 assure compliance with avoidance and minimization measures and other 26 conservation measures. 27  Exit-hole surveys shall be completed immediately before transplanting. The 28 number of exit holes found, GPS location of the plant to be relocated, and the GPS 29 location of where the plant is transplanted shall be reported to the Service and to 30 the 31  Elderberry shrubs shall be transplanted when the shrubs are dormant 32 (November through the first two weeks in February) and after they have lost their 33 leaves. 34  Transplanting shall follow the most current version of the ANSI A300 (Part 6) 35 guidelines for transplanting (www.tcia.org). 36 Impact BIO-4: Impacts on Special-status Fishes (Less than Significant with 37 Mitigation) 38 Habitat in the study area for special-status fish species is limited to the Tuolumne River and 39 Dry Creek. Special-status fish that are known to occur in the Tuolumne River include Chinook 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-40 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 salmon (Central Valley fall- and late fall-run ESU), Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento 1 splittail, and hardhead. These species may also be present in Dry Creek. 2 Adult steelhead and Chinook salmon migrate through the Tuolumne River to reach spawning 3 habitat upstream. Juvenile salmonids pass through the study area on their way out to the 4 Pacific Ocean. Sacramento splittail may be present in this portion of the Tuolumne River in 5 wet years. Hardhead are also known be present. 6 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 7 Construction of proposed components at the Sutter and Jennings Plants would not occur in 8 suitable habitat for special-status fishes. However, impacts to water quality due to 9 construction of components near the Tuolumne River and the San Joaquin River could 10 adversely affect special-status fishes. As discussed in Chapter 9, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, 11 construction of proposed components would include grading, excavation, trenching, or other 12 construction-related activities that could loosen soils and increase the risk of erosion or 13 sediment transport. Increases in sedimentation and turbidity have been shown to adversely 14 affect fish physiology, behavior, and habitat. The effects of turbidity on fish include gill 15 trauma, avoidance of habitat, changes in forage ability, increased predation risk, and reduced 16 territoriality. The deposition of excessive fine sediment on the stream bottom could eliminate 17 habitat for aquatic insects (a food source for fish); reduce density, biomass, numbers, and 18 diversity of aquatic insects and aquatic vegetation; and reduce the quality of spawning habitat 19 for fish. Potential impacts to special-status fish from water quality include reduction in 20 habitat quality, injury, or mortality. These impacts would be considered significant. 21 As discussed in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, water quality impacts of Program 22 activities would be avoided or minimized through implementation of BMPs and compliance 23 with the NPDES General Construction Permit and requirements for Program 24 components with a disturbance footprint greater than one acre. The City of Modesto’s 25 Standard Specifications require that all projects less than one acre develop a Local or 26 Erosion Control Plan and implement stormwater BMPs during construction. Implementing 27 these requirements would prevent substantial stormwater- and erosion-related water 28 quality impacts. 29 Construction activities that take place near these rivers could result in discharges of 30 hazardous materials if adequate precautions are not taken, a significant impact. As described 31 in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City would comply with all local, state, 32 and federal regulations concerning hazardous materials handling and containment during 33 construction of Program components. This includes standards for any secondary 34 containment and countermeasures for hazardous materials used in construction and 35 operation, and spill response procedures in case of an accidental release. Implementation of 36 these requirements would prevent substantial hazardous materials-related water quality 37 impacts from occurring during construction activities. This impact would be less than 38 significant. 39 Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components A-1 and A-2, and River Trunk 40 Realignment Project 41 Construction-related impacts to special-status fish and their habitat would be minimized by 42 using trenchless construction techniques for the new pipelines crossing the Tuolumne River 43 and Dry Creek, as well as rehabilitation of an existing pipelines crossing the Tuolumne River 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-41 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 and another crossing Dry Creek (Components A-1 and Impacts to special-status fish 1 and their habitat may result from a frac-out of drilling fluids. Drilling fluids typically consist 2 of bentonite, which is non-toxic to aquatic life. However, a frac-out may result in a temporary 3 increase in turbidity or sedimentation that can adversely affect aquatic organisms by 4 covering spawning and feeding areas, and clogging fish gills. These impacts are considered 5 significant. Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts in the 6 event of a frac-out. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1, this impact 7 would be less than significant with mitigation. 8 Trenchless construction under the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek is unlikely to result in any 9 noise or vibration impacts on fish. Vibration from the drilling machinery is minimal and 10 because the tunneling operation occurs below the river, it would be attenuated to an 11 imperceptible level before it reaches the river bottom. No perceptible noise or vibration is 12 likely to translate into the water. There would be no impacts from noise or vibration from 13 drilling machinery on special-status fishes. 14 Construction activities of program-level components could result in water quality impacts 15 which could adversely affect special-status fish. For example, temporary increases in 16 sediment discharges and increased turbidity, and in the event of an accidental spill, 17 hazardous materials could adversely affect water quality. These impacts would be significant. 18 Such impacts would be avoided or minimized through implementation of BMPs and 19 compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, and Local 20 requirements. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1, impacts would be 21 less than significant with mitigation. 22 Other Collection System Components 23 Aside from Components A-1 and A-2, no other WWMP components would occur near 24 waterways where potential adverse effects on special-status fish species could occur. 25 Therefore, construction of other collection system improvements would result in no impact 26 on special-status fish. 27 Overall Conclusion 28 WWMP components near the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek could adversely affect special- 29 status fish species due to construction-related effects on water quality increased 30 sedimentation, turbidity, and hazardous materials in the event of an accidental spill). 31 Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 would minimize adverse effects on water 32 quality and reduce adverse effects on special-status fish. In conclusion, implementation of 33 this mitigation measure would reduce the Proposed Program’s overall impact to less than 34 significant with mitigation. 35 Impact BIO-5: Impacts on Western Pond Turtle (Less than Significant with 36 Mitigation) 37 Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk Realignment Project 38 Potentially suitable habitat for western pond turtle occurs in the Tuolumne River and Dry 39 Creek. Irrigation ditches with emergent vegetation provide marginally suitable habitat 40 because they generally lack basking sites, the banks are very steep, and they are not 41 perennially inundated. Canals do not provide suitable habitat. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-42 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impacts to western pond turtle would be minimized by using trenchless pipeline 1 construction where this species is most likely to occur, in the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. 2 The only collection system components that would cross the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek 3 are Sewer Rehabilitation Components A-1 and A-2. The majority of collection system 4 components would occur in urban portions of Modesto where habitat for western pond turtle 5 is not present. Western pond turtle may also occur in upland areas. Construction activities 6 that directly impact western pond turtle or their nests could result in significant impacts to 7 this species. 8 The River Trunk Realignment Project crosses Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River, where there 9 is suitable habitat for western pond turtle. The Dry Creek crossing would be a trenchless 10 crossing, which would minimize impacts to western pond turtle. The west side of the pipeline 11 connection for the crossing of the Tuolumne River is close to habitat for western pond turtle. 12 Construction activities that directly impact western pond turtle or their nests in the vicinity 13 of the Tuolumne River crossing could result in significant impacts to this species. 14 Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would avoid impacts to suitable habitat for this species to the 15 extent feasible. Where disturbance of suitable habitat is unavoidable, the mitigation measure 16 would require that impacts be minimized through pre-construction surveys, establishment 17 of buffers, and monitoring. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would 18 be less than significant with mitigation. 19 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 20 Wastewater treatment ponds provide potentially suitable habitat for this species (Rosenberg 21 et al. 2009). Activities such as dredging in facultative ponds at the Jennings Plant could impact 22 this species. Irrigation ditches with emergent vegetation provide marginally suitable habitat 23 because they generally lack basking sites, the banks are very steep, and they are not 24 perennially inundated. 25 Construction activities that directly impact western pond turtle or their nests could result in 26 significant impacts to this species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would 27 reduce these impacts to less than significant with mitigation. 28 Overall Conclusion 29 While most collection system components would not occur near waterways, this species can 30 occur in upland areas and in irrigation ditches. Construction activities in the vicinity of 31 Tuolumne River or Dry Creek have higher potential to adversely affect western pond turtle 32 or their nests. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would minimize adverse effects. 33 In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the Proposed 34 Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 35 Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for and Minimize 36 Impacts on Western Pond Turtle. 37 Applies to all Program-level components adjacent to rivers and creeks and the River 38 Trunk Realignment Project 39 Preconstruction surveys for western pond turtles in suitable aquatic and upland 40 habitat will be conducted by a qualified biologist 2 weeks before and 24 hours before 41 the start of construction activities in streams, irrigation canals, ponds, and sloughs 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-43 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 where suitable habitat exists. If a western pond turtle is located within the 1 construction area, it will be relocated out of this area (with authorization from the 2 CDFW), and exclusion fence will be installed to prevent the movement of turtles back 3 into the construction area. Additionally, the following minimization measures will be 4 implemented. 5  The project proponent will minimize grading and construction activities 6 along the banks of streams, irrigation canals, and sloughs and within 1,000 7 feet of these areas between October 15 and April 15 in order to reduce 8 potential mortality to hibernating western pond turtles. 9  If a western pond turtle becomes trapped during construction activities 10 within the waterway, the turtle will be removed from the work area and 11 placed from the project site (with authorization from CDFW). 12  The construction area will be clearly defined, using orange barrier fencing, in 13 order to minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation and western pond turtle 14 habitat. 15  If nesting areas for western pond turtles are identified in the study area 16 during preconstruction surveys, a buffer of 300 feet will be established 17 between the nesting site and the construction area. Buffers will be indicated 18 by temporary fencing if construction begins before the nesting period ends 19 (egg laying to emergence of hatchlings normally extends from April to 20 November). 21 Impact BIO-6: Impacts on Burrowing Owl (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 22 All Program-level Components 23 Burrowing owls could occur within grasslands, agricultural habitats and canal and railroad 24 right of ways where burrows are present. Collection system improvements, such as pipelines 25 SO-2, SO-4, L-5, W-1, D-2, N-6, N-8, and N-9, and lift station LS#67 are located within 26 agricultural lands. Collection system improvements such as EM-2, C-1, L-1, L-3, SO-1, SO-3, 27 and N-5 and the third outfall pipeline are located in close proximity to agricultural lands. 28 Rehabilitation pipeline B-1 is located within disturbed grassland and collection system 29 improvements N-1 and N-2 are located near disturbed grassland habitat. If this species is 30 present in the vicinity of Proposed Program-level components, construction activities could 31 disturb burrowing owls through noise, visual distraction, or direct impacts to occupied 32 habitat. These impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation 33 Measure BIO-9 would reduce impacts to this species. Where disturbance is unavoidable, 34 impacts to burrowing owls would be minimized through establishing buffers around active 35 burrows. If active burrows cannot be avoided, passive relocation techniques may be used. If 36 relocation occurs, then compensation would be provided to offset impacts. With 37 implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant with 38 mitigation. 39 River Trunk Realignment Project 40 No evidence of burrowing owl was observed during reconnaissance surveys conducted in 41 June 2017. Grassland habitat between Dry Creek and the River Trunk Pump Station site is 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-44 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 marginally suitable for burrowing owl. The majority of this habitat has been disked, 1 eliminating the burrow that this species depends upon for habitat. Burrowing owls are not 2 likely to occur where ground-disturbing activities would occur during construction of River 3 Trunk Realignment Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 4 Overall Conclusion 5 While the River Trunk Realignment Project would be unlikely to have adverse effects on 6 burrowing owl, construction activities associated with some program-level components 7 could occur in grassland or agricultural habitats where burrowing owl may be present. If 8 present, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would minimize adverse effects on this 9 species. In conclusion, implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Proposed 10 Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 11 Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing 12 Owls and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary. 13 Applies to all Program-level components 14 Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of 15 suitable burrowing owl habitat within 250 feet of construction activity. Surveys shall 16 be conducted within 14 days before the start of construction activity. If no work 17 occurs for a period of 2 or more weeks during the nesting season, surveys must be 18 performed before work is resumed. If no burrowing owls or signs of burrowing owls 19 are detected during the survey, no further mitigation shall be required. If breeding or 20 resident burrowing owls are located on or within 250 feet of the proposed 21 construction site, the following measures shall be implemented. 22 If burrowing owls are detected, disturbance to burrows shall be avoided during the 23 nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Buffers shall be established around 24 occupied burrows in accordance with guidance provided in the Staff Report on 25 Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), and at the discretion of a qualified wildlife 26 biologist. Buffers around occupied burrows shall be a minimum of 656 feet (200 27 meters) during the breeding season, and 160 feet (100 meters) during the non- 28 breeding season. Buffer distances shall be subject to the approval of CDFW. 29 If occupied burrows cannot be avoided, passive owl relocation techniques may be 30 implemented outside of the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Owls 31 would be excluded from burrows within 160 feet of construction by installing one- 32 way doors in burrow entrances. The work area shall be monitored daily for 1 week to 33 confirm owl departure from burrows prior to any ground-disturbing activities. 34 Where possible burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent 35 reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe shall be inserted into the tunnels during 36 excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow. 37 If occupied burrows are relocated, the City shall enhance or create burrows in 38 adjacent habitat at a 1:1 ratio (burrows destroyed to burrows enhanced or created) 39 one week prior to implementation of passive relocation techniques. If burrowing owl 40 habitat enhancement or creation takes place, the City shall develop and implement a 41 monitoring and management plan to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation. The 42 plan shall be subject to the approval of CDFW. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-45 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact BIO-7: Impacts on Golden Eagle and Bald Eagle (Less than Significant) 1 Golden eagle and bald eagle are State Fully Protected species. CDFW cannot authorize take of 2 these species. Golden eagles have been observed at the Jennings Plant (eBird 2017a), and are 3 commonly observed in the canyons/foothills to the west of the study area. In central 4 California, golden eagles nest primarily in large trees and cliffs within open grasslands and 5 oak savanna, and occasionally in oak woodland and open shrublands (Hunt et al. 1999). The 6 study area provides marginal foraging habitat and nesting is unlikely. 7 Bald eagles have been observed in canyons/foothills to the west of the study area and at 8 Jennings Plant (eBird.org 2017a). In California, the majority of bald eagles nest in conifer 9 trees near reservoirs (Jackman and Jenkins 2004). Typically, bald eagles forage near open 10 water (rivers, lakes, reservoirs) where fish or waterfowl are abundant (USFWS 2007). The 11 Tuolumne River, San Joaquin River, and possibly the Jennings Plant, provide potential 12 foraging habitat. Large trees along the San Joaquin River and Tuolumne River are potential 13 roost sites. Bald eagles are generally winter visitors in the Central Valley; nesting within the 14 vicinity of the study area is unlikely. There are no published reports of nest sites on the San 15 Joaquin Valley floor. 16 Impacts to non-breeding golden and bald eagles may include visual distractions, noise, and 17 possibly temporary displacement from suitable foraging areas. Project activities are not likely 18 to reduce fitness, affect breeding, result in “take” of these species, or result in any substantial 19 adverse impacts to eagles. Therefore, impacts to golden and bald eagles would be less than 20 significant. 21 Impact BIO-8: Impacts on Raptors, Including Special-status Species (Less than 22 Significant with Mitigation) 23 Numerous raptors are known to nest and forage in habitats in the study area. Non-listed 24 raptors commonly observed in the vicinity of the study area include red-tailed hawk, 25 American kestrel, red-shouldered hawk, and merlin (Falco columbarius), among others. 26 Special-status raptors (excluding burrowing owls, golden eagle, and bald eagle) known to 27 occur in the vicinity of the study area include Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and 28 northern harrier (Table 7-1). These species have been observed in the study area and are 29 known to nest locally. Riparian trees along the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek provide 30 potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; isolated mature trees in 31 adjacent fields may also be used for nesting. These raptors commonly forage in agricultural 32 fields. Northern harriers nest on the ground in open areas, and may nest in agricultural fields. 33 Program components in the vicinity of suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s Hawk and 34 white-tailed kite include the third outfall, sewer rehabilitation components C-1, CT-1, B-1, 35 RT-9, RT-10, treatment plant components, and the River Trunk Realignment Project. 36 Construction in the vicinity of raptor nest sites could disturb nesting raptors through 37 generation of noise, visual distraction, or direct impacts to occupied nests tree removal 38 or ground disturbance). Impacts to Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite would be 39 minimized by using trenchless construction techniques for crossing of the Tuolumne River 40 and Dry Creek, where nesting is most likely to occur. However, special-status raptors could 41 nest in relatively close proximity to trenchless construction operations, and in other portions 42 of the Program area. For the River Trunk Realignment Project, special-status species such as 43 Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite could nest in riparian habitat adjacent to the entry and 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-46 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 exit pits for the trenchless crossing of Dry Creek. Noise from construction equipment could 1 disturb nesting raptors in these areas, if present. Thus, there would be the potential for 2 disturbance of nesting raptors. Impacts that result in nest abandonment, nest failure, or 3 reduced health or vigor of nestlings are considered significant. 4 Horizon biologists have conducted protocol surveys for Swainson’s hawk in Stanislaus 5 County annually since 2012. The surveys have documented nest sites and successful fledging 6 of juveniles from nests located adjacent to busy roads, railroad tracks, residences, industrial 7 sites, commercial businesses, and various agricultural operations. Swainson’s hawks 8 observed during numerous surveys appear to be tolerant of human activity. Bechard et al. 9 2010 report that Swainson’s hawk are generally tolerant of regular, ongoing human activities 10 around nest sites in agricultural and urban landscapes, but may abandon nest in response to 11 loud, irregular, unpredictable activities. It is possible that construction equipment, worker 12 vehicles, and increased human presence during construction of proposed CIPs may cause 13 physiological stress resulting in nest abandonment or behavior modification that may 14 indirectly lead to nesting failure or mortality of Swainson’s hawk chicks. Direct mortality or 15 injury from proposed construction activities is unlikely. 16 Construction of program-level components such as those planned at the Jennings Plant 17 new sludge drying beds) could result in the loss of suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s 18 hawk. This impact would be considered significant. 19 Construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project would result in temporary disturbance 20 of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk in the grassland to the west of the Dry Creek Crossing. 21 It would also result in permanent loss of approximately 0.3 acre of marginally suitable 22 foraging habitat in the footprint of the Shackelford pump station. This impact would be 23 considered significant. 24 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-10 (Avoid, Minimize, or Compensate for Impacts 25 on Raptors, including Special-status Species), which would require preconstruction surveys 26 for nesting raptors and establishment of no-disturbance buffers, and Mitigation Measure 27 BIO-11 (Compensate for Loss of Raptor Foraging Habitat), which would require mitigation 28 for the loss of suitable foraging habitat, would reduce this impact to less than significant 29 with mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 for the River Trunk 30 Realignment Project would result in provision of 0.3 to 0.6 acre of Swainson’s hawk habitat 31 management lands, the amount depending upon percentage of active management of the 32 lands (see Mitigation Measure BIO-11 for details). Alternatively, 0.3 acre of Swainson’s hawk 33 mitigation credit may be purchased from a CDFW-approved Swainson’s hawk foraging 34 habitat mitigation bank that covers the Proposed Program area, 35 Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Raptors, including 36 Special-status Species. 37 Applies to all Program-level components and River Trunk Realignment Project 38 The City shall implement the following measures. If ground and vegetation disturbing 39 activities occur between February 1 and August 31, the City shall conduct a nesting 40 raptor survey, with a focus on Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, in accordance 41 with Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey's 42 in California's Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000, 43 or current CDFW guidance). Surveys shall cover a minimum of a 0.5-mile radius 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-47 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 around potentially suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite. 1 Agricultural lands within 500 feet of ground disturbing construction activities shall 2 be surveyed for northern harrier nests. 3 If nesting raptors are detected, the City shall establish a 500-foot no-disturbance 4 buffer around the nest. No construction activities shall be initiated within the buffer 5 until fledglings are fully mobile and no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care 6 for survival. 7 Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for Loss of Raptor Foraging Habitat. 8 Applies to all Program-level components and River Trunk Realignment Project 9 The City shall implement the following measures. To mitigate for the loss of potential 10 Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat, the City shall provide off-site habitat management 11 lands, as described in the CDFW protocol for the mitigation of impacts on Swainson’s 12 hawks in the Central Valley (CDFG 1994), or by purchasing credits at a CDFW- 13 approved Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation bank that covers the study 14 area, such as the Dutchman Creek Conservation Bank. 15 The City shall determine the final acreage of off-site management lands or mitigation 16 bank credits to be provided based on the CDFW protocol (CDFG 1994). For the 17 purposes of this mitigation measure, all program-level components are assumed to 18 be within 1 mile of an active Swainson’s hawk nest tree. Mitigation credits would 19 follow the same ratio guidelines as off-site management lands. The City shall 20 compensate for losses as follows: 21  1 acre of habitat management land for each acre of development authorized (1:1 22 ratio), at least 10% of which shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation 23 easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 24 90% protected by a conservation easement acceptable to CDFW on agricultural 25 lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s 26 hawk; or 27  0.5 acre of habitat management land for each acre of development authorized 28 (0.5:1 ratio), all of which shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation 29 easement acceptable to CDFW that allows for the active management of the 30 habitat for prey production on the habitat management lands. 31 The City shall provide for the long-term management of the habitat management 32 lands by funding a management endowment (the interest on which shall be used for 33 managing the habitat management lands). If mitigation credits are purchased, long 34 term management would be the responsibility of the mitigation bank. 35 Impact BIO-9: Impacts on Special-status Passerine Species and Birds Protected 36 under the MBTA (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 37 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 38 Special-status passerines that may nest in the vicinity of the Sutter and Jennings Plants 39 include tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-48 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). Various birds, 1 such as red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon 2 and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), protected by the MBTA could also occur in the 3 vicinity of proposed components at the Sutter and Jennings Plant. 4 Construction could disturb nesting passerines through generation of noise, visual distraction, 5 or direct impacts to occupied nests vegetation removal or ground disturbance). Nest 6 failure or removal of a nest are considered significant impacts. 7 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would minimize impacts to passerines by 8 conducting pre-construction surveys during the nesting season and establishing buffers 9 around active nests. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be less 10 than significant with mitigation. 11 Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk Realignment Project 12 Portions of the proposed outfall pipeline alignments, collection system components, and the 13 River Trunk Realignment Project cross sensitive habitat in the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek 14 where nesting of special-status passerines are most likely to occur. The only collection system 15 components that would cross these habitats are Sewer Rehabilitation Components A-1 and 16 A-2. Impacts would be minimized by using trenchless construction techniques for activities 17 crossing these habitats. However, construction could still disturb nesting passerines or other 18 birds protected by the MBTA through generation of noise, visual distraction, or direct impacts 19 to occupied nests vegetation removal or ground disturbance). Reconnaissance surveys 20 for the River Trunk Realignment Project identified swallow nests on the 9th Street Bridge, and 21 other birds protected by the MBTA may nest in proximity to the project site. Additionally, 22 nesting birds protected by the MBTA could occur in the vicinity of proposed outfall pipeline 23 alignments, collection system components. Nest failure or removal of a nest are considered 24 significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would minimize impacts 25 to passerines by conducting pre-construction surveys during the nesting season and 26 establishing buffers around active nests. With implementation of this mitigation measure, 27 impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 28 Overall Conclusion 29 Construction activities that take place at the Sutter and Jennings Plants, Tuolumne River and 30 Dry Creek could affect habitat where special-status passerines are likely to be present. 31 Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would minimize adverse effects by conducting 32 pre-construction surveys during nesting season and establishing buffers around active nests. 33 In conclusion, implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the Proposed 34 Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 35 Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting 36 Birds and Implement No-Work Buffer Areas If Necessary. 37 Applies to all Program-level components and River Trunk Realignment Project 38 The City shall implement the following measures. If construction activities occur 39 during the breeding season (February 15–August 31), a pre-construction survey shall 40 be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable nesting habitat within 500 41 feet of construction activity. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before the 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-49 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 start of construction activity. If no work occurs for a period of 2 or more weeks during 1 the nesting season, surveys must be performed before work is resumed. If the survey 2 indicates that no active nests are found, no further mitigation shall be required. 3 If active nests are identified, appropriate no-disturbance buffers around nests shall 4 be established. No-disturbance buffers around special-status passerine nests shall be 5 500 feet. No disturbance buffers for non-listed birds protected under the MBTA and 6 Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3513 will be established by a qualified 7 biologist familiar with the life history and reproductive strategies of the nesting 8 species. The buffer widths will be based on species’ sensitivity to disturbance (as 9 documented in peer-reviewed literature), planned construction activities, and 10 baseline level of human activity. The buffers will be clearly marked in the field with 11 flagging or fencing. No work shall commence within the buffer until the young have 12 fledged or the nest is deemed inactive. 13 Impact BIO-10: Impacts on Special-status Mammals (Less than Significant) 14 Special-status mammals with the potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed outfall 15 pipeline components and collection system component sites include western red bat 16 (Lasiurus blossevillii) and American badger (Taxidea taxus). Breeding of western red bats are 17 strongly associated with Central Valley riparian habitat, especially mature stands of 18 cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and sycamores (Platanus racemosa) (Pierson et al. 2006), and 19 may roost in trees along the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. The only collection system 20 components that would cross these habitats are Sewer Rehabilitation Components A-1 and 21 A-2. It riparian trees would be removed for construction of these two components. Non- 22 riparian trees in the vicinity of proposed collection system components are generally located 23 in areas with a relatively high level of human activity. The proximity to human activity makes 24 it unlikely that these trees would be used as special-status bat habitat. The Tuolumne River 25 floodplain provides potential foraging and dispersal habitat for badgers. Impacts to western 26 red bat and American badger would be minimized by using trenchless construction 27 techniques in the riparian areas where these species may occur. For these reasons, impacts 28 to special-status mammals would be less than significant. 29 Special-status mammals are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of Sutter and Jennings Plant 30 components. These wastewater treatment plants are within the range of Townsend’s big- 31 eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and this bat is known to roost in buildings and other 32 structures. However, this species is very sensitive to human disturbance and would not be 33 likely to occur within structures at either treatment plant. Impacts to special-status mammals 34 would be less than significant. 35 In the vicinity of the River Trunk Realignment Project, the Dry Creek riparian area provides 36 potential foraging and dispersal habitat for badgers. Impacts to western red bat and 37 American badger would be minimized by using trenchless construction techniques in the 38 riparian areas where these species may occur. Removal of suitable special-status bat roosting 39 habitat is unlikely for this project. Due to avoidance of suitable habitat for special-status 40 mammals, impacts on these species would be unlikely. 41 For the reasons described in the paragraphs above, the Proposed Program as a whole would 42 have less-than-significant impacts on special-status mammals. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-50 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact BIO-11: Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural 1 Communities (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 2 Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk Realignment Project 3 Portions of the proposed outfall pipeline components, collection system components, and 4 River Trunk Realignment Project would traverse riparian habitat and associated wetlands. 5 The proposed outfall pipeline components and Sewer Rehabilitation Component A-2 would 6 cross riparian habitat in the Tuolumne River and Sewer Rehabilitation Component A-1 would 7 cross Dry Creek. The River Trunk Realignment Project would cross riparian habitat 8 associated with Dry Creek. Impacts to riparian habitat would be avoided by the use of 9 trenchless construction techniques in riparian habitat. If a frac-out were to occur beneath 10 riparian habitat, direct impacts on this habitat could occur. 11 Additionally, vernal pool habitat may be present in areas where outfall pipelines and 12 collection system components would be constructed in grasslands and pastures. 13 Construction-related impacts on vernal pool habitats could include sedimentation or 14 alteration in drainage patterns. These impacts are considered significant. and Local 15 requirements would reduce sedimentation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 16 HYD/WQ-1, which would require preparation of a frac-out Contingency Plan; and Mitigation 17 Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4, which would require avoidance and/minimization of impacts on 18 vernal pools, would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. 19 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 20 Proposed components at the Jennings and Sutter Plants would generally take place in 21 urban/developed habitats, and would not occur in sensitive natural communities. This 22 impact would be to less than significant. 23 Overall Conclusion 24 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, while proposed construction activities at the 25 Jennings and Sutter Plants would not affect sensitive natural communities, construction of 26 other components would traverse riparian habitat and could result in adverse effects to this 27 natural community in the event of a frac-out. Effects on vernal pool habitat could also occur 28 due to construction of some program-level components. These impacts would be significant. 29 and Local requirements would reduce adverse effects. Implementation of 30 Mitigation Measures HYD/WQ-1 would minimize adverse effects. In conclusion, 31 implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would reduce the Proposed 32 Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 33 Impact BIO-12: Impacts on Federally Protected Wetlands (Less than Significant 34 with Mitigation) 35 Collection System Components (except A-1 and A-2), Stormwater/Sanitary Sewer 36 Disconnection, and Other City-wide Projects 37 The study area contains wetlands and waters that are likely to be regulated by the USACE and 38 USEPA under Section 404 the CWA. In the study area, the Tuolumne River is considered 39 Traditional Navigable Waters of the U.S., as is the San Joaquin River adjacent to the Jennings 40 Plant. Other wetlands and waters with a “significant nexus” to the Tuolumne or San Joaquin 41 River would also be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Wetlands and waters would 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-51 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 be preliminarily identified. Drainages excavated wholly in uplands and draining only uplands 1 are not likely to be jurisdictional features. 2 Program components located in or adjacent to wetlands and waters could cause significant 3 impacts to wetlands or waters through temporary or permanent fill, and erosion or 4 sedimentation. Implementation of and Local requirements would reduce 5 sedimentation, Mitigation Measure BIO-13, which would avoid and minimize impacts to 6 wetlands to the maximum extent practicable; and Mitigation Measure BIO-14, which requires 7 regulatory permits for work in wetlands and waters and compensatory mitigation for 8 unavoidable impacts to wetlands and waters, would reduce this impact to less than 9 significant with mitigation. 10 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components 11 Wetlands within the spray fields associated with the Jennings Plant, if any, as well as 12 treatment ponds associated with the Sutter Plant and the Jennings Plant are also not likely to 13 be considered jurisdictional because they are artificially irrigated areas, which would revert 14 to upland if the irrigation ceased, and artificial ponds created by excavating dry land used 15 exclusively for such wastewater treatment. Impacts to these features, such as dredging in 16 facultative ponds would be considered less than significant. 17 Outfall Pipelines and Components A-1 and A-2 18 These Program components and the River Trunk Realignment Project would avoid impacts 19 on wetlands and waters through the use of trenchless pipeline construction for crossings of 20 Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River. If a frac-out were to occur beneath wetlands, significant 21 direct impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1, which 22 requires preparation of a Frac-out Contingency Plan would reduce impacts to wetlands and 23 waters. Other significant impacts to wetlands and waters could occur through temporary or 24 permanent fill, and erosion or sedimentation. Implementation of and Local 25 requirements, would reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts. Implementation of 26 Mitigation Measures BIO-13 (Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Federally Protected 27 Wetlands), and BIO-14 (Obtain Regulatory Permits for Work Activities Taking Place in 28 Wetlands and Waters of the United States and the State) would reduce this impact to less 29 than significant with mitigation. 30 River Trunk Realignment Project 31 The River Trunk Realignment Project would avoid impacts on wetlands and waters through 32 the use of trenchless pipeline construction for the crossing of Dry Creek. This would 33 completely avoid fill in federally-protected wetlands. If a frac-out were to occur beneath 34 wetlands, significant direct impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 35 HYD/WQ-1, which requires preparation of a Frac-out Contingency Plan would reduce the 36 potential for impacts to wetlands and waters. The crossing of the Tuolumne River would be 37 accomplished by connecting into existing siphons. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 38 HYD/WQ-1, BIO-13 and BIO-14, and by complying with requirements in the NPDES 39 Construction General Permit, would reduce this impact to less than significant with 40 mitigation. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-52 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 Although activities at the Sutter and Jennings Plants would not likely impact wetlands or 2 waters of the U.S., other program-level components could result in such impacts including 3 those that would take place near Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River. Implementation of 4 and Local requirements, would reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts. 5 Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD/WQ-1, BIO-13, and BIO-15 would minimize 6 adverse effects. In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce 7 the Proposed Program’s overall impact to less than significant with mitigation. 8 Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Federally 9 Protected Wetlands. 10 Applies to Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk 11 Realignment Project. 12 The City shall implement the following measures. To the extent feasible, proposed 13 construction activities shall avoid federally protected wetlands. 14 If complete avoidance of wetlands is not possible, a jurisdictional wetland delineation 15 shall be conducted for the project site, which will be used during implementation of 16 Mitigation Measure BIO-14. For all activities greater than one acre of disturbance, a 17 shall be implemented to reduce the potential for sediment and contaminants 18 to enter wetlands and waters, and for all activities less than one acre of disturbance, 19 a Local shall be implemented. After construction, surface topography and 20 drainage shall be restored to pre-construction conditions. Where appropriate, 21 revegetation shall be implemented with site-adapted native plant species. 22 Mitigation Measure BIO-14: Obtain Regulatory Permits for Work Activities 23 Taking Place in Wetlands and Waters of the United States and the State. 24 Applies to Outfall Pipelines, Collection System Components, and River Trunk 25 Realignment Project. 26 The City shall implement the following measures. Work within areas defined as 27 waters of the U.S. and State that includes placement of fill will require a CWA Section 28 404 permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification. All work proposed in 29 jurisdictional waters of the U.S. shall be authorized under these permits, and the work 30 shall comply with the general and regional conditions of the permits. In areas where 31 disturbance to jurisdictional waters or wetlands occurs, the City shall implement 32 mitigation consistent with the terms of a CWA Nationwide Permit and/or the Final 33 Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (73 Fed. Reg. 34 S19594). Compensatory mitigation may include creation, reestablishment, or 35 enhancement of wetlands in the study area or at an off-site location. Compensatory 36 mitigation may also include purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank or 37 contribution to an approved in-lieu fee program. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-53 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact BIO-13: Impacts on Wildlife Movement, Established Wildlife Corridors, 1 or the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites (Less than Significant with 2 Mitigation) 3 Sutter and Jennings Plant Components and Collection System Components (except A-1 4 and A-2) 5 The majority of Sutter and Jennings Plant components and Collection System Components 6 (except Components A-1 and A-2, addressed below) would be constructed in previously 7 developed areas or agricultural lands that do not function as a significant movement corridor 8 for fish and wildlife. Some wildlife breeding does occur in agricultural lands and wetlands, as 9 described in Section 7.3.3. At the Jennings Plant, the new DAF Effluent Pipeline to Irrigation 10 Forebay would be constructed within approximately 1,250 feet of the San Joaquin River, but 11 this component is on the opposite side of the levee for the river and is unlikely to cause 12 significant impacts on wildlife movement or breeding. 13 Impacts on breeding wildlife would be minimized by conducting pre-construction surveys 14 during the breeding season (through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-9, BIO-10, 15 and BIO-12). Open-cut pipeline construction, such as for Jennings Plant pipelines, would 16 create temporary barriers to wildlife movement in agricultural lands and ruderal habitat and 17 result in a significant impact. Impacts of open-cuts on wildlife movement would be minimized 18 by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-15 (Install Temporary Trench Plates over 19 Open Trenches), which requires that trenches be covered at the end of each work day. Some 20 mature trees which provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors may be removed during 21 construction, but outside of the raptor nesting season. In addition, impacts to breeding 22 wildlife would be minimized by conducting pre-construction surveys during the breeding 23 season and implementing appropriate measures, such as no-work buffer areas if necessary, 24 to minimize impacts on breeding wildlife (see Mitigation Measures BIO-8, BIO-9, BIO-11, and 25 BIO-12). These Program Components would not create any permanent barriers to wildlife 26 movement or permanently disrupt breeding sites. With implementation of the above 27 mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 28 Outfall Pipelines, Components A-1 and A-2, and River Trunk Realignment Project 29 As described in Section 7.3.3, several fish and wildlife species utilize the Tuolumne River, and 30 to a lesser degree Dry Creek, and adjacent riparian habitat as breeding sites and a migration 31 corridor. Additionally, wildlife breeding does occur in agricultural lands and non-riparian 32 wetlands. Impacts to wildlife migration and breeding in these riverine and riparian areas 33 would be avoided by the use of trenchless construction methods. 34 In addition, impacts to breeding wildlife would be minimized by conducting pre-construction 35 surveys during the breeding season (see Mitigation Measures BIO-8, BIO-9, BIO-11, and BIO- 36 12). Open-cut pipeline construction would create temporary barriers to wildlife movement, 37 a significant impact Impacts of open-cuts on wildlife movement would be minimized by 38 implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-15, which requires that trenches be covered at 39 the end of each work day. Some mature trees which provide suitable nesting habitat for 40 raptors may be removed during construction, but outside of the raptor nesting season. These 41 Program Components and the River Trunk Realignment Project would not create any 42 permanent barriers to wildlife movement or permanently disrupt breeding sites. With 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 7. Biological Resources Wastewater Master Plan 7-54 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant 1 with mitigation. 2 Overall Conclusion 3 Construction of most WWMP components would occur in developed areas or agricultural 4 lands that do not function as wildlife movement corridors for fish and wildlife but open-cut 5 pipeline construction could temporarily create barriers to wildlife movement. 6 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-8, BIO-9, BIO-10, BIO-11, BIO-12, and BIO-15 7 would minimize adverse effects. In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation measures 8 would reduce the Proposed Program’s overall impact to less than significant with 9 mitigation. 10 Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Install Temporary Trench Plates over Open 11 Trenches. 12 Applies to all Program-level Components and River Trunk Realignment Project 13 The City shall implement the following measure. During open-cut construction of 14 pipelines, the City shall install temporary trench plates over open trenches at the end 15 of each work day. 16 Impact BIO-14: Conflict with Local Ordinances or Policies Protecting Biological 17 Resources (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 18 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-15 would ensure that the 19 Proposed Program would be consistent with all local ordinances and policies protecting 20 biological resources, reducing impacts to a level that is less than significant with 21 mitigation. 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 8-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 8 1 CULTURAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 2 8.1 Overview 3 This chapter describes the regulatory setting, the study area’s cultural resources setting, and 4 impacts of the Proposed Program related to cultural and paleontological resources. Cultural 5 resources include prehistoric and historic-era archaeological sites; tribal cultural resources 6 (TCRs) or traditional cultural properties (TCPs); and historic-era buildings, structures, 7 landscapes, districts, and linear features. Prehistoric archaeological sites are places where 8 Native Americans lived or carried out activities during the prehistoric period, which is 9 generally defined as before the early 1800s in the study area. Historic-era archaeological sites 10 reflect the activities of people after initial exploration and settlement in the region during the 11 early 1800s. Native American sites can also reflect the historic era. Prehistoric and historic- 12 era sites may contain artifacts, cultural features, subsistence remains, and/or human burials. 13 TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural 14 value to a California Native American tribe. TCPs can include TCRs, but they also encompass 15 resources that are culturally important to any community. 16 Paleontological resources are the fossil remains of prehistoric flora and fauna, or traces of 17 evidence of the existence of prehistoric flora and fauna. This chapter addresses the 18 occurrence of paleontological resources within the Program area and the impact that 19 construction activities and operation of the Proposed Program will have on scientifically 20 important fossil remains, as identified in the State CEQA Guidelines. The analysis presented 21 in this chapter conforms to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology criteria. 22 The purpose of this chapter is to describe the regulatory setting associated with cultural 23 resources (including TCRs), and paleontological resources, the affected environment for 24 these resources, Program impacts on cultural and paleontological resources, and mitigation 25 measures that would reduce these impacts. 26 The following key data sources support this chapter: 27  Records search from the North Central Information Center of the California Historical 28 Resources System at California State University, Sacramento; 29  Files search from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); and 30  The City of Modesto, City of Ceres, and Stanislaus County general plans. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 8.2 Regulatory Setting 1 8.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 2 National Historic Preservation Act and Implementing Regulations 3 The River Trunk Realignment Project would require a permit from USACE under Section 404 4 of the CWA. Other future program-level components may also require a permit from USACE 5 under Section 404 of the CWA as well. Projects that require federal permits, receive federal 6 funding, or are located on federal lands must comply with 54 USC 306108, formally and more 7 commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). To comply 8 with Section 106, a federal agency must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on 9 any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in 10 the National Register of Historic Places.” The implementing regulations for Section 106 are 11 found in 36 CFR Part 800, as amended (2004). 12 The implementing regulations of the NHPA require that cultural resources be evaluated for 13 their eligibility to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) if they cannot 14 be avoided by an undertaking or project. To determine if a site, district, structure, object, 15 and/or building is significant, the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation are applied. Pursuant to 36 16 CFR Part 60.4, a resource is significant and considered a historic property when it: 17 A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 18 patterns of our history; or 19 B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 20 C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 21 or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that 22 represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 23 individual distinction; or 24 D. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 25 In addition, 36 CFR Part 60.4 requires that, to be considered significant and historic, a 26 resource must also exhibit the quality of significance in American history, architecture, 27 archaeology, engineering, or culture and must possess integrity of location, design, setting, 28 materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 29 Other “criteria considerations” need to be applied to religious properties, properties that are 30 less than 50 years old, a resource no longer situated in its original location, a or 31 grave of a historical figure, a cemetery, a reconstructed building, and commemorative 32 properties. These types of properties are typically not eligible for NRHP inclusion unless the 33 criteria for evaluation and criteria considerations are met. 34 For archaeological sites evaluated under criterion D, “integrity” requires that the site remain 35 sufficiently intact to convey the expected information to address specific important research 36 questions. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 TCPs are locations of cultural value that are historic properties. A place of cultural value is 1 eligible as a TCP “because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 2 community that are rooted in that community’s history, and are important in 3 maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1990, rev. 4 1998). A TCP must be a tangible property, meaning that it must be a place with a referenced 5 location, and it must have been continually a part of the community’s cultural practices and 6 beliefs for the past 50 years or more. 7 Federal law does not address TCRs as those resources are defined in the California Public 8 Resources Code (Pub. Res. Code). However, TCRs are a category of TCP and would be 9 addressed in the same manner as TCPs under federal law. 10 Note that, typically, USACE consultation is specifically limited to those Program and Project 11 areas under USACE jurisdiction activities to be conducted within Waters of the 12 8.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 13 CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines 14 Section 21083.2 of CEQA requires that the lead agency determine whether a project may have 15 a significant effect on unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is 16 defined in CEQA as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly 17 demonstrated that there is a high probability that it: 18  Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and 19 there is demonstrable public interest in that information; 20  Has a special or particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best 21 available example of its type; or 22  Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic 23 event or person. 24 Special limitations on measures to avoid, conserve, preserve, or mitigate significant effects 25 on unique archaeological resources are also provided under Public Resources Code 26 Section 21083.2. These limitations do not apply if an archaeological site is also a CEQA- 27 defined “historical resource,” as defined below (State CEQA Guidelines Secion15064.5[c]). 28 Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines notes that, “a project with an effect that may 29 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project 30 that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Substantial adverse changes include 31 physical changes to the historical resource or to its immediate surroundings, such that the 32 significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Lead agencies must 33 identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the 34 significance of a historical resource before they approve such projects. “Historical resources” 35 are those that are: 36  listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical 37 Resources (CRHR) (Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1[k]); 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  included in a local register of historic resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 5020.1) or 1 identified as significant in an historic resource survey meeting the requirements of 2 Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1(g); or 3  determined by a lead agency to be historically significant. 4 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also prescribes the processes and procedures found 5 under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Pub. Res. Code Section 5097.95 6 for addressing the existence of, or probable likelihood of, Native American human remains, 7 as well as the unexpected discovery of any human remains within the project site. This 8 includes consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes. 9 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provides further guidance about minimizing effects 10 to historical resources through the application of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures 11 must be legally binding and fully enforceable. 12 The lead agency having jurisdiction over a project is also responsible to ensure that 13 paleontological resources are protected in compliance with State CEQA Guidelines and other 14 applicable statutes. 15 Assembly Bill No. 52, which was approved in September 2014 and which went into effect on 16 January 1, 2015, requires that lead agencies consult with a California Native American tribe 17 that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if 18 so requested by the tribe. The bill, chaptered in State CEQA Guidelines Section 21084.2, also 19 specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the 20 significance of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. 21 Defined in Pub. Res. Code Section 21074 b, and TCRs are: 22 (A.1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with 23 cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the 24 following: 25 a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or 26 b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision 27 of Section 5020.1. 28 (A.2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by 29 substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in 30 subdivision of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision 31 of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall 32 consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 33 A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision is a TCR to the 34 extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and 35 scope of the landscape; and 36 A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological 37 resource as defined in subdivision of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision of Section 21083.2 may 1 also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms to the criteria of subdivision 2 AB 52 establishes a consultation process between California Native American tribes and lead 3 agencies. A lead agency must notify a tribe of proposed CEQA projects if the tribe has 4 submitted a request to a lead agency to be so notified. The lead agency then provides the tribe 5 with formal notice of CEQA projects, and the tribe must request formal consultation within 6 30 days of receiving notice. As part of formal AB 52 consultation, measures for TCRs must be 7 developed in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe pursuant to Pub. 8 Res. Code Section 21080.3.2. Pub. Res. Code Section 21084.3 identifies mitigation measures 9 that include avoidance and preservation of TCRs; treating TCRs with culturally appropriate 10 dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource; 11 conservation easements; and protecting the resource. 12 California Register of Historical Resources 13 Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1 establishes the CRHR. The register lists all California 14 properties considered to be significant historical resources. The CRHR includes all properties 15 listed as or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, including properties evaluated 16 under Section 106 of the NHPA. The criteria for listing are similar to those of the NRHP. 17 Criteria for listing in the CRHR include resources that: 18 1) Are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 19 patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 20 2) Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 21 3) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of 22 construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess 23 high artistic values; or 24 4) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 25 The regulations set forth the criteria for eligibility as well as guidelines for assessing 26 historical integrity and resources that have special considerations. 27 8.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 28 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 29 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019a) contains a progressive 30 and extensive list of policies related to archaeological and cultural resources under Chapter 31 VII, Environmental Resources, Open Spaces and Conservation. As is often the case with 32 general plans that involve historic urban centers, many of the City of Modesto’s policies focus 33 on the preservation of buildings that reflect the history and historic character of the city. 34 Because the Proposed Program will not directly impact the buildings in Modesto’s historic 35 district, those policies will not be presented here in detail. It is sufficient to note that projects 36 involving the demolition or alteration of buildings aged 50 years or older will require 37 evaluation for NRHP and CRHR eligibility, if the buildings haven’t previously been evaluated, 38 by a professional historian or architectural historian prior to project approval. This 39 requirement is also applicable when construction is proposed within 100 feet of a building 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 that is older than 50 years. Other policies identify measures to mitigate damage to historically 1 significant buildings, which generally defer to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 2 for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and guidelines provided by the State Historic 3 Preservation Officer. 4 A number of policies address potential impacts to archaeological resources for projects that 5 involve ground disturbance. Those policies that are the most pertinent to the Proposed 6 Program are listed below. 7 Policies in the Downtown Area and Baseline Developed Area 8 Policy VII-F.2[h]. When proposed development lies within an archaeological resource 9 study area (shown on Figure V-7-1 in the Master EIR), analyze the area to determine 10 whether it has a high potential to have been used by Native Americans or contain 11 prehistoric deposits. Resources to be utilized include archival research through the 12 Central California Information Center at CSU Stanislaus, preliminary surface field 13 reconnaissance, consultations with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 14 and individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC. Any archaeological resources 15 discovered shall be recorded and mapped. Require an evaluation of the significance of 16 any such resources only when proposed development might affect the resources. 17 Policy VII-F.2[i]. If land designated or proposed to be designated for development is 18 discovered through archival research, consultation or by chance, to contain a sacred or 19 traditional place, consult with the NAHC and the appropriate Native American groups 20 and individuals for the purpose of determining the level of confidentiality required to 21 protect the cultural place and for the purpose of developing treatment with appropriate 22 dignity of the cultural place in any corresponding management plan. Avoid and 23 preserve sacred sites whenever feasible. 24 Policy VII-F.2[j]. Consistent with AB 52 of 2016, conduct consultations with the Native 25 American Heritage Commission and the appropriate Native American Tribes for the 26 purpose of determining the level of confidentiality required to protect identified 27 cultural place(s), if any, and for the purpose of developing treatment with appropriate 28 dignity of said cultural place(s) in any corresponding management plan. Avoid and 29 preserve sacred sites whenever feasible. 30 Policy VII-F.2[k]. For any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within the 31 archaeological resource study area, or on a site determined to be archaeologically or 32 culturally sensitive by City staff through consultation with Native American tribes or 33 bands and a qualified archaeologist, require the project applicant to implement the 34 following mitigation measures, at a minimum: 35 Where excavation or construction would occur outside of areas where 36 development has occurred, or where excavation / construction would occur at 37 depths greater than existing foundations, roads, and/or trenches in the 38 immediate vicinity, evaluate the site via a qualified archaeologist retained by 39 the project applicant. Said evaluation would include at minimum a records 40 search, a Phase I pedestrian survey, and preparation of an archaeological report 41 containing the results of this cultural resources inventory identification effort 42 for submittal to the Central California Information Center. If a Phase II 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 archaeological evaluation is recommended, complete a report of the survey and 1 any excavations with recommendations prior to project approval; 2 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, 3 immediately halt all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find and protect 4 the area of the find. The project applicant shall immediately notify the Modesto 5 Police Department and County Coroner of the find and comply with the 6 provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, including 7 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If human 8 remains are identified, also retain a Native American monitor at the applicant’s 9 expense; 10 A qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority 11 to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Native 12 Americans and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any 13 Native American archaeological resources discovered on the property; and, 14 Relinquish ownership of all Native American human remains and/or artifacts 15 that are found within the project area, to the appropriate Native American Most 16 Likely Descendent (MLD), as assigned by the Native American Heritage 17 Commission, for proper treatment and disposition. The MLD will decide 18 whether or not standard archaeological analysis will be allowed on human 19 remains and associated artifacts from burials. 20 If paleontological resources are discovered during earth-moving activities, the 21 construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find, and 22 the City’s Planning Manager shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall 23 evaluate the resource and prepare a proposed mitigation plan in accordance 24 with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The proposed mitigation 25 plan may include a field survey of additional construction areas, sampling and 26 data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen 27 recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations determined by the lead 28 agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction 29 activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were 30 discovered. 31 Policy VII-F.2[l]. Whenever possible, avoid disturbing or damaging archaeological 32 resources. Preservation in place to maintain the relationship between the artifacts and 33 the archaeological context is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to 34 archaeological sites. Preservation may be accomplished by: 35 Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; 36 Incorporating sites within parks, green space, or other open space; 37 Covering the sites with a layer of chemically stable soil; and/or, 38 Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 When in-place mitigation is not feasible, data recovery through excavation may be 1 necessary. A data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the 2 scientifically consequential information about the site, shall be prepared and adopted 3 prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies must be deposited with the 4 Central California Information Center in Turlock, California. Special rules apply to any 5 archaeological sites known to contain human remains (Health and Safety Code Section 6 7050.5; Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)). 7 Data recovery shall not be required if the lead agency determines that testing or studies 8 already completed have adequately recovered the necessary data, provided that the 9 data have already been documented in another EIR and are available for review at the 10 California Historical Resource Regional Information Center (Guidelines Section 11 15126.4(b)). 12 Policy VII-F.2[m]. Allow reasonable time for the qualified archaeologist to notify the 13 proper authorities for a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed 14 cultural resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed 15 in the immediate vicinity of the find; however, those activities could continue in other 16 areas of the project site. 17 Policy VII-F.2[n]. If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified 18 archaeologist, representatives of the construction contractor and the City, the qualified 19 archaeologist, and a representative of the Native American community (if the discovery 20 is an aboriginal burial) will meet to determine the appropriate course of action. 21 Policy VII-F.2[o]. All cultural materials recovered as part of a monitoring program are 22 subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared 23 according to current professional standards. 24 Policies in the Planned Urbanizing Area 25 Policy VII-F.3[a]. Any project subject to CEQA that involves substantial earth- 26 disturbing activities should require consultation by the applicant for the purposes of 27 determining archaeological and cultural resources impacts and creating appropriate 28 mitigation to address such impacts. 29 Policy VII-F.3[b]. Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within 30 previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally 31 sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native American tribes or 32 bands and a qualified archaeologist should be subject to archaeological and Native 33 American monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. 34 Policy VII-F.3[c]. Any project that involves earth-disturbing activities within 35 previously undisturbed soils in an area determined to be archaeologically or culturally 36 sensitive by the City of Modesto through consultation with Native American tribes or 37 bands and a qualified archaeologist should be required to carry out the following 38 mitigation measures, at a minimum: 39 If prehistoric archaeological remains are discovered during project construction 40 (inadvertent discoveries), all work in the area of the find shall cease, and a 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 qualified archaeologist should be retained by the project sponsor to investigate 1 the find, and make recommendations as to treatment and mitigation. In the 2 event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone all 3 excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find should halt immediately and the 4 area of the find should be protected and the project applicant immediately 5 should notify the County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of 6 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, including California Public 7 Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable. If human remains are identified, 8 the project sponsor should also retain a Native American monitor; 9 A qualified archaeological monitor should be present and should have the 10 authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Native 11 Americans and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any 12 Native American archaeological resources discovered on the property; 13 Native American monitors from the appropriate Native American Tribes, as 14 determined by the NAHC should be allowed to monitor all groundbreaking 15 activities, including all archaeological testing and data recovery excavations 16 that are likely to affect Native American resources, as determined by a qualified 17 archaeologist. The project proponent should be responsible for compensating 18 Native American monitors. If human remains are discovered, the NAHC should 19 assign a Most Likely Descendent (MLD); and, 20 The landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all Native American human 21 remains and associated burial artifacts that are found within the project area, 22 to the appropriate Native American MLD, as assigned by the NAHC, for proper 23 treatment and disposition. The MLD will decide whether or not standard 24 archaeological analysis will be allowed on human remains and associated 25 artifacts from burials. 26 If paleontological resources are discovered during earth-moving activities, the 27 construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find, and 28 the City’s Planning Manager shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall 29 evaluate the resource and prepare a proposed mitigation plan in accordance 30 with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. The proposed mitigation 31 plan may include a field survey of additional construction areas, sampling and 32 data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen 33 recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations determined by the lead 34 agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction 35 activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were 36 discovered. 37 These and other policies require proactive consultation by project proponents with Native 38 American tribes for any projects that may impact culturally sensitive sites. 39 Furthermore, through the Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR (20019b), the City 40 of Modesto has adopted Policies VII.F-2[h] through VII.F-3[c] to reduce a project’s impacts to 41 archaeological and/or historic resources to a less-than-significant level except where a 42 significant historic building would be demolished. These policies largely reflect those found 43 in the State CEQA Guidelines (Pub. Res. Code 15126.4[b]), including the treatment of human 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 remains (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). The policies also outline procedures for 1 address the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials and human remains during 2 construction. 3 Landmark Preservation Ordinance 4 The City of Modesto passed a Landmark Preservation ordinance in 1988 after many of the 5 historic downtown buildings were demolished (City of Modesto 2017). The ordinance 6 recognizes the cultural and economic benefits of preserving the City’s historic landmarks. In 7 addition to establishing a Modesto Landmark Preservation Committee, in response to the 8 ordinance the City commissioned a survey of historic resources and developed a list of 9 Designated Landmark Preservation Sites. The ordinance also provides guidance for review of 10 permit applications for proposed alterations, relocations, demolition or new construction on 11 properties that are listed on the Designated Landmark list. 12 City of Ceres General Plan 13 Policies in the Ceres General Plan 2035 (2018) seek to develop a systematic and 14 comprehensive historic preservation program to ensure that Ceres’ historically and 15 architecturally significant resources are preserved, as well as to identify and preserve any 16 archaeological resources that may be disturbed by development activities. The following 17 goals and policies are relevant to the Proposed Program: 18 Goal 4.H. Preserve and maintain sites, structures and landscapes that serve as significant, 19 visible reminders of the city’s social, architectural and agricultural history. 20 Policy 4.H.2. Reuse of Historic Buildings. Encourage the preservation, 21 maintenance, and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings in the Planning 22 Area in order to prevent demolition and disrepair. 23 Policy 4.H.3. Preservation of Historic Buildings. Identify and preserve 24 buildings of local historic importance Downtown and in surrounding areas 25 through inclusion on the local historic resources register and the Historic 26 Building Code. 27 Goal 4.I. Protect and preserve archaeological and paleontological resources in the Planning 28 Area. 29 Policy 4.I.1. Archaeological Sites. Refer development proposals that may 30 adversely affect archaeological sites to the California Archaeological Inventory at 31 California State University, Stanislaus. Do not knowingly approve any public or 32 private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without first 33 consulting the California Archaeological Inventory, conducting a site evaluation 34 as may be indicated, and attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to 35 the recommendations of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this 36 policy shall be guided by Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. 37 Policy 4.I.2. Archaeological Resource Management. Establish a procedure for 38 the management of archaeological materials found on-site during a development, 39 including the following provisions: 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  If significant resources are known or suspected to be present on a site, 1 require that a qualified archaeologist conduct monitoring of building 2 demolition and/or construction grading activities. 3  If materials are found on-site during construction activities, require that 4 work be halted until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the find and 5 makes a recommendation for the preservation in place or recovery of the 6 resource. 7 Policy 4.I.3. Preservation in Place. Seek to preserve discovered archaeological 8 resources in place in order to maintain the relationship between the artifacts and 9 their archaeological context, where feasible. Preservation can be achieved 10 through measures such as planning construction to avoid archaeological sites, 11 incorporating sites within open space areas, capping the site prior to 12 construction, and permanently protecting the site using a conservation easement. 13 Policy 4.I.4. Paleontological Resources. Establish a procedure for the 14 management of paleontological materials found on-site during a development, 15 including the following provisions: 16  If materials are found on-site during grading, require that work be halted 17 until a qualified professional evaluates the find to determine if it 18 represents a significant paleontological resource. 19  If the resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall 20 supervise removal of the material and determine the most appropriate 21 archival storage of the material. 22  Appropriate materials shall be prepared, catalogued, and archived at the 23 applicant’s expense and shall be retained within Stanislaus County if 24 feasible. 25 Goal 4.J. Protect Ceres’ Native American Heritage. 26 Policy 4.J.1. Native American Outreach. Conduct outreach to local Native 27 American tribal contacts to identify potential opportunities to highlight the area’s 28 Native American history 29 Policy 4.J.2. Coordination with Native American Tribes. Proactively 30 coordinate with the local Native American tribes in the review and protection of 31 any tribal cultural resources discovered at development sites. 32 Policy 4.J.3. Tribal Cultural Resources. Avoid the disturbance of tribal cultural 33 resources and, where possible, seek to preserve resources in place, exploring 34 opportunities for permanent protection of the resources where feasible. Treat 35 tribal cultural resources with respect. 36 Policy 4.J.4. Native American Consultation. Conduct project specific Native 37 American consultation early in the development review process to ensure 38 adequate data recovery and mitigation for adverse impacts to significant Native 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 American sites. Ensure that City staff and local developers are aware of their 1 responsibilities to facilitate Native American consultation under SB 18 and AB 52. 2 Stanislaus County General Plan 3 The Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016) has the following goal and 4 policy pertaining to cultural resources listed in its Conservation and Open Space chapter. 5 Goal Eight. Preserve areas of national, state, regional, a local historical importance. 6 Policy Twenty-four. The County will support the preservation of Stanislaus 7 County’s cultural legacy of archeological, historical, and paleontological resources 8 for future generations. 9 8.3 Environmental Setting 10 8.3.1 Prehistory 11 Very little archaeological work has been conducted in the Modesto area or in the San Joaquin 12 Valley in general; therefore, the archaeology of the study area is understood within the 13 prehistoric context developed for the Central Valley as a whole. Since the early 1930s, various 14 schemes have been set forth by researchers to organize the archaeological data of California 15 into a chronological framework. As reported by Moratto (1984), the Central Valley sequence 16 established by Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga in 1939 is particularly notable. Based on 17 archaeological investigations in the lower Sacramento Valley, Lillard and colleagues divided 18 human prehistory into three broad cultural horizons: Early, Middle, and Late. This 19 chronology was first known as the Delta sequence and later became the basis of Richard 20 Beardsley’s Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS). The system relies on the 21 identification of characteristics such as burial patterns, shell bead types, stone tools, and the 22 types of locations where the sites tend to occur. These traits and characteristics are used to 23 identify an archaeological resource as belonging to a specific time period. 24 The CCTS has continued to undergo significant refinement but remains the framework within 25 which California archaeologists explain cultural change. The general system is still widely 26 used by archaeologists, but it has been expanded and revised to include economic and 27 technological strategies, socio-politics, trade networks, population density, and variations of 28 artifact types to differentiate between cultural periods. The current chronology (Rosenthal et 29 al. 2010:150) for central California archaeology includes: 30  Paleo-Indian: 11,550–8550 B.C. 31  Lower Archaic: 8550–5550 B.C. 32  Middle Archaic: 5550–550 B.C. 33  Upper Archaic: 550 B.C. to 1100 A.D. 34  Emergent: 1100 A.D. to Historic 35 The Paleo-Indian Period (11,550–8,550 B.C.) is generally characterized by big-game hunters 36 occupying broad geographic areas. Archaeological deposits from the Paleo-Indian period are 37 rarely found in the Central Valley, however, and those that have been identified have largely 38 been discovered at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley near Tulare Lake. Post- 39 depositional processes, mainly glacial outwash occurring at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 either destroyed or deeply buried much of the existing evidence of human activity in the 1 region from this period. As result, little is known about Paleo-Indian lifeways in the region 2 (Moratto 2004). 3 Similar to the preceding period, the Lower Archaic Period (8550–5550 B.C.) is presumed to 4 reflect a mobile population that continued to hunt big game. Few localities in the Central 5 Valley are associated with this period, and those that have been found are largely isolated 6 artifacts consisting of large wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points, along with 7 flaked stone crescents. Only two sites with associated deposits of faunal and shell remains 8 have been identified for the Lower Archaic Period, one at Buena Vista Lake in the southern 9 San Joaquin Valley (Rosenthal et al. 2010:151-152) and one in Sacramento (Tremaine 2008). 10 Some sites in the Sierra Nevada foothills from this period, however, indicate the use of milling 11 equipment (hand stones and milling stones) to process seeds and nuts. 12 The Middle Archaic Period (5550–550 B.C.) indicates a shift to a more settled way of life that 13 is reflected by substantial, though often deeply buried, archaeological sites with artifacts that 14 are more elaborate in design, imply a more diverse subsistence regime, and indicate 15 interregional trade. Sites are often situated along the major rivers and streams within the 16 Central Valley, emphasizing a focus on riverine and marsh habitats. The Windmiller Tradition 17 or Pattern, which was first identified in sites around the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, 18 is often considered representative of this period. Characteristic artifacts from this period 19 include a variety of fish hooks and spears; large stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points of 20 obsidian and chert; shaped charmstones of alabaster, steatite, or marble; and a variety of 21 Haliotis and Olivella shell ornaments and beads, respectively. Mortars and pestles, associated 22 with acorn preparation, became commonplace by the middle of the period. The presence of 23 ventrally and dorsally extended burials with a western orientation is particularly indicative 24 of the Windmiller Pattern. 25 Increased sedentism and technological specialization are evidenced during the Upper Archaic 26 Period (550 B.C. to 1100 as populations exploited more diverse resources and 27 established trade relationships. Mortars and pestles became the primary ground stone 28 implements, suggesting that acorns had become a more important dietary staple. Regional 29 diversity in artifact styles, such as Haliotis shell ornaments, bone tools, and ground 30 charmstones or plummets, became more pronounced; burial postures also varied. 31 Archaeological sites from the Emergent Period (A.D. 1100 to the historic period) indicate 32 increased social complexity and the development of large, central villages with resident 33 political leaders and specialized activity sites. Enhanced regional diversity in terms of artifact 34 styles, housing, and interment methods is evident in the archeological record. Artifacts 35 associated with the period include the bow and arrow, small corner-notched projectile 36 points, and a variety of shell and stone beads and ornaments. 37 8.3.2 Ethnography 38 The Modesto area lies within the ancestral territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts. “Yokuts” 39 is a term applied to a large and diverse group of people inhabiting the San Joaquin Valley and 40 Sierra Nevada foothills of central California. The Northern Valley Yokuts inhabited a 40- to 41 60-mile-wide area straddling the San Joaquin River, south of the Mokelumne River, east of 42 the Diablo Range, and north of the sharp bend that the San Joaquin River takes to the east- 43 northeast near Mendota in Fresno County. The Southern Valley Yokuts inhabited the San 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Joaquin Valley south of the bend in the river. Although they were divided geographically and 1 ecologically, the two groups have a common linguistic heritage (Wallace 1978:462). 2 The Northern Valley tribes closely resembled the Yokuts groups to the south, although there 3 were some cultural differences. The northerners had greater access to salmon and acorns, 4 two important dietary resources, and some of their religious practices reflected the 5 influences of groups to their north, such as the Miwok. While inhumation was the usual 6 practice in the southern valley, the Northern Valley Yokuts either cremated their dead or 7 buried them in a flexed position (Wallace 1978:464, 468). A chief headed the tribal villages, 8 which averaged around 300 people. Family houses were round or oval, sunken, with a 9 conically shaped pole frame, and covered with tule mats. Each village also had a lodge for 10 dances and other community functions, as well as a sweathouse (Wallace 1978:462-464). 11 The Northern Valley Yokuts built their riverside villages on elevated areas along the water’s 12 edge to avoid the spring floods, which were a result of heavy Sierra Nevada snow melts. Living 13 beside rivers and streams provided plentiful river perch, Sacramento pike, salmon, and 14 sturgeon. Hunting provided waterfowl such as geese and ducks, as well as terrestrial animals 15 such as antelope, elk, and brown bear, although by all indications, fish constituted most of 16 their diet. The surrounding woodland, grasslands, and marshes provided acorns, tule root, 17 and seeds. 18 The Northern Valley Yokuts used bone harpoon tips for fishing, stone sinkers for nets, chert 19 projectile points for hunting, mortars and pestles, scrapers, knives, and bone awl tools to 20 procure and process food. Marine shells, procured from coastal tribes, were used for 21 necklaces and other adornments, and marine shell beads sometimes accompanied the 22 deceased. The Yokuts used tule reed rafts to navigate the waterways for fishing and fowling. 23 They also manufactured intricate baskets for a variety of purposes, including storing, cooking, 24 eating, winnowing, hopper mortars, the transport of food materials, and ritual. Very little is 25 known of the Northern Valley Yokuts’ clothing, but drawings of their tattoos show that they 26 served not only as a decoration but also as a form of identity (Wallace 1978:464). 27 Initially, the Diablo Range served as a natural barrier against heavy recruitment of Native 28 Californians by the Spanish, who established missions along the coast. By the early 19th 29 century, however, Spanish and (later) Mexican missionaries began to explore the inner 30 valleys in search of potential neophytes. The Yokuts resisted recruitment and California 31 Indians from a variety of tribes sought refuge among the Yokuts after fleeing the missions. 32 Introduced diseases, destruction of traditional resources from cattle grazing, and forced 33 relocation took a heavy toll on the Northern Yokuts. Despite decades of hardship, many 34 individuals who can trace their ancestry to the Northern Valley Yokuts continue to live and 35 thrive in the Central Valley and throughout California and the United States. 36 8.3.3 History 37 The historic era began in Stanislaus County when the first Spanish expedition entered the San 38 Joaquin Valley in 1806 under the leadership of Gabriel Moraga. Traveling north and 39 northwest through the region in search of possible mission sites, Moraga’s party explored 40 along what came to be known as the Stanislaus River. Moraga visited the area again in 1808 41 and 1810 (Kyle et al. 2002:516-517). 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 After Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1822, two additional expedition forces 1 entered the area; however, the purposes of their campaigns were no longer exploratory. 2 Soldiers were sent into the Central Valley to recover stolen animals and punish hostile 3 Indians in order to reduce the attacks upon coastal towns, missions, and ranchos. 4 Americans also began to enter the region during the Mexican period. In 1827 and 1828, 5 Jedediah Smith entered the San Joaquin Valley through the Tejon Pass and trapped beavers 6 along the San Joaquin, Kings, and other rivers and streams that flowed from the Sierra. Smith 7 was followed by fellow trappers such as Peter Ogden, Ewing Young, Kit Carson, and Joseph 8 Walker. 9 The first permanent European settlement may have occurred in Stanislaus County when two 10 land grants were issued by the Mexican government in 1843. The first was the Rancho El 11 Pescadero on the west side of the San Joaquin River near the border of what would eventually 12 become San Joaquin County. The second was the Rancheria del Rio de Estanislao located north 13 of the Stanislaus River bordering Tuolumne County. Two additional land grants were issued 14 the following year. These were the Rancho del Puerto and Rancho Orestimba, both of which 15 were on the west side of Tuolumne County near Rancho Pescadero (eReferenceDesk 2017). 16 The City of Modesto came into being in 1870 when the Central Pacific Railroad announced 17 that the location would be the end point of the next extension of the rail line as it progressed 18 south through the Central Valley (Kyle et al. 2002:521). By the time the tracks were 19 completed in November of that year, a viable town had already been established by 20 entrepreneurs (City of Modesto 2016). Modesto residents were among California’s first 21 irrigation advocates, and by 1904 a system of canals had been constructed to allow more 22 productive agriculture. During the 19th century, grain-growing was Stanislaus County’s 23 dominant agricultural activity. Stock-raising, dairy farming, fruit and nut orchards, and 24 vegetable farming all became more important over time. When Prohibition ended in 1933, 25 the Gallo brothers came to Modesto, bringing the wine business to the area on an industrial 26 scale. In the 21st century, almonds and walnuts are the most lucrative local crops, although 27 fruit, vegetables, livestock, and other agricultural products remain important. Modesto is still 28 the most important town in the region and is the Stanislaus County seat. 29 8.3.4 Paleontology 30 The standard guidelines for assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological 31 resources set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) have been used to 32 establish three categories of sensitivity. These are High, Low, and Undetermined. Areas that 33 consist of rock that is not of sedimentary origin and that have not been known to produce 34 fossils are considered low sensitivity areas and monitoring is not required during project 35 construction or operation. Additionally, when it can be demonstrated that the conditions of 36 the unconsolidated sediments are such that fossils could not form in these sediments, and 37 that any fossils found in the sediments could not be considered in situ, they would have 38 minimal scientific value, and the area would be considered low sensitivity. When both low 39 sensitivity conditions were present, it was considered that no significant paleontological 40 resource was present and consequently no impact would occur. 41 Cultural Resources Studies 42 For the purposes of this DEIR, a focused cultural resources evaluation was conducted for the 43 Proposed Program. All aspects of the cultural resources study were conducted in accordance 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Identification of Cultural 1 Resources (48 CFR Parts 44720–44723). The study included archival research, Native 2 American outreach and consultation, a field study focused on the River Trunk Realignment 3 Project, and the evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine their eligibility for 4 listing on the NRHP and CRHR. 5 Archival Research 6 A records search for the River Trunk Realignment Project study area (River Trunk study area) 7 was conducted by the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical 8 Resources Information System at California State University, Stanislaus, before initiating the 9 field study. The purpose of the records search was to determine if the River Trunk study area 10 had previously been surveyed for cultural resources, and to identify any previously recorded 11 cultural resources in, or within ¼ mile of, the study area. The CCIC archival research (Records 12 Search File No. 10317N) included review of the California Inventory of Historic Resources, 13 local historical inventories, historical literature, and historical maps including USGS 14 topographic maps, General Land Office maps, and Rancho Plat Maps. 15 The records search indicated that 11 previous studies had included portions of the River 16 Trunk study area; one overview also included the study area. These studies are listed in Table 17 8-1; another 21 studies had been conducted within the ¼ mile search area. All of the studies 18 listed were conducted in the study area east of 7th Street. 19 Table 8-1. Previously Conducted Cultural Studies within the Proposed River Trunk Realignment 20 Project Study Area 21 CCIC Report No. (ST-) Author Date Title 035 L. K. Napton 1981 Seven California Counties: An Archaeological Overview, Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties, California, Parts 1 & 2. 1435 W. Hill 1992 Historic Architecture Survey Report: Track Consolidation and Realignment, Modesto, California 1836 Harmon, R. J. C. Bard, D. M. Garaventa, S. J. Rossa, and J. Yelding-Sloan 1992 Negative Archaeological Survey Report; Modesto Track Consolidation Corridor Lathrop, San Joaquin County and Modesto, Stanislaus County, California. 2759 Hatoff, B. Voss, S. Waechter, S. Wee, and V. Bente 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project. 2801 Marvin, and S. Davis-King 1996 Historic Property Survey Report (Positive) for the Seventh Street Bridge Project, City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, California. 3995 Nelson, W. J. 2000 Cultural Resources Survey for the Level Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics Project; Segment WS04: Sacramento to Bakersfield. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CCIC Report No. (ST-) Author Date Title 4592 Gatlin, J. General Attorney 2000 Before the Surface Transportation Board: Docket No. AB- 33 (Sub-No. 145X), Union Pacific Railroad Co.-- Abandonment Exemption--in Stanislaus Co., CA (Tidewater Subdivision Near Modesto, California), Combined Environmental and Historic Report. 4816 William Self Associates 2001 Cultural Resources Assessment Report, Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan EIR, Stanislaus County, 6345 SWCA Environmental Consultants 2006 Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the QWest Network Construction Project, State of California. 6352 EDAW, Inc. 2005 TRRP Gateway Precise Plan, Modesto, Ceres, Stanislaus County, California, Initial Study 7537 Kuzak, C. 2011 Historic Property Survey Report, 10-STA-99, P.M. 0.0/24.7, 2576 E-FIS1000020344, Stanislaus County, California. 7775 Helton, C. and Cardenas, G. 2011 Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, Almond 2 Power Plant, Turlock Irrigation District. Source: Information obtained from the CCIC in 2017. 1 The records search identified five previously recorded cultural resources within the River 2 Trunk study area (Table 8-2). Two of these resources, the Tidewater-Southern Railroad 3 wooden trestle bridge over the Tuolumne River (P-50-1811) and the Tidewater-Southern 4 Railroad line, no longer exist. One of the resources, the Seventh Street Bridge (P-50-514), has 5 been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The remaining resources have been 6 determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 7 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 8-2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Proposed River Trunk Realignment 1 Project Study Area 2 Resource No. (P-50-X) Resource Trinomial (CA-STA-X) Recorded by Date Recorded Resource Information 0001 350H various 1999- 2007 Southern Pacific Railroad line; multiple sections recorded. Determined not eligible for the NRHP. 0083 425H various 1992 Tidewater-Southern Railroad line; multiple sections recorded. Section in project area removed. 0514 J. Snyder W. Hill 1991 1992 Southern Pacific Railroad Tuolumne River Bridge; Bridge #113.75. Originally constructed 1897; significantly rebuilt 1944-45. Determined not eligible for the NRHP. 0617 Office of Historic Preservation L. Martin 1986 2000 Seventh Street Bridge; Lion Bridge; Bridge #38C- 23; City of Modesto Designated Landmark Preservation Site #14. Constructed 1916. Determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. 1811 J. Snyder 1991 Tidewater-Southern Railroad Bridge; constructed 1914. Burnt down 2001. Source: Information obtained from the CCIC in 2017. 3 Another six previously recorded resources within 0.25 mile of the River Trunk alignment 4 were identified. All of the resources are from the historic era, and include office and industrial 5 buildings, features a pump station and a water tower), and one scatter of historic 6 artifacts. 7 The list of City of Modesto Designated Landmarks provided by the CCIC includes 59 8 resources, many of which are residences and buildings, but cemeteries and heritage trees, 9 among other features, are also included. A vast majority are in the Modesto downtown core 10 area. The Seventh Street Bridge is listed as Designated Landmark Preservation Site #14, and 11 the Dryden Golf Course is listed as #52. The Directory of Historic Places in the Historic 12 Property Data File for Stanislaus County1, compiled by the Office of Historic Preservation and 13 obtained from the CCIC, lists a large number of resources in the Program area. While most of 14 these are in Modesto, some are also situated in Ceres. These range from residences and 15 buildings to water and transportation infrastructure, along with other features. A vast 16 majority are assigned the California Historical Resources Code of 52D (identified as a 17 contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation) or 6Y (determined 18 ineligible for listing on the NRHP) 19 1 The Directory of Historic Places is compiled by the Office of Historic Preservation and consists of a listing of all resources that have been evaluated for the NRHP and CRHR, by county. Each resource is assigned a status code so that its eligibility status can be determined individually eligible for the NRHP or CRHR; eligible as a contributing element to a district; determined significant by a local government; not eligible under any listing) at a glance. The list also identifies those resources that may need reevaluation. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Historic USGS topographic maps and historic aerials were examined in addition to the record 1 search materials. USGS maps from 1915/1916 indicate that the area around the railroad 2 yards between 7th and 9th streets were already well-developed by that era, and that much of 3 the town west of present-day Highway 99 and south of Tuolumne Avenue to South Avenue 4 was laid out, but not developed. South of South Avenue to the Tuolumne River, acreage within 5 the River Trunk Realignment Project footprint contained just a scattering of homes. By the 6 1940s (USGS 1939, 1941), much of the area within the River Trunk Realignment Project 7 vicinity was well developed. The most significant modification was the construction of 8 Highway 99 as a freeway through town by the early 1970s. 9 Information about cultural resources within the larger study area was available in the 10 Modesto General Plan Update Final Master EIR (City of Modesto 2019b) and the Stanislaus 11 County General Plan EIR (ICF 2016). The City of Modesto EIR noted that archaeological 12 surveys have been sporadic throughout the area and have largely been conducted as part of 13 urban development. Nevertheless, prehistoric and historic-era sites have been previously 14 recorded primarily along waterways (Dry Creek, Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers) and on 15 adjacent terraces, which are considered particularly sensitive for archaeological remains. The 16 Stanislaus County EIR provided information largely based on the Directory of Historic Places 17 for Stanislaus County. 18 Soils information presented in Chapter 9, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, and geoarchaeological 19 data (Rosenthal et al. 2004) indicates that the soils within the Program area (Dinuba loamy 20 sand, Hanford sandy loam, Madera sandy loam, Modesto clay loam, San Joaquin sandy loam, 21 and Tujunga loamy sand) date from the late Pleistocene through the Holocene Epoch and 22 have depths of up to 80 inches. These soils are largely considered to have low sensitivity 23 ratings for buried archaeological remains, although the Hanford series is considered to be 24 moderately sensitive and the Tujunga is rated as highly sensitive for buried archaeological 25 remains (Rosenthal et al. 2004). Proximity to the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers, and Dry 26 Creek increases the potential for buried resources within the Program area and River Trunk 27 Realignment Project. 28 Field Investigation 29 A field review of the River Trunk Realignment Project footprint was conducted by qualified 30 archaeologists from Horizon Water and Environment on June 15, 2017. The field 31 investigation consisted of two approaches. A pedestrian survey was conducted in areas 32 where open trenching or bore pit excavation is proposed and the ground surface is 33 undeveloped or where native ground surface is visible. The cursory inspection was 34 conducted in areas where the ground surface is developed or paved and no native ground 35 surface is visible. Figure 8-1 shows both the areas subject to pedestrian survey and those 36 areas subject to cursory survey. The pedestrian component consisted of walking the 37 proposed alignment or areas of proposed excavation using 10-meter transects. Any 38 exposures of subsurface were more closely inspected and trowel exposures were also applied 39 to the surface in areas that were heavily vegetated or grassy. The cursory inspection was 40 conducted by car and any areas that were undeveloped were more closely inspected. 41 Approximately 1 mile of the River Trunk Realignment Project was subject to intensive 42 pedestrian survey. These areas included the east end of the pipeline from the Gallo property 43 west to the River Trunk Pump Station and to Highway 99; from Neece Drive, east across the 44 Dryden Golf Course to the Tuolumne River; and Shackelford Pump Station. The proposed 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 location of the River Trunk Pump Station is currently a fully developed oil and gas storage 1 facility and, therefore, was not subject to pedestrian survey. Other areas subject to cursory 2 survey were paved streets in the City of Modesto, including Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado 3 Avenue, Neece Drive, and Pelton Avenue. The Sutter Plant is also fully developed and was not 4 surveyed. The survey is fully described in An Archaeological Assessment of the River Trunk 5 Realignment Project, Modesto, Stanislaus County, California (Horizon 2017) (Appendix 6 Study Results 7 The record search identified three extant cultural resources within the River Trunk study 8 area: the Southern Pacific Railroad line, the Southern Pacific Railroad Tuolumne River Bridge, 9 and the Seventh Street Bridge (Lion Bridge). All three are built environment resources and 10 the new River Trunk pipeline will either be bored underneath the resources (the railroad 11 tracks) or pass below the resources (the bridges), and are not in the direct path of the 12 proposed River Trunk Realignment Project pipeline. Archival research also revealed that two 13 resources are listed as City of Modesto Designated Landmark Preservation Sites: the Seventh 14 Street Bridge (#14) and the Dryden Golf Course No archaeological resources were 15 identified within the River Trunk Realignment Project footprint, either during archival 16 research or during the pedestrian field survey. 17 Archival research indicates that there are many previously recorded cultural resources, of 18 which a majority are of the built environment, within the Program area. Most of the City of 19 Modesto landmarks are clustered in the downtown core area and in the neighborhoods 20 directly to the north. A large number of resources listed on the Directory of Historic Places in 21 the Historic Property Data File for Stanislaus County are also within the Program area. 22 Native American Coordination 23 The City of Modesto notified Native American tribes with a traditional and cultural affiliation 24 with the region about the Proposed Program on June 8, 2016, pursuant to the requirements 25 of Pub. Res. Code 21080.3.1 (also known as AB 52). 26 The City has received letters of interest from two Native American tribes pursuant to Pub. 27 Res. Code Section 21080.3.1(b)(1) for all proposed City CEQA projects: the Northern Valley 28 Yokuts and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. However, after examining the map of the Ione 29 Band’s indigenous territory that accompanied their letter, it was determined that the 30 Proposed Program is outside of the tribe’s area of interest. A request to the NAHC for a list of 31 tribes with a traditional and cultural association with the Proposed Program resulted in the 32 identification of two tribes. In addition to the Northern Valley Yokuts, the NAHC listed the 33 Southern Sierra Miwok Nation. The City notified these tribes about the Program in a letter 34 dated June 8, 2016. A notification letter was also sent to the Tule River Indian Tribe, as there 35 had been consultation with that tribe in the past. The City did not receive requests for formal 36 consultation under Pub. Res. Code Section 21080.3.1(b)(2) from any of those contacted, and 37 none of the tribes expressed concerns about potential significant resources within the study 38 area. Follow-up phone calls were made to the Tule River Indian Tribe but did not receive a 39 response. All correspondence with tribes related to Pub. Res. Code Section 21080.3.1, 40 including the Tribes’ letters of interest to the City, is provided in Appendix F. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Paleontological Resources 1 A desktop study conducted to assess the sensitivity of the Program area, including the River 2 Trunk study area, for paleontological resources. The study area is predominantly underlain 3 by Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposits of the Modesto Formation (California Geological 4 Survey 1991). The Modesto Formation is composed primarily of unconsolidated, 5 unweathered, coarse sand and sandy silt along the upper portions of the unit. The older, 6 deeper portions of this unit shift to more consolidated, weathered, well-sorted silt 7 and fine sand, silty sand, and sandy silt. The Modesto Formation is overlain by Holocene 8 alluvium, particularly along watercourses within the study area. The Holocene soils can have 9 depths of 6.5 feet. 10 The Modesto Formation has yielded a wide variety of fossils within Stanislaus County, 11 including extinct land mammals such as ground sloths, mammoths, camels, and bison, among 12 others. Fossils of petrified wood, clam shells, fishes, birds, and amphibians have also been 13 uncovered (California Energy Commission 2017). 14 Tribal Cultural Resources 15 No TCRs have been identified within the Program study area. 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- ( ( ( ( ( ( ( River Trunk Pump Station Gallo Property Southern Pacific Railroad Modesto Municipal Golf Course Shackelford Pump Station Dryden Golf Course Sutter Plant T u o l um ne R i ve r Dry Creek HWY 99 S 7TH ST S 9TH ST G ST H ST I ST RIVER RD 7TH ST D ST 6TH ST 9TH ST 5TH ST W HATCH RD B ST E ST E HATCH RD ZEFF RD 4TH ST SUTTER AVE RD 11TH ST CROWS LANDING RD ROSELAWN AVE ROUSE AVE NEECE DR F ST HERNDON RD LEON AVE 12TH ST COLORADO AVE AVON ST CRATER AVE TUOLUMNE BLV GLENN AVE DALLAS ST SIERRA DR YOSEMITE BLV 3RD ST MAIN ST OAK ST PELTON AVE 8TH ST PINE ST VINE ST S MADISON ST BUTTE AVE J ST DEZZANI LN MORGAN RD SEATTLE ST EUREKA ST SOUTH AVE 2ND ST CENTER ST BOISE AVE SPOKANE ST OLIVERO RD OATES CT SONORA AVE ALAMO AVE S JEFFERSON ST MAPLE ST PECOS AVE JIM WY K ST EL PASO AVE SPRUCE ST SANTA FE AVE SUNSET AVE S MORTON BLV HYDE ST ROSEDALE AVE OREGON DR SANTA RITA AVE LEO AVE USTICK RD BOULDER AVE JANOPAUL AVE BRIGGS DITCH ST WINMOORE WY HOSMER AVE MONO DR E GLENN AVE RIO GRANDE AVE AMADOR AVE YOSEMITE AVE S MARTIN LUTHER KING DR WESTERN WY S SANTA ROSA AVE S WASHINGTON ST DOVER AVE LAS VEGAS ST MARSHALL AVE 1ST ST SNEAD DR PARADISE AVE BOWIE AVE NIAN WY FALL RIVER DR ALTURAS AVE PARADISE RD VALENTE WY JENNIE ST NADINE AVE 13TH ST SOUZA AVE WATSON AVE DENVER ST HUDSON LN MIDWAY AVE FIGARO AVE PUEBLO AVE SAM AVE OLYMPIA ST AVALON AVE 10TH ST BRIGGS AVE BAROZZI AVE COLUSA AVE ATLANTIC DR GARDEN AVE SUNSET BLV BEARD ST TENAYA DR KENDEE RD LOMBARDO AVE RELIANCE ST BEWLEY AVE PARKLAWN AVE NELSON WY FAUSTINA AVE EUGENE AVE PRIMO WY MARSEILLE LN VITO AVE VICTOR WY KAZMIR CT ELSIE ST C ST ANTHONY AVE ROBERTSON RD ROSEMONT AVE 14TH ST ALPINE AVE IRONSIDE DR ANNILANE LATIMER AVE RYDER WY BEDFORD AVE WY CAPE COD DR BUNKER AVE CONRAD WY MANCINI WY CASCADE AVE ACACIA ST TUDOR CT MARKHAM AVE CLIFF DR AVE GRAND ST PECOS CT JOYCE AVE GRENACHE AVE BLANKENBURG AVE GOBEL WY CANNES AVE FLORES AVE AERON ST PAWTUCKET AVE MALOS CT LITA CT RITA CT LAS FLORES CT TORO RD ADKISON WY HERNDON CT GALLO PARK WY 10TH ST E ST HWY 99 SONORA AVE PECOS AVE PECOS AVE E ST F ST F ST J ST D ST F ST LATIMER AVE ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Basebap Sources: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_8-1_PedestrianSurveys.mxd 8/7/2017 PG City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 8-1 River Trunk Realignment Project Pedestrian Survey Pipeline Type Open Cut Trenchless Pedestrian Survey ( Trenchless Pits Work Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 8.4 Impact Analysis 1 8.4.1 Methodology 2 The following impact analysis was conducted based on records search, review of previous 3 investigations and historic maps, Native American consultation, and field work completed in 4 June 2017. In conjunction with prehistoric and historic overviews, previous investigations 5 and historic maps provided background information for assessing cultural sensitivity and 6 identifying the types of sites likely to be located within the River Trunk Realignment Project 7 footprint. The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2008a) provided city-wide data that 8 supported the analysis of program-level impacts. The Stanislaus County General Plan EIR (ICF 9 2016) and 2015 General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016) provided relevant information for the 10 study area located within the county. 11 Consultation with tribes who have a traditional and cultural affiliation with the Proposed 12 Project area followed the protocols outlined under Pub. Res. Code Sections 21080.3.1, 13 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, and guidelines provided the NAHC and the Governor’s Office 14 of Planning and Research (2017; Because tribes notified pursuant to Pub. Res. Code 15 Sections 21080.3.1 declined consultation on the Program, the City determined that no TCRs 16 exist within the study area. 17 8.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance 18 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on cultural, paleontological and 19 tribal resources if it would: 20  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as 21 defined in Section 15064.5; 22  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 23 pursuant to Section 15064.5; 24  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 25 geologic feature; 26  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated 27 cemeteries; or 28  Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in Pub. Res. 29 Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is 30 geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, 31 or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: 32  Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or 33 in a local register of historical resources as defined in Pub. Res. Code Section 34 5020.1(k), or 35  A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by 36 substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision 37 of Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 subdivision of Pub. Res. Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this 1 paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a 2 California Native American tribe. 3 CEQA does not establish specific criteria for determining significance of paleontological 4 resources. 5 8.4.3 Environmental Impacts 6 Impact CR-1: Impacts on Known Historic, Archaeological, or Tribal Resources 7 (Less than Significant) 8 All Program-level Components 9 The Proposed Program would occur partially within Modesto’s incorporated limits and 10 partially outside its incorporated limits, within the jurisdiction of the County but within the 11 City’s wastewater service area. Program-related activities would also take place within the 12 City of Ceres. The County and the City of Ceres do not maintain policies or requirements 13 related to cultural resources that are more restrictive or otherwise incompatible with those 14 of the City of Modesto. All proposed improvements, including those in Empire, the Beard 15 Industrial Park District, and unincorporated “islands” within the County would implement 16 existing City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies related to the investigation and 17 mitigation of historical and archaeological impacts, as necessary. 18 The Proposed Program does not propose demolition or modification of existing structures. 19 Based on the Program information available, the Proposed Program does not appear to 20 propose work in proximity to any of the historic resources listed in the City of Ceres. 21 Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed program would adversely affect known, listed 22 historic resources, and the Engineer’s Report evaluated in this EIR would have a less-than- 23 significant impact on historic resources in Ceres. However, some construction work may 24 occur adjacent to resources listed on the City of Modesto Designated Landmark Preservation 25 Sites list or on the Directory of Historic Places in the Historic Property Data File for Stanislaus 26 County, and some resources may be eligible for the NRHP/CRHR. 27 All site-specific improvements proposed as part of the Proposed Program would be required 28 to adhere to federal (if applicable), state, and local policies pertaining to the survey and 29 impact analysis of historic resources. Accordingly, if CIP improvements propose to demolish 30 or modify existing structures, or if they propose work within 100 feet of structures, those 31 structures would need to be evaluated for their significance and for any project-related 32 impacts and mitigation. Adherence to City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Section VII-F 33 policies 2-h, 2-i, 2-j, 2-k, 2-l, 2-m, 2-n, 2-o, 3-a, 3-b, and 3-c (presented above) would ensure 34 that proposed CIP improvements would avoid significant impacts on known historic, 35 archaeological, and tribal resources, and that any unforeseen significant impacts would be 36 reduced to less-than-significant levels. 37 It also should be noted that if WWMP components were to use federal funds and proposed 38 the demolition or modification of existing structures, such improvements would be subject 39 to historic property review and consultation with the SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA. 40 Any impacts identified during that review would be mitigated fully by site-specific measures 41 developed in consultation with the SHPO. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 River Trunk Realignment Project 1 The cultural resources study identified four extant cultural resources in or adjacent to the 2 footprint of the River Trunk Realignment Project: the Southern Pacific Railroad line, the 3 Southern Pacific Railroad Tuolumne River Bridge, the Seventh Street Bridge (Lion Bridge), 4 and the Dryden Golf Course. All are built environment resources. The Seventh Street Bridge 5 has been determined eligible for the NRHP and is a City of Modesto Designated Landmark, 6 and the Dryden Golf Course is also listed as a City Designated Landmark. The Southern Pacific 7 Railroad line and the Southern Pacific Railroad Tuolumne River Bridge, have been 8 determined not eligible for the NRHP, and neither resource is included as a Designated 9 Landmark by the City. 10 The new River Trunk pipeline will be bored underneath the railroad tracks and Southern 11 Pacific Railroad Tuolumne River Bridge, and trenched below the elevated Seventh Street 12 Bridge. As a result, construction will not impact those resources. Although the Dryden Golf 13 Course is listed as a City of Modesto Designated Landmark, the trenching methods used to 14 install pipelines across the golf course would cause a temporary disturbance to the resource, 15 similar in nature (if not scale) to the installation and maintenance of the irrigation system at 16 the site. As a result, there would be no impact on known historic properties/historical 17 resources from construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project. 18 Overall Conclusion 19 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, the River Trunk Realignment Project would 20 not impact historic properties/historical resources, and all site-specific improvements 21 proposed as part of the Proposed Program would be required to adhere to federal (if 22 applicable), state, and local policies pertaining to the survey and impact analysis of historic 23 resources. Adherence to City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Section VII-F policies 2-h, 24 2-i, 2-j, 2-k, 2-l, 2-m, 2-n, 2-o, 3-a, 3-b, and 3-c (presented above) would ensure that proposed 25 CIP improvements would avoid significant impacts on known historic, archaeological, and 26 tribal resources, and that any unforeseen significant impacts would be reduced to less-than- 27 significant levels. Mitigation is not necessary and this impact would be less than significant. 28 Impact CR-2: Impacts on Previously Undiscovered Archaeological Resources 29 (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 30 All Program-level Components 31 Individual CIP improvements implemented pursuant to the Proposed Program would entail 32 extensive excavation work to install certain components. Construction grading and 33 earthmoving activities could disturb previously undiscovered archaeological deposits or 34 buried historic resources. Proposed pipelines, storage tanks, and groundwater wells to be 35 located within riverbeds and otherwise adjacent to natural channels are particularly 36 susceptible to encountering Native American artifacts. The City has adopted guidelines to aid 37 project compliance with requirements for archaeological resources analysis, and subsequent 38 projects would be required to adhere to these guidelines. 39 Projects proposing earthwork within archaeological resource study areas must adhere to City 40 of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Section VII-F Policy 2-k (presented above), which 41 requires preconstruction archaeological investigations on the site and implementation of 42 avoidance measures, if necessary. Improvements proposing earthwork in the Planned 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Urbanizing Area must also adhere to City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Section VII-F 1 Policy 2-kas well as Policies 3-a, 3-b, and 3-c (also presented above), which require the 2 applicant (City in this case) to consult with Native American tribes and that a qualified 3 archaeologist evaluate the site to determine its archaeological and cultural sensitivity, and if 4 so, implement avoidance and minimization measures. 5 All proposed improvements must adhere to City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Section 6 VII-F Policies 2-k, 2-l, 2-m, 2-n, 2-o, and 3-c (presented above), which outline mitigation 7 procedures that would prevent impacts on the unearthed resources and require on-site 8 activity to cease until an archaeological site investigation is performed, in the event that 9 resources are uncovered during construction. Construction specifications for individual 10 projects must stipulate the relevant procedures that are to be followed in the event that 11 cultural resources are encountered during the construction process. Adherence to existing 12 City policies regarding archaeological investigation, construction requirements, and proper 13 mitigation for any resources discovered on the site, as well as to Mitigation Measures CR-1, 14 below, would ensure that specific improvements would result in impacts on archaeological 15 resources that meet CEQA’s definition of historic resources or unique archaeological 16 resources that are less than significant with mitigation. 17 River Trunk Realignment Project 18 A pedestrian survey of the River Trunk Realignment Project footprint did not identify any 19 archaeological resources; however, archaeological remains could be buried with no surface 20 manifestation or in areas that were not surveyed because they were paved and there was no 21 ground surface visibility city streets, parking lots, etc.). Although archaeological 22 materials were not observed on the ground surface at the locations of proposed launch and 23 receiving pits for borings under Dry Creek for the River Trunk Realignment Project, the banks 24 of this waterway are known to be sensitive for archaeological remains. The locations of the 25 proposed launch and receiving pits for the outfall pipeline crossings under the Tuolumne 26 River are also known to be sensitive for archaeological resources, and thus could affect 27 archaeological remains that are present. Installation of new or replacement sewer lines, 28 construction of pump or lift stations, or excavations for borings, for example, could uncover 29 buried archaeological deposits. Various locations along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado 30 Avenue, and within the Dryden Golf Course are underlain by patches of Tujunga loamy sand, 31 which is sensitive for buried archaeological remains. Should a previously undiscovered 32 resource be found during construction and be determined eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, 33 and should project construction activities render the resource ineligible for inclusion in the 34 CRHR, the impact would be significant. Implementation of existing City policies regarding 35 archaeological investigation, construction requirements, and proper mitigation for any 36 resources discovered, as well as Mitigation Measure CR-1, would reduce any impacts on 37 CRHR-eligible archaeological sites accidentally uncovered during construction to a level that 38 is less than significant with mitigation. 39 Outfall Pipelines 40 In addition, construction of the new third outfall pipeline and the new Tuolumne River 41 pipeline crossings would involve trenchless pipeline construction methods in which 42 excavation would be required for the launch and receiving pits for the pipeline borings to the 43 north and south of the Tuolumne River. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 would 44 reduce any impacts on CRHR-eligible archaeological sites accidentally uncovered during 45 construction to a level that is less than significant with mitigation. 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 Various WWMP components, including the River Trunk Realignment Project, could affect 2 archaeological remains during construction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 3 would ensure that work is suspended in the event that archaeological resources are 4 encountered during construction. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the 5 Proposed Program’s overall impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 6 Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training for 7 Construction Workers Prior to Beginning Work. 8 Applies to all Program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment Project 9 Before initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the City or its designee shall arrange 10 for construction crews to receive information about the kinds of archaeological 11 materials that could be present at the River Trunk Realignment Project site and other 12 CIP sites, and the protocols to be followed should any such materials be uncovered 13 during construction. The training shall include information about the laws pertaining 14 to treatment of cultural resources and emphasize the requirement for confidentiality. 15 The informational materials shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, and a 16 qualified archaeologist shall conduct the initial training at the beginning of each 17 project. Subsequent trainings should occur as new personnel work on each project; it 18 is incumbent on the City to ensure that the contractor conveys this information to 19 new employees. This could occur during daily safety meetings by the construction 20 supervisor, or more formal training by a qualified archaeologist. 21 Impact CR-3: Disturb Any Human Remains, Including those Interred Outside of 22 Dedicated Cemeteries (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 23 Based on the Program information for the proposed infrastructure improvements, the 24 Proposed Program does not appear to propose earthwork in proximity to any known 25 cemeteries or Native American burial grounds. However, improvements implemented as part 26 of the Proposed Program have the potential to disturb previously undiscovered human 27 remains. All of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies identified above for 28 Impact CR-2 also pertain to the discovery of human remains. Specifically, Policy VII-F.2[k](2) 29 (presented above) cites California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, which requires the 30 cessation of further excavation and disturbance in the event of a human remains discovery, 31 and coordination with the County coroner and (if applicable) the Native American Heritage 32 Commission (NAHC) regarding further action. 33 Adherence to Policy VII-F.2[k] and other relevant general plan policies and the California 34 Health and Safety Code, as well as Mitigation Measures CR-1, would ensure that impacts on 35 human remains as a result of constructing CIP improvements would be less than significant 36 with mitigation. 37 Impact CR-4: Impacts on Paleontological Resources (Less than Significant with) 38 The study area is underlain by the Modesto Formation, which is considered a 39 paleontologically-sensitive rock unit under the SVP guidelines (2010), as discussed earlier in 40 this section. Records of vertebrate fossil localities throughout the San Joaquin Valley and all 41 sediments referable to the Modesto Formation suggest there is a potential for uncovering 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 8. Cultural, Paleontological and Tribal Cultural Resources Wastewater Master Plan 8-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 additional similar fossil remains during construction-related earthmoving activities, as part 1 of implementation of the Proposed Program. Though the large majority of the study area has 2 been developed, and any fossil remains have previously been removed, there are parcels 3 within the study area that have not yet been developed, and the Proposed Program would 4 require excavation activities in undisturbed sediments below existing development. As such, 5 the potential for damage to unique, scientifically important fossils during construction- 6 related activities at project sites does exist. For improvements located within the Downtown, 7 Baseline Developed and the Planned Urbanizing areas identified in the City’s General Plan, 8 Policies VII-F.2[k](5) and VII-F.3[c](5) would apply. If paleontological resources are 9 discovered during ground-disturbing activities, these policies would require that 10 construction work cease in the vicinity of a find, ensure that a qualified paleontologist 11 evaluates the resource, and that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate effects on 12 paleontological resources if discovered. 13 Impact CR-5: Potential for a Substantial Adverse Impact on Tribal Cultural 14 Resources (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 15 TCRs have not been identified within the Program study area. None of the tribes contacted 16 under Pub. Res. Code Section 21080.3.1 have responded with concerns about the potential 17 impact of the Program on TCRs; thus, the City, as the lead CEQA agency, has determined that 18 no known TCRs exist within the study area. 19 Project grading and earthmoving activities could disturb previously undiscovered 20 archaeological deposits or buried historic resources. Proposed pipelines, lift stations, and 21 other wastewater infrastructure to be located within riverbeds and otherwise adjacent to 22 natural channels are particularly susceptible to encountering Native American artifacts. The 23 City has adopted guidelines to aid project compliance with requirements for archaeological 24 resources analysis, and subsequent projects would be required to adhere to these guidelines. 25 Projects proposing earthwork within archaeological resource study areas must adhere to 26 general plan Section VII-F Policy 2-k, which requires preconstruction archaeological 27 investigations on the site and implementation of avoidance measures, if necessary. Projects 28 proposing earthwork in the Planned Urbanizing Area must adhere to City of Modesto Urban 29 Area General Plan Section VII-F Policy 2-k as well as Policies 3-a, 3-b, and 3-c , which require 30 the applicant to consult with Native American tribes and that a qualified archaeologist 31 evaluate the site to determine its archaeological and cultural sensitivity, and if so, implement 32 avoidance and minimization measures. 33 All subsequent projects must adhere to other City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 34 Sections VII-F Policies listed above, including 2-l, 2-m, 2-n, and 2-o, which outline mitigation 35 procedures that would prevent impacts on the unearthed resources and require on-site 36 activity to cease until an archaeological site investigation is performed, in the event that 37 resources are uncovered during construction. Construction specifications for individual 38 projects must stipulate the relevant procedures that are to be followed in the event that 39 cultural resources are encountered during the construction process. Adherence to existing 40 City policies regarding archaeological investigations, construction requirements, and proper 41 mitigation for any resources discovered on the site, as well as to Mitigation Measure CR-1, 42 would ensure that specific projects implemented subsequent to the Proposed Program would 43 result in less-than significant with mitigation impacts on archaeological resources that 44 meet CEQA’s definition of historic resources or unique archaeological resources. 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 9-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 9 1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 2 9.1 Overview 3 This chapter identifies geologic, soils, and seismic conditions that could affect or be affected 4 by the Proposed Program. The chapter describes the regulatory setting, affected 5 environment, impacts, and proposed mitigation measures based on published geologic 6 reports, maps and professional expertise. The discussion of impacts considers the 7 consequences of the Proposed Program on geology, soils, and seismicity, and how geology, 8 soils, and seismicity would affect the Proposed Program. This chapter also evaluates whether 9 operation of individual Program components would expose people or structures to 10 substantial geologic hazards. 11 9.2 Regulatory Setting 12 9.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 13 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act – National Pollutant Discharge 14 Elimination System 15 The CWA is discussed in detail in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality. Because Section 16 402 of the CWA is directly relevant to earthwork, additional information is provided here. 17 The 1987 amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p), which establishes a framework for 18 regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES program. As 19 described in Chapter 12, USEPA has delegated to the authority for the NPDES 20 program in California, where it is implemented by the state’s nine Under the NPDES 21 Phase II Rule, any construction activity disturbing 1 acre or more must obtain coverage under 22 the state’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 23 (General Permit). General Permit applicants are required to prepare a Notice of Intent stating 24 that stormwater will be discharged from a construction site, and that a describes the 25 BMPs will be implemented to avoid adverse effects on receiving water quality as a result of 26 construction activities, including earthwork. 27 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act 28 The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124) and creation 29 of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) established a long-term 30 earthquake risk reduction program to better understand, predict, and mitigate risks 31 associated with seismic events. The following four federal agencies are responsible for 32 coordinating activities under NEHRP: USGS; National Science Foundation (NSF); Federal 33 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); and National Institute of Standards and 34 Technology. Since its inception, NEHRP has shifted its focus from earthquake prediction to 35 hazard reduction. The current program objectives (NEHRP 2017) are as follows: 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 1. Develop effective measures to reduce earthquake hazards; 1 2. Reduce facilities and system vulnerabilities to earthquakes; 2 3. Improve earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods; and 3 4. Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects. 4 Implementation of NEHRP objectives is accomplished primarily through original research, 5 publications, and recommendations and guidelines for state, regional, and local agencies in 6 the development of plans and policies to promote safety and emergency planning. 7 9.2.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 8 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 9 The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act; Pub. Res. Code Section 10 2621 et seq.) was enacted in 1972 to reduce the risk to life and property from surface faulting 11 in California. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits construction of most types of structures 12 intended for human occupancy on the surface traces of active faults and strictly regulates 13 construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). It also defines 14 criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as “active,” and 15 establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to earthquake fault 16 zones. 17 Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across them is strictly 18 regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently 19 active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement 20 during the Holocene (defined for purposes of the act as referring to approximately the last 21 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a 22 trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard 23 professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Bryant and Hart 2007). Before a project can 24 be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that 25 proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. 26 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act 27 As with the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (SHMA) (Pub. Res. 28 Code Sections 2690–2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. The 29 Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, including strong ground shaking, 30 liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides, and SHMA provisions are similar in concept 31 in that the State is charged with identifying and mapping areas of risk of strong ground 32 shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are 33 required to regulate development within Seismic Hazard Zones. 34 Under SHMA, permit review is the primary mechanism by which development can be locally 35 regulated. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits 36 for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific geologic and/or 37 geotechnical investigations have been performed and measures to reduce potential damage 38 have been incorporated into the development plans. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 California Building Code and International Building Code 1 Title 24 of the CCR, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBC), specifies 2 standards for geologic and seismic hazards other than surface faulting. These codes are 3 administered and updated by the California Building Standards Commission. CBC specifies 4 criteria for open excavation, seismic design, and load-bearing capacity directly related to 5 construction in California. CBC standards determine building strength based on regional 6 seismic risks and recommended construction specifications to provide building strength 7 above that risk. 8 9.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 9 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 10 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019) identifies the Stanislaus 11 and Tuolumne Rivers, and Dry Creek, as regional parks. The River Greenway Program, which 12 guides development within the Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, and Dry Creek 13 Comprehensive Planning Districts, includes the following policies that are potentially 14 relevant to the Proposed Program and analysis of geology, soils, and seismicity: 15 Policy VII-K Continue to use building codes as the primary tool for reducing 16 seismic risk in structures. The current version of the California Building Code, as 17 adopted by the City of Modesto, is intended to ensure that buildings resist major 18 earthquakes of the intensity or severity of the strongest experience in California, 19 without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. In most 20 structures, it is expected that structural damage could be limited to repairable 21 damage, even in a major earthquake. 22 Policy VII-K[b]. Require all new buildings in the City to be built under the seismic 23 requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 24 Policy VII-K[c]. Enforce provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 25 Policy VII-N[a]. Any construction that occurs as a result of the General Plan must 26 conform with the current UBC regulations, which address seismic safety of new 27 structures and slope requirements. As appropriate, require a geotechnical analysis 28 prior to tentative map approval in order to ascertain site-specific subsurface 29 information necessary to estimate foundation conditions. These geotechnical studies 30 should reference and make use of the most recent regional geologic maps available 31 from the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology. 32 Policy VII-N[e]. Control construction-related fluvial erosion by a construction 33 erosion control program filed with the City’s Public Works Department and kept 34 current throughout site development. 35 Policy VII-N[f]. Include “best management practices” in the erosion control program, 36 as appropriate, given the specific circumstances of the site and/or project. Table V-9- 37 2 in the Master Environmental Impact Report presents examples of best management 38 practices. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Stanislaus County General Plan 1 The Stanislaus County General Plan guides land use and development in the unincorporated 2 area of Stanislaus County (Stanislaus County 2016). Goals and policies in the general plan 3 related to geology, soils, and seismicity include the following: 4 Conservation and Open Space Element 5 Goal Two. Conserve water resources and protect water quality in the County. 6 Policy Five. Protect groundwater aquifers and recharge areas, particularly those 7 critical for the replenishment of reservoirs and aquifers. 8 Policy Six. Preserve natural vegetation to protect waterways from bank erosion and 9 siltation. 10 Goal Five. Reserve, as open space, lands subject to natural disaster in order to minimize loss 11 of life and property of residents of Stanislaus County. 12 Policy Sixteen. Discourage development on lands that are subject to flooding, 13 landslide, faulting, or any natural disaster to minimize loss of life and property. 14 Safety Element 15 Goal One. Prevent loss of life and reduce property damage as a result of natural disasters. 16 Policy Three. Development should not be allowed in areas that are particularly 17 susceptible to seismic hazard. 18 Goal Two. Minimize the effects of hazardous conditions that might cause loss of life and 19 property. 20 Policy Six. All new development shall be designed to reduce safety and health 21 hazards. 22 Policy Fourteen. The County will continue to enforce state-mandated structural 23 Health and Safety Codes, including but not limited to the California Building Code, the 24 International Property Maintenance Code, the California Fire Code, the California 25 Plumbing Code, California Electric Code, and Title 24, Parts 1-9. 26 Agricultural Element 27 Goal Three. Protect the natural resources that sustain our agricultural industry. 28 Policy 3.7. The County shall encourage the conservation of soil resources. 29 9.3 Environmental Setting 30 The study area is located in the Great Valley geomorphic province of central California, often 31 referred to as the California Central Valley. This geomorphic province is characterized as an 32 alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long (California Geologic Survey 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 [CGS] 2002). The study area is within the central portion of the province at the northern end 1 of the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, 2 the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Coast Range (Diablo Range) to the west. 3 The study area is drained primarily by the Tuolumne River, a major tributary to the San 4 Joaquin River. The study area is predominantly flat. Elevations within the City range from 5 approximately 115 feet above msl in the northeast portion of the City to 45 feet msl along the 6 Tuolumne River in West Modesto. Most variations in surface topography within the study 7 area are relatively minor with more appreciable changes in grade directly adjacent to surface 8 water features Tuolumne River and Dry Creek). 9 9.3.1 Local Geology 10 Alluvial sediments have accumulated within the San Joaquin Basin almost persistently for the 11 last 160 million years. Most sediments in the basin derive from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 12 transported and deposited by the alluvial fans draining the western flanks of that range. Some 13 sediments originate from the Diablo Range on the western side of the basin. 14 The study area is predominantly underlain by Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan deposits of the 15 Modesto Formation (USGS 1991). The Modesto Formation is composed primarily of 16 unconsolidated, unweathered, coarse sand and sandy silt along the upper portions of the unit. 17 The older, deeper portions of this unit shift to more consolidated, weathered, well- 18 sorted silt and fine sand, silty sand, and sandy silt. 19 Near active floodplain areas, younger (Holocene) alluvium (Dos Palos Alluvium) is present 20 near the San Joaquin River and Jennings Plant. Holocene alluvium is also present near the 21 Tuolumne River area where the Sutter Plant and southern portion of the River Trunk 22 Realignment Project are located. 23 9.3.2 Soils 24 Soils consist of younger alluvial material overlying older alluvium. These alluvial fan soils are 25 highly fertile and productive for agricultural uses. Soil associations mapped as occurring in 26 the study area generally consist of: Hanford, Dinuba, Tujunga, or Modesto (NRCS 2016). Most 27 soils range from moderate to deep 36 to 80+ inches deep). 28 The most predominant soils in the study area consist of sandy loam to fine sandy loam of the 29 Hanford, Dinuba, Tujunga associations. In general, these soils are considered moderately well 30 to well drained, with a very low to medium runoff class (NRCS 2016). A west-southwest 31 trending band of Modesto loam-clay loam traverses the area north of Dry Creek. This 32 association is moderately well drained with a high runoff class (NRCS 2016). San Joaquin and 33 Madera sandy loams underlie the northeastern portion of the study area. These soils are 34 moderately drained with very high runoff and a hardpan layer approximately 20 to 40 inches 35 below ground surface (bgs) (NRCS 2016). 36 Portions of the River Trunk Realignment Project alignment near Dry Creek and the Tuolumne 37 River corridors likely traverse fine sandy loams. Along the proposed Third Outfall Pipeline 38 alignment, underlying soils mostly include Dinuba sandy loam and Hanford sandy loam. 39 Going southward, soils become saline-alkali near the Jennings Plant. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Soil Erosion 1 Soil erosion is the process of removing soil particles from a land surface by wind, water, or 2 gravity. Factors influencing the rate of erosion may include climatic conditions, soil 3 composition and roughness, soil moisture, ground cover, and topography and slope. Most 4 natural erosion occurs slowly. However, ground-disturbing construction activities may 5 increase the rate of erosion by exposing bare soils to the effects of wind and/or water. Erosion 6 also may occur along the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek corridors during storm events, 7 resulting in locally significant bank failures if the bank integrity is comprised or not properly 8 stabilized. In general, the erosion potentials of most soils in the study area are considered low 9 to moderate, with the exception of the Dinuba sandy loam, which is highly susceptible to 10 erosion by water and Modesto clay loam, which is susceptible to erosion by wind (NRCS 11 2016). 12 Expansive Soils 13 Expansive soils are predominantly composed of clays and can undergo substantial volume 14 change in response to changes in moisture content. During wetting and drying cycles, 15 expansive soils may shrink and swell, creating differential ground movements. In general, the 16 expansion potentials of most soils in the study area are considered low to moderate, with the 17 exception of Modesto clay loam (NRCS 2016). 18 9.3.3 Seismicity 19 California is subjected to enormous tectonic forces stemming from the lateral motion of the 20 Pacific (west) and North American (east) plates moving in opposing directions. The shearing 21 forces of the plate movement results in an extremely fractured boundary referred to as the 22 “San Andreas Fault Zone.” Many smaller active and historic fault zones are associated with 23 the Pacific/North American tectonic movement as well. 24 The eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley and study area lie in a region with limited 25 faulting and relatively low seismic activity. Despite limited seismic activity, there have been 26 several large earthquakes that resulted in ground shaking in the study area during the last 27 200 years. Potential seismic hazards resulting from a regional moderate-to-major earthquake 28 include: fault ground rupture (surface faulting); ground shaking; liquefaction, subsidence, 29 and differential settlement; and landslide, slope failure, and lateral spreading. Discussion of 30 regional seismic faulting and hazards and their potential to occur in the study area is 31 discussed below. 32 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and Ground Rupture 33 Horizontal and/or vertical surface or ground ruptures can occur during seismic events, 34 typically along existing fault lines. Ground rupture that occurs along a fault trace (mapped 35 location of the intersection(s) of a fault with the ground surface) is referred to as fault rupture. 36 Some seismogenic faults blind thrusts) do not extend to the ground surface and may not 37 generate fault rupture even during major earthquakes. Other rupturing of the ground surface 38 can occur as the result of slope failure or settlement caused by seismic shaking. Ground 39 ruptures can result in damage to buildings, roads, and underground utilities. The potential 40 for ground rupture depends on the proximity of faults, shaking severity, and local geologic 41 conditions. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Fault areas considered to be of greatest risk are identified as Alquist-Priolo fault zones. No 1 Alquist-Priolo designated fault zones or potentially active faults exist within or near the study 2 area. Most seismic activity in this region stems from the San Andreas Fault Zone and 3 associated fault systems west of the study area. Past evidence of recent fault displacement 4 can be seen throughout the San Andreas Fault Zone and San Francisco Bay area. Active and 5 potentially active faults near the Program study area are presented in Table 9-1. 6 Table 9-1. Regional Faults in Proximity to the Program Study Area 7 Fault Approximate Distance from City‘s Wastewater Service Area Last Known Major Displacement San Joaquin Fault (potentially active) 12 miles west 11,700–700,000 years ago; without historical record Vernalis (inactive) 10 miles west Within last 1.6 million years; age undifferentiated Ortigalita Fault Zone, Cottonwood Arm Section (potentially active) 27 miles southwest 11,700–700,000 years ago; without historical record Foothills Fault System, Southern Reach Section (potentially active) 25 miles east 11,700–700,000 years ago; without historical record Greenville Fault Zone (active) 28 miles west 1980, Magnitude 5.8 Calaveras Fault Zone, Central Calaveras Section (active) 46 miles southwest 1979, M 5.7 2007, M 5.6 San Andreas Fault Zone, Santa Cruz Mountains Section (active) 55 miles southwest 1989, M 7.2 1906, M 7.9 Sources: CGS 2010; USGS 2016 8 Ground Shaking 9 Seismically induced ground shaking can cause substantial damage to structures. The severity 10 of ground shaking experienced at a specific location depends on a variety of factors, such as 11 the magnitude and duration of the seismic event, fault type associated with the event, 12 distance from the epicenter, and physical properties of the underlying geology and soils. The 13 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) of perceived intensity, shown in Table 9-2, is based 14 on observed effects and is the current standard used throughout the United States. Less 15 intense earthquakes are typically rated on the basis of individual accounts, whereas higher 16 intensity events are rated based on observed structural damage. 17 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 9-2. Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale 1 Intensity Shaking Description/Damage I Not Felt Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. II Weak Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. III Weak Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. IV Light Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Moderate Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Strong Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. VII Very Strong Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. VIII Severe Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. IX Violent Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. X Extreme Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. Source: USGS 1989 2 Although ground shaking in the Modesto area has historically been very minimal, ground 3 shaking events periodically affect the region. In Stanislaus County, the level of seismic ground 4 shaking decreases from “High” risk along the western border of the County and the foothills 5 of the Diablo Range, to “Moderate” risk in the central part of the County, to “Low” risk in the 6 eastern portion (CGS 2008). The study area lies within the central portion of the County and 7 is considered “Moderate” to “Low” to risk for earthquake shaking potential. In addition, the 8 expected (10 percent chance of occurring in the next 50 years) peak ground shaking 9 (acceleration1) in the study area is relatively low at 0.247g (CGS 2008). 10 Differential Settling, Subsidence, and Liquefaction 11 Settlement of the ground surface can be caused by a number of geologic processes. Settlement 12 is the lowering of the land surface elevation as a result of the compression, compaction, or 13 1 Ground shaking is usually quantitatively expressed as the acceleration of movement relative to the acceleration of gravity ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 consolidation of underlying soils, sediment, or rock. These processes are exasperated under 1 increased loading additional sediment deposition or construction of structures, 2 including fills) or the withdrawal of groundwater. The processes cause a reduction in the 3 volume of the materials. Compaction and compression generally occurs within 4 unconsolidated granular soils or younger alluvial sediment over a relatively short timeframe. 5 Consolidation usually occurs over a longer period (sometimes many years) in saturated finer 6 grained material as pore water water within the spaces between sediment grains) is 7 forced out of the sediment structure under loading or groundwater pumping. 8 Surface settlement can be referred to as subsidence, a term generally used for settlement of 9 large magnitude or affecting a large area. Subsidence can also occur following oxidation of 10 buried organic material. Areas consisting of fine-grained sediments are more susceptible to 11 ground subsidence. Although mining and extraction activities may also lead to subsidence, 12 excessive pumping of groundwater is the predominant cause for this phenomenon. Historic 13 land subsidence has occurred in large portions of the San Joaquin Valley, with more recent 14 subsidence areas around El Nido and Tulare-Kettleman City (California Department of Water 15 resources [DWR] 2014; DWR 2017a; DWR 2017b). In the Modesto area, the effects of 16 subsidence have been subtler with surface elevations generally 0 to 5 feet lower as compared 17 to 1949 elevations (DWR no date). However, more recent groundwater elevations from local 18 wells within the study area generally show declines in groundwater elevations ranging from 19 0 to 50 feet below the historical spring low levels (DWR 2014). As such, and in consideration 20 of other basin-wide factors, DWR has classified the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, 21 Turlock Subbasin as having a low to medium overall potential for future land subsidence, the 22 Modesto Subbasin as having a medium to high overall potential, and the Delta-Mendota 23 Subbasin as having a high overall potential (DWR 2004; DWR 2006a; DWR 2006b; DWR 24 2017a). Please refer to Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion on 25 groundwater resources. 26 Ground settlement can cause the development of cracks or fissures in the ground surface. 27 When ground settlement is non-uniform or uneven, differential settlement results, 28 potentially inducing stress to structures. 29 Liquefaction can occur when water-saturated, loose sandy soils suddenly lose strength 30 during seismic shaking. The primary factor that triggers liquefaction is moderate to strong 31 ground shaking. The probability of liquefaction correlates directly with the intensity and 32 duration of ground shaking the stronger and/or longer the earthquake, the greater the 33 chance of liquefaction). Additionally, physical properties may increase the susceptibility of 34 soil to liquefaction. Saturated relatively clean/loose granular soils have a relatively high 35 susceptibility for liquefaction while cohesive soils (even if saturated) have a low 36 susceptibility. No specific liquefaction hazards have been identified in Stanislaus County 37 (Bryant and Hart 2007). Although the study area is located in a seismically limited region, 38 several proposed components would be located near the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek with 39 the potential for the presence of a high water table and sandy, liquefiable soils. Therefore, 40 impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be significant 41 if not adequately addressed 42 Landslide, Slope Failure, and Lateral Spreading 43 Landslides or slope failure may occur in steeply sloped areas (15 percent slope or greater) 44 following heavy rains, seismic events, or human activities grading or excavation 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 activities). Similarly, horizontal displacement of gently sloping ground (5 percent or less 1 slope) may occur along river banks or exposed embankments, a phenomenon known as 2 lateral spreading. Saturated, loosely consolidated soils and precipitation events increase the 3 likelihood that an earthquake will trigger landslides, slope failure, or lateral spreading. 4 Modesto and the surrounding area is relatively flat with little variation in topography. Some 5 gradual slopes may be observed near river terraces and former sand dunes. Effects of 6 landslides, slope failures, and lateral spreading are negligible in the Modesto area. 7 9.4 Impact Analysis 8 9.4.1 Methodology 9 The methods used to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Proposed Program on 10 geology, soils, and seismicity involved a review and assessment of published maps, 11 professional publications, and reports pertaining to the geology, soils, and seismicity within 12 the Program vicinity. Information reviewed included USGS and CGS geologic maps (USGS 13 1991; CGS 2002), NRCS soils maps (NRCS 2016), California seismic hazard zone mapping 14 (Bryant and Hart 2007; CGS 2008; CGS 2010; CGS 2002;), DWR groundwater basin 15 information (DWR 2004; 2006a, 2006b; 2017a; 2017b), and USGS historic earthquake data 16 (not cited). The impact analysis assumed the proposed program activities and Realignment 17 project, would, as required, conform to the latest CBC standards, General Plan policies, local 18 ordinances, and local permit requirements. 19 9.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance 20 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on geology, soils, and seismicity 21 if it would: 22  Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 23 of loss, injury, or death involving: 24 − Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- 25 Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or 26 based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; 27 − Strong seismic ground shaking; 28 − Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or 29 − Landslides; 30  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 31  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable 32 as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral 33 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; 34  Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code 35 (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; or 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative 1 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of 2 waste water. 3 The first criterion and sub-criterion regarding rupture of a known earthquake fault are not 4 included in the detailed EIR impact analysis because the Proposed Program is not located 5 within a Alquist-Priolo designated hazard zone. The nearest known active fault surface 6 displacement in the last 10,000 years) is the Greenville Fault Zone, approximately 25 miles 7 west (CGS 2010). The nearest potentially active fault surface displacement in the last 1.6 8 million years) is the San Joaquin Fault, approximately 8 miles west of the study area (CGS 9 2010). Since there are no known faults in the in the Program area, there would be no impact 10 from ground rupture of a known fault. 11 In addition, the criterion regarding use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal 12 systems is not included in the detailed EIR impact analysis as the Proposed Program does not 13 involve construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, 14 there would be no impact related to the suitability of soils to support septic tanks or 15 alternative disposal systems. 16 9.4.3 Environmental Impacts 17 Impact GEO-1: Cause Damage to Facilities and Exposure of People to Hazards 18 from Strong Seismic Events, Including Ground Shaking or Landslides (Less than 19 Significant) 20 Due to the Proposed Program’s significant distance to active faults and the underlying 21 geologic and soil conditions, the Central Valley generally experiences infrequent, lower levels 22 of ground shaking than many other regions of California. Recent seismic events associated 23 with the San Andreas Fault Zone have resulted in light or moderate ground shaking in the 24 study area. Little to no damage would occur to most newly constructed structures lift 25 stations and pump stations) in the Modesto area following ground shaking of this magnitude. 26 Additionally, the City would be required to comply with CBC standards which would further 27 minimize seismic-related impacts by ensuring that all structures are designed and 28 constructed in compliance with California’s seismic-related engineering standards. Any 29 potential for foundational or structural damage associated with seismic ground shaking and 30 adverse effects to structures or people would be minimal. 31 The floor of the Central Valley is relatively flat with only minor changes in topography. Some 32 gradual slopes may be observed near river terraces and the banks of the Tuolumne River and 33 Dry Creek. However, landslides are not likely to occur on or near any of the proposed 34 component sites. 35 Based on the above, impacts related to seismic ground shaking and landslides would be less 36 than significant. 37 Impact GEO-2: Result in Risk to Property and Life from Expansive Soils (Less than 38 Significant) 39 Soils that contain a relatively high percentage of clay minerals have the potential to shrink 40 and swell with changing moisture conditions. This uneven movement can fracture concrete 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 foundations and footings, resulting in potential damage or failure of infrastructure. In 1 general, most of the study area, including the River Trunk Realignment Project area, contains 2 sandy or loamy soils exhibiting low to moderate plasticity characteristics (NRCS 2016). In 3 addition, development of Program facilities pump stations and treatment plant 4 facilities) and upgrades to existing wastewater collection and treatment facilities on 5 expansive soils typically can be addressed through compliance with CBC standards by 6 designing and building structures to a level of strength appropriate to regional seismic risks. 7 However, the Proposed Program includes numerous components throughout central 8 Stanislaus County, including areas with underlying soils exhibiting moderate to high 9 expansive characteristics that may result in damage to infrastructure. 10 The City’s Standard Specifications require under Section 11.05 that a comprehensive soils 11 report be prepared for each project in the City. The report must be prepared by a licensed 12 Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and must include R-values of soil test samples, 13 groundwater elevations, stripping and grading recommendations, and a determination of 14 whether expansive soil is present. Section 11.08 of the City’s Standard Specifications further 15 requires that projects be graded/constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the 16 soils report and any additional recommendations provided during construction by the 17 project Geotechnical Engineer. These requirements would ensure that Proposed Program 18 components would not be constructed on expansive soils such as to subject persons or 19 property to substantial risks of harm. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 20 Impact GEO-3: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil (Less than 21 Significant) 22 Construction-related activities would involve disturbance and exposure of soils, which could 23 leave soils susceptible to erosion during precipitation or wind events. The Proposed Program 24 would include grading, excavation, trenching, or other activities that could loosen soils and 25 increase the risk of erosion or sediment transport. In addition, some components, such as the 26 River Trunk Realignment Project and proposed third outfall pipeline, may involve removing, 27 stockpiling, and transporting a substantial volume of topsoil. These impacts are considered 28 significant. However, as discussed in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, for Program 29 components with a footprint greater than one acre, construction-related impacts on soil 30 resources from all Proposed Program components, including the River Trunk Realignment 31 Project, would be avoided or minimized through implementation of BMPs and compliance 32 with the NPDES General Construction Permit and requirements. For Program 33 components that would result in disturbance of less than one acre, similar construction- 34 related impacts on water quality due to erosion would be avoided and minimized by 35 complying with the City of Modesto’s Standard Specifications which require development of 36 a Local or Erosion Control Plan and implementation of stormwater BMPs. Therefore, 37 by implementing VMPs pursuant to either the NPDES General Construction Permit or the City 38 of Modesto’s Standard Specifications, this impact would be considered less than significant. 39 Impact GEO-4: Result in Subsidence, Liquefaction, or Collapse Due to Seismic 40 Activity or an Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil (Less than Significant) 41 Due to the physical composition of the soils, subsidence in the Modesto area has historically 42 been minor with surface elevation loss of 0 to 5 feet (compared to 1949 elevations) despite 43 significant observed subsidence in other portions of the San Joaquin Valley (DWR no date). 44 The Proposed Program would not directly use groundwater as components would be limited 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 to sewer lines, pump and lift stations, treatment plant components, and related facilities. 1 Groundwater could be encountered during excavation work, particularly during construction 2 of the River Trunk Pump Station and pipeline construction activities including those 3 involving trenchless methods. For such components, groundwater dewatering activities 4 would likely be required during construction activities. However, dewatering would be 5 minimal and temporary and the potential for localized collapse or subsidence as a result of 6 Program construction activities or River Trunk Realignment Project construction activities 7 would be less than significant. 8 Under certain conditions, some geologic units or soils can become unstable and lead to 9 landslides, trench collapse, lateral spreading, and liquefaction, especially when construction 10 activities result in exposed soils and/or steep slopes. Construction-related ground-disturbing 11 or excavation activities could alter soil stability. Although most Program construction 12 activities would generally occur in relatively flat areas not at risk from landslides and lateral 13 spreading, excavation and trenching for structures and pipelines would temporarily create 14 potentially unstable slopes. Construction of the River Trunk Pump Station would also require 15 substantial excavation of at least 75 feet and would likely require dewatering and installation 16 of a shoring system. Currently, the City is considering two different approaches for 17 establishing a dry and stable work area for the River Trunk Pump Station: designing the 18 temporary shoring system to be part of the permanent pump station, or design a 19 temporary shoring system to create a dry and stable work area and construct permanent 20 structural walls for the pump station separately (Carollo Engineers 2016). The U.S. 21 Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) outlines 22 specific Excavation and Trenching standards for building (29 CFR Section 1926.650) and 23 utility trenching operations (29 CFR Section 1926.652). To reduce the risk of excavation- 24 related accidents, the City and its contractor(s) would adhere to such OSHA standards. 25 Liquefaction may occur in water-saturated soils during moderate to large earthquakes. The 26 potential for liquefaction to occur depends on soil composition, soil saturation levels, and 27 intensity and duration of seismic ground shaking and can lead to severe damage in concrete 28 foundations and infrastructure. Although the study area is located in a seismically limited 29 region, several proposed components would be located near the Tuolumne River and Dry 30 Creek with the potential for the presence of a high water table and sandy, liquefiable soils. 31 Therefore, impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would be 32 significant if not adequately addressed. Adherence to current CBC standards would reduce 33 these risks by designing and building structures to a level of strength appropriate to regional 34 seismic risks. In addition, as described in Impact GEO-2, per Section 11.08 of the City’s 35 Standard Specifications, all WWMP components would be graded/constructed in accordance 36 with the recommendations in a required soils report and any additional recommendations 37 provided during construction by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Incorporating the 38 findings and recommendations identified for the project into the final project designs, would 39 reduce significant risks of subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse by ensuring new structures 40 are designed and constructed in a manner that addresses underlying geologic conditions. In 41 addition, the risks of landslides and lateral spreading in the study area would not be 42 substantial. Thus, with adherence to the City’s Standard Specifications, adverse effects from 43 unstable geologic units would be less than significant. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 9. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Wastewater Master Plan 9-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 10-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 10 1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY RESOURCES 2 10.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the regulatory and environmental setting related to greenhouse gases 4 (GHGs) and energy resources and then evaluates impacts related to the Proposed Program’s 5 forecasted GHG emissions. The impact evaluation begins by describing the methodology used 6 to evaluate significance and the GHG significance criteria, and then presents the impact 7 evaluation. 8 10.2 REGULATORY SETTING 9 10.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 10 At the federal level, USEPA has developed regulations to reduce GHG emissions from motor 11 vehicles and has developed permitting and reporting requirements for large stationary 12 emitters of GHGs. The following sections briefly describe the history and content of the 13 regulatory programs developed to date by USEPA and the U.S. Supreme Court (Court). 14 The Court ruled for the first time in 2007 that GHG emissions are air pollutants covered under 15 the federal Clean Air Act, in its decision Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 16 (549 U.S. 497). The Court held that GHGs fit the definition of an air pollutant causing and 17 contributing to air pollution, which reasonably may be anticipated to endanger public health 18 or welfare. In 2009, the USEPA Administrator determined that existing and projected 19 concentrations of GHGs threaten public health and welfare of present-day and future 20 generations, and that combined emissions from motor vehicles contribute to GHG pollution. 21 USEPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), 22 methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), 23 and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs are discussed further in Section 10.3, 24 “Environmental Setting.” 25 GHG Emission Standards 26 On April 1, 2010, USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 27 established a program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy standards for new 28 model year 2012−2016 cars and light trucks. On August 9, 2011, USEPA and the NHTSA 29 announced standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency for heavy-duty 30 trucks and buses. On October 15, 2012, USEPA and NHTSA established a program to reduce 31 GHG emissions and improve fuel economy standards for new cars and light trucks through 32 2025 (USEPA 2012). However, in August 2018, the USEPA and the NHTSA published a 33 proposed rule for model years 2021-2026 of new cars and light trucks that would freeze 34 mileage standard requirements at 2020 levels through 2026, and thus the mileage standard 35 requirements may be subject to change from the standards established in 2012 (Center for 36 Climate and Energy Solutions 2019). In August 2016, USEPA and the NHTSA jointly finalized 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Phase 2 Heavy-Duty National Program standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel 1 efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for model year 2018 and beyond (USEPA 2 2017a). 3 Clean Power Plan 4 In 2015, President Barack Obama and USEPA announced the Clean Power Plan, which is 5 aimed at reducing carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel–fired electric generating units. 6 The plan was designed to be flexible while implementing strict regulations to encourage the 7 development of cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. On February 9, 2016, the Court 8 stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan pending judicial review. While awaiting 9 action by the Court, USEPA was continuing to work with states that choose to find ways to 10 reduce GHG emissions from power plants. However, in 2018, the USEPA proposed to repeal 11 the Clean Power Plan and replace it with the proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule 12 (USEPA 2018). The ACE rule identifies a “best system of emission reduction”, provides states 13 with a list of “candidate technologies” that can be used to establish standards of performance, 14 and updates EPA’s New Source Review Permitting program to incentivize efficiency 15 improvements at existing power plants (USEPA 2018). This regulation could influence the 16 indirect GHG emissions associated with electricity use. 17 10.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 18 GHG Reduction Goals 19 In recent years, California has enacted a number of policies and plans to address GHG 20 emissions and climate change. Efforts on a statewide level to regulate and reduce GHG 21 emissions are detailed below but include establishing GHG emission goals, developing vehicle 22 emission standards, and promoting sustainable land use and transportation planning. Most 23 recently, the state’s efforts to continuing GHG emission control and regulation progress 24 include developing international partnerships. 25 AB 32, SB 32 and Executive Orders 26 In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, 27 which set the overall goals for reducing California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 28 EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012 further extend this goal to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 29 EO B-30-15 established an interim target to cut California’s GHG emissions to 40 percent 30 below 1990 levels by 2030.Senate Bill 32 codified the target of achieving 40 percent below 31 1990 levels by 2030. 32 CARB approved the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014 (CARB 2014). 33 This update defines climate change priorities for the next 5 years and also sets the 34 groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The update also 35 highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction 36 goals and evaluates how to align the State's longer term GHG reduction strategies with other 37 state policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and 38 land use. CARB is updating the Scoping Plan to reflect progress since 2005, additional 39 reduction measures, and plans for reductions beyond 2020. 40 CARB released and adopted a 2017 Scoping Plan Update (CARB 2018a) to reflect the 2030 41 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2018a, CARB 2017). The 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2017 Scoping Plan Update suggests several areas where measures for water and wastewater 1 treatment could be considered. This includes improving the energy consumption for water 2 pumping, treatment, heating; utilizing anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment plant 3 capacity to help process organic waste diverted from landfills; using biosolids for soil 4 amendments; and incentivizing methane capture systems at wastewater treatment plants to 5 produce renewable electricity, transportation fuel, or pipeline biomethane. 6 California has adopted several vehicle emission reduction and fuel efficiency regulations that 7 are similar and consistent with the federal USEPA and NHTSA regulations. These California 8 vehicle regulations were granted under a waiver request by the USEPA and would not 9 necessarily be affected by changes in the federal policies. The current federal administration 10 has suggested revoking California’s waiver, and if the waiver is revoked the California 11 standards may be subject to change. 12 GHG Reporting and Reduction Regulations 13 CARB has completed rulemaking to implement several GHG emission reduction regulations 14 and continues to investigate the feasibility of implementing additional GHG emission 15 reduction regulations. These include the low carbon fuel standard, which reduces GHG 16 emissions associated with fuel usage, and the renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which 17 requires electricity suppliers to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable 18 sources to 33 percent by 2020 and to 50 percent by 2030. 19 In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, a vehicle emission 20 control program for model years 2017−2025. To further California's support of the national 21 program to regulate emissions, CARB submitted a proposal that would allow automobile 22 manufacturer compliance with USEPA’s requirements to show compliance with California's 23 requirements for the same model years. The final rulemaking package was filed on December 24 6, 2012, and the final rulemaking became effective December 31, 2012. 25 CBC Title 24 governs construction of buildings in California. Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24 are 26 relevant for energy use and green building standards, which reduce the amount of indirect 27 GHG emissions associated with buildings. 28 SB 1383 directed ARB to develop a Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) reduction strategy 29 with targets of reducing emissions of methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 30 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 (CARB 31 2017). 32 Wastewater treatment plants can assist with this goal by determining opportunities to 33 support co-digestion of food-related waste streams at wastewater treatment plants and 34 incentivizing methane capture systems at wastewater treatment plants to produce 35 renewable electricity, transportation fuel, or pipeline biomethane. Both of these are 36 considered under the Proposed Program. 37 California requires industrial sources with GHG emissions over 10,000 metric tons (MT) to 38 annually report their GHG emissions under the Mandatory Reporting Rule. Wastewater 39 treatment facilities may be required to report GHG emissions depending on their size and 40 types of equipment used in the wastewater treatment process. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Climate Change Adaptation Policies 1 In 2009, California adopted a statewide Climate Adaptation Strategy that summarizes climate 2 change impacts and recommends adaptation strategies across seven sectors: public health, 3 biodiversity and habitat, oceans and coastal resources, water, agriculture, forestry, and 4 transportation and energy. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), in coordination 5 with other state agencies, has updated the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy 6 (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). The new Safeguarding California Plan and the 7 Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 update augment previously identified strategies in light 8 of advances in climate science and risk management options (California Natural Resources 9 Agency 2014, 2018, and 2019). The Safeguarding California Plans highlights climate risks in 10 multiple broad areas energy, forests, transportation, public health, water, etc.) in 11 California, discusses progress to date, and makes realistic sector-specific recommendations. 12 For the Proposed Program, the Water and Public Health sectors are relevant. 13 California Integrated Energy Policy 14 Senate Bill 1389, passed in 2002, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare 15 an Integrated Energy Policy Report for the governor and legislature every two years (CEC 16 2018). The reports and report updates analyze data and provide policy recommendations on 17 trends and issues concerning electricity and natural gas, transportation, energy efficiency, 18 renewable energy, and public interest energy research (CEC 2018). The 2018 Integrated 19 Energy Policy Report Update highlights California’s innovative policies and the related clean 20 energy economy (CEC 2018). 21 10.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 22 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 23 The SJVAPCD’s Climate Change Action Plan, adopted in 2008, directed the District Air 24 Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist lead agencies, project proponents, 25 permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project- 26 specific GHG emissions on global climate change (SJVAPCD 2009a, 2017). On December 17, 27 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission 28 Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (Guidance) (SJVAPCD 2009b). The Guidance establishes 29 a streamlined process that can be used to evaluate the significance of project-specific GHG 30 emission impacts on global climate change, based on the use of best performance standards 31 (BPS) (SJVAPCD 2009b); the streamlined evaluation process is designed to meet the 32 reduction goals of AB 32. The SJVAPCD defines BPS as “the most effective achieved-in- 33 practice means of reducing or limiting GHG emissions from a GHG emissions source.” Types 34 of BPS include equipment type, equipment design, operational and maintenance practices, 35 measures that improve energy efficiency, and measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled 36 (SJVAPCD 2009b). Potential BPS related to boilers or process heaters may be applicable to 37 the Proposed Program. If BPS are not available, the SJVAPCD encourages users to 38 demonstrate at least a 29-percent reduction from business as usual (BAU); however, the 39 Guidance does not provide clear BPS or thresholds for the evaluation of construction-related 40 effects under CEQA. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Stanislaus County Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities 1 Strategy 2 Stanislaus County’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, 3 (RTP/SCS), adopted in 2014, contains land-use and transportation goals and objectives for 4 the County and addresses requirements, including those in SB 375, for reductions in GHG 5 emissions from the transportation sector (StanCOG 2014). The WWMP is a tool to ensure 6 implementation of appropriate water management policies for the land-use goals outlined in 7 the RTP/SCS. 8 Stanislaus County Regional Sustainability Toolbox 9 Stanislaus County, in collaboration with the nine cities within the county, completed the 10 Stanislaus Regional Sustainability Toolbox (RST) (Stanislaus County 2017). The RST includes 11 multiple planning tools to achieve regional GHG reductions. The planning tools include an 12 example climate action plan (CAP) with regional CAP strategies and low-impact development 13 (LID) standards and specifications. Regional strategies from this model CAP related to water- 14 related infrastructure projects like the Proposed Program include the following (ESA 2013): 15 Goal E.1: Increase Building and Equipment Efficiency Community-Wide 16 Strategy 1.7: Industrial Equipment Energy Efficiency Promotion. Promote San 17 Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Best Performance Standards to increase 18 energy efficiency in industrial equipment. 19 Stanislaus County General Plan 20 The Stanislaus County General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element (2016) identifies 21 water conservation-related goals and policies that would contribute to reduced GHG 22 emissions by conserving water resources and reducing related energy use for water 23 supply/distribution activities. The General Plan also contains the following goal, policies, and 24 implementation measures for reducing air pollutant emissions that would also reduce GHG 25 emissions: 26 Goal Six: Improve air quality. 27 Policy Nineteen: The County will strive to accurately determine and fairly mitigate 28 the local and regional air quality impacts of proposed projects. 29 Implementation Measure 1. Require all development proposals, where 30 appropriate, to include reasonable air quality mitigation measures. 31 Implementation Measure 2. Minimize case-by-case analysis of air quality 32 impacts through the use of standard criteria for determining significant 33 environmental effects, a uniform method of calculating project emissions, and 34 standard mitigation methods to reduce air quality impacts. 35 Policy Twenty: The County shall strive to reduce motor vehicle emissions by 36 reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and increasing average vehicle 37 ridership. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 City of Modesto General Plan 1 The City of Modesto’s General Plan Chapter VII, Environmental Resources, Open Space and 2 Conservation (2019) contains the following goals related to energy conservation may be 3 relevant to the Proposed Project: 4 Policy I.2.a. Require shade trees, where feasible and appropriate, in landscape plans 5 for all new development proposals. Mature trees have lower water needs. Develop 6 shade-tree specifications for development projects, including appropriate types of 7 trees (size, deciduous or evergreen, absence or lower branches, etc), locations 8 distance from structures), density (i.e. within a subdivision or parking lot), and 9 orientation (trees on the west side of a building generally provide the most benefit) 10 for use in landscape plans. 11 Policy I.1.c. Discourage removal of street trees unless they are badly diseased and 12 have become a threat to public safety. If a tree must be removed, it should be replaced 13 no later than the end of the next planting season with a large-canopy species. 14 Policy I.1.g. Encourage the use of solar energy systems for residential, agricultural, 15 parks, public buildings, and business purposes as provided in Government Code 16 Section 65850.5. 17 Policy I.1.j. Support the State of California’s commitment to the “Renewable Portfolio 18 Standard,” which requires electrical utility providers to obtain one-third (33%) of 19 their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. 20 Policy I.1.l. Consider purchasing clean-fuel / alternative-fuel fleet vehicles. 21 City of Ceres General Plan 22 The City of Ceres General Plan’s Chapter 54, Health and Safety (2018) contains the following 23 goals and policies related to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions that may have direct 24 or indirect beneficial effects on the generation of GHGs that may be relevant to the Proposed 25 Project: 26 Goal 5.E: Reduce the community’s GHG emissions to mitigate the rate and extent of climate 27 change. 28 Policy 5.E.1. Green Building Code: Continue to implement and enforce the Green 29 Building Code to promote energy efficient building design and construction. 30 Policy 5.E.2. LEED Certification: Encourage new development to participate in the 31 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program for the 32 design, operation, and construction of high-performance energy efficient buildings. 33 Policy 5.E.4. Energy Efficient Design: Reduce the need for artificial temperature 34 control and lighting by establishing standards to encourage the following: 35  Passive cooling measures in new and existing development; and 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Design that incorporates windows that open to the outside in all habitable rooms 1 to maximize the use of daylight and promote ventilation. 2 Policy 5.E.5 Energy Efficient Lighting. Establish standards to improve energy 3 efficiency related to outdoor lighting by limiting unnecessary fixtures and utilizing 4 low-energy fixtures. 5 Policy 5.E.7 Energy Efficient Municipal Operations. Demonstrate leadership by 6 reducing the use of energy and fossil fuel consumption in municipal operations, 7 increasing energy efficiency in transportation, waste management, building design 8 and use, and the purchasing of goods and services. 9 10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 10 Climate change results from the accumulation in the atmosphere of GHGs, which are 11 produced primarily by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Because GHGs (CO2, methane, 12 and N2O) persist and mix in the atmosphere, emissions anywhere in the world affect the 13 climate everywhere in the world. GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of carbon 14 dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which converts all GHGs to an equivalent basis taking into 15 account their global warming potential (GWP) compared to CO2. Table 10-1 shows the six 16 GHGs and their respective GWP. 17 Table 10-1. Greenhouse Gas Overview and Global Warming Potential 18 Greenhouse Gas GWP over 100 years (in IPCC 2013/SAR)(a) Description Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1/1 Released into the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also because of certain chemical reactions; removed from the atmosphere when it is absorbed by plants and oceans; remains in the atmosphere for 50 to more than 100,000 years. Methane (CH4) 28/21 Emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil; methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste, notably in municipal solid waste landfills; remains in the atmosphere for about 10 years. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 265/310 Emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste; remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years. Hydrofluoro- carbons (HFCs) 4-12,400/ 650–11,700 Typically used in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, as well as in solvents; emissions are generated primarily from use in air conditioning systems in buildings and vehicles; remains in the atmosphere from 10 to 270 years. Perfluoro- carbons (PFCs) 6,630-11,100/ 6,500–9,200 Emitted as by-products of industrial and manufacturing sources; remains in the atmosphere from 800 to 50,000 years. Sulfur Hexa- fluoride (SF6) 23,500/23,900 Used in electrical transmission and distribution; remains in the atmosphere approximately 3,200 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 As scientific understanding of the global warming potential (GWP) of various greenhouse gases 1 (GHGs) improves over time, GWP values are updated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 2 Change (IPCC) scientific assessment reports. For regulatory consistency, however, the United 3 Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting guidelines (and international 4 treaties) for national inventories continue to the use of GWP values to those published in the 5 IPCC’s 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR). The table shows GWP values for 100 years from 6 IPCC 2013 and SAR. 7 Sources: USEPA 2015; IPCC 2013; IPCC 1996 8 These six gases are the major GHGs that were recognized by the United Nations Framework 9 Convention on Climate Change and other international climate change treaties including the 10 Kyoto Accords which was the first international treaty to establish GHG emission reduction 11 goals. Other GHGs were not recognized by the international treaties, chiefly because of the 12 smaller role that they play in global climate change or the uncertainties surrounding their 13 effects. One GHG not recognized by the international treaties is atmospheric water (H2O) 14 because no obvious correlation exists between H2O and specific human activities. Water 15 appears to act in a feedback manner; higher temperatures lead to higher H2O concentrations, 16 which in turn cause more global warming (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 17 [IPCC] 2003). Nitrogen trifluoride was not recognized in the initial Kyoto Accords, but was 18 subsequently included by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 19 recognized in California as a GHG. 20 The most important GHG in human-induced global warming is CO2. Although many gases 21 have much higher GWP than the naturally occurring GHGs, CO2 is emitted in such vastly 22 higher quantities that it accounts for about 82 percent of the GWP of all GHGs emitted by the 23 United States (USEPA 2017b). Fossil fuel combustion, especially for the generation of 24 electricity and powering of motor vehicles, has led to substantial increases in CO2 emissions 25 over time and, thus, substantial increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In 2005, 26 atmospheric CO2 concentrations were about 379 ppm, more than 35 percent higher than the 27 pre-industrial concentrations of about 280 ppm (Forster et al. 2007, as cited in IPCC 2007). 28 In addition to the sheer increase in the volume of its emissions, CO2 is a major factor in 29 human-induced global warming because of its long lifespan in the atmosphere 30 (50,000−100,000 years). 31 Anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of GHGs are widely accepted in the scientific 32 community as contributing to global warming. Temperature increases associated with 33 climate change are expected to adversely affect plant and animal species, cause ocean 34 acidification and sea level rise, affect water supplies, affect agriculture, and harm public 35 health. 36 Global climate change is already affecting ecosystems and societies throughout the world. 37 Climate change adaptation refers to the efforts undertaken by societies and ecosystems to 38 adjust to and prepare for current and future climate change, thereby reducing vulnerability 39 to those changes. Human adaptation has occurred naturally over history; people move to 40 more suitable living locations, adjust food sources, and more recently, change energy sources. 41 Similarly, plant and animal species also adapt over time to changing conditions; they migrate 42 or alter behaviors in accordance with changing climates, food sources, and predators. 43 Many national, as well as local and regional, governments are implementing adaptive 44 practices to address changes in climate, as well as planning for expected future impacts from 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 climate change. Some examples of adaptations that are already in practice or under 1 consideration include conserving water and minimizing runoff with climate-appropriate 2 landscaping, capturing excess rainfall to minimize flooding and maintain a constant water 3 supply through dry spells and droughts, protecting valuable resources and infrastructure 4 from flood damage and sea level rise, and using water-efficient appliances. 5 In 2016, total California GHG emissions were 429.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide 6 equivalents (MMT CO2e) (CARB 2018b). This represents a reduction in total GHG emissions 7 from 2012, which had the first emissions increase since 2007. The 2012 increase was driven 8 primarily by strong economic growth in the state, the unexpected closure of the San Onofre 9 Nuclear Generating Station, and drought conditions that limited in-state hydropower 10 generation. Overall GHG emissions reached a peak in 2004 and have since decreased by 13 11 percent. In 2016, the transportation sector of the California economy was the largest source 12 of emissions, accounting for approximately 39 percent of the total emissions. On-road 13 vehicles accounted for roughly 91 percent of emissions in the transportation sector. 14 10.3.1 ENERGY RESOURCES AND CONSUMPTION 15 MID provides electricity services to the City of Modesto through a network of over 1,800 miles 16 of power lines throughout its service area (MID 2017a). MID also provides power to the Cities 17 of Waterford, Salida, Mountain House, and parts of Ripon, Escalon, Oakdale and Riverbank. 18 Approximately 23 percent of the power provided comes from solar and wind renewable 19 sources, while the remaining 77 percent comes from a mixture of coal, large hydroelectric, 20 natural gas, and unspecified sources of power. Turlock Irrigation District (TID) and PG&E also 21 provide power in the Proposed Program area. Table 10-2 provides a more detailed 22 breakdown of MID’s, TID’s, and PG&E’s energy resources. As mentioned in Section 10.2.2, 23 California’s RPS requires electricity suppliers to increase the amount of electricity generated 24 from renewable sources to 33 percent by 2020 and to 50 percent by 2030, which will 25 decrease the GHG intensity of the electricity the Proposed Program will utilize in the future. 26 Table 10-2. Summary of Energy Sources for the Modesto Irrigation District, Turlock 27 Irrigation District, and PG&E 28 Energy Resources Utility Power Mix MID (2016) TID (2015) PG&E (2015) Eligible Renewable 23 21 30 Coal 19 10 0 Large Hydroelectric 10 14 6 Natural Gas 21 36 25 Nuclear 0 0 23 Unspecified Power* 27 19 17 Total 100 100 100 * “Unspecified sources of power” is defined as electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources. Sources: MID 2017b, CEC 2017a, CEC 2017b 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 TID in conjunction with MID owns and operates the San Pedro Dam, providing up to 203 1 megawatts of hydroelectric power to customers throughout the City of Modesto. Out of the 2 203 megawatts produced by this dam, 139 megawatts go to TID and the remaining 64 go to 3 MID (TID 2017). 4 10.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 5 10.4.1 METHODOLOGY 6 Program-level Components 7 For WWMP program-level components, construction and operation-related GHG emissions 8 and energy use impacts were evaluated qualitatively by considering the Proposed Program’s 9 potential sources of GHG emissions, including fossil-fueled or electric energy consuming 10 equipment and vehicles, potential frequency and duration of emissions, and wastewater 11 treatment process releases of biogenic emissions. Where specific construction or operation- 12 related details were lacking, impacts were conservatively judged to be significant, and 13 prescriptive mitigation measures were developed to minimize significant impacts. 14 River Trunk Realignment Project 15 For the River Trunk Realignment Project, construction and operational emissions were 16 estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.1. CalEEMod is an emissions model that estimates 17 GHG emissions for land use development projects. It contains reasonable default assumptions 18 that can be replaced if site-specific information is available. CalEEMod incorporates both 19 CARB’s EMFAC for vehicles and current off-road in-use engine emissions modeled for 20 construction equipment. Modeling for the River Trunk Realignment Project was based on the 21 construction phasing information provided in Chapter 2, Program Description. Detailed 22 CalEEMod output, including relevant input parameters, is contained in Appendix B, Air 23 Quality and Global Climate Change Impacts Evaluation Supporting Documentation. In general, 24 CalEEMod default numbers were used for construction phases and equipment, construction 25 duration, and quantity of construction workers for each phase, with exceptions noted below 26 and/or in Appendix B. Some of these construction details are also provided in Chapter 2. 27 Fabrication of equipment and materials such as cement and steel requires energy and, 28 therefore, indirectly result in GHG emissions. These indirect GHG emissions associated with 29 building materials are referred to as “embodied energy” and are based on life-cycle GHG 30 emission analyses of individual materials. The embodied energy from building materials has 31 not been estimated for this analysis, as detailed specifications and estimates of building 32 materials are not available. For a typical building construction project, the materials that have 33 some of the largest amounts of embodied energy are the aforementioned cement and steel. 34 Project-specific inputs into CalEEMod included estimated hauling truck trips, and use of 35 assumptions developed by the City for the project’s construction phasing and construction 36 equipment. The equipment assumptions for all construction phases can also be found in 37 Appendix B. 38 Estimated energy intensity associated with pumps at the River Trunk Pump Station and 39 Shackleford Pump Station (as described in Chapter 2, Program Description) assumed 40 pumping usage of 8 hours per day year-round (Appendix 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Consideration of the Effects of GHG Emissions 1 Projected changes in climate associated with global warming may have related effects on 2 other resources in the future, including effects on the Proposed Program (such as changed 3 weather patterns). Anticipated potential worldwide climate change effects include coastal 4 erosion, sea level rise, melting glaciers, atmospheric temperature warming, increased 5 wildfire risk, ocean warming, food production issues decreased crop yields), effects on 6 terrestrial and marine ecosystems, flooding and/or drought conditions, and altered 7 hydrologic patterns such as changes in river flows or lake levels (Intergovernmental Panel on 8 Climate Change 2013). California-specific climate change effects and indicators of climate 9 change are similar to those that may be experienced globally and are discussed in Indicators 10 of Climate Change in California, a report prepared by the California Environmental Protection 11 Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in 2013 (OEHHA 2013). The 12 evaluation of such effects on the River Trunk Realignment Project or the Proposed Program 13 is beyond the scope of this GHG analysis and not required by the State CEQA Guidelines (see 14 Section 15064.4). 15 10.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 16 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and 17 energy resources if it would: 18  Generate a substantial amount of GHG emissions; 19  Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of 20 reducing emissions of GHGs; 21  Cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during 22 construction or operation, ; or 23  Cause a substantial increase in energy demand and the need for additional energy 24 resources. 25 With regards to the first criterion, the SJVAPCD has adopted a BMP threshold for 26 construction-related GHG emissions based on an achievable in practice analysis of 27 improvement over a business-as-usual scenario or 29 percent improvement. However, at this 28 time there is not an approved BMP for this type of project nor has suitable data to establish a 29 business-as-usual scenario been provided by the SJVAPCD. The SJVAPCD threshold has also 30 not been updated to reflect the SB 32 2030 goal which needs to be considered given the 31 timeline of the Program construction activities. Therefore, published mass emissions 32 thresholds of other California air districts were reviewed and considered in developing an 33 appropriate threshold. The applicable threshold for the Proposed Program’s construction 34 and operational emissions was determined to be 10,000 metric tons per year, which is the 35 threshold for industrial sources used by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 36 District (SBCAPCD) (SBCAPCD 2015) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District 37 (SCAQMD) (SCAQMD 2008). Although quantitative construction-specific thresholds have not 38 been determined by the SCAQMD, the SBCAPCD recommends amortizing construction 39 emissions over the life of the project (defined as 30 years) and adding it to the operational 40 emissions (SCAQMD 2008). In addition, where construction-specific quantitative significance 41 thresholds have not been defined, operational significance thresholds are typically applied or 42 construction emissions are amortized and considered along with operational emissions to 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 determine a project’s overall significance. Therefore, for the Proposed Program and the River 1 Trunk Realignment Project, GHG emissions have been considered less than significant if the 2 generated GHG emissions are less than the operational threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. 3 With regards to the second criterion, the applicable plans and policies the following impact 4 analysis evaluates the Program’s operational-related emissions for consistency with CARB’s 5 Scoping Plan and updates, which outline the strategies that will need to be implemented for 6 the state to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32 and EO S-3-05. Specifically, if a proposed 7 component would not conflict with CARB’s GHG emission reduction policies, it would have a 8 less-than-significant impact. 9 The last two significance criteria were considered qualitatively for the Proposed Program and 10 the River Trunk Realignment Project. 11 10.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 12 Impact GHG-1: Generate a Substantial Amount of GHG Emissions (Significant 13 and Unavoidable) 14 Program-level Components 15 Construction Impacts. Construction of the program-level components, including various 16 collection system components, new outfall pipelines, and facility upgrades at the Sutter and 17 Jennings Plants, would involve activities that would result in one-time emissions of GHGs. 18 Changes in carbon sequestration due to land use change and tree planting would also result 19 in one-time emissions of GHGs. GHG emissions would also be generated from construction 20 equipment exhaust, including exhaust from haul or equipment trucks and worker commutes. 21 Specific project-level data about the amount, use, and locations of these equipment are not 22 available at this time, nor are specific project-level data about the construction periods for 23 each individual CIP. In general, replacement and maintenance of existing facilities and 24 strengthening and replacement of existing sewer pipelines would be categorically exempt 25 from CEQA. New sewer pipelines, or extension of sewer pipelines, that have been identified 26 in the WWMP would therefore be considered to fall below the significance threshold. For 27 other CIPs, in the absence of specific project-level information, it has been conservatively 28 assumed that construction activities for each WWMP component would generate GHG 29 emissions that, in combination with the other program components, could be substantial 30 because they would exceed the significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. This is 31 considered a significant impact. 32 Consulting with and permitting through the SJVAPCD for stationary source projects would 33 reduce GHG emissions from construction of WWMP components. However, it is still possible 34 that these emissions would not be reduced below the applicable significance threshold of 35 10,000 MT GHG emissions and therefore the Proposed Program would result in a significant 36 and unavoidable impact. 37 Operational Impacts. The Proposed Program would indirectly and directly generate GHG 38 emissions through operation and replacement of pumps at lift stations, installation of new or 39 larger emergency electrical generators, and employee vehicle trips for operation and 40 maintenance of future facilities. Equipment used to operate the wastewater treatment plants 41 requires electricity which results in indirect GHG emissions, and natural gas combustion for 42 boilers results in direct GHG emissions. The wastewater treatment plants generate digester 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 gas which results in direct emissions of GHGs; some of the digester gas is used in boilers or 1 flared. Anaerobic treatment processes generate fugitive methane emissions. The proposed 2 centralized nitrification/denitrification process would also emit N2O emissions, and 3 discharge of the effluent water to the San Joaquin River would result in fugitive emissions of 4 N2O. Employee trips would be similar to existing operations for the Sutter Plant and the City’s 5 existing other wastewater maintenance and operation activities. The Proposed Program 6 would expand tertiary treatment facilities in effort to meet upcoming NPDES discharge 7 requirements, and recycled water would be reused for agricultural purposes through the 8 City’s participation in the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Project (see Section 19.4.1 9 in Chapter 19, Other Statutory Considerations, for additional detail about this project). 10 Expanding tertiary treatment facilities to increase recycled water use may decrease GHG 11 emissions in comparison to using freshly collected and distributed water. In addition, the 12 beneficial use of the recycled water helps with a more efficient use of the water supply and is 13 important in addressing the impacts of climate change such as reduced water supply. 14 Emissions for emergency electrical generators would be infrequent and would not be 15 substantial. However, in total, operation of new or larger pumps at lift stations as well as the 16 increased capacity and improved level of wastewater treatment would potentially generate 17 GHG emissions greater than the applicable significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year 18 for industrial sources. Several of the proposed stationary sources may have applicable BPS 19 for boilers, and process heaters. Consistency with these BPS and any future BPSs should be 20 evaluated during project-level analyses once sufficient design details are available regarding 21 operation of the facilities to allow for such an analysis. In the meantime, this impact has 22 conservatively been considered significant. Again, consulting with and permitting through 23 the SJVAPCD for stationary source projects would reduce GHG emissions from operational 24 activities under the Proposed Program. However, these emissions may not be able to be 25 reduced below the applicable significance threshold, and no other feasible mitigation has 26 been identified which can further reduce emissions. Therefore, this impact would be 27 significant and unavoidable. 28 River Trunk Realignment Project 29 Construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project would result in one-time emissions of 30 GHGs, and once complete, project operations such as the pump station, would generate 31 emissions over the longer term. As shown in Table 10-3, combined one-time GHG emissions 32 associated with the project’s construction activities would be approximately 2,589 MT CO2e, 33 spread out between 2018 and 2021. These one-time emissions would not continue to occur 34 once construction is complete. SJVAPCD recommends amortizing GHG emissions by the 35 operational life of a project. Construction emissions equal approximately 86 metric tons per 36 year when amortized over the project’s 30-year operation period. 37 Operation of the River Trunk Realignment Project would generate GHG emissions from 38 annual maintenance of emergency generators, worker vehicle trips, and from the use of 39 electricity for the pumps at the proposed River Trunk and Shackleford Pumping Stations. The 40 River Trunk Realignment Project’s operation would generate approximately 1,015 MT CO2e 41 per year. Electricity use makes up 943 MT CO2e per year of these emissions. Combining the 42 operation emissions with the amortized one-time emissions, the total annualized emissions 43 are 1,101 MT CO2e per year. Because these emissions are less than the 10,000 MT CO2e 44 threshold, this impact would be less than significant. 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 10-3. River Trunk Realignment Project GHG Emissions 1 Emissions Source MT CO2e Construction 2018 1,325 Construction 2019 848 Construction 2020 395 Construction 2021 21 Total One-time (Construction Activities) 2,589 Construction Activity Emissions Amortized over 30-year project life 86 Operations (per year) 1,015 Total Annual Emissions (Operations + Amortized Construction) 1,101 Notes: Construction activities emissions based on CalEEMod modeling results (Appendix 2 Amortization over 30 years based on the project facility’s anticipated lifetime (SJVAPCD 2015). 3 Overall Conclusion 4 As described above, the River Trunk Realignment Project’s GHG emissions would not exceed 5 significance thresholds. On the whole, however, since specific details regarding the WWMP 6 program-level components are not yet available, construction and operation of these 7 components have been conservatively determined to potentially generate GHG emissions 8 that exceed the significance threshold. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s impact related to 9 increased GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. 10 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted 11 for the Purpose of Reducing Emissions of GHGs (Significant and Unavoidable) 12 Program-level Components 13 Consistency with strategies outlined in CARB’s Scoping Plan and future updates are used to 14 ensure that the state goals of AB 32, SB 32 and EO S-3-05 will be met. The RPS would reduce 15 GHG emissions compared to the existing mix of energy sources, and would likely result in the 16 program-level components having more than a 29-percent reduction by at least 2030. This is 17 consistent with the emissions reductions goal of AB 32 and SB 32, as well as the 18 policies/actions described in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. 19 In addition, individual program-level components would comply with the RST/SCS’s regional 20 CAP goals, strategies, and policies, as well as the County’s general plan policies related to 21 reduced energy use. Specifically, Proposed Program-level components would have an energy- 22 efficient design, and utilize MID’s, TID’s, and PG&E’s increased renewable energy sources. 23 WWMP components would achieve GHG emission reductions in their design, as discussed 24 above, and would minimize GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, these 25 program-level components would generally comply with applicable plans, policies, and 26 regulations, including AB 32 and SB 32, and as well as the policies/actions described in 27 CARB’s Scoping Plan. However, at this time the state is still developing strategies that will be 28 needed to fully reach the goals of SB 32 and EO S-3-05 and new strategies may be developed 29 that are inconsistent with the project. In addition, as described in Impact GHG-1 above, the 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 GHG emissions for the entire Program would be significant and, as such, may impede the state 1 from reaching the goals of AB 32 and SB 32, and EO S-3-05, to reduce GHG emissions within 2 California. Consulting with and permitting through the SJVAPCD would reduce this impact, 3 but not necessarily to less-than-significant levels and may not be consistent in the future with 4 new strategies. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 5 River Trunk Realignment Project 6 The proposed River Trunk Project would comply with the RST’s regional CAP goals, 7 strategies, and policies, as well as the County’s general plan policies related to reduced energy 8 use. Specifically, the River Trunk Realignment Project would have an energy-efficient design, 9 and utilize Modesto Irrigation District’s increased renewable energy sources. The River 10 Trunk Realignment Project would generally be consistent with the applicable 11 policies/actions described in CARB’s Scoping Plan and would make reasonable progress 12 toward meeting the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and EO S-3-05. Thus, the River Trunk Realignment 13 Project would therefore comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations, and would 14 result in a less than significant impact. 15 Overall Conclusion 16 WWMP program-level components would achieve GHG emission reductions in their design, 17 as discussed above, and would minimize GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible. 18 However, for the reasons described above, even with these mitigation measures, the 19 Proposed Program may impede the state from reaching the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and EO S- 20 3-05 to reduce GHG emissions within California. No other feasible mitigation has been 21 identified that could further reduce this impact. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s overall 22 impact would be significant and unavoidable. 23 Impact GHG-3: Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, and Unnecessary Consumption of 24 Energy During Construction, Operation, and/or Maintenance (Less than 25 Significant) 26 All Program-level Components 27 Construction Impacts. Construction of program-level components would require the 28 consumption of energy (fossil fuels) for construction equipment, worker vehicles, and truck 29 trips. However, energy consumption during construction is necessary to maintain and 30 improve the wastewater conveyance system and wastewater treatment facilities for the City 31 of Modesto and surrounding areas to meet future wastewater treatment and collection 32 system needs and improve use of recycled water. These construction activities would not 33 cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, or cause a substantial 34 increase in energy demand and increase the need for additional energy resources. Therefore, 35 the Proposed Program’s effects on energy resources would be less than significant. 36 Operational Impacts. The operational activities associated with some program-level 37 components would require the consumption of energy including fossil fuels, natural gas, and 38 electricity. Fossil fuel use would include worker vehicle and truck trips to and from the 39 treatment plants, pump stations and lift stations; and material hauling of biosolids and 40 equipment used to spread biosolids on agriculture fields near the Jennings Plant. In addition, 41 emergency generators would use diesel fuel. Natural gas is used for space heating and in 42 boilers used at the Jennings Plant. Electricity is used for operation of pump and lift stations 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 as well as numerous pieces of equipment at the wastewater treatment plants. The Sutter 1 Plant currently utilizes some of the digester biogas instead of natural gas in some boilers. In 2 addition, in the future, the City may consider the feasibility of cogeneration technologies that 3 use digester biogas (Carollo Engineers 2016). These operational activities would not cause 4 wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or cause a substantial increase 5 in energy demand and the need for additional energy resources. In addition, the design of 6 new and replaced wastewater infrastructure will utilize the latest energy efficient design. 7 Therefore, the Proposed Program’s effects on energy resources would be less than 8 significant. 9 River Trunk Realignment Project 10 The River Trunk Realignment Project’s construction activities would require the 11 consumption of energy (fossil fuels) for construction equipment, worker vehicles, and truck 12 trips. However, the consumption of energy for the project’s equipment and vehicles would be 13 minimized by reusing excavated soils on-site and minimizing vehicle idling. Table 10-4 14 shows the estimated fuel use from construction equipment, worker vehicles, and truck trips. 15 The calculations used to develop these estimates are presented in Appendix B. This table also 16 shows estimated fuel use during project operation. 17 Table 10-4. River Trunk Project Fossil Fuel Use 18 Source Type Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) Gasoline Fuel Use (gallons) Off-road Construction Equipment1 783,163 Construction Worker Vehicles2 29,421 Hauling Vehicles3 29,887 Operational Worker Vehicles4 <100 1 Fuel use for off-road construction equipment was estimated using a fuel use factor from CARB’s off-road in-use engine emissions model of 0.347 pound of diesel per horsepower-hour and diesel fuel density of 7.37 pounds per gallon. Fuel use considered the total number of each equipment type. 2 Fuel use for construction worker vehicles was estimated using fuel use estimates from EMFAC with an estimated rate of 21.7 gallons per mile. 3 Fuel use for hauling vehicles was estimated using fuel use estimates from EMFAC with an estimated rate of 5.5 gallons per mile. 4 During project operational and maintenance activities, workers would use less than 100 gallons, assuming less than 1 round trip per week. The energy consumption during construction is necessary to improving the River Trunk line, 19 which is one of the most critical trunk lines in Modesto. These construction and operational 20 activities would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or 21 cause a substantial increase in energy demand and the need for additional energy resources. 22 The proposed River Trunk Project’s effects on energy resources would be less than 23 significant. 24 Overall Conclusion 25 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, construction and operation impacts of 26 program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment Project would not cause 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or cause a substantial increase 1 in energy demand and the need for additional energy resources. In conclusion, the Proposed 2 Program’s effect on energy resources would be less than significant. 3 Impact GHG-4: Cause a Substantial Increase in Energy Demand and the Need for 4 Additional Energy Resources (Less than Significant) 5 All Program-level Components 6 Substantial quantities of fossil fuel would not be required for program-level components 7 since maintenance and operation vehicle trips would be similar to existing conditions. 8 Construction activities would require some fossil fuel use for construction equipment, 9 material hauling, and worker commuting. However, the amount of fossil fuel use would not 10 result in the need for additional fossil fuel energy resources beyond what is projected to be 11 available with existing resources. 12 Both the Sutter and Jennings Plants are major consumers of electrical power, with a combined 13 existing demand of 1,620 kilowatts (kW) (Carollo Engineers 2016). The proposed tertiary 14 treatment upgrades and expansion at the Jennings Plant as well as increased treatment 15 capacity upgrades would result in increased energy demands associated with operation of 16 equipment at the two treatment plants. The increased amount of natural gas needed at the 17 treatment plants would not be substantial compared to current uses of natural gas such that 18 substantial new sources of additional energy would be required, considering the projected 19 available electricity supply from Modesto Irrigation District. In fact, the new plant would be 20 designed to be more energy efficient than the current plant, which could result in a reduction 21 in energy usage. In addition, the City may consider reusing digester biogas to operate a 22 cogeneration unit if feasible or implementation of solar energy systems. If implemented in 23 the future, the cogeneration unit would result in a decrease of electricity for the wastewater 24 treatment facility. Since there would not be a substantial increase in energy demand or the 25 need for additional energy resources, this impact would be less than significant. 26 River Trunk Realignment Project 27 The River Trunk Realignment Project would require some additional fossil fuel use for 28 construction equipment, material hauling, and worker commuting, resulting in a minor 29 increase in energy demand associated with construction of the project. Once the River Trunk 30 Realignment Project is in operation, there would be some electricity use associated with the 31 pumps, and fossil fuel use associated with emergency generators and maintenance trips. 32 However, the use of fossil fuels and electricity would be substantial compared to that used 33 for existing pump stations found throughout the City, considering the projected available 34 electricity supply from MID. Therefore, there would not be a substantial increase in energy 35 demand or the need for additional energy resources, this impact would be less than 36 significant. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 10. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wastewater Master Plan 10-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 While the River Trunk Realignment Project would not generate a substantial increase in 2 energy demand, proposed upgrades and expansion of facilities at the Sutter and Jennings 3 Plants would incrementally increase energy demands associated with operation of 4 equipment. However, the new plant upgrades would be designed to be more energy efficient 5 than the current plant, which could result in a reduction in energy usage. The City may also 6 consider reusing digester biogas to operate a cogeneration unit if feasible or implementation 7 of solar energy systems, which would result in a decrease of electricity for the wastewater 8 treatment facility. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s impact on increased energy 9 demands and energy resources would be less than significant. 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 11-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 11 1 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 2 11.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter evaluates the Proposed Program’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous 4 materials. Hazardous materials are chemical and non-chemical substances that can pose a 5 threat to the environment or human health if misused or released. Hazardous materials occur 6 in various forms and can cause death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, and damage 7 to buildings, homes, and other property. Hazardous materials can include explosives, 8 flammable and combustible substances, poisons, radioactive materials, pesticides, petroleum 9 products, and other materials defined as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and 10 Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) in 40 CFR 261. CEQA also considers hazards from proximity of 11 projects to airports and schools, and hazards from wildfire. 12 Impacts are evaluated in light of existing laws and regulations governing hazards and 13 hazardous materials, and the existing physical environmental setting as it relates to hazards 14 and hazardous materials, as described in Section 11.2, “Regulatory Setting,” and Section 11.3, 15 “Environmental Setting.” 16 11.2 REGULATORY SETTING 17 Because regulations for hazardous materials were developed over time, numerous agencies, 18 whose jurisdictions and responsibilities sometimes overlap, are involved in regulating these 19 materials. Federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include USEPA and OSHA. At 20 the state level, agencies such as the California Department of Industrial Relations, the 21 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and the California 22 Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) govern the use of hazardous materials. State and 23 local agencies often have either parallel or more stringent rules than federal agencies. 24 Generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous wastes is also regulated by different 25 agencies, and USEPA is the lead federal agency overseeing these aspects of hazardous waste. 26 The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has primary state regulatory 27 responsibility, but may delegate enforcement authority to local jurisdictions that enter into 28 agreements with the state agency. 29 The following is a review of federal, state, and local regulations and policies that are pertinent 30 to the Proposed Program. 31 11.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 32 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 33 The RCRA (42 USC Section 6901 et seq.), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 34 Amendments of 1984, is the primary federal law for the regulation of solid waste and 35 hazardous waste in the United States. These laws provide for the “cradle-to-grave” regulation 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 of hazardous wastes, including generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. 1 Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to 2 identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, 3 or disposed of. 4 USEPA has primary responsibility for implementing RCRA, but individual states are 5 encouraged to seek authorization to implement some or all RCRA provisions. California 6 received authority to implement the RCRA program in August 1992. DTSC is responsible for 7 implementing the RCRA program in California. 8 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 9 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also 10 called the Superfund Act; 42 USC Section 9601 et seq.) is intended to protect the public and 11 the environment from the effects of past hazardous waste disposal activities and new 12 hazardous material spills. Under CERCLA, USEPA has the authority to seek the parties 13 responsible for hazardous materials releases and to ensure their cooperation in site 14 remediation. CERCLA also provides federal funding (through the “Superfund”) for the 15 remediation of hazardous materials contamination. The Superfund Amendments and 16 Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) amends some provisions of CERCLA and 17 provides for a Community Right-to-Know program. 18 Energy Policy Act of 2005 19 Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (the Underground Storage Tank [UST] 20 Compliance Act of 2005) contains amendments to Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 21 the original legislation that created the UST Program. As defined by law, a UST is “any one or 22 combination of tanks, including pipes connected thereto, that is used for the storage of 23 hazardous substances and that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground.” 24 In cooperation with USEPA, oversees the UST Program. The intent is to protect public 25 health and safety and the environment from releases of petroleum and other hazardous 26 substances from USTs. The four primary program elements include leak prevention 27 (implemented by Certified Unified Program Agencies [CUPAs]), cleanup of leaking tanks, 28 enforcement of UST requirements, and tank integrity testing. CUPAs are described in more 29 detail below. 30 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule 31 USEPA’s Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule (40 CFR Part 112) applies to 32 facilities with a single above-ground storage tank with a storage capacity greater than 660 33 gallons, or multiple tanks with a combined capacity greater than 1,320 gallons. The rule 34 includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil 35 discharges into navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities 36 to prepare, amend, and implement these plans. 37 Renovation and Demolition of Buildings Containing Asbestos 38 The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations (40 CFR Part 61, 39 Subpart established under the federal Clean Air Act, require that specific practices for 40 handling asbestos-containing building materials be followed during demolition and 41 renovation of all structures, installations, and buildings (excluding residential buildings that 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 have four or fewer dwelling units). The regulations require a thorough inspection of the 1 demolition or renovation site and notification to the appropriate state agency before any 2 demolition or renovation of buildings that could contain a certain threshold amount of 3 asbestos or asbestos-containing material. In addition, certain requirements must be followed 4 when removing asbestos-containing waste. USEPA is the lead enforcement agency. The 5 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act’s Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) (40 CFR, Part 6 763, Subpart E, Appendix C) requires that professionals working with asbestos-containing 7 building materials be accredited under the USEPA MAP or a program at least as stringent as 8 the USEPA MAP program. 9 Occupational Safety and Health Act 10 OSHA is responsible at the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal 11 standards for implementation of workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures 12 for the handling of hazardous substances, as well as other workplace hazards. OSHA also 13 establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program. 14 29 CFR Chapter XVII, Subpart Z, Section 1926.1101 includes regulations to prevent worker 15 exposure to unsafe levels of asbestos during construction and demolition activities. These 16 regulations require contractors to set up regulated areas in dealing with asbestos materials 17 and ensure that persons entering these areas are wearing respirators. 18 11.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 19 The Unified Program 20 The Unified Program (20 Health and Safety Code [HSC] Sections 25404-25404.9) 21 consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, 22 inspections, and enforcement activities of six environmental and emergency response 23 programs. Statewide, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for management of 24 hazardous materials, and it works with other state agencies and delegates its authority to 25 local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state. Local agencies, including 26 Stanislaus County, administer these laws and regulations. DTSC, the Cal/EPA, and other state 27 agencies set the standards for their programs while local governments implement the 28 standards. These local implementing agencies, the CUPAs, regulate/oversee the following for 29 each county: 30  Hazardous materials business plans (19 CCR Sections 2650-2660); 31  California accidental release prevention plans or federal risk management plans 32 (RMPs) (19 CCR Sections 2735-2785); 33  The operation of USTs (23 CCR Sections 2610-2729) and above-ground storage tanks 34 (20 HSC Sections 25270-25270.13); 35  Universal waste and hazardous waste generators and handlers (22 CCR Division 4.5); 36  On-site hazardous waste treatment (22 CCR Division 4.5); 37  Inspections, permitting, and enforcement (22 CCR Division 4.5); 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Proposition 65 reporting; and 1  Emergency response. 2 Hazardous Materials Business Plans 3 Hazardous materials business plans are required for businesses that handle 4 hazardous materials in quantities equal to or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds 5 of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or extremely hazardous substances above the 6 threshold planning quantity (40 CFR, Part 355, Appendix A; California Governor’s Office of 7 Emergency Services [Cal OES] 2014). are required to include an inventory of the 8 hazardous materials used/stored by the business, a site map, an emergency plan, and a 9 training program for employees. In addition, business plan information is provided 10 electronically to a statewide information management system, verified by the applicable 11 CUPA, and transmitted to agencies responsible for the protection of public health and safety 12 local fire department, hazardous material response team, and local environmental 13 regulatory groups). 14 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration 15 Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety 16 regulations in California. Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to the use of hazardous materials 17 in the workplace (CCR Title 8) include requirements for safety training, availability of safety 18 equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, warnings about exposure to hazardous 19 substances, and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. Hazard 20 communication program regulations that are enforced by Cal/OSHA require workplaces to 21 maintain procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, inform workers 22 about the hazards associated with hazardous substances and their handling, and prepare 23 health and safety plans to protect workers at hazardous waste sites. Employers also must 24 make material safety data sheets available to employees and document employee 25 information and training programs. 26 California Accidental Release Prevention 27 The purpose of the California Accidental Release Prevention program (19 Cal. Code Regs. 28 Section 2735 et seq.) is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious 29 harm to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to 30 satisfy community right-to-know laws. In accordance with this program, businesses that 31 handle more than a threshold quantity of regulated substance are required to develop a RMP. 32 This RMP must provide a detailed analysis of potential risk factors and associated mitigation 33 measures that can be implemented to reduce accident potential. CUPAs implement the 34 California Accidental Release Prevention program through review of RMPs, facility 35 inspections, and public access to information that is not confidential or trade secret. 36 CAL FIRE Wildland Fire Management 37 The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the California Department of Forestry and Fire 38 Protection (CAL FIRE) administer state policies regarding wildland fire safety. Construction 39 contractors must comply with the following requirements in the Public Resources Code 40 during construction activities at any sites with forest-, brush-, or grass-covered land: 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines must be 1 equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire 2 (Pub. Res. Code Section 4442). 3  Appropriate fire-suppression equipment must be maintained from April 1 to 4 December 1, the highest-danger period for fires (Pub. Res. Code Section 4428). 5  On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials must be removed to 6 a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, 7 and the construction contractor must maintain the appropriate fire-suppression 8 equipment (Pub. Res. Code Section 4427). 9  On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline- 10 fueled internal combustion engines must not be used within 25 feet of any flammable 11 materials (Pub. Res. Code Section 4431). 12 11.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 13 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 14 The Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019) guides land use and 15 development within the City’s incorporated areas. Goals and policies contained in the General 16 Plan related to hazards and the Proposed Program include the following: 17 Policy VII-J[a]. Support the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) and ensure the 18 LHMP will be monitored, evaluated, and updated every three years or more 19 frequently as the need arises. 20 Policy VII-J[b]. Ensure that all new development is designed to reduce potential 21 safety and health hazards. 22 Policy VII-J[d]. Support efforts to improve levels of emergency response. 23 Policy VII-M.C[2]. Design and maintain roads so as to ensure adequate access in 24 hazardous conditions. 25 Policy VII-N The City shall promote public awareness of the following local 26 routes (shown in Figure 11-1) for the public’s use in evacuating the City in the event 27 of an emergency: 28 State Highways 99, 132, 219, and 108 29 Briggsmore Avenue 30 Claus Road 31 Standiford/Sylvan Avenue 32 Scenic Drive 33 Pelandale Avenue 34 Ninth Street 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 11-1. City of Modesto Emergency Evacuation Routes Prepared by: Source: City of Modesto 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Paradise Road 1 Carpenter Road 2 Policy VI-E.5[b]. City plans and policies shall not interfere with any emergency 3 evacuation and response plans. This would include the continued maintenance of 4 adequate police and fire services, and identified emergency evacuation routes [refer 5 to Figure 11-1 of this DEIR]. 6 Policy VI-E.5[c]. The City shall ensure the provision of adequate and accessible 7 evacuation routes. 8 Stanislaus County General Plan 9 The Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016a) guides land use, development, 10 and impact mitigation decisions in Stanislaus County. Goals and policies associated with 11 hazards and hazardous materials include the following: 12 Safety Element 13 Goal One: Prevent loss of life and reduce property damage as a result of natural disasters. 14 Policy One: The County will adopt (and implement as necessary) plans inclusive of 15 the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, to minimize the impacts of natural 16 and man-made disasters. 17 Policy Two: Development should not be allowed in areas that are within the 18 designated floodway or any areas that are known to be susceptible to being inundated 19 by water from any source. 20 Goal Two: Minimize the effects of hazardous conditions that might cause loss of life and 21 property. 22 Policy Thirteen: The Department of Environmental Resources shall continue to 23 coordinate efforts to identify locations of hazardous materials and prepare and 24 implement plans for management of spilled hazardous materials as required. 25 Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 26 The Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan identifies compatible land uses in 27 proximity to airports in Stanislaus County including the Modesto City-County Airport. 28 Compatible land uses are those that will not threaten the safe operation of an airport or create 29 hazards endangering public safety (Stanislaus County 2016b). Each airport has a designated 30 airport influence area, which is defined by the area encompassing lands on which uses could 31 be negatively affected by existing or future aircraft operations. As shown in Figure 11-2, the 32 Modesto City-County Airport’s referral area is divided into two areas: “Referral Area 1” and 33 “Referral Area Referral Area 1 encompasses locations where noise and/or safety 34 represent compatibility concerns and airspace protection and air flight may also be concerns; 35 and Referral Area 2 includes areas where airspace protection and/or overflight are 36 compatibility concerns but not noise or safety. Based on review of the Plan, the eastern 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 portion of the River Trunk Realignment Project alignment is within Safety Zone 6 where 1 wastewater facilities are listed as normally compatible (Stanislaus County 2016b). 2 Stanislaus County Hazard Mitigation Plan 3 The Stanislaus County Hazard Mitigation Plan is a countywide plan that identifies risks posed 4 by disasters and ways to minimize damage from those disasters. Among other functions, the 5 Hazard Mitigation Plan creates a decision tool for management, promotes compliance with 6 state and federal program requirements, enhances local policies for hazard mitigation 7 capability, and provides for inter-jurisdictional coordination (Stanislaus County Office of 8 Emergency Services [OES] 2017). 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Modesto Ceres H Modesto City-County Airport Hwy. 99 10 L 10 R 28 L 28 R ¯ 0 5,000 10,000 Feet Legend City Road Referral Area 2 Referral Area 1 Airport Influence Boundary City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 11-2. Modesto City-County Airport Planning Area Boundary Map Prepared by: Source: Stanislaus County 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 11.3.1 SCHOOLS 2 Numerous schools exist within the study area, as shown in Figure 11-3. These include 3 Modesto City Schools, which include over a dozen elementary schools, four middle schools, 4 and nine high schools (Modesto City Schools 2017), as well as schools in the Ceres Unified 5 School District and Empire School District. Numerous Modesto schools are located within 6 0.25 mile of proposed components. No schools in Ceres or Empire are within 0.25 mile of 7 Proposed Program components. 8 11.3.2 EXISTING HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 9 Both the GeoTracker database and DTSC’s EnviroStor database were searched for 10 up to one-quarter mile of the Program area. Figure 11-4 shows hazardous material sites 11 identified by these databases within 0.25 mile of the Proposed Program components. Table 12 11-1 provides further information on these sites. The database searches include the 13 following hazardous materials site lists: leaking underground storage tank cleanup sites, 14 spills, leaks, investigation and cleanup sites, and other cleanup sites. 15 In general, hazardous materials contamination is most often connected with past land uses 16 such as gas stations, dry cleaners, industrial facilities with underground storage tanks, 17 military bases, and other sites that commonly use or store hazardous materials. The proposed 18 Jennings Plant improvements would be constructed adjacent to the City’s compost facility. 19 The City’s existing wastewater treatment facilities also use and store hazardous materials. 20 The Sutter and Jennings Plants have backup generators which store diesel fuel; likewise, the 21 existing lift stations located throughout the City may include generators that store fuel. Other 22 typical hazardous materials and chemicals stored at the plants include methane, hydrogen 23 peroxide, ferric chloride, oil, and gasoline. 24 11.3.3 AIRPORTS AND PRIVATE STRIPS 25 The Modesto City-County Airport is located at 617 Airport Way in the southwest portion of 26 Modesto near the Tuolumne River. As shown in Figure 11-3, several proposed components 27 including the River Trunk Realignment Project, would be located near this airport. No other 28 airports or private airstrips are located within two miles of the Proposed Program. 29 11.3.4 WILDFIRE HAZARDS 30 The study area is primarily urban in nature, with limited potential for wildfire hazards. The 31 majority of the study area is unzoned for fire hazards, with several isolated patches zoned as 32 moderate (CAL FIRE 2007). Figure 11-5 shows wildfire risk in the Proposed Program 33 vicinity, as mapped by CAL FIRE. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- e P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nmnm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm Union Pacific Railroad Sutter Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_11-3_Schools_Airports.mxd 6/22/2017 PG Figure 11-3 Schools and Airports in the Proposed Program Vicinity City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR WWMP Study Area nm Schools River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations e Airports Modesto City-County Airport ·I}þ 132 ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 132 Sources: California Department of Education, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L t 2 for Detail Shackelford Pump Station Sutter Plant T u o lu m ne River D r y Cre e k 4 8 9 7 5 2 1 6 3 11 10 12 20 17 13 14 16 18 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_11-4_Hazards.mxd 10/20/2017 PG Figure 11-4 Hazardous Materials Sites within 0.25 Mile of Proposed Program Components City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Source: EnviroStor and Geotracker databases, 2017 Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles EnviroStor Cleanup Sites Certified Active or Inactive - Needs Evaluation GeoTracker Sites Open L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation WWMP Study Area Boundary San Jo a q uin River Inset Map Main Map ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Sutter Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_11-5_Wildfire_Hazards.mxd 6/22/2017 PG Figure 11-5 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Program Vicinity City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles WWMP Study Area L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones Moderate Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Urban Unzoned Main Map Inset Map Source: Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 11-1. Existing Hazardous Material Sites within 1/4-Mile of Proposed Components 1 Figure ID Site/Business Name Address City Site/Case Type Lead Agency Site Status Past Uses Potentially Contaminated Media 1 Modesto Convention Center 10th and L Streets Modesto State Response or NPL (National Priorities List) DTSC Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Certified None No media affected 2 Littell Property 1921 Vernon Avenue Modesto State Response or NPL Certified Junkyard Soil 3 Elias Property 2120 Kenneth Street Modesto State Response or NPL None Specified Certified None Contaminated surface/structure, soil 4 Cesi Center 2021 Tully Road Modesto Evaluation Active Dry cleaning Aquifer, indoor air, soil, soil vapor 5 Sunshine Carpet & Drapery 1645 Princeton Avenue Modesto Evaluation Active Dry cleaning Aquifer, indoor air, soil, soil vapor 6 Modesto Groundwater Investigation N/A Modesto Voluntary Cleanup Active Dry cleaning Aquifer, soil, soil vapor, indoor air, groundwater well 7 The Modesto Bee 1325 H Street Modesto Tiered Permit None Specified Inactive – Needs Evaluation None specified None specified 8 PG&E Manufactured Gas Plant Sq-St-Mod-2 Block Bound: H, F, 10th, and Alley NE 10th Modesto Evaluation None Specified Inactive – Needs Evaluation None specified Soil 9 Hi Grade Drive in Cleaners 1915 Yosemite Blvd. Modesto Voluntary Cleanup Active Dry cleaning Aquifer, indoor air, soil, soil vapor 10 Jerry’s Drapery Service 123 Phoenix Avenue Modesto Evaluation Active Dry cleaning Aquifer, indoor air, indoor air, soil, soil vapor 11 PG&E Manufactured Gas Plant Sq-St-Mod-1 Blocks of: C, D, 8th, and 10th Streets Modesto Evaluation None Specified Inactive – Needs Evaluation Manufactured gas plant Soil 12 Gallo Glass – South Field Landfill 615 South Santa Cruz Avenue Modesto Evaluation Inactive – Needs Evaluation Landfill – domestic, unknown, transportation - warehousing Other groundwater affected uses, soil 13 Elwood’s Dry Cleaner 441 McHenry Avenue Modesto Cleanup Program Site Central Valley Open – Remediation Dry cleaning None specified 14 Arco – T and T 402 Downey Avenue Modesto LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) Cleanup Site Central Valley Open – Assessment & interim Remedial Action Gas station Aquifer 15 Modesto Polanco – Ideal Cleaners 1801 H Street Modesto Cleanup Program Site Department of Toxic Substances Control Open – Inactive No site history available None specified 16 Modesto Steam Laundry 1201 8th Street Modesto Cleanup Program Site Central Valley Open – Verification Monitoring Dry cleaning Groundwater, soil 17 City of Modesto, Modesto Groundwater Investigation 1010 10th Street Modesto Cleanup Program Site Central Valley Open - Remediation Dry cleaning Under investigation 18 Three Star Gas 1131 Yosemite Boulevard Modesto LUST Cleanup Site Central Valley Open – Verification Monitoring Gas station Aquifer 19 Berberian Company Property 320 9th Street Modesto Cleanup Program Site Stanislaus County Open – Inactive Manufactured gas plant Under investigation 20 Crop Production Services, Crows Landing Road 541 Crows Landing Road Modesto Cleanup Program Site Central Valley Open – Inactive Retail distribution of agricultural products pesticides) None specified Notes: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank; NPL = National Priorities List; = regional water quality control board; = Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program. 2 Source: 2017, DTSC 2017 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 11.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 11.4.1 METHODOLOGY 2 Impacts from the Proposed Program related to hazards and hazardous materials were 3 evaluated qualitatively by considering aspects of the Proposed Program in relation to the 4 CEQA significance criteria. In many instances, where the precise locations and designs of 5 Proposed Program have not yet been developed, possible impacts are discussed more 6 generally (at a programmatic level), and mitigation is prescribed in the event certain 7 conditions are encountered during future project planning. In the case of the River Trunk 8 Realignment Project, where details are known, impacts are evaluated at a greater level of 9 detail. 10 11.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 11 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on hazards and hazardous 12 materials if it would: 13  Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine 14 transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; 15  Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably 16 foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous 17 materials into the environment; 18  Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 19 substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 20  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled 21 pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a 22 significant hazard to the public or the environment; 23  For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not 24 been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the 25 project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in 26 the project area; 27  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 28 response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or 29  Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, 30 injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 31 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 11.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 Impact HAZ-1: Create a Substantial Hazard to the Public or the Environment 2 through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials during 3 Construction (Less than Significant) 4 Construction of the Proposed Program components and the River Trunk Realignment Project 5 would involve use of heavy construction equipment, which would use hazardous materials in 6 their operation. These materials would include fuel, grease, oil, and other materials that may 7 be contained within the equipment and/or stored on-site by the construction contractor. 8 Contractors may routinely transport these materials to and from the site, and dispose of the 9 materials once they have been used. Additionally, certain existing Modesto facilities may 10 contain asbestos, which could be released during demolition and renovation activities. 11 Transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction could expose 12 workers, the public, or the environment to hazards if adequate precautions are not taken. 13 Construction workers could inhale toxic vapors or make bodily contact with materials, which 14 could subject them to harm. The public or the environment could be exposed to toxic 15 substances if materials were not stored, transported, or disposed of properly. The potential 16 for harm may depend on the site-specific characteristics at any given component site, as well 17 as proximity to sensitive receptors or environmental resources. Construction workers also 18 could be exposed to asbestos during demolition of existing facilities such as those planned for 19 demolition at the Sutter Plant. 20 In accordance with applicable regulations, the City and its contractors would be required to 21 identify and track hazardous waste from “cradle to grave” (see discussion of RCRA in Section 22 11.2.1) and provide training and personal protective equipment to workers, if necessary, to 23 prevent exposure to hazardous substances in excess of exposure limits (see OSHA under 24 Section 11.2.1). Additionally, the City and/or its contractors would be required to follow 25 protocols established under the NESHAP regulations (described in Chapter 6, Air Quality), 26 which are designed to limit health impacts associated with asbestos and other hazardous 27 substances. 28 Compliance with these laws and regulations described in the regulatory setting would 29 prevent significant impacts from occurring during construction activities. The WWMP does 30 not create unique hazards from use, storage, transport, and disposal of materials. Therefore, 31 this impact would be less than significant. 32 Impact HAZ-2: Create a Substantial Hazard to the Public or the Environment 33 through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials during 34 Operation (Less than Significant) 35 New and upgraded lift stations, pump stations, and proposed components at the Sutter and 36 Jennings Plants would involve storage and use of hazardous materials. More chemicals would 37 be stored at the Jennings Plant due to expansion of the tertiary treatment facilities and 38 construction of new primary treatment facilities like primary clarifiers, anaerobic digesters, 39 and dewatering facilities. The refurbished treatment plant facilities may include back-up 40 generators that store fuel, but the existing Sutter and Jennings plants also contain this 41 equipment and fuel; therefore, the Proposed Program would not represent a substantial 42 change from existing conditions. New pump station facilities may store fuel for back-up 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 generators in case the primary power source fails. In accordance with USEPA’s Spill 1 Prevention and Countermeasure Rule (see Section 11.2.1), the City would be required to 2 provide secondary containment structures and spill counter-measure protocols if any 3 storage tanks exceed the threshold volume (660 gallons), but the City would provide 4 secondary containment for all storage tanks. Likewise, the City would be required to prepare 5 a HMBP for sites that store greater than the threshold quantities of hazardous materials (55 6 gallons of a liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas). 7 City of Modesto workers also may use, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials during 8 ongoing routine maintenance and repair activities. Under the WWMP, no changes to the City’s 9 hazardous materials transportation program are needed. Similar to existing conditions and 10 consistent with City policy V-M.2[d], the City’s Plant staff would not use residential streets for 11 transporting hazardous materials used at either wastewater treatment plant. The same 12 regulations described above under Impact HAZ-1 with respect to construction would apply 13 to these activities to ensure that workers are not exposed to unsafe levels of toxic substances, 14 and that hazardous materials are transported and disposed of in accordance with applicable 15 laws. 16 In general, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the Proposed 17 Program would be similar to current activities related to operating and maintaining the City’s 18 wastewater system although amounts of hazardous materials would increase, and would not 19 create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, this impact would be 20 less than significant. 21 Impact HAZ-3: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment 22 through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the 23 Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment during Construction (Less 24 than Significant) 25 As described under Impact HAZ-1, the Proposed Program would involve use, storage, 26 transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction. If these materials were 27 to be accidentally released, such as through a spill or encountering contaminated soil, it could 28 harm workers, the public or the environment. However, compliance with all local, state, and 29 federal regulations concerning hazardous materials would result in less-than-significant 30 impacts. Once operational, these facilities would not result in additional hazard emissions or 31 the use of hazardous materials near students or school facilities. Storage of onsite hazardous 32 materials, such as diesel fuel, would require secondary containment to prevent leaks or spills, 33 as required by federal and state regulations. This impact would be less than significant. 34 Impact HAZ-4: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment 35 through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the 36 Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment during Operation (Less 37 than Significant) 38 As described under Impact HAZ-2, the Proposed Program would involve use, storage, 39 transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation. In accordance with 40 applicable laws and regulations, the City would be required to track any hazardous wastes 41 generated during Program operation from “cradle to grave” and dispose of this material 42 appropriately. The City also would be required to implement spill prevention and counter- 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 measures in accordance with USEPA’s Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Rule for storage 1 tanks under the Proposed Program that exceed the threshold volume, but the City would 2 include secondary containment on all fuel storage tanks. Additionally, sites storing greater 3 than threshold quantities of hazardous materials would require preparation of 4 including an inventory of the hazardous materials used/stored by the business, a site map, 5 an emergency plan, and a training program for employees. Compliance with these 6 requirements would reduce this impact to less than significant. 7 Impact HAZ-5: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely 8 Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within 0.25 Mile of an Existing or 9 Proposed School (Less than Significant) 10 All Program-level Components 11 Depending on the specific WWMP component, Proposed Program activities may involve use 12 or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. As shown in Figure 11-3, 13 numerous schools are located throughout Modesto, many of which are located in relatively 14 close proximity to proposed lift stations and new, upgraded or rehabilitated sewer lines. The 15 nearest school to the Sutter Plant is Evelyn Hanshaw Middle School, which is approximately 16 0.5 mile southeast of the treatment plant site. No schools are located in proximity to the 17 Jennings Plant. 18 Use and handling of hazardous materials near schools during construction of proposed 19 components would be as described under Impact HAZ-1 use of fuel, grease, or related 20 materials in construction equipment). These activities would not create a hazard, even if 21 located in close proximity to a school, by complying with applicable regulations described in 22 Impact HAZ-1. Construction equipment may emit some amount of TAC emissions, such as 23 DPM from operation of diesel-fueled construction equipment; however, these emissions 24 would be temporary. 25 Proposed activities would use relatively limited hazardous materials during operation and 26 the operation of emergency generators and staff vehicle trips would emit limited amounts of 27 TACs. Hazardous materials used at the Sutter Plant would be anticipated to be similar in type 28 and/or quantity to hazardous materials currently used at the Sutter Plant, and no schools are 29 located within 0.25-mile of the Sutter Plant. In addition, adherence to SJVAPCD’s permitting 30 process would ensure that TAC emissions would not create unacceptable health risks for 31 nearby sensitive receptors, such as schools. As such, this impact would be less than 32 significant. 33 River Trunk Realignment Project 34 Three schools (Modesto High School, Kirk Baucher School, and James Marshall Elementary 35 School) would be within 0.25 mile of the River Trunk Realignment Project. Project 36 construction activities in these areas would include trenching for installation of gravity sewer 37 lines within the roadway. Although heavy construction equipment used in these activities 38 may emit some amount of TACs, these emissions would be temporary and such effects are 39 described in Chapter 6. As described above, the proposed activities would comply with 40 applicable regulations described in Impact HAZ-1, and therefore would not present any 41 undue risks to human health. The pipeline facilities would not emit any hazardous emissions 42 once installed. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 While schools are located within 0.25 mile of some Proposed Program components and the 2 River Trunk Realignment Project, construction activities would be temporary and effects 3 related to releases of TAC emissions are addressed in Chapter 6. By complying with 4 applicable regulations pertaining to the safe use and handling of hazardous materials, the 5 Proposed Program would not present any undue risks to nearby schools. The Proposed 6 Program’s overall impact would be less than significant. 7 Impact HAZ-6: Location on a Site Which Is Included on a List of Hazardous 8 Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as 9 a Result, Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment (Less than 10 Significant) 11 All Program-level Components 12 As indicated in Figure 11-4, various Proposed Program elements are located within 0.25 mile 13 of identified hazardous materials sites. In accordance with Modesto City Council Resolution 14 2003-66, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is required prior to the acquisition of real 15 property. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment would identify any past sources of 16 contamination on or near a site and, if contamination is identified, may recommend 17 performance of a more detailed Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment, including soils 18 testing. The City may not purchase a property on which significant contamination is 19 discovered during the due diligence phase and which may create a significant hazard to the 20 public or the environment. No proposed lift or pump station sites would be located within 21 200 feet of a documented hazardous material clean-up site. The Sutter and Jennings Plant 22 improvements would not be constructed on any documented hazardous materials 23 contamination/clean-up sites. Proposed pipeline improvements would generally be located 24 within the public right-of-way and not within documented clean-up sites. Therefore, this 25 impact would be less than significant. 26 River Trunk Realignment Project 27 No open hazardous materials sites are located within 100 feet of the River Trunk Realignment 28 Project. Therefore, no impact would occur. 29 Overall Conclusion 30 Compliance with the City’s Resolution 2003-66, as described above, would prevent 31 significant impacts associated with placement of a facility on a hazardous material site from 32 occurring. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 33 Impact HAZ-7: Location in an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 Miles of a Public 34 Airport , Resulting in a Safety Hazard for People Residing or Working in the 35 Program Area (Less than Significant) 36 All Program-level Components 37 As shown on Figure 11-2, only one airport is located in Modesto: the Modesto City-County 38 Airport. Several collection system components would be located within 2 miles of this airport 39 or within the airport land use planning area, including the River Trunk Realignment Project 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 (see further discussion below). Under the Proposed Program, facilities may be constructed 1 within the Modesto City-County Airport land use plan area. However, these facilities would 2 not pose any risks to aviation. Impacts are considered less than significant. 3 River Trunk Realignment Project 4 Much of the River Trunk Realignment Project would be located within the Stanislaus County 5 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan planning area boundary for the Modesto City-County 6 Airport. As shown in Figure 11-2, the eastern portion of the project is within Referral Area 2. 7 According to the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and as discussed in 8 Section 11.2.3, wastewater facilities are considered compatible with airport uses. In general, 9 most project components would be largely underground, and those that are not underground 10 would not be of a significant height such as to pose a hazard for aircraft. Therefore, the Project 11 would not create a hazard to aircraft or to people working in the area. This impact would be 12 less than significant. 13 Overall Conclusion 14 While some Proposed Program components may be within 2 miles of the Modesto City- 15 County Airport, most facilities would be belowground and any aboveground elements such 16 as lift stations and pump stations would not pose a significant hazard for aircraft. The 17 Proposed Program’s overall impact would be less than significant. 18 Impact HAZ-8: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an 19 Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan (Less than 20 Significant) 21 All Program-level Components 22 In general, the Proposed Program would not substantially impair or interfere with an 23 emergency response plan. The Proposed Program would be limited to upgrades/components 24 to the City’s wastewater infrastructure. As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, 25 construction of Proposed Program components, such as installation of sewer pipelines, 26 would involve trenching/excavation within the roadway. These activities could require 27 temporary closure of one lane of traffic, which could interfere with emergency evacuation 28 procedures or emergency vehicle access. 29 All projects would be required to follow the current version of the City of Modesto Standard 30 Specifications. Section 12 of the General Provisions includes Temporary Traffic Control 31 requirements that must be incorporated into all projects. As part of the Traffic Management 32 Plan (TMP), the public and appropriate fire and police departments are notified in advance 33 of temporary road closures. This ensures that any impacts on emergency protection services 34 during construction would be less than significant. 35 River Trunk Realignment Project 36 The River Trunk Realignment Project would involve installation of force-main and gravity- 37 fed sewage collection lines within Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Neece Drive, and 38 other roads in central Modesto. Trenching within these roadways could require closure of up 39 to one lane of traffic and may temporarily cause congestion. As noted above, adherence to the 40 City’s Standard Specifications would prevent substantial impacts on emergency services from 41 occurring due to these activities. The TMP required under Section 12 of the General 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Provisions would include advance notification appropriate police and fire departments 1 regarding temporary road closures. As such, this impact would be less than significant. 2 Overall Conclusion 3 Implementation of the City’s Standard Specifications, which requires preparation of a TMP, 4 would prevent substantial impacts related to interference with emergency response or 5 evacuation. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. 6 Impact HAZ-9: Expose People or Structures, either directly or indirectly, to a 7 Significant Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving Wildland Fires (No Impact) 8 The prevalent land uses in the program area are rural agricultural and developed. There are 9 no wildlands in the program area, as shown in Figure 11-5. As such, implementation of the 10 Proposed program would have no impact on wildfires. 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 11. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Wastewater Master Plan 11-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 12-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 12 1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 2 12.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter evaluates impacts of the Proposed Program on hydrology and water quality. It 4 identifies the existing federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies related to 5 hydrology and water quality that may be applicable to the Proposed Program; describes the 6 existing physical environmental conditions in the study area; and evaluates impacts on 7 hydrology and water quality from the Proposed Program. 8 12.2 REGULATORY SETTING 9 12.2.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 10 Clean Water Act 11 The CWA is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation’s surface waters, 12 including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. The key sections of the CWA that are potentially 13 relevant to the Proposed Program are Sections 303(d) and 402. 14 Section 303(d) 15 Under CWA Section 303(d), states are required to identify “impaired water bodies” those 16 that do not meet established water quality standards), identify the pollutants causing the 17 impairment, establish priority rankings for waters on the list, and develop a schedule for 18 developing control plans to improve water quality. USEPA then approves the state’s 19 recommended list of impaired waters or adds and/or removes waterbodies. USEPA also 20 reviews and approves the control plan developed for each pollutant, known as the total 21 maximum daily load (TMDL). Section 303(d), Category 5 water body segments are segments 22 in which at least one beneficial use is not supported and a TMDL is needed. Section 12.3.3 23 lists Section 303(d), Category 5 water body segments in the study vicinity. 24 Section 402 25 CWA Section 402 regulates construction-related stormwater discharges to surface waters 26 through the NPDES, which is officially administered by USEPA. In California, USEPA has 27 delegated its authority to the in turn, delegates implementation 28 responsibility to the nine as discussed below in regard to the Porter–Cologne Water 29 Quality Control Act. The NPDES program provides for both general permits (those that cover 30 a number of similar or related activities) and individual (activity- or project-specific) permits. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 National Flood Insurance Program 1 Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide property 2 owners with access to federally-backed flood insurance protection and to reduce the 3 destructive consequences of flooding. FEMA administers the NFIP and works closely with 4 state and local officials to identify flood hazard areas and flood risks. FEMA’s Flood Insurance 5 Rate Maps (FIRMs) show the extent of areas within the 100-year floodplain areas that 6 would be inundated by the 1-percent annual chance flood), providing the basis of the NFIP 7 regulations and flood insurance requirements (FEMA 2017). 8 12.2.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 9 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Act 10 The 1969 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act (known as the Porter–Cologne Act) 11 dovetails with CWA (see discussion of CWA above). It established the and divided the 12 state into nine regions, each overseen by its own The is the primary state 13 agency responsible for protecting the quality of the state’s surface water and groundwater 14 supplies; however, much of the daily implementation authority is delegated to the 15 nine which are responsible for implementing CWA Sections 303[d] and 402. In 16 general, the manages water rights and regulates statewide water quality, whereas 17 focus on water quality within their respective regions. 18 The Porter–Cologne Act requires that the develop water quality control plans (also 19 known as Basin Plans) that designate beneficial uses of California’s major surface-water 20 bodies and groundwater basins and establish specific narrative and numerical water quality 21 objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses represent the services and qualities of a 22 waterbody the reasons that the waterbody is considered valuable). Water quality 23 objectives reflect the standards necessary to protect and support those beneficial uses. Basin 24 Plan standards are primarily implemented by regulating waste discharges so that water 25 quality objectives are met. Under the Porter–Cologne Act, Basin Plans must be updated every 26 three years. 27 The Proposed Program is located within the planning area/jurisdiction of the Central Valley 28 The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality 29 Control Board, Central Valley Region (Central Valley 2016a) establishes beneficial 30 uses for the Tuolumne River and San Joaquin River, as shown in Table 12-1. The Basin Plan 31 does not identify beneficial uses for Dry Creek. In regards to groundwater, the Basin Plan 32 states that “unless otherwise designated by the Regional Water Board, all ground waters in 33 the Region are considered as suitable or potentially suitable, at a minimum, for municipal and 34 domestic water supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR), industrial service supply (IND), and 35 industrial process supply (PRO)” (Central Valley 2016a). 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 12-1. Beneficial Uses for Water Bodies Potentially Affected by the Proposed Program 1 Water Bodies HUC No. MUN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY RECREATION FRESHWATER HABITAT MIGRATION SPAWNING WILD NAV AGR PROC IND POW REC-1 REC-2 WARM COLD MIGR SPWN Municipal and Domestic Supply Irrigation Stock Watering Process Service Supply Power Contact Canoeing and Rafting Other Non- Contact Warm Cold Warm Cold Warm Cold Wildlife Habitat Navigation Tuolumne River New Don Pedro Dam to San Joaquin River 535 P E E E E E E E E E E E San Joaquin River Mouth of Merced River to Vernalis 535/ 541 P E E E E E E E E E E E Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Sacramento– San Joaquin Delta 544 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Notes: AGR = agricultural supply; COLD = cold freshwater habitat; HUC = hydrologic unit code; IND = industrial service supply; MUN = municipal and domestic supply; NAV = navigation; POW = power; PROC = industrial process supply; REC-1 = water contact recreation; REC-2 = non-contact water recreation; SPWN = spawning, reproduction, and/or early development; WARM = warm freshwater habitat; WILD= wildlife habitat. Beneficial Use Status E = Existing beneficial uses P = Potential beneficial uses L = Existing limited beneficial uses Source: Central Valley 2016a 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 1 Construction Activities 2 Most construction projects that disturb 1 acre or more of land are required to obtain coverage 3 under General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 4 and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by Order Nos. 5 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). The general permit requires that the applicant file a 6 public notice of intent to discharge stormwater and prepare and implement a The 7 must include a site map and a description of the proposed construction activities; 8 demonstrate compliance with relevant local ordinances and regulations; and present a list of 9 BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and protect against discharge of 10 sediment and other construction-related pollutants to surface waters. Permittees are further 11 required to monitor and report on all construction-related activities to ensure that BMPs are 12 correctly implemented and are effective in controlling the discharge of construction-related 13 pollutants. 14 Dewatering Activities 15 Although some construction-related dewatering is covered under the General Construction 16 Permit, the Central Valley has also adopted a general permit for limited threat 17 discharges to surface water, including construction dewatering discharges (Order No. R5- 18 2016-0076 [NDPES No. CAG995002]) (Central Valley 2016b). This permit would 19 most likely apply to the Proposed Program if construction would require dewatering in 20 greater quantities than that allowed by the General Construction Permit and would discharge 21 the effluent to surface waters. The general permit for limited threat discharges to surface 22 water contains waste discharge limitations and prohibitions similar to those in the General 23 Construction Permit. To obtain coverage, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent and a 24 pollution prevention and monitoring program. 25 Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program 26 The and regulate stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm 27 sewer systems (MS4) through the Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program. Permits are 28 issued under two phases depending on the size of the urbanized area/municipality. Phase I 29 MS4 permits are issued for medium (population between 100,000 and 250,000) and large 30 (population of 250,000 or more) municipalities, and are often issued to a group of co- 31 permittees within a metropolitan area. Phase I permits have been issued since 1990. The City 32 of Modesto is covered under a Phase I permit, Order R5-2015-0025. The Order requires the 33 City to continue implementing its Storm Water Program, which includes requirements for 34 construction projects to implement BMPs to control sediment and pollutants from 35 construction sites. The Storm Water Program also includes a Municipal Program, which, 36 among other things, seeks to prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) or spills from entering 37 the storm drain system (Central Valley 2015). 38 Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water 39 In 2016, the adopted the proposed Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled 40 Water Use (General Order), which replaced the existing 2014-0090-DWQ General Waste 41 Discharge Requirements for Recycled Water Use. The General Order establishes standard 42 conditions for recycled water use and conditionally delegates authority to an Administrator 43 to manage a Water Recycling Program and issue Water Recycling Permits to recycled water 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 users. Only treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses can be permitted, such as 1 landscape irrigation, crop irrigation, dust control, industrial/commercial cooling, decorative 2 fountains, etc. 2017). 3 Overview of Modesto’s Current NPDES Permits 4 Currently, the City holds an NPDES permit from the Central Valley that authorizes 5 tertiary effluent discharges from the Jennings Plant to the San Joaquin River. The discharge 6 is regulated through NPDES Permit No. CA0079103, Order R5-2017-0064. The NPDES permit 7 allows tertiary treated wastewater discharge (up to 14.9 mgd currently and up to 19.1 mgd 8 once the City completes upgrades to its existing Jennings Plant facilities) to the San Joaquin 9 River (Central Valley 2017). 10 The City is also participating in the North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program 11 which will provide recycled water to the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC). The City’s 12 permit number R5-2017-0010 allows for discharge of up to 14.9 mgd of disinfected tertiary 13 recycled water to the DMC under the The treated water is conveyed from the 14 Jennings Plant via pipeline to the DMC 2017). 15 In addition, the City holds WDRs (Order No. R5-99-112) that authorizes discharges to 16 agricultural lands surrounding the Jennings Plant. The WDRs allows for irrigation of land 17 using undisinfected secondary effluent and/or cannery process water. Additionally, the City 18 holds a biosolids discharge permit (Order No. R5-94-030), which allows for Class B biosolids 19 to be applied as a soil amendment at the Modesto Ranch.1 20 California Toxics Rule 21 On May 18, 2000, the USEPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic 22 pollutants and other provisions for new water quality standards to be applied to waters in 23 the state of California. USEPA promulgated this rule, also known as the California Toxics Rule, 24 based on a determination that the numeric criteria were necessary in California to protect 25 human health and the environment (USEPA 2017). 26 The California Toxics Rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 27 1994 when a state court overturned the state’s water quality control plans containing water 28 quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. Thus, the State of California has been without 29 numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA, 30 necessitating the action by the USEPA. The federal criteria included in the California Toxics 31 Rule are legally applicable in the state of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays 32 and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA (USEPA 2017). 33 Central Valley Flood Protection Board 34 The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (formerly the State Reclamation Board) 35 derives its regulatory authority from CCR Title 23, Waters, and, in cooperation with USACE, 36 is the state regulatory agency responsible for ensuring that appropriate standards are met 37 for the construction, maintenance, and protection of the Central Valley’s flood control system. 38 1 The Modesto Ranch is a 2,458-acre ranch owned by the City of Modesto and located at the Jennings Plant. The ranch is used for the land application of treated domestic secondary effluent, cannery process water, and anaerobically digested biosolids trucked from the Sutter Plant. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The 2017 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Update provides an updated vision and 1 strategy for flood system improvements within the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) (see 2 below). In general, the requires a permit for proposed work that is located within the 3 SPFC, within 300 feet of a Designated Floodway that has been adopted by the or 4 within 30 feet from the banks of a Regulated Stream 2017). Designated 5 floodways have been established on the Tuolumne River, San Joaquin River, and portions of 6 Dry Creek. Several Program components, including the Benson Lift Station, Sutter Plant 7 improvements, and various pipeline facilities that would cross beneath the Tuolumne River 8 and Dry Creek, would be located within the Designated Floodway and may be subject to 9 jurisdiction. 10 State Plan of Flood Control 11 The SPFC (Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program 2010) provides an inventory 12 and description of the existing State-federal flood protection system in the Central Valley of 13 California. The State-federal flood protection system refers to the set of federally authorized 14 project levees and related facilities for which the State has provided assurances of 15 cooperation to the federal government. No SPFC facilities are located on the Tuolumne River 16 in the study area, and the Proposed Program would not affect any SPFC facilities. 17 12.2.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 18 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 19 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019a) identifies the Stanislaus 20 and Tuolumne Rivers, and Dry Creek, as regional parks. The River Greenway Program, which 21 guides development within the Stanislaus River, Tuolumne River, and Dry Creek 22 Comprehensive Planning Districts, includes the following policies that are potentially 23 relevant to the Proposed Program and the hydrology and water quality impacts analysis: 24 Policy VII-B.7[l]. Sensitive habitats and natural areas, including wetlands and 25 riparian corridors, will be protected and enhanced, when feasible. 26 Policy VII-B.7[n]. Aquatic species and habitat will be protected and enhanced, when 27 feasible. 28 Policy VII-B.7[o]. The natural forces influencing the development of recreational 29 areas, including potential flooding, prevailing winds, sun orientation, and topography 30 will be considered during design. 31 Policy VII-B.7 A flood management program that provides protection from 32 catastrophic flooding and contributes to the ecological values of the river corridor 33 will be promoted. 34 Stanislaus County General Plan 35 The Stanislaus County General Plan guides land use and development in the unincorporated 36 area of Stanislaus County (Stanislaus County 2016a). Goals and policies in the general plan 37 related to hydrology and water quality include the following: 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Conservation and Open Space Element 1 Goal Two. Conserve water resources and protect water quality in the County. 2 Policy Five. Protect groundwater aquifers and recharge areas, particularly those 3 critical for the replenishment of reservoirs and aquifers. 4 Goal Five. Reserve, as open space, lands subject to natural disaster in order to minimize loss 5 of life and property of residents of Stanislaus County. 6 Policy Sixteen. Discourage development on lands that are subject to flooding, 7 landslide, faulting, or any natural disaster to minimize loss of life and property. 8 Safety Element 9 Goal One. Prevent loss of life and reduce property damage as a result of natural disasters. 10 Policy Two. Development should not be allowed in areas that are within the 11 designated floodway or any areas that are known to be susceptible to being inundated 12 by water from any source. 13 12.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 14 12.3.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE 15 Being located in the Central Valley of Northern California, the City of Modesto and its outlying 16 service areas are generally flat and subject to a Mediterranean climate and precipitation 17 pattern. Summers are typically hot and dry, while winters are cool and wet. Most 18 precipitation falls from November through April. Flows in area surface waters are typically 19 highest during this period as well. Snowmelt may contribute substantially to flows in the 20 Tuolumne River during the spring. 21 12.3.2 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 22 The Tuolumne River is the primary surface water feature in the Modesto area, passing 23 through roughly the center of the city. The Stanislaus River flows in an east-west direction to 24 the north of the city, making up the northern boundary of Stanislaus County; no proposed 25 components would be located in the immediate proximity of this river. The Tuolumne River 26 drains to the San Joaquin River, which flows northwest through the Central Valley before 27 joining the Sacramento River and flowing out to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The 28 Sutter Plant is located along the northern bank of the Tuolumne River at the southern end of 29 Modesto. The Jennings Plant is located along the bank of the San Joaquin River upstream of 30 its confluence with the Tuolumne River. Dry Creek flows through northeast Modesto before 31 discharging into the Tuolumne River. Figure 12-1 shows surface water bodies in the study 32 area. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Sutter Plant ·I}þ 99 Dry Creek Tuolumne River ·I}þ 132 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_12-1_Surface_Waters_FEMA_Flood_Zones.mxd 10/20/2017 PG Figure 12-1 Surface Waters & FEMA Flood Zones in the Program Vicinity City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles WWMP Study Area Rivers Canals River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone 500-year Flood Zone San Joaquin River ·I}þ 33 Main Map Inset Map Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Flows in study area waters vary seasonally, roughly in line with the seasonal precipitation 1 pattern. Flows in the Tuolumne River are also regulated by reservoirs and power plants 2 upstream from Modesto, including Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Don Pedro Reservoir. Don 3 Pedro Reservoir, jointly operated by MID and TID, has a capacity of 2,030,000 acre-feet (AF) 4 and provides flood control for the Modesto area (City of Modesto 2019b). Figure 12-2 shows 5 the mean flow in the Tuolumne River as measured at the USGS stream gage in 6 Modesto (USGS 11290000). 7 Figure 12-2. Mean Discharge at USGS Gage 11290000 (Tuolumne River at 8 Modesto, CA), Water Years 1940-2016 9 10 Source: USGS 2017a 11 No stream gage exists on Dry Creek, but it can be assumed that flows follow a similar pattern. 12 Flows in the San Joaquin River follow a somewhat different pattern, with higher peak flows 13 in late winter/early spring, as shown in Figure 12-3. 14 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Cubic feet per second Month ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Figure 12-3. Mean Discharge at USGS Gage 11274550 (San Joaquin River Near 1 Crows Landing, CA), Water Years 1995-2016 2 3 Source: USGS 2017b 4 12.3.3 WATER QUALITY 5 Surface water quality in the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers is excellent at their 6 sources in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Stanislaus County 2016b). However, as each river 7 flows through the San Joaquin Valley, water quality declines. Agricultural and domestic use- 8 and-return both contribute to water quality degradation. During dry summer months, the 9 concentration of pollutants increases, particularly in the San Joaquin River, which drains 10 domestic and industrial wastewater for the entire San Joaquin Valley. Water quality in the 11 Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers declines by the time they discharge into the San Joaquin 12 River. Comparatively, water quality declines more in the Tuolumne River than the Stanislaus 13 River due to agricultural return flows and gas well wastes (Stanislaus County 2016b). 14 Table 12-2 shows CWA, Section 303(d) Category 5 requiring a TMDL) listings for water 15 body segments in the study area and 16 Table 12-2. Section 303(d), Category 5 Listings for Water Body Segments Potentially Affected 17 by the Proposed Program 18 Water Body Watershed CalWater / USGS HUC Contaminant Source First Listed TMDL Status1 Completion Date2 Tuolumne River, Lower (Don Pedro 53550000 / 18040002 Chlorpyrifos Unknown 2012 5A 2021 Diazinon Unknown 2002 5A 2010 Group A Pesticides Unknown 2006 5A 2011 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Cubic feet per second Month ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Water Body Watershed CalWater / USGS HUC Contaminant Source First Listed TMDL Status1 Completion Date2 Reservoir to San Joaquin River) Mercury Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Temperature, water Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Unknown Toxicity Unknown 2006 5A 2022 San Joaquin River (Merced River to Tuolumne River) 54110000 / 18040001 Boron 2002 5B 2007 Chlorpyrifos Unknown 2006 5B 2007 DDE (Dichlorodiphenyl- dichloroethylene) Unknown 2010 5A 2011 DDT (Dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane) Unknown 2002 5A 2011 Electrical Conductivity Unknown 1998 5A 2021 Group A Pesticides Unknown 2002 5A 2011 Mercury Unknown 2006 5A 2012 Temperature, water Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Unknown Toxicity Unknown 2002 5A 2019 alpha-BHC (Benzene- hexachloride or alpha- HCH) Unknown 2002 5A 2022 San Joaquin River (Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River) 53530000 / 18040002 Chlorpyrifos Unknown 2006 5B 2007 DDT (Dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane) Unknown 2006 5A 2011 Diazinon Unknown 2006 5B 2007 Electrical Conductivity Unknown 1998 5A 2021 Group A Pesticides Unknown 1994 5A 2011 Mercury Unknown 2006 5A 2012 Temperature, water Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Unknown Toxicity Unknown 1994 5A 2019 San Joaquin River (Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary) 54400000 / 18040002 Chlorpyrifos Unknown 2006 5B 2007 DDE (Dichlorodiphenyl- dichloroethylene) Unknown 2010 5A 2011 DDT (Dichlorodiphenyl- trichloroethane) Unknown 2006 5A 2011 Diuron Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Electrical Conductivity Unknown 2006 5B 2007 Escherichia coli coli) Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Group A Pesticides Unknown 2006 5A 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Water Body Watershed CalWater / USGS HUC Contaminant Source First Listed TMDL Status1 Completion Date2 Mercury Unknown 2006 5A 2012 Temperature, water Unknown 2010 5A 2021 Toxaphene Unknown 2006 5A 2019 Unknown Toxicity Unknown 2006 5A 2019 Notes: TMDL = total maximum daily load. 1 1 TMDL requirement status definitions: A = TMDL still required; B = being addressed by USEPA-approved TMDL; 2 Category 5 = water body segments in which at least one beneficial use is not supported and a TMDL is needed. 3 2 Completion date relates to the TMDL requirement status; a date for A = TMDL scheduled completion date; B = date 4 USEPA approved TMDL. 5 Source: 2012 6 12.3.4 STORMWATER 7 The City’s storm drainage system includes approximately 77 miles of storm drain lines and 8 25 storm pump stations. Stormwater discharges from Modesto drain to 24 drainage basins 9 and approximately 12 major outfalls (greater than 24 inches in diameter) to receiving waters 10 (Tuolumne River or Dry Creek), MID laterals/drains, or rockwells. According to the City’s 11 Storm Drainage Master Plan (City of Modesto 2008), surface water discharges generally occur 12 in the older parts of Modesto or those areas immediately adjacent to the Tuolumne River, Dry 13 Creek, or irrigation canals. Approximately 40 percent of stormwater gets discharged to 14 detention/retention basins, 20 percent of stormwater gets directed to receiving waters, 10 15 percent is directed to MID laterals/drains, and 30 percent goes to rockwells. 16 Rockwells are designed to collect surface stormwater runoff and allow it to infiltrate to the 17 groundwater. These are rock-lined holes that are typically 6 feet in diameter and up to 50 feet 18 deep. There are approximately 10,500 rockwells in Modesto, serving approximately two- 19 thirds of the City’s area. As a large urban area, Modesto has large areas of impervious surface, 20 which generate increased volumes of surface runoff compared to the natural ground surface. 21 To the extent this runoff is not captured by rockwell structures and allowed to infiltrate to 22 groundwater, it may ultimately be discharged to nearby water bodies via the City’s positive 23 gravity stormwater drainage systems. The Tuolumne River and Dry Creek receive a large 24 fraction of stormwater runoff from the Modesto urban area. 25 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, many of the City’s storm drain lines are 26 interconnected with sanitary sewer lines. After storm events, these cross-connections 27 typically increase substantially with peak flows. 28 12.3.5 GROUNDWATER LEVELS, FLOWS, AND QUALITY 29 The proposed components would primarily be located in the Modesto Subbasin of the San 30 Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. This subbasin extends from the San Joaquin River east to 31 the Sierra foothills, and from the Tuolumne River north to the Stanislaus River. Several 32 components south of the Tuolumne River third outfall pipeline and Jennings Plant 33 components) also would be located in the Turlock Subbasin. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The western portions of the Modesto and Turlock subbasins generally have two principal 1 aquifers: one above and one below the Corcoran clay2 (Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers 2 Groundwater Basin Association 2005). East of the Corcoran clay, the aquifers are 3 generally unconfined. Groundwater generally flows from east to west-southwest in the area 4 of Modesto, following the topography of the land and differences in mean groundwater levels. 5 Groundwater contours suggest that groundwater is discharged to the San Joaquin and 6 Tuolumne Rivers along most reaches of the rivers. 7 Groundwater recharge in the region occurs primarily from percolation of applied irrigation 8 water, as well as seepage from the Modesto Reservoir and irrigation canals (DWR 2004). 9 Lesser recharge occurs from subsurface flows originating in the mountains and foothills 10 along the east side of the subbasins and percolation of direct precipitation (DWR 2004). 11 Groundwater recharge to the deeper aquifers can occur from seepage through unconfined 12 aquifers or across the Corcoran clay, or from horizontal movement of water from the eastern 13 portion of the subbasin 2005). 14 Groundwater levels in the Modesto area have declined over the past decades. The Modesto 15 subbasin water level declined nearly 15 feet from 1970 through 2000 (DWR 2004), while 16 average groundwater levels in the Turlock Subbasin declined nearly 7 feet from 1970 through 17 2000 (DWR 2006). Groundwater levels were locally depressed beneath and around the 18 Modesto urban area, but completion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant in 1994 19 and subsequent importation of surface water supplies from the Modesto Irrigation District 20 caused groundwater levels to rebound to some degree 2005). More recent data 21 indicates that from 2007 to 2017 groundwater levels in the Modesto area decreased from 0 22 to 20 feet, with isolated areas of greater reductions (DWR 2017a). Some of this decrease may 23 be attributable to the recent drought in California, which lasted in its most severe form from 24 roughly 2013-2014, though moderate drought conditions continued for up to several years 25 afterwards in some areas of the state, including in the Modesto area through February 2017. 26 In 2014 in the Central Valley, total groundwater pumping was increased by 5 million acre- 27 feet to partially compensate for a reduction in surface water deliveries to farmers of 6.5 28 million acre-feet in that year (Stanislaus County 2014). 29 Groundwater quality throughout the San Joaquin Valley region is suitable for most urban and 30 agricultural uses; however, localized areas of high dissolved solids (TDS), nitrates, boron, 31 chloride, arsenic, selenium, dibromochloropropane (DBCP), and radon exist (Stanislaus 32 County 2016b). Elevated TDS concentrations may occur from recharge of streamflow 33 originating from marine sediments or concentration of salts from agricultural practices due 34 to evaporation and poor drainage. The major human sources of nitrates are disposal of 35 human and animal waste products and fertilizers, but nitrates may also occur naturally. 36 Agricultural pesticides DBCP) and herbicides have been detected in groundwater 37 through the region (Stanislaus County 2016b). 38 A groundwater characterization effort was completed at the Jennings Plant site while 39 preparing the Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) for renewal of the City’s land discharge 40 permits. This effort included monitoring of existing wells at the Jennings Plant site for Title 41 2 The Corcoran clay is a clay layer underlying the western half of the Modesto and Turlock Subbasins. This clay layer is present at depths ranging between 50 and 200 feet below ground surface, and establishes an effective barrier to water movement between the confined and unconfined water bodies (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2004, 2006). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 22 metals, nitrogen compounds, salinity compounds, and standard minerals, as well as taking 1 groundwater “grab” samples at key locations using in situ groundwater sampling tools 2 (Carollo Engineers 2016). Test results from this exercise showed elevated concentrations of 3 the following constituents: 4  Dissolved metals (arsenic, iron and manganese) 5  Nitrogen 6  Salinity electrical current or total dissolved solids) 7  Chloride 8  Sodium 9 In general, the assessment could not determine whether the elevated concentrations could 10 be attributed to effluent disposal/land application methods at the Jennings Plant or if they 11 could be naturally occurring or caused by some other factor(s). The assessment concluded 12 that additional analysis and monitoring were needed to better understand the extent and 13 causes of groundwater quality issues in the Jennings Plant area (Carollo Engineers 2016). 14 12.3.6 FLOODPLAINS AND DAM INUNDATION AREAS 15 The Sutter Plant and the Jennings Plant are located within the 100-year flood 1-percent 16 annual chance flood) hazard zone mapped by FEMA. Several proposed components at these 17 facilities and other collection system components would be located within the 100-year flood 18 hazard zone. These flood zones are depicted in Figure 12-1. The Jennings Plant is protected 19 by levees and therefore is within FEMA-designated Zone B, meaning it is in an area protected 20 by levees from the base flood. The levees are maintained by Reclamation District No. 2091 21 and regularly inspected by DWR. Seepage has been noted to occur through the levees during 22 periods of high river flows and sand boils have occurred along the levee (City of Modesto 23 2007). In 2016, the Reclamation District No. 2091 repaired five critical seepage areas along 24 these levees by constructing seepage berms or seepage stability berms along 10,500 feet of 25 the levees. 26 The Proposed Program is located in the Central Valley of California, approximately 70 miles 27 from the ocean. Therefore, it would be outside of any tsunami zone. 28 The Stanislaus County General Plan (Figure V-3) shows that much of Modesto, including the 29 area of the Program components, is within the inundation area for multiple dams. The figure 30 (reproduced as Figure 12-4 here) shows that Modesto and potentially North Ceres are within 31 the inundation area for New Melones and New Don Pedro Dams. Areas along the San Joaquin 32 River, including the Jennings Plant, are within the inundation area for Exchequer, San Luis, 33 and Pine Flat Dams (Stanislaus County 2010). 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- Waterford Riverbank Oakdale Waterford Hughson Turlock Ceres Modesto Patterson Newman Map Legend: Lakes Rivers Streams Roads Map displays Stanislaus County with Dam Inundation Areas of regional dams. Dam Inundation Areas Dam Name Don Pedro Exchequer New Melones San Luis Pine Flat W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Tulloch 0 10 20 30 Miles City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Figure 12-4. Stanislaus County Dam Inundation Hazards Map Prepared by: Source: Stanislaus County 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 12.3.7 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS 1 As described in Chapter 2, the City treats wastewater from the City, north Ceres, a portion 2 from the community of Empire, and other “islands” in the County within Modesto that are 3 served by agreement. Treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant consist of headworks, screening 4 and grit removal, primary clarifiers, digesters, and sludge drying beds, and a primary effluent 5 outfall pump station and pipeline. At the Sutter Plant, average dry weather flows (ADWF) 6 ranged from 20.4 mgd to 20.8 mgd between 2011 and 2014. The peak flow recorded at the 7 Sutter Plant was 72.8 mgd which occurred in December 2014 (Carollo Engineers 2016). Peak 8 flows typically occur during large storm events. 9 Treated primary effluent gets routed underneath the 54-inch Primary Outfall pipeline and 10 Cannery Segmentation flows get routed through a 60-inch pipeline. These pipelines extend 11 approximately 6.5 miles south to the Jennings Plant where domestic effluent undergoes 12 secondary and tertiary treatment. ADWF for domestic effluent to the Jennings Plant was 19.6 13 mgd (roughly 26,366 acre-feet per year) in 2016. During the canning season (July through 14 September or early October), Cannery Segmentation flows are pumped from the Sutter Plant 15 and sent directly to the ranch lands surrounding the Jennings Plant. Current average 16 Cannery Segmentation flows during the canning season are as high as 15 mgd (20,179 acre- 17 feet per year). During the non-canning season, Cannery Segmentation year-round 18 flows are typically less than 2 mgd (2,690 acre-feet per year) (Carollo Engineers 2016). 19 As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, effluent received at the Jennings Plant undergoes a 20 multi-step biological treatment process involving fixed film reactor towers, 300 acres of 21 oxidation ponds, 100 acres of recirculation ponds, and storage within 1,200 acres of storage 22 ponds. A large portion of this effluent is used to irrigate approximately 2,500 acres of 23 agricultural lands on City-owned property. Currently, approximately 5.5 feet/year of water 24 is applied to the Modesto Ranch (Eve, pers. comm., 2017), equating to approximately 13,520 25 acre-feet/year. Some of the water that is treated and stored in ponds at the Jennings Plant is 26 also lost to evaporation and/or percolation. For 2018, such losses were projected at 5,425 27 acre-feet per year (Carollo Engineers 2016). Excess effluent not used for irrigation is stored, 28 disinfected at the chlorination/dichlorination facility, and seasonally discharged (October 29 through May) to the San Joaquin River (Carollo Engineers 2016). In 2017, the City only 30 discharged to the San Joaquin River in March due to a breach in a primary sewer trunk line 31 which resulted in excess wastewater volumes at the Jennings Plant. Since then, the City has 32 discharged nominal amounts of excess effluent to the San Joaquin River and does not expect 33 the need to discharge effluent to the San Joaquin River since operation of the 34 involves delivering 14.9 mgd of tertiary treated wastewater to the DMC and sufficient 35 capacity is available at their storage basins. 36 12.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 37 12.4.1 METHODOLOGY 38 Impacts to hydrology and water quality were evaluated qualitatively based on consideration 39 of ways in which construction and operation of the proposed components could trigger a 40 significant impact following the CEQA significance criteria. As described through this DEIR, 41 impacts are evaluated at a program-level of detail, except for the River Trunk Realignment 42 Project, which is evaluated at the project level. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 12.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 1 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if 2 it would: 3  Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; 4  Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground- 5 water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering 6 of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre-existing nearby 7 wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned 8 uses for which permits have been granted); 9  Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through 10 the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in 11 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 12  Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through 13 the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or 14 amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 15  Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or 16 planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of 17 polluted runoff; 18  Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; 19  Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood 20 Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation 21 map; 22  Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect 23 flood flows; 24  Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving 25 flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or 26  Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 27 The Proposed Program would not include any new housing. Therefore, the eighth criterion 28 above is dismissed from detailed consideration, as the Proposed Program would have no 29 potential to place housing within the 100-year floodplain. Likewise, the Proposed Program 30 area is generally flat and located far from the ocean or any large standing bodies of water. 31 Therefore, the Proposed Program would have no potential to be subjected to inundation by 32 seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, and the last criterion is dismissed. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 12.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 Impact HYD/WQ-1: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge 2 Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality during Construction (Less 3 than Significant with Mitigation) 4 All Program-level Components 5 Construction of the proposed components could result in discharges of poor quality water to 6 nearby water bodies if adequate precautions are not taken. Trenching and other ground- 7 disturbing activities could expose loose soils that could be eroded during precipitation 8 events. Construction equipment also would use hazardous materials fuel and diesel) 9 that could spill during routine use, storage, transport, or disposal, and then seep into 10 groundwater or be washed into nearby water bodies. Use of trenchless construction methods 11 horizontal directional drilling [HDD]) also could present hazards to water quality, such 12 as from frac-out3 accidents during boring activities below or near streams. Additionally, 13 construction of Program components may require dewatering of excavations, particularly for 14 those components adjacent to the Tuolumne River. Discharge of this water back to the river 15 or other areas could result in adverse water quality effects if adequate precautions are not 16 taken. 17 As described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, many water quality impacts 18 associated with Program construction activities would be minimized or avoided through 19 compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. All components with a footprint 20 greater than one acre of disturbance area would be subject to this permit, which requires 21 preparation and implementation of a As described in Section 12.2, the must, 22 among other things, present a list of BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion 23 and protect against discharge of sediment and other construction-related pollutants to 24 surface waters. The also would include spill prevention and response procedures for 25 any hazardous materials used during construction. Compliance with this permit would 26 minimize any impacts of Proposed Program construction activities on water quality, but 27 construction water quality impacts of individual program components could nevertheless be 28 significant. 29 For Program components whose construction would disturb less than one acre, the City of 30 Modesto’s Standard Specifications require that such smaller projects develop a Local 31 or Erosion Control Plan and implement stormwater BMPs during construction. The Local 32 must be submitted to the City of Modesto Land Development Engineering Division for 33 review prior to obtaining a Grading or Encroachment Permit for the project. Erosion control 34 BMPs are described in Chapter 15 of the Standard Specifications and would ensure that 35 impacts on water quality related to erosion for Program components that disturb less than 36 one acre would be less than significant. 37 3 “Frac-out” is the inadvertent return and release to the environment of drilling lubricant during HDD. This is a potential concern when HDD is used under sensitive habitats, waterways, and areas of concern for cultural resources. The HDD procedure uses bentonite slurry, which is a fine clay material that is used as a drilling lubricant. Bentonite is non-toxic and is commonly used farming practices, but benthic invertebrates, aquatic plants, and fish and their eggs can be smothered by the fine particles if bentonite is discharged to waterways (Sacramento Municipal Utility District 2003). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 As described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City would maintain 1 compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations concerning hazardous materials, 2 which would prevent substantial water quality impacts due to accidental spills of 3 hazardous materials) during construction activities and ensure water quality impacts would 4 be less than significant. 5 Construction of the new Cannery Segmentation and primary effluent outfall pipeline 6 crossings (Component No. OP-1.1) and new primary effluent outfall pipeline (Component No. 7 OP-1.2) would involve trenchless pipeline construction methods at the Tuolumne River. In 8 the event of a frac-out during construction, adverse water quality effects could occur 9 resulting in a significant impact. To ensure that the Proposed Program would not adversely 10 impact water quality from trenchless pipeline installation methods beneath waterways, the 11 City would implement Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 (Prepare and Implement a Frac- 12 Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods). This measure 13 would require the City’s drilling contractor to prepare and implement a frac-out contingency 14 plan for trenchless construction methods. The plan would be designed to minimize the 15 potential for frac-out, provide for the timely detection of frac-outs, and ensure a timely and 16 effective response in the event a frac-out occurs (California Public Utilities Commission 17 [CPUC] 2003). Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce adverse water 18 quality impacts from frac-out associated with trenchless activities to a level that less than 19 significant. 20 Additionally, compliance with the General Construction Permit or the Central Valley 21 general permit for low threat discharges to surface water would prevent 22 substantial adverse impacts from dewatering activities during construction of Program 23 components. Overall, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 24 River Trunk Realignment Project 25 Impacts from construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project would be similar to those 26 described above for all program components. The River Trunk Realignment Project would 27 involve construction of a pump station located at B Street and Beard Street, a new pump 28 station east of the Tuolumne River and west of Crow’s Landing Road, and gravity and force 29 main sewer lines within Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pelton Avenue, and Neece 30 Drive. None of these proposed facilities would be located in immediate proximity to the 31 Tuolumne River or Dry Creek, and discharges of contaminants during construction activities 32 would be avoided or minimized through compliance with the NPDES General Construction 33 Permit. 34 The River Trunk Realignment Project also would include a new force main underneath Dry 35 Creek, as shown on Figure 2-1, which would be installed using trenchless methods. Use of 36 trenchless pipeline installation methods could result in a frac-out, which could significantly 37 impact water quality and aquatic resources, but this impact would be minimized through 38 implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1. As a result, this impact would be less 39 than significant with mitigation. 40 Overall Conclusion 41 Construction of program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment Project could 42 result in similar water quality impacts due to trenching, pipeline installation and other 43 ground-disturbing activities. Both the River Trunk Realignment Project and outfall pipelines 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 (Component Nos. OP-1.1, OP-1.2, and OP-1.3) would involve trenchless construction methods 1 beneath waterways and, in the event of a frac-out, adverse water quality impacts may occur. 2 Compliance with NPDES permit requirements and the City’s Standard Specifications, and 3 implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1would minimize adverse effects on water 4 quality. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s overall impact would be less than significant 5 with mitigation. 6 Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1: Prepare and Implement a Frac-Out 7 Contingency Plan for Trenchless Pipeline Installation Methods. 8 Applies to River Trunk Realignment Project, New Tuolumne River Crossings (OP-1.1), 9 and New Primary Effluent Outfall (OP-1.2) 10 The City of Modesto’s drilling contractor for trenchless pipeline installation activities 11 horizontal directional drilling, microtunneling, pipe bursting) shall prepare and 12 implement a frac-out contingency plan prior to conducting Proposed Program 13 construction activities involving these methods. At a minimum, the frac-out 14 contingency plan shall include the following components/measures: 15  Require a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist to make 16 recommendations regarding the suitability of the formations to be bored to 17 minimize the potential for frac-out conditions. 18  Require that a qualified archaeologist and biologist survey for and 19 recommend protection measures for sensitive cultural and biological 20 resources at the location of the entry and exit points and along the boring 21 route. 22  Include worker training measures to ensure that all field personnel 23 understand their responsibility for timely reporting of frac-outs to their 24 supervisors. Supervisors must then report frac-outs to CDFW as described in 25 the last bullet below. 26  Maintain necessary response equipment on-site or at a readily accessible 27 location and in good working order. 28  Include contingency measures to stop work, and effectively isolate and clean 29 up released drilling fluid in the event of a frac-out. Contingency measures 30 should be described for a potential frac-out in a terrestrial and aquatic 31 environment. Example contingency measures include the following (CPUC 32 2003): 33 For a terrestrial frac-out: 34 o Isolate the area with hay bales, sand bags, or silt fencing to surround 35 and contain the drilling mud. 36 o Based on consultation with CDFW (see below), either: 37  Use a mobile vacuum truck to pump the drilling mud from the 38 contained area and recycle it to the return pit; or 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Leave the drilling mud in place to avoid potential damage from 1 vehicles entering the area. 2 o Once excess drilling mud is removed, seed and/or replant the area 3 using species similar to those in the adjacent area, or allow the area to 4 re-grow from existing vegetation. 5 For an aquatic frac-out: 6 o Monitor frac-out for 4 hours to determine if the drilling mud congeals 7 (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-out 8 location). 9 o Based on consultation with CDFW (see below), either: 10  If the drilling mud congeals, take no other action that would 11 potentially suspend sediments in the water column. 12  If drilling mud does not congeal, erect isolation/containment 13 environment (underwater boom and curtain). 14  If the fracture becomes excessively large, call in a spill 15 response team to contain and clean up excess drilling mud in 16 the water. Keep phone numbers of spill response teams on- 17 site. 18 o If the spill affects an area that is vegetated, seed and/or replant the 19 area using species similar to those in the adjacent area, or allow the 20 area to re-grow from existing vegetation. 21  Notify and consult with CDFW in the event of a frac-out. Restore vegetation 22 damaged by drilling fluid to pre-construction conditions. 23 Impact HYD/WQ-2: Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge 24 Requirements or Otherwise Degrade Water Quality during Operation (Less than 25 Significant) 26 All Program-level Components 27 Operation of the Proposed Program would be similar to operation of the existing wastewater 28 system, and would not adversely impact water quality. As described in Chapter 2, Program 29 Description, the Proposed Program would increase the capacity of various sewer lines and 30 facilities, and over time would increase the volume of wastewater treated at the Sutter and 31 Jennings Plants. Although the volume of wastewater handled by the facilities would increase 32 under the Proposed Program, discharges to the San Joaquin River would decrease (and cease 33 entirely) during the period of Program implementation as a result of implementation of the 34 35 The is a collaborative partnership between the Cities of Modesto, Turlock, and 36 Ceres, the Del Puerto Water District (DPWD), and Stanislaus County, which would allow for 37 tertiary effluent from the Jennings Plant to be conveyed via pipeline to the DMC, where it 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 would be used directly by DPWD. The first phase of construction of the which 1 involves a new pump station, pipeline and outfall structure at the DMC, is complete. The City 2 began delivering tertiary treated wastewater in May 2018. 3 As of May 1, 2018, in accordance with its NPDES permit, the City is no longer allowed to 4 discharge secondary treated wastewater to the River, and all discharges need to be treated 5 to tertiary levels. The City projected that in 2018, exports of tertiary treated wastewater to 6 the DMC as part of the would equal 16,500 acre-feet per year (Carollo Engineers 7 2016). Such exports would increase to roughly 20,100 acre-feet per year by 2035. Export of 8 tertiary treated water to DPWD would reduce the amount of water available for irrigation of 9 the Modesto Ranch lands, such that only 3 feet per year of water (7,380 acre-feet per year) 10 (down from 5.5 feet per year under existing conditions) were estimated to be applied in 2018, 11 increasing to 3.6 feet per year (8,935 acre-feet per year) by 2035 (Carollo Engineers 2016). 12 As noted in Chapter 2, Program Description, in the near future, the Central Valley is 13 expected to issue a new WDR that decreases the secondary effluent BOD limit for land 14 application irrigation) from 300 to 40 milligrams per liter. During the Program 15 implementation period, the City would not discharge secondary or tertiary treated 16 wastewater to the San Joaquin River. In the sense that wastewater effluent is generally of 17 poorer quality than natural streamflow (although NPDES requirements are protective of 18 receiving water quality), this reduction in discharges could benefit water quality in the San 19 Joaquin River to some degree. 20 Overall, the Proposed Program components would reduce the potential for violation of water 21 quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Many of the Proposed Program 22 components would increase wastewater collection and treatment efficiency and reliability by 23 providing upgraded technologies and facilities. Additionally, decommissioning facilities at 24 the Sutter Plant that are within the 100-year flood plain would decrease the chance of 25 discharge of raw sewage or other hazardous substances during a flood event. Additionally, 26 increasing capacity of several trunk sewer lines and disconnection of the stormwater and 27 sewer systems will decrease potential for SSOs to occur, which would be a benefit to water 28 quality in nearby waters. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 29 River Trunk Realignment Project 30 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, part of the need for the River Trunk 31 Realignment Project is that the existing River Trunk is subject to heavy corrosion and isolated 32 sections of the pipeline have recently failed or are close to failure. As the River Trunk conveys 33 nearly 50 percent of the City’s domestic wastewater, and is currently aligned directly adjacent 34 to the Tuolumne River, such failures can have significant adverse effects on water quality. In 35 this respect, the River Trunk Realignment Project would have a beneficial impact on water 36 quality relative to existing conditions the new River Trunk would be less likely to fail and 37 would be located at a safe distance from the Tuolumne River in the event that it were to fail 38 at some point over its operation life). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 39 Overall Conclusion 40 Collectively, proposed WWMP components would reduce the potential for violation of water 41 quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Several components would increase the 42 reliability of the City’s existing collection system and wastewater treatment system and 43 reduce the potential for discharging raw sewage or other hazardous substances to the 44 Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers during overflow events. Additionally, given that the 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 existing River Trunk is subject to heavy corrosion and some sections are close to failure, 1 realigning this critical trunk line would have a beneficial impact on water quality. Therefore, 2 the Proposed Program’s overall impact regarding violations of water quality standards would 3 be less than significant. 4 Impact HYD/WQ-3: Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere 5 Substantially with Groundwater Recharge Such That There Would be a Net 6 Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the Local Groundwater Table Level 7 (Less than Significant) 8 All Program-level Components 9 The Proposed Program would not directly use groundwater. Program components would be 10 limited to rehabilitation of existing sewer lines or construction of new sewer lines, new pump 11 stations and new or upgraded lift stations, treatment plant components, and related facilities. 12 Several of these facilities new lift and pump stations) would include new impervious 13 surfaces such as concrete pads, which could affect existing groundwater recharge rates to 14 some degree. New impervious surface associated with a pump or lift station is typically 5,000 15 square feet and no greater than 1 acre. Development of the new primary treatment and solids 16 handling facilities at the Jennings Plant would increase impermeable surface areas by 17 approximately 27 acres, most of which would occur due to construction of the new sludge 18 drying beds. Because the majority of recharge in the Modesto and Turlock Subbasins occurs 19 via percolation of applied irrigation water (and much less so via percolation of rainwater), 20 this new impervious surface within the City boundaries and at the existing Jennings Plant 21 would not substantially affect groundwater recharge such as to lower the local groundwater 22 table level or result in a net deficit in aquifer volume. Additionally, because existing 23 groundwater levels are relatively high at the Jennings Plant and the City continuously applies 24 cannery effluent to the Modesto Ranch lands, the potential for impacts on groundwater levels 25 in this area are limited. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 26 River Trunk Realignment Project 27 The River Trunk Realignment Project would include construction of two new pump stations: 28 the River Trunk Pump Station and the Shackelford Pump Station. As described in Chapter 2, 29 Program Description, the River Trunk Pump Station would include a circular driveway around 30 the pump station and a paved access road leading to the pump station. Overall, the area of 31 new impervious surface area would be approximately 2 acres. Stormwater generated on 32 pump station sites may be handled on-site via stormwater management features, or may be 33 conveyed to the City’s stormwater or sewer systems. If it is handled on-site, it would not 34 substantially affect groundwater recharge rates, as the water would be allowed to infiltrate 35 into the soil and to groundwater below. If it is conveyed to the stormwater or sewer system, 36 it could marginally decrease groundwater recharge rates at the site, as water falling on the 37 site as precipitation would no longer be able to infiltrate into the ground. Regardless, given 38 the small area of new impervious surfaces established as a result of the River Trunk Pump 39 Station and Shackelford Pump Station, any decrease in groundwater recharge would not be 40 substantial and would not result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 41 groundwater table level. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 WWMP components would not involve use of groundwater. While some facilities including 2 new or upgraded lift stations and pump stations would increase impervious surface areas, 3 such areas would be approximately 1 to 2 acres at each facility and would not substantially 4 affect existing groundwater recharge rates. At the Jennings Plant, development of new 5 wastewater treatment facilities would increase impermeable surface areas by approximately 6 27 acres; however, since the majority of recharge in the Modesto and Turlock Subbasins 7 occurs via percolation of applied irrigation water, new impervious surfaces at the Jennings 8 Plant would not substantially affect groundwater table levels. Additionally, existing 9 groundwater levels at the Jennings Plant are relatively high and cannery effluent is 10 consistently applied to Modesto Ranch lands, thereby reducing the likelihood for impacts to 11 groundwater levels at this location. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s overall effect on 12 groundwater supplies would be less than significant. 13 Impact HYD/WQ-4: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site 14 or Area Such as to Result in Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding On- or 15 Off-Site (Less than Significant) 16 All Program-level Components 17 The Proposed Program would not alter the course of any stream or river and would not 18 substantially affect the drainage patterns at individual project sites over the long term. Many 19 of the proposed components would be buried underground within existing streets new 20 and rehabilitated sewer lines) and would have no potential to alter drainage patterns. The 21 Proposed Program would include construction of new pipeline crossings and a new third 22 outfall pipeline across the Tuolumne River; these would be installed using trenchless 23 methods beneath the water bodies, and would not affect the existing drainage patterns. 24 As described in Impact HYD/WQ-3, new and/or upgraded lift stations and pump stations 25 would include new impervious surface areas, which would alter existing drainage patterns 26 on-site to some degree (impervious surfaces generally increase volume and velocity of 27 surface runoff); however, these changes would not be substantial and would not result in 28 substantial siltation, erosion, or flooding on- or off-site. Additionally, development of new 29 primary treatment and solids handling facilities would increase impermeable surface by 30 approximately 27 acres. Runoff from these surfaces would discharge to surrounding 31 undeveloped land around the Jennings Plant where it may either percolate into the soil or 32 sheet-flow to adjacent areas or the San Joaquin River. Given the Jennings Plant’s location in 33 an agricultural/undeveloped area along the San Joaquin River, runoff generated by the new 34 impervious surface at the Jennings Plant would be unlikely to cause substantial erosion, 35 siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. 36 As described in Impact HYD/WQ-2, discharges of wastewater effluent to the San Joaquin 37 River would cease under the Proposed Program. In accordance with the tertiary 38 treated wastewater from the Jennings Plant would be transported via pipeline to the DMC for 39 use by DPWD. As existing discharges to the San Joaquin River are minimal and sufficient 40 capacity is available at the plant’s storage basins, this elimination of contributing flows would 41 marginally affect decrease) flows in the San Joaquin River. However, this change would 42 be caused primarily by implementation of the and not the Proposed Program. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 During construction of individual Program components, the Proposed Program could 1 temporarily alter the drainage patterns of individual project sites. Trenching for installation 2 of sewer lines, excavation for installation of pump and lift station structures, and related 3 activities could temporarily change the ground surface and potentially expose loose soils to 4 erosive forces water, wind). These changes could result in substantial erosion on-site if 5 adequate measures are not implemented. 6 For CIP projects that exceed one acre in disturbance area, compliance with the NPDES 7 General Construction Permit would minimize erosion during construction activities. In 8 general, the change in runoff patterns that could occur during construction would not be 9 sufficient to result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. In addition, for Program components 10 in close proximity to Designated Floodways or levees along the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, 11 or the San Joaquin River, the City would apply for appropriate encroachment permits from 12 prior to construction. For Program components with less than one acre of disturbance 13 area that may not be subject to the NPDES General Construction Permit, the City’s Standard 14 Specifications would require preparation and implementation of a Local which 15 would include erosion control BMPs. With adherence to these requirements, this impact 16 would be less than significant. 17 River Trunk Realignment Project 18 The River Trunk Realignment Project would include construction of two new pump stations, 19 new sewer lines underneath various streets in central Modesto, and related facilities. As 20 described above, trenching and excavation activities during construction of this project could 21 temporarily alter drainage patterns on-site, but these changes would not result in substantial 22 flooding on- or off-site. Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit and the 23 City’s Standard Specifications would minimize erosion of exposed soils during ground- 24 disturbing activities. The City would also be required to apply for an encroachment permit 25 from because the River Trunk Realignment Project would include new pipelines 26 crossing the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek. As a result, this impact would be less than 27 significant. 28 Overall Conclusion 29 Development of proposed WWMP components would not substantially alter drainage 30 patterns such that erosion, siltation or flooding would occur on-site. Although discharges of 31 wastewater effluent to the San Joaquin River would cease due to the this change 32 would not substantially affect San Joaquin River flows such as to result in erosion, siltation, 33 or flooding. During construction of WWMP components, temporary ground-disturbing 34 activities could alter drainage patterns. For components greater than one acre in disturbance 35 area, compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit would prevent substantial 36 impacts from erosion by requiring implementation of erosion control BMPs. For CIP projects 37 less than one acre in disturbance area, the City’s Standard Specifications require preparation 38 and implementation of a Local including erosion control BMPs. These requirements 39 would minimize the erosion effects of exposed soils. As a result, the Proposed Program’s 40 overall impact would be less than significant. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact HYD/WQ-5: Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the 1 Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide 2 Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff (Less than Significant) 3 As described in Impact HYD/WQ-3, the Proposed Program would include limited areas of 4 new impervious surface area, which could marginally increase the volume and velocity of 5 surface water runoff at the location of certain Program components. Most components would 6 route any stormwater generated on-site to the City’s system of rockwells and positive 7 stormwater collection features. The City would comply with its Phase I municipal stormwater 8 permit (Order R5-2015-0025), which requires industrial/ commercial development projects 9 greater than 1 acre to incorporate storm water measures into the design plan. Given the small 10 amount of additional stormwater runoff that may be generated by the Proposed Program 11 components (many of the components would be buried underground and would have no 12 potential to generate stormwater), the Proposed Program would not exceed the capacity of 13 existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. 14 These facilities also would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. It is 15 possible that small amounts of fuel or solvents used in pump station generators or facility 16 maintenance could be spilled and washed into the storm drain system, but this occurrence 17 would be unlikely and any amount of polluted runoff generated by the Proposed Program 18 would be small. The or Local would prevent polluted runoff from possibly 19 being discharged to the storm drain system during construction. 20 The Proposed Program also would include upgrades to the City’s stormwater system. The 21 Proposed Program would disconnect the City’s stormwater and sanitary systems in various 22 locations, as well as provide other components, to provide additional capacity for the 23 stormwater system and reduce the potential for SSOs. These components would reduce the 24 potential for other aspects of the Proposed Program to create or contribute runoff that would 25 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Overall, this impact 26 would be less than significant. 27 Impact HYD/WQ-6: Place Within a 100-year Flood Hazard Area Structures 28 Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows (Less than Significant with 29 Mitigation) 30 New and Upgraded Sewer Lines, Sewer Rehabilitation Components, Stormwater/ 31 Sanitary Sewer Disconnections, R&R Projects, and Outfall Pipelines 32 Once constructed, all pipelines including new and upgraded sewer lines, sewer rehabilitation 33 components, stormwater/sanitary sewer disconnections, and other pipeline projects would 34 be belowground and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows. These proposed 35 CIPs would have no impact. 36 Lift Station Components 37 The Benson lift station (Component No. LS #3 – Benson) would be within the mapped 100- 38 year FEMA flood hazard area 1-percent annual chance flood zone). While improvements 39 to the Benson lift station are anticipated to occur within the facility’s existing footprint 40 (paved), it is possible that the facility may need to be relocated to a nearby parcel. All other 41 planned lift station component sites would be outside the 100-year flood hazard area. As 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 such, proposed above-ground structures at the Benson lift station could impede or redirect 1 flood flows in the event of a 100-year flood event, a significant impact. Depending on the 2 degree of impedance, this could result in adverse effects on nearby properties by changing 3 the inundation area or water flow rate during a flood event. Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ- 4 2 (Conduct Flood Flow Study for New Structures within the 100-year Flood Hazard 5 Area Mapped by FEMA), described below, would require the City to conduct a flood flow 6 study to determine the degree to which the lift station could impede or redirect flood flows, 7 or affect nearby properties, and develop mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if needed. 8 This mitigation measure would ensure that impacts on flood flows from the proposed Benson 9 lift station components would be less than significant with mitigation. 10 Sutter Plant Components 11 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, a number of structures and facilities at the 12 Sutter Plant are currently located within the flood hazard area. Under the Proposed Program, 13 these facilities would be decommissioned and moved to the Jennings Plant or flood-proofed 14 to reduce impacts to these facilities in a flood event. This would reduce potential for these 15 existing structures to impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, several facilities that would 16 remain at the Sutter Plant (including the administration and laboratory building, substations, 17 portions of the headworks facility, and pumping plant) would be floodproofed and raised to 18 meet FEMA’s 100-year flood protection standards. As such, this impact would be less than 19 significant. 20 Jennings Plant Components 21 The new, above-ground Program components at the Jennings Plant primary treatment 22 and solids handling facilities relocated from the Sutter Plant) all would be outside of the 100- 23 year FEMA flood hazard area and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows. The 24 fixed film reactors are partially within the flood hazard area, but these structures are existing 25 and would only be modified/rehabilitated as part of the Proposed Program. The treatment 26 and storage ponds and recirculation channel at the Jennings Plant are all within the flood 27 hazard zone. The Cannery Segregation treatment facilities components would include 28 activities within the 100-year flood hazard zone including installation of aerators within the 29 recirculation channel, pond aerators, a new effluent channel berm and FFR effluent pipeline. 30 However, these components are modifications to existing Plant facilities and would not add 31 any substantial structures that could impede or redirect flood flows. As a result, this impact 32 would be less than significant. 33 River Trunk Realignment Project 34 The River Trunk Pump Station and Shackelford Pump Station would be just outside of the 35 FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, these features would not substantially affect 36 flood flow passage during a 100-year event. The remaining facilities included as part of the 37 River Trunk Realignment Project would be buried underground new sewer lines within 38 existing streets) and therefore would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows. As 39 a result, this impact would be less than significant. 40 Overall Conclusion 41 Many WWMP components would be either belowground or outside of the 100-year FEMA 42 flood hazard area. At the Sutter Plant, primary treatment facilities would be demolished after 43 the new primary treatment facilities are constructed and operating at the Jennings Plant and 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-31 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 several facilities to remain at the Sutter Plant would be floodproofed to meet FEMA’s 100- 1 year flood protection standards. New facilities at the Jennings Plant that would be within the 2 100-year flood hazard zone involve modifications to existing facilities and would not be 3 substantial enough to impede or redirect flood flows. In conclusion, with implementation of 4 Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-2, the Proposed Program’s overall impact would be less than 5 significant with mitigation. 6 Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-2: Conduct Flood Flow Study for Benson Lift 7 Station. 8 Applies to lift station component LS #3 – Benson Lift Station components 9 Prior to final project design, the City of Modesto and/or its contractor(s) shall conduct 10 a study to ascertain the changes in flows that may be caused by the proposed Benson 11 Lift Station structure in the event of a 100-year flood. The study shall model the 12 change, if any, in inundation area that may be caused by restriction in flood flow 13 passage caused by the structure. If the study determines that the proposed lift station 14 may cause inundation of adjacent or properties or structures 15 during a 100-year flood event, the City shall develop mitigation measures to address 16 this impact. Feasible mitigation measures may include construction of flood 17 protection structures for potentially affected properties or reconfiguration of the 18 proposed project facilities to reduce impedance or redirection of flows elevating 19 critical facilities such as electrical panels and underground pump vault doors to levels 20 above flood stage). Alternatively, the City may identify an alternative site for the 21 proposed lift station that would avoid impacts on flood flows. 22 Impact HYD/WQ-7: Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, 23 Injury, or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure 24 of a Levee or Dam (Less than Significant) 25 As discussed in Section 12.3, virtually the entire City of Modesto, including most if not all of 26 the proposed components, are located within the zone of potential inundation in the event of 27 dam failure of several reservoirs New Melones, Don Pedro, Exchequer, San Luis, or Pine 28 Flat Dams). The Sutter and Jennings Plants also are within dam inundation areas. These dams 29 are routinely evaluated for seismic stability by the California Division of Safety of Dams to 30 ensure the integrity of the structures (DWR 2017b). Because the probability of dam failure is 31 extremely low, impacts related to flooding due to failure of a dam would be less than 32 significant. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 12. Hydrology and Water Quality Wastewater Master Plan 12-32 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 13-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 13 1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 2 13.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the setting and impacts of the Proposed Program related to land use 4 and planning. Existing land uses in the study area and applicable land use polices and 5 regulations for the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County are presented. This chapter also 6 evaluates land use compatibility impacts that would result from the implementation of the 7 Proposed Program and considers mitigation measures to reduce Program-related impacts. 8 The regulatory and environmental settings and impact analysis for land use and planning 9 were developed through a review of: 10  the Stanislaus County General Plan (2016), 11  the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019), and 12  the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan (EDAW 2001). 13 13.2 REGULATORY SETTING 14 No federal or state laws, regulations, or policies pertaining to land use and planning are 15 applicable to the Proposed Program. 16 13.2.1 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 17 Stanislaus County General Plan 18 The Stanislaus County General Plan (2016) applies to unincorporated lands surrounding the 19 City of Modesto, including unincorporated lands within the City’s SOI Bret Harte and 20 Empire). Lift Stations #29, #30, #61, the River Trunk Pump Station and the Shackelford 21 Pump Station would all be constructed on land that is designated City lands. Lift Station #59 22 would be built on land with the following designations: Planned Industrial designation, which 23 allows for light industrial development, predominantly in locations lacking public sewer 24 and/or water service; Urban Transition, which is designated to ensure that land remains in 25 agricultural usage until urban development consistent with a city’s (or unincorporated 26 community’s) general plan designation is approved; and Planned Development, which is 27 intended for land suitable for a variety of uses. Lift Station #60 would be built on land 28 designated as Salida Community Plan Planned Industrial and Industrial Business Park. Lift 29 Station #39 would be built on land designated as City land, while the adjacent Lift Station #63 30 would be built on land with an Urban Transition/City designation. Lift Station #62 would be 31 built on land designated as a combination of Low-Density Residential land, which is intended 32 to provide locations for single-family detached, semi-detached, and manufactured housing 33 dwellings; as well as City and Agricultural designations. Lift Stations #65 and #67 would be 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 built on land designated as Urban Transition. Sutter Plant improvements would take place on 1 land that is designated as Open Space (Stanislaus County 2016). 2 The Land Use Element contains the following policies: 3 Policy 1. Land will be designated and zoned for agricultural, residential, commercial, 4 industrial, or historical uses when such designations are consistent with other 5 adopted goals and policies of the general plan. 6 Policy 2. Land designated Agriculture shall be restricted to uses that are compatible 7 with agricultural practices, including natural resources management, open space, 8 outdoor recreation and enjoyment of scenic beauty. 9 Policy 4. Urban development shall be discouraged in areas with growth-limiting 10 factors such as high water table or poor soil percolation, and prohibited in geological 11 fault and hazard areas, flood plains, riparian areas, and airport hazard areas unless 12 measures to mitigate the problems are included as part of the application. 13 Policy 5. Residential densities as defined in the General Plan shall be the maximum 14 based upon environmental constraints, the availability of public services, and 15 acceptable service levels. The densities reflected may not always be achievable and 16 shall not be approved unless there is proper site planning and provision of suitable 17 open space and recreational areas consistent with the supportive goals and policies 18 of the General Plan. 19 Policy 6. Preserve and encourage upgrading of existing unincorporated urban 20 communities. 21 Policy 7. Riparian habitat along the rivers and natural waterways of Stanislaus 22 County shall to the extent possible be protected. 23 Policy 10. New areas for urban development (as opposed to expansion of existing 24 areas) shall be limited to less productive agricultural areas. 25 Policy 11. Development of residential areas shall be adjacent to existing compatible 26 unincorporated urban development or, in the case of remote development, included 27 as part of a specific plan. 28 Policy 12. The expansion of urban boundaries of unincorporated communities shall 29 attempt to minimize conflict between various land uses. 30 Policy 13. Expansion of urban boundaries of unincorporated communities should be 31 based on infilling and elimination of existing "islands" and should not permit leapfrog 32 development or create new "islands.” 33 Policy 14. Uses shall not be permitted to intrude into or be located adjacent to an 34 agricultural area if they are detrimental to continued agricultural usage of the 35 surrounding area. 36 Policy 16. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to be compatible with other uses. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policy 17. Agriculture, as the primary industry of the County, shall be promoted and 1 protected. 2 Policy 18. Promote diversification and growth of the local economy. 3 Policy 19. Accommodate the siting of industries with unique requirements. 4 Policy 20. Nonconforming uses are an integral part of the County's economy and, as 5 such, should be allowed to continue. 6 Policy 21. Facilitate retention and expansion of existing businesses. 7 Policy 22. Support and facilitate efforts to develop and promote economic 8 development and job creation centers throughout the County. 9 Policy 24. Future growth shall not exceed the capabilities/capacity of the provider of 10 services such as sewer, water, public safety, solid waste management, road systems, 11 schools, health care facilities, etc. 12 Policy 26. Development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires 13 discretionary approval and is within the sphere of influence of cities or in areas of 14 specific designation created by agreement Sperry Avenue and East Las Palmas 15 Corridors), shall not be approved unless first approved by the city within whose 16 sphere of influence it lies or by the city for which areas of specific designation were 17 agreed. Development requests within the spheres of influence or areas of specific 18 designation of any incorporated city shall not be approved unless the development is 19 consistent with agreements with the cities which are in effect at the time of project 20 consideration. Such development must meet the applicable development standards 21 of the affected city as well as any public facilities fee collection agreement in effect at 22 the time of project consideration. 23 Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance 24 According to the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance, public utilities, including underground 25 pipelines, are permitted in all zoning districts. 26 The County land where the third outfall pipeline would be built are classified in the General 27 Agriculture zoning district. Figure 13-1 shows the locations of this and other WWMP 28 components relative to the County’s and the City of Modesto’s zoning districts throughout the 29 study area. Permitted uses for General Agriculture (A-2) districts include agricultural uses; 30 single-family dwelling; mobile homes; buildings, appurtenances, and uses such as custom 31 contract harvesting or land preparation; home occupations; garage sales; and other uses 32 related to agriculture. According to Section 21.20.030 of the Stanislaus County Code, this 33 General Agriculture district allows development of certain uses that are not directly related 34 to agriculture but may be necessary to serve other uses in the district. For example, 35 development of facilities for public utilities qualifies as a “Tier Three” use that may be allowed 36 if the Stanislaus County Planning Commission concludes that the use would not be 37 substantially detrimental to or conflict with agricultural use of other property in the vicinity, 38 and the parcel on which such use is requested is not located in one of the county’s “most 39 productive agricultural areas,” as this term is used in the general plan; or if the character of 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 the use that is requested is such that the land may reasonably be returned to agricultural use 1 in the future. 2 The Jennings Plant would be constructed on land that is zoned as Planned Development 3 District which, according to the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance, is intended to 4 allow modification of requirements allowed by other districts and diversification in the 5 relationship to different uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes, and open spaces. Based on these 6 allowances, CIPs involved with the Jennings Plant would comply with the County’s zoning 7 ordinance. 8 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 9 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019) serves as the City’s “blueprint for future 10 growth” and is intended to guide the physical development of the overall Modesto 11 community. The General Plan identifies three distinct planning areas: the Downtown Area, 12 which generally includes the City’s historic downtown; the Baseline Developed area, which 13 generally includes areas that are already developed with urban uses; and the Planned 14 Urbanizing Area, which forms the perimeter of Modesto’s General Plan Urban Area. Land use 15 designations for Modesto lands are shown in Figure III-1, Adopted Land Use Diagram, of the 16 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan and include the following land use designations: 17 Residential Mixed Use (MU), Commercial Industrial Redevelopment Planning 18 District (RPD), Village Residential (VR), Regional Commercial (RC), Business Park (BP), Open 19 Space (OS), and land use designations of the Salida Community Plan (SCP). Table 13-1 20 summarizes the land use designations and zoning districts of the Program-level WWMP 21 components. The following land uses are permitted for each of these designations: 22  Open Space – Planned land uses shall include low-impact recreational facilities, public 23 ownership, low density residential, and agriculture. 24  Residential – Land uses include single-family detached housing, single-family 25 attached housing, multi-family housing, and mobile homes. Compatible uses may 26 include schools, parks, and religious or community facilities. 27  Mixed Use – Single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, office, and 28 institutional uses are allowed in close proximity to each other. The guiding land use 29 intensity is 0.35 square feet of building area per square foot of gross acreage of the 30 site. 31  Business Park – Business parks consist of light industrial and employment intensive 32 uses. In general, these areas will have a campus-like setting, with a guiding intensity 33 of 0.40 square feet of building area per square foot of gross area of the site. 34  Regional Commercial – Land uses include but are not limited to business, medical, 35 and professional offices other than large office campuses, neighborhood retail 36 centers, convenience retail, highway-oriented commerce, Regional Commercial uses, 37 and the downtown commercial districts. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L LS #60 LS #65 LS #59 LS #30 LS #61 LS #67 LS #29 LS #3 LS #39 LS #63 LS #62 River Trunk Pump Station Shackelford Pump Station Sutter Plant ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 132 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ S:\1_Projects\15.043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\CEQA\Public Draft EIR\Figures\Figure_13-1_Zoning_ML.mxd 4/13/2018 PG Figure 13-1 General Zoning Districts in the WWMP Study Area City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles WWMP Study Area River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations General Agriculture General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Industrial/Heavy Industrial Limited/Light Industrial Planned Industrial Planned Development Rural Residential Single Family/Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Multiple Family/ Medium-high density Residential Specific Plan Specific Plan-Holding Downtown ·I}þ 33 Main Map Inset Map ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank. 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Village Residential – Villages are mixed-use, compact, pedestrian- and transit- 1 oriented development that are intended to accommodate a variety of residential 2 product types such as detached houses on small lots and multi-family and senior 3 housing, in addition to village-serving non-residential) units. The residential 4 density within a Comprehensive Planning District is typically 6.6 to 7.5 dwelling units 5 per gross acre. Approximately 4 percent of land designated as VR shall be devoted to 6 commercial uses with a guiding intensity of 0.35 square feet of building per square 7 foot of gross area of the site. 8  Redevelopment Planning District – The Modesto RPD area is intended to consist of 9 development that “will be the focal point of community life and the social, cultural, 10 business, governmental and entertainment center of the northern San Joaquin 11 Valley.” Acceptable development will consist of housing, modern transportation 12 systems, and vertical mixed-use development. 13  Industrial – This designation provides for the full range of industrial uses, including 14 but not limited to manufacturing, food processing, trucking, packing, and recycling. 15 The guiding land use intensity for this designation is 0.50 square feet per square foot 16 of gross area on an area-wide basis. 17 Table 13-1. City of Modesto General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts of 18 Program-Level WWMP Components 19 Program-Level WWMP Component General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning District Lift Station #3 Open Space Single Family/Low Density Residential & Medium Density Residential Lift Station #29 Residential/Mixed Use Single Family/Low Density Residential & Medium Density Residential Lift Station #30 Residential Single Family/Low Density Residential & Medium Density Residential Lift Station #39 Residential Single Family/Low Density Residential Lift Station #59 Business Park Planned Industrial, Planned Development & General Agriculture Lift Station #60 Regional Commercial Planned Industrial & Planned Development Lift Station #61 Village Residential Specific Plan Lift Station #62 Residential/Village Residential Specific Plan, Single Family/Low Density Residential & General Agriculture ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Program-Level WWMP Component General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning District Lift Station #63 Residential/Business Park Single Family/Low Density Residential & General Agriculture Lift Station #64 Business Park General Agriculture Lift Station #65 Village Residential General Agriculture Lift Station #67 Business Park General Agriculture River Trunk Pump Station Redevelopment Planning District Limited Light Industrial & Single Family/Low Density Residential Shackelford Pump Station Industrial Limited Light Industrial & Single Family/Low Density Residential Sources:Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance; Adopted Land Use Program as cited in City of Modesto 1 2019 2 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019) provides the following policies related 3 to land use and planning. 4 Chapter II – Community Growth Strategy 5 Policy II.B.1. Priority Development Areas. Support new development with 6 infrastructure developed in accordance with the established Capital Improvement 7 Program priority areas of Downtown, Kiernan Business Park, the Tivoli Specific Plan 8 area and the South Modesto Industrial Park (north of Whitmore Ave. between Crows 9 Landing Rd. and Morgan Rd.). 10 Policy II.B.3. Funding Capital Improvements. Increase and improve capital 11 projects over time through maintaining or enhancing existing funding sources, 12 maximizing joint-use efficiencies, and strategically prioritizing capital investments. 13 Chapter III – Community Development Policies 14 Goal III.A. Zoning Consistency. Maintain and enhance consistency between General Plan 15 (land use designations and policies) and zoning. 16 Policy III.A.1. Parcel-Specific Zoning. Zoning within the incorporated City limits 17 should be, and generally is, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations 18 as presented on the Land Use Diagram. However, because these designations are 19 broad in nature, there may be minor instances in which the existing zoning for a 20 particular property is not consistent with the Land Use Designation for the property. 21 These situations are still considered to be consistent with the overall goals and 22 policies of the General Plan, and development of these properties may occur 23 consistent with zoning. Chapter VII – Environmental Resources, Open Space and 24 Conservation. 25 Policy VIII-B. Local Open Space Plan. Open space needs are broadly identified by the 26 state legislature. It is within this scope that local jurisdictions must identify specific 27 areas and targets of preservation, development, and/or production. Government 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Code Section 65560 lists six broad categories to be designated on a local open space 1 plan: Open space for 1) the preservation of natural resources, 2) public health and 2 safety, 3) managed production of resources, 4) outdoor recreation, 5) buffer zones to 3 military activities, and 6) protection of places, features, and objects. These categories 4 will be discussed in detail as they relate to the Modesto Urban Area. 5 Open Space Policies – River Greenway Program 6 Policy VII-B.7[a]. Visual corridors of the river will be protected and enhanced. 7 Policy VII-B.7[b]. Visual corridors and access points on the riverfront will be 8 recreated through redevelopment. 9 Policy VII-B.7[c]. Identifiable park entrances will be created. A comprehensive 10 program of park signage and graphics will be developed. 11 Policy VII-B.7[d]. Adequate circulation throughout the park will be provided in order 12 to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, as well as equestrians and 13 boaters, if appropriate. Opportunities for park access via public transportation will 14 be provided. 15 Policy VII-B.7[e]. Active and passive recreational areas with universal access will be 16 created. 17 Modesto Code of Ordinances 18 Title 10 of the Modesto Code of Ordinances establishes zoning regulations for land within the 19 City of Modesto’s jurisdictional boundary. 20 For specific zoning district designations for each Program-level WWMP component, see Table 21 13-1. Land uses for all residential zoning districts associated with the City are meant to 22 ensure that development will result in stable, desirable neighborhoods that are well- 23 integrated into the City. Allowable area and density requirements are explained in-depth in 24 Chapter 4, Article 1 – Residential Zones (R-1, R-2, R-3) of the City of Modesto Code of 25 Ordinances. The following land uses are permitted for each of these zoning designations: 26  Industrial – Land uses associated with Industrial zoning districts, including Limited 27 Light Industrial and Planned Industrial, ensure that opportunities exist for 28 development of industry, job creation and economic growth. Allowable area and 29 density requirements are explained in-depth in Chapter 4, Article 3 – Industrial Zones 30 (C-M, M-1, M-2) of the City of Modesto Code of Ordinances. 31  Planned Development – Zones designated for Planned Development allow for the 32 construction of residential condominiums, community apartment projects and stock 33 cooperatives, mobile home parks, and cemeteries. Similar uses that are less intense 34 than the uses specified above may be allowed pending approval. Chapter 7, Article 1 35 – Planned Development Zone (P-D) of the City of Modesto Code of Ordinances 36 provides more details regarding this zoning district. 37  Specific Plan – Land zoned as Specific Plan are intended to permit various land uses 38 including residential, industrial, and commercial development through Specific Plans 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 that are pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, et seq. Chapter 7, Article 3 – 1 Specific Plan (SP) Zone of the City of Modesto Code of Ordinances provides more 2 details regarding this particular zoning district. 3 According to the City of Modesto Code of Ordinances Title 10, Chapter 3 – Land Use 4 Regulations, land uses for all storm drainage facilities and minor public facilities pumps) 5 are permitted in all zoning districts. Public buildings and grounds are permitted in 6 Commercial-Industrial and Industrial districts and conditionally permitted in Residential, 7 Professional Office, and Commercial districts. 8 Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan 9 The TRRP Master Plan is a long-range plan for a riverfront park in southern Modesto (EDAW 10 2001). The plan encompasses over 500 acres including lands along a 7-mile stretch of the 11 Tuolumne River, generally bounded by Mitchell Road to the east and Carpenter Road to the 12 west. The TRRP Master Plan provides a long-range vision for establishing recreational 13 facilities such as the Riverwalk, boat and fishing piers, vista points, a sports complex near the 14 Sutter Plant, an interpretive center, trails, roadways and parking areas, all of which are 15 intended to enhance the natural environment and create both recreational educational 16 opportunities along the river. The TRRP Master Plan also has a riparian restoration 17 component that calls for creating improved riparian habitat along the Tuolumne River and 18 Dry Creek. 19 13.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 20 Proposed components would occur within Modesto and unincorporated areas of Stanislaus 21 County. The following sections describe land uses that would be affected by proposed 22 components. 23 13.3.1 MODESTO 24 The City of Modesto is located in central Stanislaus County, in the northern section of 25 California’s San Joaquin Valley. The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of the city. 26 State Route (SR) 99 intersects the city along the north–south axis, and SR 132 intersects the 27 city along the east–west axis. Nearby cities include Riverbank, Ripon, and Manteca to the 28 north and Ceres, Turlock, and Merced to the south. 29 Before 1960, most of Stanislaus County’s population lived in unincorporated areas. Today, 30 the population of the nine incorporated cities substantially exceeds that of the 31 unincorporated area. While the county’s economic base remains predominantly agricultural, 32 the regional economy is diversifying. Housing development has significantly increased the 33 urbanized land area within Modesto. Because many of these new residents continue to work 34 in the Bay Area, traffic along SR 99, SR 132, and Interstate 5 has increased noticeably. 35 The vast majority of land in Modesto is considered urban/built-up land. Land along the 36 portion of the Tuolumne River that is adjacent to Modesto City-County Airport and along 37 portions of Dry Creek that are adjacent to Central Valley Specialty Hospital and Creekside Golf 38 Course, respectively, are classified as nonagricultural and natural vegetation lands (CDOC 39 2017). Throughout the City, the majority of the land is designated for a combination of 40 residential, mixed use, and commercial (City of Modesto 2017a). 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Sutter Plant 1 The Sutter Plant is located just north of the Tuolumne River in an undeveloped portion of the 2 Tuolumne River Regional Park. According to the City’s Adopted Land Use Diagram, the Sutter 3 Plant is entirely within the Tuolumne River Comprehensive Planning District (City of 4 Modesto 2019). The Dryden Park Golf Course is located immediately east of the Sutter Plant. 5 This 18-hole golf course is comprised of approximately 142 acres of land. Directly north of 6 the Sutter Plant is Bellenita Park, which features a baseball/softball field, picnic areas, and 7 bathrooms on its approximately 48-acre property (City of Modesto 2017b). 8 The Sutter Plant, Dryden Park Golf Course, Bellenita Park and the parcel west of the Plant are 9 designated as OS according to the City’s general plan. Land uses to the north of the Plant are 10 designated as R interspersed with areas of RPD and MU land between the intersections of 11 Paradise Road/Beverly Drive and Paradise Road/South Martin Luther King Drive. The parcel 12 located north of Bellenita Park (Assessor’s Parcel No. 037017005) is designated as MU as 13 well. Land uses south of the Sutter Plant and the Tuolumne River are designated R and VR 14 (City of Modesto 2017c). 15 The Sutter Plant is zoned as low-density residential Zoning for the Dryden Golf Course 16 and the parcel to the west of the Plant are also designated as R-1. The parcels directly north 17 of the Sutter Plant and west of Bellenita Park are not zoned because they are unincorporated 18 County areas with residential or undeveloped land uses. The parcels that are designated as 19 VR lands are zoned in the specific plan zone The parcels south of the Plant that are 20 designated as R are zoned R-1 (City of Modesto 2017d). 21 Primary land uses in the vicinity of the River Trunk and Sutter Plant consist of urban/built 22 up land and vacant/disturbed land with similar classifications for lands surrounding these 23 project sites. 24 13.3.2 UNINCORPORATED STANISLAUS COUNTY 25 Third Outfall Pipeline Alignment 26 The third outfall pipeline alignment would continue south on Carpenter Road, west on Keyes 27 Road, south on Jennings Road, and then continue west and terminate at the Jennings Plant. 28 These roads are located in unincorporated Stanislaus County and surrounded by land that is 29 designated and zoned for agricultural uses. (Stanislaus County 2006). 30 Jennings Plant 31 The Jennings Plant and the 2,500 acres of agricultural lands to the south of the plant are 32 situated on lands owned by the City, and are zoned as Planned Development (PD). This 33 designation identifies properties that require subsequent site planning in the form of 34 approval of a Planned Development. The Jennings Plant is surrounded by lands that are 35 designated and zoned for agricultural uses. The San Joaquin River is located directly west of 36 the Jennings Plant. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 13.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 13.4.1 METHODOLOGY 2 The analysis of land use and planning is generally qualitative and, pursuant to CEQA 3 Guidelines Section 15125, describes potential inconsistencies between the Proposed 4 Program and applicable land use policies, plans, and programs described in Section 13.2 5 above. Inconsistencies with land use policies are considered a significant impact only if those 6 inconsistencies would result in significant adverse effects on the physical environment. 7 Physical impacts on the environment that could result from inconsistency with land use plans 8 or policies are addressed in the other resource chapters (Chapters 4 through 12 and Chapters 9 14 through 18), not in this land use analysis. Specifically, consistency with SJVAPCD’s air 10 quality plans is discussed in Chapter 6, Air Quality; consistency with the Water Quality Control 11 Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley 12 Region is discussed in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality; and consistency with the 13 Congestion Management Process for the Stanislaus County Region is addressed in Chapter 16, 14 Transportation and Traffic. General consistency of the Proposed Program with the laws, 15 regulations, and policies identified in Section 13.2, above, is discussed in Impact LU-2. 16 13.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 17 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on land use and planning if it 18 would: 19  Physically divide an established community; 20  Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, 21 policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 22 environmental effect; or 23  Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 24 conservation plan. 25 The third criterion is addressed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, and not discussed in 26 the following impact analysis. 27 13.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 28 Impact LU-1: Divide an Established Community (Less than Significant) 29 All Program-level Components 30 Proposed Program improvements that would occur above ground would be consistent with 31 the City’s zoning and General Plan land use designations as discussed in Section 13.2, 32 “Environmental Setting” above. Furthermore, any pipeline improvements associated with the 33 Proposed Program would occur underground and would therefore be exempt from 34 complying with zoning designations as well. Some pipeline improvements would also occur 35 in areas where such facilities already exist. New groundwater wells, storage tanks, pipelines, 36 and new water mains would generally be constructed on the outskirts of Modesto and would 37 facilitate redevelopment or new urban development. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 For all components, construction activity would be temporary and any disturbed land would 1 be returned to pre-construction conditions except for where new aboveground structures 2 would be built. While construction of these components could result in temporary 3 construction impacts to neighborhood land uses, such as temporary impacts on community 4 traffic, air emissions, public safety, or noise, construction of these CIPs would be short-term 5 and phased through 2035. These temporary impacts are addressed in Chapter 6, Air Quality; 6 Chapter 14, Noise and Vibration; and Chapter 16, Transportation and Traffic. 7 Operation of proposed facilities would be consistent with and, for the most part, located 8 adjacent to existing utility operations and would not impede access to neighboring 9 communities. 10 Most components at the Jennings Plant would occur within the existing footprint of the 11 current facility. As discussed in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, construction of new sludge 12 drying beds would involve conversion of agricultural land immediately east of the plant. The 13 land use designation for the surrounding land is agriculture. There are no established 14 neighborhoods near the plant. As a result, no established communities would be divided by 15 components at the Jennings Plant. 16 Most of the land surrounding the proposed third outfall pipeline is designated for agricultural 17 uses (Stanislaus County 2006). As a result, the surrounding land is used almost exclusively 18 for farming with some single-family residential homes. Installation of this approximately 9- 19 mile pipeline would require open trench construction, which could generate short-term 20 traffic delays due to partial lane closures. Such impacts are described in more detail in 21 Chapter 16, Transportation and Traffic. Because the outfall pipeline would be underground 22 and since there are no communities along the outfall pipeline alignment, this component 23 would not physically divide established neighborhoods. 24 Components at the Sutter Plant would occur within the existing footprint of the facility. 25 Construction of the new Tuolumne River crossings would entail trenchless methods, and new 26 connecting force mains would extend south from the junction structure and southern jacking 27 pit along Monticello Lane and connect with the existing 60-inch force mains. Note that the 28 alignment of these outfall crossings is preliminary and subject to change due to presence of 29 existing utilities and the alignment’s proximity to sensitive receptors. This pipeline would 30 involve open trenching along the roadway at a distance that is far enough away from the 31 existing neighborhood community to avoid affecting travel through the neighborhood. 32 Although there is potential for temporary increased traffic, noise, and air quality impacts to 33 occur due to pipeline installation, these impacts are addressed in Chapter 16, Transportation 34 and Traffic; Chapter 14, Noise and Vibration; and Chapter 6, Air Quality, respectively. These 35 activities would not divide any established communities. 36 All other program-level components would either occur in areas where collection system 37 structures already exist lift station upgrades) or would be constructed underground 38 pipelines). New lift stations would be constructed on the outskirts of Modesto and would 39 facilitate redevelopment or new urban development. For all components, construction 40 activity would be temporary and any disturbed land would be returned to pre-construction 41 conditions except for where new aboveground structures would be built. While construction 42 of these components could result in temporary construction impacts to neighborhood land 43 uses, such as temporary impacts on community traffic, air emissions, public safety, or noise; 44 construction of these CIPs would be short-term and phased over the next 25 years. Operation 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 of these facilities would be consistent with and, for the most part, located adjacent to existing 1 utility operations and would not impede access to neighboring communities. Direct and 2 indirect impacts on surrounding land uses from construction-related traffic delays, air 3 emissions, public safety hazards, and noise are addressed in other chapters of this EIR. This 4 impact would be less than significant. 5 River Trunk Realignment Project 6 The River Trunk Realignment Project would involve the construction of force main and 7 gravity system pipelines as well as two new pump stations. The River Trunk Pump Station 8 would be constructed at the corner of B Street and Beard Street. This land is zoned as Light 9 Industrial while its land use is designated as RPD. Currently, this parcel is vacant. The 10 Shackelford Pump Station would be constructed on land that is designated I and is also 11 vacant. The pipelines would traverse lands designated for mixed use and residential uses 12 (City of Modesto 2017a). The southern force main extending from the River Trunk Pump 13 Station would be constructed on land designated as RPD. The Shackelford force main and 14 southern segment of the gravity pipeline system would traverse the Dryden Golf Course, 15 which could temporarily disturb ongoing golfing activities. All other pipeline segments would 16 be constructed within existing road rights-of-ways. As shown in Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, 17 Program Description, the gravity pipelines would be constructed in residential areas. Pipeline 18 construction activities could temporarily disrupt neighborhood land uses. However, since all 19 pipelines would be installed underground and because the project would improve the City’s 20 wastewater collection system, this project would increase the cohesiveness of the 21 community. As a result, the project would not divide an established community. This impact 22 would be less than significant. 23 Overall Conclusion 24 Construction of WWMP components could result in temporary impacts related to increased 25 traffic delays, air pollutant emissions, noise and public-safety hazards; however, those 26 impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would reduce such effects are addressed in 27 Chapters 6, 14, and 16 of this DEIR. Once construction is complete, many WWMP components 28 would be underground and other facilities would either be located at the Sutter and Jennings 29 Plants. While some lift station components would be in residential areas, they would be 30 similar in character to existing utility infrastructure in the Modesto area. The new River 31 Trunk and Shackelford Pump Stations would also be sited away from residential areas. For 32 these reasons, the Proposed Program’s overall impact regarding division of an established 33 community would be less than significant. 34 Impact LU-2: Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations Adopted for 35 the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect (Less than 36 Significant) 37 All Program-level Components 38 The Proposed Program would include a series of CIPs that involve repair and replacement of 39 aging collection and wastewater infrastructure, decommissioning of wastewater treatment 40 facilities at the Sutter Plant, and construction of new wastewater infrastructure at the 41 Jennings Plant. The Proposed Program would also involve the construction of a third outfall 42 pipeline that would convey wastewater from the Sutter Plant to the Jennings Plant. These 43 CIPs would be implemented to address existing deficiencies and capacity needs for the City’s 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 wastewater treatment system and collection system through 2035. These components would 1 provide sufficient sewer collection and wastewater treatment services for new growth 2 anticipated in the City’s Urban Area General Plan Proposed Program 3 Consistency with Stanislaus County Zoning and General Plan Designations. In Salida, a 4 new lift station (LS #60) would be constructed north of Chapman Road. This land is currently 5 zoned and designated for Planned Industrial and Industrial Business Park land use. 6 As discussed in Section 13.2.1 and summarized in Table 13-1, all lift stations besides Lift 7 Station #60 would be built on City of Modesto land and would therefore not conflict with 8 County zoning or land use designation requirements. The third outfall pipeline would be built 9 on land that is zoned as General Agricultural District and is designated for agricultural land 10 use; however, the pipeline would be built underground and therefore would not conflict with 11 agricultural uses on that land. The Jennings Plant would be constructed on land that is zoned 12 as Planned Development and would not conflict with allowed uses under the County’s zoning 13 ordinance. 14 Based on the above, various Program components would be constructed on lands zoned and 15 designated for various types of uses. Proposed wastewater infrastructure on County lands 16 zoned for agricultural uses would constitute facilities for public utilities, and, therefore, 17 qualify as a “Tier Three” use that is allowed within the A-2 district, subject to the approval of 18 the Stanislaus County Planning Commission. Therefore, no conflicts with County zoning 19 would occur under the Proposed Program. 20 Consistency with City of Modesto Zoning and General Plan Designations. Lift stations 21 throughout the City of Modesto, would be built on land with various designations and zoning 22 districts, as described in Table 13-1. 23 As mentioned in Section 13.3, “Environmental Setting,” above, minor public facilities such as 24 pumps and wells would be permitted in all zoning districts according the City of Modesto 25 Code of Ordinances Title 10, Chapter 3 – Land Use Regulations. Public buildings and grounds 26 are permitted in industrial districts and conditionally permitted in residential, professional 27 office, and commercial districts. Thus, the above-described pump stations, lift stations and 28 associated infrastructure would be permitted in all Modesto zoning districts. A conditional 29 use permit may need to be submitted to the City of Modesto’s Planning Department prior to 30 development of the two pump stations. 31 To implement the Proposed Program, temporary and/or permanent easement acquisitions 32 may be required to ensure the City has adequate right-of-way and access to the various CIP 33 sites. For example, some easements may need to be acquired from Modesto Irrigation District 34 and Turlock Irrigation District prior to constructing some sewer pipeline components. 35 Consistency with TRRP Master Plan. Proposed components that involve work along the 36 Tuolumne River have the potential to temporarily conflict with the TRRP Master Plan goals 37 and actions for riparian restoration as well as planned linkages between park planning 38 districts such as the Gateway Parcel to the Carpenter Road Area. However, once construction 39 of planned components such as the new Tuolumne River crossings and new primary effluent 40 outfall pipeline, the majority of these components would be below ground and therefore 41 would not conflict with planned riparian restoration efforts envisioned in the TRRP. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 13. Land Use and Planning Wastewater Master Plan 13-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Therefore, the Proposed Program would be consistent with applicable land use plans, 1 policies, and regulations. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. 2 River Trunk Realignment Project 3 Consistency with City of Modesto Zoning and General Plan Designations. As indicated in 4 Table 13-1, the River Trunk Pump Station would be constructed on land zoned as Light 5 Industrial while its land use is designated as RPD. Currently, this parcel is vacant. The 6 Shackelford Pump Station would be constructed on land that is designated Industrial and is 7 also vacant. The pipelines would traverse lands designated for mixed use and residential uses 8 (City of Modesto 2017a). The southern force main extending from the River Trunk Pump 9 Station would be constructed on land designated as Redevelopment Planning District. The 10 Shackelford force main and southern segment of the gravity pipeline system would traverse 11 the Dryden Golf Course, which could temporarily disturb ongoing golfing activities. All other 12 pipeline segments would be constructed within existing road rights-of-ways. As shown in 13 Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Program Description, the gravity pipelines would be constructed in 14 residential areas. Pipeline construction activities could temporarily disrupt neighborhood 15 land uses. However, since all pipelines would be installed underground, these would not 16 conflict with the designated land uses or zoning in these areas. 17 Consistency with TRRP Master Plan. Because the majority of the River Trunk Realignment 18 Project components would be belowground, the project improvements would not conflict 19 with planned riparian restoration efforts envisioned in the TRRP Master Plan. 20 Therefore, the Proposed Program would be consistent with applicable land use plans, 21 policies, and regulations. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. 22 Overall Conclusion 23 Construction of program-level WWMP components would be generally consistent with 24 County, City, and TRRP land use plans, policies, and regulations, although some proposed 25 wastewater infrastructure on County lands zoned for agricultural uses would require 26 approval of the Stanislaus County Planning Commission as a “Tier Three” use that is allowed 27 within the A-2 district. The River Trunk Realignment Project would be consistent with City 28 and TRRP land use plans, policies, and regulations. As a result, this impact would be less than 29 significant. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 14-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 14 1 NOISE AND VIBRATION 2 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the existing noise environment in the vicinity of the Proposed 4 Program, presents relevant noise and vibration regulations, identifies sensitive noise and 5 vibration receptors that could be affected by the Proposed Program, and evaluates the noise 6 and vibration impacts of the Proposed Program. Mitigation measures are prescribed to 7 reduce significant noise and vibration impacts. Technical information used in preparing this 8 chapter is provided in Appendix E. 9 NOISE AND VIBRATION CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY 10 14.2.1 NOISE 11 In the CEQA context, noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by 12 various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed 13 of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound 14 pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient 15 sound level, or sound intensity. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. 16 Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of human hearing, a 17 logarithmic scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable 18 level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the spectrum, so noise 19 measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive, 20 creating the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale. 21 Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. 22 Below are brief definitions of these measurements and other terminology used in this 23 chapter. 24  Decibel (dB) is a measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared 25 ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. 26  A-weighted decibel (dBA) is an overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels 27 that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. 28  Maximum sound level (Lmax) is the maximum sound level measured during a given 29 measurement period. 30  Minimum sound level (Lmin) is the minimum sound level measured during a given 31 measurement period. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Equivalent sound level (Leq) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a 1 given period, would contain the same acoustical energy as a time-varying sound level 2 during that same period. 3  Day-night sound level (Ldn) is the energy average of the A-weighted sound levels 4 occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels 5 during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (typical sleeping hours). This 6 weighting adjustment reflects the elevated sensitivity of individuals to ambient sound 7 during nighttime hours. 8  Community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the energy average of the A-weighted 9 sound levels during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels 10 between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels 11 between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 12 In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely 13 noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as 14 doubling or halving the sound level. Table 14-1 presents approximate noise levels for 15 common noise sources, measured adjacent to the source. 16 Table 14-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels 17 Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 110 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 100 Diesel truck at 50 feet traveling 50 miles per hour 90 Noisy urban area, daytime 80 Gas lawnmower at 100 feet, commercial area 70 Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30 Quiet rural area, nighttime 20 Notes: Caltrans = California Department of Transportation; dBA = A-weighted decibel. 18 Source: Caltrans 2009 19 14.2.2 VIBRATION 20 Groundborne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings 21 by surface waves. Vibration may be composed of a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a 22 continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is 23 oscillating, measured in Hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or 24 “spectrum,” of many frequencies. The normal frequency range of most groundborne 25 vibrations that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz to a high of 26 about 200 Hz. Vibration information for this analysis has been described in terms of the peak 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 particle velocity (PPV), measured in inches per second, or of the vibration level measured 1 with respect to root-mean-square vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), with a reference 2 quantity of 1 micro-inch per second. 3 Vibration energy dissipates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude 4 to decrease with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations attenuate much 5 more rapidly than do those characterized by low frequencies, so that in a far-field zone 6 distant from a source, the vibrations with lower frequency amplitudes tend to dominate. Soil 7 properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts 8 with a building, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss usually results but the vibration also 9 can be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings 10 is typically perceived as rattling of windows, shaking of loose items, or the motion of building 11 surfaces. In some cases, the vibration of building surfaces also can be radiated as sound and 12 heard as a low-frequency rumbling noise, known as groundborne noise. 13 Groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types 14 of industrial operations and construction/demolition activities, such as pile driving. Road 15 vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration amplitude to be perceptible to humans 16 unless the receiver is in immediate proximity to the source or the road surface is poorly 17 maintained and has potholes or bumps. Human sensitivity to vibration varies by frequency 18 and by receiver. Generally, people are more sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Human 19 annoyance also is related to the number and duration of events; the more events or the 20 greater the duration, the more annoying it becomes. 21 REGULATORY SETTING 22 14.3.1 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 23 No federal laws, regulations, or policies for construction-related noise and vibration apply to 24 the Proposed Program. However, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Guidelines for 25 Construction Vibration in Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment state that for 26 evaluating daytime construction noise impacts in outdoor areas, a noise threshold of 90 dBA 27 Leq should be used for residential areas (FTA 2006). 28 For construction vibration impacts, the FTA guidelines use an annoyance threshold of 80 VdB 29 for infrequent events (fewer than 30 vibration events per day) and a damage threshold of 30 0.12 inches per second (in/sec) PPV for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 31 (FTA 2006). The groundborne vibration annoyance level is 65 VdB for buildings where 32 vibration would interfere with interior operations, 72 VdB for residences, and 75 VdB for 33 institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. 34 14.3.2 STATE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 35 California requires each local government entity to implement a noise element as part of its 36 general plan. California Administrative Code, Title 4, presents guidelines for evaluating the 37 compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. The state land 38 use compatibility guidelines are listed in Table 14-2. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 14-2. State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environment 1 Land Use Category Community Noise Exposure - Ldn or CNEL (dB) 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Residential - Multi-Family Transient Lodging – Motels, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dB = decibel; Ldn = day-night sound level. 2 Source: California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2017 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 14.3.3 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 1 Stanislaus County General Plan 2015 2 Stanislaus County addresses noise impacts through its General Plan and Municipal Code. The 3 Noise Element of the Stanislaus County General Plan 2015 (Stanislaus County 2016) utilizes 4 noise exposure information to identify existing and potential noise conflicts through the Land 5 Use Planning and Project Review processes. The Noise Element establishes exterior noise 6 level standards and maximum allowable noise exposure from stationary noise sources at 7 noise-sensitive land uses. 8 Goal Two: Protect the citizens of Stanislaus County from the harmful effects of exposure to 9 excessive noise. 10 Policy Two: It is the policy of Stanislaus County to develop and implement effective 11 measures to abate and avoid excessive noise exposure in the unincorporated areas of 12 the County by requiring that effective noise mitigation measures be incorporated into 13 the design of new noise generating and new noise sensitive land uses. 14 Implementation Measure 1: New development of noise-sensitive land uses 15 will not be permitted in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation 16 measures are incorporated into the project design to reduce noise levels to 17 the following levels: 18 For transportation noise sources such as traffic on public roadways, 19 railroads, and airports, 60 [dBA] Ldn (or CNEL) or less in outdoor activity 20 areas of single family residences, 65 [dBA] Ldn (or CNEL) or less in 21 community outdoor space for multi-family residences, and 45 [dBA] Ldn 22 (or CNEL) or less within noise sensitive interior spaces. Where it is not 23 possible to reduce exterior noise due to these sources to the prescribed 24 level using a practical application of the best available noise-reduction 25 technology, an exterior noise level of up to 65 Ldn (or CNEL) will be 26 allowed. Under no circumstances will interior noise levels be allowed to 27 exceed 45 Ldn (or CNEL) with the windows and doors closed in 28 residential uses. 29 For other noise sources such as local industries or other stationary noise 30 sources, noise levels shall not exceed the performance standards 31 contained within Table IV-24 [reprinted as Table 14-3 below]. 32 Implementation Measure 2: New development of industrial, commercial or 33 other noise generating land uses will not be permitted if resulting noise levels 34 will exceed 60 [dBA] Ldn (or CNEL) in noise-sensitive areas. Additionally, the 35 development of new noise-generating land uses which are not preempted 36 from local noise regulation will not be permitted if resulting noise levels will 37 exceed the performance standards contained within Table IV-24 [Table 14-3 38 below] in areas containing residential or other noise sensitive land uses. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 14-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise Sources 1 Daytime 7a.m. to 10 p.m. Nighttime 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Hourly Leq, dBA 55 45 Maximum level, dBA 75 65 Note: Each of the noise level standards specified in Table IV-24 [Table 14-3] shall be reduced by five 2 dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring 3 impulsive noises. The standards in Table IV-24 [Table 14-3] should be applied at a residential 4 or other noise-sensitive land use and not on the property of a noise-generating land use. Where 5 measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the 6 ambient levels. 7 Source: Stanislaus County General Plan, Noise Element, Table IV-24 (2016) 8 Policy Three: It is the objective of Stanislaus County to protect areas of the County 9 where noise-sensitive land uses are located. 10 Implementation Measure 1: Require the evaluation of mitigation measures 11 for projects that would cause the Ldn at noise-sensitive uses to increase by 12 3 dBA or more and exceed the “normally acceptable” level, cause the Ldn at 13 noise-sensitive uses to increase 5 dBA or more and remain normally 14 acceptable, or cause new noise levels to exceed the noise ordinance limits 15 (after adoption). 16 Stanislaus County Municipal Code 17 Noise generating sources in Stanislaus County are also regulated under the Municipal Code, 18 Chapter 10.46 (Noise Control) (Stanislaus County 2017). Property line and construction noise 19 limits are established in this ordinance. Property line noise limits apply to noise generation 20 from one property to an adjacent property with the existence of a sensitive receptor (if no 21 receptor, an exception or variance to the standards may be appropriate). These standards do 22 not apply to construction noise that occurs between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The following are the 23 applicable portions of the Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance, and Table 14-4 and 24 Table 14-5 (reprinting Tables A and B of the ordinance) highlight the applicable noise limits. 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 14-4. Exterior Noise Level Standards 1 Land Use Zone Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level as Measured on a Sound Level Meter (Lmax) 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Noise Sensitive 45 45 Residential 50 45 Commercial 60 55 Industrial 75 75 Source: Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 10, Table A. 2 Table 14-5. Cumulative Duration Allowance Standards 3 Cumulative Duration Allowance Decibels Equal to or greater than 30 minutes per hour Table 6 plus 0 dBA Equal to or greater than 15 minutes per hour Table 6 plus 5 dBA Equal to or greater than 5 minutes per hour Table 6 plus 10 dBA Equal to or greater than 1 minute per hour Table 6 plus 15 dBA Less than 1 minute per hour Table 6 plus 20 dBA Source: Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 10, Table B. 4 Section 10.46.050 Exterior Noise Level Standards 5 A. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the unincorporated area of the 6 county to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the 7 exterior noise level when measured at any property situated in either the 8 incorporated or unincorporated area of the county to exceed the noise level 9 standards as set forth below: 10 1. Unless otherwise provided herein, the following exterior noise level 11 standards shall apply to all properties within the designated noise zone: 12 2. Exterior noise levels shall not exceed the following cumulative duration 13 allowance standards: 14 3. Pure Tone Noise, Speech and Music. The exterior noise level standards set 15 forth in Table A [Table 14-4 of this DEIR] shall be reduced by five dB(A) for 16 pure tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or 17 reoccurring impulsive noise. 18 4. In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise 19 level standard above, the ambient noise level shall become the applicable 20 exterior noise level standard. 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Section 10.46.060 Specific Noise Source Standards 1 E. Construction Equipment. No person shall operate any construction equipment so as to 2 cause at or beyond the property line of any property upon which a dwelling unit is located an 3 average sound level greater than seventy-five decibels between the hours of seven p.m. and 4 seven a.m. 5 Section 10.46.070 Vibration. Operating or permitting the operation of any device that 6 creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of any individual at or 7 beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at one hundred fifty 8 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way is prohibited. For the purpose 9 of this section, “vibration perception threshold” means the minimum groundborne or 10 structure-borne vibration motion necessary to cause a reasonable person to be aware of the 11 vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation 12 of moving objects, or a measured motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of one to one 13 hundred Hertz. 14 Section 10.46.080 Exemptions. The following sources are exempt from the provisions 15 of this chapter: 16 J. Public Entity or Public Utility Activity. This chapter [Section 10.46 of the 17 Municipal Code] shall not apply to construction or maintenance activities 18 performed by or at the direction of any public entity or public utility. 19 Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 20 The Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) contains airport 21 compatibility policy maps of three airports in Stanislaus County, including the Modesto City- 22 County Airport. The ALUCP document provides planning area boundary maps and noise 23 contours, presents airport land use background information, and discusses existing and 24 potential noise conflicts in the area (Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission 2016). 25 Figure 11-2 in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this DEIR provides a copy of 26 the Modesto City-County Airport Planning Area Boundary Map. 27 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 28 The following policies of Chapter VII, Environmental Resources, Open Spaces and 29 Conservation, of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019) are 30 applicable to the Proposed Program: 31 Noise Mitigation Policies – Baseline Developed Area 32 All development projects located within the Baseline Developed Area (and Redevelopment 33 Area) shall be required to incorporate the following measures into the project. 34 Policy VII-G.3[g]. At noise-sensitive land uses, increases in noise should not exceed 35 3 dBA where any other noise threshold or standard would be exceeded, and/or 5 dBA 36 where noise levels would otherwise fall within acceptable limits, for the existing 37 conditions scenario as compared to the buildout scenario. 38 Policy VII-G.3[h]. Additional study and/or mitigation for outdoor recreation areas 39 will be required if: ◦For single-family dwellings, noise exceeds 65 dBA Ldn in one or 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 more backyards; ◦For multi-family dwellings, noise exceeds 65 dBA Ldn at common 1 recreation areas, such as swimming pools or play areas or at private patios and 2 balconies; or, ◦For other uses, noise exceeds the level considered “conditionally 3 acceptable” as shown on [General Plan] Table VII-2. 4 Policy VII-G.3[i]. Limit trucking to specific routes, times, and speeds that minimize 5 adverse effects on sensitive receptors. 6 Policy VII-G.3[n]. For construction activities involving high-powered vibratory tools 7 or pile driving within 200 feet of an existing structure, demonstrate that project 8 construction would not exceed the Caltrans construction vibration thresholds to 9 ensure that no damage to sensitive structures would occur. 10 Modesto Municipal Code 11 The following sections of the Modesto Municipal Code in Title 4, Chapter 9, “Noise 12 Regulations,” are applicable to the Proposed Program: 13 Section 4-9.103 – Enumeration. The following specific acts, subject to the 14 exemptions provided in Section 4-9.104, are declared to be public nuisances in 15 violation of Section 4-9.102, namely: 16 The loud and raucous discharge into the open air of the steam of any steam 17 equipment or exhaust from any stationary internal-combustion engine. 18 The loud and raucous operation or use of any of the following before 7:00 a.m. or 19 after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and State or federal holidays, 20 when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 21 A hammer, or any other device or implement used to pound or strike an 22 object. 23 An impact wrench, or other tool or equipment powered by compressed air. 24 A hand-powered saw. 25 Any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine 26 such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack blower, and lawn mower. 27 Except as included in subsection below, motor vehicles, powered by an 28 internal-combustion engine and subject to the California Vehicle Code, are 29 excluded from this prohibition. 30 Any electrically powered (whether by alternating current electricity or by 31 direct current electricity) tool or piece of equipment used for cutting, drilling, 32 or shaping wood, plastic, metal, or other materials or objects, such as, but not 33 limited to, a saw, drill, lathe, or router. 34 Any of the following: heavy equipment (such as but not limited to bulldozer, 35 steam shovel, road grader, back hoe), ground drilling and boring equipment 36 (such as but not limited to derrick or dredge), hydraulic crane and boom 37 equipment, portable power generator or pump, pavement equipment (such 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 as but not limited to pneumatic hammer, pavement breaker, tamper, 1 compacting equipment), pile-driving equipment, vibrating roller, sand 2 blaster, gunite machine, trencher, concrete truck, and hot kettle pump. 3 Any construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration, or repair 4 activity. 5 In the case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public health and safety, 6 the Chief Building Official may issue a permit for exemption from the 7 requirements within subsection of this section. Such period shall not 8 exceed three working days in length while the emergency continues but 9 may be renewed for successive periods of three days or less while the 10 emergency continues. The Chief Building Official may limit such permit as to 11 time of use and/or permitted action, depending upon the nature of the 12 emergency and the type of action requested. 13 The loud and raucous use or operation of any radio, amplifier, phonograph, 14 stereo, compact disc or tape player, loudspeaker, bullhorn, megaphone, or other 15 device for the producing or reproducing of sound. 16 Loud and raucous yelling, shouting, talking, whistling, or singing between the 17 hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any day. 18 The loud and raucous use of any drum, guitar, horn, or other musical instrument 19 or device. 20 Section 4-9.104 – Exemptions. The term “loud and raucous noise” as used in this 21 chapter does not include noise or sound generated by the following: 22 Activities on or in publicly owned property and facilities, or by public employees 23 while in the authorized discharge of their responsibilities, are exempt provided that 24 such activities have been authorized by the owner of such property or facilities or its 25 agent or by the employing authority. 26 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 27 14.4.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL NOISE SETTING 28 Sensitive land uses generally include those that where exposure to noise and vibration would 29 be a nuisance, as well as uses where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. 30 Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and 31 prolonged exposure of individuals to both noise levels (interior and exterior) and vibration 32 levels. Other sensitive land uses include schools, hospitals, convalescent facilities, parks, 33 hotels, places of worship, libraries, and other uses where low noise and vibration levels are 34 essential. Many, if not all, of these sensitive land uses can be found in the immediate vicinity 35 of proposed components throughout Modesto and unincorporated Stanislaus County. While 36 specific sensitive receptors may change or move over the life of the Proposed Program, Figure 37 11-3 in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Figure 13-1 in Chapter 13, Land Use; 38 and Figure 14-1 below show the locations of schools, zoned residential areas, and other 39 existing sensitive receptors with respect to Proposed Program components and the River 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Trunk Realignment Project alignment. These figures provide a general context of the 1 proximity of Proposed Program components to sensitive receptors. 2 Sensitive Receptors near the River Trunk Realignment Project 3 The western and southern portions of the River Trunk Realignment Project are located in 4 close proximity to numerous homes. As shown in Figure 14-1, residential uses are 5 predominantly located along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, and Pelton Avenue, and 6 generally are approximately 30-40 feet from the River Trunk Realignment Project. Other 7 residential receptors in proximity to the River Trunk Realignment Project include homes on 8 Merced Avenue and Calaveras Avenue, which are 170 and 250 feet from the pipeline 9 alignment. 10 A church, school, and a daycare are located near the alignment at the intersection of Calaveras 11 Avenue and Tuolumne Boulevard. Table 14-6 summarizes the locations of these sensitive 12 noise receptors relative to the River Trunk Realignment Project. 13 Table 14-6. Non-residential Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the River Trunk 14 Realignment Project 15 Sensitive Receptor Address Distance from River Trunk Realignment Project The Universal Church 133 Tuolumne Blvd., Modesto 190 feet Kirk Baucher School 140 Calaveras Ave., Modesto 280 Feet Tuolumne Christian Daycare 133 Tuolumne Blvd., Modesto 260 feet 14.4.2 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION SOURCES 16 The Proposed Program study area covers a large area and dominant noise sources vary 17 depending on location. In general, noise sources include industrial facilities canneries), 18 agricultural activities, railroads, air traffic (near the Modesto City-County Airport), and 19 vehicular traffic, in particular near highways and major transportation corridors. Railroad 20 lines operated by multiple companies and SR 99, 132, 108, and 219 create elevated ambient 21 noise levels and pass through large portions of the study area. The Modesto City-County 22 Airport’s planning area boundary and noise contours overlap sections of the Program area 23 (Stanislaus County 2016). 24 The Proposed Program components include new and/or improvements to wastewater 25 collection and treatment infrastructure, lift stations, pumps, and emergency generators. The 26 noise environment varies across the study area and is described generally in the City’s 2008 27 Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Modesto General Plan Update (referred to 28 here as 2008 General Plan EIR), the noise section of which is incorporated by reference and 29 summarized here. Figure V-3-2 in the 2008 General Plan EIR shows the projected traffic noise 30 levels at General Plan buildout in 2025 generated by traffic, the airport, and the railroads. 31 Stationary sources, such as industries, are discussed qualitatively. 32 33 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 As the City’s 2008 General Plan EIR discusses, traffic on highways State Route (SR) 99, SR 1 132, and SR 108, various arterial streets, and other streets in particular truck routes, the 2 railroads, and the Modesto City-County Airport would cause elevated noise levels greater 3 than 75 dBA Ldn at buildout of the General Plan. Within a relatively short distance away from 4 the highways, arterials, and railroads, the average noise levels typically drop to 65 dBA Ldn 5 or lower. Noise levels in some commercial and industrial areas are described in the 2008 6 General Plan EIR in Table V-3-1 which indicates measured noise levels in some commercial 7 and industrial areas were between 65 and 74 dBA. Measured noise levels in residential areas 8 ranged from 54 to 70 dBA, based on the 2008 General Plan EIR’s Table V-3-1. Based on Figure 9 V-3-2 in the City’s 2008 General Plan EIR, residences along Tuolumne Boulevard, between 10 Paradise Avenue and North 9th Street, would experience noise levels that generally ranged 11 from 60 to 65 dB. 12 The specific Proposed Program components, in particular the wastewater pipelines, would 13 be located in almost all areas of the City and would be within the range of all noise levels 14 indicated in the 2008 General Plan EIR. 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- River Trunk Pump Station Southern Pacific Railroad Modesto Municipal Golf Course Shackelford Pump Station Dryden Golf Course Tu o lu m ne R iv er Modesto High School Kirk Baucher School Universal Church Tuolumne Christian Daycare HWY 99 S 7TH ST B ST NEECE DR COLORADO AVE TUOLUMNE BLV PARADISE AVE PARADISE RD HWY 99 0 500 1,000 250 Feet ¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_14-1_Sensitive_Receptors_Trenching.mxd 10/30/2017 PG Figure 14-1 Proximity of Sensitive Receptors to Trenching Activities River Trunk Realignment Project City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Trenching Segments 90 dBA Zone ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Areas outside of the City’s 2008 General Plan EIR scope the new primary effluent outfall 1 connecting the Sutter Plant to the Jennings Plant and the Jennings Plant itself) would have 2 similar noise contour trends around traffic on highways, arterial streets, railroads, airports, 3 and industrial areas as described for the City. 4 Existing Noise and Vibration Sources near the River Trunk Realignment Project 5 The eastern portion of the River Trunk Realignment Project would be in an industrial area of 6 Modesto, and the eastern terminus is located at the Gallo Winery production facility’s parking 7 lot. As mentioned above, the central and southern portions of the River Trunk Realignment 8 Project would be in a predominantly residential area of Modesto. Existing sources of noise 9 and vibration in the vicinity of this project include a Union Pacific railroad line, SR 99, and the 10 Modesto City-County Airport which is located approximately 1.4 miles to the east. Multiple 11 food processing and industrial facilities are within a half-mile of the River Trunk Realignment 12 Project. 13 IMPACT ANALYSIS 14 14.5.1 METHODOLOGY 15 The following impact analysis used a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches 16 to analyze impacts associated with the Proposed Program. Construction-related noise effects 17 associated with the River Trunk Realignment Project were determined using a quantitative 18 approach, since greater project-level detail was available for this program component at the 19 time this DEIR was prepared. Construction and operation impacts of all Program-level 20 components were determined using a qualitative approach. In addition, operational impacts 21 of the River Trunk Realignment Project were also estimated using a qualitative approach. The 22 qualitative analysis uses distances to sensitive receptors, project information and design, and 23 information provided by City of Modesto staff. 24 For the River Trunk Realignment Project, construction-related impacts were assessed by 25 applying the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2006). 26 This methodology assumes that the two loudest pieces of construction equipment (using the 27 construction equipment list from California Emissions Estimator Model [CalEEMod]) would 28 operate simultaneously at the same location under full power, assuming the following: 29  full power operation for a full 1-hour, 30  there are no obstructions to the noise travel paths, 31  typical noise levels from construction equipment, and 32  both pieces of equipment operate at the center of the project site. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Using these assumptions, the noise levels at specific distances can be obtained using the 1 following equation: 2 3 Where: 4 Leq (equip) = the noise emission level at the receiver at distance D over 1 hour 5 EL50ft = noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment at a reference distance 6 of 50 feet 7 D = the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment in feet 8 To add the two loudest pieces of equipment together, the following equation applies: 9 10 Where: 11 Ltotal = the noise emission level of two pieces of equipment combined 12 L1 = the noise emission level of equipment type 1 13 L2 = the noise emission level of equipment type 2 14 Noise levels at the Proposed Program’s nearest sensitive receptors generated by construction 15 equipment were estimated by using the FTA reference guide (FTA 2006). 16 14.5.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 17 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on noise and vibration if it would: 18  Expose persons to or generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in 19 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the 20 local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; 21  Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 22 noise levels; 23  Substantially permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 24 levels existing without the project; 25  Substantially temporarily or periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project 26 vicinity above levels existing without the project; 27  For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not 28 been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people 29 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or 1 working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 2 For the Proposed Program, the significance of noise effects is based on a comparison 3 between predicted noise levels and noise criteria defined by Stanislaus County and the 4 City of Modesto. For the Proposed Program, noise impacts would be significant if existing 5 or proposed noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise levels in excess of the 6 County of Stanislaus General Plan Noise Element (Stanislaus County 2016), Stanislaus 7 County Municipal Code standards, City of Modesto General Plan Noise Element (City of 8 Modesto 2019), or City of Modesto Noise Ordinance, described in Section 14.3, 9 “Regulatory Setting,” or if implementing the Proposed Program would increase ambient 10 noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in excess of those described above. 11 The following considerations apply to the first four significance criteria: 12  Noise impacts from operation of Proposed Program facilities: For all affected 13 noise-sensitive uses, noise that would be generated by operation of proposed 14 facilities would be significant if it would cause the overall exterior noise level to 15 exceed the “normally acceptable” noise standard compatible with exterior land 16 uses or if it would result in an increase of ambient noise levels by 10 dBA. 17  Noise impacts from increased daily traffic: For all affected noise-sensitive 18 uses, noise generated by an increase in daily traffic volumes caused by the 19 Proposed Program would be significant if it would cause the overall exterior noise 20 level to exceed the “normally acceptable” noise standard compatible with exterior 21 land uses, exceed the interior noise standard, or result in an increase of ambient 22 noise levels by 10 dBA. 23  Exposure of sensitive receptors to, or generation of, excessive vibration 24 levels: Short- and long-term vibration impacts would be significant if project 25 construction or operation would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to, 26 or would generate, vibration levels that exceed Caltrans’ recommended standard 27 of 0.2-0.3 in/sec PPV for the prevention of structural damage to non-engineered 28 timber and masonry or engineered concrete and masonry buildings or the FTA’s 29 vibration standards of 72 VdB regarding human response for residential uses 30 annoyance), or 65 VdB for human perception, at any nearby existing sensitive 31 land uses. 32  Temporary, short-term noise impacts from construction: Temporary, short- 33 term noise impacts caused by construction are exempt from noise ordinances 34 described in the Stanislaus County Municipal Code Specific Noise Source 35 Standards Subsection E (Section 10.46.060, “Construction Equipment”) and the 36 City of Modesto Code Ordinances (Section 4-9.103, “Enumeration”). Program- 37 related construction noise levels greater than the FTA significance threshold of 38 90 dBA at residential and noise-sensitive land uses would be considered to result 39 in a temporary noise impact. 40 The final criterion has been dismissed from this analysis because the Proposed Program 41 does not include any components within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no 42 impact would occur and this topic is not discussed further. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 14.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 Impact NOI-1: Expose Persons to Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Established 2 in a Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance or in the Applicable Standards of 3 Other Agencies (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 4 All Program-level Components 5 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, construction activities would generally occur 6 Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., excluding City-observed holidays. 7 Nonetheless, since the construction timeframes and schedules for each individual CIP have 8 not yet been determined, future construction activities have potential to expose people 9 (particularly residential receptors) to noise levels exceeding the above-listed timeframe and 10 other standards in the local general plan and noise ordinances. This impact is considered 11 significant. Construction of all program-level components would be required to follow 12 applicable local laws, and the City’s contractor(s) would be required to adjust the times of 13 construction accordingly. Stanislaus County and the City of Modesto municipal codes contain 14 some exemptions for noise from construction and maintenance activities performed by, or 15 for, public utilities and facilities a special exemption permit allowed by Modesto 16 Municipal Code Section 4-9.103[b][6]). 17 With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Employ Noise-Reducing 18 Construction Practices) and Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Limit Nighttime Construction 19 Noise), the City’s contractor(s) would be required to ensure that construction activities occur 20 in a manner consistent with local noise standards when operating during allowable daytime 21 hours outlined above. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 22 Once construction is complete, program-level components involving pipeline replacement or 23 rehabilitation would not generate excess noise levels. In addition, because there are limited 24 sensitive receptors in close proximity less than 1,000 feet) to the Jennings Plant, future 25 components planned at the Jennings Plant would not expose people to noise levels in excess 26 of local standards. However, operation of proposed lift station components and Sutter Plant 27 components would generate ongoing noise levels in areas that could expose people to noise 28 levels in excess of established noise levels without mitigation. The Proposed Program’s lift 29 stations would all be underground but some would include aboveground facilities such as 30 back-up generators that would generate noise. Some of the Proposed Program’s lift station 31 components would be located in residential areas of Modesto. Currently, the level of design 32 detail for proposed lift station and Sutter Plant facility components is not sufficient to conduct 33 a quantitative noise analysis; thus, operational noise impacts for these components are 34 conservatively considered to be significant. 35 For the Sutter Plant components, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 (Prepare Project-level Noise 36 Analysis for Operation of Proposed Sutter Plant Components) requires a detailed noise 37 study to determine whether appropriate measures have been implemented to reduce noise 38 levels to less than a 10-dB increase in residential areas. If the project-level noise analysis 39 shows that relevant thresholds (10-dB increase) would be exceeded at the Sutter Plant, 40 Mitigation Measure NOI-4 (Employ Noise-Reducing Methods during Operations) would 41 be implemented for the Sutter Plant. For lift station components, Mitigation Measure NOI-4 42 would also require implementation of noise-reducing methods so that noise from lift stations 43 does not exceed City or County noise-level standards at adjacent residences. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 In conclusion, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1, NOI-2, NOI-3, and NOI-4 would 1 reduce noise levels for construction and operation of the WWMP program-level components, 2 This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 3 River Trunk Realignment Project 4 While construction timeframes have been generally established for the River Trunk 5 Realignment Project, the possibility exists that project construction activities could occur 6 outside the construction hour timeframe due to weather constraints and other unexpected 7 delays that sometimes arise during construction projects. This impact is considered 8 significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce this 9 impact to less than significant with mitigation during the construction phase. 10 Operation of the River Trunk Pump Station and the Shackelford Pump Station would generate 11 noise through the operation of equipment pumps, emergency generators) and periodic 12 maintenance-related vehicle trips. However, noise associated with equipment operation 13 would not be substantial since the pumps would be located underground in enclosed 14 structures that would mute any generated sounds, and the backup generators would be 15 sound-buffered and would be operated infrequently, primarily in the event of power outages 16 or for periodic maintenance. In addition, since there are no residential receptors in close 17 proximity (800 feet) to either pump station, operation of the River Trunk Realignment 18 Project would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of the standards established in 19 applicable noise ordinances. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant during 20 the operation phase. 21 Overall Conclusion 22 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, construction-related noise impacts would 23 be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2. Design details for 24 some program-level components new/upgraded facilities at the Sutter Plant) have not 25 yet been developed such that a quantitative operational noise analysis can be conducted at 26 this time. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would ensure that a detailed project- 27 level noise analysis is completed for future Sutter Plant components. Mitigation Measure NOI- 28 4 would ensure that noise-reducing design measures are incorporated into lift station designs 29 and, if necessary, the Sutter Plant’s design. In conclusion, implementation of these mitigation 30 measures would reduce noise levels associated with the Proposed Program’s construction 31 and operation, and noise levels would not be in excess of standards established in the relevant 32 noise ordinances and policies. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with 33 mitigation. 34 Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Employ Noise-Reducing Construction and 35 Maintenance Practices. 36 Applies to all Program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment Project 37 The following measures will be implemented by the City or its contractor(s) to reduce 38 adverse effects from construction and maintenance noise in locations where noise- 39 sensitive receptors could be adversely affected: 40  Locate stationary equipment as far as practical from noise-sensitive land 41 uses; 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Use electrified or otherwise quieter equipment when practical; 1  Use sound-control devices on equipment that are more effective than devices 2 originally provided on the equipment; 3  Use noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment; and 4  Install temporary barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land 5 uses, or take advantage of existing barrier features terrain and 6 structures) to block sound transmission. 7 When determining haul truck routes, consideration will be given to altering haul 8 routes to avoid sensitive receptors when feasible. 9 Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Limit Nighttime Construction Noise. 10 Applies to all Program-level components and the River Trunk Realignment 11 Project 12 When feasible, the City and its contractor shall ensure that no construction activities 13 are conducted in close proximity to a residence outside the hours of 7:00 a.m.–9:00 14 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and state or federal 15 holidays unless a special exemption permit allowed by Modesto Municipal Code 16 Section 4-9.103(b)(6) is obtained. 17 Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prepare Project-level Noise Analysis for Operation 18 of Proposed Sutter Plant Components. 19 Applies to proposed Sutter Plant components 20 The City or its contractor(s) shall prepare a project-level noise analysis for operation 21 of proposed Sutter Plant components. The detailed noise study should show that 22 appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce noise levels to less 23 than a 10-dB increase in residential areas. If the analysis demonstrates that 24 significant operational noise impacts are likely to occur, Mitigation Measure NOI-4 25 shall be implemented. Alternately, the City can assume that the impacts would be 26 significant and implement Mitigation Measure NOI-4 without first conducting a noise 27 study under Mitigation Measure NOI-3. 28 Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Employ Noise-Reducing Methods During 29 Operations. 30 Applies to lift station components and potentially Sutter Plant components 31 The City or its contractor(s) shall implement noise-reducing methods so that noise 32 from lift stations does not exceed City or County noise-level standards at adjacent 33 residences. This measure shall also be implemented to achieve City or County noise- 34 level standards for Sutter Plant components if deemed necessary per Mitigation 35 Measure NOI-3. Example measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: 36  Locate stationary equipment as far as practical from noise-sensitive land 37 uses; 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Use electrified or otherwise quieter equipment when practical; 1  Use sound-control devices on equipment that are more effective than devices 2 originally provided on the equipment; 3  Install permanent barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land 4 uses, or take advantage of existing barrier features (terrain and structures) to 5 block sound transmission; 6  Limit operations and maintenance-related trucking to specific routes, times, 7 and speeds that minimize adverse effects to sensitive land uses such as 8 schools and residential areas; and 9  Use sound attenuation enclosures designed to achieve noise reductions 10 sufficient to comply with City and County standards for noise-generating 11 elements of the operation, when no other feasible control method is available. 12 Impact NOI-2: Expose Persons to Excessive Groundborne Vibration or 13 Groundborne Noise Levels (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 14 Construction activities associated with the operation of heavy equipment may generate 15 localized groundborne vibration. Vibration from non-impact construction activity is typically 16 below the threshold of perception when the activity is more than about 50 feet from the 17 receptor. Impact construction activity, including the use of pile drivers and similar 18 equipment, may be perceived hundreds of feet away and can cause damage to susceptible 19 buildings located over 100 feet away. Multiple components of the River Trunk Realignment 20 Project would involve the use of pile drivers and loaded trucks, both of which are substantial 21 sources of construction-related vibration. Such equipment, particularly loaded trucks, would 22 likely be used during construction of Proposed Program-level components, which would 23 involve travel along residential roads in Modesto. 24 Table 14-7 summarizes construction equipment that would be used during construction of 25 the River Trunk Realignment Project that would generate major sources of vibration and the 26 distances at which various vibration thresholds would be met. 27 Table 14-7. Construction Equipment and Vibration Distances 28 Equipment PPV at 25 feet Distance to PPV of 0.2 in/sec Distance to PPV of 0.3 in/sec Noise Vibration Level at 25 feet Distance to Noise Vibration of 72 VdB1 Distance to Noise Vibration of 65 VdB1 Pile Driver 1.518 97 feet 74 feet 112 VdB 539 feet 922 feet Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 25 feet 19 feet 94 VdB 135 feet 232 feet Loaded Trucks 0.076 13 feet 10 feet 86 VdB 73 feet 125 feet Notes: Calculations are provided in Appendix E. 29 1 This is the human perception threshold. 65 VdB is the groundborne vibration annoyance level for buildings 30 with sensitive interior operations, and 72 VdB is the groundborne vibration annoyance level for residents. 31 Multiple sensitive receptors (primarily residences) along the River Trunk Realignment 32 Project route are located within the calculated vibration perception and annoyance threshold 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 distances. As a result, vibration effects on sensitive receptors would be significant. Given the 1 short duration of construction in any given location, implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 NOI-5 (Implement Vibration Reduction Measures) would reduce construction-related 3 impacts from vibration to a less-than-significant level. 4 Operational noise would be generated from mechanical equipment such as pumps and 5 maintenance vehicle trips. This type of activity would generate vibration levels that are much 6 lower than the levels generated during construction. Because of the distance between the 7 operating equipment and nearby sensitive receivers, vibration levels would result in a less- 8 than-significant noise impact during operation. 9 Given the temporary nature of vibration resulting from construction activities and the 10 implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-5, this impact would be less than significant 11 with mitigation. 12 Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Implement Vibration Reduction Measures. 13 Applies to River Trunk Realignment Project and other Program-level components 14 The City of Modesto and/or its contractors shall implement the following vibration- 15 reducing measures during construction activities which could generate substantial 16 vibration to minimize impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: 17  Ensure proper tuning of vibration-causing equipment. 18  Use vibration damping devices to the extent feasible. 19  Limit use of vibratory equipment to the extent feasible and do not overlap use of 20 vibratory equipment. Where possible, maintain a distance of 15+ feet from 21 buildings. 22  Require contractor(s) to ensure that impact tools jack hammers, pavement 23 breakers, and rock drills) used for construction be hydraulically or electrically 24 powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air 25 exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic 26 tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be 27 used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. 28 External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, and this 29 could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as 30 drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. 31  Use electric stationary equipment generators) where feasible. 32  Implement noise and/or vibration shields, such as sound aprons or temporary 33 enclosures with sound-absorbing material, on or around construction equipment, 34 particularly if construction activities are conducted after 7:00 pm. For all 35 construction activities occurring within 60 feet of residences at any time of day, 36 install a temporary noise and vibration barrier between the project site and the 37 nearest sensitive receptors. Following the completion of construction activities 38 within that distance, the barrier will be removed. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact NOI-3: Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the 1 Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Proposed Program (Less than 2 Significant with Mitigation) 3 New and Upgraded Sewers, Sewer Rehabilitation, Stormwater/Sanitary 4 Disconnections, R&R Components, Outfall Pipeline Components 5 Once installed, all new and upgraded sewer lines, sewer rehabilitation components, 6 stormwater/sanitary disconnections, R&R projects, and outfall pipelines would be 7 belowground and would not generate noise. These program-level CIPs would not 8 permanently increase ambient noise levels and therefore would result in no impact. 9 Lift Station Components, Sutter Plant, and Jennings Plant Components 10 Aside from components involving new, rehabilitated or replaced pipelines, operation of other 11 proposed components would result in permanent sources of noise that could be substantial. 12 This would include operation of large industrial equipment associated with the wastewater 13 treatment plants that may generate high noise levels without implementation of proper noise 14 mitigation measures such as sound attenuation enclosures and other barriers. Because there 15 are limited sensitive receptors in close proximity less than 1,000 feet) to the Jennings 16 Plant, future components planned at the Jennings Plant would not be likely to increase 17 ambient noise levels in excess of local standards. In addition, the operation of the 18 belowground lift stations and the periodic operation of backup generators at the lift stations 19 would not result in a permanent ambient noise level change. Traffic-related noise for the 20 Proposed Program’s maintenance and operation activities would not be a permanent noise 21 source because maintenance trips to lift stations would be periodic, and the personnel change 22 (approximately 60) from the Sutter Plant to Jennings Plant would result in a small increase 23 in trips to and from the Jennings Plant, as well as a small decrease in trips to and from the 24 Sutter Plant. However, future noise levels of the Sutter Plant’s wastewater facilities would be 25 significant. 26 Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requires Sutter Plant components to undergo a detailed noise 27 study to show that appropriate measures have been implemented to reduce noise levels to 28 less than a 10-dB increase in residential areas. If the project-level noise analysis shows that 29 relevant thresholds (10-dB increase) would be exceeded at the Sutter Plant, Mitigation 30 Measure NOI-4 would be implemented for the Sutter Plant. Mitigation Measure NOI-4 and its 31 noise-reducing measures would ensure that the Proposed Program’s operations comply with 32 applicable noise standards and would not cause the overall exterior noise level to exceed the 33 “normally acceptable” noise standard compatible with exterior land uses or result in an 34 increase of ambient noise levels by 10 dBA. Thus, the Proposed Program’s operation-related 35 increase in ambient noise would not be substantial. This impact would be less than 36 significant with mitigation. 37 River Trunk Realignment Project 38 As described in Impact NOI-1, the River Trunk Realignment Project’s pump stations would 39 be designed such that all pumps would be belowground and/or enclosed; thus, operation of 40 these pumps would not permanently increase ambient noise levels. In addition, the operation 41 of the buried proposed pipelines and the periodic operation of backup generators at the 42 pump stations would not result in a permanent ambient noise level change. Therefore, this 43 impact would be less than significant. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Overall Conclusion 1 Considering the WWMP components as a whole, while operation of belowground 2 components (lift stations), components far from sensitive receptors (Jennings Plant), 3 periodic operation of back-up generators, and the River Trunk Realignment Project would 4 not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, the Sutter Plant’s wastewater 5 treatment facilities would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 6 Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 and, if necessary, Mitigation Measure NOI-4 7 would ensure that operation of new and upgraded facilities would not result in substantial 8 permanent increases in ambient noise levels. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s effects 9 on ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. 10 Impact NOI-4: Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise 11 Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Proposed 12 Program (Significant and Unavoidable) 13 All Program-level Components 14 Temporary and periodic increases in noise levels associated with the Proposed Program’s 15 construction activities, periodic maintenance activities, and associated periodic truck traffic, 16 would increase ambient noise levels above the ambient noise levels existing without the 17 Proposed Program. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, 18 which include several construction noise-reducing measures and limit nighttime 19 construction, would reduce short-term noise impacts to a level that is less than significant 20 with mitigation. 21 River Trunk Realignment Project 22 The River Trunk Realignment Project includes the construction of two pump stations and the 23 installation of roughly four miles of pipeline, much of which passes through residential areas 24 of Modesto. In order to more accurately analyze the noise impacts of construction of the River 25 Trunk Realignment Project, the noise evaluation was divided into the following four sub- 26 projects based on location and equipment usage: 27  River Trunk Pump Station 28  Shackelford Pump Station 29  Pipeline Trenching 30  Pipeline Construction Involving Horizontal Drilling and Drill Pits 31 Following the methodology discussed in Section 14.4.3, the two loudest pieces of equipment 32 specified for the four River Trunk Realignment Project components were used to model noise 33 levels during construction. For each project component, Table 14-8 below provides 34 information on the loudest pieces of equipment, sound levels at 50 feet, distance to noise 35 thresholds, and noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the geographical scale 36 and close proximity to numerous sensitive receptors, additional information on the pipeline 37 segments that involve trenching is displayed in Figure 14-1. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 14-8. River Trunk Realignment Project Construction Noise Levels 1 Project Component Loudest Pieces of Equipment dBA at 50 ft. Distance to 90 dBA (ft.) dBA at Nearest Sensitive Receptor River Trunk Pump Station Pile Driver Loaded Truck 101.6 191 77.6 (Residences C. St.) Shackelford Pump Station Pile Driver Loaded Truck 101.3 183 74.4 (Residences Pueblo Ave.) Pipeline Segments Involving Horizontal Drilling & Pile Drivers Pile Driver Paver 101.2 182 85.6 (Residences Calaveras Ave.) Other Pipeline Segments Loaded Truck Excavator 89.8 49 Greater than 90 dBA (See Fig. 14-1) Source: Modeling conducted by Horizon in 2017 (Appendix The 90 dBA distance relates to 2 the FTA-recommended daytime threshold of 90 dBA for residential areas. 3 Construction activities would likely exceed noise thresholds at individual sensitive receptors 4 along the pipeline route. For several components of the River Trunk Realignment Project, 5 construction activities would raise ambient noise levels above 90 dB, the FTA significance 6 threshold at residential and noise-sensitive land uses, for the nearest residences. 7 Approximately 156 residential land parcels would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the 8 90 dBA threshold. These noise levels would be disruptive to nearby sensitive receptors 9 because noise levels would substantially exceed existing ambient noise levels, which 10 generally range along Tuolumne Boulevard from 60 to 65 dBA (as shown in the City’s 2008 11 General Plan EIR) and likely at similar noise levels within other areas of the River Trunk 12 Realignment Project area (Figure 14-1) depending on the proximity to traffic-related noise 13 or other noise sources. This impact would be significant. 14 Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce the noise levels 15 during construction to the extent feasible; however, noise impacts may still exist for sensitive 16 receptors located near the River Trunk Realignment Project, and the impact would remain 17 significant and unavoidable. 18 Overall Conclusion 19 Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would reduce temporary 20 construction noise effects associated with program-level components and the River Trunk 21 project. However, these measures may not fully reduce construction noise impacts for 22 sensitive receptors near the River Trunk alignment. Thus, even with implementation of 23 Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, the Proposed Program’s temporary impacts related to 24 increases in ambient noise levels would be significant and unavoidable. 25 Impact NOI-5: Expose People Residing or Working in the Program Area to 26 Excessive Noise Levels Associated with a Public Airport (Less than Significant) 27 The Modesto City-County Airport’s planning area boundary and noise contours overlap 28 sections of the Program study area (Stanislaus County 2016). However, the Program-level 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 14. Noise and Vibration Wastewater Master Plan 14-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 components within areas affected by airport-related noise the CNEL noise zones policy 1 areas shown in the Noise Zones Policy Map for Modesto City-County Airport [Stanislaus 2 County 2016]), would be limited to upgraded or replaced sewer pipelines, and new or 3 upgraded pump stations or lift stations. These types of components would not require 4 workers to be onsite during operation, and thus would only result in temporary exposure of 5 City employees or contractors to airport-related noise exclusively during temporary 6 construction and maintenance activities. 7 The Sutter and Jennings wastewater treatment plants, where City employees would primarily 8 be onsite to perform operational activities, are not located within the vicinity of the airport 9 noise impact zones. Therefore, since no sensitive receptors would be located in the airport 10 noise impact zones once any construction activities are complete, this impact would be less 11 than significant. 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 15-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 15 1 POPULATION AND HOUSING 2 15.1 OVERVIEW 3 This section describes the Proposed Program’s impacts related to population and housing. 4 The environmental setting and impact analysis for population and housing were developed 5 through a review of: 6  Stanislaus County General Plan (2016a) and Housing Element (2016b); 7  City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019) and Housing Element (2015); 8  Ceres General Plan 2035 (2018) 9  California Department of Finance’s (DOF’s) City and Unincorporated Areas Estimates 10 documents (DOF 2016a, 2016b, and 2016c); and 11  U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a—c, 2015a—f, 12 and 2016). 13 15.2 REGULATORY SETTING 14 There are no federal or state laws, regulations, and/or policies that are applicable to the 15 Proposed Program. The following section describes local population and housing laws, 16 regulations and/or policies that would be applicable to the Proposed Program. 17 15.2.1 LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 18 Stanislaus County General Plan 19 The Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016a) contains the following goals 20 and policies related to population and housing. 21 Land Use Element 22 Goal One. Provide for diverse land use needs by designating patterns which are responsive 23 to the physical characteristics of the land as well as to environmental, economic, 24 and social concerns of the residents of Stanislaus County. 25 Policy Five. Residential densities, as defined in the General Plan, shall be the 26 maximum based upon environmental constraints, the availability of public 27 services, and acceptable service levels. The densities reflected may not always 28 be achievable and shall not be approved unless there is proper site planning and 29 provision of suitable open space and recreational areas consistent with the 30 supportive goals and policies of the General Plan. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Implementation Measure 1 1. Residential development shall not be approved at the maximum density if: 2 it threatens riparian habitat; growth-limiting factors such as high water 3 table, poor soil percolation, geological fault areas, and airport hazard areas 4 exist; development is in a designated floodway or does not meet the 5 requirements of Chapter 16.50 of the County Code; it conflicts with the 6 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; there is lack of, or inadequate, 7 sanitary sewer or public water service; or environmental impacts, 8 including traffic, cannot be mitigated. 9 Policy Six. Preserve and encourage upgrading of existing unincorporated urban 10 communities. 11 Housing Element 12 Goal Four. Designate sufficient sites for all types of residential development required to meet 13 projected housing needs. 14 Policies 15  The County shall identify unincorporated areas with adequate infrastructure 16 and limited environmental concerns that are most suited for housing, 17 especially lower-cost and higher-density housing. 18  The County shall identify specific methods and provide assistance to 19 improve infrastructure in residential areas. 20 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 21 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019) implements a community growth 22 strategy that emphasizes policies regulating the quality, quantity, and direction of urban 23 growth. These policies have resulted in a compact urban form, with few infill parcels 24 remaining, neighborhoods offering a diversity of housing types and higher-than-average 25 densities, and a geographic balance with new growth occurring on all sides of the community. 26 The Urban Area General Plan recognizes that, while significant public facility deficiencies may 27 result from these policies in the short term, their resolution is still deemed manageable over 28 the long term. 29 Policy II.A.3. Development Follows Annexation 30 Annex residential growth and development within the Modesto Urban Area 31 General Plan boundary before development occurs. 32 Policy II.A.4. Direct Growth Inward 33 Direct urban growth to areas currently served with City services. 34 Goal II.B. Development Priorities and Financing 35 Establish priority areas for new development and identify reasonable and certain financing 36 for capital projects consistent with applicable City policies and standard operating 37 procedures. 38 Policy II.B.1. Priority Development Areas 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Support new development with infrastructure developed in accordance with the established 1 Capital Improvement Program priority areas of Downtown, Kiernan Business Park, the Tivoli 2 Specific Plan area and the South Modesto Industrial Park (north of Whitmore Ave. between 3 Crows Landing Rd. and Morgan Rd.). 4 Policy II.B.3 Funding Capital Improvements 5 Increase and improve capital projects over time through maintaining or enhancing 6 existing funding sources, maximizing joint-use efficiencies, and strategically 7 prioritizing capital investments. 8 Policy II.C.3 Unincorporated “Island” Annexations 9 Annex unincorporated County islands, generally located in the south and west areas 10 of Modesto, into the City limits only after a Public Improvement Agreement (PIA) is 11 established between the City and County. Certain conditions contained within the 12 PIA, such as those regarding funding and construction of infrastructure systems, 13 must be satisfied prior to annexation. 14 The PIA establishes the infrastructure systems that must be constructed, which 15 typically include water, wastewater, storm drainage, fire hydrants, streets and 16 streetlights. Other infrastructure components may be necessary on an area-by-area 17 basis. The PIA also documents the applicable tax-share agreement between the City 18 and County, and certain other project-specific details. 19 20 Housing Element 2015-2023 21 The City of Modesto Housing Element 2015-2023 (2017a) is an element of the General Plan 22 that aims to develop a coordinated and comprehensive housing strategy that promotes the 23 production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. The Housing 24 Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on matching housing supply with need, 25 maximizing housing choice throughout the community, assisting in the provision of 26 affordable housing, removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment, 27 and promoting fair and equal housing opportunities. Chapter 2, Program Description, of this 28 document provides an analysis of the City’s demographics, housing characteristics, and 29 existing and future housing needs. 30 City of Ceres General Plan 31 While no proposed improvements would be located in Ceres, due to the City of Ceres’ 32 proximity to Modesto and because the Proposed Program could have indirect effects on 33 population and housing in Ceres through providing wastewater service to north Ceres, the 34 following policies from the Ceres General Plan 2035 (2018) may be relevant to the Proposed 35 Program: 36 Policy 2.A.2. Prioritize Growth in SOI. Prioritize growth within the Ceres Sphere of 37 Influence. Permit development outside of the Sphere of Influence only when there is 38 a demonstrated need for additional land and there is less than a five-year supply of 39 appropriately designated land within the existing Sphere of Influence, in accordance 40 with Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policy 2.A.3. Compact Footprint. Promote compact development patterns, mixed 1 land uses, and higher development intensities and limit “leap forg” development to 2 conserve agricultural land, reduce vehicle trips, and improe air quality. 3 15.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4 15.3.1 POPULATION 5 In 2010, Stanislaus County had a population of approximately 514,453 (Stanislaus County 6 2016a as cited in Stanislaus County 2016b). As of January 1, 2015, this number rose to 7 532,297, of which the unincorporated areas accounted for 113,772 persons. Population 8 growth by 2025 is projected to reach over 637,000 according to the Stanislaus Council of 9 Governments (StanCOG), which represents an increase of approximately 20 percent from the 10 County’s 2015 population estimate, with the majority of growth projected to occur in 11 incorporated cities (City of Modesto 2017a). 12 Modesto is the largest city in Stanislaus County. Since 1990, the City has grown by an 13 estimated 21.6 percent from 164,730 in 1990 to 210,341 as of 2015 (California Department 14 of Finance [DOF] 2015 as cited in City of Modesto 2017a; StanCOG 2016). Between 2000 and 15 2010, the population growth rate declined as the City’s population grew at an average annual 16 rate of 0.6 percent from about 188,900 to 201,165. More recent projections estimate that the 17 City’s population was at 211,903 in 2016, which represents a 0.9 percent increase from 2015 18 (DOF 2016a). 19 The City of Ceres had an estimated population of 47,754 as of January 2017 (DOF 2017). The 20 City’s population is projected to increase from the current population by an estimated 23,021 21 persons by 2050 (StanCOG 2016). 22 The community of Empire is located adjacent to Modesto’s eastern boundary and is an 23 unincorporated community of Stanislaus County (Stanislaus County 2016b). The community 24 had an estimated population of 4,394 in 2015 and is projected to grow by 1,796 persons by 25 2050 (StanCOG 2016). 26 Table 15-1 provides a breakdown of past population estimates and future projections from 27 2015 through 2050 for Modesto, Ceres, Empire, and unincorporated Stanislaus County. 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 15-1. Population Growth Trends for the Cities of Modesto and Ceres, Empire, and Unincorporated Stanislaus County 1 Jurisdiction 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Change (2015-2050)** Number Percent Increase Modesto 210,341 220,865 232,622 244,662 256,545 268,176 279,460 290,555 +80,214 27.6 Ceres 48,029 51,049 54,424 57,879 61,290 64,628 67,866 71,050 +23,021 32.4 Empire 4,394 4,630 4,893 5,163 5,429 5,689 5,942 6,190 +1,796 29.0 Unincorporated Stanislaus County* 113,772 117,807 121,843 125,879 133,753 141,627 N/A N/A +27,855 19.7 Totals 376,536 394,351 413,782 433,583 457,017 480,120 N/A N/A 132,886 26.5 Notes: N/A = Estimates are not available for these years for unincorporated Stanislaus County area. 2 Change calculations for unincorporated Stanislaus County are for 2015-2040. 3 Sources: StanCOG 2016; *StanCOG 2040 Regional Growth Forecast as cited in Stanislaus County 2016c 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 15.3.2 HOUSING 1 Housing availability within the unincorporated portions of Stanislaus County is limited for 2 the number of employed persons that work in the county. Based on 2010 estimates, the 3 housing to jobs ratio in the County was 0.54, with 68,086 employed jobs to 36,684 housing 4 units available. The housing to jobs ratio is projected to decrease steadily through 2030, and 5 is projected to decline to 0.47 by then (StanCOG 2040 Demographic Forecast, as cited in 6 Stanislaus County 2016b). However, the number of new homes permitted is increasing 7 steadily, with 420 new homes being permitted in 2014 compared to 244 in 2010. 8 The City of Modesto makes up the largest portion of housing in the County with 9 approximately 75,816 units as of 2017 (DOF 2017). As of 2016, the approximate housing 10 vacancy rate was approximately 6.7 percent with about 70,613 units occupied of a total 11 75,715 units in the City. The average household size was 2.96 persons. 12 For the City of Ceres, the total number of housing units compared to Modesto were 13 significantly less, totaling 13,807 in 2017. This is a 134-unit increase from 2010 estimates, 14 which determined the number of households to be 13,673 (DOF 2017). The vast majority of 15 housing stock is single-family units, which comprised approximately 76 percent of the City of 16 Ceres’ stock in 2014 (City of Ceres 2016). 17 Empire had an estimated housing unit count of 1,333 in 2015. 40 of these units were 18 considered vacant, accounting for a vacancy rate of 3.0 percent (U.S. Census 2015g). This 19 number is down by 5.4 percent from the vacancy rate in for the Community in 2010 (8.4 20 percent). However, the number of total housing units decreased by 14 units since then (U.S. 21 Census 2010c). Table 15-2 shows housing unit growth trends for the cities of Modesto and 22 Ceres and the Community of Empire from 2015 to 2050. 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 15-2. Housing Unit Growth in Modesto, Ceres, and Empire (2015-2050) 1 City 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Change (2010-2050) Number Percent Increase Average Percent Increase Modesto 72,897 77,383 81,861 86,253 90,184 94,105 97,742 101,314 +28,417 28.0 +0.8 Ceres 13,577 14,624 15,670 16,695 17,613 18,528 19,377 20,211 +6,634 32.8 +0.9 Empire 1,287 1,371 1,456 1,539 1,614 1,688 1,756 1,824 +537 29.4 +0.8 Source: StanCOG 2016; *Stanislaus County 2016b 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 15-3 lists the County’s regional housing needs allocation for the cities of Modesto and 1 Ceres, as well as for the entire unincorporated portion of Stanislaus County. Each value 2 represents the number of dwelling units needed through 2023, while the classifications are 3 organized by the following income categories: extremely/very low, low, moderate, and above 4 moderate. Based on the Housing Element, between June 2014 and June 2015, 36 units were 5 built in Modesto; therefore, as of 2015, the remaining housing need is roughly 6,325 units. 6 Table 15-3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation of Stanislaus County (2014-2023) 7 Extremely/ Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA Share Existing Housing Units Modesto 773/773 991 1,100 2,724 6,361 29.8 75,711 Ceres 311/311 399 446 1.104 2,571 12.1 13,725 Unincorporated Stanislaus County 269/269 345 391 967 2,241 10.5 36,117 County Total 2,615/2,610 3,350 3,670 9,085 21,330 100 180,165 Note: Regional allocation is based on existing proportions of housing in each jurisdiction and 8 continuing those proportional relationships into the future. 9 Source: StanCOG 2014 10 15.3.3 WORKFORCE 11 Employment numbers in Stanislaus County were projected to reach 171,375 jobs by 2015 12 (Caltrans 2015). Similarly, projected job growth is projected to rise to 236,749 jobs by 2040. 13 As of 2015, the unemployment rate was 10.4 percent, ranking 45th out of the state’s 58 14 counties. This number is projected to decrease to 7.8 percent by 2020. Table 15-4 represents 15 a more in-depth projection of employment numbers for the County between 2015 and 2040. 16 Employment numbers for the City of Modesto totaled approximately 56,000 jobs in 2015. 17 This number is projected to increase to approximately 59,250 by 2020 and 62,500 employees 18 by 2025. From 2010 to 2040, the number of jobs within the City is projected to increase by 19 0.91 percent annually (StanCOG, 2014 RTP Appendix J, as cited in City of Modesto 2017a). In 20 contrast, unemployment rates in 2015 dropped to 7.4 percent, compared to a 10.5 percent 21 unemployment rate in 2014 (City of Modesto 2017a). The majority of jobs in the City are in 22 the service industry (39.7 percent of the occupational distribution). The second highest 23 ranking of jobs are in the sales and office industry, comprising 22.3 percent of the City’s jobs. 24 The construction and extraction industry makes up 6.3 percent of the jobs in the City, while 25 production and transportation account for 15.5 percent (2013 U.S. Census as cited in City of 26 Modesto 2017a). 27 Employment numbers for the City of Ceres were at a total of 18,043 jobs in 2012. This number 28 is an increase from 2010 numbers, which were 13, 098. The majority of jobs are in the trade, 29 wholesale, and retail sector, which accounted for 19.7 percent of the share of jobs in 2012 30 (City of Ceres 2016). 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 15-4. Economic Forecast for Stanislaus County (2015-2040) 1 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Population1 (people) 534,605 559,097 585,812 612,925 637,626 658,010 Employment2 Growth (jobs) 171,375 184,250 197,125 209,999 222,874 235,749 Unemployment3 Rate (percent) 10.4 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.1 Sources: 1,3 Caltrans 2015; 2 City of Modesto 2017a 2 15.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS 3 15.4.1 METHODOLOGY 4 The methods for this analysis included a review of relevant documents, statistics, and policies 5 about the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County’s housing and employment data. The 6 evaluation is based on the Proposed Program’s effects on housing and population in Modesto 7 and Stanislaus County. 8 15.4.2 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE 9 Based on the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the Proposed 10 Program would result in a significant impact with regard to population and housing if it 11 would: 12  Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly by 13 proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly through extension of roads 14 or other infrastructure); 15  Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of 16 replacement housing elsewhere; or 17  Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of 18 replacement housing elsewhere. 19 15.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 20 Impact PH-1: Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth, Both Directly 21 and Indirectly, during Construction (Less than Significant) 22 Neither the River Trunk Realignment project nor the Proposed Program-level improvements 23 would directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth during construction. 24 Construction of each improvement would be temporary and of relatively short duration. For 25 example, all three phases of the River Trunk Realignment project are anticipated to start in 26 spring 2018 and would be fully completed over a 30-month period. The overall 27 implementation of the WWMP would be phased over a 25-year period where construction 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 activity associated with each project would be temporary and last one to five years. As 1 described in the setting section above, the construction/extraction industry in the City 2 accounts for roughly 6.3 percent of the City’s work force (2013 U.S. Census, as cited in City of 3 Modesto 2017a). Additional construction staff can also be obtained from neighboring cities 4 throughout the County, the Central Valley, or the San Francisco Bay Area if needed. As such, 5 there is sufficient availability of local existing construction companies and staff to support 6 construction of proposed improvements. Construction crews would be capable of commuting 7 to and from the project sites throughout the time that project construction activities would 8 occur. Therefore, an increased demand for housing to accommodate these workers would not 9 occur due to construction. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. 10 Impact PH-2: Displace Substantial Numbers of People or Existing Housing, 11 Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere (No Impact) 12 The Proposed Program involves construction of various CIPs in the City of Modesto and in 13 portions of Stanislaus County. Pipeline improvements in residential areas, including sewer 14 line replacement and rehabilitation and construction of the gravity pipelines for the River 15 Trunk Realignment Project, would be located within existing road rights-of-way. Other 16 portions of the River Trunk Realignment Project would occur on vacant lands. As such, these 17 improvements would not displace existing homes or people. Any roadways that require 18 trenching would be returned to pre-construction conditions after construction as well. As a 19 result, residents who use these roads to access their homes would not be displaced from their 20 homes during construction; traffic-related impacts of construction are analyzed in Chapter 21 16, Transportation and Traffic. 22 Upgrades to existing lift stations such as the Benson Lift Station and Rose-Celeste Lift Station 23 would be conducted at existing locations. Therefore, these improvements would have no 24 impact on existing housing. Construction of new lift stations (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-3) 25 would occur in areas that are located away from any housing or neighborhoods, or would 26 occur along the edges of established neighborhoods on properties that are vacant and/or 27 owned by the City. Therefore, these new lift stations would not cause displacement of 28 housing. 29 In addition, all improvements planned at the Sutter and Jennings Plants would occur on land 30 currently used for wastewater treatment purposes. The new outfall pipeline, new outfall 31 pipeline crossings at the Tuolumne River, and sliplining of the Cannery Segregation Line 32 would not affect existing homes. The majority of the new outfall pipeline would be installed 33 within roadway rights-of-way in unincorporated Stanislaus County and would not displace 34 any people or housing. 35 As a result, the Proposed Program would have no impact related to housing displacement 36 and would not require construction of replacement housing. 37 Impact PH-3: Long-term Inducement of Unplanned Substantial Population 38 Growth, Both Directly and Indirectly (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 39 As noted above, the Proposed Program includes upgrading the City’s collection and treatment 40 systems to provide improved wastewater service to the City of Modesto, north Ceres, the 41 community of Empire, and other areas serviced by the City. The Program would not directly 42 induce growth as it does not entail construction of new housing. However, by upgrading the 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 City’s collection and wastewater treatment systems to provide more wastewater service, the 1 Proposed Program would remove an obstacle to planned development that would support 2 population growth. Although this growth would be consistent with projected growth 3 evaluated in adopted general plans including the recently amended City of Modesto Urban 4 Area General Plan (2019), such growth could not occur without the proposed wastewater 5 collection system and treatment improvements addressed in this EIR. 6 As summarized in Section 15.3, “Environmental Setting,” above, between 2015 and 2050, the 7 City’s population is projected to grow from 210,341 to 290,555 at an annual average growth 8 rate of 0.8 percent (StanCOG 2016). Based on information from DOF and for the purposes of 9 developing the Wastewater Master Plan, population estimates for 2015 through 2035 (the 10 planning period for the Proposed Program) were developed for the City’s sewer service area, 11 which includes a portion of north Ceres, the unincorporated community of Empire, and other 12 unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. These projections are presented in Table 15-5 13 and assume an annual average growth rate of 1.3 percent per year. 14 Table 15-5. Projected Population for City’s Sewer Service Area 15 Year Estimated Sewer Service Population 2015 209,200 2020 223,100 2025 238,000 2030 253,900 2035 270,900 2040 288,972 2045 308,250 2050 328,814 2055 350,750 2057 359,929 Note: Extrapolation to buildout year of 2057 is based on an assumed 1.3 percent population increase 16 between 2035 to 2057 (Eve, pers. comm. 2017). As noted in Chapter 2, the Wastewater Treatment 17 Master Plan used a planning horizon year through 2035, while the Collection System Master Plan 18 used a buildout scenario through the year 2057. 19 Source: DOF estimates, as cited in Carollo Engineers 2016. 20 Based on the estimates provided above, the total increase in population within the sewer 21 service area is estimated to increase by 61,700 people between 2015 and 2035. This accounts 22 for both growth within the City as well as Ceres and the community of Empire. According to 23 the City’s 2015 Urban Growth Policy Review Update and the City’s Collection System Master 24 Plan (Carollo Engineers 2016), growth within Modesto is assumed to occur on vacant 25 industrial, commercial, and residential areas within the City’s SOI and planning area, 26 including the Beard Industrial District, Kiernan/Carver North CPD, Beckwith-Dakota CPD, 27 North McHenry Business Park, among other planning districts. 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 New growth facilitated by the Proposed Program would result in associated physical 1 environmental impacts; this could include aesthetic effects, conversion of farmland, air 2 pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, conversion of habitat, impacts on cultural or tribal 3 cultural resources, increased point source or nonpoint source water pollution, use and 4 possible releases of hazardous materials, noise, traffic, additional demands for public services 5 and utilities such as police protection, fire protection, schools, parks, wastewater treatment, 6 solid waste disposal, energy, etc. 7 Growth-inducing and secondary impacts are addressed by the policies of general plans of 8 Stanislaus County, Ceres, and Modesto. These policies ensure that development within the 9 planned growth areas occur as demand arises and services are available, and that utilities are 10 sized appropriately to serve such development. The general plans mitigate for impacts 11 through advanced planning and the implementation of growth management strategies, the 12 provision of adequate public services and utilities such as wastewater collection and 13 treatment, and the protection of open space and habitat areas. 14 In conclusion, proposed improvements to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment 15 system would remove an obstacle to urban development and population growth within the 16 study area. This development would occur in accordance with general plans and thus would 17 not result in unplanned or disorderly growth. Nevertheless, the Program would remain 18 growth-inducing and the impacts of growth inducement, and the secondary environmental 19 effects of induced growth, are considered significant. 20 The policies contained in general plans, as well as the mitigation measures contained in this 21 DEIR, would reduce the secondary effects of growth to a level of insignificance. Individual 22 development improvements would also be required to comply with CEQA, which may result 23 in additional mitigation for growth and its effects. For these reasons, this impact is considered 24 to be less than significant with mitigation. 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 15. Population and Housing Wastewater Master Plan 15-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 16-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 16 1 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 2 16.1 Overview 3 This chapter evaluates impacts of the Proposed Program on transportation and traffic. 4 Impacts are evaluated in light of existing laws and regulations governing transportation and 5 traffic, and in consideration of the goals and policies in applicable jurisdiction’s general plans; 6 the existing roadway system and transportation infrastructure is described; and impacts of 7 the Proposed Program are analyzed. 8 The following sources of information were used in preparing this chapter: 9  Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Transportation 10 Research Board 2000, 2010); 11  City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019); 12  Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016); 13  City of Ceres General Plan (2018); and 14  Congestion Management Process for the Stanislaus County Region (StanCOG 2010). 15 16.1.1 Transportation and Traffic Terminology 16 The following are definitions of key transportation and traffic terms used in this section, 17 based on the HCM (Transportation Research Board 2000). 18 Level of Service. The level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational 19 conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures, such as speed and travel time, 20 freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience. 21 Peak-hour LOS for roadway segments in Modesto is evaluated by comparing the traffic 22 volume with its vehicle capacity (the volume-to-capacity ratio) and correlating the result to 23 a letter grade to represent the levels of congestion, as follows (City of Modesto 2018) 24 1. LOS A: free flow, low traffic volumes, and drivers can maintain their desired speed 25 with little to no delay. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.6 or less. 26 2. LOS B: stable flow, operating speeds beginning to be restricted by traffic conditions. 27 Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.61 to 0.7. 28 3. LOS C: stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by 29 higher volumes. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.71 to 0.8. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 4. LOS D: approaching unstable flow; tolerable operating speeds which are, however, 1 considerably affected by operating conditions. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.81 to 0.9. 2 5. LOS E: unstable flow with yet lower operating speeds and stoppages of momentary 3 duration. Volume-to-capacity ratio: 0.91 to 1.0. 4 6. LOS F: stopped flow, which may occur for short or long periods. These conditions 5 usually result when vehicles are blocked by a restriction Volume-to- 6 capacity ratio: greater than 1.0. 7 Daily levels of service are calculated based on the per lane volume threshold for each level of 8 service capacity as presented in Table 16-1. 9 Table 16-1. Per-Lane Roadway Segment Capacities 10 Type of Roadway Segment Hourly Capacitya,c Daily Volume Thresholdb,c LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Freeway Mainline 2,000 8,000 12,750 18,750 23,130 25,000 Expressway – Class A 1,500 5,630 9,380 13,120 15,750 18,750 Expressway – Class B 1,250 4,690 7,820 10,940 13,130 15,630 Expressway – Class C 1,000 3,750 6,250 8,750 10,500 12,500 Principal Arterial (6 lanes) 850 3,190 5,320 7,440 8,930 10,630 Minor Arterial (4 lane facility with center left-turn lane) 925 810 2,190 3,930 6,820 11,560 Minor Arterial (4 lanes) 750 660 1,780 3,190 5,530 9,380 Minor Arterial (2 lane facility with center left-turn lane) 925 810 2,190 3,930 6,820 11,560 Major Collector (4 lane facility) 700 2,450 4,110 5,780 6,910 8,750 Downtown Collector 700 2,450 4,110 5,780 6,910 8,750 Minor Collector (2 lane facility with center left-turn lane) 925 810 2,190 3,930 6,820 11,560 Minor Collector (2 lanes) 650 570 1,540 2,760 4,800 8,130 Local Roadway 500 440 1,190 2,130 3,690 6,250 Rural Road 900 790 2,140 3,830 6,640 11,250 a Vehicles per through lane per hour. 11 b Vehicles per lane per day. Peak hour capacity 8 percent of daily capacity based on a review of peak hour to 12 daily counts on over 200 roadway segments in the City. 13 c Hourly and daily calculated based on the method presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 14 (Transportation Research Board 2010). LOS is assessed based on the volume in relationship to the capacity 15 threshold. For example, a freeway lane carrying 18,700 vehicles on a daily basis would be classified as LOS C 16 as it is between the LOS B and LOS C threshold; if the volume was 19,000 vehicles a day, it would be classified 17 as LOS D. 18 Note: These are generalized capacities that can be adjusted based on local roadway conditions, including the 19 percentage of turning traffic, intersection spacing, driveway spacing, levels of pedestrian activity, provision of 20 on-street parking, adjacent land use types and other factors. 21 Source: City of Modesto 2018 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 16.2 Regulatory Setting 1 No federal laws, regulations, or policies relate to transportation and traffic and the Proposed 2 Program. 3 16.2.1 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 4 Caltrans manages the state highway system and ramp interchange intersections. The state 5 agency is also responsible for highway, bridge, and rail transportation planning, construction, 6 and maintenance. Caltrans also issues encroachment permits for activities installation 7 of a pipeline or any structure) within the state highway rights of way. 8 16.2.2 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 9 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 10 The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019) guides land use and 11 development in the City’s incorporated area. The following policies are potentially relevant 12 to the Proposed Program’s traffic analysis. 13 Policy V.C.1. Transportation Study Thresholds. Figure II-1 delineates the 14 functional geographic areas (Downtown, Baseline Developed Area, Planned 15 Urbanizing Area) of the city described below. For CEQA purposes, the following are 16 Modesto’s thresholds for performing transportation studies. 17 Downtown Area: This area is exempt from automobile Level of Service (LOS) 18 standards and no traffic impact analysis will be required for new development. 19 Baseline Developed Area: If a proposal is consistent with the Urban Area General Plan, 20 no traffic impact analysis will be required. If a general plan amendment is needed, a 21 traffic impact analysis may be required if the proposal would result in at least 100 22 peak hour trips above and beyond what was assumed in the analysis for the Urban 23 Area General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report, if determined to be 24 necessary. LOS is the significance threshold. 25 Planned Urbanizing Area: In new specific plan areas that are outside city limits, a 26 traffic study may be required if project-related traffic, as measured in Average Daily 27 Trips, is expected to be at least ten percent (10%) greater than anticipated to result 28 from the General Plan land use designations. The purpose of such a study would be to 29 determine the amount of feasible automobile-oriented and non-auto-oriented 30 mitigation associated with the project. Once a specific plan has been approved and 31 the area annexed to the city, traffic study policies for the Baseline Developed Area will 32 apply. LOS is the significance threshold. 33 Policy V.C.6. Prioritizing Transportation Investments. Strive to achieve quality of 34 service, as depicted in Table V-2 (FDOT Figure 1-2, 2009) for each non-automobile 35 travel mode appropriate to the location in the City. Downtown Area: Pedestrian and 36 bus quality of service should be A/B. Bicycle quality of service should be C/D or 37 better. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, environmental justice) 38 Baseline Developed Area: Pedestrian quality of service should be C/D on arterial 39 streets and A/B on local and collector streets. Bicycle quality of service should be A/B 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 on local and collector streets, C/D on arterial streets, and E/F on expressways. Bus 1 quality of service should range from C/D to E/F, depending upon boardings. Consider 2 improving accessibility along impacted routes by implementing Transportation 3 Demand Management strategies. (Air quality, public health, energy conservation, 4 environmental justice) 5 City of Ceres General Plan 6 The Ceres General Plan 2035 (2018) includes the following transportation policy that is 7 relevant to the Proposed Program: 8 Policy 3.A.2. Level of Service. Develop and manage the roadway system to maintain 9 Level-of-Service (“LOS”) C or better on secondary collectors and local streets and 10 “LOS” D or better on primary collectors, arterials, expressways, and freeways. One 11 service level deviation may be permitted at locations where land development or 12 transportation improvement projects support other goals from the General Plan 13 including transit, active transportation, and economic development. Exceptions may 14 also be allowed in areas where the City finds that the improvements or other 15 measures required to achieve the “LOS” standards are unacceptable because of right- 16 of-way limitations, physical impacts on surrounding properties, adverse effects on 17 other travel modes, and/or the visual aesthetics of the required improvement and its 18 impact on community identity and character. 19 Stanislaus County General Plan 20 The Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016) guides land use and 21 development in the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. The General Plan contains the 22 following policy: 23 Circulation Element 24 Policy Five. Transportation requirements shall be considered during planning, 25 design and construction of commercial and industrial development to address safety, 26 mobility, and accessibility needs. 27 Additionally, the County General Plan states that as a matter of policy, the County strives to 28 maintain LOS D or better for motorized vehicles on all roadway segments and a LOS of C or 29 better for motorized vehicles at all roadway intersections. 30 Congestion Management Process for the Stanislaus County Region 31 The 2009 Congestion Management Process for the Stanislaus County Region (CMP) provides a 32 blueprint for transportation planning in Stanislaus County. The performance measures of the 33 CMP support mobility, air quality, land use, and economic objectives, and are used to 34 determine whether projects are to be included in the CMP’s CIP for consideration for 35 inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (StanCOG 2010). Objectives and policies 36 of potential relevance to the Proposed Program include the following: 37 Objective I. Improve Mobility for People and Freight 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policies: 1  Street and road improvements should be designed to optimize the use of 2 existing facilities as a potential alternative to new construction. 3  All feasible Transportation System Management, Transportation Demand 4 Management strategies and required Transportation Control Measures shall 5 be implemented to reduce congestion and improve air quality. 6 Objective III. Preserve and Enhance Environmental Quality 7 Policies: 8  The environmental impacts, both short-term and long-term, of transportation 9 decisions shall be appropriately analyzed and considered, and adverse 10 impacts mitigated wherever possible. 11 Stanislaus Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable 12 Communities Strategy 13 The Stanislaus Council of Governments’ (StanCOG) 2014 Regional Transportation 14 Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCS) is a regional transportation planning 15 document that seeks to bridge the gap between land use and transportation planning, 16 recognizing the significant connection between these two areas and its impact on the region’s 17 quality of life (StanCOG 2014). The plan also addresses recent requirements, such as Senate 18 Bill 375, which calls for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation 19 sector, as well as new federal mandates under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 20 Century Act (MAP-21). The RTP/SCS identifies the following goals: 21 Goal 1. Mobility & Accessibility. Improve the ability of people and goods to move between 22 desired locations; and provide a variety of transportation choices. 23 Goal 2. Social Equity. Promote and provide equitable opportunities to access transportation 24 services for all populations and ensure all populations share in the benefits of 25 transportation improvements and provide a range of transportation and housing 26 choices. 27 Goal 3. Economic and Community Vitality. Foster job creation and business attraction, 28 retention, and expansion by improving the quality of life through new and revitalized 29 communities. 30 Goal 4. Sustainable Development Pattern. Provide a mix of land uses and compact 31 development patterns; and direct development toward existing infrastructure, which 32 will preserve agricultural land, open space, and mature resources. 33 Goal 5. Environmental Quality. Consider the environmental impacts when making 34 transportation investments and minimize direct and indirect impacts on clean air and 35 the environment. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Goal 6. Health & Safety. Operate and maintain the transportation system to ensure public 1 safety and security; and improve the health of residents by improving air quality and 2 providing more transportation options. 3 Goal 7. System Preservation. Maintain the transportation system in a state of good repair, 4 and protect the region’s transportation investments by maximizing the use of existing 5 facilities. 6 16.3 Environmental Setting 7 Proposed components would occur within or along numerous roadways within Modesto and 8 outlying areas served by the City of Modesto. Other components would be constructed at the 9 Sutter Plant and the Jennings Plant and along nearby roads. The proposed third outfall 10 pipeline would be constructed within the following roads located south of the Tuolumne 11 River: Carpenter Road, Keyes Road, and Jennings Road. 12 Modesto is a developed urban area consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 13 Outlying areas are dominated by agricultural land uses. Regional transportation access is 14 provided by SR 99, which runs roughly northwest-southeast through the study area. Other 15 major transportation routes include SR 132, SR 108, and SR 219. SR 132 runs east-west along 16 Maze Boulevard, D Street and Yosemite Avenue, and connects with SR 99 and Interstate 580 17 to the west. SR 108 runs in a north-south fashion along McHenry Avenue, providing direct 18 access to adjacent land uses. SR 219 runs east-west along Kiernan Avenue to the north of 19 Modesto and connects with SR 108 to SR 99. Figure 16-1 shows roads and highways in the 20 study area. 21 Several roadway segments in Modesto operate at congested LOS, as shown in Table 16-2. 22 Table 16-2. Roadway Segments with Existing (2014) Daily Level of Service of E or F 23 Roadway Segment Cross Street Classification Lanes Volume Daily LOS Claribel McHenry to Coffee Rural 2 16,300 E Claribel Coffee to Oakdale Rural 2 13,800 E Oakdale Claribel to Claratina Rural 2 17,900 E Oakdale Claratina to Sylvan Arterial 4 23,200 E Standiford SR 99 to Prescott Arterial 4 39,200 F Standiford Prescott to Carver Arterial 4 34,700 E Sylvan McHenry to Coffee Arterial 4 33,400 E Claus Sylvan to Floyd Rural 2 18,900 E Floyd Coffee to Rose Collector 2 13,300 E Briggsmore Prescott to SR 99 Arterial 6 66,700 F Carpenter SR 99 to Woodland Arterial 4 37,200 E El Vista Scenic to Encina Arterial 4 32,300 E La Loma Scenic to Yosemite Collector 2 14,300 E Paradise Beverly to Chicago Collector 31 15,500 E ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Roadway Segment Cross Street Classification Lanes Volume Daily LOS Crows Landing 7th Street to SR 99 Arterial 2 13,700 E Crows Landing SR 99 to Hatch Arterial 4 30,500 E Carpenter Paradise to Hatch Collector 31 19,200 E Hatch Crows Landing to Jim Way Collector 31 17,600 E Notes: 1. Roadway has one travel lane in each direction, plus a center two-way left-turn lane. LOS is 1 based on thresholds for Minor Collector (2 lane facility with center left-turn lane) with capacity 2 threshold based on two lanes. 3 Source: City of Modesto 2018 4 Existing transit service in the study area includes various bus and rail service providers in 5 Modesto, Ceres, Empire and surrounding areas in Stanislaus County. Modesto Area Express 6 (MAX) provides transit service to the Modesto Urban Area, Empire, and nearby areas of 7 Stanislaus County (excluding Ceres) (MAX 2017). Ceres Area Transit serves the City of Ceres. 8 Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) is a regional public transit service that takes passengers 9 from Modesto to surrounding cities and communities including Oakdale, Hughson, Turlock, 10 and Patterson. The Greyhound provides intercity and long distance public transit service; a 11 Greyhound bus stop is located in downtown Modesto. Train service includes Amtrak and 12 Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) connections. 13 Numerous bicycle paths and routes exist throughout the study area. 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Sutter Plant Carpenter Rd. ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 219 ·I}þ 108 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_16-1_Roads.mxd 6/20/2017 PG Figure 16-1 Major Roads in the Proposed Program Vicinity City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR Jennings Plant 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Major Roads River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations Carpenter Rd. Keyes Rd. Jennings Rd. ·I}þ 132 ·I}þ 132 ·I}þ 33 Main Map Inset Map Source: California Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 16.4 Impact Analysis 1 16.4.1 Methodology 2 Because specific construction details related to most individual CIPs are not yet available, 3 construction-related impacts to transportation and traffic were evaluated primarily 4 qualitatively based on consideration of ways in which construction of the Proposed Program 5 components could affect existing roadway operations and LOS. The impacts of traffic 6 generated during construction of the River Trunk Realignment Project were evaluated 7 quantitatively and qualitatively. The operation of the Proposed Program would have limited 8 potential to generate trips over the long-term, and a quantitative analysis was not conducted 9 for Program operation. Secondary impacts related to traffic and transportation from new 10 growth and development accommodated by the Proposed Program are discussed in Chapter 11 15, Population and Housing. 12 16.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance 13 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on transportation and traffic if it 14 would: 15  Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of 16 effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all 17 modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and 18 relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to 19 intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass 20 transit; 21  Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not 22 limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards 23 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or 24 highways; 25  Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 26 or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; 27  Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or 28 dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment); 29  Result in inadequate emergency access; 30  Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or 31 pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such 32 features. 33 The third criterion above is eliminated from detailed consideration because the Proposed 34 Program would have no potential to affect air traffic patterns. Program components would 35 be limited to capital upgrades to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. 36 Therefore, the Program would not increase air traffic levels or change the location or routes 37 of air travel. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 16.4.3 Environmental Impacts 1 Impact TR-1: Conflict with Applicable Circulation Plans, Ordinances, or Policies 2 Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation 3 System (Less than Significant) 4 All Program-level Components 5 The Proposed Program would not include any housing or commercial uses that would 6 directly increase population or add vehicle trips. The Proposed Program would be limited to 7 upgrades to existing wastewater infrastructure, to address existing needs and accommodate 8 future growth in the City and outlying areas served by the City’s wastewater collection and 9 treatment system. Please refer to Impact PH-3 in Chapter 15, Population and Housing, for 10 discussion regarding the Program’s secondary traffic effects due to accommodating growth. 11 Trips generated by the Proposed Program during operation would be limited to routine 12 maintenance and repair visits to facilities by City staff. As some personnel (approximately 60) 13 would be transferred from the Sutter Plant to the Jennings Plant, there may be a small 14 increase in trips to and from the Jennings Plant, as well as a small decrease in trips to and 15 from the Sutter Plant. These numbers of employees and commute trips would not be 16 sufficient to meaningfully affect roadway performance or conflict with any plans, ordinances, 17 or policies for the circulation system, such as the City of Modesto, City of Ceres, or Stanislaus 18 County General Plans. 19 During construction of individual components, the Proposed Program would temporarily 20 increase traffic and congestion in the immediate area of the component. Construction of 21 facilities would involve use of heavy equipment and transport of materials/hauling of debris, 22 which could contribute to localized congestion. Construction of Program components also 23 would involve trenching within the roadway, which could require temporary closure of up to 24 one lane of traffic. Demolition of the Sutter Treatment Plant would generate approximately 25 14,000 cubic yards of building material waste, most or all of which would require transport 26 via truck to a landfill or hazardous waste facility for disposal. Additionally, dredging of the 27 digestion pits of Facultative Ponds Nos. 1 and 2 and the Recirculation Channel at the Jennings 28 Plant would generate approximately 16,000 dry tons of solids that would require disposal at 29 a landfill. During construction of the numerous collection system and wastewater treatment 30 plant components, the increase in haul truck trips and construction worker trips could 31 increase congestion on local roads. In addition, as shown in Figure 2-19, several components 32 are planned to occur within the same general timeframe. Since the construction schedules of 33 individual components have not yet been determined, it is possible that construction of 34 several proposed components would overlap in duration. As such, the increase of haul trips 35 and worker trips could result in temporary exceedances of LOS C or D (see Table 16-1). 36 All projects would be required to follow the current version of the City of Modesto Standard 37 Specifications. Section 12, Public Convenience and Safety, of Chapter 7, General Provisions, of 38 the specifications includes Temporary Traffic Control requirements, including preparation of 39 a traffic management plan (TMP) that must be incorporated into all projects. As part of the 40 TMP, the public and appropriate fire and police departments would be notified in advance of 41 temporary road closures. The TMP also would include implementation of appropriate traffic 42 control measures temporary barriers, use of flaggers, etc.) to allow for the safe passage 43 of vehicular and pedestrian traffic through and within the Project site. In addition, the City 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 requires that emergency vehicles would be provided access through any temporary 1 construction work areas. These measures would reduce impacts on vehicle movement and 2 roadway LOS during construction activities. By complying with these standard specifications, 3 the temporary congestion and traffic delays that could result from some Proposed Program 4 construction activities would not substantially conflict with goals and policies in the City of 5 Modesto General Plan, Stanislaus County General Plan, or CMP for the Stanislaus County 6 Region. As such, this impact would be less than significant. 7 River Trunk Realignment Project 8 The River Trunk Realignment Project would include construction of the River Trunk Pump 9 Station at B Street and Beard Street, the Shackelford Pump Station to the east of the Tuolumne 10 River near Crow’s Landing Road, new gravity pipelines and force main sewer lines. The 11 pipelines would be installed primarily beneath B Street, Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado 12 Avenue, Pelton Avenue, and Neece Drive. With the exception of Tuolumne Boulevard, these 13 are all two-lane streets. Tuolumne Boulevard is a four-lane road with a center turn-lane. 14 As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, construction of the River Trunk Realignment 15 Project would occur in three general phases but pipeline construction activities will overlap 16 with pump station construction activities. Construction activities would occur over a 30- 17 month period, starting in summer 2018 and ending by the end of 2020. Construction of 18 proposed components would generate short-term increases in vehicle trips by construction 19 workers and construction vehicles on area roadways. 20 As presented in Table B-1 in Appendix B (which provides air quality modeling results for the 21 Proposed Program), the River Trunk Project would generate an estimated 8,252 hauling 22 trips, and approximately 29,565 construction worker trips over the duration of construction. 23 During the most active period of construction when all three construction phases would 24 overlap (0-12 months from the construction start date), this would equal approximately 324 25 trips per day.1 26 As shown in Table 16-2, none of the roadways on which construction activities would take 27 place B Street, Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pelton Avenue, and Neece Drive) 28 are included on the list of Modesto roadways with existing LOS E or F. The proposed 29 staging/work areas for the River Trunk Realignment Project are located adjacent to 30 Tuolumne Boulevard at 7th Street, as shown on Figure 2-1. Vehicles accessing the site 31 on-haul and off-haul trucks, worker vehicles) would likely use SR-99 and exit at Tuolumne 32 Boulevard. Existing traffic has been measured on Tuolumne Boulevard from SR-99 to 7th 33 Street to have a Daily Traffic Volume of 13,100 vehicles (City of Modesto 2018). 34 As Tuolumne Boulevard is a 4-lane arterial road with a center turn lane, this daily traffic 35 volume translates to 3,275 vehicles per lane, which equates to LOS C (Table 16-1). The 36 addition of 324 trips per day during the peak construction period would equal a total of 3,599 37 vehicles per lane, which would not change the existing LOS. Even assuming that the number 38 of vehicle trips due to the River Trunk Project may be somewhat higher during certain 39 periods of construction, it would take an additional 331 vehicle trips to reduce existing 40 1 Note: this calculation assumes that total construction truck and worker vehicle trips would be evenly spread over the scheduled construction duration period. In reality, this may not be the case, and periods of peak material deliveries or material off-hauling may have somewhat greater daily trip numbers. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 conditions to LOS D on this road segment, and approximately 3,200 additional trips to result 1 in LOS E. These numbers of trips would not be reached solely by River Trunk Project 2 construction activities. 3 While the majority of construction vehicle trips would be to and from the Project staging 4 areas, a certain number of trips would follow the Project alignment, transporting materials, 5 equipment, and personnel to various points along the proposed pipeline alignment and to the 6 River Trunk Pump Station and Shackelford Pump Station sites. Existing daily traffic 7 information was not available for the roads along the Project alignment, but, as noted above, 8 none of these roads are identified as being at LOS E or F (Table 16-2). Trenching within these 9 roadways B Street, Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pelton Avenue, and Neece 10 Drive) for installation of proposed pipelines could cause delays and localized congestion 11 during the construction period, but implementation of the City’s Standard Specifications, 12 which require preparation and implementation of a TMP, would minimize these impacts. As 13 a result, this impact would be less than significant. 14 Overall Conclusion 15 Construction of WWMP components including the River Trunk Realignment Project would 16 involve pipeline installation work in public roads which would require temporary lane 17 closures. In addition, haul truck trips and construction worker trips would result in short- 18 term increases in congestion on local roads of each WWMP component. However, in 19 accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications, a TMP would be prepared to minimize 20 impacts on existing roadways, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mobility. (See Impact 21 TR-5 for additional discussion of impacts on alternative transportation modes.) The number 22 of trips that would be generated by the River Trunk Realignment Project would not result in 23 worsening LOS on the applicable road segment. Additionally, the temporary congestion that 24 could result from construction of Proposed Program components would not substantially 25 conflict with any policies of the City of Modesto General Plan, Stanislaus County General Plan 26 and CMP, and the StanCOG RTP/SCS. As such, the Proposed Program’s overall impact is 27 considered less than significant. 28 Impact TR-2: Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program 29 (Less than Significant) 30 All Program-level Components 31 As described in Impact TR-1, the Proposed Program itself would not generate substantial 32 long-term vehicle trips. To the extent that the Proposed Program components would 33 accommodate growth, this growth would follow the respective jurisdiction’s general plan 34 (see Impact PH-3 in Chapter 15, Population and Housing, for further discussion). 35 Trips generated during operation of program-level components would primarily be limited 36 to routine operation and maintenance trips to facilities by City staff, and would be similar to 37 existing conditions. As some personnel (approximately 60) would be transferred from the 38 Sutter Plant to the Jennings Plant, there may be a small increase in trips to and from the 39 Jennings Plant, as well as a small decrease in trips to and from the Sutter Plant. Overall, these 40 changes would not be sufficient to produce a meaningful effect on the existing roadway 41 system. Operation of proposed components would not result in any significant effect on 42 existing LOS or conflict with objectives, policies, or performance standards in the CMP for 43 Stanislaus County. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 During construction of individual program-level components, depending on their location 1 and nature, some components could result in temporary congestion and traffic. Trenching 2 within the roadway for collection system and sewer rehabilitation components may require 3 temporary closure of up to one lane of traffic, which could create localized delays. Likewise, 4 movement of construction equipment and materials for construction of lift stations may 5 marginally affect existing traffic conditions. Demolition of existing structures at the Sutter 6 Plant could generate substantial quantities of waste materials (approximately 14,000 cubic 7 yards), some or most of which may require transport via trucks to the landfill for disposal. 8 Additionally, dredging of digestion pits at facultative ponds and the recirculation channel at 9 the Jennings Plant would generate approximately 16,000 dry tons of solids that would 10 require disposal. Trucks hauling this debris to the landfill could temporarily increase 11 congestion on nearby streets and highways. 12 These construction-related traffic impacts would not be considered to conflict with the 13 County CMP, because the effects would be temporary and would not affect the long-term 14 performance of the roadway system. This impact would therefore be less than significant. 15 Additionally, preparation and implementation of a TMP in accordance with the City’s 16 Standard Specifications regarding temporary traffic controls to ensure public convenience 17 and safety would further reduce construction impacts from the WWMP program-level 18 components. This impact would be less than significant 19 River Trunk Realignment Project 20 As described under Impact TR-1, the River Trunk Realignment Project would include 21 installation of new sewer lines along several roadways in Central Modesto, including B Street, 22 Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pelton Avenue, and Neece Drive. Trenching activities 23 for installation of these features could cause temporary traffic and congestion, potentially 24 resulting in deterioration of LOS along these roadways and at intersections. Because these 25 impacts would be temporary, however, and the River Trunk Realignment Project would not 26 add people to the area or generate trips over the long term, this would not be considered a 27 conflict with the County’s CMP. These impacts would therefore be less than significant. These 28 impacts also would be further reduced through implementation of a TMP, as required under 29 the City’s Standard Specifications. This impact would be less than significant. 30 Overall Conclusion 31 Construction of WWMP components would involve pipeline installation work in public roads 32 which could require temporary lane closures and could increase traffic delays. In addition, 33 haul truck trips and construction worker trips could result in short-term increases in 34 congestion on local roads of each WWMP component. Such increases would not be 35 permanent and would be minimized through implementation of a construction TMP; 36 therefore, the Program would not conflict with the County CMP and this impact would be less 37 than significant. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s overall impact would be less than 38 significant. 39 Impact TR-3: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Design Feature or 40 Incompatible Uses (Less than Significant) 41 The Proposed Program would not change the design or configuration of any public road. As 42 described in Chapter 2, Program Description, proposed components would be limited to 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 upgrades to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. Therefore, the Proposed 1 Program would not result in an increase in hazards due to a design feature. 2 During construction of individual components new or rehabilitated sewer lines and 3 stormwater/sanitary sewer disconnections), construction activities could temporarily create 4 hazards from trenching within the roadway, which could result in a significant impact. As 5 described in Impact TR-1, this potential impact would be minimized through implementation 6 of a TMP, prepared pursuant to the City’s Standard Specifications, which would require 7 backfilling of trenches at the end of the work day and erection of temporary barriers to 8 separate motorists from potential hazards. Temporary use of construction equipment in the 9 roadway would not be considered an incompatible use, and would not pose a substantial 10 hazard given adherence to the City’s Standard Specifications. Over the long-term, the 11 Proposed Program would not introduce any new land uses that could create potential for use 12 of incompatible equipment on roadways. 13 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 14 Impact TR-4: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access (Less than Significant) 15 The Proposed Program would not alter the permanent design or configuration of any public 16 roadway. In accordance with the California Fire Code, the Proposed Program would provide 17 for fire apparatus and emergency vehicle access to new proposed facilities lift stations), 18 as appropriate. During construction of individual components, trenching and use of heavy 19 equipment within roadways would reduce roadway capacity and potentially impede 20 emergency vehicle movement and access if appropriate traffic controls are not implemented. 21 As described in Impact TR-1, the City would prepare and implement a TMP in accordance 22 with its Standard Specifications. This plan would include comprehensive traffic control 23 measures lane closure procedures) and a requirement to notify public safety personnel 24 in advance of construction activities. The TMP also would require advance notification of any 25 owner of a private driveway whose access would be temporarily disrupted during Project 26 construction activities, and to limit disruption of private driveways to no more than one hour, 27 as feasible. With implementation of this measure, emergency vehicle access would be 28 maintained during construction of proposed components. Therefore, this impact would be 29 less than significant. 30 Impact TR-5: Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, or Programs Regarding 31 Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities, or Otherwise Decrease the 32 Performance or Safety of Such Features (Less than Significant) 33 All Program-level Components 34 Program-level components would not permanently alter any roadways, bicycle lanes, 35 sidewalks, or other non-motorized transportation facilities. Many of the proposed 36 components would be buried underground new and upgraded sewer lines). Where 37 features would be built above-ground, these features would be on parcels out of the road 38 right-of-way. Construction of program-level components could temporarily interfere with 39 bicycle, pedestrian, and transit vehicle movement from trenching for installation of 40 facilities) without adequate controls, and therefore result in a temporary conflict with Policy 41 V-B.6[f] in the City’s general plan. In some instances, it is possible that construction of 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 individual components may require temporary closure of a bicycle lane or sidewalk, or 1 blockage of a transit stop. 2 In accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications, the City would implement a TMP, which 3 would require advance notification to transit agencies regarding construction activities 4 within the roadway. Additionally, as described in Impact TR-1, the TMP would be required to 5 provide for and maintain temporary traffic control measures to allow for the safe passage of 6 vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic through and within the Project site, as well as make 7 provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic access at all school sites. With implementation 8 of the TMP, impacts on public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than 9 significant. 10 River Trunk Realignment 11 Limited bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, or transit routes exist along the proposed River Trunk 12 Realignment Project alignment. Sidewalks do exist along most Project roadways that provide 13 for pedestrian mobility. Roselawn Avenue is a designated bicycle-friendly road where it 14 crosses Tuolumne Boulevard. There also is a transit stop at the intersection of Roselawn 15 Avenue and Tuolumne Boulevard. Additionally, there are several bike trails between South 16 7th Street and 9th Street which could potentially be temporarily affected by Project 17 construction activities. As noted above, the City would implement a TMP, which would 18 include temporary traffic control measures to allow for the safe passage of vehicular, bicycle, 19 and pedestrian traffic through and within the Project site. Additionally, the City’s Standard 20 Specifications require that the TMP make provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic access 21 at all school sites. Implementation of the TMP would ensure that any impacts to pedestrian, 22 bicycle, and transit facilities would be less than significant. 23 Overall Conclusion 24 Construction of proposed WWMP components could temporarily interfere with bicycle and 25 pedestrian movement to some degree and cause transit delays due to pipeline installation 26 work that occurs in public roads. Without adequate measures, such construction activities 27 could thereby temporarily conflict with the Policy V-B.6[f] in the City’s Urban Area General 28 Plan, which calls for maintaining high levels of service for all transportation modes (vehicle, 29 transit, pedestrian, and bicycle). However, implementation of the TMP would minimize this 30 impact and avoid substantial conflicts with this policy. In conclusion, the Proposed Program’s 31 overall impact would be less than significant. 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 16. Transportation and Traffic Wastewater Master Plan 16-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 17-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 17 1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 2 17.1 Overview 3 This chapter describes the setting and impacts on utilities and service systems, including 4 solid waste facilities, from the Proposed Program. Resources used to prepare this section 5 include information and regulations from the various service providers, as referenced below: 6  City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (City of Modesto 2019a); 7  Stanislaus County General Plan (Stanislaus County 2016); 8  City of Modesto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (West Yost Associates 2016); 9 and 10  State regulations. 11 17.2 Regulatory Setting 12 17.2.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies 13 There are no federal laws, regulations, and policies regarding utilities and service systems 14 that are relevant to the Proposed Program. 15 17.2.2 State Laws, Regulations and Policies 16 California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 and AB 341 17 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Pub. Res. Code, Division 30) 18 requires all California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and 19 compost wastes by at least 50 percent by 2000 (Pub. Res. Code Section 41780). In 2011, the 20 Governor approved AB 341, which sets an even more ambitious goal of 75 percent recycling, 21 composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020 in effort to decrease California’s 22 reliance on landfills. The state, acting through the California Department of Resources 23 Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), determines compliance with this mandate. Per capita 24 disposal rates are used to determine whether a jurisdiction’s efforts are meeting the intent of 25 the act (CalRecycle 2017). 26 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 27 The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (Pub. Res. Code Sections 28 42900–42911) requires that all development projects applying for building permits include 29 adequate, accessible areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Urban Water Management Planning Act 1 California Water Code Section10610 et seq. requires that all public water systems providing 2 water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 3 acre-feet per year (af/yr), prepare an urban water management plan (UWMP). UWMPs must 4 be submitted to DWR for approval every five years. 5 Urban water management plans must identify and quantify available water supplies and 6 current and projected water use and demands, and plan for maintaining adequate water 7 supply reliability during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. 8 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 9 The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is described in Chapter 12, Hydrology and 10 Water Quality, of this DEIR, and would be applicable to the Proposed Program. 11 17.2.3 Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies 12 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 13 Chapter V, Community Services and Facilities, of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan 14 (20019a) discusses the City’s applicable planning goals and policies related to water supplies, 15 water use, water management planning programs and documents, and the City’s water 16 distribution and treatment system infrastructure management are provided below. In 17 addition, the City’s policies relevant to other utilities, such as wastewater, storm drainage, 18 and solid waste include the following: 19 Water Policies: 20 Goal VI.A. Ensure a consistent, reliable, high-quality water supply for the City of Modesto’s 21 residents and businesses. 22 Policy VI.A.3. All new connections to the public water system are to have meters 23 installed. In addition, on or before January 1, 2025, all existing municipal and 24 industrial service connections are to have water meters installed. 25 Policy VI.B.2. Prepare and maintain a Water Master Plan. Update the Water Master 26 Plan, as needed, to incorporate changes in growth projections, water supplies, and 27 demands. 28 Policy VI.B.3. Encourage the optimum beneficial use of water resources within the 29 City. Strive to maintain an adequate supply of high-quality water for urban uses. At a 30 minimum, potable water supplies delivered to water customers shall conform to the 31 primary maximum contaminant levels as defined in State law. 32 Policy VI.B.5Construct, operat, maintain, and replace water infrastructure facilities 33 in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public. Ensure that 34 infrastructure is installed before or concurrently with development. Take a 35 comprehensive approach to financing, using a blend of special taxes, benefit 36 assessments, and other methods to ensure that infrastructure installation occurs in a 37 timely manner. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Wastewater Policies: 1 Goal VI.D. Strive to meet increasingly strict wastewater regulations in a cost-effective 2 manner. The City’s wastewater treatment facilities will conform to standards for wastewater 3 and biosolids treatment and disposal, as established by the Central Valley Regional Water 4 Quality Control Board, in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. 5 Policy VI.D.1. Consider reclaiming wastewater as a means to optimize the region’s 6 water resources, reduce discharge from the treatment plant, reduce the risk of fines 7 and reduce costs associated with producing water from new / additional sources. 8 Policy VI.D.2. Comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 9 requirement to cease all discharge of wastewater that is treated at less than tertiary 10 levels by May 1, 2018. 11 Policy VI.D.3. Consider reuse of wastewater treatment byproducts, such as biosolids 12 and digester gas, which can reduce costs associated with treatment plant operations. 13 Policy VI.D.4. Pursue the near-term expansion of the wastewater treatment and 14 disposal capacity of the Jennings Road Treatment Plant. 15 Policy VI.D.5. Pursue the long-term relocation of the Sutter Avenue Primary 16 Treatment Plant, to the Jennings Road site, in order to consolidate operations and 17 reduce treatment plant flooding risks. 18 Policy VI.D.6. Construct, operate, maintain, and replace wastewater facilities in a 19 manner that will provide the best possible service to the public. In developing 20 implementation plans, consider rehabilitation of essential existing facilities, 21 expansion to meet current excess demand, and the timely expansion for future 22 demand. 23 Policy VI.E.1. Allocate the City’s wastewater system capacity to existing and future 24 residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Discharges from environmental 25 cleanup sites may be issued conditional discharge permits subject to the availability 26 of excess treatment capacity. In accordance with federal and state regulations, 27 discharges to the wastewater system may not, or may not threaten to, upset or 28 interfere with, the wastewater system. 29 Policy VI.E.2. Require wastewater infrastructure master plans for the specific public 30 infrastructure or when otherwise pertinent to provision of service at adopted service 31 levels for the specific plan areas or other projects depending on site issues and 32 location. 33 Policy VI.E.9. Strive to use land application of biosolids as the most environmentally 34 beneficial reuse of this resource, rather than the disposal options of landfilling or 35 incineration. 36 Policy VI.E.10. Develop methods to discontinue use of the sanitary system to 37 temporarily drain stormwater runoff, and eliminate cross-connections between the 38 wastewater and stormwater infrastructure systems. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Policy VI.E.16. Prepare and implement an update to the City’s Wastewater Master 1 Plan (WWMP), and complete an EIR for the updated WWMP. The updated WWMP 2 should account for the UAGP, zoning revisions, updated growth projections, updated 3 sewer demand information, regulatory requirements, and identify new capital 4 improvement projects. The WWMP should involve several improvements to the City’s 5 collection system and upgrades to the Sutter and Jennings treatment plants. The 6 objectives of the updated WWMP may include the following: 7 • Implement the City’s economic goals and Urban Area General Plan by 8 planning for, and providing, sewer infrastructure in a timely and cost- 9 effective manner to serve new and existing development. 10 • Continue the City’s policy of providing affordable and attractive wastewater 11 rates. 12 • Repair and replace aging wastewater infrastructure. 13 • Ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure and services are available to 14 serve new growth within the General Plan and City’s Sphere of Influence. 15 • Provide an adequate funding mechanism to pay for necessary improvements. 16 • Require new development to pay for infrastructure necessary to serve it. 17 • Plan for state-of-the-art facilities that reliably and economically meet the 18 changing regulatory requirements. 19 For collection system improvements, the objectives of the updated WWMP may 20 include: 21 • To increase sewer capacity to convey peak wet weather flows for a 10-year 22 storm event, and where required, to serve future customers. 23 • To reduce wet weather flow volumes by removing cross connections with 24 stormwater sewers. 25 • To extend service to new customers. 26 • To replace, repair, or rehabilitate existing trunk sewers, and to reduce 27 infiltration and inflow of stormwater into the sanitary sewers. 28 • To improve sewer collection reliability by providing new and redundant 29 infrastructure improvements, including sewer trunk lines and lift stations, in 30 known deficient areas at critical areas within the existing system. 31 For treatment plant improvements, the objectives may include the following: 32 • To reduce flooding impacts at the Sutter Plant site and increase treatment 33 process operational flexibility and efficiencies by constructing new primary 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 treatment and solids handling facilities at the Jennings Plant and remove 1 primary treatment and handling facilities from the Sutter Plant. 2 • To increase the capacity of the outfall connecting the primary and secondary 3 treatment plants, and to provide increased reliability for the existing outfall. 4 • To increase treatment systems efficiency, reliability, and functionality for 5 both domestic and cannery process stream flows. 6 • To increase treatment operational opportunities through new systems or 7 system alterations to remain in compliance with existing Central Valley 8 NPDES requirements and plan for potential future permitting 9 regulations. 10 Storm Drainage Policies: 11 Goal VI.F. Establish and maintain an operating storm drainage system that protects people 12 and property from flood damage. 13 Policy VI.G.2. Construct, operate, maintain, and replace storm water drainage 14 facilities in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, as 15 required by federal and state laws and regulations. In developing implementation 16 plans, consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of existing facilities, remediation 17 of developed areas with inadequate levels of drainage service, and timely system 18 expansion for future development. 19 Solid Waste Policies: 20 Policy VI.L.1. Continue to comply with all requirements of Assembly Bill 939, which 21 mandates the diversion of solid waste of 50% by 2000, by way of source reduction, 22 recycling, composting, and transformation. 23 Policy VI.L.3. Continue to comply with Stanislaus County’s Hazardous Waste 24 Management Plan. 25 Policy VI.L.5. To meet the waste disposal demands of the growing population, 26 continue to seek alternative waste disposal methods for solid waste, including 27 transformation, composting, and alternative energy conversion technologies. 28 Policy VI.L.6. In addition to the Solid Waste Disposal policies in place [as outlined 29 above], consider implementing local land use incentives and zoning/building code 30 modifications to encourage source reduction, recycling, and composting, and to 31 provide adequate space for containers. Such measures to be considered include a 32 Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, an ordinance and incentive 33 program for Green Building Projects, and mandatory recycling for 34 commercial/industrial waste and organics recycling per AB 341 and AB 1826. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 17.3 Environmental Setting 1 17.3.1 Water Service 2 Water Supply and Treatment 3 The City of Modesto is the primary domestic water purveyor in Stanislaus County, serving 4 not only the City of Modesto, but also Salida; North Ceres and Walnut Manor in Ceres; 5 Grayson; Del Rio (Hillcrest); and defined areas in North, South, and Central Turlock. The City 6 of Modesto currently distributes treated surface water supplied by MID through the Modesto 7 Regional Water Treatment Plant and groundwater pumped from City owned and 8 operated wells, to serve the water demands of its customers. The City, in conjunction with 9 MID, expanded its water supply when the Phase 2 Expansion became operational 10 (May 2016) with an additional 30 mgd of capacity to help meet demand north of the 11 Tuolumne River. The has total capacity of 60 mgd, or 67,200 acre-feet per year (MID 12 2017a). In addition, there are a limited number of private wells operating within the City 13 limits that provide water for parks, golf courses, industry, and agricultural uses (City of 14 Modesto 2016). Water supply needs include residential, agricultural, industrial uses, as well 15 as emergency (fire) and drought supplies. 16 From the treated surface water is supplied to municipal customers within the City 17 limits and some contiguous developed County areas north of the Tuolumne River, including 18 the communities of Empire and Salida. The treated surface water place of use is defined by 19 the overlap of the MID water service boundary with the City of Modesto Municipal Water 20 System service area north of the Tuolumne River. Areas served by the City of Modesto that 21 lie outside the MID water service boundary south of the Tuolumne River), including the 22 communities of Grayson, parts of Ceres and Turlock, and the portion of the Modesto system 23 south of the Tuolumne River, are served exclusively by groundwater. The County community 24 of Del Rio is also served only by groundwater. The recently completed expansion is 25 intended to help reduce the City’s reliance on groundwater pumping and help meet demand 26 north of the Tuolumne River. 27 While the areas south of the Tuolumne River are within the TID service area, TID currently 28 serves only agricultural customers with surface water, and does not supply water for 29 municipal uses. However, TID is working with the Stanislaus Regional Water Authority 30 (SRWA) on the proposed Surface Water Supply Project (SWSP), described in more detail in 31 Section 18.4, “Cumulative Impacts,” which (if approved) would supply treated Tuolumne 32 River water as an additional source of potable water for the cities of Turlock and Ceres (City 33 of Turlock 2012). 34 In 2015, total water supply for the City was 47,459 acre-feet (AF), with 15,401 AF of 35 Tuolumne River surface water purchased from MID and 32,058 AF pumped from 36 groundwater. Table 17-1 summarizes projected water supplies for 2020-2040. These 37 projections are based on normal water years (City of Modesto 2016). 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 17-1. Projected Water Supplies 1 Source Projected Water Supply (af/yr) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Surface water (from MID) 44,800 48,533 52,267 56,000 59,733 Groundwater 24,664 26,369 28,073 29,778 31,483 Total 69,464 74,902 80,340 85,778 91,216 Notes: AF = acre-feet; af/yr = acre-feet per year; MID = Modesto Irrigation District. 2 All groundwater volumes are reasonably available volumes. Total right or safe yield of groundwater is 3 53,500 AF for all years. 4 Source: City of Modesto 2016 (Table 6-20) 5 Sources of Surface Water 6 MID and TID obtain surface water supply from the Tuolumne River, stored in the Don Pedro 7 Reservoir, which they jointly own. This water is obtained under TID and MID’s pre-1914 8 water rights. From Don Pedro Reservoir, MID releases water through its power generation 9 facilities directly into the river. From MID’s Upper Main Canal at La Grange, water is delivered 10 to Modesto Reservoir, then flows to the canal system, where the water is diverted to several 11 locations that drain into the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers (MID 2017b). From 12 Modesto Reservoir, MID may release water to its Lower Main Canal for irrigation purposes 13 or to the for municipal and industrial purposes. Currently, MID manages 208 miles 14 of gravity flow–operated canals and pipelines and provides irrigation water to approximately 15 3,100 agricultural customers. 16 Following treatment at the water is conveyed to the City’s distribution system. In 17 October 2005, MID and the City approved the Amended and Restated Water Treatment and 18 Delivery Agreement between MID and the City of Modesto. MID became the primary water 19 supply for the City of Modesto by expansion of the The facility has the capacity to 20 treat an additional 30 mgd (67,204 af/yr), which would meet demand north of the Tuolumne 21 River through buildout in 2050, if necessary (City of Modesto 2016). 22 Groundwater 23 Groundwater conditions are described in detail in Section 12.3.5 of Chapter 12, Hydrology 24 and Water Quality, and are summarized here, The Proposed Program components would 25 primarily overlie the Modesto Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin but 26 some components would also be located in the Turlock Subbasin, and the Delta-Mendota 27 Subbasin. 28 Prior to the operation of the the City conducted extensive pumping of groundwater 29 in and near the City’s service area that resulted in localized overdrafting conditions 30 extraction of groundwater in excess of its long-term average rate of natural recharge). All 31 three subbasins had declining groundwater levels between 1970 and 2000. Since 1995, 32 groundwater levels increased as surface water supplies were available from the 33 operation and then declined again as drought conditions affected surface water supplies. A 34 2007 evaluation conducted by the City determined that, if the total, long-term average 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 groundwater pumpage quantity is held at or below 53,500 af/yr, groundwater levels would 1 stabilize at approximately 40 feet msl (City of Modesto 2016). 2 Water Demand 3 City of Modesto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 4 The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan describes the City’s and MID’s past, current and 5 projected water use and demand by sector up to the year 2040. Table 17-2 summarizes the 6 projected water demand by water source from 2020 to 2040. The City does not use recycled 7 water to offset potable water use, nor does it anticipate doing so in the future (City of Modesto 8 2016). 9 Table 17-2. Projected Water Demand for the City of Modesto, 2020-2040 10 Source Projected Water Demand (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Potable and raw water 69,464 74,902 80,340 85,778 91,216 Recycled water 0 0 0 0 0 Total 69,464 74,902 80,340 85,778 91,216 Notes: AF = acre-feet 11 Source: City of Modesto 2016 (Table 4-4) 12 A more detailed summary of the City’s projected water demands by sector type is 13 summarized in Table 17-3. 14 Table 17-3. Projected Water Demands by Use Type in the City of Modesto, 2020-2040 15 Use Type Projected Water Demand (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Single Family 35,872 38,680 41,488 44,296 47,105 Multi-Family 6,894 7,434 7,974 8,513 9,053 Commercial 11,031 11,895 12,758 13,622 14,486 Industrial 3,993 4,305 4,618 4,931 5,243 Institutional/Governmental 2,175 2,345 2,515 2,685 2,855 Landscape 2,553 2,753 2,953 3,153 3,352 Other (unmetered water uses) 0 0 0 0 0 Losses 6,946 7,490 8,034 8,578 9,122 TOTAL 69,464 74,902 80,340 85,778 91,216 Note: AF = acre-feet. 16 Source: City of Modesto 2016 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 City of Modesto Water Master Plan 1 The City’s Water Master Plan (WMP) estimates projected water demands for the contiguous 2 and outlying water service areas at buildout and with consideration of assumed per capita 3 water use targets in compliance with Senate Bill SB X7-7. Based on updated population 4 estimates, the projected water demand for the contiguous service area is 99,240 af/yr. (West 5 Yost Associates 2017). 6 17.3.2 Wastewater 7 Modesto’s wastewater collection system conveys wastewater from residential, commercial, 8 and industrial customers in its service area to treatment plants. As described in Chapter 1, 9 Introduction, the City’s wastewater collection system consists of approximately 40 sewer lift 10 stations, more than 600 miles of sanitary lines ranging from 6 to 66 inches in diameter, 69 11 miles of trunk lines (pipelines greater than 15 inches in diameter), and an additional 15 miles 12 of trunk lines connecting cannery food processors directly to land disposal (application) 13 areas. Wastewater flowing into the collection system flows by gravity, or is pumped, to the 14 Sutter Plant and the Jennings Plant for further treatment. 15 The majority of the influent received at the City’s wastewater treatment facilities consists of 16 domestic, commercial, industrial, food processing, and winery waste. The Sutter Plant 17 provides primary treatment as well as screening, sedimentation and grit removal services. 18 From there, the wastewater gets transferred via two 6.5-mile-long effluent outfall pipelines 19 to the Jennings Plant. Currently, the Jennings plant disposes of secondary treated effluent in 20 two ways: through irrigation of approximately 2,500 acres of ranch lands owned by the 21 City, and through seasonal discharge to the San Joaquin River. According to the City’s 22 NPDES surface water discharge permit (Order R5-2017-0064, NPDES No. CA0079103), 23 discharge of secondary treated wastewater to the San Joaquin River is only allowable 24 between October and May until the year 2018. As discussed in Chapter 1, the City is in the 25 process of constructing tertiary treatment facilities at the Jennings Plant. Once completed, 26 secondary treated wastewater would undergo tertiary treatment and could be used to 27 provide recycled water demands off-site. 28 As of 2015, the City’s wastewater treatment system had a capacity of 81 mgd, including 40.2 29 mgd of capacity for cannery wastewater. In 2014, average non-canning-season domestic 30 wastewater flows (exclusive of cannery segregated flow) was 18.5 mgd. During the 2014 dry 31 season, the sewer system received an average of approximately 20 mgd of wastewater, with 32 a peak of 36.3 mgd. The peak wet weather wastewater flow was approximately 72.8 mgd 33 (Carollo Engineers 2016). 34 17.3.3 Stormwater 35 The City’s stormwater drainage system consists of approximately 77 miles of drainage lines 36 and 20 pump stations. As the stormwater drains through this system, it discharges into four 37 major locations. Based on the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, approximately 40 38 percent of the stormwater discharges to detention/retention basins, 20 percent to receiving 39 waters (Tuolumne River or Dry Creek), 10 percent to MID laterals/drains, and 30 percent to 40 rockwells. The City currently utilizes these rock wells (approximately 11,000), along with 41 infiltration basins and underground storage and recharge facilities, to recharge the 42 groundwater aquifer with some of the stormwater for beneficial reuse as a water supply 43 source to meet local water demands (City of Modesto 2016). 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The outlying service areas’ stormwater systems vary in size and complexity based on the 1 various communities’ needs. The Del Rio stormwater system consists of a retention pond, 2 curbs, and gutters (Stanislaus County 2004). The retention pond does not discharge to the 3 Stanislaus River (Stanislaus County 2004). Stormwater needs in the small Grayson 4 community are primarily served by roadside percolation, but some areas include storm 5 drainage pipes and a detention basin that discharges to the San Joaquin River (Stanislaus 6 County 2004). The condition of these facilities is good (Stanislaus County 2004). The Turlock 7 stormwater system is owned and operated solely by the City of Turlock and comprised of 28 8 active storm lift stations, 66 storm ponds (which total 140 acres), 1,300 stormwater catch 9 basins, and 102 miles of storm drain pipe (City of Turlock 2003). Ultimately, stormwater from 10 Turlock flows to the San Joaquin River. 11 17.3.4 Solid Waste 12 In 2015, the City disposed of 104,468 tons of solid waste at landfills (CalRecycle 2015). The 13 City of Modesto has an annual per capita disposal rate target of 5 pounds per resident per 14 day, and an annual per capita disposal rate target of 13.8 pounds per employee per day. In 15 2015, the most recent year for which disposal rate data were available for the city of Modesto, 16 the City’s annual per capita disposal rates were 4.5 pounds per resident per day and 12.6 17 pounds per employee per day (CalRecycle 2015). 18 There are currently two major firms that are responsible for the collection and transport of 19 solid waste in Modesto. Gilton Solid Waste Management and Bertolotti Disposal both provide 20 hauling and interim transfer stations for the City’s waste disposal, transformation, and 21 diversion streams. Bertolotti Disposal also manages the solid waste and recycling programs 22 for the City of Ceres. 23 The City of Modesto Public Works Department manages garbage and recycling collection 24 services throughout the City. In addition to standard waste, the department also manages 25 hazardous waste cleanup, bulk item pick-up, composting, and street sweeping (City of 26 Modesto 2017). 27 The Fink Road Sanitary Landfill is the primary landfill within Stanislaus County. This 28 approximately 200-acre landfill is owned by Stanislaus County and operated by the County 29 Department of Environmental Resources. It is located west of Interstate 5 near the town of 30 Crows Landing, where it receives solid waste from all of the cities and unincorporated areas 31 within the county, including Modesto and the study area. 32 Categorized as a Class II and III landfill for nonhazardous municipal solid waste, its maximum 33 permitted throughput is 2,400 tons per day. It has a remaining capacity of 8,240,435 cubic 34 yards as of January 5, 2012 with a maximum permitted capacity of 14,640,000 cubic yards. 35 Most industrial, commercial, and residential waste household and commercial garbage, 36 construction debris) is accepted here, while waste such as car bodies, septic tank waste, and 37 liquid waste are not. As of 2012, it had a remaining capacity of over 8 million cubic yards and 38 an estimated closure date of 2022 (CalRecycle 2017). The landfill is currently considering 39 alternatives for facility expansion, which would extend the closure date to approximately 40 2030. 41 Noted above, the solid waste programs operated by the City includes a recycling program; 42 Stanislaus County operates a similar program. These include curb-side recycling and 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 operation of recycling centers throughout their various jurisdictions within the study area. 1 There are also several private recycling companies that are not affiliated with those who have 2 specific contracts with the City or County. 3 17.3.5 Communications 4 A number of communications companies serve the Modesto area, including Comcast, AT&T, 5 and Charter Communications. Many of the streets within which the Proposed Program 6 components would be installed include underground or overhead communications lines. 7 17.4 Impact Analysis 8 17.4.1 Methodology 9 This section describes the impacts of the Proposed Program related to utilities and services 10 systems. This evaluation considers the extent to which the Proposed Program would require 11 entirely new or altered existing facilities to address immediate or foreseeable needs 12 associated with Proposed Program operations. Effects are evaluated qualitatively based on 13 available information on existing facilities and current demand in the study area. 14 17.4.2 Criteria for Determining Significance 15 The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact on utilities and service systems if 16 it would: 17  Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 18  Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water or wastewater 19 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could 20 cause significant environmental effects; 21  Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or 22 expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 23 environmental effects; 24  Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Program and reasonably 25 foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. ; 26  Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may 27 serve the Program that it has adequate capacity to serve the Program’s projected 28 demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; 29  Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity 30 of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction 31 goals; or 32  Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and 33 regulations related to solid waste. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Due to the nature of the Proposed Program, the first criterion is not addressed in the impact 1 analysis because one of the Program objectives is to increase treatment opportunities in 2 order to remain in compliance with the existing Central Valley NPDES 3 requirements. The Proposed Program is intended to meet current and near-term wastewater 4 treatment requirements by constructing adequate wastewater infrastructure and providing 5 services to serve existing and anticipated new growth within the City’s sphere of influence. 6 Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7 In addition, a portion of the second criterion listed above is not applicable because 8 construction of new and upgraded wastewater infrastructure services is the primary subject 9 of this DEIR and the environmental effects of the Proposed Program are described 10 throughout this document. Therefore, this criterion does not require further discussion in 11 this chapter. 12 Similarly, the fifth criterion does not apply for the same reasons stated above for the first 13 criterion dismissed. 14 17.4.3 Environmental Impacts 15 Impact UTL-1: Require or Result in the Construction of New Stormwater 16 Drainage Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities, the Construction of Which 17 Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects (Less than Significant) 18 The Proposed Program would not require the construction of any major stormwater drainage 19 facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As described in Chapter 2, Program Description, 20 one component of the Program involves removing up to 60 interconnections between storm 21 sewers and sanitary sewers to decrease peak flows in the City’s collection system. Although 22 this effort would not involve new construction of stormwater facilities, it would involve 23 minor alterations to existing stormwater facilities. 24 All other improvements are intended either to repair and replace aging wastewater 25 infrastructure or ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure to accommodate new growth 26 planned by the City. Improvements proposed at the Sutter Plant would be confined to the 27 existing footprint and would not create new impervious surfaces. Similarly, most 28 improvements at the Jennings Plant would occur within the existing plant footprint, with the 29 exception of the proposed sludge drying beds. As discussed in Chapter 12, Hydrology and 30 Water Quality, runoff from these surfaces would discharge to surrounding undeveloped land 31 and would not require construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. 32 Construction of the seven new lift stations throughout the City and the River Trunk and 33 Shackelford pump stations may affect stormwater runoff to a small degree due the 34 construction of new impervious surfaces. While some on-site stormwater drainage may be 35 needed for these facilities, given the small scale of the new lift and pump stations, the 36 environmental effects of constructing any new stormwater drainage facilities would be 37 minimal. Stormwater drainage effects of the Proposed Program are analyzed further in 38 Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Impact HYD/WQ-5. Moreover, the environmental 39 effects of constructing and operating new lift and pump stations, including associated 40 improvements at these sites stormwater drainage), are evaluated throughout this DEIR. 41 For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact UTL-2: Require New or Expanded Water Supply Entitlements (No Impact) 1 Construction of each improvement would require the use of water to compact loose soils and 2 earthen materials that are dug up from trenching activity. Except for the Jennings Plant, 3 where recycled water is available, construction crews would likely use publicly available 4 groundwater and surface water for most construction uses throughout the various 5 construction phases. The City has some specially designated hydrants that are served only by 6 wells that no longer comply with potable demands, and that are used by contractors and City 7 crews for construction water and other allowable nonpotable uses. However, these hydrants 8 are not conveniently located for all project needs, and the water source for these hydrants is 9 groundwater regardless of water quality. Nevertheless, the amount of water used for 10 construction purposes would be negligible compared to overall demands and available 11 supplies. As a result, construction of proposed improvements would not substantially affect 12 local water supplies. 13 Once construction of planned improvements is complete, operation of the Sutter and Jennings 14 Plants and other program-level improvements, such as pipeline replacements and 15 rehabilitation and lift station upgrades, would not involve meaningful volumes of water and 16 would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements. Similarly, operation of the 17 River Trunk Realignment project would not require additional water supply entitlements 18 beyond those already obtained by the City. Note that the disconnection of up to 60 19 stormwater/sanitary sewer cross-connections would decrease peak flows and could allow 20 more stormwater drainage to be directed to groundwater rather than combined with 21 wastewater; these improvements would potentially increase available groundwater supply. 22 As a result, program improvements would not substantially affect water supplies. There 23 would be no impact. 24 Impact UTL-3: Require Additional Permitted Landfill Capacity to Accommodate 25 the Project’s Solid Waste Disposal Needs (Less than Significant) 26 Construction of the Proposed Program facilities would produce solid waste in the form of 27 demolished asphalt, concrete, and excavated soils (construction waste). Construction waste 28 would be transported to one of the recycling facilities currently used by the City of Modesto 29 and outlying service areas, and soils may be reused pending testing results (see Chapter 11, 30 Hazards and Hazardous Materials), thus minimizing the amount of waste sent to landfills. 31 When construction waste recycling is not possible, waste would be transported to the 32 Stanislaus County Fink Road landfill, located at 4000 Fink Road in Crows Landing. The landfill 33 has a total permitted capacity of 14.5 million tons, about one-third of which is full. The facility 34 has an estimated closure date of 2022. The landfill is currently considering alternatives for 35 facility expansion, which would extend the closure date to approximately 2030 (California 36 Integrated Waste Management Board 2007; Frank pers. comm.). In the event that a new 37 landfill would need to be used once the Fink Road landfill is closed, the City has disposal 38 requirement standard practices and general provisions in place that would prevent any 39 potential impacts caused by this activity. These standard practices state that the City would 40 only dispose of waste at a licensed disposal facility, and would identify such facility prior to 41 committing to any project action (i.e. construction activity that involves grading). These 42 practices can be found Section 5.06, Disposal of Excess Material, and Section 11.04, Grading 43 Plans, of the City of Modesto Standard Specifications (2014). Furthermore, the treatment and 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 17. Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Master Plan 17-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 handling of all wastes produced during the construction period would adhere to all applicable 1 federal, state, and local statutes. 2 The generation of construction waste is considered a short-term impact that would not 3 require existing disposal facilities or conveyance transfer and haul systems to be expanded. 4 While the Proposed Program would not result in the creation of additional solid waste once 5 proposed facilities are operational, the standard practices stated above would ensure that the 6 Proposed Program’s waste would only be disposed of at licensed disposal facilities and in 7 accordance with all solid waste handling and disposal requirements. Therefore, this impact 8 on solid waste generation as a result of the Proposed Program would be less than 9 significant. 10 Impact UTL-4: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations 11 Related to Solid Waste (Less than Significant) 12 The Proposed Program would be in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and 13 regulations related to solid waste. Construction specifications would contain requirements 14 for the handling, storage, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous materials. For additional 15 information about hazardous materials compliance and permitting requirem0ents, refer to 16 Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The Proposed Program would also comply 17 with all of the applicable policies outlined in Section 17.2.3, “Local Laws, Regulations, and 18 Policies.” As a result, this impact would be less than significant. 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update 18-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 18 1 OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 2 18.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter presents discussions of significant and unavoidable impacts, growth-inducing 4 impacts, and cumulative impacts as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. 5 18.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 6 Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe any significant 7 impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. All of the impacts associated 8 with the Proposed Program would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the 9 implementation of identified mitigation measures, with the exception of the impacts 10 discussed below. The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: 11  Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to 12 Non-agricultural Use (for collection system and Jennings Plant components) (Impact 13 AG-1) 14  Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan (Impact 15 AQ-1) 16  Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for 17 Which the Project Region Is Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State 18 Ambient Air Quality Standard (Impact AQ-3) 19  Generate a Substantial Amount of GHG Emissions (Impact GHG-1) 20  Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of 21 Reducing Emissions of GHGs (Impact GHG-2) 22  Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project 23 Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Proposed Program (Impact NOI-4) 24  Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture (Impact CUM-1) 25  Cumulative Impacts Related to Noise and Vibration (Impact CUM-6) 26 18.3 GROWTH INDUCEMENT 27 Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a detailed 28 statement of a proposed project’s anticipated growth-inducing impacts. The analysis of 29 growth-inducing impacts must discuss the ways in which a proposed project (or program) 30 could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing in the 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 surrounding environment. The analysis must also address project-related actions that, either 1 individually or cumulatively, would remove existing obstacles to population growth. The 2 Proposed Program is considered growth-inducing because it removes wastewater 3 infrastructure as an obstacle to growth. Refer to Impact PH-3 in Chapter 15, Population and 4 Housing, for detailed discussion of the growth-related effects of the Proposed Program. 5 18.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6 According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), a cumulative impact is created by 7 the combination of a proposed project with other past, present, and probable future projects 8 causing related impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 9 collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (State CEQA Guidelines 10 Section 15355[b]). Under CEQA, an EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project 11 when the project’s incremental contribution to the group effect is “cumulatively 12 considerable.” An EIR does not need to discuss cumulative impacts that do not result, in part, 13 from the project evaluated in the EIR. 14 To meet the adequacy standard established by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, an 15 analysis of cumulative impacts must contain the following elements: 16  an analysis of related past, present, and probable future projects that would affect 17 resources in the project area similar to those affected by the proposed project; 18  a summary of the environmental effects expected to result from those projects with 19 specific reference to additional information stating where that information is 20 available; and 21  a reasonable analysis of the combined (cumulative) impacts of the relevant projects, 22 including those of the Proposed Program. 23 The cumulative impacts analysis must evaluate a project’s potential to contribute to the 24 significant cumulative impacts identified, and it must discuss feasible options for mitigating 25 or avoiding any contributions assessed as cumulatively considerable. The discussion of 26 cumulative impacts is not required to provide as much detail as the discussion of the effects 27 attributable to the project alone. Rather, the level of detail is to be guided by what is practical 28 and reasonable. 29 18.4.1 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS: COMBINED APPROACH 30 The following analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on whether the cumulatively significant 31 impacts exist to which the Proposed Program may contribute, and whether the Proposed 32 Program’s contribution to such impacts would be considerable. The cumulative impact 33 analysis considers other projects proposed within the area defined for each resource that 34 have the potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts. 35 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides the following two alternative approaches for 36 analyzing and preparing an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  the list approach, which involves listing past, existing, and probable future projects 1 or activities that have or would produce related or cumulative impacts, including, if 2 necessary, those projects outside the control of the lead agency; or 3  the projection approach, which uses a summary of projections contained in an 4 adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that 5 describes or evaluates conditions and their contribution to the cumulative effect. 6 This discussion combines the projection approach and the list approach for the Proposed 7 Program’s cumulative impact analysis. Projects included in the cumulative analysis were 8 determined using several factors, including the location and type of activity and the 9 characteristics of the activity related to resources with the potential to be affected by the 10 Proposed Program. In addition, regional or global conditions that might lead to cumulative 11 impacts GHG emissions) are also described. 12 Resource Topics Considered and Dismissed 13 The Proposed Program has been evaluated for its potential to make a considerable 14 contribution to cumulative impacts related to the following resource topics: agricultural 15 resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG and energy, hydrology 16 and water quality, noise and vibration, traffic/transportation, and utilities and service 17 systems. Greenhouse gas emissions are inherently a cumulative issue and are already 18 addressed in Chapter 10, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources. In addition, the 19 Proposed Program’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Chapter 20 6, Air Quality. Therefore, these topics are not discussed further in this section. For several 21 other resource topics, as shown in Table 18-1, either significant cumulative impacts do not 22 exist, or the Proposed Program would not have any potential to make a considerable 23 contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. These resource topics have been 24 eliminated from consideration in the analysis of cumulative impacts and are not discussed 25 further. 26 Note also that, while the Proposed Program would be growth inducing and the secondary 27 effects of growth could contribute to significant cumulative impacts, such secondary effects 28 are considered to be already captured in the cumulative setting. Therefore, the analysis of the 29 Proposed Program’s contributions to cumulative impacts focus on the impacts of the 30 Proposed Program itself, and not such secondary effects. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 18-1. Resource Topics Eliminated from Further Consideration in the Analysis of 1 Cumulative Impacts 2 Resource Topic Not Discussed Further Rationale Forestry Resources Stanislaus County’s tracts of hardwood forest are located outside of the study area. For this reason, the Proposed Program would not have any potential to make a contribution to any significant cumulative impacts pertaining to forest lands, or lands zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, this resource topic is dismissed from further analysis. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity from other projects and development in the Modesto area would be site-specific and like the Proposed Program, would be required to comply with CBC standards to minimize seismic- related impacts. For these reasons, there would be no significant cumulative impact regarding geology, soils and seismicity to which the Proposed Program could contribute. Therefore, this resource topic is dismissed from further analysis. Land Use and Planning As discussed in Chapter 13, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Program would not result in impacts that involve the division of an established community. Land use and planning has been dismissed from the cumulative analysis because, similar to the Program, other projects are subject to planning, environmental review, and a permitting process. Through these processes, inconsistencies with relevant plans and policies would be resolved before project implementation; therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impact related to conflicts with local plans and policies to which the Proposed Program could contribute. Minerals There are no known mineral resource zones, historic or active mines or quarries within the study area, and the Proposed Program’s components would not directly affect mineral production sites or prevent future availability of mineral resources. For this reason, the Proposed Program would not have the potential to make any contribution to a significant cumulative impact pertaining to mineral resources. Therefore, this resource topic is dismissed from further analysis. Public Services While the Proposed Program would indirectly induce growth, which would increase, but not individually exceed, demand for public services, the City, County, and other affected communities would plan for and implement appropriate improvement to their public services (including associated facilities and infrastructure), such that cumulatively significant impacts related to public services does not and would not occur. For this reason, no cumulatively significant impact exists to which the Proposed Program could contribute, and this topic has been dismissed from further analysis. Recreation While the Proposed Program would indirectly induce growth, which would increase, but not individually exceed, demand for recreational facilities, City, County, and other affected communities would plan for and implement appropriate improvement to their recreational facilities, such that cumulatively significant impacts related to recreation does not and would not occur. For this reason, no cumulatively significant impact exists to which the Proposed Program could contribute, and this topic has been dismissed from further analysis. Notes: CBC = California Building Standards Code; DEIR = Draft Environmental Impact Report 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Geographic Scope of Analysis 1 The level of detail of a cumulative impact analysis should consider a proposed project’s 2 geographic scope and other factors a project’s construction or operation activities, the 3 nature of the environmental resource being examined) to ensure that the level of detail is 4 practical and reasonable. The discussion focuses on the potential cumulative impacts of the 5 Proposed Program for environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected by the 6 Proposed Program in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 7 projects. The specific geographic scope for each environmental resource topic analyzed in 8 this DEIR for cumulative impacts is provided below. 9 The defined specific geographic scope for each environmental resource area analyzed in this 10 DEIR to which the Proposed Program could contribute to cumulative impacts is provided 11 below in Table 18-2. 12 Table 18-2. Geographic Scope for Resources with Cumulative Impacts Relevant to the 13 Proposed Program 14 Resource Geographic Scope Explanation for the Geographic Scope Aesthetics General vicinity of the proposed components within 0.5 mile) in Modesto and Jennings Plant Aesthetic impacts are limited to the general vicinity of the proposed components. Other projects in the vicinity of proposed above-ground components would contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts and collectively affect the region’s visual character. Agricultural Resources Generally, agricultural land throughout the state; for the purposes of this analysis, focused on the City of Modesto, as well as the remainder of Stanislaus County While the Proposed Program’s impacts on agricultural resources are limited to the footprint of the proposed components, agricultural resources are a valuable regional asset and an important part of Modesto and its surrounding area’s character. Other projects in the vicinity of Modesto and the Jennings Plant that impact agricultural land, in combination with the Proposed Program, could result in cumulative effects. Biological Resources Modesto, the Jennings Plant vicinity, and greater Stanislaus County, particularly areas of sensitive biological resources value wetlands) Animals are able to migrate and plants may disperse long distances via seed carried by the wind or other mechanisms. Additionally, biological resources are important regional assets. Therefore, the geographic scope for this analysis considers projects in the vicinity of Modesto and the Jennings Plant, as well as Stanislaus County as whole. Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources Modesto and the Jennings Plant vicinity Cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources impacts from the Proposed Program would be limited to the immediate area or footprint of the proposed components. Other projects in the City of Modesto and vicinity that disturb the ground surface could impact cultural resources (including TCRs) in a similar manner to the Proposed Program, potentially leading to significant cumulative impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Resource Geographic Scope Explanation for the Geographic Scope Hazards and Hazardous Materials Modesto and the Jennings Plant vicinity Hazards and hazardous materials impacts are limited to the general vicinity of the proposed components and hauling routes. Other projects in the vicinity of proposed components using hazardous materials during the construction and/or operation phases could impact sensitive receptors in a similar manner to the Proposed Program. As described in Chapter 11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials would ensure that the City and/or its contractor prepare and implement a hazardous materials and waste management plan, which requires that proper measures are taken in the event of an accidental hazardous materials spill or in the event that contaminated soils are encountered during construction. Other projects in the Modesto region could have similar construction-related hazards and hazardous materials impacts but these likewise would likely be site-specific and/or temporary. Similar to the Proposed Program, other projects would also be required to comply with the same regulations pertaining to safe use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used during construction. Other development in the region that adds hazardous materials-intensive land uses gas stations, dry cleaners) could increase the cumulative burden of potential hazardous materials releases in the area, but these impacts would result by a different mechanism than the Proposed Program. Therefore, there are no cumulatively significant impacts to which the Proposed Program could contribute, and this resource topic is dismissed from further analysis. Hydrology and Water Quality Immediate vicinity of Modesto, the Jennings Plant, including adjacent reaches of the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers Contributions of the Proposed Program to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality stormwater discharges from construction sites) would affect the immediate area of the proposed components and potentially areas Other projects that are constructed in this same area could affect hydrology and water quality in similar ways to the Proposed Program, potentially leading to cumulative impacts. Noise and Vibration Immediate vicinity within roughly ¼ mile) of proposed components in the Modesto and Jennings Plant area Noise impacts from the Proposed Program would be limited to the immediate area of the proposed components. Cumulative impacts could result if other projects were to be constructed at the same time as the proposed components and in same area roughly ¼ mile), such that ambient noise levels could increase. Transportation and Traffic Immediate vicinity of the proposed components in the Modesto and Jennings Plant area The Proposed Program would not add substantial numbers of vehicle trips over the long-term. Therefore, the Program’s impacts on transportation and traffic would primarily be limited to construction-related effects ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Resource Geographic Scope Explanation for the Geographic Scope temporary closures of up to one lane of traffic for installation of pipelines). Cumulative impacts could result if other projects were to be constructed at the same time as the proposed components. Utilities and Service Systems Immediate vicinity of Modesto and Jennings Plant and regional landfills that may be used by the Proposed Program The Proposed Program would not use significant water resources and would improve wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment. The Proposed Program would require disposal of excavated and demolished material at a local landfill. Other project’s in the Modesto area that may require disposal of large volumes of waste at a landfill, in combination with the Proposed Program, could potentially result in cumulative impacts on the capacity of landfill(s) in the area. 1 Table 18-3 lists projects planned in the study area that could affect resources that would also 2 be affected by the Proposed Program. The locations of these projects are also shown in 3 Figure 18-1. The list was developed by reviewing sources available on the City’s website, 4 Stanislaus County website, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research CEQAnet 5 database. While it is unlikely that every potential cumulative project is listed, the list of 6 cumulative projects is considered sufficiently comprehensive and representative of the types 7 of impacts that would be generated by other projects similar to or related to the Proposed 8 Program. The evaluation of cumulative impacts assumes that the impacts of past and present 9 projects are represented by baseline conditions. Cumulative impacts are based on the 10 impacts of the Proposed Program plus impacts of reasonably foreseeable future projects, 11 compared to baseline conditions. 12 Table 18-4 describes the planning documents containing projections used in the analysis. 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 18-3. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects that Might Cumulatively Affect Resources 1 of Concern for the Proposed Program 2 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area Recreation Projects 1. Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan The Tuolumne River Regional Park (TRRP) Master Plan envisions over 500 acres of parkland that would run along 7 river miles of the Tuolumne River. The regional park would extend from the Mitchell Street Bridge east to the Carpenter Road Bridge in Stanislaus County. Five major areas make up the TRRP, including the Legion Park/Airport Area, the Gateway Parcel, Mancini Park, the Dryden Park Golf Course Area, and the Carpenter Road Area. The Sutter Plant overlaps with the Carpenter Road Area. The River Trunk Realignment Project overlaps recreational uses planned on the Gateway Parcel. The City is currently constructing recreational trails on the Gateway Parcel, which would establish a connection to the downtown corridor and existing pathways along the Tuolumne River (including those adjacent to Beardbrook Park and further east toward the Modesto Airport). The new development on the Gateway Parcel includes a backwater channel, additional seating, an outdoor classroom, and pedestrian bridge spanning the mouth of the channel on the bank of Tuolumne River (Ortega pers. comm. 2017). Overlaps study area Development and Agricultural Projects 2. Bronco Wine Co. 2016 Rezone Application (Stanislaus County) The application requests Stanislaus County to rezone the entire 118-acre parcel to a new Planned Development, and to expand an existing wine manufacturing facility. The project includes 14 new buildings, totaling 1.4 million square feet, which includes warehousing, office and administrative buildings, and an employee center. The expansion also includes railroad access to the Union Pacific Railroad by constructing two rail spurs, which would minimize traffic impacts in surrounding areas. Access to the facility would be along Road. Phase 1 is expected to occur within 5 years of project approval; future phases would be built based upon market demands (Stanislaus County 2016b). The project was approved in May 2017. Approximately 3 miles east of proposed third outfall pipeline 3. Modesto Courthouse Project (Stanislaus County) The State of California Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts is pursuing the construction of a new courthouse in Modesto for the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. The preferred site is located in downtown Modesto in the city block bounded by G and H Streets and 9th and 10th Streets. The new courthouse will serve the public with a modern, secure, integrated, and efficient court facility in downtown Modesto. The new courthouse would occupy approximately 300,000 square feet, consist of 26 courtrooms, and replace seven facilities (City of Modesto 2014). Since 2014, the Court Facilities Advisory Committee authorized negotiations on acquiring the property. The project has been approved but has not yet been constructed. Overlaps study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area 4. DB Equipment Staff Approval Permit (Stanislaus County) Request to establish an orchard tractor cab assembly and installation business on a legal non-conforming property, in two phases. Phase 1 includes the reuse of two existing buildings for shipping, receiving, and general office work. Phase 2 includes construction of a 10,000-square-foot metal building, which would be used for the assembly of the orchard tractor cabs. Project was approved by County staff in October 2016. Approximately 0.38 miles north of study area 5. Marketplace Shopping Center Project (City of Modesto) The project includes the construction of a new shopping center with approximately 170,000 square feet of floor area on approximately 18 acres. The proposed project includes two large buildings in the shopping center that would be partitioned into spaces for various tenants. A Final EIR was published in November 2013 (City of Modesto 2013), and the project was approved in December 2013. Following the resolution of legal challenges, construction began in early 2017 and will be completed in 2018. Overlaps study area 6. Trinkler Dairy Farms (Stanislaus County) The project proposes to increase a dairy herd size from 3,150 to 5,175 animal units, consisting of 3,180 milk cows, 600 dry cows, and 1,395 heifers in the A-2-40 (General Agriculture) zoning district. Expansion would require the construction of a freestall barn, a milk parlor, a calf barn, a feed storage pad, and a wastewater storage pond (lagoon). The 220± acre parcel is located at 7251 Crows Landing Road, at the southwest corner of Crows Landing and West Taylor Roads, in the Ceres area. The Planning Commission adopted a Negative Declaration for this project on December 14, 2016. A Notice of Determination was received on February 27, 2017 (Stanislaus County 2017). Approximately 2 miles from proposed third outfall pipeline alignment 7. Blue Diamond Growers Rezone Application (Stanislaus County) Request to rezone the existing parcels for future expansion of the Blue Diamond facility. Expansion plans would include removal of the storm water basin and construction of an underground storage and percolation system, cold and/or dry storage, and pasteurization buildings (Stanislaus County 2016c). A building permit was issued in May 2017. Less than 0.5 miles from study area 8. Art Silva Dairy (Stanislaus County) Request to increase the milk/dry cows at this facility by 928 head. The facility currently houses 583 milk cows, 60 dry cows, and 390 heifers. With the increase, the totals would be 920 milk cows, 180 dry cows, and 861 heifers. The proposed increase would require construction of an approximately 53,000-square-foot freestall barn within an existing exercise pen area. As per the amended Waste Water Management Plan, the lagoons are sufficiently sized to contain the increased wastewater (Stanislaus County 2015a). Approximately 1 mile from Program study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area 9. Derrell’s Mini Storage Rezone and Merger Application (Stanislaus County) This is a request to rezone expired P-D (202) to a new P-D to allow for 100 spaces of RV storage on a 3± acre site. The project site consists of 3 separate parcels of 0.39± acre, 0.36± acre and 2.25± acres but the applicant requests to merge the three parcels into one parcel. The project would include construction and operation of 78 enclosed and 22 open storage spaces, a 20-foot pole sign, fencing and landscaping. The operation would be unstaffed and is anticipated to generate an average of 5-10 vehicle trips per day. A Negative Declaration for this project was considered for adoption during the review period from February 9, 2016 to March 14, 2016 (Stanislaus County 2016d). Overlaps study area 10. Kansas Woodland Business Park The City of Modesto is proposing the development of the Kansas Woodland Business Park located northwest of downtown Modesto. It is bounded by Woodland Avenue to the north, Kansas Avenue to the south, 9th Street on the east, and is on the web by State Route 99. The City aims to attract technology intensive businesses to the park (City of Modesto 2017). The project is currently under development. Overlaps study area 11. Fruit Yard Amphitheater This project would expand an existing Planned Development with an outdoor, fenced, 3,500-person-capacity amphitheater event center, a 5,000-square-foot stage, a 5,000-square-foot roof structure, a 4,000-square-foot storage building, a parking lot to the rear of the stage, and an additional 1,302-space temporary parking area. A maximum of 12 amphitheater events are proposed to take place per year. This use permit also includes a covered seating area of approximately 4,800 square feet and a 1,600-square-foot gazebo in the eastern half of the park area, east of the outdoor amphitheater, and replacement of the existing pylon freestanding pole sign with an electronic reader board sign. An initial study was circulated in March 2017. The project was approved by the Board of Supervisors in May 2017. Approximately 2.7 miles east of proposed future pipelines Public Works Projects 12. City of Modesto Water Master Plan The City of Modesto is in the process of developing a Water Master Plan and EIR to guide management of its water service system. The Water Master Plan would include various Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) collectively intended for system-wide implementation needed to deliver safe and reliable water, which would effectively meet demand requirements under both existing and future buildout conditions. The City proposes to construct and operate the following types of CIPs: new water storage tanks, groundwater wells, pump stations, and pipelines. These CIPs would be constructed within the City of Modesto and other communities in Stanislaus County including Salida, North Ceres, Empire, and outlying service areas including Del Rio, Ceres (Walnut Manor), Grayson, and portions of Turlock. Overlaps study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area 13. California High-Speed Rail Passenger Station The City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department has prepared a feasibility study for constructing a downtown passenger rail station for the California High-Speed Rail Project. The project is part of Phase 2 of the Proposition 1A High Speed Rail System project, but a specific start date has not been determined. The City has identified a potential site for the rail station, generally bounded by State Route 99 to the west, 9th Street to the east, North Jefferson Street to the northwest, and B Street to the south. This area would overlap the River Trunk Realignment project’s boundary to the north (California Department of Transportation 2013). Overlaps study area 14. Carpenter Road at Whitmore Avenue Intersection and Bridge Widening (Stanislaus County) The project includes installation of light signals and widening or replacing the existing Carpenter Road over Turlock Irrigation District Lateral No. 1 Bridge (Stanislaus County N.D.a). This project was approved in 2016 and is in the design phase. Overlaps study area 15. Airport Neighborhood Sewer (Phase II) (Stanislaus County) Phase I of this project was constructed in 2014 and included installation of a gravity sewer system along Kerr Avenue. The County has developed improvement plans for Phase II, which was scheduled to start February 2017 and end in fall 2017. Phase II would include construction of a new gravity sanitary sewer system consisting of approximately 20,000 feet of sewer pipe. The completed project would provide approximately 362 sewer service connections to the residents of the Airport Neighborhood Sewer District (Stanislaus County N.D.b). Overlaps study area 16. Crows Landing Road Corridor Improvement Project (Stanislaus County) This road improvement project is intended to improve safety, help illuminate the corridor, and make pedestrians and cyclists more visible to drivers. The project includes constructing raised medians, street lighting and buffered bike lanes. Crows Landing Road would be resurfaced for buffered bike lanes. Existing signals would be modified and obsolete parts would be removed and salvaged Stanislaus County N.D.c). The project is currently in the design phase. Overlaps study area ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area 17. McHenry Avenue Improvement Project (Stanislaus County) San Joaquin County, in cooperation with Stanislaus County, has completed engineering work for a project to widen and improve a one-mile segment of McHenry Avenue from Jones Road to 1,700 feet south of River Road, in Stanislaus County. The project would widen and signalize the McHenry Avenue/River Road intersection; widen McHenry Avenue to provide a center left-turn lane; and replace two existing bridges – one across the Stanislaus River, and the other across the SSJID canal. Construction was anticipated to begin in spring 2017; the project is shown as being in the design phase on the County’s website as of August 2017 (Stanislaus County Environmental studies are underway, and construction of this project would begin in spring 2020. Overlaps study area 18. Claribel Road at Roselle Avenue Intersection Road Widening Project (Stanislaus County) The project includes constructing a signalized intersection at Claribel Road and Roselle Avenue, and right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, widening the existing two-lane roadway at the intersection to accommodate turn lanes, new signalization, utilities, and drainage improvements. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in June 2016 (Stanislaus County 2016e), and the project was approved in August 2016. Overlaps study area 19 North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program (City of Modesto) The City of Modesto, City of Turlock, and Del Puerto Water District (DPWD) are partnering on a regional solution to address water supply shortages in DPWD’s service area on the west side of the San Joaquin River in San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Merced Counties. The project would deliver 59,000 af/yr of recycled water produced by the Cities of Modesto and Turlock via the Delta-Mendota Canal. Recycled water would be conveyed from Modesto and Turlock through pipelines from their wastewater treatment facilities, crossing the San Joaquin River, and ending at the Delta-Mendota Canal. The purpose of the project is to make the Cities’ recycled water available to DPWD for agricultural purposes, to provide an additional source of water south of the Delta, which can be used to meet agricultural uses and support wildlife refuges and wetland areas. Construction of the first phase of this project (in Modesto) was completed in June 2018 (North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program 2016 and 2018). Modesto Water Quality Control Facility discharge site would overlap with the Jennings Plant. The Harding Drain Bypass Pipeline would be approximately 0.25 miles from the Jennings Plant project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 No. Project Title Brief Project Description Distance from Study Area 20. Stanislaus River Regional Water Authority’s Surface Water Supply Project The SWSP would include release of up to 30,000 af/yr of water from Don Pedro Reservoir, diversion from the Tuolumne River through an existing infiltration gallery and newly constructed pump station and raw water pipelines, treatment at a newly constructed water treatment plant, conveyance of the treated water to the Cities of Ceres and Turlock, and connection to the existing potable water system infrastructure of the two cities. The project also includes a minimum annual transfer of 2,000 af of “offset water” from SRWA member agencies to TID, which would increase in dry years. An EIR is in preparation. The infiltration gallery, pump station, and water treatment plant would be located on the south bank of the Tuolumne River at Geer Road, approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the nearest CIP (Component No. EM-3) Notes: af/yr = acre-feet per year; CIP = Capital Improvement Project; DPWD = Del Puerto Water District; EIR = 1 environmental impact report; RV = recreational vehicle; SRWA = Stanislaus Regional Water Authority; 2 SSJID = South San Joaquin Irrigation District; SWSP = Surface Water Supply Project; TID = Turlock 3 Irrigation District; TRRP = Tuolumne River Regional Park 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- P P L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L Sutter Plant ·I}þ 99 ·I}þ 219 ·I}þ 108 8 5 9 4 7 3 11 20 1e 1d 1c 1b 1a 18 17 16 10 14 15 13 0 1 2 0.5 Miles¯ C:\Users\GIS\Documents\ArcGIS\_PROJECTS\15043_Modesto_WWMP_EIR\mxd\Figure_19-1_Cumulative_Projects_rev1.mxd 11/2/2017 PG Figure 18-1 Cumulative Projects City of Mod e sto Waste wate r Maste r Plan EIR 6 2 18 13 Jennings Plant Major Roads River Trunk Realignment Project Proposed Third Outfall Alignment Sewer Line Upgrade or Rehabilitation L New or Proposed Lift Station Improvement P Proposed Pump Stations ·I}þ 132 ·I}þ 132 Main Map Inset Map 1a, - Carpe nte r Road Are a 1b, - Golf Course Are a 1c, - Gate way Parce l 1d , - Le gion Park Are a 1e , - Airport Are a 2, Bronco Wine Co. 2016 Re zone Application 3, Mod e sto Courth ouse Proje ct 4, DB Equipm e nt S taff Approval Pe rm it 5, Marke tplace S h opping Ce nte r Proje ct 6, Trinkle r Dairy Farm s 7, Blue Diam ond Growe rs Re zone Application 8, Art S ilva Dairy 9, De rre ll’s Mini S torage Re zone and Me rge r Application 10, Kansas Wood land Busine ss Park 11, Fruit Yard Am ph ith e ate r 12, City of Mod e sto Wate r Maste r Plan (not sh own – ove rlaps WWMP stud y are a) 13, California High -S pe e d Rail Passe nge r S tation 14, Carpe nte r Rd . at Wh itm ore Ave . Inte rse ction and Brid ge Wid e ning 15, Airport Ne igh borh ood S e we r (Ph ase II) 16, Crows Land ing Road Corrid or Im prove m e nt Proje ct 17, McHe nry Ave nue Im prove m e nt Proje ct 18, Claribe l Rd . at Rose lle Ave . Inte rse ction Road Wid e ning Proje ct 19, North Valle y Re gional Re cycle d Wate r Program 20, S urface Wate r S upply Proje ct ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 18-4. Planning Documents Considered for Cumulative Impact Analysis 1 Document Summary City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2019)  The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan guides land use and development within the City of Modesto. The goals and policies in the General Plan provide an outline for new growth and minimization of possible impacts, while the adopted land use diagram included in the General Plan identifies desired land use types in the City. Adopted in 2019, the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan updates the previous iteration completed in 2008 and provides a planning horizon to 2040.  The General Plan foresees the majority of future development occurring within an approximately 19,450-acre Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA), which is land within and outside the City’s sphere of influence that is predominantly flat, vacant and/or developed with agricultural uses, and minimally, if at all, served with urban services and infrastructure, including roads. The General Plan projects population within the Modesto General Plan boundary to be approximately 390,000. This population is assumed to be reached at some time after the 2040 general plan horizon year (City of Modesto 2019). Stanislaus County General Plan (2016a)  The Stanislaus County General Plan guides the physical development, preservation and conservation of areas within the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Plan was updated in 2015 to incorporate changes that had occurred in terms of legislation, code, and local standards since the previous version and to provide a planning horizon to 2035 (Stanislaus County 2016a).  The Housing Element of the General Plan anticipates that most of the future residential growth in Stanislaus County to occur within the limits of the incorporated cities. Any concentrated growth in unincorporated Stanislaus County is anticipated to take place in the communities of Denair, Diablo Grande, Keyes, and Salida, which are guided by community or specific plans and are served by special districts which provide sewer and water, necessary to accommodate development. In 2010, the population of unincorporated Stanislaus County was 110,236. This number is projected to increase to 125,879 by 2030 (Stanislaus County 2016f). City of Ceres General Plan 2035 (2018)  The City of Ceres General Plan formalizes a long-term vision for the physical evolution of Ceres and outlines policies, standards, and programs to guide day-to-day decisions concerning Ceres’ development through the year 2035 (City of Ceres 2018).  The General Plan designates land uses for and applies its policies and standards to an area defined as the City’s Planning Area, which includes the City’s Urban Growth Area. The Planning Area is bounded by the Tuolumne River on the north, Carpenter Road on the east, Grayson Road on the south, and Washington Road on the west, encompassing approximately 14,400 acres (City of Ceres 2018). The Urban Growth Area encompasses all land envisioned for development ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Document Summary as part of Ceres through the year 2015. This area is further divided into two phases of development to ensure orderly development and prevent premature conversion of agricultural lands. Notes: PUA = Planned Urbanizing Area 1 18.4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT SETTING 2 This section describes the cumulative impact setting for which the Proposed Program could 3 contribute to a cumulative impact. 4 Aesthetics 5 The visual setting of Stanislaus County is characterized by a combination of agricultural, rural 6 development, suburban, and open space land uses. Due to the county’s flat topography, 7 expansive and long-range views of natural landscapes including the Diablo Range are 8 accessible. Waterways including the Tuolumne River, Stanislaus River, and San Joaquin River, 9 also provide scenic viewing opportunities. Future development in the County and the City 10 could lead to a cumulative degradation in the visual setting and scenic quality in the region. 11 Agriculture Resources 12 Stanislaus County is a major agricultural county in California. The County consists of over 13 425,000 acres of Important Farmland (CDOC 2016) and has over 575,000 acres of farmland 14 under Williamson Act contracts (Stanislaus County 2015b). The success of agriculture in 15 Stanislaus County is largely due to its favorable climate and the flat, fertile soils (Stanislaus 16 County 2016a). However, while overall production trends for leading commodities have 17 continued to grow, the County’s agricultural industry is under threat from population 18 growth/urban development and increased production costs. CDOC reports that while the 19 period 2014-2016 saw an overall increase in Important Farmland acreage in Stanislaus 20 County of over 6,700 acres, the County lost over 2,700 acres of Prime Farmland (CDOC 2016). 21 Biological Resources 22 Numerous species of plant and animal life are found in Stanislaus County which have 23 aesthetic, recreational, economic, scientific, and educational value to the citizens of the area. 24 Much of the area including Modesto and its surrounding areas is developed for urban and 25 agricultural uses, but the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers provide habitats various species. 26 Most of the special-status wildlife species that have been identified as occurring within the 27 County are associated with these riparian areas, as well as the annual grassland/vernal pool 28 complexes on the eastern side of the county and the lands west of Interstate 5 (Stanislaus 29 County 2016a). 30 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Resources 31 A number of archaeological resources have been identified in the Modesto urban area and 32 within Stanislaus County, including habitation sites, burials, and artifacts concentrations 33 located near the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, Dry Creek, and terraces above waterways 34 (City of Modesto 2019). However, information on prehistoric cultural resources in the 35 Modesto area is limited and is often obtained as a result of development or other proposed 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 activities where archaeological research is required (City of Modesto 2019). Additionally, 1 numerous historic structures and properties within the City of Modesto have been listed on 2 the NRHP, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the City of Modesto Landmark 3 Preservation Sites list (City of Modesto 2019). Within greater Stanislaus County, there are 20 4 NRHP listings, 5 state landmarks, and 7 points of historical interest (Stanislaus County 2016a, 5 but none are located within the study area. Paleontological resources have been found in the 6 Modesto Formation of Stanislaus County. 7 Hydrology and Water Quality 8 The Tuolumne River is the primary watercourse in the Modesto area. Dry Creek also passes 9 through portions of the City before joining the Tuolumne. The San Joaquin River passes 10 through Stanislaus County southeast of Modesto, flowing in a southeast-northwest direction. 11 The Stanislaus River flows roughly east to west north of Modesto and makes up the northern 12 boundary of Stanislaus County. The Tuolumne River in the area of Modesto and the San 13 Joaquin River are designated as impaired for a number of water quality contaminants, as 14 shown in Table 12-2 in Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, likely as a result of urban 15 and agricultural runoff in the watershed. Water quality contaminants include chlorpyrifos, 16 diazinon, mercury, pesticides, among others. 17 Areas of groundwater contamination have also been identified in the Modesto and Turlock 18 Groundwater Sub-basins due to a combination of declining groundwater levels and more 19 stringent water quality standards. Historically, groundwater levels in the Modesto area have 20 declined over past decades, but completion of the in 1994, and subsequent 21 importation of surface water supplies from the Modesto Irrigation District caused 22 groundwater levels to rebound to some degree 2005). More recent data indicates 23 that from 2007 to 2017 groundwater levels in the Modesto area decreased from 0 to 20 feet, 24 with isolated areas of greater reductions (DWR 2017). Some of this decrease may be 25 attributable to the recent drought in California, which lasted in its most severe form from 26 roughly 2013-2014, though moderate drought conditions continued for up to years 27 afterwards in some areas of the state, including in the Modesto area through February 2017. 28 Noise and Vibration 29 Numerous sensitive land uses residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, etc.) are found in 30 the City of Modesto and in proximity to the proposed components. Dominant existing noise 31 and vibration sources vary within the area of the Proposed Program, but include industrial 32 facilities canneries), agricultural activities, railroads, air traffic (near the Modesto City- 33 County Airport), and vehicular traffic. Railroad lines operated by multiple companies, as well 34 as Highways 99, 132, 108, and 219, create elevated ambient noise levels in large portions of 35 the study area. In general, ambient noise tends to decrease as one moves outside of the urban 36 areas of Modesto and Ceres. 37 Transportation and Traffic 38 Primary transportation routes in the study area include SR 99, SR 132, SR 108, and SR 219. 39 Proposed components would be installed within and along numerous local roads within the 40 City of Modesto and surrounding area. In addition to commute traffic, goods movement is a 41 potential source of congestion on area highways and roads. Transport of agricultural 42 commodities has long been an important function in Stanislaus County, and the County also 43 is an important food processing region for the State (Stanislaus County 2016a). Additionally, 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 the large urbanized areas of Stanislaus County, such as Modesto, require millions of tons of 1 goods each year to maintain their economic activities (Stanislaus County 2016a). In 2 agricultural areas outside of the City, movement of agricultural equipment on public 3 roadways may also be encountered. 4 Utilities and Service Systems 5 The Proposed Program would have little to no impacts on water supply or wastewater, and 6 would not require the construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities or require new 7 water supply entitlements. Therefore, these aspects are not discussed here. 8 The primary landfill within the Modesto area, and the only active landfill in Stanislaus County, 9 is the Fink Road Sanitary Landfill. This landfill handles nonhazardous municipal solid waste. 10 As of 2012, it had a remaining capacity of over 8 million cubic yards and an estimated closure 11 date of 2023 (CalRecycle 2017). 12 18.4.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 13 Impact CUM-1: Cumulative Impacts on Aesthetics (Less than Significant with 14 Mitigation) 15 Several projects identified in Table 18-3 involve new development throughout Modesto and 16 the County. For example, in southern Modesto, the Tuolumne River Regional Park Master 17 Plan’s Gateway Parcel and Legion Park area would occur near the proposed River Trunk 18 pump station and improvements to the Benson Lift Station, respectively, which would be 19 constructed under the Proposed Program. Residences and recreationists located in close 20 proximity to these facilities may have views of both the new stations and park facilities. 21 Depending on the timing of constructing the planned recreational facilities on the Gateway 22 Parcel and Legion Park parcel, recreationists using those facilities may also have views of the 23 new pump and lift station. Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 4, Aesthetics and Visual 24 Resources, the Proposed Program would support planned growth in the City’s service area 25 which would involve conversion of agricultural lands. Given the limited heights of the 26 proposed new lift and pump stations, and the majority of other Proposed Program facilities 27 being underground, the facilities in combination with projects listed in Table 18-3 and other 28 planned growth, would not substantially alter the Program area’s rural and open space 29 landscape. Cumulative impacts on aesthetics and visual resources would be considered 30 significant and the Program’s contribution, if left unmitigated, may be considerable. 31 The proposed components would not substantially affect existing visual quality or 32 characteristics in Modesto or the County. New and rehabilitated sewer pipelines would be 33 underground and therefore would not affect visual resources, while new lift and pump 34 stations would be similar in visual character to existing lift and pump stations. Components 35 at the Sutter Plant would be visually consistent with existing facilities and the proposed 36 components at the Jennings Plant would not be publicly visible. In fact, once the solids and 37 primary treatment facilities have been completed at the Jennings Plant, decommissioning and 38 removing the primary treatment facilities at the Sutter Plant would improve the visual 39 character in the vicinity of the Sutter Plant. Construction of Program components could 40 adversely affect the visual quality and visual character of a particular site in the short-term 41 but Mitigation Measure AES-1 would reduce this impact by requiring that construction 42 staging areas be located away from public areas. Other projects in the Modesto area, 43 particularly new development projects and future water infrastructure projects, would alter 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 the visual landscape in the study area. However, once constructed, given that most proposed 1 CIPs would not be visible and the relatively small scale of the proposed lift and pump station 2 components, and with the above-referenced mitigation measure, the Proposed Program 3 would not make a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts pertaining 4 to aesthetics and visual resources. Therefore, the Program’s contribution to this cumulative 5 impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 6 Impact CUM-2: Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture (Significant and 7 Unavoidable) 8 Several projects identified in Table 18-3 could result in conversion of agricultural land, 9 including Farmland, to non-agricultural uses. Additionally, buildout of the City of Modesto, 10 Stanislaus County, and City of Ceres General Plans would convert agricultural land to non- 11 agricultural use. As described in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, the Proposed Program 12 would result in the conversion of approximately 18.6 acres of Farmland to non-agricultural 13 use associated with development of the sludge cake drying beds. 14 Given the importance of agriculture to Stanislaus County and that loss of Farmland has been 15 occurring in recent years and is an ongoing concern with increasing urban development in 16 the region, the loss of Farmland is a significant cumulative impact, and the Proposed 17 Program’s contribution would be considerable. 18 As described in Chapter 5, LAFCO’s Agricultural Preservation Policy (2015) and Policy 2.15 19 in the Stanislaus County General Plan, which require that agricultural land converted to 20 residential use be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, do not apply to the Proposed Program. While the 21 Stanislaus County’s Farmland Mitigation Program provides a mechanism for establishing 22 conservation easements, that program is designed to address loss of Farmland resulting from 23 residential development and not public infrastructure projects such as the Proposed 24 Program. Furthermore, the City has determined that the cost of establishing a conservation 25 easement would substantially increase the cost of the Proposed Program and burden on 26 ratepayers which would not be acceptable and purchasing an agricultural easement over off- 27 site agricultural land would not ultimately avoid or reduce the impact of converting 28 Farmland. Additional mitigation restoration of Farmland) is not considered feasible. 29 Based on this, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified. This impact of the 30 Proposed Program would be significant and unavoidable at the project level, and a 31 considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to loss of Farmland. 32 Therefore, the Program’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be significant and 33 unavoidable. 34 Impact CUM-3: Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources (Less than 35 Significant with Mitigation) 36 Construction projects in the Program area, such as those listed in Table 18-3, as well as 37 elsewhere in Stanislaus County would have the potential to impact biological resources. 38 Ground-disturbing construction activities could directly injure or kill wildlife, while 39 development of new areas may result in permanent loss of habitat. Given that many of the 40 special-status species known to occur in Stanislaus County are found in riparian areas, this 41 may be particularly true for projects that are located along the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, 42 or the San Joaquin River. This is considered a cumulatively significant impact. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The Proposed Program would involve various construction activities that could impact 1 wildlife, plants and fish, which, left unmitigated, would be considered a considerable 2 contribution to this cumulative impact. 3 However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-15 would avoid 4 and/or minimize impacts. In addition, compliance with the NPDES General Construction 5 Permit, the City of Modesto’s Standard Specifications related to erosion control, and 6 implementing Mitigation Measure HYD/WQ-1 regarding a frac-out contingency plan for 7 trenchless pipeline installation methods would serve to avoid and minimize impacts on water 8 quality that could affect fish and aquatic life. Considering that the Proposed Program would 9 not convert large of areas of sensitive habitat and would avoid or minimize temporary effects 10 to the maximum extent practicable with implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation 11 measures, its contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources would not be 12 considerable. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 13 Impact CUM-4: Cumulative Impacts on Cultural, Paleontological Resources, and 14 Tribal Cultural Resources (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 15 While unlikely, it is possible that construction of WWMP components in the Program area 16 could impact buried cultural or paleontological resources. Any project that would disturb the 17 ground surface would have the potential to disturb buried cultural resources (including 18 TCRs). Therefore, many of the projects listed in Table 18-3, as well as currently unknown 19 projects that may be constructed in accordance with the City of Modesto, City of Ceres, and 20 Stanislaus County General Plans, could impact buried cultural resources (including TCRs). 21 Such projects also could affect above-ground historical structures depending on the nature 22 of the project and location. For these reasons, cumulative impacts on cultural, paleontological, 23 and tribal cultural resources are considered significant. 24 If the Proposed Program were to impact resources or groups of resources, which are also 25 being impacted by other projects, the Proposed Program’s contribution to cumulative 26 impacts, if left unmitigated, would be potentially considerable. However, the Proposed 27 Program would comply with various cultural resources policies in the Modesto Urban Area 28 General Plan and implement Mitigation Measure CR-1 to avoid and/or minimize impacts to 29 cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. This would include requirements to 30 conduct cultural resources awareness trainings for construction workers prior to 31 commencing ground-disturbing activities (Mitigation Measure CR-1). 32 With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Proposed Program would not 33 substantially affect cultural, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources and would not 34 contribute considerably to any cumulative impacts on such resources in the Modesto area or 35 greater Stanislaus County. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with 36 mitigation. 37 Impact CUM-5: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality (Less than 38 Significant with Mitigation) 39 Projects listed in Table 18-3, and those that may be constructed in the future in accordance 40 with the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County General Plans, could adversely affect 41 hydrology and water quality via stormwater discharges from construction sites). In 42 particular, projects located near the Tuolumne River, Dry Creek, or San Joaquin River would 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 have potential to affect water quality in these water courses, which is already substantially 1 compromised. The existing impairments to water quality in the region are considered to be a 2 cumulatively significant impact. The Proposed Program, if left unmitigated, would result in 3 discharges to impaired water bodies and therefore would make a considerable contribution 4 to this impact. 5 The Proposed Program’s impacts to hydrology and water quality would be avoided and/or 6 minimized through compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations concerning 7 hazardous materials; the NPDES General Construction Permit; and the City’s Standard 8 Specifications related to erosion control, and implementation of Mitigation Measure 9 HYD/WQ-1, which would require preparation and implementation of a frac-out contingency 10 plan for trenchless pipeline installation methods. 11 While discharges of pollutants to the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers may be considered a 12 contribution to a significant cumulative impact given the existing contamination in these 13 water bodies, the mitigation measures prescribed in the DEIR would avoid or reduce any such 14 discharges to minimal levels. Additionally, although not specifically identified, the sources of 15 the existing contaminants in the Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers shown in Table 12-2 in 16 Chapter 12, Hydrology and Water Quality, are more likely attributed to agricultural and urban 17 runoff, rather than construction-related stormwater discharges, as many of the contaminants 18 are pesticides. 19 Operation of the Proposed Program would include tertiary-treated effluent discharges to the 20 San Joaquin River and land application of secondary-treated wastewater, which could 21 directly or indirectly contribute to the existing cumulative water quality impacts of the San 22 Joaquin River and water bodies. However, operation of the City’s wastewater 23 treatment system, particularly the Jennings Plant, under the Proposed Program would 24 remove additional pollutants and/or suspended solids from the various discharges compared 25 to the existing treatment and discharge operations. With these improved treatment 26 processes, the Proposed Program would not have a substantial contribution to the existing 27 cumulative water quality impacts of the San Joaquin River and water bodies, 28 and would likely have a beneficial contribution. 29 Several of the projects listed in Table 18-3 could add impervious surface area to the region 30 or require additional use of groundwater supplies. The Proposed Program’s new primary 31 treatment and solids handling facilities at the Jennings Plant would increase impervious 32 surface area by approximately 27 acres and potentially contribute to a reduction in 33 groundwater recharge or storage in the underlying aquifers. However, this new impervious 34 surface area, concentrated largely within or near urban areas, would not substantially affect 35 groundwater recharge because the majority of groundwater recharge within the Modesto 36 and Turlock Subbasins occurs via percolation of irrigation water in the vast agricultural lands 37 in the area. 38 Following mitigation, the Proposed Program would not contribute considerably to 39 cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. This impact would be less than 40 significant with mitigation. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact CUM-6: Cumulative Impacts related to Noise and Vibration (Significant 1 and Unavoidable) 2 Other projects in the immediate area of the proposed components could add to, or exacerbate, 3 noise generated by construction and/or operation of the proposed components. Several 4 projects listed in Table 18-3 fit this description. Additionally, projects that may be 5 constructed in the future in accordance with applicable jurisdiction’s general plans could be 6 located in immediate proximity to the proposed CIP projects. Because the schedule for the 7 projects listed in Table 18-3 and that for specific CIP projects under the Proposed Program 8 (other than the River Trunk Realignment Project) is unknown and/or is subject to change, 9 this analysis makes the conservative assumption that overlaps would occur, potentially 10 producing significant cumulative noise effects. 11 As described in Chapter 14, Noise, Proposed Program construction and operation would not 12 generate noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, 13 depending on the specific characteristics of the proposed components. Stanislaus County and 14 the City of Modesto Municipal Codes also contain some exemptions for noise from 15 construction and maintenance activities performed by or for public utilities and facilities. 16 Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 would reduce these effects through a variety of 17 means. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-5 would avoid or minimize 18 groundborne vibration impacts from the Proposed Program. 19 However, as discussed in Chapter 14, for the River Trunk Project, temporary construction 20 noise associated with operating equipment and periodic truck traffic would likely exceed FTA 21 noise thresholds (90 dB) at individual sensitive receptors along the pipeline alignment even 22 after implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, resulting in a significant and 23 unavoidable impact. Of the projects listed in Table 18-3, the is located closest to the 24 River Trunk Realignment Project. The City is currently constructing recreational trails on the 25 Gateway Parcel, which would establish a connection to the downtown corridor and existing 26 pathways along the Tuolumne River. Because it is possible that construction of the River 27 Trunk Project could overlap with construction of the temporary or periodic 28 increases in ambient noise levels caused by the River Trunk Project could be exacerbated by 29 construction and operation activities for such other projects, contributing considerably to 30 significant cumulative noise impacts. No feasible mitigation beyond that described above 31 exists to reduce this impact; therefore, this impact is considered to be significant and 32 unavoidable. 33 Impact CUM-7: Cumulative Impacts related to Transportation and Traffic (Less 34 than Significant) 35 Depending on the timing of construction activities, other projects located in the immediate 36 vicinity of the proposed components listed in Table 18-3 or included in general plans could 37 overlap in duration with Program construction activities, exacerbating temporary effects on 38 transportation and traffic. These projects, as well as other development that may be 39 constructed in accordance with the City of Modesto, City of Ceres, or Stanislaus County 40 General Plans could add substantial vehicle trips associated with residential and commercial 41 uses, which could contribute to a long-term reduction in LOS and operating conditions on 42 roads and highways in the area, creating a significant cumulative impact. 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 As described in Chapter 16, Transportation and Traffic, the Proposed Program would include 1 trenching within the roadway for installation of new and rehabilitated sewer lines, as well as 2 off-hauling of construction debris and spoils to the landfill. These activities could temporarily 3 create congestion on local streets, which would be largely confined to the immediate area of 4 the proposed components. However, preparation and implementation of a construction 5 traffic management plan, which specifically requires that the City and/or its contractor 6 coordinate with appropriate public safety about construction detours, lane closures, and 7 other major deliveries, is required by City Standard Specifications. As a result, the City would 8 be required to coordinate with other local agencies local fire and police departments) 9 about construction schedules and develop plans to minimize effects on traffic. 10 Because the Proposed Program would not add substantial vehicle trips over the long term 11 and its impacts on transportation and traffic would be temporary, it would not contribute 12 considerably to cumulative impacts on transportation and traffic. Therefore, this impact 13 would be less than significant. 14 Impact CUM-8: Cumulative Impacts on Utilities and Service Systems (Beneficial) 15 During construction, measures would be implemented to avoid any interruptions to utilities 16 and service systems. Over the long-term, the Proposed Program would not generate the need 17 for additional stormwater or water infrastructure or increased solid waste disposal needs. 18 Additionally, the Proposed Program would provide necessary wastewater collection and 19 treatment infrastructure to support planned development. As such, the Proposed Program is 20 anticipated to be beneficial from the standpoint of cumulative impacts related to utilities and 21 service systems. 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 18. Other Statutory Considerations Wastewater Master Plan 18-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 19-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 19 1 ALTERNATIVES 2 19.1 OVERVIEW 3 This chapter describes the CEQA requirements related to evaluation of alternatives in an EIR, 4 presents the alternatives development process for the Proposed Program, describes the 5 alternatives considered and those considered but eliminated from detailed analysis, provides 6 environmental impact analysis of the alternatives considered, presents a comparison of 7 alternatives, and identifies the environmentally superior alternative. 8 19.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS 9 CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to 10 the Proposed Program, including the No Program Alternative. The No Program Alternative 11 allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the action against the impacts 12 of not approving the action. Although no clear rule exists for determining a reasonable range 13 of alternatives to a Proposed Program, the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance that can be 14 used to define the range of alternatives for consideration in the environmental document. 15 The alternatives described in an EIR must feasibly accomplish most of the basic project 16 objectives, should avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant impacts of the 17 Proposed Program, and must be potentially feasible (State CEQA Guidelines Section 18 15126.6[a]). In determining whether alternatives are potentially feasible, Lead Agencies are 19 guided by the general definition of feasibility found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364: 20 “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, 21 taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” In 22 accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), the Lead Agency should consider 23 site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, 24 other regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries in determining the feasibility of 25 alternatives to be evaluated in an EIR. An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection 26 and rejection of alternatives and the information that the Lead Agency relied on in making 27 the selection. It also should identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency 28 but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reason for 29 their exclusion (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). 30 An EIR’s analysis of alternatives is required to identify the environmentally superior 31 alternative among all those considered (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6(a) and 32 If the “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, 33 then the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative amongst the other 34 alternatives. 35 These guidelines were used in developing and evaluating the alternatives as described below. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 19.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 1 The Proposed Program’s purpose and objectives, as well as its significant environmental 2 impacts, were considered while developing alternatives. In accordance with the 3 requirements of CEQA, alternatives were developed to achieve most of the Proposed 4 Program’s basic objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of its 5 significant adverse environmental impacts. Alternatives development was also based on 6 potential feasibility. A reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives is presented in 7 Section 19.4, “Alternatives Considered,” describing their impacts as well as benefits. 8 19.3.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 9 As stated in Chapter 2, Program Description, the objectives of the Proposed Program as a 10 whole are as follows: 11  To implement the City’s economic goals and General Plan by planning for, and 12 providing, sewer infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective manner to serve new 13 and existing development. 14  To repair and replace aging wastewater infrastructure. 15  To ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure and services are available to serve 16 new growth within the General Plan and City’s SOI, and planned wastewater 17 demands. 18  To plan for state-of-the-art facilities that reliably and economically meet the changing 19 regulatory requirements. 20 For collection system improvements, the objectives of the Proposed Program are: 21  To extend service to new customers. 22  To increase sewer capacity to convey peak wet weather flows for a 10-year storm 23 event, and where required, to serve future customers. 24  To reduce wet weather flow volumes by removing cross connections with 25 stormwater sewers. 26  To replace, repair, or rehabilitate existing trunk sewers, and to reduce infiltration and 27 inflow of stormwater into the sanitary sewers. 28  To improve sewer collection reliability by providing new and redundant 29 infrastructure improvements, including sewer trunk lines and lift stations, in known 30 deficient areas at critical areas within the existing system. 31 For treatment plant improvements, the objectives are: 32  To reduce flooding impacts at the Sutter Plant site and increase treatment process 33 operational flexibility and efficiencies. 34  To increase the capacity of the outfall connecting the primary and secondary 35 treatment plants, and to provide increased reliability for the existing outfall. 36  To increase treatment systems efficiency, reliability, and functionality for both 37 domestic and cannery process stream flows. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  To increase or modify treatment systems to remain in compliance with existing 1 Central Valley NPDES requirements and plan for potential future 2 permitting regulations. 3 19.3.2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PRIOR TO MITIGATION 4 A number of impacts have been identified as significant, but would be mitigated to a level of 5 less-than-significant through implementation of mitigation measures. These impacts are 6 listed in Table ES-1 in the Executive Summary of this DEIR. 7 19.3.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 8 The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable: 9  Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to 10 Non-agricultural Use (Impact AG-1) 11  Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan (Impact 12 AQ-1) 13  Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for 14 Which the Project Region Is Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State 15 Ambient Air Quality Standard (Impact AQ-3) 16  Generate a Substantial Amount of GHG Emissions (Impact GHG-1) 17  Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of 18 Reducing Emissions of GHGs (Impact GHG-2) 19  Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project 20 Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without the Program and River Trunk Realignment 21 Project (Impact NOI-4) 22  Cumulative Impacts on Agriculture (Impact CUM-1) 23  Cumulative Impacts related to Noise and Vibration (Impact CUM-7) 24 19.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 25 The following alternatives were considered for the Proposed Program: 26  Alternative 1: No Program Alternative 27  Alternative 2: Deferred Implementation Alternative 28  Alternative 3: Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of the 29 Jennings Plant Alternative 30  Alternative 4: River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 4A 31  Alternative 5: River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 1 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 The Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of the Jennings Plant 1 Alternative (Alternative River Trunk Realignment Project Alternative 4a (Alternative 2 and River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 1 (Alternative 5) were identified in 3 the context of the set of potentially feasible sites identified during the design process, and the 4 significant impacts of the Proposed Program. Table 19-1 at the end of this chapter 5 summarizes the alternatives considered and compares them to the Proposed Program. 6 19.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE 7 Characteristics of this Alternative 8 Under this alternative, no new wastewater infrastructure would be constructed or upgraded. 9 Operation of the City’s collection system and treatment facilities would continue similar to 10 existing conditions. Under this alternative, the existing collection system and treatment 11 facilities would continue to operate. Existing sewer mains, trunk lines, and lift stations that 12 are currently under capacity would continue functioning but capacity issues may increase 13 over time. This alternative would not meet any of the Program objectives. 14 Impact Analysis 15 Aesthetics 16 This alternative would have no impacts on visual character or quality. No new wastewater 17 infrastructure would be constructed or operated; therefore, there would be no new impacts 18 on views or visual character of sites. 19 Agricultural Resources 20 This alternative would have no impacts on Important Farmland or agricultural resources. No 21 new wastewater infrastructure would be constructed or operated; therefore, there would be 22 no effects on Important Farmland, lands zoned for agricultural uses, or Williamson Act 23 contracts. 24 Air Quality 25 This alternative would have no conflicts with applicable air quality plans, violation of air 26 quality standards, and cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutants. No new 27 wastewater infrastructure would be constructed or operated; therefore, there would be no 28 new emissions of criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants. However, existing odor 29 issues at the Sutter Plant and the Beard Park Siphon would not be addressed and may worsen 30 without implementation of the Proposed Program. 31 Biological Resources 32 This alternative would have no impacts on biological resources from construction or 33 operation of new wastewater infrastructure. However, the existing issues with the River 34 Trunk degradation of the pipeline, erosion of surrounding riverbank) and system 35 capacity issues would not be addressed, leading to potential releases of sewage during 36 overflow events, which could adversely affect/impact aquatic species in the Tuolumne River 37 or other biological resources. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 1 This alternative would have no impacts on cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural 2 resources due to trenching and ground excavation for installation of new wastewater 3 infrastructure. 4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 5 This alternative would have no impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. No new pump 6 stations, pipelines, or treatment plant improvements would be included so there is no 7 potential for facilities to be constructed on unstable or expansive soils, such as to expose 8 people or structures to substantial risks. 9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources 10 This alternative would result in no new emissions of greenhouse gases, as no construction 11 equipment would be operated to install new facilities, and there would be no long-term 12 operation of new pump stations or treatment plant facilities. Greenhouse gas emissions and 13 energy demand of the City’s wastewater infrastructure would be similar to existing 14 conditions. 15 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 16 This alternative would have no impacts related to routine transport, use, or disposal of 17 hazardous materials; upset and accident conditions; interference with an emergency 18 response plan, or exposure to wildfire. 19 Hydrology and Water Quality 20 This alternative would have no impacts related to violation of water quality standards, 21 drainage patterns, groundwater recharge, siltation, runoff, and flooding directly caused by 22 installation of Program facilities. No construction equipment would be operated and no 23 ground disturbance would occur, so there would be no potential for spills of hazardous 24 materials contained in construction or discharges of sediment-laden stormwater runoff from 25 construction sites. However, as mentioned above, the No Program Alternative would not 26 address existing deficiencies in the City’s wastewater collection and treatment systems, 27 which may lead to sanitary sewer overflows or releases of sewage from deteriorating 28 infrastructure River Trunk). Such occurrences could result in degradation of water 29 quality in the Tuolumne River and violation of water quality standards. Additionally, the 30 Sutter Plant treatment facilities would remain in the 100-year floodplain without adequate 31 flood-proofing; as a result, these facilities could be subject to damage during a 100-year flood 32 event and sewage also could be released to the environment during such an event. 33 Land Use and Planning 34 This alternative would have no impacts related to land use and planning. It is assumed that 35 the City would not approve development which would result in demand for wastewater 36 service that cannot be met under the No Program Alternative. As such, this alternative may 37 impede attainment of the City’s land use plans and policies which rely upon wastewater 38 service capacity that would be provided by the Proposed Program. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Noise and Vibration 1 This alternative would have no impacts related to increases in ambient noise levels, 2 groundborne noise or vibration levels, and other noise and vibration impacts. No 3 construction equipment would be operated and no long-term operation of pump stations, lift 4 stations or other infrastructure associated with the Proposed Program would occur. Thus, no 5 sensitive receptors would be affected by new sources of noise or vibration. 6 Population and Housing 7 This alternative would not result in long-term inducement of substantial population growth 8 or secondary impacts from growth. No new wastewater collection and treatment 9 infrastructure would be constructed, so new development and population growth within the 10 City will occur only to the extent that the City’s existing collection and wastewater treatment 11 systems’ capacity can support it. 12 Transportation and Traffic 13 This alternative would have no impacts on transportation and traffic. No trenching for 14 installation of new or rehabilitated sewer pipelines or hauling of waste spoils and 15 construction materials would occur; therefore, there would be no short-term effects on traffic 16 conditions in the area of proposed WWMP components. Also, to the extent that population 17 growth and development is inhibited due to lack of wastewater system capacity, long-term 18 increases in vehicle trips and congestion may not occur. 19 Utilities and Service Systems 20 This alternative would have no impacts related to solid waste disposal, and need for 21 additional permitted landfill capacity. No demolition of structures or excavation of material 22 would occur; therefore, there would be no need to dispose debris at the landfill. However, as 23 described previously, the No Program Alternative could over time exacerbate the existing 24 need for additional wastewater collection and treatment capacity in the City. 25 19.4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: DEFERRED IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVE 26 Characteristics of this Alternative 27 Under the Deferred Implementation Alternative, the schedule for construction of some 28 program-level WWMP components would be deferred by 5 years, compared to the schedule 29 for implementation of the Proposed Program. The City would revisit the list of CIPs and 30 prioritize those that should be constructed in the near-term and determine which could be 31 delayed by up to 5 years. Under this alternative, new wastewater collection and treatment 32 infrastructure would be constructed or upgraded as indicated for the Proposed Program, but 33 some CIPs would be implemented at a later date. Construction or upgrades of pump stations, 34 lift stations, sewer pipelines, and wastewater treatment facilities would continue, but at a 35 slower pace. Maintenance of existing collection and wastewater treatment facilities would 36 continue, but some shortfalls in the City’s collection system and treatment capacity or 37 pressure flows may result from the delay in implementation of identified CIPs. In addition, 38 development in the City’s sewer service area may be delayed to the extent that construction 39 of necessary infrastructure to support such development would be delayed under this 40 alternative. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This alternative would delay the City’s ability to meet Program objectives and thus would not 1 fully meet objectives aimed to provide sewer infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective 2 manner to serve new and existing development and provide adequate wastewater 3 infrastructures and services to serve new growth within the General Plan and City’s SOI. 4 Impact Analysis 5 Aesthetics 6 This alternative would have similar aesthetics impacts as the Proposed Program, but these 7 impacts would occur later in time. Over the long term, the alternative would result in the 8 same impacts on existing visual character and quality due to the new wastewater treatment 9 infrastructure, although the intensity of impacts may be reduced by spreading them out over 10 time. 11 Agricultural Resources 12 This alternative would have similar agriculture and forestry impacts as the Proposed 13 Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. Like the Proposed Program, this 14 alternative would result in direct conversion of Important Farmland associated with the new 15 facilities at the Jennings Plant and other Program facilities. 16 Air Quality 17 This alternative would have similar air quality impacts as the Proposed Program, but these 18 impacts would occur later in time. The same conflicts with applicable air quality plans, 19 violation of air quality standards, and cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria 20 pollutants may occur from operation of construction equipment and Program facilities. 21 However, impacts could be increased or reduced by shifting them out further in time, either 22 due to shifting standards, changes in air quality conditions, or use of improved equipment/ 23 technology with lower emissions, and the intensity of impacts may be reduced by spreading 24 them out over time. 25 Biological Resources 26 This alternative would have similar biological resources impacts as the Proposed Program, 27 but these impacts would occur later in time. Extending the timeframe for implementation of 28 CIPs could allow additional flexibility in timing for site-specific improvements that would 29 allow avoidance of special-status species. 30 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 31 This alternative would have similar cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources 32 impacts as the Proposed Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. The 33 alternative would involve the same trenching and ground excavation for installation of 34 improvements, which may encounter unknown buried artifacts and other cultural resources. 35 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 36 This alternative would have similar impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity as the 37 Proposed Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. The alternative would 38 involve construction of the same pipelines, pump stations, and treatment facilities and 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 compliance with the City’s Standard Specifications would prevent substantial impacts related 1 to location on unstable or expansive soils from occurring. 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources 3 This alternative would have similar greenhouse gas emissions impacts as the Proposed 4 Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. The alternative would use the same 5 construction equipment to install proposed facilities and the same Program facilities may be 6 operated following construction, which could emit greenhouse gases. However, increased 7 fuel efficiency and other standards to reduce GHG emissions are expected to occur over time; 8 therefore, delaying construction and operation of various Program components could result 9 in use of newer technology with lower emissions, which could have the result of reducing 10 impacts overall. 11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 12 This alternative would have similar hazards and hazardous materials impacts as the 13 Proposed Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. The alternative would 14 involve use of the same construction equipment containing hazardous materials installation 15 of emergency generators that would store fuel, which could create opportunities for 16 accidental releases of hazardous materials to the environment, although the intensity of 17 impacts may be reduced by spreading them out over time. 18 Hydrology and Water Quality 19 This alternative would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the Proposed 20 Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. Like the Proposed Program, this 21 alternative could result in discharges of stormwater from construction sites or frac-outs 22 during trenchless pipeline installation techniques, although the intensity of impacts may be 23 reduced by spreading them out over time. 24 Land Use and Planning 25 By delaying construction of facilities, this alternative may not fully meet the City’s land use 26 plans, which could result in greater impacts than under the Proposed Program. 27 Noise and Vibration 28 This alternative would have similar noise and vibration impacts as the Proposed Program, 29 but these impacts would occur later in time. The alternative would involve use of the same 30 construction equipment and operation of the same Program facilities, which would generate 31 the same levels of noise and vibration in the same locations, but these effects would occur on 32 an extended timeline, which may reduce the intensity of impacts. 33 Population and Housing 34 This alternative would have similar population and housing impacts as the Proposed 35 Program, but these impacts would occur on an extended timeline. The alternative would 36 result in the same long-term inducement of substantial population growth, and related 37 secondary impacts, but these effects would be delayed as growth may be impeded by the lack 38 of adequate wastewater service capacity. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Transportation and Traffic 1 This alternative would have similar transportation and traffic impacts as the Proposed 2 Program, but these impacts would occur at a later time. The alternative would result in the 3 same temporary congestion caused by construction traffic and lane closures during 4 installation of CIPs, although the intensity of impacts may be reduced by spreading them out 5 over time. 6 Utilities and Service Systems 7 This alternative would have similar utilities and service systems impacts as the Proposed 8 Program, but these impacts would occur later in time. This alternative would involve the 9 same hauling of excavated materials spoils and construction debris from demolished 10 structures to the landfill, which could adversely affect landfill capacity, although the intensity 11 of impacts may be reduced by spreading them out over time. 12 19.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3: PRIMARY TREATMENT AND SOLIDS HANDLING FACILITIES TO 13 THE NORTH OF JENNINGS PLANT ALTERNATIVE 14 Characteristics of this Alternative 15 This alternative was evaluated in the City’s Wastewater Treatment Master Plan (Carollo 16 Engineers 2016) and entails purchasing of approximately 50 acres of land to the north of the 17 Jennings Plant. Instead of constructing the new primary treatment facilities east of the 18 BNR/tertiary treatment facilities, as proposed under the Proposed Program, these facilities 19 would be constructed on purchased land to the north of the Jennings Plant along the 20 alignment of the two existing outfall pipelines (see Figure 19-1). 21 Compared to the Proposed Program, this alternative would use a less complex yard piping 22 arrangement because the new primary treatment and solids handling facilities would be sited 23 adjacent to the existing outfall pipelines and could more directly tie into the secondary 24 treatment facilities. All other WWMP components, including collection system CIPs and CIPs 25 planned at the Sutter Plant, would be constructed under this alternative. This alternative 26 would meet all of the Program objectives. 27 Impact Analysis 28 Aesthetics 29 This alternative would have similar aesthetics impacts as the Proposed Program. The 30 Jennings Plant is not in a scenic vista, and the alternative site location would not substantially 31 change the effects on scenic views or the visual quality or character of the site compared to 32 the site proposed under the Proposed Program. 33 Agricultural Resources 34 As shown on Figure 19-1, this alternative would involve development of primary treatment 35 and solids handling facilities on agricultural land. This land is designated as Important 36 Farmland; therefore, this alternative would result in a larger amount of permanent loss of 37 Farmland than under the Proposed Program, and mitigation would be insufficient to reduce 38 the impact to less than significant. 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Air Quality 1 This alternative could have somewhat reduced criteria air pollutant emissions compared to 2 the Proposed Program due to the simpler piping scheme. As described above, this alternative 3 would site the primary treatment and solids handling facilities along the alignment of the 4 existing outfall pipelines north of the Jennings Plant, which would allow for a less complex 5 piping arrangement. This simpler arrangement could result in less use of construction 6 equipment and materials during construction, which could lead to fewer emissions. In the 7 context of the entire Proposed Program, however, this would be a small reduction and would 8 be unlikely to reduce emissions below significance thresholds. 9 Biological Resources 10 This alternative would have similar biological resources impacts to those of the Proposed 11 Program. The alternative site location for the primary treatment and solids handling facilities 12 at the Jennings Plant is adjacent to the proposed site (to the north), and has similar land 13 cover/habitat characteristics. Special-status plants or animals would not be more likely to 14 occur at this alternative site location than at the proposed site. Therefore, the impacts of this 15 alternative would be comparable to those of the Proposed Program. 16 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 17 This alternative would have similar cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources 18 impacts to those of the Proposed Program. This alternative would involve similar ground 19 disturbing activities to install the Jennings Plant primary treatment and solids handling 20 facilities, which could expose unknown buried cultural (including tribal) or paleontological 21 resources, but these possible effects would occur at an alternate site to the north. Given the 22 less complex piping scheme under this alternative and location of facilities nearer to the 23 existing pipeline outfalls, it is possible that this alternative may reduce the amount of 24 trenching that would be required for pipeline installation, and thus reduce potential for 25 discovery of archaeological resources. This difference would be minimal, however, and 26 overall the alternative would have similar impacts to those of the Proposed Program. 27 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 28 This alternative would have similar geology, soils, and seismicity impacts to those of the 29 Proposed Program. Nothing about the alternate site (see Figure 19-1), which is currently an 30 agricultural field, suggests that it would be more susceptible to geologic hazards, such as 31 unstable or expansive soils, or landslides. Additionally, as described for the Proposed 32 Program, the City would be required under its Standard Specifications to prepare a soil report 33 and abide by the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer prior to and during 34 construction of the facilities. As a result, this impact would be less than significant, similar to 35 the Proposed Program. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 200 ft Sludge Cake Drying Beds TWAS WAS Digesters PS PE DS Existing Primary Effluent Pump Station Sludge Thickening/ Dewatering Facility Digester Control Building Existing Domestic Outfall Flow Junction Structure Potential Future Digester Can Seg Outfall Primary Sludge Pump Station Third Outfall RS Primary Clarifiers Flow Crossover Structure Bypass to Recirculation Channel Flow Splitting Structure Existing Domestic Outfall Prepared by: Figure 19-1. Site Layout for Alternative 3 Source: Carollo 2016 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR LEGEND Existing Future Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Sludge Can Seg Raw Sewage Primary Effluent Primary Sludge Waste Activated Sludge Thickened Waste Activated Sludge Digested Sludge RS PE PS WAS TWAS DS ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources 1 This alternative would have similar, if not less severe, greenhouse gas emission 2 impacts to those of the Proposed Program. As described above, under “Air Quality,” owing to 3 the less complex piping arrangement and location of facilities closer to the existing outfall 4 pipelines, this alternative may require less trenching and use of construction equipment, 5 potentially resulting in fewer construction emissions such as greenhouse gases. This 6 difference would be relatively minimal, however, especially with respect to the overall 7 Program, and would be unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below applicable 8 significance thresholds. 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 10 This alternative would have similar hazards and hazardous materials impacts to those of the 11 Proposed Program. The alternative would involve generally the same construction methods 12 to install the primary treatment and solids handling facilities, although the less complex 13 piping arrangement for this alternative could result in less use of construction equipment and 14 thereby reduce potential for spills of hazardous materials contained in equipment. This 15 difference would be minor, however, and impacts would generally be similar to those for the 16 Proposed Program. 17 Hydrology and Water Quality 18 This alternative would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts to those of the 19 Proposed Program. The alternative would involve the same ground-disturbing construction 20 methods to install the primary treatment and solids handling facilities, which could discharge 21 stormwater from the construction site causing water quality impacts. As for the Proposed 22 Program, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with adherence to the City’s 23 Standard Specifications. 24 Land Use and Planning 25 This alternative may introduce conflicts with existing zoning, as the parcel on which the 26 alternative site is located is zoned for agriculture by Stanislaus County. The facilities may be 27 subject to a conditional use permit, but there is greater potential for conflict than for the 28 Proposed Program; under the Proposed Program, the primary treatment and solids handling 29 facilities would be located on City-owned land. 30 Noise and Vibration 31 This alternative would have similar noise and vibration impacts to those of the Proposed 32 Program. The alternative would use the same construction equipment to install the primary 33 treatment and solids handling facilities, and the same facilities would be operated following 34 construction, all of which could generate noise and vibration. As discussed under previous 35 resource topic headings, the less complex piping arrangement associated with this 36 alternative may decrease to some degree the amount of construction activity, thereby 37 decreasing noise, but this would not be a significant difference. In general, the area 38 surrounding the Jennings Plant is relatively undeveloped and few, if any, sensitive receptors 39 exist in the area. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Population and Housing 1 This alternative would have the same impacts related to population and housing as the 2 Proposed Program. This alternative would provide the same amount of additional capacity at 3 the Jennings Plant as the proposed primary treatment and solids handling facilities, and thus 4 would accommodate population growth to the same degree. 5 Transportation and Traffic 6 This alternative would have similar transportation and traffic impacts to those of the 7 Proposed Program. The alternative site is located adjacent to the proposed site and is not 8 next to or near any public roadways. Construction vehicles and haul trucks would use the 9 same routes to access the alternative site as they would the proposed site, and there would 10 be no new trenching within a public roadway. Therefore, this alternative would have the 11 same impacts as the Proposed Program. 12 Utilities and Service Systems 13 This alternative would have similar utilities and services impacts compared to the Proposed 14 Program. This alternative may use less materials and require less 15 construction activity due to the simpler piping arrangement, but this difference would not be 16 substantial and overall the alternative would have similar energy demands and may dispose 17 of similar amounts of material at the landfill. 18 19.4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4: RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 4A 19 Characteristics of this Alternative 20 Carollo Engineers evaluated a number of design alternatives to the River Trunk Realignment 21 Project (Carollo Engineers 2015). Alternative 4A from the Preliminary Design Report 22 (referred to as “Alternative 4” hereafter) is carried forward for analysis in this EIR because it 23 would achieve most of the Program objectives and would reduce one or more significant 24 environmental impacts. Alternative 4 would follow largely the same alignment as the 25 proposed River Trunk Realignment Project, but would not involve construction of the 26 Shackelford Pump Station. Rather, the existing pipeline that would otherwise tie into the 27 Shackelford Pump Station under the Proposed Program, would tie into existing sewer lines 28 that cross the Tuolumne River. Additionally, Alternative 4 would include rehabilitation of the 29 Sutter Trunk within Sutter Avenue, and also would involve constructing the River Trunk 30 Pump Station at a different location than under the Proposed Program, between 31 Highway 99 and 7th Street. Figure 19-2 shows the proposed alignment and components of 32 the River Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 4A. 33 Compared to the Proposed Program, this alternative would involve less overall construction 34 by rehabilitating the Sutter Trunk instead of constructing the Shackelford Pump Station. The 35 River Trunk Pump Station would also be constructed in a different location. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú Rehab Sutter Trunk Sutter Primary Treatment Facility River Trunk Pump Station Replace Beard Brook Siphon Gallo Replace River Trunk Shackelford Gravity Sutter Trunk Gravity River Trunk/Sutter Trunk Gravity 45'' 36'' 66'' 18'' 24'' 21'' 12'' 32'' 48'' 30'' 16'' 10'' 60'' 15'' 54'' 14'' 42'' 33'' 24'' 24'' 24'' 66'' 24'' 60'' 24'' 32'' 36'' 30'' 54'' 60'' 15'' 27'' 66'' 18'' 10'' 10'' 15'' 32'' 48'' 21'' 10'' 21'' 54'' 24'' 18'' 15'' 24'' 60'' 15'' 60'' 60'' 10'' 60'' 10'' 66'' 12'' 54'' 30'' 60'' 10'' 60'' 30'' 30'' 24'' 24'' 15'' 24'' 27'' 10'' 21'' 21'' 30'' 60'' 12'' 60'' 21'' 66'' 60'' 21'' 8 30'' S 7TH ST S 9TH ST RIVER RD W HATCH RD E HATCH RD ROUSE AVE RICHLAND AVE G ST ZEFF RD NADINE AVE TENAYA DR VERNON AVE RD LEON AVE PELTON AVE KERR AVE MORGAN RD HERNDO JIM WY OLIVERO RD SONORA AVE BEVERLY DR NORMANDY DR LEO AVE LEGION PARK DR DOVER AVE JANOPAUL AVE WATSON AVE SAM AVE MIDWAY AVE SANTA RITA AVE RITSCH LN ATLANTIC DR PARKLAWN AVE LOMBARDY DR CANAL ST EUGENE AVE AURORA ST GIDDINGS ST DARBY LN GRAND VIEW AVE TYRUS ST STONUM RD SAUSALITO WY ANGLE LN HWY 99 (ON RAMP) YELLOW BRICK RD MANOR DR HERNDON AVE THOMPSON RD JOYCE AVE PHIL WY PISMO PL DEL MAR CT HW PEPSI LS MURIEL LS BENSON LS CALIFORNIA LS BEARDBROOK LS 60'' 10 6 ' 60'' Legend Proposed Gravity Sewer Proposed Force Main Proposed Rehabilitation Other Pipelines 8" and Smaller Greater than 8" Proposed Junction Structure [ Ú Proposed Lift Station [ Ú Other Lift Stations Prepared by: Figure 19-2. Alternative 4 Alignment Source: Carollo 2015 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR 1,000 0 1,000 500 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Analysis 1 Aesthetics 2 This alternative would not have substantially different aesthetics impacts than the alignment 3 included in the Proposed Program. Placing the River Trunk Pump Station to the east of 7th 4 Street could make this facility more visible from Highway 99, potentially degrading visual 5 quality of views from this location during the construction period. As Highway 99 is not a 6 scenic highway and because views would be fleeting, constructing the pump station at the 7th 7 Street location would not result in a significant impact on sensitive viewers. For similar 8 reasons, following construction, views would not be substantially affected by the pump 9 station. Not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station on the southeast bank of the 10 Tuolumne River could reduce aesthetic impacts in this area, but there are relatively few 11 sensitive receptors in the area of the proposed pump station that are likely to be affected by 12 the project as described under the Proposed Program. Similar to the River Trunk 13 Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2, Program Description, most of the aesthetics 14 impacts of this alternative would be temporary during construction, and views would remain 15 relatively unchanged following construction. 16 Agricultural Resources 17 Like the Proposed Program, this alternative would have no impacts on agricultural resources, 18 as all of the land on which components would be constructed is either urban/built-up land or 19 vacant land not being used for agriculture. None of the land is designated Farmland. 20 Air Quality 21 This alternative could have somewhat reduced criteria air pollutant emissions compared to 22 the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the 23 Shackelford Pump Station would avoid a substantial amount of emissions associated with 24 construction equipment and materials, as well as operation of the pump station over the long 25 term. However, rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk under this alternative would introduce 26 emissions that would not otherwise occur under the River Trunk Realignment Project. Such 27 rehabilitation would require use of construction equipment to expose the existing pipeline 28 and implement rehabilitation techniques (see Chapter 2, Program Description). It is believed 29 that the reduction in emissions from not constructing the pump station would more than 30 offset the increase in emissions from the additional component of rehabilitating the Sutter 31 Trunk, leading to a modest overall reduction in emissions. 32 Biological Resources 33 This alternative would have reduced biological resources impacts compared to the 34 Proposed Program owing to the avoidance of the need to construct the Shackelford Pump 35 Station. Not constructing this pump station would avoid possible impacts on habitat from 36 ground disturbance and construction activity, as well as reduce potential for adverse 37 biological resources impacts from discharges of stormwater from the construction site that 38 could occur under the Proposed Project. The alternate location of the River Trunk Pump 39 Station would not likely have a substantial effect on biological resources, and the 40 rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk would not introduce substantial new impacts, as this work 41 would occur within an existing street. Thus, the alternative would have an overall reduced 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 impact on biological resources compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as 1 described in Chapter 2 and the Proposed Program. 2 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 3 Not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station under this alternative also would reduce 4 potential for cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources impacts, as there would 5 be less ground disturbance/excavation. Under the River Trunk Realignment Project as 6 described in Chapter 2, which would construct a Shackelford Pump Station, there would be 7 greater potential to encounter buried, unknown cultural resources (including tribal cultural 8 resources), potentially resulting in adverse impacts. The alternate location of the River Trunk 9 Pump Station under this alternative would not substantially change potential for cultural 10 resources impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 11 2. The rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk also would have low likelihood to result in cultural 12 resources impacts, as it would involve relatively minimal ground disturbance within an 13 existing street. Nonetheless, the potential to encounter unknown cultural resources during 14 Sutter Trunk rehabilitation activities still exist and implementation of mitigation measures 15 described in Chapter 8, Cultural Resources, would still apply. As such, overall, this alternative 16 would somewhat reduce cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources impacts 17 compared to the River Trunk Project as described in Chapter 2, and the overall Proposed 18 Program. 19 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 20 This alternative would have somewhat reduced geology, soils, and seismicity impacts 21 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. By not 22 constructing the Shackelford Pump Station, this alternative would create less potential for 23 the project to construct facilities on unstable or expansive soils, although this impact would 24 be less than significant for the River Trunk Project covered in the WWMP due to compliance 25 with the City’s Standard Specifications including preparation of a soils report. Constructing 26 the River Trunk Pump Station in an alternate location would not substantially change 27 geology, soils, and seismicity impacts, and rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk would not result 28 in substantial impacts because it would involve work on existing facilities within a street. 29 Therefore, this alternative would reduce potential for geology, soils, and seismicity impacts 30 to some degree compared to the Proposed Program. 31 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources 32 For similar reasons as described under “Air Quality” above, this alternative would likely 33 reduce greenhouse gas emissions to some degree compared to the River Trunk Realignment 34 Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station would 35 reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation of construction equipment, haul- 36 truck and employee vehicle trips, and operation of the pump station facilities following 37 construction. Locating the River Trunk Pump Station in an alternate location would not 38 substantially change the level of greenhouse gas emissions. Rehabilitating the Sutter Trunk 39 would involve operation of construction equipment that would emit greenhouse gases, but 40 these increased emissions would likely be outweighed by the reductions associated with the 41 Shackelford Pump Station. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1 This alternative would have somewhat reduced potential for hazards and hazardous 2 materials impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in 3 Chapter 2 due to not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station. The alternative would avoid 4 potential for construction equipment used to construct the Shackelford Pump Station to be 5 improperly stored or accidentally release hazardous materials to the environment, although 6 this impact would be less than significant under the River Trunk Realignment Project as 7 described in Chapter 2. Constructing the River Trunk Pump Station at an alternate location 8 would not substantially change potential for hazardous materials impacts. Rehabilitation of 9 the Sutter Trunk could increase impacts from use of hazardous materials in construction 10 equipment, emissions of TACs from equipment, but it is believed that these increased impacts 11 would be outweighed by the reductions from not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station. 12 Hydrology and Water Quality 13 This alternative would have somewhat reduced potential for hydrology and water quality 14 impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. By not 15 constructing the Shackelford Pump Station, this alternative would avoid potential discharges 16 of contaminants from the pump station construction site, which would be located on the bank 17 of the Tuolumne River, as well as accidental spills of hazardous materials contained in 18 construction equipment. The alternate location of the River Trunk Pump Station and 19 rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk under this alternative would not introduce new significant 20 impacts. Therefore, overall, this alternative would have somewhat less hydrology and water 21 quality impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 22 and the overall Program. 23 Land Use and Planning 24 This alternative would provide the same level of capacity and address existing deficiencies in 25 the City’s wastewater system. As such, it would provide for growth and development in 26 accordance with the City’s General Plan and would not inhibit development of land use 27 planning/policies. This alternative would have the same impacts related to land use and 28 planning as the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 and the overall 29 Program. 30 Noise and Vibration 31 This alternative would have somewhat reduced noise and vibration impacts compared to the 32 River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. The alternative would not 33 construct the Shackelford Pump Station, and therefore would avoid noise and vibration at 34 this location associated with use of heavy construction equipment. Operational noise 35 associated with this pump station also would be avoided, but these impacts would be less 36 than significant for the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. The 37 alternate location of the River Trunk Pump Station would not substantially change noise 38 impacts, but would change the location of the impacts. The rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk 39 could introduce some new noise impacts from operation of construction equipment to 40 accomplish this task, but it is believed these increased impacts would be outweighed by the 41 reductions from Shackelford Pump Station. Overall, this alternative would have somewhat 42 less noise and vibration impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as 43 described in Chapter 2 and the overall Program. 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Population and Housing 1 This alternative would provide the same level of capacity and address existing deficiencies in 2 the City’s wastewater system. As such, it would provide for population growth and 3 development in accordance with the City’s General Plan to a similar degree and extent as the 4 River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would have the 5 same impacts related to population and housing as the River Trunk Realignment Project 6 covered in Chapter 2. 7 Transportation and Traffic 8 This alternative would have somewhat less transportation and traffic impacts to those of the 9 River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford 10 Pump Station would avoid haul-truck and employee vehicle trips associated with 11 construction of this pump station, reducing potential congestion on streets in this area. 12 Rehabilitation of the Sutter Trunk under this alternative would introduce new transportation 13 and traffic impacts, as these activities may involve operation of construction equipment on 14 Sutter Avenue or temporary closure of one lane of traffic. Overall, the reduction in traffic 15 impacts attributable to not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station would outweigh the 16 increased impacts caused by the Sutter Trunk rehabilitation. As a result, this alternative 17 would have somewhat less transportation and traffic impacts compared to the Proposed 18 Project. 19 Utilities and Service Systems 20 This alternative would have roughly similar utilities and services impacts compared to the 21 River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford 22 Pump Station could lead to less disposal of construction debris at a landfill, but rehabilitation 23 of the Sutter Trunk may generate some debris that would require disposal. Any difference 24 with respect to the Proposed Project would have a minimal effect on existing landfill capacity. 25 Therefore, this alternative would have the same impacts on utilities and service systems as 26 the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. 27 19.4.5 ALTERNATIVE 5: RIVER TRUNK REALIGNMENT PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1 28 Characteristics of this Alternative 29 This alternative was based on the recommendations documented in the 2007 Wastewater 30 Master Plan. The alternative would replace the Beard Brook Siphon with an 1,800-linear-foot, 31 triple barrel inverted siphon. Capacity deficiencies in the River Trunk would be mitigated by 32 constructing a peak-flow diversion structure that diverts flows to the Cannery Segregation 33 Line (CSL) during wet weather events, such that capacity in the CSL can be used to convey 34 peak domestic wastewater flows. A second diversion structure would be constructed 35 upstream of the Sutter Plant to divert the flows back to the River Trunk for primary 36 treatment. The CSL would be flushed after the diversions multiple times prior to returning to 37 normal canning season operation. Additionally, the alternative would mitigate capacity 38 deficiencies in the Sutter Trunk by replacing the existing sewer with a new 24-inch diameter 39 gravity sewer. The existing River Trunk also would be rehabilitated to correct its 40 deteriorating condition. Figure 19-3 shows the alignment and components of the River 41 Trunk Realignment Project Design Alternative 1. 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 While this alternative would meet many of the Program objectives by addressing existing 1 capacity issues and repairing aging wastewater infrastructure, it was identified as not 2 meeting many of the important design goals (Carollo Engineers 2015). Specifically, the 3 alternative may create treatment plant impacts from comingled flows, may create or fail to 4 address CSL peak-flow limitations, and would not correct existing problems with operations 5 and maintenance access and vulnerability issues of the River Trunk and CSL erosion) by 6 being located along the Tuolumne River. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú [ Ú Replace Sutter Trunk Sutter Primary Treatment Facility Rehab River Trunk Replace Beard Brook Siphon Gallo Construct Diversion Structures 45'' 36'' 66'' 18'' 24'' 21'' 12'' 32'' 48'' 30'' 16'' 10'' 60'' 15'' 54'' 14'' 42'' 33'' 24'' 24'' 24'' 66'' 24'' 60'' 24'' 32'' 36'' 30'' 54'' 60'' 15'' 27'' 66'' 18'' 10'' 10'' 15'' 32'' 48'' 21'' 30'' 10'' 24'' 21'' 66'' 54'' 24'' 18'' 15'' 24'' 60'' 15'' 24'' 60'' 60'' 10'' 60'' 10'' 66'' 12'' 30'' 60'' 10'' 60'' 15'' 54'' 30'' 30'' 24'' 24'' 24'' 27'' 10'' 21'' 21'' 30'' 60'' 12'' 60'' 21'' 66'' 60'' 8 30'' S 7TH ST S 9TH ST RIVER RD W HATCH RD E HATCH RD ROUSE AVE RICHLAND AVE G ST ZEFF RD NADINE AVE TENAYA DR VERNON AVE RD LEON AVE PELTON AVE KERR AVE MORGAN RD HERNDO SUNSET AVE JIM WY OLIVERO RD SONORA AVE BEVERLY DR NORMANDY DR LEO AVE LEGION PARK DR DOVER AVE JANOPAUL AVE MARSHALL AVE WATSON AVE SAM AVE MIDWAY AVE SANTA RITA AVE RITSCH LN ATLANTIC DR PARKLAWN AVE LOMBARDY DR CANAL ST EUGENE AVE AURORA ST GIDDINGS ST DARBY LN GRAND VIEW AVE TYRUS ST STONUM RD SAUSALITO WY ANGLE LN HWY 99 (ON RAMP) YELLOW BRICK RD MANOR DR HERNDON AVE THOMPSON RD JOYCE AVE PHIL WY PISMO PL DEL MAR CT RISSO CT HW PEPSI LS MURIEL LS BENSON LS CALIFORNIA LS BEARDBROOK LS 60'' 10 6 ' 60'' Legend Proposed Gravity Sewer Proposed Force Main Proposed Rehabilitation Other Pipelines 8" and Smaller Greater than 8" Proposed Diversion Structure [ Ú Proposed Lift Station [ Ú Other Lift Stations Prepared by: Figure 19-3. Alternative 5 Alignment Source: Carollo 2015 City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan EIR 1,000 0 1,000 500 Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally left blank 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Analysis 1 Aesthetics 2 This alternative would have less aesthetics impacts than the River Trunk Realignment Project 3 as described in Chapter 2. By not constructing the River Trunk Pump Station and Shackelford 4 Pump Station, or replacing sewer lines along Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, and 5 other streets, this alternative would avoid impacts on views and visual quality during 6 construction of these components. Rehabilitation of the River Trunk and construction of the 7 diversion structures would likely be less involved and resulting in less aesthetics impacts 8 than the River Trunk Realignment Project described in Chapter 2 and the overall Program. 9 Agricultural Resources 10 Like the Proposed Program, this alternative would have no impacts on agricultural resources, 11 as all of the land on which components would be constructed is either urban/built-up land or 12 vacant land not being used for agriculture. None of the land is designated Farmland. 13 Air Quality 14 This alternative would result in less criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the River 15 Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford Pump 16 Station or River Trunk Pump Station would avoid a substantial amount of emissions 17 associated with construction equipment and materials, as well as operation of the pump 18 station over the long term. Not replacing sewers in Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, 19 and other streets also would avoid emissions, and rehabilitation of the River Trunk and 20 construction of diversion control structures would involve less construction activity than 21 River Trunk Realignment Project components as described in Chapter 2. Installation of the 22 new Sutter Trunk would introduce new emissions from operation of construction equipment, 23 but these emissions would be off-set by reductions elsewhere. Overall, this alternative would 24 have less air quality impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project described in 25 Chapter 2 and the overall Program. 26 Biological Resources 27 This alternative would have reduced biological resources impacts compared to the Proposed 28 Program owing to the avoidance of the need to construct the Shackelford Pump Station and 29 River Trunk Pump Station. Not constructing these pump station would avoid possible 30 impacts on habitat from ground disturbance and construction activity, as well as reduce 31 potential for adverse biological resources impacts from discharges of stormwater from the 32 construction site that could occur under the River Trunk Realignment Project described in 33 Chapter 2. Rehabilitation of the River Trunk and construction of diversion control structures 34 along the Tuolumne River could introduce new impacts to aquatic species and other 35 biological resources in the riparian area, but these increased impacts would likely be 36 outweighed by reductions due to not constructing the pump stations. The replaced Sutter 37 Trunk would not introduce new substantial impacts because it would take place within an 38 existing street. Overall, this alternative would have less biological resources impacts 39 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 and the overall 40 Program. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 1 Not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station or River Trunk Pump Station under this 2 alternative also would reduce potential for cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural 3 resources impacts, as there would be less ground disturbance/excavation. Under the River 4 Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2, which would construct these pump 5 stations, there would be greater potential to encounter buried, unknown cultural resources 6 (including tribal cultural resources), potentially resulting in adverse impacts. Rehabilitation 7 of the River Trunk and installation of diversion control structures would likely not result in 8 impacts because the activities would occur along the existing pipeline alignment. Overall, this 9 alternative would have less cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources impacts 10 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 and the overall 11 Program. 12 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 13 This alternative would have somewhat reduced geology, soils, and seismicity impacts 14 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project described in Chapter 2. By not constructing 15 the Shackelford Pump Station and River Trunk Pump Station, this alternative would create 16 less potential for the project to construct facilities on unstable or expansive soils (although 17 this impact would be less than significant for the River Trunk Realignment Project described 18 in Chapter 2 due to compliance with the City’s Standard Specifications including preparation 19 of a soils report). Rehabilitation of the River Trunk and replacement of the Sutter Trunk 20 would not substantially change the level of geologic hazard these facilities might be exposed 21 to in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, this alternative would reduce potential for 22 geology, soils, and seismicity impacts to some degree compared to the River Trunk 23 Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 and the overall Program. 24 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources 25 For similar reasons as described under “Air Quality” above, this alternative would reduce 26 greenhouse gas emissions to some degree compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project 27 as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford Pump Station would reduce 28 greenhouse gas emissions associated with operation of construction equipment, haul-truck 29 and employee vehicle trips, and operation of the pump station facilities following 30 construction. Locating the River Trunk Pump Station in an alternate location would not 31 substantially change the level of greenhouse gas emissions. Rehabilitating the Sutter Trunk 32 would involve operation of construction equipment that would emit greenhouse gases, but it 33 is believed these increased emissions would be outweighed by the reductions associated with 34 the Shackelford Pump Station. 35 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 36 This alternative would involve less potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts 37 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 due to not 38 constructing the Shackelford Pump Station, River Trunk Pump Station, and replacement 39 sewer lines along various streets. The alternative would avoid potential for construction 40 equipment used to construct these facilities to be improperly stored or accidentally release 41 hazardous materials to the environment, although this impact would be less than significant 42 under the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Rehabilitation of the 43 River Trunk along the bank of the Tuolumne River would introduce potential for impacts, but 44 due to the reduced effort for this activity, it is believed that these new impacts would be 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 outweighed by the reductions in impacts described above. Overall, this alternative would 1 have less hazards and hazardous materials impacts than the River Trunk Realignment Project 2 as described in Chapter 2. 3 Hydrology and Water Quality 4 This alternative would have somewhat reduced potential for hydrology and water quality 5 impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. By not 6 constructing the Shackelford Pump Station and River Trunk Pump Station, this alternative 7 would avoid potential discharges of contaminants from the pump station construction sites, 8 as well as accidental spills of hazardous materials contained in construction equipment. 9 Rehabilitation of the River Trunk and installation of the diversion control structures would 10 introduce potential for discharges of stormwater and contaminants to the Tuolumne River, 11 but these impacts would likely not be severe as those impacts that would be avoided by not 12 constructing the pump stations. Additionally, while the alternative would rehabilitate the 13 River Trunk, it would not move the existing alignment of the River Trunk, leaving it 14 potentially vulnerable to erosive high flows during a storm or flood event, although it is 15 believed that the alternative would meet immediate concerns regarding rupture of the 16 deteriorated existing pipeline resulting in discharges of sewage to the Tuolumne River. 17 Overall, this alternative would have somewhat less hydrology and water quality impacts 18 compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. 19 Land Use and Planning 20 This alternative would provide a similar level of capacity for domestic wastewater flows 21 (albeit less capacity for Cannery Segregation flows) and address existing deficiencies in the 22 City’s wastewater system. As such, it would provide for growth and development in 23 accordance with the City’s General Plan and would not inhibit development of land use 24 planning/policies. This alternative would have the same impacts related to land use and 25 planning as the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. 26 Noise and Vibration 27 This alternative would have reduced noise and vibration impacts compared to the River 28 Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. The alternative would not construct 29 the Shackelford Pump Station or River Trunk Pump Station, or replacement sewer lines along 30 Tuolumne Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, and other streets, and therefore would avoid noise 31 and vibration impacts at these locations associated with use of heavy construction 32 equipment. Operational noise associated with the pump stations also would be avoided, but 33 these impacts would be less than significant for the River Trunk Realignment Project as 34 described in Chapter 2. Rehabilitation of the River Trunk, construction of diversion 35 structures, and replacement of the sewer line along Sutter Avenue would introduce new noise 36 and vibration impacts at these locations, but it is believed that these increased impacts would 37 be outweighed by reductions in impacts achieved elsewhere. Overall, this alternative would 38 less noise and vibration impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as 39 described in Chapter 2. 40 Population and Housing 41 This alternative would provide a similar level of capacity for domestic wastewater flows 42 (albeit less capacity for Cannery Segregation flows) and address existing deficiencies in the 43 City’s wastewater system. As such, it would provide for population growth and development 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 in accordance with the City’s General Plan to a similar degree and extent as the River Trunk 1 Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. This alternative would have the same impacts 2 related to population and housing as the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in 3 Chapter 2. 4 Transportation and Traffic 5 This alternative would have less transportation and traffic impacts compared to the River 6 Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford Pump 7 Station and River Trunk Pump Station would avoid haul-truck and employee vehicle trips 8 associated with construction of these pump stations, reducing potential congestion on streets 9 in this area. Additionally, not installing new or replacement sewer lines along Tuolumne 10 Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, and other streets would reduce traffic impacts associated with 11 required lane closures during construction. Increased vehicle trips and congestion associated 12 with rehabilitation of the River Trunk and replacement of the Sutter Trunk would be 13 outweighed by reductions in impacts described above. Overall, this alternative would have 14 less transportation and traffic impacts compared to the River Trunk Realignment Project as 15 described in Chapter 2. 16 Utilities and Service Systems 17 This alternative would have roughly similar utilities and services impacts compared to the 18 River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. Not constructing the Shackelford 19 Pump Station and River Trunk Pump Station could lead to less disposal of construction debris 20 at a landfill, but rehabilitation of the River Trunk and replacement of the Sutter Trunk may 21 generate some debris that would require disposal. Any difference with respect to the River 22 Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2 would have a minimal effect on existing 23 landfill capacity. Therefore, this alternative would have the same impacts on utilities and 24 service systems as the River Trunk Realignment Project as described in Chapter 2. 25 19.4.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 26 Table 19-1, at the end of this chapter, compares the various alternatives considered in this 27 analysis to the Proposed Program and River Trunk Realignment Project. 28 19.4.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED 29 The following alternatives were considered, but ultimately eliminated from further analysis 30 for one or more of the following reasons: they would not sufficiently meet most of the 31 Proposed Program objectives; they were determined to be infeasible; or they would 32 not avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant impacts of the Proposed Program. 33  River Trunk Alternative Construction Methods. Instead of utilizing open trench 34 methods to install the gravity pipelines along Colorado Boulevard, this alternative 35 would employ trenchless methods in effort to reduce community impacts such as 36 traffic disruption and congestion, noise and pollutant emissions. During the planning 37 phase, this alternative construction method was eliminated from further 38 consideration due to the high costs associated with the trenchless methods (an 39 increase in cost of 50% or more), which would render the alternative economically 40 infeasible. 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-29 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043  Secondary/Cannery Segregation Treatment Alternatives. As part of WWMP 1 planning process, the City evaluated several alternatives to accommodate an 2 anticipated 5 mgd of additional cannery segregation flows. Such alternatives were 3 evaluated against the proposed CIPs described in Chapter 2 (see JP-3.1, JP-3.2, JP-3.3, 4 JP-3.4, and JP-3.5), which include upgrading the existing secondary treatment 5 infrastructure in order to accommodate additional cannery segregation flows. As 6 described in Chapter 2, Section 2.5.3, the City plans to install new aerators in the 7 recirculation channel, install new chemical feed pumps and storage tanks, construct 8 a berm in the effluent channel to keep effluent from designated domestic pond 9 (Facultative Treatment Pond No. 3) separate from the Cannery Segregation ponds 10 (Facultative Treatment Ponds No. 1 and dredge the digestion pits of the facultative 11 ponds, and install new aerators in the facultative ponds. 12 Alternative processes considered relative to the CIPs included in the Proposed Program 13 involved: 14 − Option 1. Constructing dedicated Cannery Segregation treatment facilities, 15 − Option 2. Converting Facultative Pond No. 1 to an anaerobic pond which would 16 require construction of new methane gas system facilities 17 − Option 3. Expanding the City’s agricultural land application area to avoid the need 18 for treating additional cannery segregation flows. 19 The latter option would have required acquisition of an additional 619 acres of agricultural 20 land and was ultimately eliminated due to the high cost of land. Due to feasibility constraints, 21 the City eliminated the other two treatment alternatives. For example, the first option would 22 have required use of some existing Ranch lands as additional space would be needed to 23 construct dedicated Cannery Segregation facilities, and from an operations standpoint, it 24 would require additional staff attention. The second option would require more frequent 25 removal of digested solids, pond liner, and cover. 26 In addition, neither of the secondary/cannery segregation treatment options would avoid or 27 substantially lessen any of the Proposed Program impacts. Therefore, this alternative was 28 eliminated from further consideration. 29 19.4.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 30 Of the alternatives evaluated in detail above, the No Program Alternative is considered 31 environmentally superior as, with one exception, it would reduce or avoid most impacts of 32 the Proposed Program. However, note that the No Project Alternative would not address 33 deficiencies in the City’s wastewater collection and treatment systems, which could result in 34 sanitary sewer overflows. The Sutter Plant facilities would remain in the 100-year floodplain, 35 the facilities of which could be subject to damage during a 100-year flood event. It also may 36 impede attainment of the City’s land use plans and policies which rely upon wastewater 37 service capacity that would be provided by the Proposed Program. This alternative would 38 also not meet any of the City’s objectives to plan for and provide sewer infrastructure in a 39 timely and cost-effective manner to serve new and existing development; repair and replace 40 aging wastewater infrastructure; ensure adequate wastewater infrastructure and services 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 19. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-30 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 are available to serve new growth within the General Plan and City’s SOI; or plan for state-of- 1 the-art facilities that reliably and economically meet the changing regulatory requirements. 2 Under CEQA, if the “no project” alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR 3 shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. 4 Both Alternatives 4 and 5 would have less environmental impacts than the proposed River 5 Trunk Realignment Project. Between the two different River Trunk Project alternatives 6 (Alternatives 4 and Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior because it would 7 result in less environmental impacts than Alternative 4. Construction and operation impacts 8 associated with Alternative 5 would be less than Alternative 4 primarily because it would 9 entail less new pipeline construction and would not involve new pump station construction. 10 As shown in Table 19-1 and described in Section 19.4, by not installing new pump stations or 11 realigning the River Trunk line, Alternative 5 would result in less construction-related 12 disturbance to sensitive receptors including noise and vibration effects, air pollutant and GHG 13 emissions, and traffic impacts. Similarly, since the construction footprint would be smaller in 14 scope relative to Alternative 4, construction-related impacts on biological resources, cultural 15 (including tribal cultural) and paleontological resources, and aesthetics would be less in 16 comparison to Alternative 5 as well. Operation and maintenance effects of Alternative 4 17 would generally be less than Alternative 5 as the River Trunk Pump Station would not be 18 installed; therefore, noise and air pollutant emissions that would be generated under 19 Alternative 5 would not be realized under Alternative 4. Note that the rehabilitated River 20 Trunk line under Alternative 5 would continue to be subject to certain vulnerabilities 21 including erosion due to its adjacency to the Tuolumne River which could result in adverse 22 water quality effects. Based on the above, Alternative 5 would be environmentally superior. 23 In comparing impacts of Alternative 3 (Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to 24 the North of the Jennings Plant) and Alternative 2 (Deferred Implementation Alternative) to 25 the Proposed Program, Alternative 2 would be environmentally superior because, on the 26 whole, this alternative would reduce construction impacts at a given time since some CIPs 27 would be delayed (although the impacts would eventually occur). Under Alternative 3, the 28 construction timeframe for all collection system components would be the same as the 29 Proposed Program and, therefore, would result in greater construction impacts collectively 30 when compared to Alternative 2. For example, it is anticipated that construction-related air 31 pollutant and GHG emissions, traffic, and noise impacts associated with Alternative 3 would 32 be greater in comparison to Alternative 2 at a given time because a greater number of CIPs 33 would be constructed at a given period within the overall 25-year construction schedule. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-31 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Table 19-1. Summary of Alternatives in Comparison to the Proposed Program 1 Impact Category Proposed Program Proposed Program Alternatives River Trunk Realignment Project River Trunk Realignment Project Alternatives Alternative 1: No Program Alternative Alternative 2: Deferred Implementation Alternative Alternative 3: Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of Jennings Plant Alternative Alternative 4: Design Alternative 4A Alternative 5: Design Alternative 1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Short-term degradation of visual character or quality during construction activities Less Delayed Same Short-term degradation of visual character or quality during construction activities Same Less Agricultural Resources Direct or indirect conversion of Important Farmland Less Delayed Greater No impacts Same Same Air Quality Conflict with applicable air quality plans; violate air quality standards; cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Less Somewhat less Somewhat less Conflict with applicable air quality plans; violate air quality standards; cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Somewhat less Less Biological Resources Impacts on special-status plants, vernal pool branchiopods, VELB, special-status fishes, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, raptors including special-status species, passerine species and birds protected under the MBTA, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, federal protected wetlands, wildlife movement, local ordinances or policies Less Delayed Same Impacts on special-status plants, vernal pool branchiopods, VELB, special-status fishes, western pond turtle, raptors including special-status species, passerine species and birds protected under the MBTA, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, federal protected wetlands, wildlife movement, local ordinances or policies Somewhat less Less Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts on historical, archaeological, tribal, or paleontological resources or human remains Less Delayed Similar Impacts on historical, archaeological, tribal, or paleontological resources or human remains Somewhat less Less Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Impacts from expansive soils; erosion; or subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse Less Delayed Same Impacts from expansive soils; erosion; or subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse Somewhat less Less Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Resources Substantial GHG emissions or conflict with applicable plan or150 policy Less Somewhat less Somewhat less Substantial GHG emissions or conflict with applicable plan or policy Somewhat less Less Hazards and Hazardous Materials Upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Less Delayed Somewhat less Upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Somewhat less Less ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. Alternatives Wastewater Master Plan 19-32 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Impact Category Proposed Program Proposed Program Alternatives River Trunk Realignment Project River Trunk Realignment Project Alternatives Alternative 1: No Program Alternative Alternative 2: Deferred Implementation Alternative Alternative 3: Primary Treatment and Solids Handling Facilities to the North of Jennings Plant Alternative Alternative 4: Design Alternative 4A Alternative 5: Design Alternative 1 Hydrology and Water Quality Violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality; deplete groundwater supplies; alter drainage patterns Less construction- related impacts. By not addressing existing wastewater collection and treatment system deficiencies, the potential for sanitary sewer overflows and subsequent water quality impacts may increase. Sutter Plant facilities would continue to be subject to damage during a 100-year flood event. Delayed Similar Violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality; deplete groundwater supplies; alter drainage patterns Somewhat less Somewhat less; however, the rehabilitated River Trunk line would still be vulnerable to erosion, which could result in water quality impacts Land Use and Planning No significant impacts Greater (potential to conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations) Greater (potential to conflict with land use plans, policies, and regulations) Same No significant impacts Same Same Noise and Vibration Violate noise standards; excessive groundborne vibration or noise; increase in ambient noise levels Less Delayed and somewhat less Same Violate noise standards; excessive groundborne vibration or noise; increase in ambient noise levels Somewhat less Less Population and Housing Inducement of substantial population growth Less Delayed Same Inducement of substantial population growth Same Same Transportation and Traffic Increased congestion during construction activities; potential degradation of LOS during construction activities Less Delayed and somewhat less Same Increased congestion during construction activities; potential degradation of LOS during construction activities Same Less Utilities and Service Systems Effects on landfill capacity Less Delayed Same Effects on landfill capacity Same Same 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 20-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 20 1 REFERENCES 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 Carollo Engineers. 2015. Sutter Treatment Facility Feasibility Study. April. Prepared for City 4 of Modesto. 5 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final Draft. 6 Prepared in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. April. 7 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 8 Carollo Engineers. 2015. Sutter Treatment Facility Feasibility Study. April. Prepared for City 9 of Modesto. 10 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final Draft. 11 Prepared in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. April. 12 City of Modesto. 2007. Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft Master 13 Environmental Impact Report. December 21. Prepared by Turnstone Consulting. 14 2016a. Utilities Department website. Available at: www.modestgov.com/pwd/ 15 wastewater/operations/. Accessed: January 26, 2016. 16 2016b. Environmental Services brochure. Available at: www.modestogov.com/ 17 pwd/wastewater/compliance/docs/pretreatment/city of modesto wastewater 18 treatment plant.pdf. Accessed: February 2, 2016. 19 Eve, Katherine. 2017. Personal Communication. 2017. E-mail communication from 20 Katherine Eve, Carollo Engineers. October 16, 2017. 21 CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 22 Carollo Engineers. 2015. City of Modesto River Trunk Realignment, Beard Brook Siphon and 23 Cannery Segregation Line Improvement Project Preliminary Design Report. 24 September. 25 2016a. City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final Draft. 26 Prepared in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. April. 27 2016b. City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. Final Draft. Prepared 28 in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. December. 29 2016c. City of Modesto River Trunk Realignment Project Basis of Design Report. 30 July. 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Eve, Katherine. 2017a. Personal communication via email to Allison Chan, Horizon, from 1 Katherine Eve at Carollo on October 19, 2017 regarding projected population 2 estimates within the City of Modesto’s Wastewater Master Plan service area. 3 Eve, Katherine. 2017b. Personal Communication via e-mail from Katherine Eve, Carollo 4 Engineers. October 10, 2017. 5 CHAPTER 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 6 California Department of Conservation. 2016. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Mineral 7 Lands Classification data portal. Available at: maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ 8 informationwarehouse/index.html. Accessed: April 6, 2016. 9 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. 10 City of Modesto. 2008. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. October. 11 ICF International. 2016. Draft Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use 12 Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared 13 for Stanislaus County. April 2016. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/ 14 gp/current/DraftEIR.pdf. Accessed: October 11, 2017. 15 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Adopted April 5, 2016. Available 16 at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. 17 CHAPTER 4. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 18 California Department of Transportation. 2017a. Scenic Highway Program. Frequently 19 Asked Questions. Available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/ 20 scenic_highways/faq.htm. Accessed: February 9, 2017. 21 2017b. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Stanislaus County. Available at: 22 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways. Accessed: February 23 9, 2017. 24 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 25 City of Modesto. 2019a. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 26 2019b. Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan 27 Update. January. SCH #[PHONE REDACTED]. 28 EDAW. 2001a. Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan. December. Prepared for the Joint 29 Powers Authority: City of Modesto, City of Ceres, and Stanislaus County. 30 2001b. Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan Draft EIR. 31 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Adopted April 5, 2016. Available 32 at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-3 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CHAPTER 5. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1 California Department of Conservation. 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and 2 Monitoring Program, 2004 Edition. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/ 3 dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp_guide_2004.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 4 2011. Stanislaus County Williamson Act FY 2010/2011, Sheet 1 of 2. Available at: 5 ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Stanislaus_north_10_11_WA.pdf. Accessed: 6 August 1, 2017. 7 2014. The California Land Conservation Act 2014 Status Report – The Williamson 8 Act. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Documents/ 9 2014 LCA Status Report_March_2015.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 10 2016a. Rural Land Mapping Edition – Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2016, 11 Sheet 1 of 2. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/ 12 sta16_no.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 13 2016b. Important Farmland Statistics – Table A-41, Stanislaus County, 2014-2016 14 Land Use Conversion. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ 15 Stanislaus.aspx. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 16 2017a. Rural Land Mapping Edition – Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2016, 17 Sheet 1 of 2. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/ 18 2016/sta16_no.pdf. Published June 2017. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 19 Carollo Engineers. 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Final Draft. Accessed: 20 August 1, 2017. 21 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. 22 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 23 Eve, Katherine. 2017. Personal communication via email to Allison Chan, Horizon, from 24 Katherine Eve at Carollo on October 25, 2017 regarding build-out of biosolids 25 production from Jennings Plant. 26 LAFCO. See Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission. 27 Stanislaus County. 2006. Stanislaus County Public Parcel Viewer – Zoning Map. Available at: 28 gis.stancounty.com/giscentral/public/js/Public_app.html. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 29 2015. Stanislaus County Agricultural Report 2015. Available at: 30 www.stanag.org/pdf/cropreport/cropreport2015.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 31 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan 2015. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 32 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 33 2017. Stanislaus County Public Parcel Viewer – Zoning Map. Available at: 34 gis.stancounty.com/giscentral/public/js/Public_app.html. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-4 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission.. 2012. Agricultural Preservation 1 Policy. Available at: www.stanislauslafco.org/info/PDF/POLICY/ 2 AgPolicy.09262012.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 3 Agricultural Preservation Policy, Amended. Available at: 4 www.stanislauslafco.org/info/PDF/Policy/Final.AgPolicy.3252015.pdf. Accessed: 5 August 1, 2017. 6 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Part 503 – Standards for the Use or Disposal of 8 Sewage Sludge. Available at: www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/textidx?SID=b3fba7765f7755621 9 af59887c076b374&mc=true&node=pt40.32.503&rgn=div5#sp40.32.503.b. 10 Accessed: January 23, 2017. 11 CHAPTER 6. AIR QUALITY 12 CARB. See California Air Resources Board. 13 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community 14 Health Perspective. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed: 15 April 24, 2017. 16 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available at: 17 www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac2013all.pdf. Accessed: 18 April 4, 2017. 19 2017a. Area Designations. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/ 20 changes.htm#summaries. Accessed: 4/3/17 21 2017b. Select 8, iADAM Statistics. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ 22 select8/sc8start.php 23 2017c. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ 24 toxics/id/taclistH. Accessed: 4/4/17 25 City of Ceres. 2018. Ceres General Plan 2035. Adopted May 14, 2018. City Council Resolution 26 No. 2018-049. Available at: www.ci.ceres.ca.us/197/General-Plan. Accessed: 27 January 4, 2019 28 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 29 OEHHA. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 30 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2001. Prioritization of Toxic Air 31 Contaminants – Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act, Particulate 32 Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines. October. 33 2017. Chemicals Known To The State To Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity. 34 Available at: oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-5 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating 1 Air Quality Impacts Technical Document: Information for Preparing Air Quality 2 Sections in EIRs. Available at: www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA 3 Rules/GAMAQI Tech Doc Jan 2002 Rev.pdf. 4 2013. 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at: 5 www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/OzoneOneHourPlan2013/AdoptedPlan.pdf. 6 Accessed: 4/3/2017. 7 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at: 8 www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed: April 3, 2017. 9 2015b. 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard. Available at: www.valleyair.org/ 10 Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25-2015/2015-PM2.5-Plan_Bookmarked.pdf. Accessed: 11 April 3, 2017. 12 2015c. Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised 13 Risk Assessment Guidance Document. March 18. Available at: 14 15 policy-sr.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2019. 16 2016. 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at: 17 www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. 18 Accessed: April 3, 2017. 19 2017a. Mitigation Measures. Available at: www.valleyair.org/transportation/ 20 GAMAQI-Mitigation-Measures.pdf. Accessed: April 24, 2017. 21 2017b. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status Available at: 22 www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed: 4/3/2017. 23 2017c. Ozone Plans. Available at: www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/ 24 Ozone_Plans.htm. 25 2017d. Particulate Matter Plans Website. Available at: www.valleyair.org/ 26 Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans .htm. Accessed: April 3, 2017. 27 2017e. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: www.valleyair.org/ 28 General_info/Frequently_Asked_Questions .htm. Accessed: April 24, 2017. 29 2017f. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Small Project Analysis Level 30 (SPAL). Available at: www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA Rules/ 31 SPALTables61912.pdf. Accessed: April 21, 2017. 32 2017g. SJVAPCD Odor Complaint Investigation Records for the City of Modesto’s 33 Existing Wastewater Facilities from July 2014 to July 2017. Provided via email to 34 Johnnie Chamberlain at Horizon Water and Environment, on July 11, 2017. 35 SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-6 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Stanislaus County. 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan. Adopted April 5, 2016. Available 1 at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: August 5, 2017. 2 2016b. Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 3 Update Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by ICF International. Available 4 at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/FinalEIR.pdf. Accessed: August 5, 5 2017. 6 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status 8 for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. Available at: 9 www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html Accessed: April 3, 2017. 10 Western Regional Climate Center. 2017. Period of Record Climate Summary, 11 Modesto City Co Op, California (045738). Available at: www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- 12 bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5738 13 CHAPTER 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 14 Bechard, Marc C. Stuart Houston, Jose H. Saransola and A. Sidney England. 2010. 15 Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), The Birds of North America G. Rodewald, 16 Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: 17 birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/swahaw DOI: 10.2173/bna.265 18 Bureau of Reclamation and City of Modesto. 2015. North Valley Regional Recycled Water 19 Program DEIR/Statement. January. 20 California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California 21 (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed: July 6, 22 2017. 23 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for 24 Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California. 25 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and 26 Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 27 September 2010 28 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March. 29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Range Map for Coachwhip (Coluber 30 flagellum). California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Available at: 31 nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2756&inline=1 32 2017. database search for the Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Program 33 area. Accessed: July 6, 2017. 34 Carollo Engineers. 2016a. City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final 35 Draft. Prepared in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. April. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-7 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2016b. City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. Final Draft. Prepared 1 in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. December. 2 CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game. 3 CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 4 City of Modesto. 2007. Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft Master 5 Environmental Impact Report. December 21. Prepared by Turnstone Consulting. 6 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 7 2014. Wastewater System Upgrades Project Draft Master Environmental Impact 8 Report. June. 9 City of Patterson. 2010. 2010 General Plan Draft EIR. Available at: 10 www.ci.patterson.ca.us/documentcenter/view/249. Accessed: July 13, 2017. 11 CNPS. See California Native Plant Society. 12 ebird.org. 2017a. Observations for Jennings Wastewater Treatment Plant. Available at: 13 ebird.org/ebird/hotspot/L246766. Accessed: July 14, 2017. 14 ebird.org. 2017b. Observations for Yellow Warbler. Accessed: July 14, 2017. 15 Hartman, C. and K. Kyle. 2010. Farming for Birds: Alfalfa and Forages as Valuable Wildlife 16 Habitat. IN: Proceedings, 2010 California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium and 17 Corn/Cereal Silage Mini-Symposium, Visalia, CA, 1-2 December, 2010. UCCE, 18 University of California, Davis. 19 Howell, CA, JK Wood, MD Dettling, K Griggs, CC Otte, L Lina, and T Gardali. 2010. Least Bell’s 20 Vireo breeding records in the Central Valley following decades of extirpation. 21 Western North American Naturalist 70:105–113. 22 Hunt, W. R. E. Jackman, T. L. Hunt, D. E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. 1999. A population study of 23 Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area; population trend analysis 24 1994-1997. Predatory Bird Res. Group, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz. 25 ICF Jones & Stokes 2008. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area 26 General Plan Update. Prepared for: City of Modesto. October. 27 Jackman, R.E., and J.M. Jenkins. 2004. Protocol for evaluating bald eagle habitat and 28 populations in California. Report by Pacific Gas & Electric for the U.S. Fish and 29 Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division, Sacramento, California. 30 Kelly, P.A., Edgarian, T.K., Lloyd, M.R., Phillips, S.E. 2011. Conservation Principles for the 31 Riparian Brush Rabbit & Riparian Woodrat. California State University Stanislaus 32 Endangered Species Recovery Program. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-8 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 National Marine Fisheries Services. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation 1 of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook 2 Salmon Below Friant Dam in the San Joaquin River, CA. Federal Record Vol. 78, No. 3 251. 4 NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Services 5 Pacific Gas & Electric. 2006. Pacific Gas & Electric Company San Joaquin Valley Operations 6 and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (PG&E O&M HCP). Prepared by Jones & 7 Stokes, Sacramento, California. 8 PG&E. See Pacific Gas & Electric. 9 Pierson, W. Rainey, and C. Corben. 2006. Distribution and Status of Western Red Bats 10 (Lasiurus blossevillii) in California. Prepared for the Species Conservation and 11 Recovery Program, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of 12 Fish and Game. 13 Rosenberg, J. Gervais, D. Vesely, S. Barnes, L. Holts. R. Horn, R. Swift, L. Todd, and C. Yee. 14 2009. Conservation Assessment of the Western Pond Turtle in Oregon (Actinemys 15 marmorata). 16 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan 2015. Available at: 17 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 18 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and 19 Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey's in California's Central Valley. 20 Turnstone Consulting. 2006. City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Draft 21 Environmental Impact Report. December. 22 U.C. Davis. 2017. PISCES range data. Available pisces.ucdavis.edu/map. Accessed: 11 July 23 2017. 24 USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana 26 aurora draytonii). May. 27 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May. 28 2012a. Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) 5-Year Review: 29 Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and 30 Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. June 2012. 31 2012b. Riparian Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia) 5-Year Review: Summary and 32 Evaluation. June. 33 2017a. Official species list. July 8. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-9 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2017b. Species Profile for Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana). Available 1 ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q19I. Accessed: July 28, 2017. 2 2017c. Species Profile for San Joaquin Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis). Available 3 ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q1ZP. Accessed: July 28, 2017. 4 2017d. Species Profile for Greene's tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei). Available 5 ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q23K. Accessed: July 28, 2017. 6 2017e. Recovery Plan for the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the 7 California Tiger Salamander californiense). Region 8 U.S. U.S. Fish and 8 Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California. June. 9 2017f. Species Profile for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Available 10 ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B06R. Accessed: 12 July 2017. 11 2017g. Species Profile for Riparian Brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius). 12 Available ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A0DN. Accessed: 12 13 July 2017. 14 2017h. Species Profile for San Joaquin Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Available 15 ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A006. Accessed: 12 July 2017. 16 2017i. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 17 (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sacramento, 18 California. 28 pp. 19 CHAPTER 8. CULTURAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 20 California Energy Commission. 2017. Paleontological Resources chapter, Walnut Energy 21 Center, Turlock California. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/turlock/ 22 documents/applicant_files/volume_1/008-16_Paleontological.pdf. Accessed: July 23 17, 2017. 24 California Geological Survey 1991 Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, 25 California. 1:250,000. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/rgm/ 26 RGM_005A/RGM_005A_SanFrancisco&SJ_1991_Sheet1of5.pdf. Accessed: August 7, 27 2017. 28 City of Ceres. 1997. City of Ceres General Plan. Available at: www.ci.ceres.ca.us/ 29 GeneralPlan.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 30 City of Modesto. 2016. History of the City of Modesto. Available at: www.modestogov.com/ 31 localinfo/cityhistory. Accessed: June 13, 2016. 32 2017. City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10 – Modesto Landmark Preservation. 33 Available at: library.municode.com/ca/modesto/codes/code_of_ordinances? 34 nodeId=TIT9BURE_CH10MOLAPR. Accessed: October 11, 2017. 35 2019a. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-10 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2019b. City of Modesto Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban 1 Area General Plan Update. 2 eReferenceDesk. 2017. “Stanislaus County” in 50 State Guide – Reference and Information 3 on the 50 US States of America. Available at: www.ereferencedesk.com/resources/ 4 counties/california/stanislaus.html. Accessed: July 17, 2017. 5 Horizon. See Horizon Water and Environment. 6 Horizon Water and Environment. 2017 Draft Cultural Resources Assessment for the River 7 Trunk Realignment Project, Modesto, Stanislaus County, California. 8 ICF. See ICF International. 9 ICF International. 2016. Draft Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use 10 Compatibility Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Prepared 11 for Stanislaus County. April 2016. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/ 12 gp/current/DraftEIR.pdf. Accessed: October 11, 2017. 13 Kyle, D. M. Hoover, H. E. Rensch, and E. G. Rensch. 2002. Historic Spots in California. 5th 14 edition, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 15 Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL; reprinted 2004 by 16 Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. 17 2004. California Archaeology. (Reprint.) Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. 18 Parker, Patricia and Thomas F. King. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 19 Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Publication 38. National Park 20 Service, Washington, DC. Revised 1998. 21 Rosenthal, J. J. Meyer, and J. King. 2004. Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 22 10 Rural Conventional Highways; Vol. III: Geoarchaeological Study. Far Western 23 Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Report submitted to the California 24 Department of Transportation District 10, Stockton, California. 25 Rosenthal, J. G. G. White, and M. Q. Sutton. 2010. The Central Valley: A View from the 26 Catbird’s Seat. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, pp. 27 147-164, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar. AltaMira Press, Plymouth, U.K. 28 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and 29 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Available at: 30 vertpaleo.org/The-Society/Governance-Documents.aspx. Accessed: June 23, 2016. 31 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan 2015. Adopted August 23, 2016. 32 Available at: www.stancounty.com/bos/agenda/2016/20160823/PH910.pdf. 33 Accessed: September 20, 2016. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-11 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Tremaine, K. 2008. Archaeological site record update for CA-SAC-38. Site record on file at 1 the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources 2 Information System, California State University, Sacramento. 3 USGS. See United States Geological Survey. 4 United States Geological Survey. 1939 Modest East 1:62500 topographic map. Available at: 5 historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 6 1941. Modest West 1:62500 topographic map. Available at: 7 historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 8 Riverbank 1:24000 (7.5 minute series) topographic map. 1969 photorevised 9 1987. Available at: historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 10 Wallace, W.J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, Handbook of North American 11 Indians, Vol. 8:462-470, edited by R.F. Heizer, Smithsonian Institution Press, 12 Washington, DC. 13 CHAPTER 9. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 14 Bryant, W.A., and E.W. Hart. 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California–Alquist-Priolo 15 Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zones maps. (Special 16 Publication 42). Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology. 17 California Department of Water Resources. No Date. Estimated Subsidence in the San 18 Joaquin Valley between 1949-2005. Available at: www.water.ca.gov/ 19 waterconditions/docs/2017/Estimated Subsidence in the SCV_letter_2-7-2017.pdf. 20 Accessed: September 14, 2017. 21 2004. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater 22 Basin, Modesto Subbasin. Available at: water.ca.gov/groundwater/ 23 bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.02.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 24 2006a. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater 25 Basin, Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Available at: www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/ 26 bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.07.pdf. Accessed: August 29, 2017. 27 2006b. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater 28 Basin, Turlock Subbasin. Available at: water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/ 29 basindescriptions/5-22.03.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 30 2014. Summary of Recent, Historical, and Estimated Potential for Future Land 31 Subsidence in California. Available at: www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/docs/ 32 Summary_of_Recent_Historical_Potential_Subsidence_in_CA_Final_with 33 _Appendix.pdf. Accessed: September 14, 2017. 34 2017a. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) 35 Program. Available at: www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/ 36 casgem/index.cfm. Accessed: September 26, 2017. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-12 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2017b. Groundwater Information Center: Interactive Map Application. Available at: 1 gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/. Accessed: September 28, 2017, 2 California Geological Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36. Available at: 3 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/ 4 Documents/note_36.pdf. Accessed: June 16, 2017. 5 2008. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. Compiled by D. Branum, S. 6 Harmsen, E. Kalkan, M. Peterson, and C. Wills. Available at: 7 www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/documents/ms48_ 8 revised.pdf. Accessed: August 17, 2016. 9 2010. Fault Activity Map of California. CGS Data Map No. 6. Compilation and 10 interpretation by C. W. Jennings and W.A. Bryant. Available at: www.quake.ca.gov/ 11 gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. Accessed: June 16, 2017. 12 CGS. See California Geological Survey. 13 Carollo Engineers. 2016. City of Modesto River Trunk Realignment Project Basis of Design 14 Report. Draft. July. 15 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 16 DWR. See California Department of Water Resources. 17 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 2017. Background and History. Available 18 at: www.nehrp.gov/about/history.htm. Accessed: July 5, 2017. 19 NEHRP. See National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 20 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. Web Soil Survey. Available at: 21 websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: May 21, 2015. 22 NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service. 23 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Published 2015, Adopted 2016. 24 U.S. Geological Survey. 1989. The Severity of an Earthquake, The Modified Mercalli Intensity 25 Scale. Available at: pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html. Accessed: June 12, 26 2017. 27 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California. 28 1:250,000. Compilation by D.L. Wagner, E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin. Available 29 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/rgm/RGM_005A/RGM_005A 30 _SanFrancisco&SJ_1991_Sheet1of5.pdf. Accessed: June 25, 2017. 31 2016. Earthquake Hazards Program: Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the 32 United States Interactive Fault Map. Available at: earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/ 33 qfaults/. Accessed: June 26, 2017. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-13 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey. 1 CHAPTER 10. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 2 CARB. See California Air Resources Board. 3 California Air Resources Board. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 4 Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update 5 _climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2017. 6 2016. 2016 Edition California GHG Emission Inventory. Available at: 7 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2014/ghg_inventory_trends_00- 8 14_20160617.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2017. 9 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Available at: 10 www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: January 24, 11 2019. 12 2018a. AB 32 Scoping Plan. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ 13 scopingplan.htm. Accessed: January 24, 2019. 14 2018b. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2016- by Category as 15 Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. June 22. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/ 16 cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 17 California Energy Commission. 2017a. Turlock Irrigation District 2015 Power Content 18 Label. Available at: 19 www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2015_labels/Turlock_Irrigation_District.pdf. 20 2017b. PG&E 2015 Power Content Label. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/pcl/ 21 labels/2015_labels/Pacific_Gas_and_Electric_(PGandE).pdf. 22 2017c. Commission Final Report Renewables Portfolio Standard Verification 23 Results Modesto Irrigation District Compliance Period I. Available at: 24 www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/documents/verification_results/cp01_2011- 25 2013/pous_reports.php. Accessed: July 31, 2017. 26 2018. 2018 Energy Policy Report Update. Available at: 27 Accessed June 8, 2019. 28 California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. 29 Available at: resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. 30 Accessed: April 4, 2017. 31 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk. Available at: 32 resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf. 33 Accessed: April 4, 2017. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-14 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available at: resources.ca.gov/ 1 docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018- 2 update.pdf. Accessed: January 24, 2019. 3 2019. Safeguarding California and Climate Change Adaptation Policy. Available at: 4 resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/. Accessed: January 24, 2019. 5 Carollo Engineers. 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. December. 6 CEC. See California Energy Commission. City of Modesto’s General Plan 7 Center for Climate Energy Solutions. 2019. Federal Vehicle Standards. Available at: 8 www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon-emissions/. 9 Accessed: January 24, 2019. 10 City of Ceres. 2018. Ceres General Plan 2035. Adopted May 14, 2018. Available at: 11 www.ci.ceres.ca.us/197/General-Plan. Accessed: January 24, 2019. 12 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 13 Environmental Science Associates. 2013. List of Proposed Reduction Strategies Applicable 14 to Jurisdictions in Stanislaus County). Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/ 15 pl/toolbox.shtm. Accessed: March 14, 2017; 16 ESA. See Environmental Science Associates. 17 Forster, V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, 18 D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 19 Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 20 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 21 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, 22 D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller 23 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 24 International Panel on Climate Change. 1996. Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate 25 Change. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I 26 _full_report.pdf. Accessed: July 19, 2017. 27 2003. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/ 28 ipccreports/tar/wg1/. Accessed: August 8, 2017. 29 2007. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report 30 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/ 31 32 report.htm. 33 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Available at: 34 www.climatechange2013.org/. 35 IPCC. See International Panel on Climate Change. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-15 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 MID. See Modesto Irrigation District. 1 Modesto Irrigation District. 2017a. Currents, What’s Next in Public Power. Available at: 2 www.mid.org/about/newsroom/currents/documents/2017PCLInsert.pdf. 3 2017b. 2016 Power Content Label. Available at: www.mid.org/about/newsroom/ 4 currents/documents/Updated2016PCL_9.13.17.pdf. 5 OEHHA. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 6 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2013. Indicators of Climate Change in 7 California. Available at: oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk- 8 assessment/document/ 9 climatechangeindicatorsreport2013.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2017. 10 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Environmental Review 11 Guidelines for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Available at: 12 www.ourair.org/greenhouse-gases-and-ceqa/. Accessed: October 24, 2017. 13 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2009a. Final Staff Report Addressing 14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. 15 Available at: www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/1 CCAP - FINAL CEQA 16 GHG Staff Report - Dec 17 2009.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2017. 17 2009b. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission 18 Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at: www.valleyair.org/ 19 Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/1 CCAP - FINAL CEQA GHG Staff Report - Dec 17 20 2009.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2017. 21 2015. Zero Equivalency Policy for Greenhouse Gases. Updated April 2015. 22 2017. Climate Change Action Plan. Available at: 23 www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/CCAP_idx.htm. Accessed: March 14, 2017. 24 SBCAPCD. See Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 25 SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District. 26 SJVAPCD. See San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 27 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance 28 Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/ 29 home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance- 30 thresholds. Accessed: October 24, 2017. 31 StanCOG. See Stanislaus Council of Governments. 32 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space 33 Element. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/gp-chapter3.pdf. 34 Accessed: March 26, 2017. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-16 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2017. Stanislaus Regional Sustainability Toolbox. Accessed: March 14, 2017; 1 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/toolbox.shtm. 2 Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2014. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable 3 Communities Strategy. Available at: www.stancog.org/pdf/rtp/final-2014- 4 5 TID. See Turlock Irrigation District. 6 Turlock Irrigation District. 2017. TID Quick Reference Guide. Available at: www.tid.org/ 7 sites/default/files/documents/tidweb_content/Quick Reference Guide 8 2017.pdf. 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle 10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Federal 11 Register Vol. 77, No 199. Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 12 11/documents/federal_register_oct_15_12.pdf. Accessed: July 19, 2017. 13 2015. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at: 14 www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/emission- 15 factors_nov_2015.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2017. 16 2017a. Regulations for Emissions from Vehicles and Engines. Available at: 17 www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations- 18 greenhouse-gas-emissions-commercial-trucks Accessed: April 4, 2017. 19 2017b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available at: www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/ 20 overviewgreenhousegases#carbondioxide. Accessed: July 19, 2017. 21 2018. Overview of the Proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. Available at: 22 www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/proposal-affordable-clean-energy- 23 ace-rule. Accessed: January 22, 2018. 24 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 CHAPTER 11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 26 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Stanislaus County: Draft Fire 27 Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Available at: frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/ 28 Accessed: March 13, 2017. 29 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2017. EnviroStor. Available at: 30 www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: September 26, 2017. 31 California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2014. Hazardous Material Business Plan 32 FAQ. Available at: www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Documents/HMBP FAQ - 33 Feb2014.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 34 CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-17 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 1 Cal OES. See California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2 Modesto City Schools. 2017. School Directory. Available at: www.monet.k12.ca.us/ 3 district/schools/school-directory. Accessed: March 13, 2017. 4 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 5 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 6 2016b. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted October 6. 7 Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/agenda-aluc/Draft_ALUCP.pdf. 8 Accessed: July 21, 2017, 9 Stanislaus County OES. See Stanislaus County Office of Emergency Services. 10 Stanislaus County Office of Emergency Services. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 11 Available at: www.stanoes.com/lhmp.shtm. Accessed: March 13, 2017. 12 State Water Resources Control Board. 2017. GeoTracker. Available at: 13 geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 14 See State Water Resources Control Board. 15 CHAPTER 12. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 16 California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: 17 San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Modesto Subbasin. Available at: 18 water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/5-22.02.pdf. Accessed: 19 June 14, 2017. 20 2006. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater 21 Basin, Turlock Subbasin. Available at: water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/ 22 basindescriptions/5-22.03.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 23 2017a. Groundwater Information Center: Interactive Map Application. Accessed: 24 September 28, 2017. Available at: gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/. 25 2017b. Division of Safety of Dams: Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: 26 www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/FAQAnswer/index.cfm. Accessed: September 27, 27 2017. 28 California Public Utilities Commission. 2003. SMUD Cosumnes Power Plant Licensing Case 29 Documents, Data Response Set-1Q, Appendix C: Frac-Out Contingency Plan for 30 Horizontal Directional Drill. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ 31 smud/documents/applicants_files/Data_Response_Set-1Q/APPENDIX_C_ 32 FRAC_OUT_PLAN3.pdf. Accessed: July 20, 2017. 33 Carollo Engineers. 2016. Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, Final Draft. 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-18 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program. 2010. Draft State Plan of Flood Control 1 Descriptive Document. Available at: 2 Descriptive_Doc_20100115.pdf. Accessed: June 13, 2017. 3 Central Valley Flood Protection Board. 2017. Central Valley Flood Protection Board 4 Permitting. Available at: Accessed: June 14, 2017. 5 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2015. Order R5-2015-0025, NPDES 6 No. CAS083526, Waste Discharge Requirements, City of Modesto, Storm Water 7 Discharge from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, Stanislaus County. 8 Available at: www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2332. Accessed: 9 June 9, 2017. 10 2016a. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional 11 Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Available at: 12 www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/2016july_1994_s 13 acsjr_bpas.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 14 2016b. Order R5-2016-00076, NPDES No. CAG995002, Waste Discharge 15 Requirements, Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water. Available at: 16 www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ 17 orders/r5-2016-0076_mod.pdf. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 18 2017. Order R5-2017-0064, NPDES No. CA0079103, Waste Discharge 19 Requirements for the City of Modesto Water Quality Control Facility, Stanislaus 20 County. Available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/ 21 adopted_orders/stanislaus/r5-2017-0064.pdf. Accessed: October 13, 2017. 22 Central Valley See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 23 City of Modesto. 2007. City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan Update Final EIR. Prepared 24 by Turnstone Consulting. 25 2008. Storm Drainage Master Plan – Draft. Available at: www.modestogov.com/ 26 DocumentCenter/Home/View/1736. Accessed: September 27, 2017. 27 2019a. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 28 2019b. City of Modesto Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban 29 Area General Plan Update. 30 CPUC. See California Public Utilities Commission. 31 See Central Valley Flood Protection Board. 32 DWR. See California Department of Water Resources. 33 Eve, Katherine. 2017. Personal Communication. 2017. E-mail communication from 34 Katherine Eve, Carollo Engineers. October 16, 2017. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-19 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. Flood Zones. Available at: 1 www.fema.gov/flood-zones. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 2 FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency. 3 North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program. 2017. About the North Valley Regional 4 Recycled Water Program. Available at: www.nvr-recycledwater.org/. Accessed: 5 October 11, 2017. 6 See North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program. 7 Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association. 2005. Integrated Regional 8 Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Subbasin. Available at: 9 regional groundwater management plan for the 10 mode.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 11 Stanislaus County. 2010. Stanislaus County General Plan, Figure V-3: Stanislaus County Dam 12 Inundation Hazards. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/ 13 gp-chapter5.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 14 2014. Drought 2014 – Economic Impact. Available at: www.mid.org/water/ 15 drought/documents/Drought2014.pdf. Accessed: September 28, 2017. 16 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 17 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 18 2016b. Stanislaus County General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 19 Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 20 planning/pl/gp/current/DraftEIR.pdf. Accessed: September 28, 2017. 21 State Water Resources Control Board. 2012. Final 2012 Integrated Report (CWA Section 22 303(d) List/305(b) Report), Category 5, 2012 California 303(d) List of Water 23 Quality Limited Segments. Available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/ 24 Accessed: June 14, 25 2017. 26 2017. Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use. Available at: 27 www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/ 28 Accessed: October 9, 2017. 29 See Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association. 30 See State Water Resources Control Board. 31 USEPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 32 USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-20 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Water Quality Standards: Establishment of 1 Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California (California 2 Toxics Rule). Available at: www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards- 3 establishment-numeric-criteria-priority-toxic-pollutants-state. Accessed: October 4 13, 2017. 5 U.S. Geological Survey. 2017a. USGS Surface-Water Statistics for the Nation, USGS 6 11290000 Tuolumne R A Modesto, CA. Available at: waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/ 7 8 2208882,00060,9722,1895-01,2016-11&format=html_table&date 9 _format=YYYY-MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted 10 _form=parameter_selection_list. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 11 2017b. USGS Surface-Water Statistics for the Nation, USGS 11274550 San 12 Joaquin R Nr Crows Landing, CA. Available at: 13 referred_module=sw&site_no=11274550&por_11274550_9598=2208815 14 ,00060,9598,1995-10,2016-10&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY- 15 MM-DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection 16 _list. Accessed: June 9, 2017. 17 CHAPTER 13. LAND USE AND PLANNING 18 California Department of Conservation. 2017. Stanislaus County Important Farmland 2016, 19 Sheet 1 of 2. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/ 20 sta16_no.pdf. Accessed: July 10, 2017. 21 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. 22 City of Ceres. 1997. City of Ceres General Plan. Available at: www.ci.ceres.ca.us/ 23 GeneralPlan.pdf. Accessed: June 27, 2017. 24 2017a. City of Modesto GIS: Land Designation Map. Available at: 25 gis.modestogov.com/. Accessed: July 10, 2017. 26 2017b. Facilities: Bellenita Park. Available at: www.modestogov.com/Facilities/ 27 Facility/Details/Bellenita-Park-67. Accessed: June 27, 2017. 28 2017c. City of Modesto GIS: Land Designation (Sutter Plant). Available at: 29 gis.modestogov.com/. Accessed: June 28, 2017. 30 2017d. City of Modesto GIS: Zoning Map. Available at: gis.modestogov.com/. 31 Accessed: June 28, 2017. 32 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January 33 EDAW. 2001. Tuolumne River Regional Park Master Plan. December. Prepared for the Joint 34 Powers Authority: City of Modesto, City of Ceres, and Stanislaus County. 35 Stanislaus County. 2006. Public Parcel Viewer: Jennings Plant Zoning Map. Available at: 36 gis.stancounty.com/giscentral/public/js/Public_app.html. Accessed: June 28, 2017. 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-21 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 1 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: July 5, 2017. 2 3 CHAPTER 14. NOISE AND VIBRATION 4 California Department of Transportation. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Available at: 5 www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2017. 6 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017. State of California General Plan 7 Guidelines. Available at: www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_D_final.pdf. 8 Accessed: September 28, 2017. 9 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 10 City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 11 Federal Transportation Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 12 Assessment. Available at: www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/ 13 docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed: August 8, 2017. 14 FTA. See Federal Transportation Administration. 15 Stanislaus County 2016. Noise Element, Stanislaus County General Plan 2015. Available at: 16 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/gp-chapter4.pdf. Accessed: January 17 30, 2017. 18 2017. Chapter 10.46 Noise Control, Stanislaus County Code. Available at: 19 qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/. Accessed: January 30, 2017. 20 Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Airport Land Use Compatibility 21 Plan. Prepared by Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development 22 Department for the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. Adopted 23 October 6, 2016. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/agenda- 24 aluc/Draft_ALUCP.pdf. Accessed: July 7, 2017. 25 CHAPTER 15. POPULATION AND HOUSING 26 California Department of Finance. 2016a. E-1 Cities, Counties and the State Population 27 Estimates with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2015 and 2016. Available at: 28 www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ 29 Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed: March 22, 2017. 30 2016b. 2016 City Population Rankings. Available at: www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ 31 Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed: March 22, 2017. 32 2016c. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 33 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at: dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ 34 Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed: March 22, 2017. 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-22 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2017. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2017. 1 Available at: www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. 2 Accessed: June 30, 2017. 3 California Department of Transportation. 2015. California County-Level Economic Forecast 4 2015-2040: Stanislaus County. Available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/ 5 docs/Full Report 2015.pdf. Accessed: July 6, 2017. 6 Carollo Engineers. 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Final 7 Draft. Prepared in association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. April. 8 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 9 City of Ceres. 2016. City of Ceres 2014-2023 Housing Element. Available at: 10 www.ci.ceres.ca.us/index-Ceres2014-2023HousingElement-Final01.pdf. Accessed: 11 July 14, 2017. 12 2018. Ceres General Plan 2035. Available at: www.ci.ceres.ca.us/DocumentCenter/ 13 View/2510/General-Plan-2035. Accessed: May 22, 2019. 14 City of Modesto. 2015. City of Modesto Housing Element 2015-2023. Available at: 15 www.modestogov.com/2099/Housing-Element. Accessed: July 11, 2017. 16 2017a. City of Modesto Housing Element 2015-2023. Available at: 17 www.modestogov.com/2099/Housing-Element. Accessed: August 24, 2017. 18 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 19 DOF. See California Department of Finance. 20 Eve, Katherine. 2017. Personal Communication. 2017. E-mail communication from 21 Katherine Eve, Carollo Engineers. October 16, 2017. 22 Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2014. Final Regional Housing Needs Plan for Stanislaus 23 County 2014-2023. Available at: www.stancog.org/pdf/blueprint/2014/rhna.pdf. 24 Accessed: July 6, 2017. 25 2016. Stanislaus County Forecast Summary. Available at: www.stancog.org/pdf/ 26 2016ForecastSummary.pdf. Accessed: August 23, 2017. 27 Stanislaus County. 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: 28 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 29 2016b. Stanislaus County 2015-2023 Housing Element Update. Available at: 30 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: July 6, 2017. 31 2016c. Stanislaus County GP Draft EIR. www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/ 32 current/DraftEIR.pdf. Accessed: October 17, 2017. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-23 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Del 1 Rio). Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 2 Accessed: August 23, 3 2017. 4 2010b. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Salida). 5 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 6 Accessed: August 23, 7 2017. 8 2010c. 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Empire). 9 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 10 Accessed: August 23, 11 2017. 12 2015a. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Del Rio). 13 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 14 Accessed: August 23, 15 2017. 16 2015b. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Salida). 17 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 18 Accessed: August 23, 19 2017. 20 2015c. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Empire). 21 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 22 Accessed: August 23, 2017. 23 2015d. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Grayson). 24 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 25 Accessed: August 23, 2017. 26 2015e. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Turlock). 27 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 28 Accessed: August 23, 2017. 29 2015f. 2010-2015 Selected Housing Characteristics: American Community Survey 30 5-Year Estimates (Del Rio). Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/ 31 Accessed: 32 August 28, 2017. 33 2015g. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Empire). 34 Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/ 35 Accessed: August 23, 36 2017. 37 2016. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 – 38 2016 Population Estimates (Turlock). Available at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/ 39 Accessed: August 24, 2017. 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-24 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CHAPTER 16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1 City of Ceres. 2018. Ceres General Plan 2035. Available at: 2 www.ci.ceres.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2510/General-Plan-2035. Accessed: 3 May 22, 2019. 4 City of Modesto. 2018. Draft Master EIR. General Plan Amendment 2040. 5 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January.MAX. See Modesto Area 6 Express. 7 Modesto Area Express. 2017. System Route Map. Available at: 8 www.modestoareaexpress.com/images/maps/system-route-map-web.gif. 9 Accessed: March 23, 2017. 10 StanCOG. See Stanislaus Council of Governments. 11 Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2010. 2009 Congestion Management Process for the 12 Stanislaus County Region. Available at: www.stancog.org/pdf/2009-cmp.pdf. 13 Accessed: June 8, 2017. 14 2014. Regional Transportation Plan – Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available 15 at: Accessed: October 17, 2017. 16 Stanislaus County. 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: 17 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 18 Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. 19 2010. Highway Capacity Manual, 5th Edition. 20 CHAPTER 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 21 CalRecycle. 2015. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Available at: 22 www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Viewer.aspx?P=ReportYear%3d2015% 23 26ReportName%3dReportEDRSJurisDisposalByFacility%26OriginJurisdictionIDs% 24 3d308. Accessed: January 30, 2017. 25 2017. Jurisdiction Diversion Disposal Rate Detail. Available at: 26 www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversio 27 nDetail.aspx?JurisdictionID=308&Year=2015. Accessed: March 27, 2017. 28 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 29 Carollo Engineers. 2016. City of Modesto Collection System Master Plan. April. 30 City of Modesto. 2014, City of Modesto Standard Specifications. Available at: 31 32 Modesto-Standard-Specifications-PDF. Accessed June 9, 2019. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-25 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 City of Modesto. 2016. City of Modesto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: 1 www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4608. Accessed: January 27, 2 2017. 3 2017. City of Modesto. Garbage and Recycling. Available at: www.modestogov.com/ 4 370/Garbage-Recycling. Accessed: July 3, 2017. 5 20019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Available at: 6 www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1396. Accessed: July 5, 2017. 7 City of Turlock. 2003. NPDES Phase II Storm Water Management Plan. Available at: 8 www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/turlock_sw 9 mp.pdf. Accessed: October 11, 2017. 10 2012. Turlock General Plan. Available at: www.cityofturlock.org/_pdf/files/ 11 generalplancomplete.pdf. Accessed: August 22, 2017. 12 2017a. Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant. Available at: www.mid.org/ 13 water/domestic/default.html. Accessed: August 15, 2017. 14 2017b. Irrigation. Available at: www.mid.org/water/irrigation. Accessed: February 15 13, 2017. 16 Stanislaus County. 2004. Salida Community Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 17 planning/pl/documents/gp/i-a-8-salida-cp.pdf. Accessed: August 22, 2017. 18 2016. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 19 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: July 5, 2017. 20 Turlock Irrigation District. 2015a. TID Board Approves Water Sales Agreement with Cities. 21 Available at: www.tid.org/sites/default/files/documents/news-resources/Water 22 Sales Agreement Press Release 071415.pdf. Accessed: February 13, 2017. 23 2015b. Water Sales Agreement. Available at: www.tid.org/sites/default/files/ 24 documents/tidweb_content/Water Sales Agreement Presentation_web.pdf. 25 Accessed: February 13, 2017. 26 West Yost Associates. 2016. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for City of 27 Modesto. June. 28 2017. City of Modesto Water Master Plan. Final Draft. September. 29 CHAPTER 18. OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 30 2016. Important Farmland Statistics – Table A-41, Stanislaus County, 2014-2016 31 Land Use Conversion. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ 32 Stanislaus.aspx. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-26 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2017. Facility/Site Summary 1 Details: Fink Road Landfill (50-AA-0001). Available at: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ 2 SWFacilities/Directory/50-AA-0001/Detail/. Accessed: August 7, 2017. 3 California Department of Transportation. 2013. California High-Speed Rail Passenger 4 Station Feasibility Study. Available at: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/ 5 cbtp_factsheets/FY10-11/CBTP_FY-2010-11/D10_Modesto_Passenger_Rail 6 _Station_Planning/POL-10-003_DOC_FINAL_REPORT_2-19-13.pdf. Accessed: July 13, 7 2017. 8 California Department of Water Resources. 2017. Groundwater Information Center: 9 Interactive Map Application. Available at: gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/. Accessed: 10 September 28, 2017. 11 CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 12 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 13 City of Ceres. 2018. Ceres General Plan 2035. 14 City of Modesto. 2013. Marketplace Shopping Center Project. Available at: 15 www.modestogov.com/ 16 DocumentCenter/Home/View/1458. Accessed: January 18, 2017. 17 2014. Courthouse Project. Available at: www.modestogov.com/1586/Courthouse- 18 Project. Accessed: January 18, 2017. 19 2017. Kansas Woodland Business Park. Available at: www.modestogov.com/ 20 738/Kansas-Woodland-Business-Park. Accessed: July 13, 2017. 21 2019. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. January. 22 North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program. 2016. North Valley Regional Recycled 23 Water Program. Available at: www.nvr-recycledwater.org/schedule.asp. Accessed: 24 July 12, 2017. 25 2018. North Valley Regional Recycled Water Program. Available at: www.nvr- 26 recycledwater.org/construction.asp. Accessed: December 20, 2018. 27 Ortega, J. 2017. Personal Communication. Record of Communication – Jason A. Ortega. 28 Accessed: April 25, 2017. 29 Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association. 2005. Integrated Regional 30 Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Subbasin. Available at: 31 regional groundwater management plan for the 32 mode.pdf. Accessed: June 14, 2017. 33 Stanislaus County. 2015a. Art Silva Dairy Early Consultation. Available at: 34 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/act-proj/PLN2015-0097_EC.pdf. Accessed: 35 January 19, 2017. 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-27 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 2015b. Stanislaus County Agricultural Report 2015. Available at: 1 www.stanag.org/pdf/cropreport/cropreport2015.pdf. Accessed: August 1, 2017. 2 2016a. Stanislaus County General Plan. Available at: www.stancounty.com/ 3 planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: July 5, 2017. 4 2016b. Bronco Wine Co. 2016 Rezone Application. Available at: 5 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/documents/PLN2016-0066_30Day.pdf. 6 Accessed: January 17, 2017. 7 2016c. Blue Diamond Growers Rezone Application. Available at: 8 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/documents/PLN2015-0030_EC.pdf. Accessed: 9 January 19, 2017. 10 2016d. Derrell’s Mini-Storage Rezone and Merger Application. Available at: 11 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/documents/PLN2015-0113_30Day.pdf. 12 Accessed: January 19, 2017. 13 2016e. Claribel Road at Roselle Avenue Intersection Road Widening Project. 14 Available at: www.stancounty.com/publicworks/pdf/projects/claribel_roselle/ 15 initial_study.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2017. 16 2016f. Stanislaus County 2015-2023 Housing Element Update. Available at: 17 www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm. Accessed: July 6, 2017. 18 2017. Trinkler Dairy Farms Inc. Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a 19 Negative Declaration. Available at: www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/documents/ 20 1-30DayReferral.pdf. Accessed: January July 14, 2017. 21 No Date a. Airport Neighborhood Sewer (Phase II). Available at: 22 www.stancounty.com/publicworks/pdf/projects/airport-neighborhood- 23 sewer/airport-neighborhood-sewer.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2017. 24 No Date b. Carpenter Road at Whitmore Avenue Intersection and Bridge Widening. 25 Available at: www.stancounty.com/publicworks/pdf/projects/carpenter-road- 26 at/carpenter-road-at-whitmore-avenue-intersection-signalization.pdf. Accessed: 27 January 19, 2017. 28 No Date c. Crows Landing Road Corridor Improvement Project. Available at: 29 www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8 30 31 Fwww.stancounty.com%2Fpublicworks%2Fpdf%2Fprojects%2Fcrowslandingroad 32 -corridor-improvement%2Fcrows-landing-road-corridor-improvement- 33 Accessed: on 34 January 19, 2017. 35 No Date d. McHenry Avenue Widening Phase II. Available at: 36 www.stancounty.com/publicworks/pdf/projects/mchenry-avenue- 37 widening/mchenry-avenue-widening-phase-ii.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2017. 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 20. References Wastewater Master Plan 20-28 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 CHAPTER 19. ALTERNATIVES 1 Carollo Engineers. 2015. City of Modesto River Trunk Realignment, Beard Brook Siphon and 2 Cannery Segregation Line Improvement Project. Volume 1 - Preliminary Design 3 Report. September. 4 2016. City of Modesto Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. Final Draft. Prepared in 5 association with West Yost & Associates and HDR. December. 6 CHAPTER 20. REFERENCES 7 None cited. 8 CHAPTER 21. REPORT PREPARATION 9 None cited. 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Wastewater Master Plan 21-1 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 Chapter 21 1 REPORT PREPARATION 2 City of Modesto 3 City of Modesto Utilities Department 4 PO Box 642 (1010 10th Street) 5 Modesto, CA 95353 6 Jim Alves Associate Civil Engineer Jesse Franco Senior Civil Engineer Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 7 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 8 Oakland, CA 94610 9 (510) 986-1850 10 Tom Engels Principal-in-Charge Allison Chan Senior Consultant, Project Manager Megan Giglini Senior Consultant Debra Lilly Senior Consultant Janis Offermann Patrick Donaldson Senior Consultant Associate Consultant Brian Piontek Associate Consultant Robin Hunter Analyst Johnnie Chamberlin Analyst Lorrie Jo Williams Document Production Linda Littleton Technical Editor ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Chapter 21. Report Preparation Wastewater Master Plan 21-2 June 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Project No. 15.043 This page intentionally blank. 1