4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Siskiyou … Hydrology and... · occurrence of these rock...

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

AES 4.8-1 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the potential for the Proposed Project to cause impacts related to hydrology and

water quality. Following an overview of the environmental setting in Section 4.8.2 and the relevant

regulatory setting in Section 4.8.3, project-related impacts and recommended mitigation measures are

presented in Section 4.8.4 and Section 4.8.5, respectively.

4.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Groundwater

A detailed discussion of the basic hydrologic and hydrogeologic conditions is included in the

Hydrogeologic Evaluation (RCS, 2016) included as Appendix P. The following is a summary of that

discussion.

The project site lies south of the Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin No 1-4) in the North Coast

Hydrologic Region, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR; DWR Bulletin

118 Online Update 2004). However, the project site is not located within a particular groundwater basin

or subbasin, as delineated in the DWR Bulletin 118 (DWR, 2013a), but rather within volcanic rocks

emplaced by the volcanism of Mt. Shasta that occurred within the last 10,000 years (RCS, 2016).

The hydrogeologic system in the vicinity of the Plant generally consists of two rock types: overlying

alluvial sediments and underlying volcanic rocks (groundwater occurs in both of these rock types). The

occurrence of these rock materials is laterally and vertically variable due to the nature of their origin and

the nature of the volcanic terrane. The availability and movement of groundwater in these rock materials

surrounding the project site are based on the ability of the local earth materials at and beneath the site to

store, transmit, and yield groundwater to wells for beneficial use. In the area of the project site, such

groundwater can be controlled by the presence of pores in shallow alluvial sediments or by fractures in

the much more widespread underlying volcanic rocks. In the region of the project site, the shallow

alluvium is referred to as the “Upper Aquifer System” while the underlying volcanic rocks are known as

the “Lower Aquifer System”, which is hydraulically connected to the aquifer from which Big Springs flows.

Groundwater under the project site flows to the south, along Spring Hill and to the west, bending to the

west-southwest, west of and south of Spring Hill. The groundwater underflow through the area of the

project site converts to a total yearly volume of an estimated 873 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of underflow

(RCS, 2016).

Groundwater recharge to the aquifer system is generally from infiltration of direct precipitation on the land

surface and from infiltration of surface water runoff along local streams and creeks. Another basic source

of recharge is from precipitation and/or the melting of the snowfields at the higher elevations of Mt.

Shasta, to the east/northeast. A small amount of recharge would also occur from subsurface sewage

disposal systems within the recharge area, where such systems are in direct contact with the alluvium.

The recharge area for the aquifer system underlying the project site is estimated to be approximately 7.2

square miles (RCS, 2016).



Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality in the Sacramento River Basin is generally of good quality typically meeting

requirements for municipal and agricultural uses (USGS, 2000). Groundwater for urban and agricultural

uses tend to be below national drinking water guidelines with respect to pesticides, nitrates, and volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Domestic supply wells tend to be the same, however, radon is generally

higher than health-related guidelines for drinking water (USGS, 2000). Total dissolved solids (TDS)

levels tend to be lower than 300 parts per million (ppm; USGS, 2000).

The Basin Plan has designated beneficial uses of groundwater resources in the region as municipal,

agricultural, and industrial process and service supply (CVRWQCB, 2016). Based on these beneficial

uses, the Basin Plan established groundwater limitations, as well as the general limitation of affecting

taste, imparting odor, or increasing toxicity that would create a nuisance or impair designated beneficial

uses.

Table 4.8-1 provides the California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), as well as the average of

constituent concentrations detected in samples collected from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2, which

are located within the project site directly adjacent to the on-site leach field, and from DEX-6 located in

the northern section of the project site (see Figure 4.8-1).

TABLE 4.8-1

GROUNDWATER CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS

Constituent Unit CA MCL Shallow Groundwater

Concentration1 DEX-62

TDS mg/L 1,000 110 110

COD mg/L -- 3.5 (ND) 0

Na mg/L -- 7.6 11

Cl mg/L 250 0.8 1.5

SO4 mg/L 250 1.2 0.61

B mg/L -- 0.0059 0.025 (ND)

Notes: TDS = total dissolved solids; COD = chemical oxygen demand; Na = sodium; Cl = chlorine; SO4 = sulfate; B = boron; mg/l : milligrams per liter μg/L: micrograms per liter ND: Not detected.

CA MCL: California Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water; MCLs for TDS, Cl, and SO4 are secondary standards. 1 - Based on average of constituent concentrations detected in samples collected from MW-1 and MW-2 on March 16, 2016 and June

22, 2016. COD in the monitoring wells was reported to be <7 mg/L, consequently, half of the reporting limit (3.5 mg/l) was chosen for the modeling input for COD.

2 - Constituent concentration detected in sample collected from DEX-6 in 2012. B concentration in DEX-6 was reported to be <0.050 mg/L, consequently, half of the reporting limit (0.025 mg/L) was chosen for modeling input for B. COD concentration was not analyzed and was assumed to be zero.

Source: Geosyntec, 2016.

On-site Groundwater Wells

Domestic Well and DEX-6 Well

Figure 4.8-1 shows the location of wells and piezometers, which measure pressure or depth of

groundwater, located within the project site. Of the wells located on the project site, there are two wells

that are currently equipped to pump water for use on the project site, the Domestic Well and the

!A!A

!A

!́!́!́!́

!A

!A!A

!A

!A!A

!A

!A

!A

Plant Building

ProductionWell DEX-6

Leach Field Area

Mount Shasta

2M05

Butte Ave

Oakway Rd

Shasta Ave

Rasb

erry

Way

Red Bud Dr

Redwood Rd

2M16

Fee Rd

Cr ispiRd

Nixon Rd

Carm

en D

r

OmShasta Path

Reginato R d

Morri

sSt

2M010

P-03 P-02P-04

MW-03

MW-02

MW-01(Lower)P-01

DOM-01

OB-3

OB-2OB-1

DEX-7

DEX-2

DEX-3BDEX-3A

Figure 4.8-1On-site Groundwater Wells

SOURCE: Richard C. Slade & Associates LLC, 2016; Geosyntec Consultants, 2014; AES, 1/5/2017 Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537

LEGEND

0 250 500

Feet

!¢ÐNORTH

Project Site

!A Monitoring Well

!́ Piezometer!A Production Well



production well (DEX-6). The Domestic Well is perforated within both the Upper and Lower Aquifer

System while the DEX-6 is perforated in just the deeper Lower Aquifer System (RCS, 2016).

The static water level in the on-site Domestic Well is 85.6 feet below reference point (ft brp; top of the

casing), and in DEX-6 is 202.0 ft brp. Each of the pumping wells (DEX-6 and the on-site Domestic Well)

have been equipped with totalizing and instantaneous flow meters, and the pumped volumes from these

wells can be recorded by plant personnel. In addition, these two wells and the groundwater monitoring

wells have also been equipped with data logging systems that can continuously record water level

changes over time.

Figure 4.8-2 illustrates the seasonal and long-term changes in static water levels in DEX-6, in

comparison to the accumulated departure of monthly precipitation (rainfall and snowmelt combined)1. As

depicted on Figure 4.8-2, between 2004 and mid-2016, the response of water levels to the seasonal and

yearly changes in precipitation is generally correlated. That is, as precipitation changed seasonally and

yearly, water levels rose or declined, and followed the precipitation trends accordingly. Seasonal

fluctuations of the static water levels range between 0.5 and 1.0 foot. Given the relationship between the

groundwater levels and precipitation, the recent drought has contributed to a decline in static water levels

at DEX-6; however, the decrease is only approximately one foot from the time that the drought began in

2012.

Groundwater Monitoring Wells

In addition to the Domestic Well and DEX-6, multiple groundwater wells are located within the project site

that are not suitable for production. These wells were installed between 1987 and 1998 by either Coca-

Cola Dannon (CCDA Waters) or previous owners. Some of these wells, including DEX-7, were initially

drilled as potential production wells, but were subsequently not used; while others were installed

specifically for monitoring purposes, including MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3, which were used to monitor

water quality effects of the leach field under Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Order 5-01-233 (see

Section 3.2). Hydrogeological reports as well as groundwater elevation data based on some of these

wells have been used to analyze the hydrogeologic conditions of the project site, which are described

above (RCS, 2016). Details on the information used to determine the hydrogeologic conditions are

included in the Hydrogeologic Evaluation (RCS, 2016) included as Appendix P. As described therein,

the groundwater parameters which have been measured and/or monitored on site include:

Well production rate;

Chemical composition of pumped groundwater;

Transmissivity and storativity indicating unconfined groundwater conditions;

Water level drawdown impacts on adjacent wells;

Depth to groundwater and seasonal fluctuations;

Age of groundwater;

Groundwater gradient direction;

1 Accumulated departure of monthly precipitation shows the difference between the long-term average precipitation for a certain time period (in this case 1997 through 2016) and the accumulated monthly precipitation. The purpose of the information is to permit analysis of possible trends in the static water level of wells to trends in monthly precipitation patterns.

-3,500

-2,500

-1,500

-500

500

1,500

2,500

3,500

3,570

3,571

3,572

3,573

3,574

3,575

3,576

3,577

3,578

3,579

3,580

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Reported groundwaterelevation on January 21, 1998(SECOR, 1998). Ground surfaceelevation used as reference.

Plant in Operation (2001 - 2010)

New InstrumentInstalled

Gro

un

dw

ate

r E

levati

on

(ft

, m

sl)

Accu

mu

late

d D

ep

art

ure

of

Pre

cip

itati

on

(%

)

Year

Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537

Figure 4.8-2Water Level Hydrograph for Well DEX-6

SOURCE: RCS, October 2016; AES, 11/8/2016



Groundwater flow rate; and

TDS.

The existing groundwater wells could be used to monitor these groundwater parameters in the future, if

necessary.

Surface Water

Regional

The project site lies within the Sacramento River Basin. The Sacramento River Basin covers

approximately 27,000 square miles (17.3 million acres) (Sacramento River Watershed Program, 2016).

The region includes all or large portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Plumas,

Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado, Yolo, Solano, Lake, and

Napa counties. Small areas of Alpine and Amador counties are also within the region. Geographically,

the region extends south from the Modoc Plateau and Cascade Range at the Oregon border to the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The Sacramento Valley, which forms the core of the region, is

bounded to the east by the crest of the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades and to the west by the

crest of the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains. Other significant features include major river systems

such as the Sacramento River, the longest river system in California. Major tributaries of the Sacramento

River system include the Pit, Feather, and American rivers (Sacramento River Watershed Program,

2016).

The project site is located approximately 3 miles north of the Sacramento River and within the Northeast

Subregion of the Sacramento River Basin (Sacramento River Watershed Program, 2016), as shown on

Figure 4.8-3a and 4.8-3b. The Northeast Subregion tends to contain habitat for recreational sport

fishing; important habitat for big game, waterfowl, and other wildlife species; commercial timberland and

public land; and source waters for farms and cities throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys

(Sacramento River Watershed Program, 2016).

Local

The primary surface-water feature in the area of the project site is Big Springs Creek that emanates from

Big Springs, which is a system of multiple springs that issue from the base of the south-facing slope of

Spring Hill, approximately 0.4 miles west of the existing facility (Figure 3-2). The recharge area for these

springs includes the fractured andesite that is the source of water for the project site wells; however, the

actual area of groundwater supplying the flow to Big Springs is much greater than the cross sectional

area through which the on-site wells obtain their groundwater supply. As of May 2015, Big Springs had

an estimated combined flow rate of approximately 8,550 gallons per minute (gpm). Figure 4.8-4 shows

the measured water levels in what is known as a “Stilling Well” in comparison to the accumulated

departure of monthly rainfall. The Stilling Well is a stream gage that is located at a culvert that runs

beneath Interstate Highway 5 (see Figures 4.8-3a and 4.8-3b). The depth of the water level in the

Stilling Well varies with the amount of the Big Springs flow over time. In other words, the greater the

springs flow, the higher the water surface in Big Springs Creek and water levels in the Stilling Well. As

depicted in Figure 4.8-4, the Big Springs has generally been flowing at a steady, constant rate with

relatively little response to local rainfall events or seasonal variations in rainfall and the stream flows. This

Project Site

Sacram

ento

River

Clair Eagle Lake

Lake Shasta

Lake Siskiyou

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

£¤97

UV3

UV89

UV299

Figure 4.8-3aWatershed Map

SOURCE: USGS National Hydrological Dataset, 2011; California Interagency Watershed Map of 1999, 2006; AES, 1/5/2017


LEGEND

Modoc Co.Siskiyou Co.

Lassen Co.Shasta Co.Trinity Co.

Tehama Co.

Northeast Subregion

Sacramento RiverHydrologic Region

0 3 6

Miles

!¢ÐNORTH

Project SiteSacramento Headwaters Watershed

Northeast SubregionSacramento River Hydrologic Region

F

!A

Project Site

Lake Siskiyou

Sacrament o River

Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery

Sacramento River

Wagon Creek

Big SpringsCreekWagon Creek

§̈¦5

Old Stage Rd

Lake St

Pine St

Lassen Ln

Ream

Ave

MountShasta BlvdChestnut St

Alpine St

Nor th Shore Rd

Cold Creek

Wagon C reek

Wagon C reek

Stilling Well

Figure 4.8-3bWatershed Map Detail

SOURCE: USGS National Hydrological Dataset, 2011; California Interagency Watershed Map of 1999, 2006; AES, 11/8/2016


LEGEND

0 1,600 3,200

Feet

!¢ÐNORTH

Project SiteF Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery

!A Stilling Well

USGS Blueline StreamsSacramento Headwaters WatershedNortheast Subregion

Sacramento HeadwatersWatershed

Dep

th to

wat

er (f

t bel

ow to

p of

cas

ing)

Year

Plant in Operation (Jan. 2001 to Dec. 2010)

Accum

ulated Departure of R

ainfall (percent)


Figure 4.8-4Stream Gauge Measurements

SOURCE: RCS, October 2016; AES, 11/8/2016



indicates that the primary source of the Big Springs flow is regional in nature and primarily influenced by

the precipitation on or near the summit of Mount Shasta.

As shown on Figures 4.8-3a and 4.8-3b, Big Springs Creek flows south, where it joins with Wagon

Creek. Wagon Creek feeds into Lake Siskiyou, which drains into the Sacramento River, south of the

project site. Wagon Creek runs north to south parallel to Big Springs Creek approximately 1.4 miles west

of the project site and west of Big Springs Creek. Streamflows are diverted from Big Springs Creek for

agricultural use and for the Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery, which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of

Big Springs. The Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery typically diverts approximately 15 cubic feet per second (cfs;

Jones, 2016), which represents most of the creek's total flow. This flow is then re-introduced to the creek

downstream of Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery. Mt. Shasta Fish Hatchery utilizes solids treatment, and plans to

utilize additional treatment components, to ensure high water quality (DWR, 2016).

Additionally Cold Spring is the primary source of water for the City of Mt. Shasta (City) and is located

approximately two miles southeast of the project site. Cold Spring is not hydraulically connected to Big

Springs (CVRWQCB, 2001).

Flooding

Regional flooding in the area is associated with stormwater overflow from local waterways, including

creeks and unnamed tributaries. The Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

ensures that flooding is minimized, particularly around Lake Siskiyou. The District allows winter

drawdown of Lake Siskiyou to provide flood control for downstream residents (County of Siskiyou,

2016b). The Box Canyon Dam is the closest dam to the project site, located on Lake Siskiyou. The Box

Canyon Dam was constructed in 1970 for flood control, and, between August 1, 2016, and September 30,

2016, released a constant 45 cfs of water into the Sacramento River (County of Siskiyou, 2016c). As of

September 2016, the water level of Lake Siskiyou is below the maximum capacity, and below the winter

lake level setting (County of Siskiyou, 2016d).

The Box Canyon Dam reduces flooding in the Sacramento River by controlling the release of water from

Lake Siskiyou. Flooding upstream of the dam would only occur during significant rainfall events. The

project site is located in an area designated Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number 06093C3025D effective January 19, 2011, shown in

Figure 4.8-5. The MX0- designations shown in Figure 4.8-5 refer to FEMA bench marks. More

information is available at www.ngs.noaa.gov. Zone X is defined as “areas determined to be outside the

0.2 percent annual chance floodplain,” (FEMA, 2011). The closest floodplain surrounds Lake Siskiyou,

southwest of the project site. The project site lies outside of the floodplain.

Drainage and Stormwater

Regionally, drainage is provided by the upper Sacramento River watershed which discharges south into

Lake Shasta. Stormwater flows from Ski Village Drive, as well as the project site itself, and drains

through a series of stormwater collection lines into a detention basin located on the southwestern portion

of the central project site. The detention basin empties via a 5-inch line into the Field Street ditch to the

west of Mt. Shasta Boulevard along the McCloud Railway Company rail line, eventually draining into

North Fork Cold Creek, and finally Lake Siskiyou (CVRWQCB, 2001).

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/

Zone X

Zone X

Zone X

Figure 4.8-5FEMA Flood Zones

SOURCE: FEMA FIRM effective 1/19/2011; AES, 1/9/2017 Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537

SCALE

0 500 1,000

Feet

!¢ÐNORTH

Project Site

LEGEND

Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; area of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 footor with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% chance annual flood.The MX0- designations refer to FEMA bench marks.More information is available at www.ngs.noaa.gov.

FEMA FLOOD DESIGNATION WITHIN PROJECTZone X



Surface Water Quality

The upper Sacramento River watershed provides water for a variety of uses, including domestic,

industrial, and recreational water supply, as well as providing important fish and wildlife habitat. Water

quality in the upper Sacramento River watershed and its tributaries is generally very good (Sacramento

River Watershed Program, 2016). The upper Sacramento River or tributaries north of the Keswick Dam

is not listed as impaired (CVRWQCB, 2013).

Beneficial uses of sources to the Box Canyon Reservoir (Lake Siskiyou), as indicated in the Central

Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (CVRWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),

include agriculture, recreation, freshwater habitat for cold species, and wildlife habitat (CVRWQCB,

2016).

4.8.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT

Federal

Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 United States Code [USC] § 1251-1376), as amended by the Water

Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is

“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 USC

1251, Section 101[a]). Important sections of the Act are as follows:

Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.

Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that

proposes an activity, which may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain

certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the Act.

Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a

permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into

waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the State Water Resources

Control Board (SWRCB) and is discussed in detail below.

Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters

of the United States. This permit program is jointly administered by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Federal Anti-degradation Policy

The federal anti-degradation policy is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy

directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions: (1) existing

instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected;

(2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that

quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is

necessary for important local economic or social development; and (3) where high-quality waters

constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges,



and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained

and protected (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 131.12[a]).

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA; Public Law 93-523), passed in 1974 and amended in 1996,

USEPA regulates contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Contaminants of concern relevant

to domestic water supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic

acceptability of the water. These types of contaminants are regulated by USEPA primary and secondary

MCLs. MCLs and the process for setting these standards are reviewed every six years.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Siskiyou County (County) is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a Federal

program administered by the FEMA. Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain

management criteria. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 adopted a desired level of protection that

would protect developments from floodwater damage associated with an Intermediate Regional Flood

(IRF), a flood which is defined as a flood having an average frequency of occurrence on the order of once

in 100 years, although such a flood may occur in any given year.

State

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) provides the

basis for water quality regulation within California. The Act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for

any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial

use of surface or groundwater of the state. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

implements WDRs identified in the Report.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board

The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the

state, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The Proposed Project

area lies within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB.

The CVRWQCB uses planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility, and

has adopted the Fourth Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento River

and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB, 2016) to implement plans, policies, and provisions for water

quality management. The Basin Plan was prepared in compliance with the CWA and the Porter-Cologne

Water Quality Control Act. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial uses for major surface waters and their

tributaries, water quality objectives that are intended to protect the beneficial uses, and implementation

programs to meet stated objectives.



National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program

Construction Activity

The NPDES program regulates municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the requirements of

the CWA. California is authorized to implement a state industrial stormwater discharge permitting

program, with the SWRCB as the permitting agency.

Projects must comply with the requirements of the most recent version of the NPDES permit for

Discharges of Stormwater Runoff associated with Construction Activity (Order No. 99-08-DWQ). The

General Construction permit was updated and became effective on July 17, 2012 (Construction General

Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). This permit regulates discharges from construction sites that disturb

one acre or more of total land area. By law, all stormwater discharges associated with construction

activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in soil disturbance must comply with the

provisions of this NPDES permit. The permitting process requires the development and implementation

of an effective Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Crystal Geyser Water Company (CGWC)

must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the SWRCB to be covered by a NPDES permit and prepare the

SWPPP prior to the beginning of construction. The SWPPP must include Best Management Practices

(BMPs) to reduce pollutants and any more stringent controls necessary to meet water quality standards.

Dischargers must also comply with water quality objectives as defined in the Basin Plan. If Basin Plan

objectives are exceeded, corrective measures would be required.

Waste Discharge Requirements Program

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

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

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

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

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

classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27. Several SWRCB programs are administered

under the WDRs Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled water programs (CalEPA,

2012).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Nondegradation Policy

In 1968, as required under the federal antidegradation policy described previously, the State Water Board

adopted a nondegradation policy aimed at maintaining high quality for waters in California. The

nondegradation policy states that the disposal of wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve



the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and to promote the

peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. The policy provides as follows:

a. Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control

plans, such quality would be maintained until it has been demonstrated that any change would be

consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and would not unreasonably affect

present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.

b. Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which

discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet waste discharge

requirements which would ensure (1) pollution or nuisance would not occur and (2) the highest

water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state would be maintained

(SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16).

California Toxics Rule (CTR)

In May 2000, the SWRCB adopted and USEPA approved the California Toxics Rule (CTR), which

establishes numeric water quality criteria for priority pollutant trace metals and organic compounds. The

SWRCB subsequently adopted its State Implementation Plan (SIP) of Toxics Standards for Inland

Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries. The SIP outlines procedures for NPDES permitting for

toxic pollutant objectives that have been adopted in Basin Plans and in the CTR.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

The intent of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA; Water Code §10720 et seq.) is to

“enhance local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater… [and] to

preserve the security of water rights in the state to the greatest extent possible consistent with the

sustainable management of groundwater.” The SGMA states that “any local agency or combination of

local agencies overlying a groundwater basin may elect to be a groundwater sustainability agency for that

basin” (Water Code §10723). A groundwater sustainability agency will be formed within each

groundwater basin to prepare and implement a plan for long-term groundwater sustainability. The project

site is not within a defined basin subject to SGMA.

Local

County of Siskiyou Conservation Element

The County of Siskiyou General Plan was adopted in 1980 and was last amended in 1997. The

conservation plan was authored in June of 1973. The General Plan serves as the overall guiding policy

document for conservation within the County. The General Plan goals and policies related to water

resources are included below:

Conservation Element

Objective H To preserve the quality of the existing water supply in Siskiyou County and adequately

plan for the expansion and retention of valuable water supplies for future generations and

to provide for a comprehensive program for sustained multiple use of watershed lands



through reduction of fire hazards, erosion control, and typeconversion of vegetation

where desirable and feasible.

Policy H-1 Provide for the safety and welfare of the residents of the county by flood control efforts on

a regional scale.

Policy H-3 Every precaution must be maintained to eliminate the danger of any pollution to the

streams and lakes as well as recharge areas through human and industrial waste and

agricultural run-off.

Policy H-6 Utilize latest scientific techniques towards reclamation and recycling of wastewater.

Policy H-7 Use of watershed or recharge lands for urban or second home purposes should be

permitted only under rigid controls.

City of Mt. Shasta General Plan

Although the project site is not within the City’s jurisdiction, relevant local goals and polices are listed

below as they relate to adjacent and cumulative development in the City.

Conservation Element

The following General Plan guiding and implementation policies associated with hydrological resources

are applicable to the Proposed Project.

Goal OC-10 Protect the drinking water of Mt. Shasta residents.

Policy OC-10.1 Maintain a safe drinking water supply.

Implementation Measure OC-10.1(a): Comply with drinking water standards.

Policy OC-10.2 Protect the City’s drinking water sources from contamination.

Implementation Measure OC-10.2(a): When reviewing development proposals for

projects with the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies, ensure that the

environmental and project review process incorporates appropriate measure to avoid

drinking water contamination.

Implementation Measure OC-10.2(b): Enforce provisions of the building code requiring

anti-siphon devices on nonresidential structures to prevent backflow of contaminated

water into the drinking water supply.



4.8.4 IMPACTS

Method of Analysis

As discussed in Section 4.0, to provide a conservative analysis, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

evaluates impacts resulting from all modifications undertaken and proposed by CGWC to operate the

proposed bottling facilities; therefore, the environmental impacts of construction activities occurring prior

to the publication of the NOP in June 2016, proposed future construction activities, and operation are

evaluated below. The environmental setting as it existed in 2013, when CGWC purchased the property,

forms the baseline from which impacts associated with prior construction activities are measured and

evaluated, and the existing environmental setting (2016) forms the baseline from which proposed

construction activities and operation is measured. Because the facilities previously installed by CGWC

were installed within paved, graveled, or landscaped areas of the project site, and little to no growth has

occurred in the project area, the environmental setting related to hydrology and water quality areas has

not changed appreciably between 2013 and June 2016 and in these cases, no distinction is drawn in the

text.

An examination of the project site, project components, and published information regarding the water

resources in the project area was conducted to determine impacts to hydrology and water quality. The

analysis was based in part on information from the Hydrogeologic Evaluation (RCS, 2016; Appendix P)

and Technical Memorandum regarding effluent-groundwater mixing simulations for Wastewater

Treatment Option 3 (Geosyntec, 2016; Appendix H). The analysis addresses impacts under all four

options for wastewater treatment; where the impacts of all options would be the same, no distinction

between the options is drawn in the text.

The potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from off-site sewer improvements in

South Old Stage Road is addressed below. The potential for environmental impacts from the off-site

improvements described in Section 3.7 that would serve the Proposed Project, but would occur with or

without the Proposed Project, is analyzed in Section 4.12, Utilities. Environmental effects from the

planned City of Mt. Shasta State-Mandated Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Improvement Project are

discussed in Section 4.12.1, Impact 4.12-4. Environmental effects from the proposed Lassen Substation

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

Thresholds of Significance

Criteria for determining the significance of impacts to hydrology and water quality have been developed

based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) Guidelines. Impacts to

hydrology and water quality would be considered significant if the Proposed Project would:

violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;

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;



substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial

pollution on or off site;

substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the

alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site;

create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;

otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;

place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood

flows; or

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 or inundation by seiche, tsunami,

or mudflow.

Effects Found Not to be Significant

The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or

result in a significant increase in impervious surfaces that would create or contribute runoff water that

would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial

additional sources of polluted runoff. Additionally, the project site is outside the 100 year floodplain

(FEMA, 2011) and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death

involving flooding. Therefore, as discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix C), these effects are not

discussed further in this EIR.

Project Impacts

IMPACT 4.8-1 VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE

DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

Significance Less than Significant

Mitigation Measures None Required

Significance After

Mitigation Less than Significant

The potential for the Proposed Project and off-site sewer improvements in South Old Stage Road to result

in impacts to water quality during construction as a result of increased erosion or use of hazardous

materials on site is addressed in Impacts 4.5-2 and 4.7-1. As discussed therein, this would be a less-

than-significant impact with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 and 4-7.1. The following



is a discussion of the potential impacts to water quality from the operation of the Proposed Project under

each of the wastewater treatment options.

All Options - Domestic Wastewater

The domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project from faucets, drinking fountains, sinks,

bathrooms, etc., would continue to be discharged into the City’s sewer system and treated at the City’s

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) under each of the wastewater treatment options described in

Section 3.5.8.3. As described in Section 4.12.1.1, discharges from the City’s WWTP are currently

regulated by WDR Order No. R5-2012-086 and Time Schedule Order No. R5-2012-0087 issued by the

CVRWQCB. The requirements include limitations and provisions for wastewater discharge that were

established pursuant to the CWA and the water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan, including

limits on ammonia, copper, zinc, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and pH levels.

Compliance with the WDR would ensure that impacts to water quality from domestic wastewater

generated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The potential for the City’s WWTP to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB as a

result of the treatment of domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project is analyzed in Section

4.12.1, Impact 4.12-1. As described therein, the domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed

Project would not contain harmful levels of toxins that are regulated by the CVRWQCB (such as large

quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and other chemicals that are typical and require separate

permitting for agricultural and industrial uses) and all effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment

standards of the CVRWQCB. This analysis concludes that the Proposed Project would result in less-

than-significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB and no

mitigation is required. Therefore potential impacts to water quality from the treatment and disposal of

domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project under each of the wastewater treatment options

is would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

Industrial process and rinse wastewater would be discharged into the City’s sewer system under

Wastewater Treatment Option 1 and industrial process wastewater would be discharged into the City’s

sewer system under Wastewater Treatment Option 2 (Section 3.5.8.3). As discussed above, the City’s

WWTP compliance with the WDR and Time Schedule Order would ensure that impacts to water quality

would be less than significant.

The potential for the City’s WWTP to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB as a

result of the treatment of industrial wastewater generated by the Proposed Project is analyzed in Section

4.12.1, Impact 4.12-1. As discussed therein, the City has issued a draft of the Permit for Industrial

Wastewater Discharge for the Proposed Project (Appendix I) which, as required by the City’s Code,

includes conditions and sampling and testing protocols for the Proposed Project that are designed to

ensure that the City’s WWTP will be able to comply with the requirements set forth in the WDR Order and

Time Schedule Order issued to the City by the CVRWQCB. The analysis concludes that compliance with

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

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

the CVRWQCB and no mitigation is required. Therefore potential impacts to water quality from the



treatment and disposal of industrial wastewater generated by the Proposed Project under Wastewater

Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

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

Wastewater Treatment Option 2 and industrial process and rinse wastewater would be disposed of on

site under Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4.

Wastewater Treatment Option 2

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

leach field located south of the plant building as currently permitted by the CVRWQCB under WDR Order

5-01-233. The potential impacts of discharging rinse water through the on-site leach field were previously

addressed in the IS/MND for the On-site Leach Field and Facility Expansion Project for the Dannon

Natural Spring Water Bottling Facility (Dannon IS/MND), which is incorporated into this EIR by reference

(see Section 1.4).

As concluded within the Dannon IS/MND and summarized in Table 4.8-2, aside from a small amount of

inert dust, rinse water from the bottling process is substantially the same quality as water withdrawn from

the aquifer by the on-site production well (DEX-6).

TABLE 4.8-2

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY DATA

Analyte Raw Water

Result Rinsewater

Result Units

Minimum Detection Limit

Drinking Water Standards

Silver, total ND ND mg/L 0.01 0.01

Arsenic, total 1.2 1.2 µg/L 1.0 10

Beryllium, total ND ND mg/L 0.001 0.004

Cadmium, total ND ND mg/L 0.005 0.005

Chemical Oxygen Demand ND ND mg/L 5.0

Chromium, total ND ND mg/L 0.01 0.1

Copper, total ND ND mg/L 0.01 1.3

Specific conductance 93 95 µmho/cm 4.0

Mercury ND ND µg/L 0.2 2.0

Nickel, total ND ND mg/L 0.02

Lead, total ND ND µg/L 0.5 15.0

Lab pH 7.2 7.2 units 0.001

Antimony, total ND ND µg/L 1.0 6.0

Selenium, total ND ND µg/L 5.0 50.0

Total dissolved solid 130 100 mg/L 10.0

Thallium, total ND ND µg/L 1.0 2.0

Zinc, total ND ND mg/L 0.02

Notes: ND = not detectable; µg/L= micrograms per liter; µgmho/cm = micromhos per centimeter Source: CVRWQCB, 2001; USEPA, 2016a.



Water quality results indicate that the rinse water proposed to be discharged to the leach field is

substantially the same as raw groundwater extracted from DEX-6 and, therefore, is well within all

applicable standards for drinking water quality. Therefore, potential impacts to groundwater quality from

the disposal of industrial rinse water generated by the Proposed Project under Wastewater Treatment

Option 2 would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.


Under Wastewater Treatment Option 3, industrial process and rinse wastewater from the production of

sparkling and flavored water would flow to a series of two below grade concrete holding tanks and then

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

being discharged to the existing leach field system. The water proposed to be discharged to a leach field

under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would involve different constituents than what is currently

permitted under WDR Order 5-01-233; therefore, implementation of Wastewater Treatment Option 3

would require a modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB.

A detailed water quality analysis was completed to evaluate the potential effect on groundwater quality

near the leach field when industrial process wastewater is discharged through the leach field and is

included as an attachment to Appendix H. As described therein, the analysis considered the following

parameters in its analysis:

Estimated hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Aquifer System, based on boring logs for

monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3.

Hydraulic gradient, based on groundwater level measurements collected from the on-site

monitoring wells.

Dimensions of the leach field.

Infiltration rate of the leach field, based on the dimensions of the leach field and planned industrial

wastewater discharge rate under Wastewater Treatment Option 3.

Thickness of the shallow alluvium aquifer in the leach field area, based on on-site well logs.

Baseline concentrations of constituents in the shallow groundwater, based on sampling results

from monitoring wells MW-1 and MW-2, which are located directly adjacent to the on-site leach

field (see Table 4.8-1).

Anticipated concentration of constituents in industrial process water under Wastewater Treatment

Option 3, based on general mineral data collected in effluent at the CGWC facility in Calistoga.

The CGWC Calistoga facility currently produces flavored mineral water which would inherently

have a higher concentration of constituents compared to the sparkling and flavored water

proposed to be produced under Wastewater Treatment Option 3; therefore, the concentration of

constituents from operations at the CGWC Calistoga facility provides a conservative analysis of

potential impacts to water quality.

Certain dissolved constituents and general minerals were selected for modeling based on materials and

chemicals that CGWC would add to source waters and discharge to the leach field. The anticipated



water quality of the effluent during the production of sparkling and flavored water was based on the

measured effluent from the Crystal Geyser Plant in Calistoga. Constituents that will be discharged

include the chemicals that will be used for sanitation of their equipment: hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic

acid, acetic acid, nitric acid, bleach or chlorine (NaClO), hydrochloric acid, vinegar, caustic soda (NaOH

and NaCl), sodium xylene sulfonate, and cocamine oxide. Other constituents that will be added include

fruit flavoring extracts. Based on the chemical makeup of these chemicals, the following constituents and

general minerals were selected for modeling: TDS, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), sodium (Na),

chloride (Cl), sulfate (SO4), and boron (B). Because all chemicals used in CGWC processes are food

grade products, no priority pollutants such as listed VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, or Title 22

metals would be contained in the products used by CGWC. In addition, the food grade acids used in the

process would rapidly degrade into benign substances. Table 4.8-3 summarizes estimated effluent

concentration of the selected constituents and resulting concentration in shallow groundwater that would

occur under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 and compares it to the existing concentrations in the

groundwater near the leach fields and the California MCLs for drinking water. Table 4.8-4 shows

estimated effluent concentrations given variable K values (between 40 and 490 feet per day) to provide a

representation of the worst-case scenario. K values represent the hydraulic conductivity of soils, which

describe the ease of water movement through soils. Higher K values would result in more water

movement through soils and lower effluent concentrations in groundwater.

TABLE 4.8-3

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS

Constituent Unit Shallow

Groundwater Concentration (Ca)1

Source Water Concentration

(DEX-6)2

Estimated Effluent Concentration (Cs)

Resulting Concentration in Shallow Groundwater

(Cf) CA MCL

TDS mg/L 110 110 211 119 1,000

COD mg/L 3.5 (ND) 0 199.5 21 --

Na mg/L 7.6 11 61 12.4 --

Cl mg/L 0.8 1.5 51.5 5.4 250

SO4 mg/L 1.2 0.61 18.4 2.7 250

B mg/L 0.0059 0.025 (ND) 0.417 0.0429 --

Notes: mg/L : milligrams per liter; ND: Not detected CA MCL: California Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water. MCLs for TDS, Cl, and SO4 are secondary standards. 1 - Based on average of constituent concentrations detected in samples collected from MW-1 and MW-2 on March 16, 2016 and June 22, 2016.

COD in the monitoring wells was reported to be <7 mg/L, consequently, half of the reporting limit (3.5 mg/l) was chosen for the modeling input for COD.

2 - Constituent concentration detected in sample collected from DEX-6 in 2012. B concentration in DEX-6 was reported to be <0.050 mg/L, consequently, half of the reporting limit (0.025 mg/L) was chosen for modeling input for B. COD concentration was not analyzed and was assumed to be zero.

Source: Geosyntec, 2016 (Appendix H).

As shown in Table 4.8-3 and 4.8-4, the estimated concentration of constituents in the industrial process

wastewater effluent generated by the Proposed Project under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would be

much less than the California MCL for drinking water and the resulting concentration in the shallow

aquifer underneath the leach field would be even less than the generated effluent due to the natural

filtration during percolation and dilution from mixing with the existing groundwater. Therefore, although

the resulting concentration of constituents in shallow groundwater is higher than existing conditions, the

impact to water quality would be less than significant. Further, prior to discharge into the leach field under



Wastewater Treatment Option 3, a modified WDR would be obtained from the CVRWQCB which, similar

to the current WDR permit, would include monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure impacts to

groundwater quality are minimized. Potential impacts to groundwater quality from the disposal of

industrial rinse and process wastewater generated by the production of sparkling and flavored water

under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would be, therefore, less than significant and no mitigation is

required.

TABLE 4.8-4

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIABLE K VALUES1,2

Constituent Unit Cf

K = 40 ft/day Cf

K = 265 ft/day Cf

K = 490 ft/day CA MCL

TDS mg/L 140 119 115 1,000

COD mg/L 62.6 21 13.9 --

Na mg/L 23.7 12.4 10.4 --

Cl mg/L 16.1 5.4 3.5 250

SO4 mg/L 6.4 2.7 2.1 250

B mg/L 0.1298 0.0429 0.0277 -- Notes: mg/L = milligrams per liter; Cf = Resulting concentration in shallow groundwater 1 – Inputs other than K and the calculated mixing zone thickness (m) remain the same as present in Table 4.8-3. 2 – Note that the calculated mixing zone thickness (m) for K = 40 ft/day is 28.49 ft, m for K = 265 ft/day is 18.77 ft, and m for

K = 490 ft/day is 17.93 ft. Source: Geosyntec, 2016 (Appendix H).


Under Wastewater Treatment Option 4, industrial rinse water would be discharged into the Plant’s on-site

leach field, as described in Wastewater Treatment Option 2, while industrial process wastewater would be

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

expanded to accommodate additional flows, or the proposed on-site irrigation system. The water

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

constituents than what is currently permitted under WDR Order 5-01-233; therefore, implementation of

Wastewater Treatment Option 4 would require a modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB.

The proposed on-site wastewater treatment system (WWTS) described in Appendix C and Section

3.5.8.3, was designed based on the estimated wastewater flow rates and anticipated water quality of the

effluent produced during each production run (sparkling water, tea, juice) of the Proposed Project as well

as the expected effluent requirements. The anticipated water quality of the effluent during the production

of sparkling and flavored water was based on the measured effluent from the Crystal Geyser Plant in

Calistoga and the anticipated water quality of the effluent during the production of tea and juice was

based on the measured effluent from the Crystal Geyser Plant in Bakersfield. The anticipated

concentration of constituents under each type of production run is detailed in Attachment A of Appendix

C.

As discussed previously, implementation of Wastewater Treatment Option 4 would require a modified

WDR permit from the CVRWQCB. Because this permit has not yet been issued, the exact effluent

requirements are not known at this time; therefore, the WWTS was designed so that the effluent would be



treated to a similar water quality level as the groundwater located below the existing leach field. The

concentration of constituents in the groundwater located below the existing leach field is detailed in

Attachment A of Appendix C.

By comparing the anticipated concentration of constituents under each type of production run and the

concentration of constituents in the groundwater located below the existing leach field, identified

constituents were found in higher concentrations in the effluent than the groundwater. The WWTS was

designed to reduce the concentration of these constituents in the effluent to levels similar to those

groundwater. As described in detail in Appendix C, the on-site WWTS would consist of a membrane

bioreactor (MBR) followed by reverse osmosis (RO). The basis of the WWTS’s design is provided in

Table 4.8-5.

TABLE 4.8-5

BASIS OF DESIGN FOR THE WWTS

Parameter Influent

Target Effluent Minimum Maximum

Flow Rate (gpd) 20,000 60,000 NA

COD (mg/L) 50 330 < 5

BOD (mg/L) 10 240 < 3

TSS (mg/L) 5 50 < 2

TDS (mg/L) 260 1,100 100

Notes: Average value presented as opposed to minimum. Original capacity will be 60,000 gpd, system will be easily expandable to 120,000 gpd.

Source: CH2M Hill, 2016a (Appendix D).

Once treated at the proposed on-site WWTS the water quality of the effluent to be discharged via the

leachfields or the proposed on-site irrigation system would be similar to the water quality of the

groundwater under the project site. The water quality of the effluent would be further improved through

the natural filtration during percolation and dilution from mixing with the existing groundwater. Further,

prior to discharge into the leach field under Wastewater Treatment Option 3, a modified WDR would be

obtained from the CVRWQCB which, similar to the current WDR permit, would include monitoring and

reporting requirements to ensure impacts to groundwater quality are minimized. Potential impacts to

groundwater quality from the disposal of industrial rinse and process wastewater generated by the under

Wastewater Treatment Option 4 would be, therefore less than significant and no mitigation is required.



IMPACT 4.8-2

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



Significance After


The total pumping demand for full production (two bottling lines) under the Proposed Project is 243 AF/yr

(216,788 gpd) and would occur under each of the wastewater treatment options. As described in Section

3.5.2, the Proposed Project would result in the operation of two existing wells on the project site, one for

domestic supply and some operational uses and one to supply water to the Plant to produce beverage

products (DEX-6). The projected demand on the Domestic Well from the full production of the Proposed

Project would be approximately 16.9 AF/yr (7 percent of the total demand), which would average to a

pumping rate of 11 gpm (15,840 gpd) if the pump is run continuously 24 hours per day, 365 days a year.

The projected demand on DEX-6 from the full production of the Proposed Project would be approximately

226.1 AF/yr (93 percent of the total demand), which would average to a pumping rate of 139 gpm

(200,160 gpd) if the pump is run continuously 24 hours per day, 365 days a year. An assessment of

possible impacts of pumping of the on-site wells on the local aquifer systems (storage and underflow) and

on the amount of flow from the existing Big Springs was conducted and is included as Appendix P.

Although the Domestic Well is perforated within both the Upper and Lower Aquifer System, it is most

likely obtaining its water supply from the Lower Aquifer System because the water quality between DEX-6

and the Domestic well is essentially the same and because the lower aquifer has a much higher yield

rate; therefore, the groundwater assessment analyzed groundwater impacts based on both wells drawing

from the Lower Aquifer System.2 The following is a summary of that analysis.

Groundwater Withdrawal Impact to Groundwater Supplies

As described above, static groundwater levels for DEX-6 are influenced by seasonal and yearly changes

in precipitation within the 7.2-square-mile groundwater recharge area. Figure 4.8-2 includes the period

that the Plant was operational between 2001 and 2010. During that time the former Plant was pumping

approximately 259 AF/yr (which is 16 AF/yr more than would occur under the Proposed Project). As

shown in Figure 4.8-2, during the period of former plan operations the static groundwater levels in DEX-6

continued to fluctuate between 0.5 and 1.0 foot on a seasonal basis, but overall static groundwater levels

were not significantly lowered. As such, it can be inferred that the previous pumping of well DEX-6 did

2 It should be noted that the level of drawdown at a well is related to the rate at which the well is being pumped, with higher rates resulting in greater drawdown. During a pump test of the Domestic Well that consisted of pumping at 500 gpm for 6 hours, the drawdown at the Domestic Well was approximately 2 feet (RCS, 2016; Appendix P). If the

Domestic Well is pumped at the proposed rate of 11 gpm, the drawdown at the well would be much smaller than the 2 feet that resulted from the pump test. Therefore, regardless of which aquifer the Domestic Well is pulling water from, which is most likely the Lower Aquifer System, the impact on groundwater levels from pumping the Domestic Well will be insignificant.



not have a detrimental impact on groundwater levels in the groundwater aquifer system. Since the full

production of the Proposed Project (243 AF/yr) would pump less than the 259 AF/yr previously pumped,

the changes to the groundwater levels would be expected to be equal to or less than what is shown in

Figure 4.8-2. Therefore, the potential impact to groundwater supplies from pumping 243 AF/yr under full

production of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Groundwater Withdrawal Impact to Adjacent Users

Proximal to the site are residential/commercial areas. On the north, south, and west, these residential

areas are served via the City’s water supply and sanitary sewer systems. However, on the east, each

residence has its own water well and subsurface septic/leach field system. Figure 4.8-6 shows the

locations of wells that are closest to the project site. An evaluation of the potential impact of

simultaneously pumping DEX-6 and the Domestic Well at full plant capacity on water levels on these

wells was performed using the basic analytical program PUMPIT. Table 4.8-6 shows the estimated

drawdown at each of these wells under pumping conditions at DEX-6 of 139 gpm and at the Domestic

Well of 11 gpm continuously for 365 days a year.

TABLE 4.8-6

GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN MODELING

Well Name Estimated Water Level Drawdown

Phase 1 at 81 gpm Phase 2 at 150 gpm

Big Spring 0.22 ft 0.40 ft

Caskey Well 0.18 ft 0.34 ft

Eddy Well 0.20 ft 0.37 ft

Pelletier Well 0.09 ft 0.16 ft

Russo Well 0.24 ft 0.45 ft

Source: RCS, 2016 (Appendix P).

As shown in Table 4.8-6, the estimated drawdowns are expected to be minimal, ranging from only 0.16 ft

in the Pelletier Well to 0.45 ft in the Russo Well. Such drawdowns are unlikely to greatly impact the

production capacities of those wells as (1) these wells are pumped at relatively very low flow rates and

thus, individual drawdowns in the wells by virtue of their own pumping capacities will also be low; (2) the

wells pump only intermittently and not continuously for long time periods (e.g., weeks, months); and (3)

recharge to these wells would not be affected because the wells are generally located upgradient of the

production wells at the project site. Therefore, the potential impact on the productivity of surrounding

groundwater wells from operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant and no

mitigation is required.

Groundwater Withdrawal Impact to Surface-water Stream Flow

As described above, Big Springs, located approximately 0.4 miles west of the project site, is hydraulically

connected to the same fractured andesite (Lower Aquifer System) that holds groundwater beneath the

project site; however, the actual area of groundwater supplying the underflow to the springs is much

greater than the cross sectional area through which the on-site wells are obtaining their groundwater

supply. As of May 2015, Big Springs had an estimated combined flow rate of approximately 8,550 gpm,

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

Plant Building

Russo

DOM-01

DEX-06

Eddy Well

Caskey Well

Pelletier

§̈¦5

Everitt Memorial Hwy

Mount Sha sta BlvdPine St

Lassen Ln

Chestnut St

Wash

ington

Dr

Lake S

t

Ski Village Dr

Ivy St

2M05

Butte Ave

Oakway Rd

Shasta Ave

Rockfellow Dr

Jessie St

Alma St

Vista

Dr

Birch St

2M010

Rasb

erry W

ay

Carm

en D

r

Ski B

owl D

r

Hinckley St

Red Bud Dr

Nixon RdCa

roline

Ave

Field St Spruce St

Kin gston Rd

Alder St

2M16

P ine R idgeA

v e

Ke nneth Way

Wertz

Rd

Cedar St

Bear Ln

Hercules Dr

Smith Rd

Marjorie St

Fee Rd

Crispi Rd

Terry Lynn Ave

2M 0 15

Kenne d yDr

Hinkley St

Om Shasta Path

Black Butte Dr

Morris

St

Reginato Rd

Steller Way

Galle

tti Pl

Big Springs

Figure 4.8-6On-Site and Nearby Groundwater Production Wells

SOURCE: Geosyntec Consultants, 2014; AES, 12/2/2016 Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537

LEGEND

0 500 1,000

Feet

!¢ÐNORTH

Project Site!> Off-Site Wells

!> On-Site WellsOff-Site Spring



which amounts to a total of 13,791 AF/yr. Thus, the calculated underflow in the region of the project site

of 871 AF/yr is very small in comparison, accounting for approximately 6.3 percent of the total spring

flows. Even if 100 percent of extracted groundwater from DEX-6 is removed from the flows in Big Springs

Creek, the potential reduction in flows would be minimal (1.8 percent); however, it should be noted that

the actual reduction in flows is expected to be considerably less, given that the actual area of

groundwater supplying the underflow to the Big Springs is approximately 16 times greater than the cross

sectional area through which DEX-6 is obtaining its groundwater supply and, therefore, pumping from

DEX-6 would have less influence on the flows at Big Springs. Put another way, one gallon pumped at

DEX-6 would result in less than one gallon decrease in flows at Big Springs because groundwater from

other areas of the aquifer would supplement the flow.

Figure 4.8-4 depicts the measured flows of Big Springs, including the period that the Plant was

operational between 2001 and 2010. During that time that the Plant was pumping approximately 259

AF/yr, there appears to have been no reported or observable effect on the flows from the Big Springs. As

such, it can be inferred that the previous pumping of well DEX-6 did not have a detrimental impact on Big

Springs. Since the full production of the Proposed Project would pump less than the 259 AF/yr previously

pumped, the changes to the groundwater levels would be equal to or less than what is shown in Figure

4.8-4.

Based on the limited potential reduction in the spring flow (less than 1.8 percent) and the fact that there

was no reported or observable effects on spring flow during the past bottled water operations, the

potential impact to stream flows from pumping 243 AF/yr under full production of the Proposed Project

would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Cumulative Impacts

IMPACT 4.8-3 CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS



Significance After


As previously described, the project site is located within the Sacramento River Basin and overlies a

groundwater aquifer that is not located within a particular groundwater basin or sub-basin. Although the

Sacramento River Basin includes all or large portions of Modoc, Siskiyou, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama,

Glenn, Plumas, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado, Yolo,

Solano, Lake, and Napa counties as well as small areas of Alpine and Amador counties, this cumulative

analysis is limited to the portion of the basin within Siskiyou County. The groundwater recharge area for

the aquifer underlying the site is estimated to be approximately 7.2 square miles northeast of the project

site (see Figure 5 of Appendix P). The setting for the analysis of cumulative water quality impacts

encompasses both the Sacramento River Basin and the groundwater recharge area, while the setting for

the analysis of cumulative groundwater supply impacts encompasses just the developments that utilize

the groundwater aquifer.



Water Quality

The potential for the Proposed Project to result in cumulative impacts to water quality during construction

as a result of increased erosion or use of hazardous materials on site is addressed in Impacts 4.5-5 and

4.7-3. As discussed therein, this would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact with the

implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 and 4-7.1. The following is a discussion of the potential

cumulative impacts to water quality from the operation of the Proposed Project under each of the

wastewater treatment options.

Implementation of the Proposed Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects (see

Section 5.2.1), would contribute to a cumulative degradation of water quality from wastewater disposal,

which could result in cumulative water quality impacts to both surface water and groundwater supplies.

As described under Impact 4.7-1, the Proposed Project, as well as the City WWTP and any projects in

the area that would independently discharge treated wastewater, would be subject to WDR Orders issued

by the CVRWQCB. These orders include limitations and provisions for wastewater discharge that were

established pursuant to the CWA and the water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan, as well as

monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure impacts to groundwater quality are minimized.

Continued enforcement of state and local regulations related to wastewater discharge and water quality

protection would minimize impacts on surface water and groundwater resources from new development.

Therefore, cumulative impacts to water quality from wastewater treatment and disposal are less than

significant and no mitigation is required.

Groundwater Supply

The following discussion assesses the extent to which other reasonably foreseeable projects would affect

the same groundwater aquifer as the Proposed Project, potentially resulting in a cumulative impacts;

presents the cumulative impact; and evaluates the proposed project’s contribution to that impact.

Development within the City would not affect the groundwater aquifer from which the project would draw

water, as the City obtains its water from Cold Creek, two miles south east of the project site, or from wells

located within the city limits which is in a separate watershed from the project site.

The proposed McCloud Artesian Spring Water Company Bottling Plant, described in Section 5.2.1, is

located in McCloud, California which lies within the McCloud Area Groundwater Basin (Basin No 5-35) in

the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region (DWR, 2013b). The McCloud Plant would draw from a

delineated groundwater basin in a different hydrologic region than the Proposed Project and would not

affect the groundwater aquifer utilized by the Proposed Project.

In the vicinity of the Plant, there are no other large-scale production wells that pump from the fractured

aquifer system (Lower Aquifer System). A few small-capacity residential wells exist, and these are

located east of the proposed bottling facility and screened to depths that would allow them to extract their

groundwater supply from the Upper Aquifer System (RCS, 2016). There are approximately 82 residences

located northeast, east, and southeast of the project site. For a usage of 60 gallons per capita per day

(gal/c/d) then for a household of four persons, the daily use would be about 240 gpd per dwelling. This

amounts to 87,600 gallons per year (gal/y). Multiplied by the approximate number of residences (82), the

total local residential groundwater demand is approximately 7,183,200 gal/y or 22 AF/yr; this volume is



only a small fraction (2.5 percent) of the total underflow in the area (RCS, 2016). The pumping from

existing residential development in the area is captured in the existing conditions of the groundwater

aquifer and Big Springs.

Due to the local topography and residential zoning of adjacent properties to the north east, there are no

other reasonably foreseeable developments that would significantly utilize the groundwater aquifer for

water supply. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with groundwater supply are less than

significant and no mitigation is required.

4.8.5 MITIGATION MEASURES

As described above, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to hydrology and

water quality; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Siskiyou … Hydrology and... · occurrence of these rock...

Documents

Transcript of 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Siskiyou … Hydrology and... · occurrence of these rock...