FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for … works/Documents/0209FinalEIRcomplete.pdfFINAL...

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

for

SANGER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

February 2009

060107

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR

CITY OF SANGER WASTE WATER TREATMENT MASTER PLAN

Prepared for: City of Sanger 1700 7th Street

Sanger, CA 93657 Contact: John White

Phone: (559) 876-6320

Prepared by:

P.O. Box 3699 5110 W. Cypress Avenue

Visalia, CA 93222 Contact: Travis Crawford Phone: (559) 733-0440

Fax: (559) 627-2336

February 2009

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One – Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Scope and Format ................................................................................................ 1-1

Section Two –Summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report.................................................... 2-1

Project Description........................................................................................................... 2-1 Project Objective.............................................................................................................. 2-9 Alternatives to the Proposed Project................................................................................ 2-9 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................... 2-11

Section Three – Comments and Responses ................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 List of Commentors ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Responses to Comments ...................................................................................... 3-2

Section Four – Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report............................................ 4-1 List of Tables

2-1 Historical AAD Flows ......................................................................................... 2-6 2-2 Flow Projection Factors ....................................................................................... 2-7 2-3 Projected Influent Flows ...................................................................................... 2-7 2-4 Summary of Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation

Monitoring Program........................................................................................... 2-12 2-5 Summary of Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation

Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program.................................................. 2-20 2-6 Summary of Impacts Which Remain Significant After Mitigation ................... 2-20 List of Figures 2-1 Regional and Vicinity Map.................................................................................. 2-2 2-2 Effluent Pipeline Alignment ................................................................................ 2-3 2-3 Existing Project Area .......................................................................................... 2-4 2-4 Lincoln Ponds ...................................................................................................... 2-5 2-5 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................. 2-10 3-1 Map of Existing Land Use and Biological Resources ....................................... 3-17 Appendices Appendix A Statement of Findings and Facts Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring Plan Appendix C Statement of Overriding Considerations Appendix D Comment Letters

SECTION ONE

INTRODUCTION

Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan February 2009 Final Environmental Impact Report 1 - 1

SECTION ONE – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose An Environmental Impact Report for the adoption of the proposed “Waste Water Treatment Master Plan” for the City of Sanger’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the associated upgrade and expansion and operation of the facility through the year 2035 was prepared to disclose, analyze, and provide mitigation measures for potentially significant environmental effects associated with the project. Preparation of an environmental impact report is a requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for all discretionary projects in California that have a potential to result in significant environmental impacts. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project was circulated on May 31, 2006. The NOP informed public agencies of the City’s intent to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). The 30-day review period for the NOP started on May 31, 2006 and ended on June 29, 2006. A Draft EIR was prepared and delivered to the State Clearinghouse and mailed to Responsible Agencies, organizations and interested individuals on August 20, 2008 for a 45-day review period. The 45-day review period for the Draft EIR started on August 20, 2008 and ended on October 14, 2008. The Final EIR consists of all comments received concerning the Draft EIR and responses to these comments. Responses to comments are directed to the disposition of significant environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as set forth in Section 15088(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. When reviewing the comments and in developing responses thereto, every effort is made to compare the comment to the information contained in the Draft EIR. In most instances, responses are not provided to comments on non-environmental aspects of the proposed project. For comments not directed to significant environmental issues or in which the commenter simply notes agreement with the EIR, the responses indicate that the comment has been “noted”. CEQA guidelines require that a Final EIR be prepared, certified and independently considered by the decision-making body (City Council) prior to taking action on the project. The Final EIR provides the opportunity to respond to comments on the Draft EIR and to incorporate any changes necessary to clarify and/or amplify information contained in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and this document constitute the Final EIR for the project. The Final EIR will be available to any commenter for at least ten (10) days prior to its certification. 1.2 Scope and Format Section One introduces and outlines the purpose, scope and format of the Final EIR. Section Two describes the project in detail and identifies the location, project objectives and alternatives analyzed and summarizes potential impacts, mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program. Section Three consists of the actual letters of comment, and the responses to each written comment


received on the Draft EIR. These responses are intended to supplement or clarify information contained in the Draft EIR. Each response follows the associated letter or document. Each letter has been numbered (e.g. Letter 1, Letter 2). Within each letter or document, individual comments are assigned a numeric identification. For example, the first comment of Letter 1 is Comment 1-1 and the second is Comment 1-2. Section Four contains additions and/or modifications to the Draft EIR which are shown in underline and deletions shown in strikeout format.

SECTION TWO

SUMMARY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT


SECTION TWO – SUMMARY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The proposed project is located within the City of Sanger in Fresno County, California (see Figure 2-1). The majority of the proposed project is within the boundaries of the existing City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) site, which is located 1.5 miles southeast of the center of the City and west of the Kings River (see Figure 2-2). The City’s maintenance yard is located west of the WWTP. An orchard is located to the north. The remainder of the WWTP site is surrounded by agricultural lands and rural single-family residences. The effluent disposal ponds are located three miles south of the WWTP. Project Description The WWTP serves the City of Sanger (City). The City is responsible for day-to-day operations and owns the property on which the WWTP is located. The WWTP consists of two wastewater treatment plants that run in parallel (a Domestic and an Industrial). The original WWTP was constructed in 1947, followed in 1963 by the addition of a primary clarifier, a 21-inch industrial sewer line and digester gas heating. A second upgrade occurred in 1971, expanding the Domestic Plant to 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd) and the Industrial Plant to 1.5 mgd. The expansion included new headworks, primary clarifier, aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, thickener, a second digester, and sludge drying beds. In 1998, the Domestic Plant was expanded to 3.0 mgd and the Industrial Plant was expanded and rated to 1.3 mgd. The Industrial Plant involved the construction of separate aerated lagoons and effluent disposal facilities with a portion used to irrigate feed and fodder crops on City-owned land adjacent to the WWTP. The current Domestic Plant consists of a headworks, a grit chamber, primary clarifiers, an activated sludge unit, secondary clarifiers, a sodium hypochlorite disinfection system, a sludge thickener, an anaerobic sludge digester and solids dewatering consisting of a sludge holding tank, centrifuge and solar drying beds. The effluent is then pumped to three rapid infiltration ponds approximately three miles south of the WWTP site to a site known as “Lincoln Ponds” on Lincoln Avenue. Figure 2-3 shows the present layout of the WWTP site and Figure 2-4 shows the Lincoln Ponds. The Industrial Plant consists of a headworks, an aerated grit chamber, primary clarifier(s), a biofilter, an intermediate pump station for biofilter recirculation and a pump station to transport the effluent to the treatment train. The treatment train consists of a fully mechanically aerated treatment pond, an aerated storage pond, three non-aerated storage ponds and six pump stations for draining the ponds. The proposed project involves only the Domestic Plant and consists of the adoption and implementation of the proposed “Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan 2006” (Master Plan) and the associated expansion, construction and operation of the WWTP. The Master Plan is hereby incorporated by reference. The purpose of the Master Plan is to develop a facilities plan for treatment of the City’s wastewater, which will meet current and anticipated discharge requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) Central Valley Region, for the planning period from 2010 (start of operation) through 2035 (Master Plan, Page 1-1). The Domestic Plant capacity will be expanded from 3.0 mgd to 5.3 mgd.


REGIONAL AND VICINITY MAP

Figure 2 - 1


EFFLUENT PIPELINE ALIGNMENT

Figure2 - 2


EX

ISTI

NG

PR

OJE

CT

AR

EA

FI

GU

RE

2

- 3


LIN

CO

LN P

ON

DS

FI

GU

RE

2

- 4


Municipal wastewater flows vary substantially by season and time of day. A Wastewater Treatment Plant must have the capacity to treat typical flows in high flow seasons, as well as to accommodate high peak flows when they occur. The relationship between population and average annual daily flows (AADF) is used to determine the wastewater flows per capita in gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The historical gpcd is then used to estimate the projected gpcd for the planning period. The flows used to determine gpcd include all of the flows into the WWTP. The City of Sanger’s Historical seven-year AADF is shown in Table 2-1 below. The calculated average value for the per capita wastewater flow for the past seven years is 82 gpcd, this flow rate is typical for a Valley city that is fully metered (Master Plan). Based on the historical flows the Master Plan selected a conservative per capita flow rate of 85 gpcd for projecting future AAD flow.

Table 2-1 Historical AAD Flows

City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan

Year Population Flow (mgd) Per Capita Flow (gpcd)

1999 18,650 1.628 87 2000 18,900 1.467 78 2001 19,400 1.500 78 2002 19,593 1.626 83 2003 20,035 1.716 86 2004 20,612 1.756 85 2005 22,105 1.691 76

7 Year Average 82 Source: January 2006. City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. Carollo Engineers The design of wastewater treatment plants is generally based on the average day maximum month flows (ADMMF). Using this approach the WWTP will have the capacity to treat the wastewater from the maximum month conditions as well as the average month. To project the ADMM flows the ratio of the historical ADMMF to the AADF of the previous seven years was determined. The average ADMMF to AADF ratio for the most recent 7-year period is 1.09 (Master Plan). The Master Plan selected a 1.10 ADMMF to AADF flow factor to be used to determine the ADMMF for the future planning period. This figure is also typical for Valley cities. The peak hourly flow (PH) flow is required to make certain the pipelines, meters and other critical hydraulic appurtenances are sized adequately and to minimize any potential for flooding or overflow during high flow events. Usually wastewater flow increases in wet weather because of infiltration and inflow. To determine this peaking factor, the peak instantaneous influent flows recorded are compared to the average daily flows. For this analysis, the peak rainfall recorded in Sanger in 2004-2005 was in December 2004 and January 2005. The plant trending flow records were reviewed for this period. The flow trending data for December 28, 2005 revealed that the peak flow to the WWTP on this day exceeded the maximum flow range of the strip chart, which was 5.0 mgd. The WWTP staff believed this was a result of construction


crews removing manholes within the City causing an unusually high amount of inflow. Due to this exceptional maintenance event in 2005, the City of Sanger’s recorded data was not useable for this analysis. Absent a detailed flow analysis, the Master Plan used the design peak hour factor from the 1998 WWTP expansion project. The peak hour wet weather flow was 3.5 times the average annual flow. This peak is also within the typical peaking ranges found in the Valley (Master Plan). The flow projection factors and their corresponding flows are shown in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2

Flow Projection Factors City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan

Flow Condition Flow Projection Factor

Average Wastewater Flow per Person (gpcd) 85 Average Annual Daily Flow (AAD) 1.0 Maximum Month Average Day Flow (MMAD) 1.10 Peak Hourly Factor (times AAD) 3.5 Source: January 2006. City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. Carollo Engineers Applying the above flow projection to the estimated future population at a 3.2 percent growth rate, results in projected yearly flows as shown in Table 2-3. The projections reveal that based on current permitted plant capacity of 3.0 mgd, the current Sanger WWTP will reach the hydraulic capacity somewhere between 2015 and 2020. The Master plan established design flows for the 2035 planning date as 4.8 mgd for AADF, 5.3 mgd for ADMMF, and 17.0 mgd for PH flows.

Table 2-3

Projected Influent Flows City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan

Year Population(1) AADF (mgd) ADMMF (mgd) PH Flow (mgd)

2005 (2) 22,105 1.691 1.788 -- 2006 22,812 1.94 2.13 6.79 2007 23,542 2.00 2.20 7.00 2008 24,296 2.07 2.27 7.23 2009 25,073 2.13 2.34 7.46 2010 25,876 2.20 2.42 7.70 2015 30,289 2.57 2.83 9.01 2020 35,456 3.01 3.32 10.55 2025 41,503 3.53 3.88 12.35 2030 48,503 4.13 4.54 14.45 2035 56,870 4.83 5.32 16.92

Notes: 1. Assumes a 3.2 percent yearly growth rate for years 2006 and beyond 2. Historical values Source: January 2006. City of Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan. Carollo Engineers


The proposed project will include a new headworks to replace the existing Domestic headworks. The new headworks will be sized to accommodate a future peak flow of 38 mgd to accommodate the City’s projected growth. The headworks will include a new Parshall flume for influent flow metering, a new mechanical bar screen, and a screenings washer/compactor. The screen is sized for a peak flow of 19 mgd. Two additional screens will be added in the future to meet design flows of 38 mgd with one unit out-of-service. The screenings will be washed and compacted to reduce volume and water content before being deposited into a commercial trash bin. The majority of the existing treatment facilities will be retired as part of the proposed project. Facilities that will be retired include: the two existing primary sedimentation basins, Secondary Sedimentation Basins Nos. 1 and 2, and aeration basins and blowers. The use of Secondary Sedimentation Basin No. 3 will continue with the new oxidation ditches facilities. In order to continue using this secondary sedimentation basin, the return activated sludge (RAS) pumps, waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps, and dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) unit will be kept in service. In addition, the existing chlorination facilities will be retired as part of the proposed project. The RWQCB recently decided the WWTP could discontinue disinfection of the effluent sent to the Lincoln Ponds. A new influent pump station will be constructed to pump the screened wastewater to the oxidation ditch. Five pumps will have a capacity of 19 mgd with one large unit out-of-service. The new oxidation ditches and associated facilities will be designed to handle the total domestic maximum monthly average day (MMAD) flow of 5.3 mgd. Each oxidation ditch will be designed with a total volume of 2.8 million gallons (MG) with a 0.46 MG anoxic zone. The side-water depth will be 15 feet. Three 75-foot diameter secondary sedimentation basins will be provided to operate with the existing Secondary Sedimentation Basin No. 3. A new RAS/WAS pump station will return the settled mixed liquor from the new sedimentation basins to the oxidation ditch. The existing anaerobic digester will continue to be used for the primary sludge from the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWWTP) flow and WAS from Secondary Sedimentation Basin No. 3. The gravity thickener and DAFT will continue to be used to thicken the sludge prior to the digester. The digester will be equipped with Chopper-type pump mixing in lieu of the gas mixing system. The wastewater solids from the oxidation ditch, not sent to the DAFT and anaerobic digester, will be pumped directly to the sludge holding tanks. A second centrifuge will be provided as part of the expansion project and will be the same size as the existing centrifuge. This will provide complete redundancy for the dewatering operation. The dewatered sludge will continue to be transported to McCarthy Farms for composting and disposal. New support facilities are also included as part of the proposed project: additional Control/Administration Building space, an additional Maintenance Building, an additional standby generator, upgrade of the plant electrical system and additional SCADA work stations throughout the plant. The additional space will be needed for more office space, a larger


restroom, and break room area. This space will be provided in a new building located to the north of the existing Administration/Laboratory Building. Irrigation of agricultural land at the plant site is accomplished with effluent from the IWWTP; however, the effluent available from the IWWTP is well below the quantity required to irrigate crops. A portion of effluent from the Domestic WWTP will be used to irrigate crops. This will be accomplished by discharging 0.5 mgd to 0.73 mgd of domestic effluent into one of the downstream Industrial Storage Ponds. The existing domestic effluent force main to the Lincoln Ponds has a turnout within the plant for directing effluent to the Industrial WWTP. A preliminary site plan for the proposed project is shown in Figure 2-5. The three existing effluent pumps will be replaced with larger pumps as part of the project. The new pumps will each have a capacity of 4,200 gpm. This will provide a firm capacity of 12 mgd. In order to achieve an effluent disposal capacity of 17 mgd, an equalization basin will be provided with a capacity of 17 mgd for 8 hours. This equalization basin will double as an emergency overflow pond. A second force main is required in the future to transport the treated effluent to the Lincoln Ponds. The preliminary size of the second force main is 18 inches. A new electrical feed line will also be required for the proposed project (Garza, 2006). The second force main and the electrical feed line will parallel existing utilities as shown on Figure 2-2.

Project Objective The objective of the project is to implement a facilities plan for treatment of the City of Sanger’s wastewater, which will meet current and anticipated discharge requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) Central Valley Region, for the planning period from 2010 (start of operation) through 2035 (Waste Water Treatment Master Plan, Page 1-1). Based on population projection the domestic plant, capacity will need to be expanded from 3.0 mgd to 5.3 mgd. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Alternatives that would reduce or avoid significant impacts represent environmentally superior alternatives to the proposed project. However, if the environmentally superior alternative is the no action, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.


PR

OP

OS

ED

SIT

E P

LAN

FI

GU

RE

2

- 5


Project Alternatives NO PROJECT Under the No Project Alternative, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan would not be adopted and the capacity of the WWTP would not be expanded. The Sanger General Plan would continue in effect until the capacity of the WWTP is met sometime between the year 2015 and 2020. The City would approve all residential, commercial and industrial development on a case by case basis. SATELLITE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT The City of Sanger is anticipating a large percentage of its growth to occur in the western portions of the City. Wastewater generated on the west side will need to be conveyed to the existing wastewater treatment plant located in the southeast quadrant of the City. The Satellite Plant alternative would build a stand alone facility capable of meeting treatment needs closer to the anticipated growth.

Mitigation Measures

Table 2-4 provides a summary of potential impacts, mitigation measures, and monitoring program. Tables 2-5 and 2-6 provide summaries of cumulative impacts and impacts which remain significant after mitigation.


Table 2-4 Summary of Potential Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program

Impact # Impact Page

Number in EIR

Mitigation Number

Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring Agency

3.4.2 Construction Emissions [Carbon Monoxide (CO), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM10), & Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)]:

3-26 3.4.2 1. The idling time of all construction equipment used at the site shall not exceed ten minutes.

2. The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment shall be

minimized. 3. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accord

with manufacturer’s specification. 4. When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical construction

equipment shall be used at the project site. 5. The minimum practical engine size for construction equipment

shall be used. 6. When feasible, electric carts or other smaller equipment shall

be used at the project site. 7. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic

converters.

During construction

City of Sanger

3.5.1 Substantial Adverse Effect on Candidate, Special-Status or Sensitive Species or Habitat of Sensitive Species

3-46 3.5.1.1 To protect Sanford’s arrowhead, the following measures will be implemented. Ground clearing or construction activities will not occur within

50 feet of an irrigation ditch crossing, canal crossing, or other areas where wetland vegetation occurs, until the site has been inspected by a qualified biologist or botanist.

If Sanford’s arrowhead are found in a location that will be

impacted by construction activities, they will be removed from the site, potted, and reared in a controlled wetland environment.

During construction Prior to construction

City of Sanger


Impact # Impact Page Number in EIR

Mitigation Number


Upon completion of construction activities, the wetland area will be restored and each Sanford’s arrowhead plant will be returned to its former location. Following any replanting, the Sanford’s arrowhead will be checked within the first few months to ensure that the replanting is established. If any Sanford’s arrowhead has died it will be replanted. See Section Four.

After construction

3-47 3.5.1.2 To protect blue elderberry bushes and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetles, the following action shall be taken. Where ground clearing or construction activities may encroach to within 100 feet of elderberry bushes: A qualified biologist shall conduct a training program for all

construction contractors that will be working on the project to inform workers of the need to avoid damaging elderberry plants and the possible penalties for not complying with these requirements. The training program must include information on the status of the beetle and the need to protect its elderberry host plant.

Prior to construction

City of Sanger

Each elderberry bush that has stems 1 inch or greater in diameter and that is within 100 feet of any proposed construction activity will be inspected for Valley elderberry longhorn beetles prior to initiation of ground clearing or construction.


City of Sanger

For those bushes in which the beetle does not occur, ground clearing and construction within the 100 foot buffer area will be allowed, provided that:

- A letter of concurrence is obtained from the United States

Fish and Wildlife Service authorizing construction within the buffer area.


City of Sanger



Mitigation Number


- A biologist is present on-site during ground clearing and construction within the 100-foot buffer area to monitor activities and ensure that there are no impacts to the elderberry bushes.

Restoration of habitat within the 100-foot buffer area must occur once construction is complete, except in those instances where permanent facilities are constructed. The applicant must provide a written description to the USFWS of how the buffer areas are to be restored, protected, and maintained after construction is completed. Mowing of grasses/ground cover may occur from July through April to reduce fire hazard. No mowing shall occur within five (5) feet of elderberry plant stems. Mowing must be done in a manner that avoids damaging plants (e.g., stripping away bark through careless use of mowing/trimming equipment).

During construction After construction

City of Sanger City of Sanger

- All areas to be avoided during construction activities shall be fenced and flagged. In areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by the Service, a minimum setback of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be provided.

- Erect signs every 50 feet along the edge of the avoidance

area with the following information: "This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment." The signs should be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet, and must be maintained for the duration of construction.

Prior to construction Prior to construction




Mitigation Number


- No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals that might harm the beetle or its host plant shall be used in the buffer areas, or within 100 feet of any elderberry plant.

- Other protection measures and replacement of elderberry bushes, when applicable, are implemented as outlined in Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999; see Appendix C in the attached biology report).

Prior to, during, and after construction During construction


For each bush in which the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is found, the 100-foot buffer area shall be observed during the activity period of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (from April to July). Construction activities may occur within the 100 foot buffer area during other periods provided the mitigation measures outlined above are implemented and restoration within the buffer area is completed by beetle emergence (April).

3-48 3.5.1.3 To protect western pond turtles, the flowing measures will be implemented. A survey for western pond turtles will be conducted 14 to 30

days prior to ground clearing or construction activities. Only those areas where water sources are within 200 feet of a construction area will be surveyed.

If western pond turtles are found to occur, then a fence capable

of excluding western pond turtles will be erected along the entire reach of the canal, irrigation ditch, waterway, or pond where it is within 200 feet of the construction area. The fence will consist of 3 foot high aluminum flashing or similar material that will be buried 6 inched below the ground surface. The fence will be placed as far away from the waterways as possible to provide a buffer of habitat between the waterways and the construction area.





Mitigation Number


Once the exclusion fencing is in place, a qualified biologist

will inspect the construction areas and remove any western pond turtles that are found. Pond turtles will be relocated to the adjacent canal or waterway.

During the period of construction, a trained monitor will

inspect the integrity of the fence on a daily basis and ensure that all necessary repairs are immediately made. A qualified biologist will inspect the fence on a monthly basis.

Prior to construction During construction


3-49 3.5.1.4 To protect burrowing owls, other raptors. loggerhead shrikes, and other migratory birds, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. All project components and nearby nesting habitat (e.g., trees

and open fields within 500 feet of the site) shall be surveyed for active birds nests 14 to 30 days prior to the initiation of ground clearing or construction activities if construction will be initiated or conducted during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15). The survey will be performed by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. Construction shall not occur within a 500 foot buffer surrounding raptor nests or within a 250 foot buffer surrounding nests of other birds until after young birds have fledged. If these buffer areas cannot be observed or if nests must be removed to allow continuation of construction activities, the California Department of Fish and Game will be contacted for guidance. Mitigation measures developed in consultation with that agency will be implemented.

All project components and nearby habitat (e.g., open fields

within 250 feet of the site) shall be surveyed for wintering burrowing owls prior to the initiation of ground clearing or construction activities if those activities will be initiated or conducted during the non-breeding breeding season (September 16 through February 14).





Mitigation Number


If during the pre-construction surveys, burrowing owls are

found to be present, the following measures will be implemented as adopted from CDFG guidelines (Appendix D of the attached biology report):

- Compensation for the loss of burrowing owl habitat will

be provided at a ratio of 3:1. Compensation may occur through participation in an approved mitigation bank, through conservation easement, or through other means acceptable to the regulatory wildlife agencies.


City of Sanger

- Exclusion areas will be established around occupied burrows in which no construction activities would occur. During the non-breeding season, the exclusion area would extend 160 feet around any occupied burrows. During the breeding season, exclusion areas of 250 feet surrounding occupied burrows would be installed.

- If construction must occur within these buffer areas,

passive relocation of burrowing owls may be implemented as an alternative, but only during the non-breeding season and only with the concurrence of the California Department of Fish and Game. Passive relocation of burrowing owls would be implemented by a qualified biologist using accepted techniques. Burrows from which owls had been relocated would be excavated using hand tools and under direct supervision of a qualified biologist.

- Any owl burrows removed during construction will be

compensated at a ratio of 3 artificial burrows created for each burrow removed. Artificial burrows would be created on lands accepted as compensation for habitat loss.

3-50 3.5.1.5 To protect breeding bats, the following measures will be implemented.



Mitigation Number


If ground clearing or construction activities are to occur during

the breeding season of bats (April 15 to September 15), a pre-construction survey for roosting bats will be conducted 14 to 30 days prior to initiation of construction to document the occurrence of bats roosting within 500 feet of construction areas.

If roosting bats are present and if reproductive failure could be

induced by roost abandonment caused by construction noise, then the bats will be identified to species.



If it is determined that construction noise could result in the reproductive failure of a roosting special-status species bat, then construction activities will be suspended within 500 feet of the roost, until gestation is complete and young are born.

The exact timing for the suspension of construction activities

would be dependant upon the reproductive timing of the bats. For the pallid bat, construction would be suspended for several

weeks in May or June and for the greater western mastiff bat, construction would be suspended for several weeks between May and September.

During construction During construction During construction

City of Sanger City of Sanger City of Sanger

3.5.2 Adverse Affect on any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community

3-50 3.5.2 To ensure protection of oak trees, the following actions will be taken: The removal and trimming of oak trees shall be minimized. The trimming of oak trees shall only be conducted under the guidance of an arborist or registered forester. Any oak trees removed will be replaced by planting replacement saplings at a ratio of two saplings for each tree removed. Replacement trees will be planted in a conservation area that is approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Prior to, during, and after construction

City of Sanger



Mitigation Number


3.5.4 Interfere With The Movement Of Fish Or Wildlife, Impede Wildlife Corridors, Or Disturb Wildlife Nursery Sites

3-51 3.5.1.2, 3.5.1.3, and 3.5.1.4

Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5.1.2, 3.5.1.3, and 3.5.1.4 Prior to, during, and after construction

City of Sanger

3.6.1 Disturbance of Cultural or Historic Resources, Skeletal Remains

3-55 3.6.1 If, in the course of project construction or project operation, any archaeological or historical resources are uncovered, discovered, or otherwise detected or observed, activities within 50 feet of the find area shall cease. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted and advise the City of the site’s significance. If the findings are deemed significant appropriate mitigation measures shall be required prior to any resumption of work in the affected area of the project. If, in the course of project construction or project operation, any skeletal remains are uncovered, discovered, or otherwise detected or observed, activities in the affected area shall cease. A qualified archaeologist, the City, the County Coroner and local Native American organizations shall be consulted, and appropriate measures shall be required that may include avoidance of the burial site or reburial of the remains.

During construction

City of Sanger

3.17.3 Increased Traffic Hazards, Emergency Access, and Parking

3-102 3.17.3.2 Prior to start of construction, the contractor shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City for all proposed activities in the City right-of way. Activity and work planned in the City right-of-way shall be performed to City standards and specifications and shall include a Traffic Control plan satisfactory to the City.


City of Sanger


Table 2-5 Summary of Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program

Impact No Cumulative Impact

Page Number in EIR

Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Timing Monitoring Agency

5.3 Agricultural Resources 5-2 None Implementation of General Plan Policies and Mitigation Measures

Ongoing City of Sanger

5.4 Air Quality 5-2 None Implementation of General Plan Policies and Mitigation Measures


5.14 Population and Housing 5-6 None Implementation of General Plan Policies and Mitigation Measures


5.17 Traffic and Circulation 5-7 None Implementation of General Plan Circulation Element Mitigation Measures


Table 2-6

Summary of Impacts Which Remain Significant After Mitigation

Agriculture 5.3 Agriculture Significant and unavoidable cumulative impact Air Quality & Odors 5.4 Air Quality Significant and unavoidable cumulative impact Population and Housing 5.14 Population and Housing Significant cumulative impact Traffic and Circulation 5.17 Traffic and Circulation Significant cumulative impact

SECTION THREE

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES


SECTION THREE – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Section 3.1 provides a list of all agencies, or organizations and individuals that submitted comments on the accuracy and sufficiency of the Draft EIR. The excerpted comments and responses to environmental issues raised in those letters are presented in Section 3.2. Comment letters can be found in Exhibit D of this Final EIR. 3.1 List of Commenters The following agencies provided written comments on the Draft EIR: WRITTEN COMMENTS

1. Douglas K. Patteson Senior Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 1685 E Street Fresno, CA 93706 2. Glenn Allen, R.E.H.S. Environmental Health Specialist III Environmental Health Division County of Fresno Department of Public Health 1221 Fulton Mall/P.O. Box 11867 Fresno, CA 93775 3. Frederic H. McNairy 2346 S. Newmark Sanger, CA 93657 4. Kathy Sanchez Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 5. Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 6. Dave Warner Director of Permits Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District


1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726-0244 7. Michelle L. Jones Environmental Scientist State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120

3.2 Responses to Comments This section restates the written comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45-day review period. Following each comment (shown in italics) is a response intended to either supplement, clarify, or amend information provided in the Draft EIR, or refer the commenter to the appropriate place in the Draft EIR where the information is found. Each letter and corresponding response is numbered for reference. Comments not directed to significant environmental issues may be included in this section; responses thereto indicate that the comment has been noted and that no detailed response is necessary. Comments and responses are referenced by comment letter number and comment number. For example, response 1-1 indicates the first comment of the first commenter, etc. The original comment letters can be found in Appendix D.

COMMENT LETTER 1

DOUGLAS K. PATTESON SENIOR ENGINEER CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 1685 E STREET FRESNO, CA 93706 Comment 1-1: The expansion will increase the discharge flows from 3 million gallons per day (mgd) to 5.3 mgd. The draft EIR describes the upgrades, including new influent pump station, new headworks, an oxidation ditch treatment system, a second centrifuge to provide redundancy for the dewatering operations, and a second force main to the Lincoln Ponds disposal site to handle future flows, along with new operations/maintenance and support facilities. The draft EIR does not include data on the anticipated effluent quality from the proposed treatment system (e.g., oxidation ditch). Response: The anticipated treatment process discharge quality for BOD and TSS is a monthly average of 40 mg/l (for discharge to ponds; see Table 4.2, Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, January 2006, Carollo Engineers). Discharges of total-facility nitrates and salt constituents will be in accord with projected future groundwater requirements (Section 4.3.3.2 and Table 4.3,


ibid). That table is reproduced here. The City’s source water supply ranges from 60 to 300 µmhos (p. 1-6, ibid); the discharge from the plant to groundwater must not, according to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition, 1995 (the Basin Plan) have an Ec greater than the weighted source water Ec + 500 µmhos. The proposed plant, of course, does not remove Ec; the elimination of chlorination, however, will reduce the Ec of the discharge.

Table 4-3 Groundwater Limitations

Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan City of Sanger

Constituent Units Limitation(1)

Boron mg/L 0.7 Chloride mg/L 175 EC µmhos/cm 1,000 Sodium mg/L 115 Total Coliform Organisms MPN/100 mL 2.2 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 600 Total Nitrogen mg/L 10 Ammonia (as NH4) mg/L 0.5

Comment 1-2: Pursuant to Section 13260 of the California Water Code, the City needs to submit a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) for the expansion upgrade at least 140 days prior to implementing the expansion. The RWD must contain sufficient technical information for Regional Water Board staff to evaluate the extent to which the discharge may adversely impact groundwater or surface water. Response: The City will submit a Report of Waste Discharge prior to implementing the WWTP expansion. Comment 1-3: Recommendations. We recommend the City consider the following in its finalization of the EIR and its RWD in support of an increase in discharge flow. To be consistent with Regional Water Board plans and policies including the State Water Resource Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 ("Antidegradation" Policy), the discharge of waste during and following treatment should not cause or contribute to groundwater containing waste constituents (e.g., nitrate, total trihalomethanes, total dissolved solids, pathogens) in concentrations exceeding applicable water quality objectives. Groundwater degradation should be minimized through the implementation of best practicable treatment or control measures (BPTC) and demonstrated to be in the maximum public interest.


We recommend the EIR contain a characterization of the anticipated discharge quality for BOD and TSS that is reflective of the Project's proposed treatment technology (e.g., oxidation ditch), as well as for nitrates and salt constituents (e.g., electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride, etc.). The EIR should also compare the discharge quality for salts to the City's source water supply and describe how the incremental increase in salts due to municipal use reflects best practicable control for salts. Response: Please see Response to Comment 1-1. Comment 1-4: In addition, the draft EIR states that the existing chlorination facilities will be retired as part of the expansion since Regional Water Board staff had determined that disinfection of effluent sent to the Lincoln Ponds could be discontinued. While the City was allowed to discontinue chlorination of its domestic wastewater prior to discharge to the Lincoln Ponds site, the City is required to implement additional monitoring to ensure that the separation between the ponds and groundwater is sufficient to comply with groundwater limitations for Total Coliform Organisms. If the monitoring determines that the separation is insufficient to comply with groundwater limitations then the City may be required to resume chlorination of its wastewater prior to discharging to the Lincoln Ponds site. To address this, we recommend that the City retain the chlorination facilities as part of its expansion upgrade or ensure that it has a method in place to resume disinfection if required to do so. Response: The City will retain its existing chlorination (hypochlorite) system in place pending monitoring results confirming groundwater quality which complies with total coliform limits. Comment 1-5: Other Considerations: If construction associated with the project will disturb one acre or more, compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for Discharges of Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity will be required. Response: Comment noted.


COMMENT LETTER 2

GLEN ALLEN, R.E.H.S. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST III ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION COUNTY OF FRESNO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1221 FULTON MALL/P.O. BOX 11867 FRESNO, CA 93775 Comment 2-1: Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall complete and submit either a Hazardous Materials Business Plan or a Business Plan Exemption form to the Fresno County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. Contact the Certified Unified Program Agency at (559) 445-3271 for more information. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-2: The Fresno County Department of Public Health is concerned that abandoned water wells are not being properly destroyed, particularly with respect to new development projects. As the wastewater treatment plant and boundaries expand, areas served by individual domestic and agricultural wells may be provide as a conduit to groundwater if not properly protected or destroyed. Improper abandonment of such wells presents a significant risk of contaminating the city's community water supply. For this reason, when development occurs, it is extremely important to ensure the safe and proper destruction of all abandoned water wells. Prior to destruction of any existing agricultural well(s), a sample of the upper most fluid in the well column should be sampled for lubricating oil. The presence of oil staining around the well may indicate the use of lubricating oil to maintain the well pump. Should lubricating oil be found in the well, the oil should be removed from the well prior to placement of fill material for destruction. The "oily water" removed from the well must be handled in accordance with federal, state and local government requirements. Transportation of these materials on public roadways may require special permits and licensure. The Department of Public Health is available to provide consultation in cooperation with your city in order to encourage the proper destruction of wells and safeguard our water quality. City staff may contact Ed Yamamoto, Environmental Health Specialist, Water Surveillance Program, at (559) 445-3357 for more information. Response: No abandoned water wells are planned to be destroyed as a result of the Project. However, if abandoned water wells are discovered during the course of expansion activities, proper methods as indicated in the comment letter will be used to destroy the well.


COMMENT LETTER 3

FREDERIC H. MCNAIRY 2346 S. NEWMARK SANGER, CA 93657 Comment 3-1: I am upset with this Draft EIR. I am upset that it promotes the discharge of domestic effluent to the Industrial Storage Ponds for use as irrigation water on the city-owned agricultural lands surrounding the WWTP. I am upset that we had a scoping meeting here 27 months ago and the biggest public concern was with the proposed diversion of domestic effluent for use on the agricultural lands, and none of those concerns are addressed in the Draft EIR. It is hard to understand the benefit of this policy change. Response: The reference to irrigation of agricultural land with effluent from the WWTP has been removed (see Section Four). This is no longer part of the Project. Comment 3-2: One of the major goals of the 1997-1998 WWTP upgrade was to move the domestic effluent discharge from the land surrounding the current facility to the Lincoln Avenue ponds. The WWTP is part of the Kings River riparian habitat, with bordering Collins Creek, where the water table varies from 0-15 feet. The Lincoln Avenue ponds have a water table deep enough to limit the potential for groundwater contamination. This was the underlying purpose for the purchase of the 160 acre Lincoln Avenue property - to get the domestic effluent out of the riverbottom. Response: Comment noted. Comment 3-3: The land surrounding the WWTP has been without domestic effluent discharge for approximately a dozen years. Why would we want to go backwards? Why would we want to take the risk of groundwater contamination by discharging domestic effluent on the farmland when there is a simple alternative, the one in operation for the past decade, which is to continue sending all of the domestic effluent to the Lincoln Ponds and supplement the use of industrial wastewater for agricultural irrigation with groundwater pumped from the existing wells. That's what the wells are for. Response: See Response 3-1.


Comment 3-4: I don't believe the plan to discharge a small portion of the domestic effluent to the Industrial Storage Ponds, and subsequently to the agricultural land saves the City any money. I would argue that this is a risky endeavor that could cost the City. Future permitting will likely require additional monitoring and reporting because domestic effluent will be spread on the City's agricultural land in an area with a very low water table and adjacent to Collins Creek. Response: See Response 3-1. Comment 3-5: And regarding the potential for increased odors for us and other neighbors near the facility, including those in the new Lennar subdivision at North and Newmark, this is another negative possibility. This discharge of domestic effluent is completely unrelated to fulfilling the project objectives. It is an unwise and unnecessary amendment to the Project, and I ask that it be deleted. Response: See Response 3-1. COMMENT LETTER 4

KATHY SANCHEZ PROGRAM ANALYST NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Comment 4-1: Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to determine:

If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources.

If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the

APE. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are

present.

If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.


The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure.

The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.

Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for:

A Sacred Lands File Check. Sacred Lands File check completed, no sites indicated. A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project

site and to assist in the mitigation measures. Native American Contacts List attached. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence.

Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.

Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.

Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

Response: A Cultural Resources Records search and pedestrian site survey was conducted for the property and is attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix E. Per the requirements of California Senate Bill 18, a sacred lands search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento, CA, on the subject project area. No sacred lands were identified during the records search by NAHC. In compliance with California Senate Bill 18, representatives of several Native American groups were contacted for consultation regarding this project.


COMMENT LETTER 5

TERRY ROBERTS DIRECTOR, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 10TH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-3044 Comment 5-1: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on October 14, 2008, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:

“A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation.”

These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Response: Comments noted. NAHC and SWRCB comments are included in comment letters #4 and #7 respectively.


COMMENT LETTER 6 DAVE WARNER DIRECTOR OF PERMITS SERVICES SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 1990 E. GETTYSBURG AVENUE FRESNO, CA 93726-0244 Comment 6-1: 1. The project is expected to have no significant adverse impact on air quality. 2. The project is not subject to District Rule 9510. 3. At this time there are no established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas

emissions, however, it is recommended that the environmental review include a discussion of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project and the effect they will have, if any, on global climate change.

Response: Comment noted. Comment 6-2: The proposed project may require District permits. Prior to construction, the project proponent should submit to the District an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC). For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District's Small Business Office at (559) 230-5888. Response: Comment noted. Comment 6-3: The proposed project may be subject to the following District rules: Regulation VIII, (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In the event an existing building will be renovated, partially demolished or removed, the project may be subject to District Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants). Response: Comment noted.


COMMENT LETTER 7 MICHELLE L. JONES ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 1001 I STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 P.O. BOX 944212 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2120 Comment 7-1: Following the public review period of the draft EIR, please send us a copy of: (1) The final EIR, (2) a resolution adopting the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), making California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, if applicable, all comments received during the review period and the City's responses to those comments, (4) the adopted MMRP, and (5) the Notice of Determination filed with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for the Project. In addition, we would appreciate notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board. Response: As requested, the City will send the SWRCB a copy of the Final EIR which includes the Statement of Findings and Facts, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Statement of Overriding Considerations and original Draft EIR comment Letters. A copy of the NOD will also be sent to the SWRCB. Comment 7-2: The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for implementing federal environmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by federal agencies or their representatives will need to be resolved prior to State Water Board approval of a CWSRF funding commitment for the proposed Project. Please note the State Water Board has included additional information for the CWSRF Program. Response: Comment noted. Comment 7-3: It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF funding commitment, projects are subject to provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special status species. Please be advised that the State Water Board will consult with USFWS, and/or NMFS regarding all federal special status species the Project has


the potential to impact if the Project is to be funded under the CWSRF Program. The City will need to identify whether the Project will involve any direct effects from construction activities or indirect effects, such as growth inducement, that may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that are known, or have a potential to occur on-site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area, and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects. Response: Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on special status species with implementation of mitigation measures. Comment 7-4: In addition, CWSRF projects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Please contact the State Water Board's Cultural Resources Officer, Ms. Cookie Hirn, at (916) 341-5690 to find out more about the requirements and to initiate the Section 106 process pursuant to CWSRF financing. The City will need to provide a cultural resources study that meets Section 106 criteria for the entire area of potential effects. Response: A Cultural Resources Records search and pedestrian site survey was conducted for the property and was attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix E. Per the requirements of California Senate Bill 18, a sacred lands search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento, CA, on the subject project area. No sacred lands were identified during the records search by NAHC. In compliance with California Senate Bill 18, representatives of several Native American groups were contacted for consultation regarding this project. Comment 7-5: Specific comments on the cultural resources section of the draft EIR:

The cultural resources section of the draft DR is inconsistent within itself and with the cultural resources report in Appendix E. Section 3.6 references Appendix D as both a cultural resources report and a cultural resources records search. Appendix D of the draft EIR is a biological resources report. Additionally, the draft EIR contains elements that were cut and pasted from an EIR prepared for the City of Reedley Wastewater Treatment Plant. Specifically, the first paragraph on page 3-54 references record search results, including the recordation of a stone bowl fragment (P-10-002919), for the City of Reedley Wastewater Treatment Plant. Please correct the inconsistencies in the cultural resources section of the draft ElR and cultural resources report and provide information pertinent to the current project. Response: Page 3-54 of the Draft EIR includes the following change: A Cultural Records search was conducted for the property (reference Appendix ED). The results of the records search indicated that three cultural resource studies have been conducted within the project area, and two have been conducted within about a half mile of the subject property.


Four of those studies were negative; in other words, no cultural resources were reported. One report (FR-01155) documented an isolate (P-10-002919; IF-FRE-109) consisting of a granitic ground stone bowl fragment discovered in the southwest portion of the project area. During the course of this survey, no prehistoric or historical cultural resources were identified on the subject property. Given the location of the project area and its relationship on the flood zone of the Kings River, if cultural resources were in the area, it is likely that such deposits are nearer the surface than potential sites located within the flood plan which would be subject to deep flood deposits (alluvial sediments transported from the Sierra foothills). In April 2007, an on-the-ground pedestrian survey was conducted by the Center for Archaeological Research, California State University Bakersfield (reference Appendix ED of this EIR). Comment 7-6: Other federal requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program include the following:

1. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have been done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to a maintenance plan; (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions (in tons per year) that are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each federal criteria pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and indicates if the nonattainment-designation is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable); (ii) if emissions are above the federal de minimis levels, but the Project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State Implementation Plan for air quality, quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections.

2. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether the Project is within

the 100-year flood zone and whether new structures created would impede flood flows. Include a flood map.

3. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify whether or not any Wild and

Scenic Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation measures to minimize such impacts.

Response: 1. Impact #3.4.2 - Construction Emissions, provides construction equipment exhaust emissions

(Tons/Year) (reference Table 3.4-11) estimates for the project using the software program URBEMIS 8.7 and incorporated into the Draft EIR as Appendix B.

Page 3-28 (Impact #3.4.3) of the Draft EIR (reference Table 3.4-12 Project Emissions, Mitigated (Tons/Year)) provides operational vehicle emissions estimates for the project using the software program URBEMIS 8.7 and incorporated into the Draft EIR as Appendix B.


2. Figure 3.10-1 is a flood zone map showing 100-year and 500-year flood zones in the project

vicinity. Impact #3.10.5 says that “the upper portion of the WWTP site, which contains the treatment units and administration buildings, lies above the 500-year flood plain (Zone B). The lower portion is protected from a 100-year flood by the levee. Conclusion: The risk of flooding is less than significant.”

3. The Kings River is approximately 0.8 miles east of the WWTP and is designated as a

National Wild and Scenic River. The proposed project will not have an impact on the Kings River as the existing WDR for the Sanger WWTP does not permit discharge of treated effluent to the Kings River. No mitigation is required.

Comment 7-7: 1. Page 3-3 of the draft EIR references the General Plan EIR and states "The General Plan EIR

identified mitigation measures that all development must comply with that will reduce the impact to aesthetics to less than significant. The mitigation measures include: 1.The developer shall incorporate such measures as landscaping, wall treatment, signage, and architectural standards for the development of residential, commercial, public facility, open space, and mixed-use areas. 2. Major community entryways shall be established and landscaped areas shall parallel major roadways consistent with policies of the land use and urban form element. 3. Project entries to major residential and commercial projects shall incorporate special entry features, such as extensive landscaping and low profile entry signs. These mitigation measures along with compliance to regulations minimizing light and glare will reduce the impact to aesthetics to a less than significant level." Mitigation Measures need to be Project specific, detailing exactly what is being mitigated and how the measures lessen the impacts to a less than significant level. Include specific mitigation measures that pertain to the proposed Project, along with an explanation as to how they will mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Please make this correction for all mitigation used in the document.

Response: Development in accordance with the General Plan and local regulations will ensure that the potential impacts to aesthetics are less than significant. The potential impacts to aesthetics have been determined to be less than significant; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Comment 7-8: 2. Page 3-20 of the draft EIR references the General Plan EIR air mitigation measure 1, which

states "The City shall commit to the implementation of RACM commitments listed in Table 2.3-3 of the City of Sanger General Plan EIR to reduce ozone emissions." Include the referenced table 2.3-3 in the final EIR.


Response: As requested, the referenced table is included herein.

Table 2.3-3 RACM/BACM Commitments by the City Of Sanger

RACM# RACM Measure FR5.2 Coordinate traffic signal systems/optimize signal timing FR5.3 Reduce traffic congestion at major intersections FR5.4 Site specific transportation control measures FR5.5 Remove on-street parking FR5.7 One-way streets FR5.13 Fewer stop signs, remove unwarranted and Apolitical@ stop signs and signals FR5.18 Minimize impact of construction on traveling public FR6.1 Park and ride lots FR7.12 Incentives to increase density around transit centers FR9.1 Establish auto free zones and pedestrian malls FR9.2 Encourage pedestrian travel FR9.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian program FR9.4 Close certain roads for use by non-motorized traffic FR9.5 Encourage bicycle travel FR9.8 Close streets for special events for use by bikes and pedestrians FR9.10 Provide funding for trail creation and maintenance FR10.4 Development of bicycle travel facilities FR10.5 Expedite bicycle projects from the RTP FR10.6 Provide bicycle/pedestrian facilities safety patrols FR10.7 Require bicycle lanes on state or federally funded thoroughfare projects FR14.3 Land use development alternatives FR14.5 Evaluate air quality impacts of new development and mitigate adverse impacts FR15.2 Pedestrian and bicycle overpasses where safety dictates FR17.1 Enforcement of traffic, parking, and air pollution regulations FR-TCM1 Traffic flow improvements FR-TCM4 Bicycle lanes and facilities FR-TCM5 Alternative fuels program FR19.18 Pedestrian facilities FR19.25 Optimize traffic signal timing BACM# BACM Measure 2 Paving, vegetating, or chemically stabilizing unpaved access to paved roads 3 Curbing, paving, or stabilizing shoulders on paved roads 4&5 Frequent sweeping or cleaning of paved roads/street cleaning for industrial

paved roads and streets providing access to industrial or construction sites 6 Erosion clean up Source: Sanger General Plan Update Draft Program EIR, August 2003


Comment 7-9: 3. Page 3-20 of the draft EIR references the General Plan EIR air mitigation measure 4 which

states "The City shall work with the SJVAPCD to develop Transportation Control Measures contained in the Air Quality Attainment Plan." Please include the Transportation Control Measures from the Air Quality Attainment Plan that pertain to the proposed Project in the final EIR.

Response: The Transportation Control Measures from the Air Quality Attainment Plan are incorporated by reference. At this point, there are no Project-specific measures that have been developed. This is a direct mitigation measure from implementation of the General Plan. Comment 7-10: 4. Page 3-20 of the draft EIR references the General Plan EIR air mitigation measure 6, which

states, “Landscaping along roadways should include water-efficient plant species and irrigation to reduce water consumption and provide passive solar benefits.” To be consistent with CEQA terminology please change “should” to “shall” or “must”, since “should” is defined in the CEQA Guidelines (Article 1, Section 15005) as an advisory element, whereas “shall” or "must" identifies a mandatory element. Make this correction for all mitigation measures listed for the proposed Project.

Response: The mitigation measure has been revised to read as follows (see Section Four). Landscaping along roadways shall include water-efficient plant species and irrigation to reduce water consumption and provide passive solar benefits. Comment 7-11: 5. Page 3-35 states "Avoidance of these shrubs by 100 ft is a mandatory protection measure

required by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Encroachment into the 100 foot exclusion area will be necessary for the two bushes along the electrical transmission line and the 3 bushes along the force sewer pipeline route." Please include a map delineating the location of each elderberry bush and how far into the 100-foot exclusion area the construction will encroach, along with the measures to be used to mitigate the impacts to the elderberry bushes to less than significant in the final EIR.

Response: Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.2 on page 3-47 provides mitigation to reduce the potential impacts to elderberry bushes and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetles to a less than significant level. The map delineating the location of each elderberry bush and the 100-foot buffer area was included in the Draft EIR in Appendix D – Biological Survey on page 12. It is included herein as Figure 3-1.


MAP OF EXISTING LAND USE AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Figure 3 - 1


Comment 7-12: 6. On page 3-46, mitigation measure 3.5.1.1 states "To protect Sanford's arrowhead, the

following actions shall be taken: Ground clearing or construction activities will not occur within 50 feet of an irrigation ditch crossing, canal crossing, or other areas where wetland vegetation occurs, until the site has been inspected by a qualified biologist or botanist. If Sanford's arrowhead are found in a location that will be impacted by construction activities, they will be removed from the site, potted, and reared in a controlled wetland environment. Upon completion of construction activities, the wetland area will be restored and each Sanford's arrowhead plant will be returned to its former location." Please include monitoring measures, to ensure that the Sanford's arrowhead has established after the replanting.

Response: The Mitigation and Monitoring Program (Table 7-1) will be changed as follows. “Upon completion of construction activities, the wetland area will be restored and each Sanford’s arrowhead plant will be returned to its former location. Following any replanting, the Sanford’s arrowhead will be checked within the first few months to ensure that the replanting is established. If any Sanford’s arrowhead has died it will be replanted.” See Section Four.

SECTION FOUR

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT


SECTION FOUR – REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This chapter contains a summary of revisions to the text of the draft EIR to update sections of the original document. This chapter is structured as errata pages to the draft EIR and provides a complete record of the final text of the EIR. Added text is indicated with underlining (additions) and deleted text is struck out (deletions).

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Statement of Findings and Facts

Appendix A

Page 1

Appendix A

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF

CITY OF SANGER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN I. INTRODUCTION

The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., “CEQA”) provides, in Section 21081, that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to

each significant effect:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction

of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,

including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under

paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

As defined in CEQA, ‘significant effect on the environment’ means “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” (Public Resources Code Section 21068.)

II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT; FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGABLE EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

The potentially significant and unavoidably significant effects of the Project as determined by the City, including the facts supporting the findings in connection therewith, are:

Appendix A

Page 2

Agricultural Resources – Indirect Farmland Conversion There is an anticipated loss of agricultural land due to growth and development projected by the General Plan and accommodated by the proposed expansion of wastewater facilities.

Finding: The Sanger General Plan EIR acknowledges that development and expansion of the City will inevitably convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The loss of agricultural land is a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.

Air Quality – Exceedance of State/Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards The potential emissions that would result from the proposed project would be occurring in an air basin that has severe air quality problems and that currently exceeds the state/federal ambient air quality standards. Finding: The City of Sanger General Plan EIR identified air quality impacts as significant and unavoidable as well as cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The proposed project will contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality. Population and Housing – Substantial Population Growth The project will not directly cause a substantial increase in population or housing, through significant new employment or the construction of new residential units. By removing a barrier to development, the project will accommodate the growth projected by the Sanger General Plan. The General Plan predicts that the City’s population will grow to between 69,000 and 73,000 residents within the current SOI by the year 2025. The 2006 Sanger population was 23, 322 (California Department of Finance, May 2006). The proposed project will accommodate a population of 56,870 residents by 2025. This is a substantial population growth. Finding: When viewed in context of the potential development of the General Plan, the project will have a significant, cumulative impact to population and housing. Traffic and Circulation – Unacceptable LOS The project will not add a substantial number of traffic to area roadways and the nonmotorized circulation system. However the project will accommodate the growth and development as a result of implementation of the Sanger General Plan. Growth and development will contribute to increased traffic levels on area roadways and increased impacts to the non-motorized circulation system. The Sanger General Plan EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR require project(s) to fund a combination of project-triggered improvements and fair share funding of various regional improvements and studies.

Appendix A

Page 3

Finding: The General Plan EIR found that even with approved mitigation in place, some roadway segments and intersections are expected to operate below acceptable levels, and cumulative traffic impacts remain significant. The cumulative impact resulting from the additional growth and development accommodated by the project will be significant.

III. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to a location of the Project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the “discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or to its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” As more particularly set forth in the EIR, the Project was compared to the following alternatives: (1) No Project Alternative; and (2) Alternative Location – Satellite Plant. (1) No Project Alternative

The purpose of the No Project Alternative is to allow the Lead Agency to compare the impacts of the project with the impacts of not approving it.

Under the No Project Alternative, the Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan would not be adopted and the capacity of the WWTP would not be expanded. The Sanger General Plan and Specific Plan would continue in effect, permitting growth to continue until the capacity of the WWTP is met. At the presumed rate of 3.2% annual population growth, the City would be required to impose a development moratorium between 2015 and 2020 to prevent flows from exceeding the capacity of the treatment system.

(2) Alternative Location – Satellite Plant The City of Sanger is anticipating a large percentage of its growth to occur on the western portions of the city. Wastewater generated on the west side will need to be conveyed to the existing wastewater treatment plant located in the southeast quadrant of the city. The Satellite Plant alternative would build a stand alone facility capable of meeting treatment needs closer to the anticipated growth. A precise location has not been identified for this analysis, nor has a specific treatment method or plant design been prepared. The purpose of reviewing alternatives is to provide the decision-makers with an analysis of other sites and other options where the environmental effects that are expected from development and operation of the project may be reduced. The environmental effects of this alternative to the project are compared in this subsection. The Satellite Plant alternative would provide for the achievement of the Project’s basic objectives since it would result in additional wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate increased population as described in Chapter Two of the Draft EIR and the Sanger General Plan.

Appendix A

Page 4

As stated in the “Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin”, the RWQCB’s policy is to discourage the proliferation of small treatment plants in developed areas. The RWQCB has a preference for consolidation of services. New developments adjacent to or within existing wastewater system service areas should be connected to existing system. The intent is to make consolidation the rule rather than the exception. It would be difficult to get approval from the RWQCB for a satellite treatment facility. Furthermore, the cost of a satellite facility that could meet the treatment demands would be economically infeasible. The cost to produce a completely nitrified/denitrified effluent would cost about $10-$12 per gallon. A new one mgd plant would cost approximately $10-$12 million. This cost assumes that the treated effluent could be pumped to the existing percolation ponds. The cost of a pump station and pipeline is not included in the cost. Approximately 30-40 acres of land would be needed for a new plant. Assuming land cost at $80,000 per acre, an additional $2.8 million would be needed. The cost for a 2.3 mgd plant would cost between $30-$35 million. Given the environmental review process for siting a new plant and the cost of the plant this alternative would make it difficult to achieve the projective objective.

In brief, analysis of the impacts of Alternative No. 2 compared with the impacts of the proposed project follows:

Aesthetics: Less than significant impact; more than the project.

The satellite plant would create new infrastructure closer to populated areas on the western portion of the city and would alter the visual character of the area as well as introduce new light and glare.

Agricultural Resources: Significant impact; more than the project.

Essentially all of the area within which the satellite treatment plant would be located is in agricultural production and is Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Construction of a satellite plant would remove land from agriculture both for the treatment facilities themselves, and for any needed percolation ponds, scum beds, etc.

Air Quality: Significant impact; more than the project.

Construction related emissions for the alternative would be higher than those of the project because more ground would need to be disturbed and none of the existing plant infrastructure could be used. Operational impacts for the alternative would be higher than those of the project because the project would be sited closer to the urbanized area and sensitive receptors could be affected by odor emissions from the WWTP.

Biological Resources: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

Without a specific project location, it is not possible to make a full analysis of potential biological effects of a satellite plant. The existing WWTP is adjacent to the Kings River. Potential impacts to special-status species have been mitigated to less

Appendix A

Page 5

than significant. The area where the satellite plant would be located has been converted to agricultural use and contains little to no native plants or non-native plants and species. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the project site.

Cultural Resources: Less than Significant Impact; similar to the project.

The presence of known cultural resources would be considered in site selection for a satellite plant. Impacts to cultural resources discovered in construction would be mitigated in essentially the same manner as proposed for the project.

Energy: Significant impact: more than the project.

The project is currently served by existing electric service lines. Additional energy requirements would be provided along the existing alignment and location of power poles. The satellite plant would require significant infrastructure and significant surface disturbing activity would occur. This would be considered a significant impact.

Geology and Soils: Less than significant impact; more than the project.

Soil and other geological features would be considered in site selection for a satellite plant. However, as the plant would not be able to rely on existing facilities at the Sanger WWTP, a larger area would be disturbed, with modest increased impacts to these resources.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

A satellite plant would fall under the same regulatory system that prevents significant impacts from the proposed project.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Less than significant impact; more than the project.

Waste Discharge Requirements and similar regulations would apply to the alternative. Such regulations provide adequate protection to water quality. The alternative has the potential to alter groundwater to a greater degree than the project by concentrating the percolation of treated effluent into a smaller area. A new WDR would need to be secured and would include adequate requirements to reduce the impacts to less than significant level.

Land Uses and Planning: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

There are no established communities in the area of the potential satellite plant, so there is no risk of dividing an existing community. Depending upon the specific location selected for the satellite plant, there would be the potential for conflict with the land use plans and zoning of the City and/or Fresno County. The site selection process would be expected to identify and avoid any areas protected by a habitat conservation plan. As with the proposed project, a satellite plant would expect to be

Appendix A

Page 6

designed to accommodate many years of growth in the City. Similar mitigation measures would be proposed to limit actual construction projects to that which is reasonably tied to growth anticipated by the General Plan.

Mineral Resources: Less than significant impact, similar to the project.

No known mineral resources are known to exist in the possible satellite plant locations. The satellite plant would have a less than significant impact to mineral resources.

Noise: Less than Significant Impact; more than the project.

While the satellite plant alternative would be expected to use smaller pumps, generators, etc., the area identified for consideration would be more developed than the project site, exposing more individuals to noise.

Population and Housing: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

Similar to the proposed project, the satellite plant would not induce growth beyond the General Plan projections. The impact to population and housing would be the same.

Public Services and Utilities: No impact; similar to the project.

The satellite plant would create no significant demand for public utility services, and would be served by existing City law enforcement and fire suppression services.

Recreation: No impact; similar to the project.

The alternative creates no demand for additional recreation facilities. Employees will live and recreate in existing communities served by such facilities provided by the City and Fresno and Tulare Counties.

Traffic/Circulation: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

Wastewater treatment facilities are highly automated systems with relatively few employees, and no associated residential or customer traffic. Existing rural roads would be sufficient to provide access to a satellite treatment plant. The cumulative traffic impact of the No Project Alternative and the project would continue to be significant as identified in the City of Sanger General Plan EIR.

Utilities and Service Systems: Less than significant impact; similar to the project.

With relatively few employees, a satellite WWTP would not require significant water or wastewater treatment needs. Solid waste from administrative and maintenance operations would also be minimal and would be easily accommodated by existing carriers. A satellite plant would generate substantial quantities of biosolids for reuse and/or disposal. Both the proposed project and the alternative project would be subject to similar comprehensive regulative restrictions on the treatment, testing, quality and use of biosolids. Advanced treatment and/or composting followed by

Appendix A

Page 7

land application for agricultural use is the most likely method for biosolid disposal. Compliance with regulations is sufficient to prevent a potentially significant impact on solid waste disposal.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that in addition to the analysis of individual alternatives, the alternatives must be ranked according to which alternatives have the lesser environmental effects. The ranking is shown in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR. The No Project Alternative is the most environmentally superior alternative; however, it does not achieve the project objective of ensuring adequate infrastructure to accommodate planned growth in Sanger. The project is the next most environmentally superior project alternative. The satellite plant alternative has the greatest potential environmental impacts.

Appendix B

Mitigation Monitoring Plan

City of Sanger February 2009 Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Plan 1

MITIGATION REPORTING/MONITORING PROGRAM Introduction State and local agencies are required by Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code to establish a monitoring and reporting program for all projects which are approved and which require CEQA processing. Local agencies are given broad latitude in developing programs to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The mitigation monitoring program outlined in this document is based upon guidance issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project corresponds to mitigation measures outlined in the project EIR. The Program summarizes the environmental issues identified in the EIR, the mitigation measures required to reduce each potentially significant impact to less than significant, the person or agency responsible for implementing the measures, and the agency or agencies responsible for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the mitigation measures. The Program Construction of the project will require adoption of the “Waste Water Treatment Master Plan”, securing funding, carrying out design and letting contracts for construction of the various elements of the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. The mitigation measures contained herein shall be incorporated into design and construction contracts as appropriate. The City of Sanger will ensure that plans and project operations conform to the conditions of the mitigated project.

Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant Master Plan Final EIR February 2009 Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Plan 2

Table 1-1 Mitigation and Monitoring Program

Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span AIR QUALITY Impact #3.4.2 - Construction Emissions (Carbon Monoxide (CO), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM10), & Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Mitigation Measure #3.4.2: None are required; however, to further minimize emissions and thus reduce cumulative impacts, the following measures from the Guide to the Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (January 2002) shall be implemented in order to reduce construction emissions:

The idling time of all construction equipment used at the site shall not exceed ten minutes.

The hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment shall be minimized. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accord with

manufacturer’s specification. When feasible, alternative fueled or electrical construction equipment

shall be used at the project site. The minimum practical engine size for construction equipment shall be

used. When feasible, electric carts or other smaller equipment shall be used at

the project site. Gasoline-powered equipment shall be equipped with catalytic

converters.

City of Sanger

City of Sanger

During construction

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.1: To protect Sanford’s arrowhead, the following measures will be implemented.

Ground clearing or construction activities will not occur within 50 feet of an irrigation ditch crossing, canal crossing, or other areas where wetland vegetation occurs, until the site has been inspected by a qualified biologist or botanist.

City of Sanger City of Sanger During construction

Impact #3.5.1: Substantial Adverse Effect on Candidate, Special Status or Sensitive Species or Habitat of Sensitive Species

If Sanford’s arrowhead are found in a location that will be impacted by construction activities, they will be removed from the site, potted, and reared in a controlled wetland environment.



Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span Upon completion of construction activities, the wetland area will be

restored and each Sanford’s arrowhead plant will be returned to its former location. Following any replanting, the Sanford’s arrowhead will be checked within the first few months to ensure that the replanting is established. If any Sanford’s arrowhead has expired it will be replanted.

After construction

Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.2: To protect blue elderberry bushes and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetles, the following action shall be taken. Where ground clearing or construction activities may encroach to within 100 feet of elderberry bushes:

A qualified biologist shall conduct a training program for all construction contractors that will be working on the project to inform workers of the need to avoid damaging elderberry plants and the possible penalties for not complying with these requirements. The training program must include information on the status of the beetle and the need to protect its elderberry host plant.

City of Sanger City of Sanger Prior to construction

Each elderberry bush that has stems 1 inch or greater in diameter and that is within 100 feet of any proposed construction activity will be inspected for Valley elderberry longhorn beetles prior to initiation of ground clearing or construction.


For those bushes in which the beetle does not occur, ground clearing and construction within the 100 foot buffer area will be allowed, provided that:

- A letter of concurrence is obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service authorizing construction within the buffer area.


- A biologist is present on-site during ground clearing and construction within the 100-foot buffer area to monitor activities and ensure that there are no impacts to the elderberry bushes.


- Restoration of habitat within the 100-foot buffer area must occur once construction is complete, except in those instances where permanent facilities are constructed. The applicant must provide a written description to the USFWS of how the buffer areas are to be

City of Sanger City of Sanger After construction


Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span restored, protected, and maintained after construction is completed. Mowing of grasses/ground cover may occur from July through April to reduce fire hazard. No mowing shall occur within five (5) feet of elderberry plant stems. Mowing must be done in a manner that avoids damaging plants (e.g., stripping away bark through careless use of mowing/trimming equipment).

- All areas to be avoided during construction activities shall be fenced and flagged. In areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by the Service, a minimum setback of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be provided.


- Erect signs every 50 feet along the edge of the avoidance area with the following information: "This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment." The signs should be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet, and must be maintained for the duration of construction.


- No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals that might harm the beetle or its host plant shall be used in the buffer areas, or within 100 feet of any elderberry plant.


- Other protection measures and replacement of elderberry bushes, when applicable, are implemented as outlined in Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999; see Appendix C in the attached biology report).


For each bush in which the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is found, the 100-foot buffer area shall be observed during the activity period of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (from April to July). Construction activities may occur within the 100 foot buffer area during other periods provided the mitigation measures outlined above are implemented and restoration within the buffer area is completed by beetle emergence (April).



Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.3: To protect western pond turtles, the flowing

measures will be implemented.

A survey for western pond turtles will be conducted 14 to 30 days prior to ground clearing or construction activities. Only those areas where water sources are within 200 feet of a construction area will be surveyed.


If western pond turtles are found to occur, then a fence capable of excluding western pond turtles will be erected along the entire reach of the canal, irrigation ditch, waterway, or pond where it is within 200 feet of the construction area. The fence will consist of 3 foot high aluminum flashing or similar material that will be buried 6 inched below the ground surface. The fence will be placed as far away from the waterways as possible to provide a buffer of habitat between the waterways and the construction area.


Once the exclusion fencing is in place, a qualified biologist will inspect the construction areas and remove any western pond turtles that are found. Pond turtles will be relocated to the adjacent canal or waterway.


During the period of construction, a trained monitor will inspect the integrity of the fence on a daily basis and ensure that all necessary repairs are immediately made. A qualified biologist will inspect the fence on a monthly basis.


Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.4: To protect burrowing owls, other raptors. loggerhead shrikes, and other migratory birds, the following mitigation measures will be implemented.

All project components and nearby nesting habitat (e.g., trees and open fields within 500 feet of the site) shall be surveyed for active birds nests 14 to 30 days prior to the initiation of ground clearing or construction activities if construction will be initiated or conducted during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15). The survey will be performed by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting birds. Construction shall not occur within a 500 foot buffer surrounding raptor nests or within a 250 foot buffer surrounding nests of other birds until after young birds have



Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span fledged. If these buffer areas cannot be observed or if nests must be removed to allow continuation of construction activities, the California Department of Fish and Game will be contacted for guidance. Mitigation measures developed in consultation with that agency will be implemented.

All project components and nearby habitat (e.g., open fields within 250 feet of the site) shall be surveyed for wintering burrowing owls prior to the initiation of ground clearing or construction activities if those activities will be initiated or conducted during the non-breeding breeding season (September 16 through February 14).

If during the pre-construction surveys, burrowing owls are found to be present, the following measures will be implemented as adopted from CDFG guidelines (Appendix D of the attached biology report):

- Compensation for the loss of burrowing owl habitat will be provided at a ratio of 3:1. Compensation may occur through participation in an approved mitigation bank, through conservation easement, or through other means acceptable to the regulatory wildlife agencies.

City of Sanger City of Sanger After construction

- Exclusion areas will be established around occupied burrows in which no construction activities would occur. During the non-breeding season, the exclusion area would extend 160 feet around any occupied burrows. During the breeding season, exclusion areas of 250 feet surrounding occupied burrows would be installed.


- If construction must occur within these buffer areas, passive relocation of burrowing owls may be implemented as an alternative, but only during the non-breeding season and only with the concurrence of the California Department of Fish and Game. Passive relocation of burrowing owls would be implemented by a qualified biologist using accepted techniques. Burrows from which owls had been relocated would be excavated using hand tools and under direct supervision of a qualified biologist.



Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span - Any owl burrows removed during construction will be compensated

at a ratio of 3 artificial burrows created for each burrow removed. Artificial burrows would be created on lands accepted as compensation for habitat loss.


Mitigation Measure #3.5.1.5: To protect breeding bats, the following measures will be implemented.

If ground clearing or construction activities are to occur during the breeding season of bats (April 15 to September 15), pre-construction survey for roosting bats will be conducted 14 to 30 days prior to initiation of construction to document the occurrence of bats roosting within 500 feet of construction areas.


If roosting bats are present and if reproductive failure could be induced by roost abandonment caused by construction noise, then the bats will be identified to species.


If it is determined that construction noise could result in the reproductive failure of a roosting special-status species bat, then construction activities will be suspended within 500 feet of the roost, until gestation is complete and young are born. The exact timing for the suspension of construction activities would be dependant upon the reproductive timing of the bats. For the pallid bat, construction would be suspended for several weeks in May or June and for the greater western mastiff bat, construction would be suspended for several weeks between May and September.


Impact #3.5.2: Adverse Affect on any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community

Mitigation Measure #3.5.2: To ensure protection of oak trees, the following actions will be taken: The removal and trimming of oak trees shall be minimized. The trimming of oak trees shall only be conducted under the guidance of an arborist or registered forester. Any oak trees removed will be replaced by planting replacement saplings at a ratio of two saplings for each tree removed. Replacement trees will be planted in a conservation area that is approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.

City of Sanger City of Sanger Prior to, during, and after construction


Impact Mitigation Measures Implementation Monitoring Time Span Impact #3.5.4: Interfere With The Movement Of Fish Or Wildlife, Impede Wildlife Corridors, Or Disturb Wildlife Nursery Sites

Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.5.1.2, 3.5.1.3, and 3.5.1.4.

City of Sanger City of Sanger Prior to, during, and after construction

CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact #3.6.1 - Disturbance of Cultural or Historic Resources, Skeletal Remains

Mitigation Measure #3.6.1: If, in the course of project construction or project operation, any archaeological or historical resources are uncovered, discovered, or otherwise detected or observed, activities within 50 feet of the find area shall cease. A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted and advise the City of the site’s significance. If the findings are deemed significant appropriate mitigation measures shall be required prior to any resumption of work in the affected area of the project. If, in the course of project construction or project operation, any skeletal remains are uncovered, discovered, or otherwise detected or observed, activities in the affected area shall cease. A qualified archaeologist, the City, the County Coroner and local Native American organizations shall be consulted, and appropriate measures shall be required that may include avoidance of the burial site or reburial of the remains.


TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Impact #3.17.3 – Mitigation Measure #3.17.3.2: Prior to start of construction, the contractor

shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City for all proposed activities in the City right-of way. Activity and work planned in the City right-of-way shall be performed to City standards and specifications and shall include a Traffic Control plan satisfactory to the City.


Appendix C

Statement of Overriding Considerations

Appendix C Page 1

APPENDIX C

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SANGER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN

Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Sanger hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the significant and unavoidable impacts of the expansion of the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Project”). This Statement of Overriding Considerations supports its conclusion that the Project’s economic, public policy, social, technological and other considerations and benefits override and outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided even with the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, or feasible project alternatives pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Guidelines Section 15093. The significant and unavoidable impacts relating to this Project are generally described as agricultural resources impacts, air quality impacts, population and housing impacts (cumulative) and traffic and circulation impacts (cumulative). These impacts are discussed extensively in the Draft and Final EIR, and in Appendix A. The EIR for this Project has proposed mitigation measures that will address these significant and unavoidable impacts, and the City has expressly adopted these mitigation measures for this project. See the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project attached hereto as Appendix B which is incorporated by reference herein. Despite these mitigation measures, there are still significant and unavoidable impacts from this Project; however, this Project confers and manifests substantial benefits to the City of Sanger and to the County of Fresno. In general terms, these benefits can be described as socio-economic, in that the Project generates new employment and economic opportunities; and as such, the City hereby finds that the Project’s remaining significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of the Project’s benefits. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project, independent of the other benefits, despite significant and unavoidable impacts.

Overriding Considerations

The City hereby finds that the economic, social, and other considerations of the project outweigh the unavoidable impacts to prime farmland, air quality emissions, and cumulative impacts to population and housing and increased LOS. The project will expand the wastewater treatment capacity and improve operational efficiency for residents of the City. More specifically, the City hereby finds that the applicable overriding considerations and benefits are economic and social are deemed to be substantial, and are set forth in more detail as follows:

Appendix C Page 2

1) Economic Considerations The current wastewater treatment plant is operating near capacity. The Project will increase capacity from 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) to 5.3 mgd, which will accommodate a population of approximately 56,870 projected to occur by the year 2035. The Project will accommodate growth and economic expansion. Approving this Project will foster or remove barriers to population growth, and construction of new housing. The Project offers substantial direct and positive economic effects. It indirectly provides new construction jobs, and ensures adequate wastewater treatment for existing and new commercial and industrial activities in the City. An expanded economy will reduce travel to other cities for jobs. Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, the City finds and concludes separately and independently that there is a substantial and overriding economic benefit conferred in Sanger and in Fresno County, by allowing this Project to proceed.

2) Social Considerations

There is public support for the Sanger Wastewater Treatment Plan expansion and improvement in operational efficiency in the City. When considering and weighing the community-wide support for the Project, the City concludes, based on substantial evidence in the record, that there is public support for this project. Based on this discussion and substantial evidence in the record, the City finds and concludes separately and independently that there is a substantial and overriding social benefit that will be conferred in Sanger, and in Fresno County, by allowing this Project to proceed.

Conclusion

When balancing the interests in this matter, the City finds that the land use planning and regulatory documents of the City of Sanger reflect, both generally and specifically, a strong and pervasive public policy established and continued by the elected representatives of the City that supports the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant; and in doing so, the City has improved the quality of life for City and County residents alike. Approving this Project continues and implements that public policy which promotes the overall public welfare.

Moreover, the City finds that this project generates employment and economic benefits

which are needed to assist in relieving Sanger and Fresno County’s high unemployment rate. The Project generates permanent jobs in the City and satellite businesses benefit from the Project, namely, construction contractors, workers and suppliers. Thus, the Project contributes to the substantial, direct and positive economic multiplier effect in Sanger and Fresno County.

In light of the foregoing discussion and when balancing these interests, the City finds and

concludes that these considerations and benefits are deemed to be substantial, that the Project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental effects, and that the Project should be approved notwithstanding these environmental effects that are significant and unavoidable.

Appendix C Page 3

Finally, the City finds and concludes that each benefit discussed herein constitutes a separate overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project, independent of the other benefits, despite each and every significant and unavoidable impact affecting the environment.

Appendix D

Comment Letters

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for … works/Documents/0209FinalEIRcomplete.pdfFINAL...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for … works/Documents/0209FinalEIRcomplete.pdfFINAL...