Public Draft is MND2

CITY OF FOLSOM

Willow Hill Pipeline Rehabilita:on Project

Ini%al Study/Mi%gated Nega%ve Declara%on

M May 2014

Willow Hill Recycled Pipeline Rehabilitation Project Public Draft IS/MND

May 2014 i

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Location and Background ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 Document Organization and Review Process .................................................................. 1-4 Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................ 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Construction Considerations ............................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ................................................................ 2-5 2.4 No Project/Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences ........................................................ 3-2 3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-10 3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-19 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3-21 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 3-25 3.9 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 3-29 3.10 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-30 3.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3-31 3.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 3-34 3.13 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 3-35 3.14 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-36 3.15 Traffic and Transportation ............................................................................................. 3-37 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 3-39 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 3-41 Chapter 4 Determination: ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 5-1

List of Tables Table 1: CCTV Inspected Lengths by Segment .................................................................... 1-1 Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities ... 2-4 Table 3: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions ................................................ 3-6

List of Figures Figure 1: General Location Map ............................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments ........................................................ 2-2 Figure 3: Location of Special Status Species…………...……………………………………..3-10

Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Potential for Special Status Species to Occur in Project/Action Area……..B-1


May 2014 ii

List of Abbreviations

AFY Acre-Feet Per year

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Basin Bay Area Air Basin

C.C.R California Code of Regulations

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Cal/OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CAP Clean Air Plan

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CGS California Geological Survey

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Society’s

CWA Federal Clean Water Act

DPM Diesel particulate matter

DTSC Department of Toxics Substances Control

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

mgd million gallons per day

Mg/L Milligrams per Liter


May 2014 iii

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone 4

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBWRP North Bay Water Recycling Program

NEPA National Environmental Quality Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrus Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

PWWF Peak wet weather flow

ROG reactive organic gases

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SR State Route

SRF State Revolving Funds

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


May 2014 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that addresses the potential environmental impacts of the City of Folsom’s (City) proposed Willow Hill Pipeline Rehabilitation Project (Proposed Project/Action). The purpose of the Proposed Project is to repair and/or rehabilitate the pipeline to reduce the nearly one (1) million gallons per day (mgd) of leakage in accordance with a recently awarded Proposition 84 funded Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the lead agency under CEQA

1.1 Project Location and Background The Willow Hill Pipeline includes approximately 21,600 lineal feet of 30-inch, 42-inch, and 48-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that currently serves as a transmission main to convey raw water from the City’s water treatment plant through the City to the Willow Hill Reservoir, as shown on Figure 1. The City’s existing Willow Hill Pipeline is an important water transmission main that conveys raw water from the City’s water treatment plant (WTP) to the Willow Hill Reservoir. The raw water supply provides recreational benefits at the Willow Hill Reservoir and industrial process water and fire suppression to Gencorp/Aerojet Corporation’s facilities south of Highway 50. The pipeline has been documented by the City to experience excessive water loss (approximately 1 mgd) based on flow records and repair history. The condition of the entire pipeline is unknown, but it is assumed it is in need of rehabilitation, repair, and/or replacement to reduce the leakage. In October 2012, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Inspection was completed in the currently accessible segments of the pipeline (approximately 6,200 feet of the 21,270-foot long pipeline). In preparing for CCTV of the Willow Hill Pipeline, the City began with a desktop condition analysis that included review of as-built record drawings, daily construction reports, submittals, and geotechnical report review. The pipeline was constructed in phases between approximately 1976 and the late 1990’s, therefore there were differences in construction quality, joint construction, and conditions noted throughout the alignment. The Willow Hill Raw Water Pipeline has, for purposes of this document, been divided into four Segments. These Segments are shown graphically on Figure 1 and are described below. The CCTV inspection was performed in those portions of the pipeline that were accessible by the camera truck. The remaining footage was either inaccessible, submerged, and/or obstructed by roots, rocks, or other debris. Table 1 shows the lengths by segment that was inspected by CCTV.

Table 1 CCTV Inspected Lengths by Segment

Segment Total Length (LF) Length Inspected (LF) % Inspected Segment 1 2,946 2,328 79% Segment 2 5,875 1,894 32% Segment 3 10,652 250 2% Segment 4 1,800 1,730 96%

Total 21,273 6,202 29% Overall, the pipeline was found to be in fair to excellent condition. There were a number of defects, obstructions, and other observations found during the CCTV inspection that could be sources of water leakage, or otherwise require the City’s attention to maintain long-term operation of the pipeline. The following summarizes observations from the CCTV inspection:

Figure 1 General Project Loca3on


May 2014 1-3

Segment 1 – Water Treatment Plant to Station 28+97 This 2,897-foot pipeline segment is comprised of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) that is supplied by an 18-inch diameter inlet diversion at the WTP. The system operates as a gravity pipeline with manholes at intervals along the line and maintenance of a vertical slope from the water treatment plant to approximately Station 32+89 in the power easement. This pipeline is constructed of 42 and 48-inch pipe and was constructed in phases between 1976 and 1997of pressure rated RCP, although it does not operate under pressure. Numerous defects were found in this segment including a submerged pipeline section that has resulted in an infestation of freshwater clams; pipe corrosion of a metallic transition fitting; minor circumferential stress cracks; two small holes; grout that has spalled or cracked at many of the joints; root intrusion; and sediment/debris (rocks, clams) deposits.

Segment 2 – Station 28+97 to Station 88+55 (Humbug Creek) This 5,958-foot pipeline segment operates as a gravity pipeline until approximately Willow Creek Road, where it is converted to a pressurized pipeline constructed to be an inverted siphon. It is also constructed of RCP. The pipeline is 30 inches in diameter and should not be operated under pressures greater than it currently experiences, which is less than 20 psi. This pipeline was constructed in phases between 1985 and 1997, and based on information in the files and from City Staff there may have been construction issues that could affect its installed integrity and future service. It is suspected that the first creek crossing in this segment may be the highest source of water loss in the pipeline. Defects in this segment include some separated joints; root intrusion; submerged at downstream end due to inverted siphon/lack of drain; one large hole at the crown and exposed rebar; and large rocks and gravel in a number of areas. Significant rocks and debris (more than 50% of the cross sectional area) were encountered about 200 LF into the CCTV inspection from the upstream end, which required the inspection to be abandoned.

Segment 3 – Station 88+55 to Station 199+54 The 11,099 foot long Segment 3 operates as a pressurized pipeline. It was constructed of pressure rated RCP of 30 inch diameter and should not be operated under pressures greater than it currently experiences, which is also less than 20 psi. The pressure portion of this pipeline was constructed between approximately 1985 and 1989, and information in the files and from City Staff indicates that the construction of this pipeline was done well. Though the pipeline is thought to be in good condition, it will still be under strength to be used in a potable water pressure zone that requires operating and surge protection pressures considerably higher than the current 20 psi rating of the pipe. The primary value of this pipeline is ultimately as a host pipe for a fully structural liner that provides up to class 150 pressure service. This segment was mostly inaccessible since the pipeline could not readily be dewatered and was lacking manhole access points along the segment.

Segment 4 – Station 199+54 to Willow Hill Reservoir (Station 211+00) The 1,146 foot long Segment 4 also operates both as a gravity and pressurized pipeline, depending on the stationing along this pipeline, available grade and amount of flow delivered. It was constructed of pressure rated RCP of 30 inch diameter and should not be operated under pressures greater than it currently experiences, which is also less than 20 psi. This pipeline was constructed around 1998. Information in the files and from City Staff indicates that the construction of this line was accomplished satisfactorily. Though the pipeline is thought to be in good condition it will also not provide enough strength to be used in a potable water pressure zone that requires operating and surge protection pressures considerably higher than the current 20 psi rating of the pipe. The primary value of this pipeline is also ultimately as a host pipe for a fully structural liner that provides up to class 150 pressure service. This segment was in excellent condition. There was some small circumferential cracking and debris accumulation (moderate rocks, up to 15 percent of the cross sectional area in some locations). The debris was removed by the CCTV contractor in most locations.


May 2014 1-4

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives The primary goal and objectives of the Proposed Project is to repair and/or rehabilitate the pipeline to reduce the nearly 1 mgd or 1,100 acre-feet per year (afy) of leakage in accordance with a recently awarded Proposition 84 funded Integrated Regional Water Management Implementation Grant.

1.3 Document Organization and Review Process This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with both CEQA and is to provide a preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed Project to determine if it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This document is organized into the following chapters:

• Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the location and background, goals and objectives of the Proposed Project, and document contents.

• Chapter 2, Project Description and Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes the major components of the Proposed Project and describes the No Project Alternative.

• Chapter 3, CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Chapter 3 discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Each resource section of the checklist is followed by a discussion of each potential impact listed in that section. It also presents corresponding mitigation measures proposed as part of the Proposed Project/Action, to avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

• Chapter 4, Determination. Chapter 4 provides the proposed action as a result of this Initial Study.

• Chapter 5, Bibliography. Chapter 5 provides a list of reference materials and persons consulted during the preparation of the Initial Study.

• This document will be available for a 30-day public review period, during which written comments may be submitted to the following address:

Mr. Steve Brown

SMB Environmental, Inc. c/o City of Folsom

P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661

[email protected] Responses to written comments received by the end of the 30-day public review period will be prepared and included in the final document to be considered by the City prior to taking any discretionary action/decision on the Proposed Project.


May 2014 2-1

Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project including a discussion of the construction considerations, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section describes the No Project Alternative.

2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description As shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project would primarily consist of rehabilitating the Willow Hill Pipeline to reduce nearly one (1) million gallons per day of leakage. The primary methods for rehabilitating the pipeline include:

• Pipeline Point Repairs

• Pipeline Slip-lining

• Pipeline Relocation Each is discussed below.

Pipeline Point Repairs Several spot repair technologies are available to correct areas of the pipeline exhibiting structural defects in the pipe wall and at joints, especially in areas prone to leakage. These include resin or epoxy-based sealants, grout injection, segmental lining, neoprene rubber joint seals and mechanical inserts. Technologies that have been screened out include chemical grout injection, segmental lining (such as short segment cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) and carbon or glass fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) layup), and segmental mechanical insert repair systems (such as Quick Lock or Link Pipe) due to short longevity or high cost relative to other available spot repair solutions. General pipeline maintenance activities were also considered including cutting/treatment of root balls, debris removal and cleaning. A combination of the following described solutions will be selected to repair the various defects in the segments not undergoing full pipeline rehabilitation.

• EPDM Polymer (Rubber) Internal Pipe Joint Seals: These seals are installed internally in the pipe by the contractor’s workforce. They are constructed of neoprene rubber full circle seals that cover cracks or holes. The seals are held in place by a stainless steel bands jacked longitudinally into place at each edge of the seal that effectively pushes the seal against the wall of the host pipe. This flexible rubber seal forms a tight seal around the full circumference of the pipe creating a leak-proof fit on either side of the area needing repair. These seals prevent water infiltration and exfiltration, are relatively inexpensive, can withstand moderate external head, and serve as an effective spot repair at joints, holes, and large cracks.

• Joint/Crack Sealants, Lead Wool, Backer Rod and Cementitious Grouts:

o Sealant: Polyurethane elastomeric sealant or similar product is recommended for small

cracks and joints to reduce leakage. In areas where dewatering and active infiltration are not a problem (i.e. where the surface may be dried), a sealant such as Sikaflex-2c NS may be used. This type of repair option is beneficial given its ability to flex/stretch with the joint and its low product cost. Application involves cleaning and troweling out of joint or cracks, priming (Sikaflex Primer or equal), nozzle injection of sealant into depression, and 3-day curing before total water immersion.

1

9

7

6

1

9

7

9

1

9

8

4

1997

1

9

8

5

1

9

8

9

1

9

9

8

OUTFALL

211+00 ±

WILLOW

HILL

RESERVOIR

B

L

U

E

R

A

V

IN

E

R

D

E

A

S

T

B

I

D

W

E

L

L

S

T

R

I

L

E

Y

S

T

O

A

K

A

V

E

N

U

E

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

I

R

O

N

P

O

I

N

T

R

D

SEGMENT 1

SEGMENT 2

SEGMENT 3

SEGMENT 4

4

5

+

6

9

6

2

+

9

3

8

8

+

5

5

1

0

7

+

1

8

1

5

1

+

4

7

174+00

6

+

7

6

0

+

0

0

1

8

+

0

0

23+63

28+97

R

A

N

D

A

L

L

D

R

.

42" Ø

ABANDON

R

E

B

E

C

C

A

W

A

Y

48" Ø

RANDALL DR.

INTAKE

STRUCTURE

PIPELINE INLET

H

A

N

C

O

C

K

D

R

.

POWER

EASEMENT

WILLOW

C

R

E

E

K

D

R

.

TOWER

RESERVOIR

S. L

EX

IN

GT

ON

D

R.

30" Ø

SOUTH

RESERVOIR

30" Ø

LIVERMORE

PARK

1

9

9

+

5

4

WATER

TREATMENT

PLANT

(2,897 LF)

(5,958 LF)

(11,099 LF)

(1,146 LF)

3

8

+

8

9

ABANDONMENT

AERIAL CROSSING

NEW OPEN

CUT SECTION

O

A

K

A

V

E

N

U

E

P

A

R

K

W

A

Y

30" Ø

EXISTING RAW

WATER PIPELINE

N:\2012\1270027.00_F

olsom

-W

illow

Hill\127002700-F

ig1-T

M1.dw

g C

ALV

IN

S

UG

G 4/22/2014 10:06 A

M

HydroScience Engineers

OPEN CUT PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION

LEGEND

April 2014

FIGURE 2

KJ 1270027.00 / HSE 310-001-100

Project Segment Map

WILLOW HILL PIPELINE REHAB PROJECT

CITY OF FOLSOM

THIS BAR SCALE AND FIGURE IS FOR

APPROXIMATION ONLY.

POTENTIAL STAGING / LAYDOWN AREA


May 2014 2-3

o Lead wool: This product is inexpensive and is easily driven into weeping cracks or joints

with a ball peen hammer and punch. Once the crack or joint is packed with the malleable lead wool the flow of water is stopped and it may be dressed with cement grout and/or sealant.

o Closed and open cell backer rod: Backer rod is used as a filler in the repair of deep voids

and holes. It is typically a closed-cell, polyethylene foam joint-filler and is used in conjunction with elastomeric sealants and cement grouts. It functions to control the required depth of cement grout and sealant to obtain proper curing of each within the manufacturers recommendations. As its name implies backer rod provides the backing against which the grout/sealant is applied. In special circumstances, where significant joint movement is expected, it can prevent bonding on 3-sides to ensure proper functioning of elastomeric joint sealants. Its resilience accommodates dynamic joints. It compresses easily to accommodate joints of varying widths. An open cell version of backer rod can also be used where pre-soaked foam is applied to the void, followed by a grout/sealant to obtain a smooth surface and obtain a more robust repair plug of the area.

o Cementitious Grout: SikaGrout 212 Non-shrink, cementitious grout with a unique 2-stage

shrinkage compensating mechanism can be used to fill shallow voids or voids remaining after placement of backer rod. After grout placement a sealant can be installed into a groove cut into the grout surface to control cracking location and provide a seal against leakage. SikaGrout 212 is non-metallic and contains no chloride.

Pipeline Slip-lining Three rehabilitation technologies were considered for rehabilitating the existing RCP pipelines: Loose-Fit Slip-lining, Close-Fit Slip-lining, and Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP). After developing a comparison analysis of each of the alternatives, the City selected the Loose-Fit Slip-lining technology with either HDPE or PVC pipe as the recommended rehabilitation technology. All four pipeline segments will be slip-lined using this method.

Pipeline Relocation Proposed pipeline realignment is identified in three areas of the pipeline as depicted on Figure 1. In general, the first area (Segment 1) comprises of pipeline segments constructed at various times where homes and other private structures have been constructed over the top of the pipeline; it is located in backyards, steep hillside areas, and beneath mature redwood trees. The second area (Segment 3) is near South Lexington Place, where the pipeline has commercial property structures build over the top of the pipeline and is close to existing building foundations in at least one place. Lastly, the third area (Segment 3) is near the Livermore Park water tank.

2.2 Construction Considerations Construction of the Proposed Project facilities is expected to begin and be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction work will typically be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. The Proposed Project would be constructed primarily within the existing pipeline easement except for the portion of pipeline Segment 3 which will be relocated within an existing roadway. Any damages occurring during construction will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the construction techniques and activities.


May 2014 2-4

• There is a potential for small areas of point repairs inside the pipeline in portions of Segment 1 and Segment 4. However, a majority of this project is will be slip-lining. Segment 3 will include the need to install access manholes, repair existing broken drain valves, dewater, clean and inspect pipeline.

• Slip-lining of all 4 segments with HDPE or PVC pipe will include the need for several pit areas along the alignment to access the pipe and slip-line the pipe. To the extent possible, these areas would be located away from creeks and/or natural areas. No trees will be removed. All disturbed areas will be returned to pre-construction condition or better.

• The majority of the pipeline to be relocated in Segment 1 and in Segment 3 would be installed in existing roadways using conventional cut and cover construction techniques, and installing pipe in open trenches. In some instances up to a 50-foot wide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction. However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 6 feet deep.

• The proposed pipeline realignments may also require crossing several culverts and/or drainage

facilities. Crossing of the existing culverts and drainage facilities will be done using conventional cut and cover construction techniques, but will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy weather, nor in the October 15 and April 1 timespan.

• Dewatering of the pipeline during construction, as well as any dewatering as a result of operations

and maintenance activities will be discharged to land and not into any creeks, drainages, vernal pools or waterways and will obtain prior approval from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Construction activities for this project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that the project would be constructed by three (3) crews of 3-5 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. The proposed staging area for construction materials and equipment for the Proposed Project would be located within the pipeline alignment easement as shown on Figure 2.

Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the proposed realignment of Segments 1 and 3. Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City Utilities Department. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for this project. If necessary, imported materials would include backfill material required by the City Utilities Department. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project could generate up to 10 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include, but not be limited to:

• Track-mounted excavator

• Backhoe

• Grader

• Crane

• Dozer


May 2014 2-5

• Compactor

• Trencher/boring machine

• End and bottom dump truck

• Front-end loader

• Water truck

• Flat-bed delivery truck

• Forklift

• Compressor/jack hammer

• Asphalt paver & roller

• Street sweeper

It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor(s). However, this description provides sufficient information on which to base the conclusions regarding potential environmental impacts associated with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the City’s design standards or established ordinances, and not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not described within this document, then no additional environmental analyses will be required for any minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.

2.3 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals Table 2 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.

Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities

Agency Type of Approval

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #12 for Construction Activities (or) Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities Recycled Water Use Permit

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Construction activities in compliance with CAL/OSHA safety requirements

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreements

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)

Authority to Construct Permit to Operate

Sacramento Municipal Utility District Encroachment Permit – Utility Corridor

2.4 No Project/Action Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the City’s Proposed Project would not be constructed. For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition (i.e. No Project) and the future No Project condition are the same. This No Project Alternative assumes that none of the Proposed Project/Action facilities would


May 2014 2-1

be constructed and the Willow Hill Pipeline will lose approximately 1 million gallons per day or 1,100 afy. As a result, the impact description and summary compares the Proposed Project to the No Project.


May 2014 3-2

Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences This chapter evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project/Action to have a significant effect on the environment. Using the CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential impacts of the Proposed Project pursuant to CEQA. This document compares the Proposed Project against the No Project Alternative as is required by CEQA.

Environmental Impact Designations For this checklist, the following designations are used to distinguish between levels of significance of potential impacts to each resource area:

Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigation strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared to meet CEQA requirements, respectively.

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the application of identified mitigation strategies that are not already been incorporated into the Proposed Project/Action description.

Less-than-Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have been identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for that resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the resource or the consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Resources Evaluated The following are the key environmental resources that were evaluated in this document.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Population and Housing

Agriculture Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation

Air Quality Land Use / Planning Socioeconomics

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Noise Utilities and Service Systems

Geology / Soils Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance


May 2014 3-3

3.1 Aesthetics Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,

but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character

or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas and therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. No impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located near or within a designated state scenic highway and therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project would be visible and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as the presence of construction equipment, fencing and materials. These impacts would be temporary and considered less-than-significant. Once built, the slip-line pipeline and the realigned pipeline segments would be buried underground and not visible. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project/ would not affect any visual resources, except for the maintenance activities involving routine inspections and as needed repair/maintenance activities on segments of the pipeline. These impacts are considered to be less than significant.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The Proposed Project would not be constructed during nighttime hours and once constructed there would be no lights or other sources of light or glare. Therefore no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-4

3.2 Agricultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,

which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Proposed Project would be primarily constructed or slip-lined within the existing easement and would not affect any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. In addition, the proposed realigned segments would not be located in any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the Proposed Project would be primarily constructed or slip-lined within the existing easement and would not affect any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. In addition, the proposed realigned segments would not be located in any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with agricultural practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project would be primarily constructed or slip-lined within the existing easement and would not affect any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. In addition, the proposed realigned segments would not be located in any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. No mitigation is required or necessary.


May 2014 3-5

3.3 Air Quality Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase

of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

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

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

Discussion The proposed Project activities would take place within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), and the Project area is within the jurisdiction the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Sacramento County is designated as “serious non-‐attainment” for the federal 8-‐hour ozone standard. Under the state regulation, Sacramento County is designated as “serious non-‐attainment” for the 1-‐hour ozone standard, and is in non-‐attainment for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) (SMAQMD 2014). SMAQMD is either designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining federal and state standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), lead, and visibility reducing particles. SMAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines that specifies thresholds of significance for construction related emissions. For construction projects, the SMAQMD recommends a significance threshold of 85 lbs/day for NOx and no threshold for ROGs (SMAQMD 2014).


May 2014 3-6

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct with the implementation of SMAQMD’s air quality management Plan.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Under current established thresholds, a project is considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it would result in an increase in emissions of 85 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOX). NOX is an ozone precursor.

Construction activities at the project site would begin in the summer of 2014 and continue into the summer of 2015 and would include excavation and grading activities. Overall construction work would require the use of various types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks.

Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather. Estimated construction emissions for the construction activities were generated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction model (i.e. URBEMIS Model). The Roadway Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft Excel worksheet available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated construction equipment fleet-mix and the acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMIS model in order to determine potential emissions. Table 3 provides the emissions output from URBEMIS in maximum pounds per day as well as in estimated tons for the entire construction duration. As shown in the table, construction emissions will exceed SMAQMD’s daily significance thresholds for NOx.

Table 3: Proposed Project Construction Emissions

Construction Phase Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG CO2 NOx PM10 PM2.5* Grubbing/Land Clearing 4.1 2,888.3 24.6 2.4 1.5 Grading/Excavation 11.7 11,446.3 112.2 6.6 5.3 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 10.3 8,248.1 82.8 5.8 4.6 Paving 5.8 4,005.6 35.8 2.6 2.3 Maximum (lbs/day)** 11.7 11,446.3 112.2 6.6 5.3 Total Tons/Project/Year 1.3 1,145.1 11.2 0.7 0.6

SMAQMD Thresholds Pounds per Day None None 85 None None Tons per Project/Year None None 15 None None Significant Impact? No No Yes No No

Notes * The SMAQMD does not have a threshold for ROG, CO2, PM10, and PM2.5. ** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will be occurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not a summation of the daily emission rates of all phases. However, SMAQMD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of these mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 below), the Proposed Project/Action’s construction-related impacts would be reduced less-than-significant levels.


May 2014 3-7

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 - Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices The City shall submit to SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project.

• The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment.

• The project representative shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.

• This information shall be submitted at least 4 business days prior to the use of

subject heavy-duty off-road equipment.

• SMAQMD’s Equipment List Form can be used to submit this information.

• The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs.

The City shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency and SMAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average.

• This plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the equipment inventory.

• Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available.

• SMAQMD’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction.

The City shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour.

• Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately.

• Non-compliant equipment will be documented and a summary provided to the lead agency and SMAQMD monthly.


May 2014 3-8

• A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly.

• A monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey.

SMAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this mitigation shall supercede other SMAQMD, state or federal rules or regulations.

Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work which would likely result in 1-3 regular inspection vehicle trips along the pipeline alignment a month. Operational impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above, air emissions during construction of the Proposed Project would exceed the criteria air pollutant NOx. However, construction activities would be temporary and would, with incorporation of the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above, would be further reduced to less than significant levels.

As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities emission sources resulting from Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. Given the limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these emissions would be expected to be well below SMAQMD guidelines. See Table 3 above. Cumulative thresholds are the same as project thresholds, which are provided in Table 3. The 2014 SMAQMD Guidelines take into account past, present, and future emissions of criteria pollutants; therefore, since operation of the project would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds, the cumulative impacts due to operations would be less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 above, the Proposed Project’s cumulative impacts would be even further reduced and would remain less-than-significant.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from diesel-powered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number of diesel trucks would be associated with construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project, localized exposure to DPM would be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a 70-year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-than-significant. Likewise, as noted above, the project would not result in substantial emissions of any criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1; therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors, including residents in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.


May 2014 3-9

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not include development of any uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the Proposed Project would generate emissions, and would exceed the NOx threshold. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, those temporary emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels and would not have a significant effect or impact on the environment. Also, the Proposed Project is a gravity pipeline system and would not include any new pumping station or facilities that would generate emissions during operations. No mitigation is necessary or required.

(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation is necessary or required.


May 2014 3-10

3.4 Biological Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Proposed Project: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

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

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

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

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion (a) Less-than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project could have a substantial

adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. A record search of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWS’ Species List was conducted for the area within a five-mile radius of the Project area to identify previously reported occurrences of state and federal special-status plants and animals. See Figure 3. In addition, several field visits of the pipeline alignment were

General Project Area

Willow Hill Reservoir

Start of the Project

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Figure 3 - Location of Listed Species in Project Area

Plant (80m)Plant (specific)Plant (non-specific)Plant (circular)Animal (80m)Animal (specific)Animal (non-specific)

Animal (circular)Terrestrial Comm. (80m)Terrestrial Comm. (specific)Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)Terrestrial Comm. (circular)Aquatic Comm. (80m)Aquatic Comm. (specific)

Aquatic Comm. (non-specific)Aquatic Comm. (circular)Multiple (80m)Multiple (specific)Multiple (non-specific)Multiple (circular)Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)

May 1, 2014

0 1 20.5 mi

0 2 41 km

1:72,224

Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.govAuthor: cnddb_com


May 2014 3-12

conducted in March, April, and May of 2014 to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the general vicinity of the Proposed Project Study Area (i.e. Construction Area) as described in Chapter 2 – Project Description. These field visits were not intended to be protocol-level surveys to determine the actual absence or presence of special-status species, but were conducted to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the Proposed Project. Appendix B provides a summary of the potential for state and federal special status species to occur within the Proposed Project Study Area. No special-status species were observed during the field visits. Detailed below is a summary of those findings and proposed mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Based on the record search of CDFW’s CNDDB and USFWS’s Species List, 17 special status plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Study Area. Of them, five (5) special-status plant species, were determined to have moderate to high potential to occur in the Proposed Project Study Area. These include: Nassella Pulchra (Valley Needlegrass Grassland) Agelaius tricolor (tricolored blackbird) Buteo swainsoni (Swainson's hawk), Lasionycteris noctivagans (silver-haired bat), and Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (Valley elderberry longhorn beetle). Potential impacts to these species could include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take (i.e. kill) these special status species if they should come within contact with construction activities. However, the following mitigation measures below would reduce any impacts to less than significant levels. Plants Potential impacts to special status plants such as the blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana) and Needlegrassland Grassland (Nassella Pulchra) could include removal or disturbance. Elderberry shrubs typically occur along streams and in openings within cismontane forests and woodlands. Blue elderberry shrubs were not observed during the site visit but conditions at the site are favorable for the shrub and the beetle to exist. The CNDDB indicates occurrences within the project area. Because this valley elderberry beetle species (VELB) is federally threatened, any impacts to elderberry shrubs over 1-‐inch in diameter at ground level are considered significant and must be mitigated. Since a complete survey for the shrubs was not completed, mitigation measures are presented below (that would bring the potential impact to this species to a less-‐than-‐significant level. These potential impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Pre-construction Protocol Level Plant Surveys. Prior to construction, the City shall conduct two protocol-level rare plant surveys during the blooming period for these species that are during the months of May and June. These surveys shall follow the protocol for plant surveys as described in Nelson (1987), which are in compliance with CNPS, CDFW, and USFWS guidelines. Should any of these species be present within the construction footprint, CDFW and/or USFWS shall be consulted to develop appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures. To mitigate for potential impacts to VELB, the site should be surveyed using the USFWS‐issued protocols for elderberry shrubs and VELB. If elderberry shrubs that are 1‐inch or greater in diameter at the base are located within the 100‐foot avoidance buffer, the USFWS would be notified and consulted on required mitigation.

Birds Potential impacts to special status birds such as the tricolored blackbird, the Swainson’s hawk, the burrowing owl, and/or other raptors could include noise and vibration during the breeding season that could cause them to abandon their nests and result in harming, harassing and/or taking of the


May 2014 3-13

species. These potential impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Breeding Surveys. For any construction activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 10 days of any initial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-status passerine nests identified at that time shall be protected by a 50-foot radius minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests shall be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of 200 feet. A minimum 500-foot exclusion buffer shall be established around active burrowing owl or Swainson’s hawk nests. Per CDFW and USFWS recommendations, the following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:

• Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance

commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys shall be repeated. If no breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.

• Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone shall remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

• The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this period,

breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest shall be postponed until the nest is abandoned or young birds have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Conduct Nesting Surveys. For any construction activities initiated between March 15 and September 1, surveys for nesting Burrowing owl or Swainson’s hawk are required with 0.25 mile of areas of disturbance. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest during construction activities within 0.25 mile of the nest to determine whether project construction may result in abandonment. The monitor shall continue monitoring the nest until construction within 0.25 mile of the nest is completed, or until all chicks have completely fledged. If the monitor determines that construction may result in abandonment of the nest, all construction activities within 0.25 mile shall be halted until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

Mammals

Potential impacts to special status mammals such as the silver-haired bat could include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take these special status species if they should come within contact with construction activities. Specifically, bat roosts are protected by CDFW and CEQA. The study areas contains suitable foraging habitat for silver-haired bats. Potential impacts can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take this sensitive specie if they should come within contact with construction activities. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 is proposed requiring a preconstruction survey to determine the presence or absence of this species and measures to safely exclude them from any nearby buildings, trees, or snags if they are present. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.


May 2014 3-14

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Bats. Preconstruction surveys for bats should take place during the maternity roosting season (defined as April 1 through August 31). Surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to removal of any trees, snags, or buildings within the project area. Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or other site-appropriate survey method should be performed to determine the presence or absence of bats utilizing the project site as roosting or foraging habitat. If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, then appropriate species- and roost-specific mitigation measures will be developed. Such measures may include postponing the removal of trees, snags, or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species-appropriate roosting habitat within or adjacent to the project site. Trees, snags, and buildings may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season without performing preconstruction bat surveys.

Fish Species Erosion associated with project construction activities resulting in the introduction of sediments into the Willow Creek could negatively affect water quality in rearing and foraging habitat. Introduction of sediments could lead to increased embedding of river substrate, which could negatively affect invertebrate communities used as a food source by juvenile fish. Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-7 below are proposed to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is proposed requiring Best Management Practices be installed to eliminate construction-related runoff and sedimentation into local creeks and drainages.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Implement Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the Central valley RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-construction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels or disturbing their banks during construction. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure HWQ-‐1.

Reptiles

Western pond turtle may occur within the vicinity of the project site. Suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat is moderately present in the creek drainage crossings. Mitigation Measures BIO-6 below would reduce impacts of filling, grading, or other ground disturbance within the study areas to a less than significant level for Western pond turtle adults, nests, and young.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Conduct A Preconstruction Survey for Western Pond Turtles and Relocate, if Necessary. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for western pond turtles no more than 30 days prior to construction in suitable aquatic habitats within the project corridor, including stream crossings, drainage ditches, and


May 2014 3-15

culverts. A combination of visual and trapping surveys may be performed with authorization from CDFG. If the species is found near any proposed construction areas, impacts on individuals and their habitat shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If occupied habitat can be avoided, an exclusion zone shall be established around the habitat and temporary plastic fencing shall be installed around the buffer area with “Sensitive Habitat Area” signs posted and clearly visible on the outside of the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species is determined to be present in work areas, the biologist with approval from DFG may capture turtles prior to construction activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat a minimum of 300 feet downstream from the work area. Exclusion fencing should then be installed if feasible to prevent turtles from reentering the work area. For the duration of work in these areas the biologist should conduct monthly follow-up visits to monitor effectiveness.

Invertebrates Construction of the Proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect VELB. To mitigate for potential impacts to VELB, the site should be surveyed using the USFWS‐issued protocols for elderberry shrubs and VELB. If elderberry shrubs that are 1‐inch or greater in diameter at the base are located within the 100‐foot avoidance buffer, the USFWS would be notified and consulted on required mitigation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 above, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Non-Sensitive Species The construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in disturbance and/or removal of plant and wildlife species that are not considered sensitive by the resource agencies. These temporary impacts can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and kill plant and wildlife species if they should come within contact with construction activities. However, these temporary impacts are considered less than significant and the Proposed Project/Action would not result in adverse effects to special-status species. As a result and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed above, the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW and/or USFWS.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Proposed Project would be constructed by a local creek (Willow Creek) as well as numerous drainage crossings. As a result, significant impacts could occur to the creeks and/or any sensitive species or habitats contained there within. However, with the implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Obtain all Required Authorizations. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for the Proposed Project/Action, the City, as necessary, shall conduct a wetlands delineation study in sensitive areas of the Proposed Project/Action and obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction riparian habitats and jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted habitat shall be offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at a CDFW and USFWS-approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio.


May 2014 3-16

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could have an

adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The local creek crossing may meet the USACE criteria for Waters of the U.S. and any fill or degradation to these channels could significantly impact water quality or habitat for protected species. Specifically, any activity that results in the deposit of dredge or fill material within the Ordinary High Water mark of Waters of the U.S. typically requires a permit from the (Corps). In addition, the bed and banks of the creeks and drainage channels could also fall under the regulatory authority of the CDFW.

Excavation, grading, and other general construction activities associated with the Proposed Project/Action would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in the Project area. Construction during inclement weather could result in increases in erosion, siltation, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially significant impact to wetlands and waters of the U.S. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-7 above, any potential impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would be constructed within existing roadways within the City and would not involve any permanent fencing or other impediment to wildlife movement. In addition, the creek crossing would involve installing the pipeline on the downstream side of the existing bridge and avoid cutting into or through the creeks. However, construction activities could adversely affect non-listed special-status nesting raptors. Many raptors are sensitive to loud construction noise such as that associated with grading. Such activities could cause nest abandonment or destruction of individual active raptor nests. Because all raptors and their nests are protected under 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, this could result in a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not expected to conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(f) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The construction of the Proposed Project would be primarily located within the existing pipeline and within the existing City roadways. Therefore, there is no impact.


May 2014 3-17

3.5 Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known or recorded prehistoric sites or

historical resources are known to exist in the Project area. However, it is possible that unidentified buried archaeological remains are present within the Proposed Project area. These remains could be unearthed during project construction. To further reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measure is recommended:

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Halt work if cultural resources are discovered. In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the lead agency shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.


May 2014 3-18

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to historical resources.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known significant archaeological resources exist within the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources. Nevertheless, there is a slight chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in accidentally discovering unique archaeological resources. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 identified above, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts to archeological resources.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontologic resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils – particularly vertebrate fossils – are considered to be nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide, fossils are highly significant records of ancient life. However, fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low sensitivity. In the event a paleontologic resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Stop work if paleontological remains are discovered. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City.

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no known burial sites within the project study area or area of potential effect (APE). The field survey did not find any evidence of human remains or burial goods within the project APE. In addition, none of the previous surveys that included the APE or were within a 0.25-mile radius reported finding any human remains. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt work if human remains are found. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities conducted for the Proposed Project/Action, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Sacramento County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered human remains and any associated burial goods.


May 2014 3-19

3.6 Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

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

topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable,

or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in

Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project consists primarily of slip-lining an existing

pipeline system and relocating portions of the pipeline that would be constructed within and under existing roadways. However, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to


May 2014 3-20

potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event. The proposed pipeline will not cross a known fault, but the project area is susceptible to strong groundshaking during an earthquake that could occur along known faults in the region. Slip-lining and/or construction of the pipeline segments to be relocated will be required to comply with the latest engineering standards that would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would involve excavation, earthmoving, and filling that could cause erosion or loss of topsoil. Earthwork associated with development construction could expose soils to erosion. However, the Proposed Project would be constructed in existing roadways and utility corridors and would be covered and paved immediately after the pipeline has been installed. The project incorporates, or will incorporate, best management practices from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which addresses sediment and erosion control measures and dust control, to ensure that construction activities do not impact drainages, adjoining properties, and roadways. As a result, any soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be considered less-than-significant.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on geologic unit or soil that is known to be unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Slip-lining and/or construction of the pipeline segments to be relocated will be required to comply with the latest engineering standards that would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). However, with the incorporation of the mitigation measure below, any impacts would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Geotechnical Investigation. The City shall prepare a design-level geotechnical study prior to project implementation to determine proper design and construction methods, including any cathodic protection measures needed for installing the pipelines in these soils and comply with all recommendations of the study.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no adverse effects to soil resources are expected. No mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-21

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project would not

involve the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the Proposed Project could temporarily increase the transport of materials


May 2014 3-22

generally regarded as hazardous materials that are used in construction activities. It is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint, and other similarly related materials would be brought onto the project site, used, and stored at the staging areas during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials to be used could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment if a spill, rupture, or leakage occurred. In addition, construction of the Proposed Project could result in the exposure of construction workers and residents to potentially contaminated soils if substantial quantities of diesel or other hazardous substances reach soil or drainage areas. Surface and groundwater quality and soils may be degraded as well. As a result the following mitigation measures are proposed:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Store, Handle, Use Hazardous Materials in Accordance with Applicable Laws. The City shall ensure that all construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be stored, handled, and used in a manner consistent with relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws. In addition, construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be staged and stored 100 feet away from stream channels and steep banks to keep these materials a safe distance from near-by residents and prevent them from entering surface waters in the event of an accidental release. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Properly Dispose of Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered or if suspected contaminated is encountered during project construction, work shall be halted in the area, and the type and extent of the contamination shall be identified. A contingency plan to dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater shall be developed through consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Properly Dispose of Pipeline Water. Dewatering of the pipeline during construction as well as any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land or to the local sanitary sewer system (Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District) and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the Proposed Project could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 identified above, potential impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of portions of the pipeline segments of the Proposed Project would not be located be located within one-quarter mile of a school. In addition, due to the short duration and limited extent of construction activity, the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials associated with construction activities to affect nearby school children would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on a site that is known to be included on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, a records


May 2014 3-23

search was conducted using the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Envirostor Database and GIS mapping system and no records of any identified hazardous waste or materials was identified within the Proposed Project Area. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within two miles of an Airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No specific mitigation is required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located within two miles of an airport. In addition, there might be private airstrips in the vicinity of the Proposed Project/Action. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. Any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. No specific mitigation is required.

(g) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. However, when installing the pipelines in the existing roadways, the Proposed Project could block access to nearby roadways for emergency vehicles. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ -3: Develop and Maintain Emergency Access Strategies. In conjunction with Mitigation Measure Traffic-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan, the City shall develop a Traffic Control Plan identified below in the Traffic and Transportation section with, comprehensive strategies for maintaining emergency access. Strategies shall include, but not limited to, maintaining steel trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across open trenches and identification of alternate routing around construction zones. Also, police, fire, and other emergency service providers shall be notified of the timing, location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane closures.

(h) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the Proposed Project would be located within an open space setting where there is the risk of a fire during construction activities. As a result, there is some potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving a fire. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 Fire Prevention and Control: The City shall comply with all federal, state, county and local fire regulations pertaining to burning permits and the prevention of uncontrolled fires. The following measures shall be implemented to prevent fire hazards and control of fires:

• A list of relevant fire authorities and their designated representative to contact shall be maintained on site by construction personnel.

• Adequate firefighting equipment shall be available on site in accordance with the

applicable regulatory requirements shall be available on site.

• The level of fire hazard shall be posted at the construction office (where visible for


May 2014 3-24

workers) and workers shall be made aware of the hazard level and related implications.

• The City or its contractor shall provide equipment to handle any possible fire emergency. This shall include, although not be limited to, water trucks; portable water pumps; chemical fire extinguishers; hand tools such as shovels, axes, and chain saws; and heavy equipment adequate for the construction of fire breaks when needed. Specifically, the City or its contractor shall supply and maintain in working order an adequate supply of fire extinguishers for each crew engaged in potentially combustible work such as welding, cutting, grinding, and burning of brush or vegetative debris.

• All equipment shall be equipped with spark arrestors.

• In the event of a fire, the City or its contractor shall immediately use resources necessary

to contain the fire. The City or contractor shall then notify local emergency response personnel.

• All tree-clearing activities are to be carried out in accordance with local rules and

regulations for the prevention of forest fires.

• Burning shall be prohibited.

• Flammable wastes shall be removed from the construction site on a regular basis.

• Flammable materials kept on the construction site must be stored in approved containers away from ignition sources.

• Smoking shall be prohibited on the construction site.


May 2014 3-25

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

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

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

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

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

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (erosion potential)

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

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

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

j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?


May 2014 3-26

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Excavation, grading, and construction

activities associated with the Proposed Project could violate water quality as those activities would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in the Project area. Construction during inclement weather could result in increases in erosion, station, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially significant impact to water quality. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, any potential impacts to water quality are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the Central Valley RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-existing conditions.

(b) No Impact. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Construction of the Proposed Project would be done primarily within existing roadways and subsurface excavation would be limited to 5-6 feet below surface elevation and would not interfere with groundwater supplies. Once constructed, the pipeline will also not adversely affect groundwater supplies. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site. As described in the Project Description, the Proposed Project/Action would be located primarily within the existing pipeline and/or within existing roadways. The Proposed Project includes a local creek and numerous drainage crossings. The creek crossing will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creek. The numerous drainage crossings of existing culverts through the road will be done in the dry season and will not occur during the rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. These measures will be combined with erosion and siltation controls and in-stream resource protection measures as provided in Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above. In addition, the Project area will


May 2014 3-27

be returned to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly alter any existing drainage areas.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. As described in the Project Description, the Proposed Project would be located within the existing pipeline and within existing roadways and includes a local creek crossing and numerous drainage crossings. The creek crossings will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creek. The numerous drainage crossings of existing culverts through the road will be done in the dry season and will not occur during inclement weather and during the rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. These measures will be combined with erosion and siltation controls and in-stream resource protection measures as provided in Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above. As for the discharge of any dewatering of the pipeline facilities, it is envisioned that the water will be sent to the Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District’s regional WWTP. However, if this is not the case, the City will incorporate Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above to resolve any potential discharge issues. In addition, the Project area will be returned to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not significantly alter any existing drainage areas.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impervious surfaces and would not create new areas of low permeability. The Proposed Project would be located within the existing pipeline and within existing roadways. The Proposed Project would be returned to pre-construction conditions and would not increase the impervious surfaces and therefore would not create new areas of low permeability. As a result, no additional runoff is expected to be generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is necessary.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not substantially affect water quality. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed Project could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation issues. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, any potential impacts to water quality would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not redirect flood flows or otherwise place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary.

(h) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would generally not place exposed structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The pipeline facilities would be primarily located underground and out of the 100-year flood hazard area. The proposed pipeline alignment would cross a local creek and a small segment would be exposed and could be within the 100-year flood zone. However, this potential impact is regarded as less than significant and no mitigation is required.

(i) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding; including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam. No impacts are likely or anticipated.


May 2014 3-28

(j) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving a seiche or tsunami. In addition, the Proposed Project area is essentially level, with minimal to no potential hazards from mudflows. No impacts are likely or anticipated.


May 2014 3-29

3.9 Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The

Proposed Project is located the City of Folsom. The Proposed Project would be primarily constructed primarily within the existing pipeline and within City roadways. The Proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical division, or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. As a result, no impacts are likely or anticipated.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would be constructed primarily within the existing pipeline and within existing City roadways. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As stated above, the Proposed Project would be constructed primarily within the existing pipeline and within existing City roadways. For this reason, no impact is expected.


May 2014 3-30

3.10 Mineral Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-

important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located on a site that is identified as a significant source of mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project is not located in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore, no impact is expected. No mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-31

3.11 Noise Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project result in:

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

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use

plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project is located in an area with

the potential for sensitive receptors from nearby residential houses and businesses. The Proposed Project has the potential to generate noise during the construction phase through the use of equipment and construction vehicle trips. Once constructed, the Proposed Project would not create any new sources of operational noise. Therefore, operation of the pipeline would not result in permanent noise impacts. Construction of the Proposed Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment.

Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise


May 2014 3-32

environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.601 and 29 CFR 1926.602). Residences in the vicinity of the staging area would thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels.

Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors. Compliance with the City noise ordinance and implementation of the following mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts related to construction noise, to a less-than-significant level. The following mitigation measures are proposed:

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Hours. Construction activities will be limited to the least noise-sensitive times and will comply with City of Folsom noise ordinances. Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Locate Staging Areas away from Sensitive Receptors. The City’s construction specification shall require that the contractor select staging areas as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Maintain Mufflers on Equipment. The City’s construction specifications shall require the contractor to maintain all construction equipment with manufacturer’s specified noise-muffling devices.

Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Idling Prohibition and Enforcement. The City shall prohibit and enforce unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines including, but not limited to, turning off equipment if it will not be used for five or more minutes.

Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Equipment Location and Shielding. The City shall require the contractor to locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as possible from homes and businesses.

With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in exposing people to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or noise impacts on a long-term or permanent basis. Construction of the Proposed Project could likely result in minor and temporary increases in groundborne vibration or noise. However, construction activities would be temporary and is not considered to be significant. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts associated with the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

(c) No Impact. The operation of the Proposed Project would not increase noise in and around the Project area. Once constructed, the operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in any noise. The Proposed Project would not cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, this impact is considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project construction activities may lead to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts


May 2014 3-33

resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within two miles of an airport. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. No specific mitigation is required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within two miles of an airport. The Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. No specific mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-34

3.12 Population and Housing Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth either directly or indirectly. The Proposed Project would help the City conserve approximately 1 million gallons per day and would help supplement the City’s water supplies, but would not be a sufficient supply to induce substantial growth in the area. In addition, construction, operation, and maintenance would not result in any substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers/employees because of the short-term nature of the construction project. The long-term operation would be performed by existing City employees. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed Project would be constructed within the existing pipeline and within existing roadways within the City. Construction of the Proposed Project would not demolish any existing houses and would not affect any other housing structures and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.


May 2014 3-35

3.13 Public Services Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not generate population growth and the operation and

maintenance of the Proposed Project would not be labor intensive. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the kinds of public services that would support new residents, such as schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-36

3.14 Recreation Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Would the Project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or

require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not contribute to population growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in (a), the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for recreational facilities. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-37

3.15 Traffic and Transportation Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

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

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion

(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would be primarily constructed within the existing pipeline and within existing City roadways. Construction would temporarily disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project thus disrupting local vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along the haul route. The primary impacts from the movement of trucks would include short-term and intermittent lessening of roadway capacities due to slower movements and larger turning radii of the trucks compared to passenger vehicles. The following mitigation measures are proposed:

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan. As is consistent with existing policy, the City shall require the contractor to prepare and implement effective traffic control plans to show specific methods for maintaining traffic


May 2014 3-38

flows. Examples of traffic control measures to be considered include: 1) use of flaggers to maintain alternating one-way traffic while working on one-half of the street; 2) use of advance construction signs and other public notices to alert drivers of activity in the area; 3) use of “positive guidance” detour signing on alternate access streets to minimize inconvenience to the driving public; 4) provisions for emergency access and passage; and 5) designated areas for construction worker parking.

Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Prior to construction, the City shall survey the condition of the road surfaces that will be disturbed during construction activities of the Proposed Project. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better.

With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above in (a), construction activities of the Proposed Project would result in increased vehicle trips. This could temporarily exceed, either individually or cumulatively, existing level of service standards. However, because the construction activities are short-term in nature, the Proposed Project would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions or level of service on any project roadways. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 any temporary impacts associated with exceeding level of service standards would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to cause any change in air traffic patterns. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not propose to make changes to roadways that would create road hazards or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards. No impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would have temporary effects on traffic flow, due to added truck traffic during construction that could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project if not mitigated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require the contractor to establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access to land uses along the truck route. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would also ensure potential impacts associated with temporary effects on emergency access would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related construction activities would require additional parking for workers and equipment on a temporary basis. However, sufficient space exists to accommodate parking needs for construction workers and equipment. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(g) Less-than-Significant Impact. The construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be short term and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Also once constructed, the Proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any short-term effects would be considered less than significant.


May 2014 3-39

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems

Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project:

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

b) Require or result in the construction of new water

or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve

the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not generate wastewater and therefore would not

exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would reline the existing Willow Hill Pipeline to save approximately 1 million gallons per day of water. The Sacramento County Regional Sanitation


May 2014 3-40

District’s WWTP would not be affected by the Proposed Project and would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Any impacts associated with the construction and/or operations are considered to be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of additional off-site storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

(d) No Impact. The Proposed Project would reline the existing Willow Hill Pipeline to save approximately 1 million gallons per day of water. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would reline the existing Willow Hill pipeline to save approximately 1 million gallons per day of water. The Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District’s WWTP would not be affected by the Proposed Project and would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Any impacts associated with the construction and/or operations are considered to be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

(f) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not generate a significant amount of solid wastes. No impacts are expected to existing landfills and no mitigation is required.

(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts and no mitigation is required.


May 2014 3-41

3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

Would the Proposed Project:

a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

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

c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion

(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With the incorporation of the previously identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Any impacts from the Proposed Project in these areas are considered here to be less-than-significant with the implementation and incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation measures.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects as a result of the Proposed Project. No direct project-specific significant effects were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative (as well as direct)


May 2014 3-42

impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As a result of mitigation included in this environmental document, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly.


May 2014 4-1

Chapter 4 Determination:

On the basis of this initial evaluation for the Willow Hills Pipeline Rehabilitation Project:

I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the City. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project/Action, nothing further is required.

Signature Date Marcus Yasutake Environmental Utilities Director Printed Name Title


May 2014 5-1

Chapter 5 Bibliography Detailed below are the sources referenced during the preparation of this environmental document.

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Severity Mapping. July 2014. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones.php

• California Department of Toxic Substances. Envirostor database and GIS System. July 2014. http:// www.dtsc.ca.gov/database

• California Natural Diversity Database, February 2014. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb

• City of Folsom. General Plan. October 2013. http://www.folsom.ca.us.

• City of Folsom. Preliminary Design Report – Willow Hill Pipeline Rehabilitation Project. February 2013.

Appendix A Air Quality Emissions Calculations

Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1

Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive DustProject Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day)

Grubbing/Land Clearing 4.1 18.2 24.6 2.4 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.2 2,888.3 Grading/Excavation 11.7 54.7 112.2 6.6 5.6 1.0 5.3 5.0 0.2 11,446.3 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 10.3 45.6 82.8 5.8 4.8 1.0 4.6 4.3 0.2 8,248.1 Paving 5.8 25.4 35.8 2.6 2.6 - 2.3 2.3 - 4,005.6 Maximum (pounds/day) 11.7 54.7 112.2 6.6 5.6 1.0 5.3 5.0 0.2 11,446.3 Total (tons/construction project) 1.3 5.9 11.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 1,145.1

Notes: Project Start Year -> 2014Project Length (months) -> 12

Total Project Area (acres) -> 10Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0

Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)-> 200

Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust

Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day)

Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.9 8.3 11.2 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.1 1,312.9 Grading/Excavation 5.3 24.9 51.0 3.0 2.5 0.5 2.4 2.3 0.1 5,202.9 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.7 20.7 37.6 2.6 2.2 0.5 2.1 2.0 0.1 3,749.2 Paving 2.6 11.6 16.3 1.2 1.2 - 1.1 1.1 - 1,820.7 Maximum (kilograms/day) 5.3 24.9 51.0 3.0 2.5 0.5 2.4 2.3 0.1 5,202.9 Total (megagrams/construction project) 1.2 5.3 10.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 1,038.6

Notes: Project Start Year -> 2014Project Length (months) -> 12

Total Project Area (hectares) -> 4Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 0

Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)-> 153

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Willow Hills Pipeline Rehabilitation Project

Willow Hills Pipeline Rehabilitation Project

PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.

Appendix B Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur

B-‐1

Appendix B Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur in the Proposed Project/Action Study Area

Species

Status

Habitat

Potential for Occurrence

Recommendations

Plants Orcuttia viscida Sacramento Orcutt grass

FE, FX, Grows only in vernal pools, a rare and declining type of habitat.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat not present in the Study Area due to urban development and human activity.

No further actions are recommended for this species.

Nassella Pulchra Valley Needlegrass Grassland

SSC Located throughout California, but threatened by urban and agriculture development.

Likely. Known to occur within the Project Study area.

Conduct preconstruction breeding and nesting surveys. If found provide buffer or replace after construction.

Birds Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird

CSC Native grasslands and open space.


Conduct preconstruction breeding and nesting surveys. If found provide buffer or differ construction activities.

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl

CSC Occurs in dry, open grasslands on flat or rolling terrain; desert; scrubland or any other terrain dominated by low‐growing vegetation.



Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk

ST Consists of open and semi-‐open country – deserts, grasslands and prairies.



Mammals Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-‐haired bat

SSC They often roost in tree cavities or in bark crevices on tree trunks, especially during migration.



Reptiles Emys marmorata Western Pond turtle

CSC Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation.


Conduct preconstruction surveys.

Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake

FT Generally inhabits marshes, sloughs, ponds, slow moving streams, ditches, and rice fields which have water from early spring through mid-fall, emergent vegetation, open areas and high

Unlikely. Suitable habitat not present in the Study Area.


B-‐2


Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

ground for hibernation and escape cover.

Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California Tiger Salamander

FT, FX, SSC

Inhabits annual grass habitat and mammal burrows. Seasonal ponds and vernal pools crucial to breeding.

Unlikely. Annual grassland habitat is limited in the Study Area.


Rana aurora draytonii California Red-legged Frog

FT, FX, SSC

Associated with quiet perennial to intermittent ponds, stream pools and wetlands. Prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation. Documented to disperse through upland habitats after rains.

Unlikely. Freshwater habitat in the Study Area is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species.

No further actions are recommended for this species

Fish Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt

FT, FX Found in large, main channels and open areas of the Bay. Occur from tidal freshwater reaches of the Delta west to eastern San Pablo Bay.

Unlikely. No suitable habitat occurs within the Study Area.


Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon - central CA coast

FE, NMFS

Central and northern Calif. Coastal rivers and drainages.

Unlikely. Believed to be extirpated from San Francisco bay drainages.


Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead, Central California Coast and Central Valley

FT, FX, CSC

Drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo bays, central Calif. Coastal rivers.



Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon

FT, FX NMFS

Spawns in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.



Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River

SSC, FE, FX, NMFS

Populations spawning in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, well-oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean.



Invertebrates Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp

FE Inhabit highly turbid water in vernal pools. Known

Unlikely. Suitable vernal pool habitat is not

No further actions are recommended

B-‐3


Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

from six populations in the northern central valley.

present in the Study Area.

for this species.

Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp

FT Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone depression pools, grassy swales, slumps, or basalt-flow depression pools.

Unlikely. Grassy swales in the Study Area are characterized by a significant grade unlikely to provide suitable habitat for this species.


Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

FT Occurs in the Central Valley region in association with blue elderberry shrubs. Prefers to lay eggs in elderberry stems greater than 1” in diameter.

Likely. Elderberry shrubs are identified in the Study Area and suitable habitat is present.

Conduct Pre-construction Survey. If found, provide 100-foot buffer.

Lepidurus packardi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp

FE Pools commonly found in grass bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are mudbottomed and highly turbid.

Unlikely. Suitable vernal pool habitat is not present in the Study Area.


Key to status codes: FE Federal Endangered FT Federal Threatened FX Federal Critical Habitat FC Federal Candidate FD Federal De-listed FPD Federal Proposed for De-listing FPT Federal Proposed Threatened NMFS Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern RP Sensitive species included in a USFWS Recovery Plan or Draft Recovery Plan SE State Endangered ST State Threatened SR State Rare CSC CDFG Species of Special Concern Draft CSC 4 April 2000 Draft CDFG Species of Special Concern CFP CDFG Fully Protected Animal WBWG Western Bat Working Group High Priority species SLC Species of Local Concern List 1A CNPS List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B CNPS List 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 CNPS List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere List 3 CNPS List 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list)

Public Draft is MND2

Documents

Transcript of Public Draft is MND2