ukiah recycled water project - is-mnd-public draft2

8/10/2019 Ukiah Recycled Water Project - IS-MND-Public Draft2

1/228


2/228

City of Ukiah

Recycled Water Project

Public Draft

Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by:

SMB Environmental, Inc.

March 2013


3/228

City of Ukiah Recycled Water ProjectPublic Draft IS/MND

March 2013 i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-11.1 Project Location, Environmental Setting, and Background .....................................1-11.2 Goal and Objectives ..............................................................................................1-3

1.3

Document Organization and Review Process ........................................................1-4

Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................2-12.1 Proposed Project/Action Description......................................................................2-12.1.1 Potential Users and Phasing .................................................................................2-12.1.2 Pipeline Facilities ...................................................................................................2-42.1.3 Pump Station .........................................................................................................2-42.1.4 Storage Facilities ...................................................................................................2-42.2 Construction Considerations ..................................................................................2-52.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy ..............2-72.4 Operational Plans ..................................................................................................2-82.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ......................................................2-8

2.6

No Project/Action Alternative .................................................................................2-8

Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences .......................................................3-13.1 Aesthetics ..............................................................................................................3-23.2 Agricultural Resources...........................................................................................3-33.3 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3-53.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-113.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................. 3-183.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 3-223.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 3-243.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .........................................................................3-03.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................3-4

3.10

Land Use and Planning .........................................................................................3-83.11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................3-9

3.12 Noise ................................................................................................................... 3-103.13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 3-133.14 Public Services .................................................................................................... 3-153.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................... 3-163.16 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 3-173.17 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................... 3-193.18 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................... 3-213.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 3-23

Chapter 4 Determination: .....................................................................................................4-1

Chapter 5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................5-1

List of Figures

Figure 1:General Location Map ........................................................................................... 1-2Figure 2:Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments ....................................................... 2-2Figure 3:Recommended Phasing of Proposed Project/Action .......................................... 2-3


4/228


March 2013 ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters .................................................................... 2-1Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary .......................................................... 2-4Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities .................................................................................. 2-5Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities ... 2-8Table 5: Proposed Project/Action Construction EmissionsPhase 1 ............................. 3-7Table 6: Proposed Project/Action Construction EmissionsPhase 2 ............................. 3-7Table 7: Proposed Project/Action Construction EmissionsPhase 3 ............................. 3-8Table 8: Proposed Project/Action Construction EmissionsPhase 4 ............................. 3-8Table 9: Proposed Project/Action Construction EmissionsTotal Project ..................... 3-9

Appendices

Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations ............................................................... A-1Appendix B: Biological Resources Investigation Report .................................................. B-1Appendix C: Section 106 Cultral Resources Investigation Report ................................... C-1


5/228


March 2013 iii

List of Abbreviations

ABWF average base wastewater flow

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 Water California Water Service Company

Cal/OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CAP Clean Air PlanCCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CGS California Geological Survey

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Societys

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

I/I infiltration/inflow


6/228


March 2013 iv

ISA International Society of Arboriculture Standards

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

LU Landscape Unit

mgd million gallons per day

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone 4

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBWRP North Bay Water Recycling Program

NEPA National Environmental Quality Act

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrus Oxcides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OHWM Ordinary High Water MarkPWWF Peak wet weather flow

ROG reactive organic gases

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

SR State Route

SRF State Revolving Funds

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones

TSP Total Suspended Particles

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


7/228


March 2013 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction

This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that addresses the potentialenvironmental impacts of the City of Ukiahs proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed

Project/Action). The purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to replace/augment existing water suppliesin Ukiah Valley. Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water

demands for irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the localagricultural industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the UkiahWastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City is the lead agency under CEQA. In addition, the City is also seeking funds from the StateRevolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board(State Board). The SRF Loan Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) and subject to federal environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA),the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act

(CAA), among others. Federal agencies have their own policies on how they comply with federalenvironmental laws. Instead of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), USEPA has chosen to

use CEQA as the compliance base for Californias SRF Loan Program, in addition to compliance withESA, NHPA, and CAA. Collectively, the State Board calls these requirements CEQA-Plus. As a result,this document has been prepared to meet the CEQA-Plus requirements.

1.1 Project Location, Environmental Setting, and Background

As shown in Figure 1, the City is located in Mendocino County in the northern coastal region ofCalifornia. The City is situated in the Ukiah Valley approximately 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, 20 milessouth of Willits, and 5 miles south-west of Lake Mendocino, and is surrounded by coastal ranges insouthern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the east

by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above mean sea

level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south near ElRobles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs north tosouth through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to souththrough the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.

Originally part of a Mexican Land Grant, the City began its history as a Valley settlement in 1856. Due to

the Citys moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end ofthe 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County(www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood production

plants, in addition to up-and-coming nonagricultural manufacturers.

Surface waters, namely the Russian River and Lake Mendocino, and groundwater are the major waterresources that sustain the people and industries of Ukiah area. The City and several other water service

providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within theirservice area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both irrigatetheir crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources have

become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-stream flow requirementsfor endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies, including recycled

water, has increased.


8/228

Ukiah

WWTP

16"

12"

8"

12"

16"

16"

8"

16"

12"

8"8"

16"

8"

12"

8

"

1

6"

12"

8"

16"

12"

Figure 1PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION

CITY OF UKIAH

RECYCLED WATER PROJECTINITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

0 1

Miles

Legend

Proposed Pipeline

12" and larger

8" and smaller

Landscape Parcels

Agricultural Parcels

CEQA-Fig_1-Proposed_Project_or_Action.mxd


9/228


March 2013 1-3

Environmental groups have increasingly studied how river and groundwater diversions have negatively

affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of thesediversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrations National Marine FisheriesService (NOAA Fisheries) presented the State Board with information that water withdrawn from the

Russian River for frost protection of agricultural crops poses a threat to federally threatened andendangered salmonids in the Russian River watershed. They documented two episodes of fish stranding

mortality that occurred in April 2008, one on Felta Creek in Sonoma County and the second on themainstream of the Russian River near Hopland in Mendocino County (Draft EIR Russian River FrostProtection Regulation, 2007). NOAA Fisheries requested the State Board take regulatory action

immediately to regulate diversions for frost protection to prevent salmonid mortality. The State Board iscurrently considering regulatory action that would deem any diversions for frost protection from March15 through May 15 unreasonable, unless approved by the State Board through the completion of anextensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay ofthe State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and

Sonoma Counties.

Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative watersupplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service providers

in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River and LakeMendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area would increasethe overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.

The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent ofthe UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City islimited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly stringentdischarge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be discharged to

the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges very highquality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which treated effluent

can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including delivery ofrecycled water to irrigation customers.

1.2 Goal and Objectives

The goal and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Project is to construct an approximately 9.4-milepipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the

Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the Citys existingUkiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary

recycled water unrestricted use as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections60301 through 60355.

The City held a visioning workshop on February 28, 2011 early in the master planning process to ensurethe Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) aligned with the goals and values of the City and other

potentially affected interests. To ensure the master plan addressed both local and regional issues andprovided local and regional benefits, the City of Ukiah invited City engineering, planning, management,and operations staff, water service providers in the surrounding area from Redwood Valley to Willow

County Water District, and agricultural entities to partake in the visioning workshop. Attendees includedrepresentatives from the following entities:

City of Ukiah Ukiah Valley Sanitation District


10/228


March 2013 1-4

Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District Mendocino County Farm Bureau Millview Water District Rogina Water District Willow Water District Redwood Valley Water District

The group discussed values and challenges pertaining to the RWMP and identified several goals andobjectives. The primary goals and objectives that were identified include:

Implementing a recycled water program that is safe and meets the needs of the City andsurrounding communities, including local agricultural businesses;

Reducing withdrawals from the Russian River and Lake Mendocino surface waters;

Implementing a program that helps the City with its disposal options for its treated wastewatereffluent; and

Implementing a program that is financially viable and minimizes costs to ratepayers.

It was agreed during the workshop that implementing recycled water anywhere within Ukiah

Valley and the surrounding area would improve the regional water supply from Redwood Valley toHopland. The attendees also identified major water uses located near the recycled water source theUWWTP.

1.3 Document Organization and Review Process

This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA-Plus requirements and is to provide a

preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed Project/Action to determine if it may have asignificant adverse impact on the environment. This document is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the background, goals and objectives of theProposed Project/Action, 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 environmentalimpacts 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. This checklist has beenmodified to include additional topics to meet the requirements of NEPA for the State BoardsCEQA-Plus requirements.

Chapter 4, Determination. Chapter 4 provides the proposed result of this Initial Study.

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

This document will be available for a 30-day public review period, during which written comments maybe submitted. 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 and/or the State Board priorto taking any discretionary action/decision on the Proposed Project/Action.


11/228


March 2013 2-1

Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives

This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project/Action including a discussion of theconstruction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational

plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section also describesthe No Project/Action Alternative.

2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to replace/augment existing water supplies in Ukiah Valley.Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for irrigationand frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural industry. It

would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah Wastewater TreatmentPlant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.

The Proposed Project was developed through an extensive engineering and feasibility study process,culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed Project for this reportand environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 7 of the CitysFebruary

2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Proposed Project/Action wouldconsist of 9.4 -miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8- to 16-inch to provide recycledwater from the Citys existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urbanlandscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703 acreswould be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284 acreswould be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary of

the key parameters of the overall Proposed Project/Action. What follows is a discussion of the majorfeatures of the Proposed Project/Action.

Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Parameters

ParameterNumber of

Units

Irrigation Demand (AFY) 1,234Irrigated area Served (Acres) 703

Parcels Provided irrigation (Number) 44

Frost Protection Demand (AFY) 142

Frost Protected land (Acres) 284

Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres) 17

Pipeline Length (Miles) 9.4

Pipeline Diameter (Inches) 8-16

Pump Station 1

2.1.1 Potential Users and Phasing

There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The ProposedProject/Action will be developed in four phases. Figure 3 provides a summary of the recommended

phasing for the implementation of the Proposed Project/Action. Table 2 provides a summary of the

estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection.


12/228

Ukiah

WWTP

I

16"

12"

8"

12"

16"

16

"

8"16"

12"

8"

8"

16"

8"

12"

8

"

16"

12"

8"

16"

12"

REDWOO D H WY

BOONVILLE

RD

TALMAGE RD

EAS

TSIDE

RD

SSTATEST

SDORAST

LOWGAPRD

NBUSHST

NSTATEST

EGOBBIST

VICHYSPRIN

GSRD

FORDRD

OAKKNOLL RD

BURKEHILLRD

RUDDICKCU

NNINGHAMRD

N

OAKST

SOAKST

TWININGRD

WATSONRD

GIELOWLN

QUAILD

R

HEL ENAVE

WCLAYST

RIVERRD

WMILLS

T

MILLCREEKRD

FEEDLOTRD

WSTANDL

EYST

STAN

LEYA

VE EPERKINS

ST

DES PINADR

FORDST

BARTOLO

ME

IRD

BISBYAVE

MAPLEAVE

WAUGHLN

B R I G

G S

S T

EMPIREDR

AIR

PORTRD

SHEPARDLN

SORCHARDAVE

WCHURCH

ST

REDEMEYE

RR

D

TAYLORDR

ADDOR

LEWISLN

SMAIN

ST

BRUSH ST

CLARAAVE

HOWELLCREEK RD

KNOBHILLRD

TINDALL RANCH RD

STIPPLN

LAWS

AVE

BEACONLN

CRESTVIEWDR

LOVERS LN

BUDHI

VIEWDR

POMO

DR

APOLIN

ARIS

DR

RIDGE

RD

NMAINST

LUCEAVE

ROSEMARYHILL RANCH

RD

LEERD

ELROBLERD

PARKCREEK

LN

VANPELTDR

JEFFERSON

LN

MCCLURESUBDIVISIONRD

OAKKNO

LL

MENDOCINODR

TALMAGERD

EUNICECT

BODMIWAY

CRESTAD

R

POMOLN

HIGHLANDDR

BROGGIELN

NSTATEST

LUCEAVE

BISBYAVE

RE

DEMEYER

RD

LEWISL

N

$0 1

Miles

Legend

Proposed Pipeline

12" and larger

DIAMETER

8" and smaller

WWTP Ponds and Buildings

Landscape Parcels

Agricultural Parcels

River

Major Roads

Local Streets

CEQA-Fig_2-Proposed_Project_or_Action.mxd

Figure 2PROPOSED PROJECT/ACTION

CITY OF UKIAHRECYCLED WATER PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Pond Site


13/228

Ukiah

WWTP

RED WOOD H W Y

BOONVILLE

RD

TALMAGE RD

EAS

TSIDE

RD

SSTATEST

SDORAST

LOWGAPRD

NBUSHST

NSTATEST

EGOBBIST

VICHYSPRIN

GSRD

FORDRD

OAKKNOLL RD

BURKEHILLRD

RUDDICKCU

NNINGHAMRD

N

OAKST

SOAKST

TWININGRD

WATSONRD

GIELOWLN

QUAILD

R

HEL ENAVE

WCLAYST

RIVERRD

WMILLS

T

MILLCREEKRD

FEEDLOTRD

WSTANDL

EYST

STAN

LEYA

VE EPERKINS

ST

FORDST

BARTOLO

ME

IRD

BISBYAVE

WAUGHLN

B R I G G S

S T

EMPIREDR

AIR

PORTRD

SHEPARDLN

WCHURCH

ST

REDEMEYE

RR

D

ADDOR

LEWISLN

CLARAAVE

HOWELLCREEK RD

KNOBHILLRD

TINDALL RANCH RD

STIPPLN

LAWS

AVE

BEACONLN

CRESTVIEWDR

LOVERS LN

BUDHI

POMO

DR

APOLIN

ARIS

DR

RIDGE

RD

LUCEAVE

ROSEMARYHILL RANCH

RD

LEERD

ELROBLERD

PARKCREEK

LN

VANPELTDR

JEFFERSON

LN

MCCLURESUBDIVISIONRD

OAKKNO

LL

TALMAGERD EUNICECT

BODMIWAY

HIGHLANDDR

BROGGIELN

PLUM ST

BISBYAVE

RED

EMEYER

RD

Legend

Pipelines

by Phase

1

2

3

4

Potential Parcels

by Phase

1

2

3

4

WWTP Ponds and Buildings

River

Major Roads

Local Streets

CEQA-Fig_3-Recommended_Phasing_of_the_Proposed_Project_or_Action.mxd

0 1

Miles

Figure 3PHASING OF PROPOSED PROJECT/ACT

CITY OF UKIAHRECYCLED WATER PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION


14/228


March 2013 2-4

Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary

Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY)

Irrigation

Phase Agricultural

Urban

Landscape

Frost

ProtectionTotal byPhase

CumulativeTotal

1 309.2 0.0 94.6 403.8 403.8

2 210.4 0.0 4.8 215.1 618.9

3 311.8 22.2 42.3 376.3 995.2

4 0.0 380.6 0.0 380.6 1,375.8

Total 831.4 402.8 141.7 1,375.8

2.1.2 Pipeline Facilities

As mentioned above and shown on Figures 2 and 3, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8 and 16-inches in diameter. The recycled water would

be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available upto the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipelinewill be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase isanticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be along pavedroads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads,

primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the totallength of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral streams and/ordrainages that lead to the Russian River.

2.1.3 Pump Station

A single pump station is included in the alignment shown in Figure 2 at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is

planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with sparebays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in Phase 2.

Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for frostprotection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.

2.1.4 Storage Facilities

As also shown on Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action also includes the construction and operation of anew single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at acapacity of approximately 1.6 MG and encompassing approximately 5 acres. The storage pond at the

wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns andalso serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. Inaddition this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop

additional storage ponds on their own. These specific farmer activities are not included in the ProposedProject/Action.


15/228


March 2013 2-5

Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities

Phase Type of Alignment1

Diameter(inches)

Length

(feet)

Length(miles)

Construction

Schedule1 Ukiah WWTP Site Piping 16 1,300 0.25 2013 - 2014

1 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 5,600 1.06 2013 - 2014

Phase 1 Subtotal 6,900 1.31 2013 - 2014

2 Paved Public Street 16 5,600 1.06 2019 - 2020


Phase 2 Subtotal 9,800 1.86 2019 - 2020



3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 400 0.08 2025 - 2026

3 Paved Public Street 8 1,000 0.19 2025 - 2026Phase 3 Subtotal 14,400 2.73 2025 - 2026



Phase 4 Subtotal 18,500 3.50 2031 - 2032

Proposed Project/Action Total 49,600 9.40 2013 - 2032

Note:

1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not

included in the lengths presented here.

2.2 Construction Considerations

As shown in Table 3 above, construction of the Proposed Project/Action is expected to begin in the

summer of 2013 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are plannedto be developed in five (5) year increments beginning in 2013. Construction work will typically be donewithin normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly onSaturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed

primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during construction

will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of theconstruction techniques and activities.

The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover constructiontechniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that 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, especially for thesmaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3-5

feet wide and 3-6 feet deep.

The Proposed Project/Action would also require crossing six small ephemeral creeks and/ordrainages that flow to the Russian River. Each of the crossings will be done using trenchless


16/228


March 2013 2-6

construction techniques1 and will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy

weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1.

Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as anydewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and not

into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North Coast

Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).

Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiringbrief 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 each phase of the project would beconstructed by two (2) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of

pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that would minimizehauling distances and long-term disruption.

Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project/Action.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. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported forthis project. 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/Action couldgenerate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions forthis document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include,

but not limited to:

Track-mounted excavator

Backhoe

Grader

Crane

Dozer

Compactor

Trencher/boring machine

End and bottom dump truck

Front-end loader

Water truck

Flat-bed delivery truck

Forklift

1Trenchless technology is a type of subsurface construction work that requires few trenches or no continuous trenches. It is a rapidly growingsector of theconstruction andcivil engineering industry. Trenchless technology can be defined as "a family of methods, materials, and equipment

capable of being used for the installation of new or replacement or rehabilitation of existing underground infrastructure with minimal disruption

to surface traffic, business, and other activities. Trenchless construction includes such construction methods astunneling,micro-tunneling (MTM), horizontaldirectional drilling (HDD) also known asdirectional boring,pipe ramming (PR),pipe Jacking (PJ),moling,

horizontal augerboring (HAB) and other methods for the installation of pipelines and cables below the ground with minimal excavation. Large

diametertunnels such as those constructed by a tunnel boring machine (TBM), and drilling and blasting techniques are larger versions of

subsurface construction. The difference between trenchless and other subsurface construction techniques depends upon the size of the passage

under construction. Trenchless construction requires considering soil characteristics and the loads applied to the surface. In cases where the soil is

sandy, the water table is at shallow depth, or heavy loads like that of urban traffic are expected, the depth of excavation has to be at a depth suchthat the pressure of the load on the surface does not affect the bore, otherwise there is danger of surface caving in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drillinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenchless_technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_boringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_ramminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_Jackinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_blastinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drilling_and_blastinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_Jackinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_ramminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_boringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenchless_technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drillinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtunnelinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineeringhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction


17/228


March 2013 2-7

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. However, this descriptionprovides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with

construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods aregenerally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the Citys design standards orestablished ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not

described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minorchange in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.

2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled WaterPolicy

The Proposed Project/Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicablerequirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation

that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Boardadopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water

recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As partof that process, the State Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the useof recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated byreference for this document and Proposed Project/Action. The newly adopted RW Policy includes amandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by

2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservationand potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed

both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional Water

Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the NorthCoast RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the North Coast Area and

including Mendocino County.

The Proposed Project/Action will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water

from UWWTP and made available to users within the Ukiah Valley. All irrigation systems will beoperated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled WaterPolicy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycledwater and any reclamation permits issued by the North Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically

require the following:

Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated;

Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities;

Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to therelease of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;

Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and

Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditionshave been met as defined in Title 22.


18/228


March 2013 2-8

2.4 Operational Plans

The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as

follows:

Agricultural Irrigation: 6 AM to 6 PM

Landscape Irrigation: 6 PM to 5 AM

Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required

By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized.

2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals

Table 4 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior toconstruction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.

Table 4: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities

Agency Type of Approval

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Nationwide Permit #12 for ConstructionActivities (or) Section 404 (Wetlands)Permit

Coordination with Federal AviationAdministration (FAA) for permitting of newwastewater storage pond

North Coast Regional Water Quality ControlBoard

National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem General Permit for StormwaterDischarge Associated with ConstructionActivities

Recycled Water Use Permit

California Division of Occupational Safety and

Health

Construction activities in compliance with

CAL/OSHA safety requirementsCalifornia Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreements

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Ukiah Municipal Airport Operations

Permitting of new wastewater storage pond

Mendocino County Air Quality ManagementDistrict (BAAQMD)

Authority to Construct

Permit to Operate

County of Mendocino Encroachment PermitCounty Roads

2.6 No Project/Action Alternative

Under the No Project/Action Alternative, the Citys Proposed Project/Action would not be constructed.

For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition and the future No Project/Actioncondition are the same. That is, the No Project/Action Alternative assumes that none of the ProposedProject/Action facilities would be constructed. Individual farmers may implement and or construct theirown water supply or frost protection facilities, but these would be speculative at best and therefore are notconsidered further as part of this analysis. As a result, the impact description and summary compares theProposed Project/Action to the existing conditions now and into the future assuming that the City would

not construct any facilities to meet the objectives of the Proposed Project/Action. Again, the NoProject/Action which assumes that none of the proposed facilities will be constructed now or in the future.


19/228


March 2013 3-1

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 a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the

CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential impacts of the ProposedProject/Action pursuant to both CEQA and NEPA. This document compares the Proposed Project/Actionagainst the No Project/Action Alternative as is required by CEQA and NEPA.

Environmental Impact Designations

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential tobe significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigationstrategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which nomitigation 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 havethe potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through theapplication 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 beenidentified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for thatresource. 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


20/228


March 2013 3-2

3.1 AestheticsLess ThanSignificant

Potentially With Less ThanSignificant Mitigation Significant No

Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

Would the Proposed Project/Action:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

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

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

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

which would adversely affect day or nighttimeviews in the area?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located in or near any designated scenic vistasand therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. In the distance to the east

and west, hills provide background to area views. However construction and/or operation of theProposed Project/Action would not affect any scenic vistas or its designation. No impacts areanticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action 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. Highway 101 through the

Ukiah Valley is regarded by the locals as a scenic corridor, providing visitors and residents accessto the beauty of the valley. However, no highways in Mendocino County have been officiallydesignated as state scenic highways by the City, County and/or the California Department of

Transportation (Caltrans). As a result, construction and/or operation of the ProposedProject/Action would not affect any scenic resources along Highway 101 or its designation.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be visible

and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as thepresence of construction equipment and materials. Construction impacts would be temporary and

are considered to be less-than-significant. Once built, the pipeline facilities would be buried

underground and not visible. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not affect anyvisual resources.

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


21/228


March 2013 3-3

3.2 Agricultural Resources

Less ThanSignificant




a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency, to non-agriculturaluse?

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 resultin conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculturaluse?

Discussion

(a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action 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 pipeline facilities would be constructed withinexisting paved streets as well as agricultural service roads. The pipeline facilities that would be

located in agricultural lands would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64 miles long. Assuming a5-foot permanent easement, this could permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres of agriculturallands. In addition, the proposed storage pond would be located on 40 acres of agricultural landthat was recently purchased by the City and would take up approximately 2.5 acres of this landadjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As a result, the Proposed Project/ Action could result in an impact

of up to approximately 4.7 acres of agricultural lands. However, this is not considered to be asignificant impact given the approximately 20,000 acres of productive agricultural lands in theUkiah Valley2. Specifically, this represents significantly less than 1 percent of the totalagricultural production acreage within the Ukiah Valley. In addition, the pipeline alignment has

been designed to be located within existing agricultural service roads to avoid interfering with

existing and future agricultural operations as much as possible. As a result, any impacts ofconverting farmland to non-agricultural usage would be considered less than significant. No

mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action has the potential to conflict withexisting zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the proposed

pipeline facilities would be constructed within existing paved streets as well as agriculturalservice roads. Specifically, the pipeline facilities that would be located in agricultural lands

2County of Mendocino, Ukiah Valley Area Plan. 2007.


22/228


March 2013 3-4

would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64 miles long. Assuming a 5-foot easement, this would

permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres of agricultural lands. In addition, the proposedstorage pond would be located on 40 acres of agricultural land that was recently purchased by theCity and would take up to approximately 2.5 acres of this land adjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As

a result, the Proposed Project/ Action could result in an impact of up to approximately 4.7 acresof agricultural lands. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact given the

approximately 20,000 acres of productive agricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley. Specifically,this represents significantly less than 1 percent of the total agricultural production acreage withinthe Ukiah Valley. In addition, the pipeline alignment has been designed to be located in the

existing agricultural service roads along the edge of the property to avoid interfering with existingand future agricultural operations as much as possible. As a result, any conflicts with existingzoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would be considered less thansignificant. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(c) Less- than-Significant Impact. As stated above, the proposed pipeline facilities would be

constructed within agricultural lands as well as public paved streets. Specifically the pipelinefacilities that would be located in agricultural lands would be approximately 19,200 feet or 3.64

miles long. Assuming a 5-foot easement, this would permanently affect approximately 2.2 acres

of agricultural lands. In addition, the proposed storage pond would be located on 40 acres ofagricultural land that was recently purchased by the City and would take up approximately 2.5

acres of this land adjacent to the Ukiah WWTP. As a result the Proposed Project/ Action couldresult in an impact of up to approximately 4.7 acres of agricultural lands. However, this is not

considered to be a significant impact given the approximately 20,000 acres of productiveagricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, this represents significantly less than one (1)

percent of the total agricultural production acreage within the Ukiah Valley. In addition, thepipeline alignment has been designed to be located in existing agricultural service roads along theedge of the property to avoid interfering with existing and future agricultural operations as much

as possible. As a result, this is not expected to adversely affect agricultural practices and/orsignificantly convert farmland to non-agricultural usage. In fact, securing a supplemental water

resource from the City will help preserve agriculture within the Ukiah Valley.

From an operational perspective, the application of recycled water does have the ability toincrease salts and nutrient loadings on the soils. See the Discussion in the Hydrology/Water

Quality Section of this document. To address this concern, the City will enforce a strict irrigationschedule that will apply recycled water at agronomical rates and will not result in significant salt

or nutrient loadings that would adversely affect agricultural practices and/or significantly convertany farmland to non-agricultural usage. Therefore, no mitigation is required or necessary.


23/228


March 2013 3-5

3.3 Air QualityLess ThanSignificant




a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increaseof any criteria pollutant for which the Projectregion 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 substantialnumber of people?

Discussion

(a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within the jurisdiction ofthe Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), the regional agencyempowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in Mendocino County.MCAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationaryemission sources and through its planning and review process. The Project site is located in the

North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), as established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The NCAB includes Mendocino, Humboldt, Trinity, Del Norte Counties, and Northern SonomaCounty. The NCAB extends south from the coast of Oregon between 30 and 100 miles wide. The

Coastal Range and Pacific Ocean border to the west, the Sacramento Valley to the east and theKlamath Mountains in the north. Mendocino County is non-attainment for the state PM-10standard. The primary sources of PM-10 are wood combustion emissions, fugitive dust from

construction projects, automobile emissions, and industry. Some of the automobile emissions are

the result of pass-though traffic on 101 because of its nature as a major transportation corridorin the state. The District has full monitoring stations (NOx, Ozone, CO and PM-10) in both Ukiahand Willits. A PM-2.5 monitor has been established in Ukiah. Both Ukiah and Willits have hadPM-10 exceedances in the past. Winter cold-air inversions are common in the valleys from

November to February. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with or obstructimplementation of the applicable air quality plan.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. MCAQMD has not adopted formal CEQAThresholds. MCAQMD has traditionally relied informally on the CEQA thresholds adopted by


24/228


March 2013 3-6

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) with minor modifications reflecting

location conditions. MCAQMD has requested that the BAAQMD May 28, 2010 CEQAthresholds and CEQA guidelines be followed to evaluate air quality impacts. Currently, theseguidelines have been overturned by the Alameda County Court and the BAAQMD has requested

that its 1999 CEQA Thresholds be used instead3. Specifically, based on BAAQMDs 1999CEQA Thresholds, a project is considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it

would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM 10,reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). ROG and NOX are both ozone

precursors. Construction activities would begin in the summer of 2013 and continue over an

approximately 20-year period and into the 2030. Specifically, each of the four phases is plannedto be developed in 5-year increments. Overall construction work would require the use of varioustypes of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, andvarious kinds of trucks.

Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form offugitive 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 prevailingweather. As shown in Appendix A, estimated construction emissions for the construction

activities were generated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management DistrictsRoad Construction model (i.e. URBEMIS Model). (Note that this model was used becauseBAAQMD recommends its use). The Roadway Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft

Excel worksheet available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimatedconstruction equipment fleet mix and the acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMISmodel in order to determine potential emissions for each construction phase as well as for theoverall project. Tables 5-8 provide the emissions output from URBEMIS in maximum pounds perday as well as in estimated tons for each phase of the Proposed Project/Action. Table 9 provides

a worst case scenario and assumes that all of the proposed project facilities were constructed asone project instead of into four phases over 20 years. As shown in the tables, emissions do not

exceed BAAQMDs daily and/orannual significance thresholds.

3BAAQMDs CEQA Guidelines were developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the

requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality. These CEQA Guidelines were updated in June 2010

to include reference to thresholds of significance (Thresholds) adopted by the Air District Board on June 2, 2010. TheGuidelines were further updated in May 2011. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment findingthat the Air District had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the Thresholds. The court did not determine whether the

Thresholds were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the Thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued awrit of mandate ordering the District to set aside the Thresholds and cease dissemination of them until BAAQMD had compliedwith CEQA. In view of the courts order, BAAQMD is no longer recommending that the Thresholds be used as a generallyapplicable measure of a projects significant air quality impacts. Lead agencies will need to determine appropriate air quali tythresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. Although lead agencies may rely on BAAQMDs CEQA

Guidelines (updated May 2011) for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the healthimpacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the Thresholdsand is no longer recommending that these Thresholds be used as a general measure of a projects significant air quality impacts.Lead agencies may continue to rely on the Air Districts 1999 Thresholds of Significance and they may continue to make

determinations regarding the significance of an individual projects air quality impacts based on the substantial evidence in therecord for that project.


25/228


March 2013 3-7

Table 5: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions-Phase 1

Construction ActivitiesConstruction Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5*

Grubbing/Land Clearing 4.3 17.8 31.2 3.9 1.8Grading/Excavation 6.0 35.0 41.6 4.5 2.3

Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 4.3 17.6 28.6 4.1 2.0

Paving 3.0 11.6 14.5 1.3 1.2

Maximum (lbs/day)** 6.0 35.0 41.6 4.5 2.3

Total Tons/Project/Year 0.6 3.1 4.3 0.5 0.3

Thresholds of Significance

Pounds per Day 80 550 80 80 80

Tons per Project/Year 15 100 15 15 15

Significant Impact? No No No No No

Notes* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.

** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will beoccurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not a summation of the daily emission rates ofall phases.

*** BAAQMDs May 2011 Thresholds were invalidated by Alameda County Superior Court and BAAQMD

recommends using its 1999 Thresholds.


Construction Activities

Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5*Grubbing/Land Clearing 3.1 14.0 21.2 3.4 1.3

Grading/Excavation 3.6 22.2 22.2 3.6 1.5


Paving 2.1 11.4 11.3 0.8 0.8

Maximum (lbs/day)** 3.6 22.2 22.2 3.6 1.5






Notes

* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.** 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 ofall phases.

*** BAAQMDs May 2011 Thresholds were invalidated by Alameda County Superior Court and BAAQMDrecommends using its 1999 Thresholds.


26/228


March 2013 3-8




Grubbing/Land Clearing 2.5 13.3 14.9 3.1 1.0



Paving 1.5 12.4 9.5 0.5 0.4

Maximum (lbs/day)** 2.6 21.2 14.9 3.1 1.0






Notes* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will be




Construction Activities

Construction Emissions (lbs/day)


Grubbing/Land Clearing 2.6 14.8 16.1 3.1 1.0Grading/Excavation 2.8 22.8 15.6 3.1 1.1


Paving 1.7 14.0 10.7 0.5 0.5

Maximum (lbs/day)** 2.8 22.8 16.1 3.1 1.1






Notes* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.

** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will beoccurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not a summation of the daily emission rates ofall phases.



27/228


March 2013 3-9

Table 9: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions-Total Project



Grubbing/Land Clearing 11.0 42.1 50.4 5.6 3.3



Paving 9.7 35.8 33.7 3.0 2.7

Maximum (lbs/day)** 13.4 67.7 66.2 6.4 4.0






Notes* The BAAQMD does not have a threshold for PM2.5; however, the same threshold for PM10 is used herein.** Maximum daily emissions refers to the maximum emissions that would occur in one day. Not all phases will be



Nevertheless, BAAQMDs approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensivecontrol measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of thesedust control measures (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 below), the Proposed Project/Actions

construction-related dust impacts would be even further reduced and would remain less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Dust Control. During all phases of construction, thefollowing dust control procedures shall be implemented:

Water all active construction sites as necessary.

Cover all trucks having soil, sand, or other loose material or maintain at least twofeet of freeboard on all trucks.

Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved

access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep if visible soil material is carried into adjacent streets.

Water or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed soil stockpiles.

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph.

Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with

operation of the pump station, regular maintenance and inspection work. Operational impactswould be considered less-than-significant. With respect to project conformity with the federalClean Air Act, the Proposed Project/Actions potential emissions are well below minimum

thresholds and are below the areas inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not

required.


28/228


March 2013 3-10

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the entire San Francisco Bay

Area is currently designated non-attainment for the state PM10and PM2.5standards, the state 1-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is in attainment or unclassified with respect to the otherambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution

control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standardsand to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins and nuisance odors. Air emissions would be

generated during construction of the Proposed Project/Action, which could increase criteria airpollutants, including PM10. However, construction activities would be temporary and wouldincorporate the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1as identified above.

As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities emission sources resulting fromProject 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; theseemissions would be expected to be well below BAAQMD guidelines. See Tables 5-9 above. Assuch, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of

any criteria air pollutants, and the impacts would be even less-than-significant withimplementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1.

(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. Dieselparticulate 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. Giventhat construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number ofdiesel trucks would be associated with operation of the 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 anycriteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation ofMitigation 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 additional mitigation measures are required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project/Action, the various

diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors arenot likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and

short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the Proposed Project/Action would not include developmentof any uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.


29/228


March 2013 3-11

3.4 Biological ResourcesLess ThanSignificant


Would the Proposed Project/Action: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any speciesidentified 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 communityidentified 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 federallyprotected 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 othermeans?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of anynative resident or migratory fish or wildlife

corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife

nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation Plan, Natural ConservationCommunity Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion

(a) Less-than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would be

primarily constructed within existing roadways within the City and on agricultural services roadsin agricultural lands in the Ukiah Valley, east of the City and Highway 101. However, theProposed Project/Action could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitatmodifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local orregional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS.


30/228


March 2013 3-12

A record search of CDFGs Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWSSpecies List was

conducted for the area within a five-mile radius of the Project area to identify previously reportedoccurrences of state and federal special-status plants and animals. Also, a review of several recentEIRs within the vicinity provided recent relevant information as to regards for the potential

effects to special-status species within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. In addition, areconnaissance field survey was conducted on May 18, 20012 to determine the potential for

special-status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. This field visitwas not intended to be a protocol-level survey to determine the actual absence or presence ofspecial-status species, but was conducted to determine the potential for special-status species to

occur within the Proposed Project/Action Area. Appendix Bprovides a summary of the potentialfor special status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. No special-status species were observed during the field visit. Detailed below is a summary of those findingsand proposed mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES

Of the 23 special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed

Project/Action Study Area, no species were determined to have moderate to high potential to

occur in the Proposed Project/Action Area.

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES

Of the 24 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed

Project/Action Study Area, seven (7) were determined to have a high or moderate potential tooccur in the Study Area. Recommendations for reducing impacts to these special-status speciesare provided below.

Birds

Potential impacts to special-status birds would be minimized to less than significant levels withthe incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Breeding/Nesting Surveys. For constructionactivities 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 anyinitial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitablenesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-status passerine nestsidentified at that time should be protected by a 50 foot radius minimum exclusion zone.Active raptor or special-status species nests should be protected by a buffer with a

minimum radius of 200 feet. CDFG and USFWS recommend that a minimum 500-footexclusion buffer be established around active white-tailed kite and golden eagle nests.

The following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:

Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbancecommence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If nobreeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.

Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, andare generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone would

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 areencountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities


31/228


March 2013 3-13

within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest should be postponed until the nest is

abandoned or young birds have fledged.

Reptiles

Potential impacts to special-status reptiles would be minimized to less than significant levels withthe incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures

Western Pond TurtleWestern pond turtle may occur within the Russian River system in the vicinity of the project site.

Suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat is moderately present in the creek drainage crossings.Mitigation Measures BIO-2 below would reduce impacts of filling, grading, or other grounddisturbance within the study areas to a less than significant level for Western pond turtle adults,nests, and young.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct A Preconstruction Survey for Western PondTurtles and Relocate, if Necessary. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-constructionsurvey 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

culverts. A combination of visual and trapping surveys may be performed with authorizationfrom 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 beavoided, 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 postedand clearly visible on the outside of the fence. If avoidance is not possible and the species isdetermined to be present in work areas, the biologist with approval from DFG may captureturtles prior to construction activities and relocate them to nearby, suitable habitat a minimumof 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 theseareas the biologist should conduct monthly follow-up visits to monitor effectiveness.

Fish SpeciesCentral California Coast coho salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, Central Valley

steelhead, and California coastal Chinook salmon are known to occur in the Russian River.Suitable foraging and rearing habitat is present within and adjacent to the study areas. Potential

impacts to these fish species are discussed below.

Erosion associated with project construction activities resulting in the introduction of sediments

into the Russian River 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. Impacts to thespecies or critical habitat that constitute harm or harassment could be considered a take by theFESA. This is considered a potentially significant impact if the project would substantially reduce

the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. MitigationMeasures BIO-3 and BIO-4 below are proposed to reduce the potential impacts to less than

significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-5is proposed requiring Best Management Practicesbe installed to eliminate construction-related runoff and sedimentation into the creeks/drainagesas well as the Russian River.

Construction could result in frac-out during trenchless construction techniques and activities.

Frac-out is a term used to describe the fracture or cracking of soil or rock above an activesubsurface drilling operation leading to discharge of drilling slurry to the surface. Frac-outs


32/228


March 2013 3-14

occurring in aquatic environments are difficult to contain, primarily because bentonitea

commonl

ukiah recycled water project - is-mnd-public draft2

Documents