Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 1, 2004 G-03 PHAGENDA ITEM G • 3 CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the certification of FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence. MEETING DATE: September 1, 2004 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct the Public Hearing and certify the FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City has been studying the long term options for disposal of treated effluent at White Slough for many years. In 2001, the Wastewater Master Plan was completed and defined several treatment, discharge and reuse options. As the City Council is aware, many improvements have and will be taking place at the facility as a result of the Master Plan and State regulatory requirements. As noted in the Technical Memorandum attached, projected flow rates for the "build -out" of the 1990 General Plan are approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (mgd). As City staff began to assess the long term options of how treated effluent will be handled, it became clear that further options would need to be developed. Note that State adopted basin plan for our area encourages reclamation and reuse options and requires land disposal options as an alternative disposal method (copy attached). The previously mentioned Technical Memorandum identifies those options that are most likely scenarios for the City to consider. Alternative Description Alternative 1. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds Year-round land application reuse would include applying biosolids and reclaimed water to dedicated lands during the summer irrigation season from the beginning of April through October. Flows generated in the winter would be stored from October until the irrigation season begins in April. APPROVED: I Janet � ter, Interim City Manager high quality recycled water. For purposes of this analysis, the crops selected for irrigation were corn and alfalfa; however, any crop could potentially be grown. After the irrigation season(s), effluent would be held in storage ponds until the following irrigation season. Alternative 2. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage and Percolation Basin Disposal This alternative would also include land application from April to October; however, in addition to winter storage, reclaimed water would also be disposed of in percolation basins. A similar scenario was examined in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan. In developing that document, the planning -level percolation rate was assumed to be approximately 1 inch per day, and groundwater impacts were anticipated to be manageable; however, pilot testing was recommended to verify these assumptions. During the winter of 2001-2002, a Percolation Pilot Study was completed by the City on existing City property at White Slough. Based on the results of this study, it was determined that an appropriate planning level percolation rate would be approximately 0.5 inches per day or approximately 15 inches per month. Furthermore, it was also observed that groundwater mounding occurred to within two feet of the ground surface. Due to this finding, it was concluded that large scale percolatin basins may result in some groundwater impacts; however, these impacts could potentially be mitigated by operating the percolation basins with adequate wetting to drying cycles and locating them on lands with greater separation between the surface and groundwater (i.e. further east). For purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that during the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties. Most of this reclaimed water would be used for irrigation, while the remaining reclaimed water would be applied to an approximate 200 -acre area of permanent percolation basins. After the irrigation season(s), some of the land application area will be converted to percolation basins for the winter, to create approximately 770 acres of percolation basins. During the winter months, reclaimed water would both be stored and partially disposed in these percolation basins. All of the percolation basin area would need to be owned and operated by the City, while the dedicated land application areas could be made available to the City for disposal under an agreement to accept recycled water for irrigation. Alternative 3. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage and Wetlands Reclamation. This alternative would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 -acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 - acre treatment wetland facility this is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other alternatives, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored in ponds and used to create a large, seasonal reuse wetland, thereby providing valuable wildlife habitat in the Delta region. Vegetation in the wetlands would attract wildlife, and facilities could provide an environmental suitable for both educational and recreational purposes. Land Area Reanirements Water balances were developed to quantify the land area requirements for each of the three proposed alternatives. A complete list of assumptions used in developing the water balance analysis is located in the Technical Memorandum; however, the major assumptions used are as follows: The White Slough buildout flow rate is based on an average dry weather flow of 11.6 mgd. Influent flow rates are calculated using monthly flow factors developed from current data. The facilities will need to be sized to handle both the effluent to storm flows retained during a 25 -year rainfall return period, which is the typical sizing capacity required by state regulations. • Rainfall and evapotranspiration can be predicted by local weather gauging stations. o Zero surface water discharge The area requirements for each alternative are shown below: Potential Facilities LAND AREAS RE UIREMENTS FOR OPTION 1 ACRES Percolation Potential Facilities Internal Roads, Basin Area Roads, Existing Berms, & Surplus Land Total Storage or Disposal Facilities Required Conveyances Buffer Application Area Facility Area Land Area Area (a) Area Area Required Storage Basins 40 650 70 - - 760 Land Application 440 1,910 190 490 100 (90 net) 3,130 Area - 210 Basins Total 480 2,560 260 490 100 3,890 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area LAND AREAS REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 2 (ACRES) (a) Are estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. Potential Facilities Percolation Internal Basin Area Roads, Surplus Storage or Required Converted to Berms, & Land Total Disposal Existing Land Summer Ag. Conveyances Buffer Application Area Facility Facilities Area Land . Area (a) Area Area Required Storage 40 150 - 20 - - 210 Basins Land 390 net 490 570 110 220 - 1,880 Application 100 Area buffer Dedicated - 200 - 20 - - 220 Percolation Basins(b) Total 530 840 570 150 220 0 2,310 (a) Are estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. Land Areas Requirements for Option 3 (Acres) Storage or Disposal Facility Existing Facilities Area Potential Facilities Total Area Required Internal Roads, Surplus Berms, & Land Required Conveyances Buffer Application Land Area Area(a) Area Area Storage Basins 40 480 50 - - 570 Land Application Area 400 1,640 160 500 50 2,750 Reuse Wetlands - 600 60 490 - 1,150 Total 440 2,720 270 990 50 4,470 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area Because the City is not yet prepared to select one option over the others, the proposed Sphere of Influence is the composite area necessary to carry out any one of the options. It is anticipated that once an option is chosen, the City will petition LAFCO to modify the sphere accordingly. Attachment 1 of the Technical Memorandum includes the adopted Policy of San Joaquin LAFCO in determining appropriate spheres of influence. It is staff's opinion that the City meets the purpose and intent of this Policy and it would be appropriate for the City Council to direct staff to make the application to designate the sphere as outlined. Environmental Impact Report The Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff believes that this document identifies the project, potential impacts and, where appropriate, mitigation for the project. As well, the document identifies significant unavoidable impacts and alternatives. As outlined in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to the Council Resolution, all required proceeding have occurred. On August 11, 2004, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider recommending the Final EIR for Council action. At that hearing, five property owners within the proposed Sphere spoke against the matter citing a fear of property values being affected as their prime concern. In addition, James Glaser, the Community Development Director for the City of Stockton spoke specifically about three areas of the EIR that he felt were not dealt with appropriately. His concerns related to alternatives, air quality, and land use conflicts. We believe his concerns were expressed in the letter submitted by the City of Stockton as part of the draft review and the City responded to their concerns, as required, in the Final EIR. FUNDING: None Respectfully Submitted, Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director Richard C. Prima, Jr. Public Works Director Attachments: Technical Memorandum dated October 23, 2003 Central Valley Regional Water Board Wastewater Reuse Policy Planning Commission Staff Report and Resolution Resolution w(Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Letter from San Joaquin Farm Bureau W E S T Y 0 s T & ASSOCIAT@S Cortsulftg Engin#vers TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 23, 2003 TO: Mr. Richard Prima. City of Lodi FROM: Bruce West Kathryn Gies Melanie Carr Project No.: x°13--03-1.0.05 CC: Elizabeth Hughes Hughes Environmental Consulting SUBJECT: City of Lodi Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to describe a recommended Sphere of Influence for the City of Lodi (City) Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The recommend Sphere of Influence includes properties that surround the City -owned lands that are associated with the WPCF. The primary purpose for the Sphere of Influence will be to assure ample area for future construction of sewerage treatment facilities and waste disposal areas, along with adequate buffer to adjacent, incompatible land uses, are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City. The recommended Sphere of Influence would be developed in cooperative efforts with the San Joaquin. County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and will meet the guidelines and criteria established by this agency. A Sphere of Influence is a planning boundary outside of a city or special district's legal boundary (such as the city limit line) that designates the agency's probable future boundary and service area. A Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to LAFCO for individual proposals involving a city or special district's jurisdictional changes, and are intended to encourage efficient provision of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Factors considered in a Sphere of Influence review include the current and future land use, the current and future need and capacity for service, and any relevant communities of interest. Inclusion of territory within a Sphere of Influence should not necessarily be seen as an indication that the city or district will either annex or develop the territory; however, a territory must be within a city or district's Sphere of Influence in order to be annexed. The recommended City of Lodi WPCF Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes areas that will potentially be required for wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for General Plan buildout flow conditions, including the Planned Residential Reserve. The recommend SOI is 19H Like Boulevard, Suite 240 Mavis, cld'oritia 95R -IG Phalle 530 756 5905 Sax 530 756-5991 www_westvasl.eont Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 2 comprised of areas that would be suitable for long-term percolation disposal; wetland treatment, reuse, and storage; pond storage; and irrigation reuse, including any associated buffer areas. The following sections are presented below: • Background • Justification for the Sphere of Influence • Long -Term Reclaimed Water and Biosolids Storage, Reuse and Disposal Needs • Suitable Land Areas for Long -Term Storage, Reuse and Disposal • Conceptual Layout of Alternatives • Recommended Sphere of Influence • Summary BACKGROUND Existing Treatment and Reuse Facilities The City is located in San Joaquin County along the Interstate -5 (1-5) corridor between. Sacramento and Stockton. The WPCF is located southwest of the City at a location along the west side of I-5 about two miles south of the Highway 12 interchange. The City initially acquired land and began discharging treated effluent at this location in the late 1940's. The City's wastewater treatment facilities were relocated to this site in the 1960's. The total site area comprises approximately 1,040 acres, with approximately 790 acres currently developed for irrigation reuse and biosolids disposal. The climate near the WPCF is Mediterranean, with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Average rainfall in the Lodi area is approximately 17 inches annually (NCDC station #5032, Lodi). Winds are predoininantly from the west, with an average wind speed of approximately 4 miles per hour (1983-2000, CIMIS station #42, Lodi). The WPCF currently produces approximately 6.5 millions gallon per day (mgd) of secondary treated wastewater. The current disposal practices include both non-food crop irrigation on approximately 790 -acres of the City -owned property surrounding the WPCF main treatment facilities during the summer months, and a surface water discharge to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) during the winter months. A layout of the City's existing reuse/land treatment facilities is shown in Figure 1. The municipal wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment, which consists of bar screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, activated sludge treatment, secondary clarification, and chlorination/ dechlorination. From approximately May 1" through August 31", the City elects to divert treated municipal effluent flows to the storage ponds for eventual reuse. From approximately September 1St through April 301h, the City discharges it municipal effluent to the Delta; however, effluent is also diverted to the storage ponds in the case of occasional minor plant upsets during these months that would cause the City's discharge to exceed effluent Iimitations. 213\03-10\tm KINal)ON ° ROAD -I irf KlNC3DON 11 AD I 1 q III L------ ,� •r,•; •�� gen l Kingdon Iw---- _ ��. I � I f it r�`!I 3 13M 4 •l� \ �N ,i : II �•� - Pum in==- Arney • 14A1ZNEY ` WeLa ll well. "� _ .. - f� - 'fir•-? �I =1f i'li '�' " - -- - - — - I l43 TREDwaY 1 •Irb RdAD U ;� 23 24 � Vn t �' ` `l�4� 24 d — PCNDSTORS_E I 1 —+�♦ I9 ? , — eu -- o o Wei ;j= --- —Il 01 "l Wa Poli + 1 \ 'l` ` ,��1 ural (�. \s� wll r x — l Porn in12 �. umpin Pg _ '` " 5tatiar� 1 - -- A r' -I ,♦� i. = ♦ ,; - � ',f ��� r ♦ ell a' Wry � ` � r r , •;` I /6 v Sta ,l f 3� ~`��., _ _ . W _ _ _ ",err♦ Pu. I q, ma Station ne ,1 • Ali WPCF �► well — — - �� 4UITRAI4� 1 1RE TMENT 11 ♦' �. �1 � u , - . __: ' � j well 7 f 712 I itl -r . — —. y' /RIPELIN51 . ; ��* FACIPTIES 11 �r 26 1�TI'\J f�! �I ,, well 3 i; it� } 1 i` "' 1`rt', I 'I ♦ 11Nell n' i umping r r tatinn �A R .1 0 ii B L r" - r-�.i_ r� 1 IH A l� NIC 0 �1' x �. .i. I �I ♦. �X `,�� xa _ --:&J-..Amf �-� T' `-a�, -F. �. I off' q , I' . h 29 _off, •I ... l i r' •', ;' `, I I I � ti � l l x� III t�$'- Ill ,•� 11 .II �,Px„ ,; I F .,x % u 1 f I Well xam l Punipi� _,w„ ,, Pulrsq g ;�, .. Pug Station E, �,� 5tati ;� S - _ 'ice I l A 6 � '•'"' I �! _- LEGEND: Figure 1 —Boundary of City–Owned Land -----Boundary of Existing Effluent N City of Lodi Irrigation &Areas W E s T Boundary of Biosolids Land EXISTING NM Application Areas 0 n rano RECLAMATION AREAS SLUE IN FEET I' O S & ASSOCIAM Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 4 Industrial influent flows are directed to the City's storage ponds during the non -irrigation season (October through April) and directly to the City's land application facilities during the remainder of the year. These flows are dominated by the discharge from one large food processor; and therefore, vary significantly throughout the year, with the greatest volume received during the late summer months. Biosolids are currently disposed via land application on approximately 510 acres of the City owned properties. Following anaerobic digestion, biosolids are sent to a concrete lined lagoon, where they are stabilized and excess liquids are decanted. The treated biosolids are then blended with the combined treated municipal effluent and industrial flows stored in the City's ponds, and applied by surface spreading to the City's fields. Applications typically occur during the summer months, in a manner consistent with the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency for land application of biosolids. The City also operates an extensive tailwater return and runoff control system for their properties surrounding the WPCF. These facilities are currently used year-round to control and prevent runoff of the irrigation tailwater and local wet -season runoff. In addition to these flows, runoff and tailwater flows that originate off the City -owned site are also captured for return to the City's storage facilities. Although the exact volume of these captured flows have not been determined, based on discussions with City staff, the pond storage facilities must generally be emptied via irrigation prior to the onset of the winter months predominately to assure adequate storage is available for the runoff flows (winter storage volumes are also used to hold effluent flows during plant upsets). Current Planned Facilities Upgrade In early 2001, the City completed a Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) that defined several potential treatment, discharge and reuse options to meet the design flow demands of 8.5 mgd, as well as to satisfy near-term anticipated discharge requirements. Using the "roadmap" outlined in the WWMP, the City has identified a. preferred alternative that relies on a combination of several treatment and reuse options, and includes the development of a treatment and reuse wetland and an intermittent surface water discharge to the Delta. Based on the recommendations presented in the WWMP, the following improvements are planned to be implemented in the next few years: • Expansion and rehabilitation of the influent control facilities • Expansion of the secondary treatment facilities • Addition of tertiary filtration facilities • Replacement of existing chlorine disinfection with UV disinfection • Addition of a treatment wetland for denitrification and metals removal • Addition of new outfall facilities in Bishop Cut • Modifications to the City's pond storage facilities • Expansion and rehabilitation of the biosolids treatment facilities • Modifications to the storage pond return flow and irrigation system runoff control facilities 213143-141hn Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 5 While most of these modifications are intended to improve effluent water quality, some of the planned modifications will also expand and improve the reliability and safety of the City's land treatment and reuse facilities. These improvements include the addition of new tertiary treatment and W disinfection facilities, the addition of a treatment wetland facility, and modifications to the return flaw and runoff control facilities. Tertiary Treatment and UV Disinfection The City is currently in the process of designing tertiary filtration and UV disinfection facilities, which are anticipated to be online by September 2004. The purpose of these new facilities will be to meet the disinfection limitations required for the planned surface water discharge to Bishop Cut. The improved water quality will also beneficially impact worker safety as it pertains to use of the treated effluent for irrigation. Furthermore, these new treatment facilities will also be adequate to satisfy tertiary treatment standards outlined by state reuse policy. As a result, the City will have more flexibility regarding the type of reuse they can employ and would potentially be able to develop any of the following reuse opportunities: • Irrigation of food crops • Irrigation of parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, or other residential landscaping • Irrigation of unrestricted recreational use areas, like golf courses Treatment Wetlands As discussed in the WWMP, a treatment wetland facility is recommended for nitrate reduction, metals and trace toxics removals, temperature attenuation and temporary storage. A wetland facility would also expand the City's land treatment facilities and provide for some consumptive use of the City's wastewater. For each of the three treatment objectives, different detention times are required for the wetlands. Metals removal would require the longest detention time, and therefore dictates the total land area required. Based on a flow of 8.5 mgd, the area recommended in the WWMP is 130 acres (for roughly a 50 percent removal of zinc). For nitrate reduction, as preliminary treatment prior to storage or irrigation, however, an area of 65 acres would be sufficient. The City is currently in the process of identifying the preferred location for the treatment wetland facility. Two sites are currently under consideration: an approximate 150 -acre site on the existing City -owned properties, immediately west of the existing storage ponds; and a portion of the Rio Blanco tract, located to the southwest of the City's properties. To reduce the potential for adverse impacts to underlying groundwater nitrate concentrations that .may be associated with storage and reuse of the City's municipal effluent, it may be feasible for effluent to be treated through at least a portion of the wetland facility prior to storage. This practice would be easier to implement if the treatment wetlands were located near the City's existing storage facilities. However, if the wetlands were located on the Rio Blanco Tract, they could serve as a conveyance to the Delta for the currently planned intermittent discharges. 213103-1 0%tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 6 Return Flow and Runoff Control Aside from irrigation, stored waters can also be diverted back to the main treatment facilities for treatment and subsequent discharge. The volume of water that can be diverted, however, is limited by the fact that these flows can currently only be directed to either the chlorine contact basin or the aeration basins. Excessive algae loads in the stored waters can cause upsets in the chlorine contact basin, and the capacity of the aeration basins is already limited. Therefore, only a small stream of return flows is currently redirected through the treatment system during low diurnal municipal influent flow periods in the winter months and only when the ponds are full. According to City staff, the flows diverted to the storage ponds during minor plant upsets can readily fill available storage, resulting in storage capacity limitations. It is anticipated that the City will continue to rely on the storage ponds for emergency effluent storage in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that facilities be constructed to allow stored flows to be returned to the headworks, thereby allowing for sufficient treatment prior to discharge. Under this scenario, the City should be capable of returning the same volume of flows for treatment and discharge that were originally diverted, eliminating the need to provide sufficient long-term storage capacity for these flows. Under a zero surface water discharge option, all treated flows would be directed to the storage ponds for eventual reuse. If a plant upset were to occur causing the City to exceed the discharge requirements established far reuse, however, the City would need to have the capability to store, and eventually retreat, these flows prior to their use. Therefore, if a zero surface water discharge scenario were developed, it would be recommended that the City isolate a portion of their storage ponds for emergency storage with the facilities in place that would allow the return of flows to the headworks for treatment and eventual reuse. As discussed above, the majority of tailwater and runoff flows originating on the City's property are currently conveyed into the City's storage ponds. Based on the recommendations presented in the WWMP, a new tailwater return pump station at the western collection point and a return flow force main to the storage ponds will be constructed. These modifications are intended to help reduce odor problems in the storage ponds associated with anaerobic return flows, as well as reduce the potential for flooding in the City's western land areas. Additionally, the new pumping facilities will eliminate the need to pump tailwater at the recirculation pump station. In addition to the tailwater pump station modification, it is further recommended that winter runoff flows be discharged to surface waters in lieu of being directed to the City's storage facilities. To facilitate this change, the City would need to provide relatively simple modifications to the existing and planned return flow facilities, as well as comply with State mandated industrial stormwater discharge regulations. It is therefore recommended that the new return flow pump station be configured to discharge to both the storage ponds and to the Delta. Additionally, a short force main will need to be constructed to the new discharge point. Projected Build -Out Flow Rates Flow rates for the long-term build -out conditions for the City are presented in the 1990 General Plan, where the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 mgd. This flow rate was 2 M03-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 7 calculated by assuming a 100 -gallon per capita per day increase for each new member of the population, where the population projections include the Planned Residential Reserve discussed in the General Plan_ Additionally, the anticipated flow rate also includes expected contributions from new industrial and commercial uses. A breakdown of this calculation is shown in Table 1. At a 1.5% growth rate, it is estimated that the WPCF would Iikely receive flows at this level in approximately 40 years. Table 1. 1990 General Pian Projected Populations and Corresponding Wastewater Flow Rates JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The recommended SOI would include sufficient land area to provide the following components, which are filrther described below: • Land Disposal of Reclaimed Water • Land Disposal of Biosolids • Adequate Urban -Open Space Interface The primary consideration for the recommended City WPCF SOI is aligned with criteria factors outlined in the San Joaquin County LAFCO Sphere of Influence guidance document, adopted June 21, 1968, which is provided in Attachment 1. The primary considerations for the Lodi WPCF SOI are to assure that adequate land is available to provide ample sewerage facility (criteria 2) and waste disposal (criteria 4) services. Land Disposal of Reclaimed Water One potential issue with the current surface water discharge to the Delta is that unknown future effluent limitations could be sett that are too stringent to be reasonably meet with available technologies. As regulations within state policy become more and more strict with respect to 213103-101tm Population Flow Rate (mgd) 1997 Conditions 46,719 6.0 Additional Low Density Dousing 2,329 0.23 Additional Low Density Housing 736 0.07 Additional Low Density Dousing 206 0.02 Eastside Residential 107 0.01 Planned Residential 21,820 2.18 Planned Residential Reserve 24,645 2.47 Industrial 0.62 Total 96,562 11.6 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The recommended SOI would include sufficient land area to provide the following components, which are filrther described below: • Land Disposal of Reclaimed Water • Land Disposal of Biosolids • Adequate Urban -Open Space Interface The primary consideration for the recommended City WPCF SOI is aligned with criteria factors outlined in the San Joaquin County LAFCO Sphere of Influence guidance document, adopted June 21, 1968, which is provided in Attachment 1. The primary considerations for the Lodi WPCF SOI are to assure that adequate land is available to provide ample sewerage facility (criteria 2) and waste disposal (criteria 4) services. Land Disposal of Reclaimed Water One potential issue with the current surface water discharge to the Delta is that unknown future effluent limitations could be sett that are too stringent to be reasonably meet with available technologies. As regulations within state policy become more and more strict with respect to 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 8 surface water discharges; wastewater treatment facilities throughout the state are considering advanced treatment technologies and looking toward wastewater reuse to reduce or eliminate surface water discharges. Furthermore, state policies are well established that encourage the use of water reclamation when feasible; therefore, this option should likely be pursued by the City if available in lieu of extensive advanced treatment facilities. Due to the advantageous location of the Lodi WPCF in a predominantly agricultural area, land application is likely a viable Iong-term option if the requirements associated with surface water discharge become too difficult with which to comply. The following policies will be discussed and their potential impact on the future planning of the WPCF land disposal facilities: • Basin Plan • State implementation Plan • Total Maximum Daily Load Regulations • Title 22 Reclamation Requirements Following this discussion, recommendations for determining the long -terra disposal needs under a zero -discharge scenario will be presented. Basin Plan The Water Quality Control Plan, Fourth Edition, for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) implements the Porter -Cologne Act and, along with applicable State Board water quality policies (e.g., the California Ocean Plan), serves as the State Water Quality Control Plan applicable to the watershed draining to the Delta, as required pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. As such, the Basin Plan includes the following components: • Designation of beneficial uses • Establishment of water quality objectives • Implementation prograrns and policies to achieve water quality objectives for all waters in the Basin, including the Delta. Beneficial Uses The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses of the of the Delta as municipal drinking water supply, industrial water supply, agricultural irrigation and agricultural stock watering water supply, body contact recreation, other non -body contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, navigation, warm freshwater aquatic habitat, cold freshwater aquatic habitat, warm fish migration habitat, cold fish migration habitat, warm spawning habitat and wildlife habitat. Water Quality Objectives To protect the designated beneficial uses of a water body, effluent limitations are currently set by the Regional Board, using the policies and guidelines outlined in both the Basin Plan and the 213`03-I mt Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 9 State Implementation Plan (which is discussed below). The Basin Plan provides both in -stream water quality objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife (where the objectives that are required to be met to protect a coldwater freshwater aquatic habitat are the most restrictive), and site-specific objectives for protection of specific water bodies with known impairments. To protect the cold -water habitat values of a water body, language is typically included in NPDES permits such that the discharge shall not cause the following conditions in the receiving stream: • Dissolved oxygen to drop below 7.0 mg/L • Ambient pH to fall below 6.5, exceed 8.5, or change by more than 0.5 units over a period of 30 days. Additionally, the effluent limit for phi states that the effluent shall not have a pH less than 6.5 nor greater than 8.5 • Ambient temperature to increase more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit • Turbidity to increase by more than 1 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTq where natural turbidity is between 0 and 5 NTUs • Turbidity to increase by more than 20 percent where natural turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTUs • Turbidity to increase by more than 10 NTUs where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs. • Turbidity to increase by more than 10 percent where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs With the unproved effluent water quality anticipated following the currently planned upgrade, it is expected that the City will be able to comply with the in -stream requirements discussed above. In addition to these in -stream requirements, however, the Basin Plan establishes the fallowing site-specific water quality criteria that should be met in all Delta water bodies: • Arsenic —10 µg/L • Barium --100 µg/L • Copper — 10 µg/L • Cyanide --10 11g/L • Iron — 300 µg/L • Manganese — 50 µg/L • Silver — 10 µg/L Zinc — 100 µg/L For the site-specific water quality objectives set by the Basin Plan, a discharger to the named body of water must meet the established objective in the discharge stream, with no consideration for assimilative capacity of the constituent(s) of concern at the point of discharge. For State Implementation Plan based, water quality objectives (discussed below), however, a discharger 213103- i Oltm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 10 may be allowed to account for assimilative capacity for the constituents of concern in the receiving stream if it is available. If it is determined following the planned upgrade that any of the Basin Plan based, site-specific water quality criteria are likely to be exceeded in the effluent, either additional treatment or the elimination of a surface water discharge would likely need to be implemented. Based on available data, it is not clear whether the City can comply with these Iimitations long-term. Implementation Programs and Policies The. Basin Plan also provides that there are ten State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) water quality control policies to which Regional Board actions must conform, including the SWRCB Resolution No. 77-1, "Policy and Action Plan for Water Reclamation in California." This policy was adopted in January 1977 and states that reclamation actions must be implemented by the SWRCB, Regional Boards and other agencies. In general, Resolution 77-1 declares that the State shall undertake all possible steps to encourage the development of water reclamation facilities that meet one of the three conditions below, focusing on areas where water supplies are short and reclaimed water can supplement or replace other water supplies without interfering with water rights or in -stream beneficial uses. One of the following conditions should apply to any state supported reclamation project: 1. Beneficial uses will be made of wastewater that would otherwise be discharged to marine or brackish receiving waters or evaporation ponds 2. Reclaimed water will replace or supplement the use of fresh water or better quality water 3. Reclaimed water will be used to preserve, restore, or enhance in -stream beneficial uses The Basin Plan also identifies several policies that were adopted by the Regional Board, to which the board should conform. The Wastewater Reuse Policy states that the Regional Board should require, as a part of a Report of Waste Discharge, an evaluation of reuse and land disposal options as alternative means of disposal. Reuse options should include: • industrial and Municipal Supply • Crop hTigation • Landscape Irrigation • Groundwater Recharge • Wetland Restoration Furthermore, the policy states that, where studies show that year-round or continuous reuse or land disposal of all the wastewater is not practicable, the Regional Board will require dischargers to evaluate how reuse or land disposal can be optimized, such as considering reuse/disposal for part of the flow and seasonal reuse/disposal options (e.g.. dry season land disposal): 213M-14\tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 11 State Implementation Plan The EPA adopted the National Toxics Rule (NTR) in February 1993, and the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in April 2000. These rules contain priority pollutant water quality standards that are applicable to the City's discharge. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays; and Estuaries of California. (also known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP)) in May 2000. This document contains guidance on implementation of the NTR and CTR criteria. The City's current permit was adopted in February 2000, prior to adoption of the SIP. Therefore, while the current permit does contain effluent limitations for some priority pollutants, the current effluent limits were not established based on the guidelines of the SIP. The City's existing permit expires January 28, 2005. Therefore, it is anticipated that the next permit will contain stringent effluent limitations based on SIP guidelines. The guidelines presented in the SIP are used to determine appropriate effluent limitations for pollutants that are, or may be; discharged at levels that would "cause, or contribute to, an in -stream excursion above a narrative or numeric water quality standard." These water quality standards include CTR and NTR criteria, which are set for both the protection of human health and wildlife. Additionally, using similar methods as outlined in the SIP, the Regional Board has also been enforcing published drinking water supply standards, agricultural water supply standards, and the EPA recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria standards for discharges, (if they are determined to be appropriate to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving stream). Additionally, water quality impairments related to newly emerging constituents of concern, such as endocrine disruptors, growth hormones, and various pharmaceutical compounds, are currently being further evaluated and defined. If significant impacts to human health (or other in -stream beneficial uses) are attributed to any of these newly emerging constituents, it is likely that new water quality criteria would be established for surface water discharges. Furthermore, as testing procedures becomes more accurate and precise, there is the potential for the Regional Board to begin enforcing even more stringent water quality criteria for surface water discharges. As stated earlier, the City's receiving water has the beneficial use designations wildlife and fisheries habitat, an agricultural water supply, and a municipal drinking water supply. Therefore, following the Regional Board's interpretation of the guidelines presented in the SIP, effluent limitations based on the most stringent of all the CTR, NTR, drinking water, agricultural water supply, and EPA recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria would be applied to the City of Lodi discharge. The City has recently collected a series of water quality samples from both the effluent and the receiving stream to provide some of the information needed to establish future effluent limitations based on the SIP guidelines. Based on the initial results of these analyses, the City can expect to receive new stringent requirements for aluminum, copper, lead, silver, zinc, trihalornethanes, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, lindane, dioxin, ammonia:, and nitrate. Before these new permit limitations can be established, however, the City must clearly define the assimilative capacity of the receiving stream for all constituents of concern, studies that are currently in progress. Therefore, until these studies are completed and a dilution, ratio and/or 213\43-104m Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 12 mixing zone is defined, it is not clear if the City's planned WPCF facilities will be able to reliably comply with future limitations. Based on current information, it is likely the current dilution analysis will indicate that assimilative capacity is available for existing constituents of concern at the planned expansion flow rate of 8.5 mgd, if discharges are moderated during the summer low -flow season via land application on existing City -owned fields. If it is determined that the assimilative capacity for constituents of concern would be exceeded, however, additional land application facilities may become necessary. Furthermore, exceedances of available assimilative capacity are likely to become more prevalent as plant flows increase beyond 8.5 mgd and subsequently less dilution is available in the receiving water. If future analyses show that the available assimilative capacity will become more limited or potentially even non. -existent as flows increase (or if applicable water quality criteria become more stringent), the City would need to either further improve the WPCF treatment facilities and/or reduce or eliminate the surface water discharge associated with the WPCF. Furthermore, it. may be shown to be necessary to provide 100% land disposal of all flows. Total Maximum Daily Loads Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state identify those waters within its boundaries for which existing controls and effluent limitations alone do not ensure attainment of water quality objectives. The resulting list is referred to as the "303(d) list." The CWA further requires that states establish a priority ranking for waters on the 303(4) list, then, in accordance with the priority ranking, establish Total Maximum Daily Load limitations. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a number that represents the assimilative capacity of a receiving water to absorb a pollutant. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time (the traditional approach) or in other ways such as toxicity or a percentage reduction or other appropriate measure relating to a state water quality objective. A TMDL is implemented by reallocating the total allowable pollution among the different pollutant sources (through the permitting process or other regulatory means) to ensure that the water quality objectives are achieved. The SWRCB has recently approved the proposed 303(d) list, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is currently reviewing these recommendations. The following constituents are included in the 303(d) list for the Delta: • Chlordane • DDT • Diazinon • Dieldrin • Dioxin Compounds • Exotic Species • Furan Compounds • Mercury • PCB's • Selenium • Dissolved Oxygen • Salinity 213103-1 01tm Technical Memorandum August 22, 2003 Page 13 From this list, only mercury, dissolved oxygen and salinity is listed as having municipal discharges as a potential source. This does not eliminate, however, future TMDL based limitations on the City's discharge for the other compounds on the list. Regarding mercury, dissolved oxygen, and salinity, TMDL's have not yet been established. While a future TMDL based effluent limitation cannot be readily predicted, it is expected that TMDL based limits would only be applied to the City's discharge if it were determined that the WPCF was a significant contributor to the water quality impairment of concern. Of the three constituents discussed above, a TMDL for mercury is most likely to be applied to the City's effluent. In anticipation of such a regulation, however, the City is currently implementing several source control measures to reduce the concentrations of mercury in their discharge. Furthermore, the facilities associated with the planned upgrade will also likely cause some reduction in mercury discharges. Regardless of these improvements, however, future limitations based on a mercury TMDL could be difficult to meet. Under this scenario, a pollutant trading program may be available for provide some relief. Even under these conditions, however, the City may need to limit (or eliminate) discharges. Title 22 Disinfection Requirements The Department of Health Services (DHS) sets the standards for effluent reuse to protect public health. These standards are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (Title 22) and include specific treatment criteria and use restrictions that are applied to all reclamation projects in the state. Based on current interpretation of state policy, Title 22 standards also are applied through the state NPDES permitting process to surface water discharges where the effluent is diluted less than 20:1 by the receiving water, and where the water may be used or diverted for agricultural irrigation or full body contact recreation beneficial uses. For these conditions, the same standards under Title 22 for unrestricted irrigation reuse and reuse in unrestricted recreational impoundments would also be applied to the discharge.. While the specific method of treatment used to meet the Title 22 regulations is not prescribed through the permitting process, surface water discharge permits can require (if applicable) that the specific water quality objectives specified in Title 22 (or their equivalent) be met by the available treatment processes. Generally, this level of treatment requires flocculation and secondary settling facilities, followed by filtration and advanced disinfection. The tertiary process should be capable of meeting a turbidity limitation of 2 NTU, BOD and TSS Knits of 10 mg/L, and a total coliform limit of 2.2 MPN, The City's discharge does not consistently meet a 20:1 dilution ratio with its receiving stream; therefore, the City's current discharge permit requires that tertiary effluent standards be met year round by April 2004. The City is currently in the process of designing new facilities that will allow them to meet the standards outlined in Title 22 for tertiary treated wastewater, and it is anticipated that these facilities will be online by September 2004, before surface water discharges begin. Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 14 Once the new tertiary treatment facilities are available, the City would also potentially be allowed to expand their reuse projects to include unrestricted irrigation of landscapes and food crops, as well as uses that would be precluded by the existing effluent water quality, like wetland creation or some types of industrial reuse. Recommendations for Meeting Long -Term Disposal Needs As discussed above, there are several potential scenarios that may lead the City to develop a zero discharge scenario. A water balance analysis can be used to help define how modifications and upgrades to the land treatment and reuse facilities can provide this option. Therefore, it is recommended that, using this type of analysis, an appropriate SOI be determined, such that land could potentially be available near the existing WPCF facilities for 100% land disposal at the future flow rate of 11.6 mgd. A water balance analysis was performed in conjunction with this report, and is described in detail below. Based on this analysis, up to approximately 2,350 acres of land application/disposal area and 690 acres of storage ponds would be needed to meet the City's long-term needs under a zero discharge alternative (including existing facilities). While it may not be necessary for the City to purchase all of the land area needed for irrigation, all of the additional lands for storage would need to be owned by the City. Furthermore, due to restrictions associated with Title 22, it maybe advantageous for the City to purchase an area large enough to provide all of their land application needs. Regardless of whether the City purchases all of the land application the properties or not, adequate agricultural lands should be identified around the WPCF that could potentially be used for irrigation reuse in the future.. In addition to the land area identified through a water balance analysis, sufficient land area would also be needed to provide internal roads, protective berms, and conveyance facilities. Furthermore, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) recommends setback distances for irrigation reuse projects for protection of the public. Therefore, the required buffer distances should also be accounted for in the recommended SOI, thereby helping to reduce the potential for public exposure to the recycled water. As stated in the California Code of Regulations Title 22, a 50 -foot setback distance from domestic water supply well is required when tertiary treated water is used for irrigation. Perhaps more difficult to comply with, however, is the requirement that any spray, mist, or runoff is not allowed to enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas or food handling facilities, Therefore any potential land application facilities that utilize spray irrigation must be adequately separated from most development to assure "mists" will not drift into the designated areas. Land Disposal of Biosolids Biosolids are currently applied to approximately 510 acres of the existing City -owned properties surrounding the WPCF. Furthermore, the City is currently permitted to land apply biosolids on up to 950 acres of their existing property around the WPCF. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 15 The City's properties are also located inside the Delta Boundary, which is designated in Section 12220 of the California Water Code. It should be noted however, that the current State General Permit for biosolids land application is only applicable to properties located outside this legal boundary area (as well as other sensitive areas throughout the State), indicating the biosolids application is not recommended inside the Delta Boundary. Currently, the City has a site-specific permit that allows them to apply biosolids on their existing site. If the City needed to expand the existing biosolids disposal area, however, new properties would likely be needed outside of the designated Delta Boundary. Furthermore, future regulations could potentially be imposed that would require the City to move all of the biosolids disposal outside of the Delta Boundary. Under either of these conditions, the City would likely need to identify new areas appropriate for biosolids disposal, where the City may need to procure enough new lands to meet all their future biosolids disposal needs. For purposes of this evaluation, however, it is assumed that the City will be able to continue to dispose biosolids on their existing properties; and any new biosolids application areas must be located outside the Delta Boundary. San Joaquin County currently does not allow the .application of biosolids on any County -controlled properties. Therefore, the City would be required to annex any new properties where biosolids disposal may occur. According to State annexation laws, this would require the City to also purchase; all the properties where biosolids application may occur. A biosolids loading analysis can be used to help define the amount of land needed to meet the City's long-term biosolids disposal needs. Therefore, it is recommended that, using this type of analysis, an appropriate SOI be determined, such that land could potentially be available near the existing WPCF facilities for 100% land disposal of biosolids at a future loading rate. A biosolids loading analysis was performed in conjunction with this report, and is described in detail below. Based on this analysis, approximately 730 to 740 acres of biosolids disposal area would be needed to meet the City's longterm. needs. The City's currently available biosolids application site consists of approximately 790 acres; however, some of this area may be needed for other facilities if a zero -discharge scenario were developed by the City. Therefore, under these conditions, the City would likely need to purchase additional properties (outside the Delta Boundary) for both reclaimed water and biosolids disposal. In addition to the land area identified through a loading analysis, sufficient land area would also be needed to provide intermediate roads, protective berms, and conveyance and return flow facilities. Because biosolids application will occur on City -owned land application areas, however, these facilities would be included in the land application areas. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board mandates the setback distances, described in Table 2, be applied to all biosolids land application projects. 213143-10lrm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 16 Table 2. Mandated Biosolids Setback Distances Required Distance from! Setback Distance, feet Property Lines 10 Domestic Water Supply Wells 500 Non -Domestic Water Supply Wells 100 Public. Roads and Occupied Residences 50 Surface Waters including wetlands, creeks, ponds, lakes, underground aqueducts, and marshes 100 Primary Agricultural Drainage Ways 33 Occupied Non -Ag. Buildings and Off-site Residences Soo Domestic Water Supply Reservoir 400 Primary Tributary to a Domestic Water Supply 200 Domestic Water Supply Intake 2,500 Enclosed Water Bodies that could be occupied by pupfish 500 As can be seen in Table 2, a setback distance for biosolids application of 500 feet includes all of the items on the list except for domestic surface water supply intake. Furthermore, this setback distance would likely be adequate to assure mists associated with recycled water spray irrigation will not drift into developed areas, as required by Title 22. If a domestic surface water supply intake is encountered proximal to the proposed SOI, however, then a setback distance of 2,500 feet would be required. While it would be most beneficial to the City to. purchase properties as close to the existing WPCF as possible for biosolids applications, it may not be feasible to purchase several contiguous parcels large enough to meet the City's needs. Therefore, any of the properties identified within the SOI as potential long-term wastewater reuse Iand application sites could also potentially be reserved for biosolids disposal. Therefore, a 500 -foot buffer around the entire land application area is recommended to be included in the SOI to assure that adequate setback distances for biosolids application areas can be met (as well as to meet the setback distances needed to meet DHS standards for irrigation with recycled water). Urban -Open Space Interface The SOI is designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface, thus preserving open space areas amidst development. The following items are discussed in relation to the urban -open space interface, and are described below: • WPCF Odor Buffer • Mosquito Buffer • Protection for Sensitive Receptors • Reduce Noxious Weed Growth 2 1 3103 -10\tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 17 Odor Buffer As development increases around the WPCF, odor control may become a significant issue. Therefore, a buffer could be provided within the SOI to protect development in the proximity of the City WPCF from odor impacts. Table 3 presents suggested minimum odor buffer distances for various treatment process units. Table 3. Suggested Minimum Odor Buffer Distances(a) Treatment Process Unit Setback Distance., feet Sedimentation Tank 400 Trickling Filter 400 Aeration Tank 500 Aerated Lagoon 1,000 Sludge Digester 500 Open Drying Beds (Open/Covered) 5001400 Sludge -Holding Tank 1,000 Sludge -Thickening Tank 1,000 Vacuum filter 500 Wet Air Oxidation 1,500 Effluent Recharge Bed 800 Secondary Effluent Filters (Open/Enclosed) 500/200 Tertiary Effluent Filters (Open/Enclosed) 300/200 Denitrification 300 Polishing Lagoon 500 Land Disposal 500 (a) Adapted from Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003) As can be seen from Table 3, the minimum odor buffer distance for land disposal sites and polishing lagoons is 500 feet, which is equivalent to the buffer described above that would be required for biosolids disposal projects. Furthermore, due to the size of the land application area, all other WPCF treatment process units would be located well within 1,500 feet of the SOI boundary, which is the maximum listed setback distance. Therefore, a minimum odor buffer distance of 500 feet is recommend around ponds and reclaimed water land application areas. Actual buffer distances are dependent upon local site conditions such as prevailing wind direction. The prevailing wind at the WPCF is from the west at an average of four miles per hour (1983-2000, C1MIS station #42, Lodi), which is moderately low. Furthermore, with the proposed upgrade to Title 22 water quality, it is anticipated that odor issues associated with land disposal will decrease. Therefore, the minimum buffer distance is recommended for the SOI. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 18 The recommended odor buffer was compared to that of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP). Conversations with Mr. Ron Linder of SRWWTP indicate that the treatment plant has an average setback distance of 2,000 feet, which is considered a very large buffer. SRWWTP also uses a fence to create further mixing. Based on conversations with Mr. Linder, nuisance conditions have not been reported with respect to odors at the SRWWTP. Finally, personal communication with Don Balanti, Air Quality Specialist, indicate that odor buffers can range from approximately 250 feet to over 1,000 feet depending on conditions. The slight wind from the West will likely reduce odor impacts on surrounding areas by providing an air -mixing zone. Therefore, the over 1,500 foot buffer between the main WPCF facilities and the SOI boundary should provide more than adequate protection for individuals against nuisance conditions. Mosquito Buffer A mosquito buffer of 400 meters has been identified as the conservative dispersal distance for mosquitoes, per "Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: a Technology Assessment" (EPA, 1999). Therefore, according to this document, a buffer zone of approximately 1,300 feet will prevent the majority of mosquitoes from leaving the wetland site. Conversations with Mr. Eddy Lucchesi of the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control indicate that mosquitoes often travel from one to two miles outside of wetland areas. Therefore, it is likely that a larger mosquito buffer would ensure that a larger percentage of mosquitoes would be contained in the wetlands area. For purposes of this analysis, a minimum buffer of 1,300 feet is recommended for the wetland facilities. Furthermore, to reduce the potential for a mosquito nuisance associated with the storage and percolation basin facilities, a similar separation distance is also recommended for these facilities. Sensitive Receptors As discussed above, the SOI includes buffer zones to protect individuals living or working in developed areas near the WPCF from nuisance conditions. While the minimum buffers recommended by regulatory agencies and other resources will likely provide protection for most individuals, adequate protection should also be available for potential sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are individuals that may be more acutely sensitive to nuisance conditions, such as odors or mosquito bites for example. As discussed above, the buffer zones included in the recommend SOI, in general, exceed the recommended minimum, with the exception of the buffer around the land application areas. As discussed, however, it is anticipated that nuisance conditions associated with the land application areas will be minimal due to the high quality of effluent that will be used. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are often associated with newly developed areas and often dominate the urban -open space interface, By including buffers as open space within the SOI that would remain planted in an agricultural crop, the level of impact associated with development would be minimized as well as noxious weed growth. 2 1 3103-10\tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 19 LONGTERM RECLAIMED WATER AND BIOSOLIDS STORAGE AND DISPOSAL NEEDS This section discusses the evaluations developed for this report to quantify the approximate land areas needed for long-term storage and disposal of reclaimed water and long-term biosolids disposal. Reclaimed Water Storage and Disposal Currently, the City elects provide reclaimed water for irrigation of the fields surrounding the. treatment plant from April through October. If 100% land disposal of effluent becomes necessary in the future, however, the City would likely need to evaluate several options to determine a preferred long-term treatment and disposal scenario. The following potential storage and disposal alternatives can be evaluated and quantified, and are further described below: • Alternative 1. Reclamation ,on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds • Alternative 2. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage and Percolation Basin Disposal • Alternative 3. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage and Wetlands Reclamation Descrirjtion of Alternatives Alternative 1. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds Year-round land application reuse would include applying biosolids and reclaimed water to dedicated Iands during the summer irrigation season from the beginning of April through October_ Flows generated in the winter would be stored from October until the irrigation season begins in April. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties for irrigation, which would either be City -owned or under long-term agreement with the City to accept the high quality recycled water. For purposes of this analysis, the crops selected for irrigation were corn and alfalfa; however, any crop could potentially be grown. After the irrigation season(s), effluent would be held in storage ponds until the following irrigation season. Alternative 2. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage and Percolation Basin Disposal This alternative would also include land application from April to October; however, in addition to winter storage, reclaimed water would also be disposed of in percolation basins. A similar scenario was examined in the 2001 Wastewater Master Pian. In developing that document, the planning -level percolation rate was assumed to be approximately 1 inch per day, and groundwater impacts were anticipated to be manageable;. however, pilot testing was recommended to verify these assumptions. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 20 During the winter of 2001-2002, a Percolation Pilot Study was completed by the City. Based on the results of this study, it was determined that an appropriate planning level percolation rate would be approximately 0.5 inches per day or approximately 15 inches per month. Furthermore, it was also observed that groundwater mounding occurred to within two feet of the ground surface. Due to this finding, it was concluded that large scale percolation basins may result in some groundwater impacts; however, these impacts could potentially be mitigated by operating the percolation basins with adequate wetting to drying cycles. For purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that during the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties. Most of this reclaimed water would be used for irrigation, while the remaining reclaimed water would be applied to an approximate 200 -acre area of permanent percolation basins. After the irrigation season(s), some of the land application area will be converted to percolation basins for the winter, to create approximately 770 acres of percolation basins. During the winter months, reclaimed water would both be stored and partially disposed in these percolation basins. All of the percolation basin area would need to be owned and operated by the City, while the dedicated land application areas could be made available to the City for disposal under an agreement to accept recycled water for irrigation. Alternative 3. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from .April through October with Winter Storage and Wetlands Reclamation This alternative would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 -acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 -acre treatment wetland facility that is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other alternatives, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months, however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored in ponds and used to create a large, seasonal reuse wetland, thereby providing valuable wildlife habitat in the Delta region. Vegetation in the wetlands would attract wildlife, and facilities could provide an environment suitable for both educational and recreational purposes. Land Area Requirements Water balances were developed to quantify the land area requirements for each of the three proposed alternatives, and are included in Attachment 2. A complete list of assumptions used in developing the water balance analysis is located in Attachment 2; however, the major assumptions used are as follows: • The Lodi WPCF buildout flow rate is based on an average dry weather flow of 11..6 mgd. Influent flow rates are calculated using monthly flow factors developed from current data. • The facilities will need to be sized to handle both the effluent. to storm flows retained during a 25 -year rainfall return period, which is the typical sizing capacity required by state regulations. 2131034011m Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 21 • Rainfall and evapotranspiration can be predicted by local weather gauging stations. • Zero surface water discharge The surface area requirements calculated using the water balance analysis to meet the storage, reuse and disposal needs for all the three alternatives are summarized below in Table 4. Table 4. Surface Area Requirements for the Three Alternatives (a) Land Area Requirements are based only on the results of the water balance analyses, and do not include land area for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities, nor recommended buffer areas. (b) Total winter percolation basin area will be 770 acres. Approximately 570 acres of the percolation basin area will be converted for agricultural reuse during the summer months and is included in those totals. Mosolids Disposal An evaluation of the anticipated future nitrogen and metals loadings was conducted in conjunction with this report to quantify the land area needed for long-term disposal of biosolids. Nitrogen Loading Analysis According to EPA standards, the amount of land needed to dispose the City's biosolids each year is limited by the amount of plant available nitrogen in the current years biosolids application, the amount .of mineralized plant available nitrogen from previous year's biosolids applications, and the amount of nitrogen applied from reclaimed water irrigation. Where, as required by EPA, the total nitrogen loading must be less than anticipated crop uptake rates. Therefore, a long-term loading analysis is needed to evaluate the cumulative loading from of all these potential nitrogen sources, and quantify the total land needed for disposal in an average year. A nitrogen loading analysis was conducted in conjunction with development of this report to identify the approximate total land area needed for biosolids disposal at the General Plan build -out conditions. Future biosolids loadings were assumed to be equivalent to the current loading rate increased at an annual growth rate of 1.5% for an approximate 40 -year period, to correspond with the estimated future municipal influent flow rate of 11.6 mgd. 213103-101tm Land Area Requirements(a), acres Dedicated Ag. Storage Reuse Percolation Alternative Reuse Basin Wetlands Basins (b) Total Alt. 1: Summer land application and winter storage 2,350 690 0 0 3,040 Alt. 2: Summer land application and winter percolation basin disposal 1,450 190 0 200 1,840 Alt, 3: Summer land application and winter wetlands reclamation 2,040 520 600 0 3,160 (a) Land Area Requirements are based only on the results of the water balance analyses, and do not include land area for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities, nor recommended buffer areas. (b) Total winter percolation basin area will be 770 acres. Approximately 570 acres of the percolation basin area will be converted for agricultural reuse during the summer months and is included in those totals. Mosolids Disposal An evaluation of the anticipated future nitrogen and metals loadings was conducted in conjunction with this report to quantify the land area needed for long-term disposal of biosolids. Nitrogen Loading Analysis According to EPA standards, the amount of land needed to dispose the City's biosolids each year is limited by the amount of plant available nitrogen in the current years biosolids application, the amount .of mineralized plant available nitrogen from previous year's biosolids applications, and the amount of nitrogen applied from reclaimed water irrigation. Where, as required by EPA, the total nitrogen loading must be less than anticipated crop uptake rates. Therefore, a long-term loading analysis is needed to evaluate the cumulative loading from of all these potential nitrogen sources, and quantify the total land needed for disposal in an average year. A nitrogen loading analysis was conducted in conjunction with development of this report to identify the approximate total land area needed for biosolids disposal at the General Plan build -out conditions. Future biosolids loadings were assumed to be equivalent to the current loading rate increased at an annual growth rate of 1.5% for an approximate 40 -year period, to correspond with the estimated future municipal influent flow rate of 11.6 mgd. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 22 The nitrogen loading analysis was based on the assumptions that reclaimed water would also be applied to the biosolids disposal area, and future nitrogen concentrations and field nitrogen loading rates (pounds nitrogen applied per acre) for reclaimed water would be similar to existing levels. Furthermore, it was assumed that biosolids would be loaded at a rate of two tolls of biosolids per acre (dry weight basis), that nitrogen concentrations in the applied biosolids would remain at or near existing levels, and that all the available fields would be loaded annually. Based on this analysis, up to approximately 730 to 740 acres of total land application area (planted in a crop that allows for up to 400 pounds of nitrogen uptake per acre) will be needed to meet the City's long-term biosolids disposal needs under the assumed conditions. Metals Loading Anal sis The EPA has also established metals loading criteria for biosolids land application projects. These criteria include a maximum cumulative metals loading rates, where biosolids application must cease on any field that has reached the cumulative limit for any of the listed metals. Therefore, a metals loading analysis is also needed to determine the expected lifetime of the City's biosolids application areas. The biosolids metals loading rates used for the metals loading analysis were assumed to be approximately two dry tons per acre per year, which would be equivalent to the sustainable loading rate determined from the nitrogen loading analysis discussed above. Based on the current biosolids quality, the City's existing fields will likely begin to reach the EPA mandated cumulative limit for zinc before any of the other metals of concern. If biosolids are applied at a two —ton per acre rate with similar zinc concentrations, the City's fields will begin to reach the cumulative limit in approximately 450 to 500 years. This is a significantly Iong planning period, and future regulations or technologies may be available that would preclude the need for these additional lands. If significant modifications are not made regarding the City's current biosolids disposal practices or the policies that regulate them, however, the City would need to begin applying biosolids to new properties in approximately 450 to 500 years, and eventually up to 750 additional acres would likely be needed to provide an adequate biosolids land application area. An alternative to this option would be for the City to purchase and annex a larger area than required, and apply biosolids on a rotation schedule, thereby increasing the lifetime of the available biosolids application area. Sum -M In conclusion, the existing biosolids disposal area is sufficient to meet the City's needs for a very long period of time. However, any of the additional facilities needed to achieve a potential future zero -discharge scenario could potentially decrease the currently available biosolids disposal areas, thus resulting in additional areas needed for biosolids disposal. Any of these new properties should be located outside the Delta Boundary and, combined with the currently available biosolids land application areas, should include adequate lands to meet long-term biosolids disposal (and buffer area) needs. 213103-10\tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 23 SUITABLE LAND AREAS FOR LONG-TERM STORAGE, REUSE AND DISPOSAL The following criteria. were reviewed to chose the most appropriate locations for potential future Lodi WPCF storage basin, percolation basin, reuse wetlands, and irrigation reuse facilities: • Proximity to WPCF • Zoning • Delta Boundary • Flood Zone • Ease of Conveyance • Soil Types • Airport Set -Back Distance Proximity of WPCF It recommended that additional storage basin areas be located East of I-5 and to the north and south of the existing WPCF storage basins. This location will reduce potential complications associated with wastewater conveyance between the existing and any new ponds. For purposes of this evaluation it is assumed that the City will be constructing the planned treatment wetland in the area located immediately West of the existing ponds to facilitate nitrogen removal prior to storage and reuse. Therefore, these specific properties would not be available for additional storage ponds. The irrigation facilities, wetlands, and percolation basins should also be located as near to the WPCF as possible to improve ease of conveyance and reduce winter pumping costs. The reuse wetlands should also be located as near the planned treatment wetlands as possible, thereby expanding the contiguous habitat area. Furthermore, if wetland treatment and partial discharge continues to be a component of the City's WPCF operational plan, then additional treatment wetlands would likely be needed as flows increase. Zonin ; As is shown in Figure 2, the land located immediately north and south of the City -owned property is designated as prime farmland, and land located to the east is designated as unique farmland. Prime farmland and unique farmland are designations established by the State Department of Conservation, and have been identified in the San Joaquin County General Plan. Therefore, all of these properties would be suitable for the development of an irrigation reuse project, with the prime agricultural land the most suitable location for irrigation reuse. Minimal commercial zoning exists to the north and south of the WPCF, but should not be an issue due to distance from the WPCF. Percolation basins, storage basins and wetlands should be located outside of areas designated as prime farmland and commercial zones. 213103-1.0ltm 410 Prime Farmland AIM Grazing � Delta boundary 40 Statewide Importance 40 Urban ll� City -owned land Unique Farmland Other Nota: Agricultural data provided by the City of Lodi. Local Importance 410 Water U F,600 3.200 Feet Figure 2 City of Lodi ZONING & PRIME AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION AREAS Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 25 Delta Bound The Delta Boundary is also shown in Figure 2. As discussed above, all storage and disposal facilities would be most suitable close to the WPCF from a proximity standpoint. However, any additional biosolids application area would likely be required to be located outside of the Delta Boundary. Furthermore, it is recommended that any additional land application areas also be made available for biosolids disposal. Therefore, land application and biosolids disposal are most suitable outside of this area as much as possible. The majority lands surrounding the Delta waterways are historic wetland areas. Therefore, wetlands should be located within the Delta Boundary to help regain some of this native habitat value. Furthermore, as also shown in Figure 2, the state Department of Water Resources maintains a wetland/wildlife area east of the existing City -owned lands, known as the White Slough Wildlife Area. Therefore, it would also be recommended to construct the new reuse wetland in an area contiguous with this existing property. Flood Zone Protection from a 1.00 -year flood must continue to be provided for the treatment plant. This is a requirement in .the waste discharge requirements and will probably be a requirement for any governmental loan or grant monies used for treatment plant upgrades. Furthermore, any additional storage, wetland or percolation basin facilities should also be protected from the 1 -in - 100 year flood zone. As shown in Figure 2, the 1 -in -100 year flood zone extends through approximately half of the City's existing properties. Therefore, if these area are to be used extensively for the expansion of the City's treatment, storage, or reuse facilities, it is likely that a Letter of Map Revision that modifies the 100 -year flood zone boundary, (such that these properties would not be included in this 100 -year flood zone), would be required. A Letter of Map Revision for Bishop Cut Tract, south of the Rio Blanco Tract, was applied in 1992 based on upgrades that were made to the levees surrounding that property. Therefore, there is potential for a similar Letter of Map Revision to be granted for the Rio Blanco Tract and/or the City's properties. Another potential option is for the City to obtain permission from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to construct additional levees surrounding the proposed storage and wetland area to exclude 1 -in -100 year flood events. FEMA flood insurance rate maps show the 100 -year flood elevation for the treatment plant area at elevation 8 feet based on the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum. FEMA typically requires a three-foot free board above the 100 -year flood elevation; therefore, levees would need to be constructed at approximately 11 feet. It has been assumed for this report that the storage and wetland facilities will be located inside the flood zone based on the other desirable criteria of this area, such as proximity to existing facilities, ease of conveyance, and preferred soil types. However, if neither a Letter of Map Revision nor additional levee construction were approved, then the storage and wetland facilities would likely need to be relocated to outside of the flood zone where the proposed land application facilities are located. The displaced land application area would then be relocated to inside the flood zone. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 26 Ease of Conveyance The boundary of the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) is shown in Figure 3. The WID is likely equipped with interconnected conveyance facilities and could readily be isolated. Therefore, the WID would be suitable for land disposal of reclaimed water and biosolids. There is also potential to establish an agreement with WID to ensure future land application areas, Storage basins, wetlands, and percolation basins should be located within one large contiguous property to reduce potential expensive conveyance costs. Soil Type and Depth to Groundwater As can be seen in Figure 4, several dominant soil series comprise the surrounding soil sites. Table 5 displays these soil series classified with respect to drainage. Table 5. Soil Series Drainage Characterization Soil Series Drainage Tujunga Somewhat excessively drained soils Tokay Well drained Acampo Moderately well drained Kingdon Moderately well drained Devries Somewhat poorly drained Guard Poorly drained Ryde Very poorly drained General soil trends indicate improved drainage from West to East proximal to the Lodi WPCF, and depth to groundwater also increases in this direction. Furthermore; it is advantageous to locate the land application area in soils that have more drainage, to reduce the potential for adverse conditions that may be associated with poorly drained soils, It is beneficial to construct percolation basins where soils are moderately well drained with respect to drainage, to prevent shallow groundwater mounding. Storage basins and reuse wetlands should be located to the West of the WPCF properties where the soil series is more poorly drained. Therefore, the types of facilities located in this area will have a natural liner to protect the groundwater. 2; 3\©3-1 a%tm rrJ 8 T H A C rl 04 ....... ................... .......... ................... • X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ .. "•".,: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:rte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :OT .. ..... ........ ............... ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - . -y ..:.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... ........ ................. .... . ...• ....... ........ I" ... ......... 7, ................. V ............ ............. V.. M.*.,. ... . M:. : .. . .............. ....... .. ...... NM -------------- • . .......... ......... I . . ............... ........ 7. - am ................ 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .......... ........ ......... .......... .......................... ................... ........ ............. ............... ........ "AO . . . . . . . . . . ...... ..... . ..... .... ... . Y. .......... .. ............. :.. ... 1 ................. ............ ............................. ............... .......... I ..... :! ............. ......... ...... ....... ........... ........ .... ....... ........ . . ......... ........... ......... V:.l.l.*.l.7.l:.%l.l.. ............. T. ............... ............... ................ ............. : .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .r his;7. . . . . . . ... . : . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ...... 4 .... !�6� ......... ed .... ............ T It A C T ......... %* . ........ Slahm Agra _ R f 0 B L A N C 0 om 7011 T R A C T ii Pun SAIwn K I N G S L A N 0 LEGEND: M WOMOM IRRIGAMN DISTRICT BOUNBOUNDARY CITY OWNED PROPERTY I T R! A C T ®' T., sub" 4 ......... 40 • . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ti ........., ... ... . . . :1 : L.. . . . . .... ... 4 ... .... ............ M ......... ........... ........ ...... ........ ---- ......... ....... ...... ......... ..... ... ....... • ............. ... : l.l:.V.l.l1.1.1.4:.M.l .. .l;. :777- .......................... •. ...... ............................................... 4 . ........ ...... .............. ..... :.. . . I.I.I.I.V.1.1.7.1.1.1.1.1. .*.,:.,:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,:e.1.1.1.1.1:.I ................ . .......... ..................... .......... .. ........... ........ ............ Nr .............. ................ ..................... h. .................... ........... ................. ........ ............ .... ....... I ............ .... . ...... ......... ...... .................. .......... ..... .........qpm . ; . ....... ... ........... .. ..... . ... ......... ....... ........ ............. . .. ................ 0� ..... ........... ... ................. ..... ....... .................... ....................... %.......... ....... I .......... .......... . ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KAW . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wl* . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......... .. . 2p, N O 0 NVO possool SCALE N FEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... r . . .. ... . ... . .. . . .. . .. . ... . ... . . .. . .... ..... .............. ....... ............................... .............. ........ . . : .......... I ............ ............. ...... .: ............. .......................... .......................... ........................ . ....................... .......... .......... L .................. ........... ............................. . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �c ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... .............................. ........... .......... ................. ..... 0 ............... . .................................... au ........... . . . • ------ ........... ................... ...................................... ...................... ...... .......... : ............................. .......... .......... .......... ..... .......... ....... . ..... ................... .............. :.l::.l:.l.l: l'I'L l%-.-.-.-.-:.-.-�: ... ................... ............... ............ g..:..: ................................. .............................. .............. . ............................... ...... 0 ........................ .... ........ .. .. .............................. ............ ............... ............... ... vir ................ cr. ......... ........ . . ............. %% . ............... .................. .......... ......... .':1. ... .......................... — ....................... ........................................... .... ........ ............................. ROAD .................. ................ .............. V.. ............................. t .......... ......... .... ...... I ......... I ........ .... ... ....... ............ ............ .......... s. . . .......III... . ..................... ............... ...... ........ .. ...rY ..... ..................... ........... .......... .*/.,.w.*.%v.,.,.%%* ...................... ..................... ............. Figure 3 City of Lodi W E S T WOODBRIDGE IRRIGATION DISTRICT W�9 Y 0 S T & ASSOCIATES SOii_ CATEGORY - KINal-E - Detta boundary ® ACAMPO - RiNDGE - 100 year flood boundary (approx.) 000 DEMES CD RIO 6LANCHO O City awned land - FLUVAQUENTS - RYDE 4w CD GUARD TOKAY Note: Soils data based on Sail Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database, developed by the National CID KINGDON - TUJUNGA RSSOurces Conservation Service, ri 1,600 9,200 Feet Figure 4 City of Lodi SOIL MAP Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 29 Federal Aviation Administration Requirements The Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are both airport facilities located in the proximity of the Lodi WPCF. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, open water facilities, such as storage ponds, should be constructed with a sufficient separation distance from airports, to decrease the potential for interference from migratory birds with the designated flight patterns of aircraft. FAA regulations include the following requirements: 1. Airports serving piston -powered aircraft. A distance of 5,000 feet is recommended between an airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and a wildlife attractant (such as open water). 2. Airports serving turbine -powered aircraft. A distance of 10,000 feet to the nearest wildlife attractant is recommended. 3. Approach or Departure airspace. A distance of 5 statue miles is recommended, if the wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Wildlife studies and management planning are required or recommended where the attractant does not fall outside of the 5 -mile radius and has the potential to significantly alter bird flight patterns. It is assumed that airplanes that use the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are piston - powered aircraft. Therefore, it is also assumed that a separation distance of .5,000 feet would likely be required between these airport facilities and an open water area. As shown in Figure 5, a 5,000 -foot separation distance surrounding these airports would likely include most of the available area adjacent to and east of the WPCF. Therefore, any new facilities that have open water surfaces that may attract wildlife, e.g. storage ponds and percolation basins, may need to be located outside of the separation area. CONCEPTUAL LONG-TERM STORAGE, REUSE, AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Based on the recommendations discussed in the previous section, locations for each of the three land disposal alternatives can be conceptually identified. The recommended locations must provide enough land area to meet the surface area requirements developed through the water balance analysis. Additionally, adequate lands should also be available to create the recommended buffer areas and to account for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. Finally, additional acreage may be incorporated in to the conceptual area, such that existing parcels are not divided. To account for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities associated with newly constructed storage basins, reuse wetlands, and land application areas, ten -percent additional land area was added to the calculated water balance surface areas for these facilities. This percentage is based on the approximate land requirements used for the City's existing storage basins. Other facilities associated with the storage basins, reuse wetlands, and land application areas (i.e, upland riparian areas around the reuse wetland, large pump stations, recirculation facilities) would likely be located in the designated buffer areas. 213103-101tm ri p1I ,Iq1; .r QF� WeN •j •• Weil •'�Pp'••, >>'a 14.�v.+�e01#IgA Ba,::-+.rw...', eyBit,,-` •! BN 9 2Iy PiPiPiPi �aAlnf�_ eYil�•�eee>r»,..-•_ -c.. .__.�.. .s y l 12 ]f - of '� �Y 3 I >Q 1S.>..a•-..= . _ __ +a+1.p `1 a�.- __.. . __°_ 9LD PP � BPADB N , _ II w.n i ¢ -• well I w.B r � ^J�` ° --___ ,>.. 7 _._• _-__moi Jn 1. I A �, fi _. R _=n XMFCL'F1N .. �! �G40 -_ __I "".-off - Krv4DO-,N -,J `• ` ..VM m { rnpl am •� . �d vary} 'i - - , ,, - I __ - - /_ 1' ` e � M - �•. I•+.� . '$ip i1G1> ' f �,_ ..' NA�Nf� Ott .%`rr-._g.° 1.. - .• . 1 •'a• � � < � well ell• !�a xa ����-•`=�`}•.---..� .. o j •R ' a„ y try Y Henderson .r-'—®-•E°"_�v�.L`�o N K E E" -,r Oki >_ -•db e', •�• e"� IIS �Ilt��lA E i raeBal i .r>» gE c i / wnr W e '+ e -`--- __�"• PYnplllg'� _ __- ti Wdl 4 'R --.-=•dL-e .. S L � IfIT{M Ti.. 'e L - - S4fion .+ �> 1 ,' L_•'—'—r - ---�1��-. LODZ AM WHITE•.1'' .'", Tti wml i g" = d A IO �B >L A N C Cf - i • ' .• i� - g� - 25 51st r• ..•.4 ' • r :_.-._..,, 1,._,=.._-�-. moi' --.z. — — •' ' ' ':�_ ill--- - - '" q -- rresrBnHx�crr illr' 4^LLIai°> ro ,___ ���_-,� i. _ 'ties=' •• - _. _. _.. pWell -= - - __• - _ •_. >_ -__.. _ ..ii V e x u y • L. � i v s ' K E:' N Q I S L A N QY I��d� s ........ ,>. ! , ra n p r 4 �. ,,,,a--•—.• _ �.I—.v,,.,T 1 %;1�I'�'I ^ B 1 S H.0 P T B' A C T I p 1 aliti..-' ---------_'�---±t^b — -~� ex 8'„ Toear r! II l: i _4_ �} -- = ,.':EIGHTli7fJLE ROt�� �! I &O 11 n v LE R0 = r f � � � ,; r^ � ��� i-'.-.• .r_a.--.r<.�.RD.J�+•--W .W.. .li�,ma. }7jj' —may C � ; , I ', i ° — •ir-'°,•`.�--�- _.�` fir,._ . --` �' ,ar- .o� r y 1X01 TovwLl � Bels xro<n e, r Yu p,n �' •• ii . St+aen � li, � ?, 4 eM1ha. ��: tx . S LEGEM> D.Tjk Figure 5 I a — — — — — FM eOUNM%W AMMMOM N City Of Lod ON OMM PRDPVM FAA RESTRICTIONS w E a T NM SrA E IN FM Y O S T & AMMUTE9 Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 31 The sizing of the recommended buffer areas will be contingent upon the location of the facility in question, and its proximity to areas where incompatible development may occur. As discussed above., it is recommended that an approximate 500 -foot separation distance be provided around the land application areas and an approximate 1,300 -foot separation distance be provided around the storage basins, percolation basins, and wetland facilities, Conceptual layouts have been developed for each of the three alternatives, and are described below. Alternative 1. Land Application Conceptual Layout The recommended conceptual layout of Alternative 1 is shown in Figure 6. As displayed, it is estimated that, to provide the necessary 2,350 acres of land application area, approximately 3,134 acres of land would be required. Additionally, to provide the needed 690 acres of storage basins, approximately 760 acres would be necessary. As shown in Figure 6, the recommended conceptual layout includes land areas that are contiguous with the City -owned property, and provides an odor and mosquito buffer for the treatment facilities located therein. Table 6 displays land requirements for existing and potential storage and disposal facilities for Alternative 2. Potential facilities include required land application area, sufficient area for internal roads and berms, sufficient area for required buffers, and surplus land application area. Surplus land application acreage is included in the Table 6 due to the Iand application area being delineated along parcel boundaries; however, the additional land is less than three percent of the total land application area required. Therefore, it is anticipated that the surplus area will not incur a large associated purchase cost. Table 6. Land Areas Requirements for Alternative 1 (Acres) Storage or Disposal Facility Existing Facilities. Area Potential Facilities Total Area Required Required Internal Roads, LEmd Berms, & Area Conveyances Area Surplus Land Buffer Application Area Area Storage Basins 40 650 70 - - 760 Land. Application Area 440 1,910 190 490 100 (90 net) 1 3,130 Total 480 2,560 260 490 100 1 3,890 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area As shown in Table 6, the storage basin area requirement of 760 acres includes the existing 40 acres of 650 acres for storage basins, with an additional 70 acres provided for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. As shown in Figure 6, the conceptual layout depicts storage basins located north of the City -owned property and West of I-5. Additional storage basins are located on the southern portion of the City -owned property; also proximal to existing storage basins. These areas are recommended for the storage basins because they have less permeable soils, are contiguous to existing facilities, and are outside of the airspace of local airports. 2I 3103-1 Oltm Way Wel WNI �. sK 7L nx ems•,_ BNS 1 II zr I i� ' •� SNAN rl I 1 '' R L7 V 1 ,..,f .__" ,.. ,.w.s .�. _._ _ - o!t) RR_ _ ?RACY6- � — - a i ti � Oy I • i Jl I', L Well l WNt p• I �3 wN• .R _ � ° a• o 1's Kingtioit • x 1'"--- : . c SR zg I,MA 4 ANE I Well WON r &h•;'�•':� _ • `,•• •-:sem Hewk n zr�$ „ * V•e v •.• W° H Y N K E E�• li a etl _ F & ° T R A CT m n ] • •�� W-11 • a wall a*ise AM3 4µq qA \\I Not 4 qp"u �a PlerPlti �\ Well .\ POMP Mill _ _ btauar J well i —•� •^..--ku�'z fii„r. wap.. -n j r {P:FTITS/11 [', rN.,. ell y L_pa.+01 ,� rl' iR a rrlil .i l'Yelr�• 76 _ '° R 1 0 t$ L A N G 0 ; "'.. Q• i &t Pumping. IRI + e 0 SWttar n ° tl II �. vIB a S�liort"EM� 10"M -�;«_...� l �M W. I C I• ..-,.sin. __ J ' - _' T6F.F!'H0.'ik �iii�• .CCT ____ ._ t`41 U e P N !� 1 Well IL lower fi. a Ttnw ' _ Iti 'I . ' . j s' It l':' i , Wttl 0 i K L, N G L A N D a zzLei Well i if 4"1 1,V— °"-a -¢ �y .caa$ ' R I S Hsi 0 P TKA C T` r>a�----.---4---3=�p>�mYr_—,.-�,—,�_I,�...: I •jd,'I I ROAD f-.-�. �1•---%--�,�.�_— ---erownar4c� a.PP.tI ���/••.• L EGM. L30STLit10 CITY OWNED PROPERLY - 720 APPROX ACRES CROSS r_ OW W11RE SAM MMFE AREA - M APPRDX. ACRES NET 70 APPRM. MMM 1� AND OWlEYMM F�Igure 6 DELTA BOUNDARY — ACRES INTERNAL RE7QLMM LAW AREA FOR miERNATm 1 *, P01BMAL LELICAM LAND APK"TIDN AREA - APMX ACRES IMM City of Lod ExISTw STDRAAE Li491NE1 APMX ACRES WT N — ,o APPROX. ACRES NET —4D APPRDX. ACRES OV—OWNM DMIR - M APPM. ACRES LN MAL MWS, OEiW AND CWOEYMCES CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 W Z S T E3GLAAIO AP Al — „D APPRDx. ACRES CRSS NENE T!N•J *W j� a 1!!1'Xf ]0OO PIAFNIED 7REA11AW WETLANDS Y O $ T — 170 APPWX. ACRES NET SCALE NL FEET do ASSOCIATM Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 33 It has been assumed for purposes of this report that the Department of Water Resources White Slough Wildlife Area will remain undeveloped and can serve as a buffer on the Western side of the potential storage basins. It is also assumed that the Peripheral Canal West of the City -owned property can also serve as a storage basin buffer. Finally, a land application area has also been located East of the storage basins to provide the recommended buffer area for the basins in this area. Also as shown in Table 6, the total land application area consists of 3,130 gross acres, which is delineated as follows: 440 acres are located on City -owned property • 1,910 acres are provided to meet the determined land application and/or biosolids disposal needs 190 acres will be required for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities • 490 acres of buffer area based on a 500 -foot separation: distance around the. entire land application area • 100 acres (90 net land application area) are surplus land application area obtained from delineating along parcel boundaries. Figure 6 shows that the additional land application area is predominantly located to the East of Interstate 5, with smaller parcels to the north and south of the potential storage basins. This location is recommended for the land application area because of its proximity to the City's existing land application facilities, is predominantly comprised of one contiguous area inside the Woodbridge Irrigation District, and approximately 1,590 acres would be located outside the Delta Boundary. Alternative 2. Percolation Disposal Conceptual Layout The recommended conceptual layout of Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 7. As displayed, it is estimated that, to provide the necessary 1,450 acres of land application area, approximately 1,880 acres of land would be required. Additionally, to provide the needed 190 acres of storage basins, approximately 210 acres would be necessary. Finally, approximately 850 total acres would be required to provide 770 acres of percolation basin disposal area. As shown in Figure 7, the recommended conceptual layout includes land areas that are contiguous with the City -owned property, and provides an odor and mosquito buffer for the treatment facilities located therein. Table 7 displays the land area requirements for existing and potential storage and disposal facilities for Alternative 2. Potential facilities include sufficient land for land application area, internal roads and berms, buffers, converted percolation basin area. As discussed above, it is assumed that a majority of the percolation basins could be converted to agricultural fields during the summer months. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 34 Table 7. Land Areas Requirements for Alternative 2 (Acres) (a) Are estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. As shown in Table 7, the additional storage basins would require approximately 170 acres, with a net of 150 additional acres for storage. The remaining 20 acres would be used for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. As with Alternative 1, recommended buffer areas would be provided by local barriers, such as the DWR wetlands, and contiguous land application areas. As shown in Figure 7, the conceptual layout for Alternative 2 displays potential storage basins located on the nor -them City -owned property, with additional storage basins on adjacent land north of the City -owned property. As with Alternative 1, this area is recommended for the storage basins because of favorable soil conditions, its proximity to existing facilities and its separation distance from local airports. Of the 850 acres required for percolation disposal, 770 net acres would comprise the percolation basins (with the remainder designated for internal berms, roads, and conveyances). Approximately 130 acres of this area would be located on the existing City -owned property. Furthermore, approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area would be converted to agricultural fields during the summer months, and approximately 220 gross and 200 net acres would be dedicated to year-round percolation disposal, Percolation basins are located East of Interstate 5, as shown in Figure 7. This location was identified due to its proximity to the City's existing facilities, its semi -permeable soils and its somewhat increased depth to groundwater. 2131113-I olim Potential Facilities Percolation Internal Basin Area Roads, Surplus Storage or Required Converted to Berms, & Land Total Disposal Facility Existing Facilities Land Area Summer Ag. Land Conveyances Area (a) Buffer Area Application Area Area Required Storage 40 150 - 20 - - 210 Basins Land 390 net 490 570 110 220 - 1880 Application 100 Area buffer Dedicated - 200 - 20 - - 220 Percolation Basins(') Total 1 530 840 570 154 220 0 2,310 (a) Are estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. As shown in Table 7, the additional storage basins would require approximately 170 acres, with a net of 150 additional acres for storage. The remaining 20 acres would be used for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. As with Alternative 1, recommended buffer areas would be provided by local barriers, such as the DWR wetlands, and contiguous land application areas. As shown in Figure 7, the conceptual layout for Alternative 2 displays potential storage basins located on the nor -them City -owned property, with additional storage basins on adjacent land north of the City -owned property. As with Alternative 1, this area is recommended for the storage basins because of favorable soil conditions, its proximity to existing facilities and its separation distance from local airports. Of the 850 acres required for percolation disposal, 770 net acres would comprise the percolation basins (with the remainder designated for internal berms, roads, and conveyances). Approximately 130 acres of this area would be located on the existing City -owned property. Furthermore, approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area would be converted to agricultural fields during the summer months, and approximately 220 gross and 200 net acres would be dedicated to year-round percolation disposal, Percolation basins are located East of Interstate 5, as shown in Figure 7. This location was identified due to its proximity to the City's existing facilities, its semi -permeable soils and its somewhat increased depth to groundwater. 2131113-I olim � }r, � ��• j., MY � 4 � 3r li• gM.Y •• f 0R 6 BM 9 I I well 1 •IIID IWO . _ � , .as BN 2 [p •': t � ri1 T' I E" 'I :�PfavttFe p .v a " �r eM _5 - L in i7 II • �4{H - i2h LAx F ESM 1: j' io'�■p� `- I ='---" Ff - - xai'L y. bl- � I' z$ � L • e- tl. Y ° Ill 32 I Ay T [L A V 1 �I '' ■ �. . Weste'n .-J;�_ _ _•. __`_ .._. .PLL RR 9RA°F_ FFA"'11111 -'---" Weil wot L t 4y, I ' wNl r PI I. 1 3• .iy rte`_ _ _-.a - _ - _ n U 7 i 1 ""-i' Il I •� •' � BM 23 l �� kI �°a '' - - �• Wrll Kingdon 22 I' 10 P SIJ , - IANE % u� i� 3 Well We"• _� I �Iy .�• .,Y . > 1. IARLCIBO}i r.3 71 P rwELwyRr `Il. ° z V31age T R A C T wen eP �I W.H " _ Weil R ell tz .vW_ _ �_ I� AR.xa.ne°Ne •w. L 0 L64r dl ... .. slQteon well • �' i r.. e f ��—' � ZR°_. l *040--------- - SBM 7 _r- - q l.ad M Part } � 'lgifli'8 _ t-��. wel ew J Well X;2 .__..__._ ^ rzi � I•' � t `+Yell r�fff9M aG u r R I C $ 8 L A N C 0 .e"=Y3� =a==�_.� __ ._ O• T R A C T ~ �L 27 qV^5 ny II I' I fy 64 O ' M N li 5 II - fYQ WWI fRl------ al lA ..i'.ITP!!(1h4'':iT CL7 II nMxZz• - n1 �.1 �u"lpl^i S �i 3 ---- Well ___- """-`__- w{awn• .V ` n ' ; Il 1i Q� w.l, - T' �µ a r� k i ❑ 1. v' Well K I P � 0 G I S L A N D liqyy3 x F C Y 41 Z Q W.➢1 O a 1 u I qNil — O P T R,' A C T EIGl` NThIJ1L� ROAD _ �1. — — ��- T Y EXISTING CITY OWNED PROPERTY 2 POTENTIAL STORAGE BASNNS T Mail Pi P. DWR WHITE SLOUGH WILDLIFE AREA - 470 APPROX. ApiES. GROSS - 150 APPROX. ACRES NEr Figure 7 DELTA BOUNDARY - 20 APPROX. ACRES INFERNAL ROADS, BERMS, AND CONYEYFNCES INF 5 REQUIRED LAND AREA FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 POTENTIAL DEDICATED LAND APPLICATION AREA EXISTING STORAGE BASNVS 7eO APPROX. ACRES GROSS 440 APPROXI ACRES NEF N City of Lodi i - 40 APPROX. ACRES NET - 220 APPROX. ACRES CRY -OWNED BUFFER EXI NG LAND APPUC�MON AREr - �° APPROX " '"�"AL ROADS ` "�° `�'"�'""� CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 W E s T -490 APPROX. ACRES GROSS -' APPROX. ACRES NET POTE'70 PE'RCQLARES BASIN AREA 100 - 700 APPROX. ACRE CITY -OWNED BUFFER A -830 APPROX ACRES LY�4W - 770 APPROX. ACRES NET D 1500 3000 PLANNED TREATMENT WETLANDS - SO APPROX. ACRES INTERNAL ROADS. BERMS, AND CONVEYANCES Zia X O S T - 130 APPROX. ACRES NET - 570 APPROX. NET ACRES USED FOR SUMMER IRRIGATION SCALE IN FEET h ASSOCIATES Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 36 The land application area is recommended to be adjacent to the percolation basin for two reasons: 1. To provide a 1,300 -foot buffer for the percolation basin 2. To increase ease of agricultural practices when percolation basins are converted to agricultural lands during the summer months. Therefore, approximately 540 acres of land application area would surround the percolation disposal area. As shown in Table 6, the total land application area consists of 1,880 gross acres, which is delineated as follows: • 490 acres are located on City -owned property, with 100 acres designated as a buffer area. • 490 acres are provided to meet the determined land application and/or biosolids disposal needs. • 50 acres will be required for internal roads., berms, and conveyance facilities. • 220 acres of buffer area based on a 500 -foot separation distance around the entire land application area. • 570 acres would be used for percolation disposal in the winter months, with 60 acres of internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. As shown in Figure 7, the land application area also includes existing irrigation area on the southern City -owned property, and property north of the potential storage basins. This location is recommended for the land application area because of its proximity to the City's existing land application facilities, is predominantly comprised of one contiguous area inside the Woodbridge Irrigation District, and approximately 1,590 acres would be located outside the Delta Boundary. Alternative 3. Wetlands Reclamation Conceptual Layout The recommended conceptual layout of AIternative 3 is shown in Figure S. As displayed, it is estimated that, to provide the necessary 2,040 acres of land application area, approximately 2,750 acres of land would be required. Additionally, to provide the needed 520 acres of storage basins, approximately 570 acres would be necessary. As shown in Figure 8, the recommended conceptual layout includes land areas that are contiguous with the City -owned property, and provides an odor and mosquito buffer for the treatment facilities located therein. Table 8 displays land area requirements for the existing and potential storage facilities for Alternative 3. Potential facilities include sufficient land for land application, internal roads and berms, buffers, and surplus land application area. 213103-101tm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 37 Table S. Land Areas Requirements for Alternative 3 (Acres) Storage or Disposal Facility Existing Facilities Area Potential Facilities Total Area Required Required Land Area Internal Roads, Berms, & Conveyances Area(a) Buffer Area Surplus Land Application Area Storage Basins 40 480 50 - - 570 Land Application Area 400 1,.640 160 500 50 2,750 Reuse Wetlands - 600 60 490 - 1150 Total 440 2,720 270 990 50 4,470 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area As shown in Table 8, approximately 480 acres would be required for new storage facilities, while 50 acres would be required for internal roads and berms. Figure 8 illustrates the conceptual layout for Alternative 3. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, storage basins are recommended to be located to the north of the City -owned property, West of Interstate 5 due of favorable soil conditions in this area, proximity to existing facilities and separation distance from local airports. Furthermore,. buffer areas would be provided by local barriers, such as the DWR wetlands, and contiguous land application areas. As shown in Table 7, the total land application area consists of 2,750 gross acres, which is delineated as follows: • 400 acres are located on City -owned property • 1,640 acres are provided to meet the determined land application and/or biosolids disposal needs • 160 acres will be required for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities • 500 acres of buffer area based on a 500 -foot separation distance around the entire land application area • 50 acres are surplus land application area obtained from delineating along parcel boundaries As shown in Figure 8, the land application area is located East of Interstate 5, with the exception of a few smaller parcels located north and south of the existing City -owned property. As with the previous alternatives, this location is recommended for the land application area because of its proximity to the City's existing land application facilities and it is predominantly comprised of one contiguous area inside the Woodbridge Irrigation District. Finally, approximately 1,150 acres will be required for the wetlands reuse area. The specified acreage includes 500 acres for wetlands reuse, 60 acres for internal roads, berms, and conveyance facilities. As shown in Figure 8, a riparian buffer of 490 acres will serve as an odor buffer for the reuse wetlands. It is recommended that this area not be used for agricultural irrigation to protect the habitat values of the reuse wetland area. 213103-1 oltrn _ WNI I5 Well Weil BOA BM 2 4— r1 # I � 8Y &- 8N4 n rcirr :wort - 6�arw I II, M I .`9 ., • 4 Y o . o 3P •i Ifil ata wq _.______ w al W111 well m y 1 c 11- - - uNBoaw a ROAn•sr...�:e, :K-'v�oPry _ P.r r I� + - r "� Bh T9 i w111 a Kingdon j ,, y - - ;d •I I a ��, 1 ,III Well • WBN,^ ..N NCR •"e `}$ a eowA r V'Edloge K E E a pp v jO - rr 1 •mow ? Ti A C T +- • ` " a' & • well n s� Po n pI aj well ;� BN 8M 3 wol qqi \ yg Ilpyp WA I W -- ---F`"iwian 1`Y - WNI • �'�� �,elBsrleoNi - µ• _ . �— �, __„a�a.u�,__. jq'WHITE.,�^ .f may.,..) } _Liv lit d Kt I F _.__ ___. -__•_ A �11 - W.11 P JI BY -i r • r _ i.... AM .N 1 S4tan Ewer r n so .' � I ; I I �.• � .� toly ' I ❑ Tare' _ w`i K (: N G &. 1 5 L A N D ; �$ r; 5 - � I Why W", 0 P T R, A C T = — ----art 4 Anj—.----„—_ — -T�_ BM B i = w h ------------- ----_ =�� 1. _ Emso E TMILE ROAD elaxr�rce F n &m�ell pwo E VQI��f ,, el,rmre LEGEND: EX STM en OWNED PROPMM POTENTIAL STORAGE I MNS — 530 APPRM ACRES GROSS OWR WHIM ROUGHWILTXIFE AREA — 480 APPROX. ACRES NET Q DELTA BOUNOART — 50 APPROX. ACRES NNTERNAL ER ROA06. BM AND CONVEYANCES Figure S PAAUW0 LAND AREA FOR N.TERN117TVE 3 POTENIFAL DMOCATED LAND APPLIC11T10N AREA - APPROX. A'`� N City of Lodi EXNSTING srarucE BASINS — 1,E60 APPROX. A NET — 40 APPROX. ACRES NET — 500 APPROX ACRES CWT—OWNED RUFFEA EX 00 PRO . ACRES ME AREA -160 APPROX. A� ROAM ' NO ANCM � CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 W >E S T — 400 APPROX. ACRES � PO'fEN1LIL WETLAND REUSE AREA — 1.130 APPROXI ACRES OROBS — aOO APPROX ACRES NET D 1300 3000 PLANNED TREATMENT WETLANDS — 490 APPROX. ACRES MY—OWNED BUFFER — 13D APPROX. ACLS NET — 00 APPROX. ACRES KMRN& R00110% BUM, AND OONVEYI M SCALE IN FEET Y O $ T & ASSOCIATES Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 39 Subjective Criteria Ranking While all three of the alternatives are intended to eliminate surface water discharges thereby providing greater assurances that future surface water discharge requirements can be met, groundwater limitations may still pose regulatory issues for the City. Therefore, the implementation of Alternative 2, which includes percolation disposal, would likely result in the most difficulty with respect to these regulations. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 offer a considerable degree of flexibility due to the inclusion of percolation basins and wetlands respectively in each of these alternatives. In comparison with Alternative 1, the City would be forced to depend only on storage and irrigation reuse for disposal. All three alternatives would have a similar ease of operation, with the exception of additional maintenance that may be required to operate the wetland habitat area under Alternative 3. Due to the location of the recommended WPCF percolation basins with respect to local airports, and other restrictions discussed. above for percolation disposal, the City may not be able to implement a percolation disposal option unless an agreement with the local airports can be reached. Additionally, based on potential groundwater impacts, percolation basins may not be a feasible alternative if groundwater impacts cannot be mitigated by cycling application periods. Summer land application with winter storage would be the easiest alternative to implement from a regulatory perspective. All three alternatives would involve many stakeholders, with Alternative 1 requiring the largest land area under contract with the City, and Alternative 2 requiring the largest land purchase. Alternative 2 would be somewhat difficult to implement due to the large size needed for the percolation basins and the probably of groundwater contamination. Alternative 3 would likely require input and cooperation from state environmental agencies, which could impact the ease of implementation. Table 9 summarizes that potential the potential benefits and impacts of the alternatives. Table 9. Potential Benefits and Potential Impacts of the. Alternatives Alternative Potential Benefits Potential Impacts Alt. 1: Sommer Land Application and Ease of Regulatory Many Stakeholders Involved Winter Storage implementation Largest Land Area Requirement Moderate Flexibility Alt. 2: Summer Land Application and Smallest Land Area Potential Groundwater Impacts Winter Percolation Basin Requirement Regulatory Implementation More Disposal Difficult Proximity to Local Airports Alt. 3: Summer Land Application and Habitat Creation Habitat Management Needs Winter Wetlands Reclamation Preservation of Open Largest Land Purchase Space State Environmental Agency Cooperation 213103-i oltm Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 40 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE This section discusses the recommended SOI and potential benefits and issues associated with the designation of the area. around the WPCF as an SOI. Recommended SOI The recommended SOI should provide sufficient land area for adequate long -tern sewerage facilities, and the following sewerage facilities have formed the basis of the recommended SOI: • Land Disposal of Reclaimed Water • Land Disposal of Biosolids • Adequate Urban -Open Space Interface As discussed above, the following storage and disposal alternatives were developed to meet these long-term needs: • Alternative 1. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds • Alternative 2. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Percolation Basin Disposal • Alternative 3. Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Wetlands Reclamation and Storage Based on currently available information, however, the preferred long-term Iand application alternative to provide 100% reuse of the City's effluent cannot be determined at this time. Several factors that cannot be determined at this time could impact this decision process, including environmental regulations that may be imposed at that time, availability of appropriate properties for purchase, potential funding opportunities, and willingness for property owners to participate in a reuse program. Therefore, adequate land area should be set aside for the WPCF Sphere of Influence such that any of the three alternatives can be developed. Based on the discussion above, suitable land area could be set aside to provide adequate area for the following wastewater treatment, storage and disposal systems, assuming: • 760 acres for storage basins are required • 3,130 acres for land application area are required (including percolation basins) • 1,150 acres for reuse wetlands are required Figure 9 depicts the recommended SOI based on the three alternatives discussed above. The recommended SOI includes buffer areas around the storage and disposal facilities to provide: • 50 feet -DHS recommendation for reclaimed water application + 500 feet —SWRCB recommendation for biosolids application • 500 feet —literature recommendation for odor buffer 213103-10\tm •" � I p � r s ry. _— _ wMii 77 Well Walh . J.n 12 I rr MAN• ..a j,a„• bn. �” u 2 • N 6M 15 i ori _o � I �� i ,„ I � C • `_ r ' , u - " rdi._--- _ OLD i N r �i !FR SPADE ' A _ ni e wet: 1 j Wetl 4 BM 29 u^ wj �. P z y � 1^}I S BMF 'Wcll Wellh ;� BrM Atiinih�_°..s.•,.'•'' - '•° , '> 1 a I N K E E T R A C f` N 3 : an sid u: wart % za --1 . -.._.-_•___.._._� -r.. BM a °rLa o`qp - _ Y a � `\\\•`+.\tea �. na \ W n wdl •� Q wan, _e u _ e pw� p� ��n�r "A• '__ -~ r rl .__ __. __ F1A,Wn6 'r —i .. 'e:�,_•_IRe79 rpQN� _ p° , PO.° t.>�—� TaM witflfNanw•.� ! BM _ Lodr __Mrr- .eros WCII L 13M 3fi- c 1 LLL777 � vim• Y�°?+ I. - -� .'�• I 27 .0 + r r' __ _.._.. .._...-=r e� '_ --=�Nr:l BIL3 •1� CW p -,-_ a '__.__.___...... ax.•--a,� a - cea - fir.----- nucro ra fwltr M -i la' I� - +'� i i a 1 v ----- --1 - - -- _- f !Wall I.+I K I„ N Ca I S L A N fa i i 36 w V.f — z l jjll f IB q i I e r �' �, I o --- -- --}--41-- B I S Hl, 0 P T It: A C T j 0r EIGHTMI�E • ROAD 2 ElBNT1Ml -------------- LECEND: Figure 9 EXISDNG STORAGE AND MSPOS& FACILmES POTEWI& STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACRRIFS N City of Lodi PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED SPHERE OF 04FLUENCE W E B T 0 1800 3000 MM Y 0 8 T SCALE IN FEST & assOclnTEs Technical Memorandum October 23, 2003 Page 42 Furthermore, for ponds and wetlands, or water impoundments, the set buffer area is 1,300 feet to ensure that mosquitoes and potential odors do not result in nuisance conditions. Finally, in further development of the SOI, the recommended area was expanded out to parcel lines for planning purposes. The recommended SOI, as shown in Figure 9, encompasses the area required for wastewater storage and disposal facilities, adequate buffer areas, and has been expanded to encompass local parcel boundaries. The S01 boundary shown includes sufficient land area to implement any of the three alternatives. Sene#1ts Associated with Recommended SOI As discussed above, the SOI provides the benefits of enhanced water quality, preservation of open space, prime agricultural land and habitat preservation, in addition to providing assurances that the City can meet its long team sewerage disposal needs. Potential Issues Associated with Recommended SOI The primary issue associated with the S01 is that the recommended encompassed properties belong to a significant number of landowners. Approximately fifty landowners would by impacted by the proposed SOI. Therefore, the use of the properties could be affected. Suitable land areas were identified for each of the storage and disposal alternatives, and conceptual layouts were developed. An SOI was defined as the boundary that included sufficient land area to implement any of the three described alternatives. 213\03-1 04m ATTACHMENT 1 LAFCO Sphere of Influence Document SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Adopted June 21, 196B Area: Those unincorporated areas adjacent to a city, community or district, which are of concern in long-range planning, growth and development of such areas. Pur ose: 7. To insure orderly urban growth in the areas adjacent to a city, community or district, and in particular those areas which might reasonably become a part of such entities at some time in the future, 2. To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various cities, County and districts, to insure proper effectuation of their respective general plans. 3. To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely urbanization with provisions for adequate and essential services such as sewer, water, fire and police protection, 4. To assist other governmental districts and agencies in planning the logical and economical extension of all governmental facilities and services, thus avoiding. unnecessary duplications. 5. To assist property owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use and development of their land. Criteria: In establishing a sphere of influence, which city, the County or other entity is logically the government agency most capable of providing the necessary public facilities and services essential for proper development? Has the city or district demonstrated an ability and willingness to provide these services as annexations in the sphere of influence occur? The following services should be considered in determining the most feasible city where the sphere of influence is established: 1. Provision of water transmission mains 2. Ample sewerage facilities 3. Adequate police and fire protection 4. Waste disposal 5. Parks and recreation Procedure: 6. Storm drainage 7. Existing school., postal and juridical districts and other special districts, which give municipal type, services.. 8. Compatible street circulation 9. Geographic, economic and social relationships 10. Green belts Each city within the planning area should define and determine the boundaries of the areas in the County in its judgment bears a relationship to its future planning for a period. Said period to cover 50 years in 5 increments of 10 years each. 2. Consideration of the ten previously mentioned criteria factors should guide each city in its determination of its proposed sphere of influence. 3. If two or more cities feel that a certain area in the County relates to their planning program, such studies should be conducted jointly by the appropriate representatives of the cities involved and the County in order to establish areas of agreement for all concerned. 4. At such time as agreement is established between all of the affected agencies, a map should be prepared which delineates the areas of agreement. 5. Copies should be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission. 6. That the spheres of influence of other public entities should be defined where appropriate. 7. If the cities or other governmental entities cannot agree on the boundaries or condition of the sphere of influence the collected information and points of view may be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission by any affected agency with a request that the Local Agency Formation Commission make the final determination. 8. A review and possible amendment of spheres of influence shall -be considered within a maximum of ten years after first established, ATTACHMENT 2 Water Balances and Assumptions 213103-101tm WATER BALANCE ASSUMPTIONS 1. Projected General Plan Build -Out monthly domestic WPCF influent flows of 11.6 mgd. 2. Power plant and mosquito fish pond usage will not change significantly. 3. Industrial Influent Flows will not change significantly. 4. Average rainfall conditions for the dry years and 1 -in -25 year rainfall conditions for the wet years. 5. Long-term average evapotranspiration conditions for all water years. 6. Availability of approximately 8 feet of storage in the effluent storage ponds. 7. Four inches per month of percolation in the effluent storage ponds. 8. All winter runoff discharged to the Delta waterways. 9. Crops will be irrigated from April 1 through September 30. All runoff will be captured through October 31. 10. 70 percent efficiency for the overall irrigation system. This is a conservative value for surface spreading of effluent for crop irrigation. 11. A minimum of 735 acres to be planted with annual crops, for analysis purposes this crop is assumed to be corn. 12. Availability of approximately 1.5 feet of storage in the 130 -acre treatment wetland, thus providing for approximately of 195 acre-feet of effluent storage capacity. This storage will be used to in the event that discharges to the wetlands exceed demands, thus assuring discharges do not occur. 13. Four inches per month of percolation in the treatment wetlands. 14. Availability of 2.5 feet of storage in the 600 -acre habitat wetland, thus providing 1,500 acre- feet of effluent storage capacity, This storage will be maximized during wet year conditions. During dry years, wetland ponds will be kept as wet as possible. 15. Habitat wetlands will be gradually flooded during the winter months to create a predominately seasonal wetland area. Approximately one quarter of the wetland area will be wetted during the summer months, creating a permanent wetland area. Flooding will gradually fill entire wetland area in the winter months. 16. During wet years, only the permanent wetland area will be wetted for approximately 2 months, while during dry years this period will last approximately 6 months. 17. Four inches per month of percolation in the habitat wetlands. 18. Availability of .2.5 feet of storage in the 800 -acre percolation basins, thus providing 2,000 acre-feet of effluent storage capacity. This storage will be maximized during wet year conditions. 19. Approximately 600 acres of the percolation basin area will be wetted during the winter months, .and planted with a crop during the summer months. This entire area will stay wetted from December through March during wet years and from December through February during dry years. 20. Approximately 200 acres of the percolation basin area will be wetted year-round, creating a permanent percolation basin site. 21. Fifteen caches per month of percolation in the percolation basins. Table A-1. Water Balance for Zero Discharge with Summer Irrigation and Winter $tgrage Average Year Rainfall, General Plan Build -Out Monthly Average Influent Flows (in.fyt) 0-1k) (1) Avefags (2) -ReferanrE 3) Industria( (4) Municipal 5 6 B 9 10 '11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 storage Alfalfa 8 Grass Annual Com Total Ind ation Discharge F Total Treatme Influent to Ponds Rainfall Evap. 8 Perc. j oyFrom Storage Com rap. Evap. B storage Ralnfap Per,- Rainfall Pere. Rainfall Evap Pero Com Rainfall E.T. ImfueM Row Influent Flow Demand to Wetlanris Discharge to Wetlands Month #n.lrno indrrx: a -InJmo ar,10ma ao-00rgq aa)nJrno ac4nlmn aEin.lmd eo-ln . ac4ndmo aWrlJmo ao-(rr.hno- ao-in.7r110 aairilrna artnJma Mid) ao-in.lrno ao-lOfnla Jan_ 3.52 9,7 164 12,903 12,887 2,429 (3,305) .(12,010) .35;359 - '0 0 0 0 B 380 0.2 458 (633} Feb. 2-A5 1.55 135 11,358 11,114 1.967 (3,830) (9,251) 44,609 0 0 0 0- 0 380 0.4 371 (742} Mar. 2.73 3.28 38 12,850 12;247 9,884 (5,023) {9108) 53,717 0 0 0 0 0 640 U.6 355- (989) Apt. 1.34 5..17 38 12,305 11,252 925 (6,327) 21890 50,827 2,047 (11,282) 1,1Q2 (607) (8,740} 1,096 -1.0 174 (1259) May 6.50 6.58 103 13,093 11,796 345 (7,300) 9,503 41,324 754 (14,359) 411 (1;180) (14,343) 1,400 1.2 55 (1,461) June 0.14 7.51 216 12,909 11,544 97 (7,942) 23,493 214 56,38$ 115 (5,471 ( ) ) (27,530) 1,580 1.4 18 (1,594) July 0.05 7.87 1,960 13,519 13,838 35 (8,190) 22.4.7 25,470 1,023 76 (17,173) 41 ([1,1197) (2$,463) 1;840 1.4 7 (1;845} Aug. 9.05 6.85 '3.453 13,807 15,560 35 (7,487) 35,415 0 76 (14,948) 41 {8;843) (23,523} 1,500 4.3 7 (1,500} Sept. 0,32 5.1 1 3,552 12,986 95;328 221 (6,266) 5,039 0 489 (11,451) 269 (3,903) (14,302} 1.210 1.1 42 (1-,251) Oct, 090 3.29 1,299 13,044 13;453 '621 (5,030) (2,433) 2,433 1,375 I7,f79) 740 (1,546) (6-,811) 880 0,8 417 (990) NOV. 2.20 1.54 48 12,376 11,974 1.580 (3,823) (9,732) 12,165 0 Q 0 0 0 450: 9.4 296 (7401 Dec. Totals 2.92 17 9 0.76 Sn 3 57 4an 4 12,847 17 .F 12,453 '2', .F a 2,015 {3,784) (11,184) 23,348 Q 0 0 0 0 .250 .02 .380 (029) - (in.fyt) 0-1k) (ac -ft) - In -- -- 6.5 max storage depth (h) 390.0 4,1692 (Mgat) (Mgal) MAN INNT PARAMPTERS storage Welland Alfalfa Annual Ponds Ponds 8. Grom Com Max. Deep Percolation Rates (41Jmc.): CO 4.0 Evapotrarupiratlon Coefficient: -1.0 1.1 1:0 varies Surface Areas (ac}:. 690 139 1,528 (123 Efficiency (%) 70% 70% Cover (%) -85% 35% Average Municipal influent Flow (mgd): 11.60 Mosquito fish and Paver Plant. Usage (mgd): 0. i0 Total Crop Area 2.350 (1) Rainfall data is from Lodi C. wea(her station (1951 - 2001) (2) Lorg-term monthly average reference ET from tall West CIMIS slat;on. 43) Projected industrial waslewolm flow rate (4) ((Mufliripal influent flaw rate - mosquito fish and power pant usage, m mgd) x (monthly flow factor) x 38.83 x (number of days in the manlh)) 15)Col. 2+Col , 3-C.1. 18 (6) Col 1 x (storage ponds surface area) (7) - (Col- 2 x (evapotransoration rdefl[clent for storage ponds)+ {storage punas percolation rete)) x (storage ponds.s dsc,e area) (8) GO. 5 + Col. 6 + Cal. 7 ♦ Col. B +'Co€ 15 (9) If > 0, (Pravinus monnis swrage) + Ca. 9 (10) Col. 1 'x (affI108 R grass surfam area) (1 1) - (Cd. 2 x (evapotraespira8cn wef8cisnt for alfalfa & grass} x (effelfa 8 grass surface area)) f (agailla dr grass of fancy) (12) CoI.9 x (corn surface area) (13) - (Col- 2 x (evapotinamorstim coefficient rm cam) x (com surface area))1(com efficiency) (44) Sum of Cd- ti through Cd. 14 (15) Estimated flow rale discharged to treatment wetands (16) Cal. 16 x 36.63 x (number of days in the month)) (IT) Col. 1 x (wetlands surface area). (18) - (COL 2 x {BYepotranspirstlon coefficient forwatlands) a (wetlands deep percolation rate)) x (wetlands surface area), (19) Estimated Yakima,&Amus held within wetland ponds on a monthly hasis (20) If >.Q, (previousmonths storage) + Col. 18 4 W. 19 r Col, 20 (21) If 10, W. 16 4 Col. 18 + Col. 19 a Col. 20 Table A-2. Water Balance for Zero Discharge with Summer Irrigation and Winter Storage 1 -in -25 Year Rainfall, General Plan Build -Out Monthly Average Influent Flows (ih.lyr) (ac -ft) (ae-M in 8.0 max stdrage depth (fl) 3110 o 4.169.2 (hl0al) (Mgal) MAIN INPUT PARAMETERS Storage (1) (2) (3) (4) 5- 6 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 Storatia Alfalfa & Grass AarivalCorn Total Discharge Tnt21 Treatme EiScioncy 1%) 70% 70% Ccver (%) 65% 35% 1 -in -25 Reference industrial Municipal Irrigation Flms Discharge Influent 11.7 (nV per month) EYap. & (lb) roto 'Cum Evap. & va11: 2,350 Evap& Month Ram(ar InlmO E.T. in.IE hguent Flaw ac•in,ImS Influent Flaw aa(almo to Ponds an-ih.fmp Rekifafl atrinJmo Pere ao-in.fnxf Storage OC-I0mo Storage Rainfall av-in ac-In,lma Pere. Rainfall Pero arria(n1d do-InJmO aC-mJm(y Demand acinhrn to Wetlands •inffiN3 to Weiland- m RaWall (aGlnJrno Parc ao-m.fmo .San- 6,59 D. 9 164 12,903 13.067 4544 (3,305) {14,306) 43,4118 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:0 5% t63351 Fab. 5.36 1.555 135 11,358 11,444 3.695 (3,830) (11,309) 54,716 -0 0 0 0- 0 50 0,0 696 (742) Mar. 4.75 3.263 38 12,850 12,507 3,279 (5,023) (10,763) 65,481 0 0 0 0 0 380 0,3 618 (989) Apr. 2:54 5.17 38 12,305 11,412 1,752 (5,327) (917) 66,397 3,879 (11,282) 2,089 (607) (5,921} .930 0.8 -330 (1.289) May 1.03 6.58 103 13,093 11,955 710 (7,300) 7,725 58,673 1,572 (14.359) 846 0,160) (13,100) 1,2.30 1,1 134 (1,461) June 026 7.51 216 12,908 11.584 181 (7.942) 17.418 41,254 401 (18,388) 216 (5,474) (21,242) 1,540 1.4 34 (1,594] July 0.08 TV 1,960 19,519 11878. 57 (B.ISO) 22,332 18,922 126 (11,173) 68 {11697) (28;077} 1,600 1.4 11 (1.645) Aug. 0.10 6.855 3,453 13,607 15,610 68 (7,487) 15,219 3,703 150 (14,948) 81 (8.593) (23,410) 1,450 1.3 13 (1,500) Sept. 0.58 5.11 3,552 '12,985 15;458 402 (61286) 4,10.2. 0 889 (11,151) 479 (3,403) (13,686) 5,970 1.0 76 (1,251) Oct. 1.64 .3.29 1,289 13,044 13,593 '1.132 (5,030) (4,826) 4,826 21"? (7,179) 1,350 (1,546) (4,869) 740 0.8 213 (990) Nov. Dec. 4.16 1 5.19 1.54 0.78 48 57 12,376 12.647 12(224 12,703 2.873 3,583 (3,823) (3.284) (11,275) (13;001) 18.101 0 29;102 0 0 0 0. 0 U. 0 0 (F 200 0 0,2 0.0 .541 675 (740) (629) (ih.lyr) (ac -ft) (ae-M in 8.0 max stdrage depth (fl) 3110 o 4.169.2 (hl0al) (Mgal) MAIN INPUT PARAMETERS Storage Wefland Aifaite Annua} Ponds Ponds. &Grass Com Max. Deep Percolation Rates (tn.ltrw.): 4.0 4.0 Evapoeanapvafion Coefficient 1.0 1.1 1.0 varies Surface Areas (aa): ew 130 1,526 823 EiScioncy 1%) 70% 70% Ccver (%) 65% 35% Average Municipal influent Flow (mgd): 11-60 Mosquito fish and Power Pham Usage jmgdj. 0.18 Average WW flows To Storage Pnnds (ao-Wrno.) 430 11.7 (nV per month) Averaga WW Flows From Storage Pons (ac-kdmo) (430) 0,4 (fog each day and every month) Total Crap Area 2,350 (1) Rainfall dale Is from Lodi C_ weather station (1959 - 2001) (2) Lore -tans Monthly average reference EI' from Lodi West MIS station. (3) Pro)acled industrial weatewater&:w rate (4) ((Municipal influent flow rata - mosquito r4h and power pian( usage. m mgd} x (Mont* flow fatter) x 38.83 x (numbar of days in the mnnth)) (5) Cd. 2 a Cal. 3 - Coi. 16 (6) Cel.1 x (storageponds surface area} (7) - (Cd. 2 x (avapotrarrspirauon coefficient for storage ponds}+ (9(omtie ponds petcdation rate)) x (storage ponds surface area) (e) Col. 5 + Cd. 5 + Col. 7 + Cd. a + Cd. 15 (9) it > 0, (Previous m&ms storage) +' CO. 9 (10) Cal -'1 x (a8alfa &glass surface area) (1 T) - (W. 2 x (evapotransphatlon coefficient for alfalfa & grass) x (alfalfa & grass surface area))! (alfalta & lirass efficiency) (12) W. i x (con surface area) (13) - (Col. 2- x (evapotrarsplraaon coefficient for tom) x (can surface area))! (tom efrwiency) (14) Sum W Cd. 71 through C,* 14 (15) Estimated floe rate discharged.In treahneal wetlands (16) Col. 16 x 36.83 x (number of days in the month)) (17)COL 1 x (wetlands surface area), (18) - (Cd. 2 x (avapdtrarspiralion oe0fiderd for wetlands) + (wetlands deep percolation rate)) x (wetlands 5urfaea area). (19) Easy ated volume of (lows held wethin wetland ponds an a monthly basis (20} If � 0, (Previous months storage) + Col. 18 + Cot. 1.9 + Col, 20 (2 1) If > 0, Cal. €6 + Coi. 18 + W- 19 4.Cal. 20 Table Aa, Water Balance for Zero Discharge with Summer Irrigadon and. Winter Storage and Wetland Reuse Average Year Rainfall, Geheral Wan Build -Out Monthly Average Influent Flows f h+Y {ac -4) 111 { ? 3 (4 8 1 - I Ily 12 (13 14 (1 5) I 1 7 t4 221 23 fM9ae a verege Refere.cs 8xlueMal ylmiciryal Liml St.a Welland Enp. a mm Alfaraa[ sa Aiuwel can a To nl_Ae Tcls 6 G- T'mtrn vw[rAmrea 4.0 .4.0 40 Wwb Ids Rsodal Pm si roln Cum 1111811 9IPra9e 1bme4dY9 Ramfaf y.p Pe wldes Rayl E.F. W-ln- k1Men1 FNw m Pa FwLm Pen:. 9lnrag. Sbrege Rivirar Pnrrc: Randal Fero nenuntl b Wei1�Wf Alartll Jan. 3.52 11.7 ac-in.MIe ar 1290 ac4n.W aeiIA4 ar(2,5' ecIO. veil aon ec AtJnro aeil.ha} aP%1J, a Jma ac4aAnN ec4n7a. ac-inRna scil,hlw an4l..lmo aatirl.kro eeJn.Vne ao-in. 124 i79ps. 11,387 1,845 (2,816j (Stl,TZO) 61,995 P 0' 0 0 9 1,880 15 4511 1853] 4 G 7.50.5. 2.112 12 FBG. '2.65 1.55 135 V1,355 9.514 1,495 (2;914) (8,1$6} 39,791 0P 0 V . 0 1,580 7.8 371 743 (] 0 Mar. 2:73- 3.28 38 12850 10,747 1,433 (3.922) 18.359) 4A 150 0 0 0 0 0' 2, t4n 7.9 355 T5P3 1,710 IS.. Apr. 134 5.17 38 t2.305 9,752 704 (4,514) 1;801 46,349 1&15 (9A84) 1;099 (805} (8.849) 3,Oe0 2,5 174 19591 (1,258) 0 0 0 1.908 1.038 (4 May 430 5.58 703 11,0931 78,795 293 15,555) ..4.690 39,859 515 (11,562) 410 (1,1557 {71,993] 8.900 29 85 {1,4811 0 P G 2,w5 -AM 1;604 (2 - J.an 0.14 7.51 2'* 12,808- 18,044 74 16,413) 41,2a9 25,370 172 (13,195) 115 (5.454) 518,364) 3,050 '2.8 to (1534) 0 0 „y'� 1;594 7' ,,I `( y;5 July G.ee 1.87 1,960 13,519 12,33. 20 (8,232 18.6% 5,714 61 (13,8%) 41 (71,083) (14,789) 3,.140 2.5 7 (1,5,15) 0 p Z" , 1501 B Aug. 0.05 6.65 3453 13.80'7 13.780 26 {5;890) 12510 0 52 (12.038} 41 [111193) 128.680) 3.300 25- 7 (s.s6p} P a p 807 i sept: 0.32 5.1F 3,552 12,998 13838 188- {4,783] 2,991 0 394 (8,979} 252 (3,891} {72,714} 27W 2A 42 (f:Y51] 0 0 1.481 44� Eie1. 0:90 3.29 12d9 13,0#4 12,453 473 13,827) (3,E20) 3.620 1,107 15,781$ 738 (1,542} (5,47.1 1,850 1.5 117 {990) 0 0 1.007 ^, 11;{'1 q-.�y FWv. 2.211 1.54 4e 12,316 10A74 12L2 (2,909) [8,799) 12.359 0 4 p e 0 5,958 1.9' 296 (74U) 0 O ,„' : 1,507 857 Oec. 2.92 0.78 57 12,647 9,459 1,539: (2,4901 (5;487 29k70 0 0 0 0 0 3258 (I Talela V7. .3 920 12 .5 139.055. ,.,.,,.d 2.8 380 (6 19} 0 0 3501 1,752 _ (1 f h+Y {ac -4) {eF9} In 7.6: max.scnrege depth [9) '300.0 I,te92 fM9ae (MgA? MAIN INPUT PARMETERS St.a Welland tlaGrer N1.11. An WI PW,E:. Pada Weaatida 6 G- .Com Mas. neer Permlaaan19Me4 SaJm0.): 4.0 .4.0 40 e,opc4arupi'A.n �: 1.0 1.1 i_I 1,0 wldes Harfam Area in): 525 130 ew 1,2w 820 B%dmlay(%) 70% 70% Cover(%) 00% 40% Average M, A.0 W -M Plow (^ dd]: 11.80 Nlwn nBsA-d Pg PA1.N 4-4ae.(mW; 0.16 A"rap WW fk w Ta 88•age Palo (ea4iilme.) 430 11,7 1mg Per 4 .Lh) A-0 ww rk w Fran Slera" Pm11318c+nh+iv) (4361 G4 (rQ -.h da} aM--.y I Tclal C.P A- 2,050 . (I] Rain7aR dela is rmm 4aBGwealb.r saldm (195}-200FI (3) tprgienn enPn9dY a� le'armrw ET fM�I L[�weBr C1AR9,311m. (3 P1geldee all.aMal ivaslewa17r0.w rale (4)(( v Wen eow raf-mwW10can and Powerpans-P, mnTdI x,(11 Iy'Sme tetra)aseta x (naaGer oidaysMare nx nnll (5)rd2♦cd a -Cd. 18 (G) Cd.1 w 1s10ra9a p.rds audenz mw) (7) -(rP42 x (ev4p0Vwdpira8an meaidenl ro-slaa9e po�i+(elprege pmndapercdalimn ale)] x {•bm9e POrAssudeua ale.) (9i Ba O, Ipmi"rrau" 6&A P)a Cv1:9 (1U) W. i •. (.Balla agnae autavarta) (11)-(Cd.2 a Iavy�pbassPae!�ePeGn'anl for, alfalFa.80re+11 x (al4alra.agress sudar�erpxl)f(.BaBa agnea eGineix.Yl (12} Cal. i a (can 4.U- (13} s -r a . ii ffi euph C e1 ooe8w'enl fbWe) x (dOrn alaiace erea))!(mm efid4'4[,Y) 114} Som of Cd. t11n1na1g1 Cd. 14 115}E gfed Am rare dUchasyed to$eal-I weGerHls (18)09. 1Sx3a.53 x (nanGPlel dari btiM nonmJl 117109.1 r fwAlarlde 4aFdGe.reiF (48}-fCd.zxlawnpraenp;r.990 coalrm'neN'ler walandaltilwe8antls deep perOoWtion ralel)a. (weuandanar aareaF (791 Eamtaled +Wrn1e dF rwva held W[Ilin wa94ni6 PnMs O11 a mnna,Fr Gad6 (291 a> a, tFY0a0usmunaa,l�age)+ cd. 1e r'r.,l. 1e . ed. 2n (7t) I7> 4 Ldp 16 + Cei: 18 +Cd, 13 +. Cd. M (22)Cd.1 x'(hedme nelliMa suvfam all)}iaa 6Se haGi181 .Brands area .Bien ahadad �ua..Wrkl078re Fiah:is[v2tbal;Valaca area lFGenahetled aan9e. o0ler»+8e Pie .nil®MWdl weBenia anal (Q1 2 (241 Eelanal.d w(Aa 111 hek habnalw Wnds�m ammWyb rrs9mde dew parcc4Pkn rare)}x (hadlatw4Eands. oaxwY. R+Sunhawmt we6anda-11-¢11 When sh.dad ekn. vl,adn me },stat werwrd aorf area w4len Bladed-ge. PIh-is me mrka halalel wsWd, ae f251 B. 9, (P1evlala nwrdha 611x118117 +c01. 23 + rd. z4..+(•891_ zs In) Cp. i8ljtWGlBd we4arda wrar:,ane1 l 5ne haMlal \.eGrw.ara when aheded ldn4e. eaarler el Rea habEbl weraM enface auea whM bharled aenge, erierM>ie Oaf YrzGe haWlal ;wlmnda areal. 127) cd. 22 -2111.25 Tmolo A-4. Water Balance for Zero Discharge VAth Sumner Irrigation and Winder Storage and Wgpatd Retie 1-nr25 Year R6ibW. General Plan EMWi Oul hlonthy Average Influeld Flows (n^h*) I -A) I7 3 441 9' 1 i3l 1 (141 to 4 18 18 [ t m.25 Refe-e Ir&.kw M -4K a1 uWd vsp. a tan Aaalfafi E- c- 43. 40 M dw Total Evapd,.tapAee.t Coe1&im1L T,.m-,SMaea Wanda Eudi-Aaas(-1., 525 139 600 1,230 IAW-des 1 E Perc elde9e' Slcraga Reiwr4rg R,,b" Pere 96% 4695 f181 ET. 'lnruemFj hAI�IIFbw InAPMa larynSaA 'Rare 61ualle Sk-W iisnfeir P.e RAnie Pete lydptw D -o mVftd m prth Mh-) .A-eJ1m Jrto It1me,.ktla7 (ac:i.lmv 4c(almo] aekllmu ac-iihtn en+uhlri 9.:. h 9 aoi�:m +i- -I-) aa'n.lmo 7 aeit.hntar.:lhm ao-n.tmo a-nJrin ae+n.hno] (ac-mJmo7. eio:Vmn ao-nitneS Jen. s:% .79 554 12,907 16,267 3.436 (2,515) (11.229} 91,240 0 0 9 a 0 2'.780 24 5% 533) 0. 269 3,OW 3.952. (2:921) Feb. 5.36 1,555 135 11.358 8.444 2,612 (2.914) (8,311) 39,522 0 0 0 0 P 31050 3.0 696 (7421 0 224 1005 ],213 13.523} Mar- 4.75 3.28 38 t2,� 10,507 2495 (3;622) 49,180} 44,262 0 0. 0 0 0 2;39.0 21 418 1569) 0 0 2,009 2,851 {4,%5) Apr 2.54 5.17 38 12,305 9,412 1,339 (4,814) 1f A48) 50,210 3,524 9,(941 2.083 { (im) [1.4677 2,939 -27 330 (1,469) 0 0 2.001 1,524 ($:812} Mai_ 1.W 6.58 103 13,093 10.986 540 (5,655 1,757 43,452 1356 (14,582) 841 (i,l%) (10.009) 2.339 20 F3a (1,481) 0 0 1.003 (517137 Jwre 9.75 7.51 216 12,908 10.554 136 (6.043) 51453 31,999 323 (131961 215 (5,454) (19,112) 2560' 2.3 34 11.5941 0 0 .61F 1,0011 157 {7; 7} J* 0.08 7.67 1,9&0 '13,519 19,678 43 IBxr1J 17,033 14.986 tot (13,829! 68 (11;063} (24,723) 1,800 1 4 '11 (1,s1$I a 0 0 25 t%797} Alq. 0.10 6.65 5.11 3,453 13,007 13,580 52 15,1396) 12.556 2:398 121 (12,033) m 18,605) (20,501) 3A80 3A '13 ._ SWL 0.59 3,557 12,986 13,368 306 (4.YW) 2,785 0 716 (8979) 477 (3,541) IT 1;677) 9770 2.9 aid: 16A 6.29 1.289 13044 9,963 661 (3J527) 53.099 9.030 2,019 {5;761! 1,348 (1,542) 13,958) 4,379' 38 21313 (990) 0 0 5593 - 492 i1.�67 N-. 4.161:5.4 48 12,376 3.714 2,tas (2,309) (7.502) 19541 0 0 0 0 0 422 3.6 641 {740) 0 0 9,001 2,999 F1ac 6.18 X78 57 12,647 9,243 2,726 I (2,499) (9.470} ZOA11 0 0 0 0 0 3.460 3.0 675 Tpyls 32- 3 920.9 127995 T .s x:ae (429) 0 46 3,$06 9,115 (2.902} _ (n^h*) I -A) 1-o-) h 'a0 meaana9edept{el 300:0 4,169.2 (L4pol (mw,) WA INPL$T PARAMETERS 'sk-ge IN~ HANw Afaaa Amy Pmda Panda Weeerefe & c- Cain Mac p@ap Pm b.. FLtasf Irro,). 43. 40 4.0' Evapd,.tapAee.t Coe1&im1L 1.0 i_1 1.1 1.0 Eudi-Aaas(-1., 525 139 600 1,230 am Effid-Yf%) 70% 7u% c-(%) 96% 4695 A-9. kw.03Y kA -9 Flee ImWj, 11 6p Al -M. fmh and Pdw. Pied Lbv. (M4 0.14 A -9e WW 8Pws Tu Sb-"P-d.(aoinfmm) 43n 11.7 (mg p. niPrah) AvwageWWR-Fr.e Sri Pale(ataheYrlP} (131}) 0.4 (iia}eadld y.d-"-ith) TAW Crop Area. 2,050 Un1a11 daft is k.n Lad C. -w. em9.i (1951 -20)1) L044- m4ltlhlr average te{w®rte E7 fi a I," Wm( ewls.411 : Prg4GbdrndtsbW-ww*. tow rate ((AAeidpal bftt lbwmW, 1-01095h'and Pave` O 4 Pee9e. In n9d) x(r"n1M' fkw 1a )a 36.83 ,(ranter mdaYa fn me -km Cgl.2 t Col. 3 -CN. 16 Cd 1 x ( Panda -1- - 1 re- (Cal. 2 x 4a PPI W.PmW noeerd "fbr slPregepmft) s (c(orgge pmda p.PcleWn rate)) x piing a p.1de 4Nbce -e) Cd.3 • Cd 4 r fbl. 7+ Ct4,'H i Cd. 15 If mmme Wora9el * Cd.9 ) (b(.1 s (Wldrs 8 gree -b- )-10A.2 lrlaas)-1Cd.z x leoapalm69katlon m/Odenlb WtalFa$9ra497 x fattira a pesenehce arca}I r IWraifa d gree; pfA,denq) cai.1 a (omrsarfara.eal 1-SCaL2 a ler4pd9.etpircmntaefidedlorcan7 x fnwnevtawar9n}}7 Egan eifiner Yl ) Slari oFCd. tt kva,aj' t CPL i4 ) Ed.10ted 6a83��laes bm adb Fee9w-illh)) )Cd. 18. 36.83 x (m�mb.dtlayam Bremmt77 )Cd.1 x (wa04pdn.04a mej -(Cd.2 x (e.ep* w:aUgn-oftmt Av woffods) (wevande deep pn�mrate)) x (wwllar�s.et><lace 6891, Ea rnated.d.lm'of Sawa ham xepvb wee.,d panda m e mm61y b_ e>0. (P-A-na19e''k'p7 *Cd. 16+Col, 19. Cal. ZO V-0, WL 10 ♦ Co 18+ Cd. 19 * Cd. 20 Cd. i k Ombimtwe9ada wd-6 are) PW IhO h&fW wmlattde .� w@ltn dtaded blue, 4t of to hahRM wo&,d surface -*m whm st ie -go. .00- the .t . K bl*-aelW4 tt+e1 - (Cd 7 x (ew4pob.aPeaAan me0rrmitlar bliaal weaarda) • (faWlaf waryidld4 deep perwlarA, rcmp x (nafAl. weaaldssufaca .ea3. ltlWfBw hemriW ns11af1da area 846114taded Ea6mWed-&-dsaws 11 dwi0xahablfaE rReam6a ma ri-"traaa b�te,Wdtu la eve team waUand axfaPe.m alrere efi'aaea aran9e, o6twAsa'd,a etdAet�lralwWbrxl4.ea] aaG1IF--mmaadP pt *Ok23*Cd. u*CPL 25. CPI: �2BghaLBWA�eaxds suitece arms) PreH-a. rmlal wer.tde eat wtg7 mlpdei7 wa. mmrla d e,a he1111a1 weaartd suTap arae adlen ebaded..ge, 181M1w15a 916 entre h33h1 w+aarme areal Table A4 Water Balance far Zero Macharge with Summer brigation and Miter Storageand Percolation Otsposat AverageYear Rainfall, General Plan Bund -Out hionft Average Influent Fk w (in*) (sort( - (ac -i(] . .... ... in __... 10 11 12 1 4 S- 1sil (171 1 4M I figi71 023 (ktit) (M9w1) M. RG- h4arJ .A-T Can Tow oftd-w:: Tefffi MAININPVTPARaMBTERS TvartnmlYNeun yleaaMt P-". PBILdaNdl 74rN5Y M15d Rvmage Rdwa InAk eW Bases Bases _ Ea1n Dap. 4'.0 4-0 1aP kdgat al Fleas Evapphulapea5m C -16.1 -L 10 8 111 1.0 1.0 vmiae 5ud-Nees(ac.): ptleA ET. InNwltl Flax 1,41-1 nFl ' Id PmPm"na r Parc BMm94 si-pe Rnkfa¢ Perr. P.&M p- DwWid b WdWnc* Ra 04 36oreAt swr4e• qm*" RRw" Pec MmNr hm. hrip -n.rmo Jrra ONnirrm) -All- mnLiia " aeailrm Ac�n?mo. aeinfiw -MJnv) .,in.lnml (MO) (-"M (-w-) (a,e-ohm) (aFanhm) 9cJl.hro acualmb 3 m. 3.52 .. 1134 12,993 (4;113) 888 (919) 4]35 $,858 0 0 4 0 0 17;1,80 'MI 458 (742) 0 0 17.995 Fah. 2M1.55 135 11.358 1.154 542 {1.055) (611) 42§g. 0 0 0 0. 0 14374 €0.€ 371 (76;2) e 0 9,999 aRlw 2.73 3.28 38 12,850 0;747 519 {1,30$} (8,383) 1201 0 0 a a 0 3,649 9.2 355 (M) 0 0 35708 548 (3,859) Apt. 134 3:17 30 12,E 8362 2$ (1,7 21.( xo3 15950 978 (4:814) F,689 (5891 460 (3, ) 4,080 9.7 174 (1252} 0 0 2,995 x69 (4,034) Mn 0.50 6.58 703 17,023 7,198 95 (2,'010} 852. 15;308 126 (0;134) 389 (1.124) (6.573) 9A00 47 65 (1,461) 0 0 4004 100 (6.318) Jmm M14 7.51 216 12.908 0.654 27 (4187} 4,809. ,10,698 91 (7,000} lit (SAM) (75.102) 3,470 3.1 la (1,594) 0 0 1,894 28, (4.502) 0.05 7.81 1..M 13,519 13,838 18 (2,255} 8,490 4;268 a3 ,57.316) 40 (10.769) (la.=) 1,644 1.4 7 (7.8451 o 11 i t0 (4,574) 0,os 8.85 3,453 13,90] 12,46D 10 (2,082} 4,393 0 33 (8.385) 40 (14,741) 4.800 4.d 7 (1,5081 0 0 3,107 (4,370) Sept. 0.32 5.11 3,552 12,988 11,326 al (1.731 (1,574) 1,514 2nq 14,793} 255 a784) (3, 784) (&083) 5214 4.7 42. (5,2571 8 0 M 4,001 6/ (4,0721 occ 840 3.29 1,259 13,994 'PAA 171 (€,3ssy (49;8} 6,552 tial ,5.3.9673 718 [1,4991 (3,2a1) 4,880 4.3 11r (9901 0 0 4,907 190 (3;5681 M,', 229 1.54 '48 72;376 '7,$74 435 (1,1153} (7,3571 f3909 0 0 0 a 0 4,4'x7 '40 298 -,57401 0 0 4A07 456 19309) oec 29,2 B.7$ 57 Mw 72,617 ($,347( 556 (904} SJ�6 8,912 0 p 9 0 0 18.7.50 18.0 980 (629) 0 6 78501. -2;530 -. 1123!$1 (in*) (sort( - (ac -i(] . .... ... in __... _.--...._._.....r..._ IIIM, 7.8 mex.nxape den6s171j ZM9 4;18 33 (ktit) (M9w1) ri511er $u11f110l- MAININPVTPARaMBTERS 9lmrga y9e8aibd P-". PBILdaNdl 74rN5Y M15d Pmu1a P -d.. Bases Bases E GY- Ea1n MM Dow pa -I X Rabat (intern ): 4'.0 4-0 13.0 15.0 Evapphulapea5m C -16.1 -L 10 1.1 111 1.0 1.0 vmiae 5ud-Nees(ac.): 190 138 800 200 853 IN E3feelpy (%) 79% 70% C- l%) 45% 55% A-ap At tpai ItOm Flux 4n9dk 11.00 n4m.poir Ute aria Powm Plant 8aa9e(m9d); ri.10 TOW Crep ae4a 1.450 Noi/er dwlau Bmn lou C. vie9111 ETIs (iss11 lmo-mm lnioriady -.,p-.,pndwh® Er amn rcd W- at west CaNs -rm. L,Ar4dg*' pkerr 90w mta- owMt0 hsh and pow pl l ump. m mad) _ ( ma4r nen raga.) R .g+ t (Mmli ardass in gee rmnmu 4.2+C0.3-Ctl.18 :q.1 a (Sm PoadtaeFaeeer�J (MA -2 x (evapoLww em 0oew4LW W SW4" pon t)+(dervge panda pen2wa rate)}.a (trmaga pmda auAmwm) d.jr Cut R•C.A. T+Cd: a+Cd. 15 > 0, fP+'61+p1Aht alnrago3 + Cd. 9' Cd. F A (.04(9999-xMacv ) -(Cd.2 x. (evgx*aMpA.6m1 aom6dw tWafar AL9�) x idFdla 69mat avr as )) i( albaa s 9raat n4 ­y) Cd. l a (oeme.f&uerea) -(C4.2 t {avapsfaziephOm ulmrKiml hr pmol. s (i­u(ac._))i(amieMdw cy) Sen or Cd. li 8weu9d Col. % P 8mtled rmn mM uadwaea'10 Hee~k w411ardt Cd. t8 x 35799 i {rArmhm of dAp 1n 1Im nwnlh)) Cd, 1'A Iwwllvrdsw4Farr4reaj. '(Cd.2 s (evepsY.,spbainn cmdFr eel r«wel�andti!4,�mnds deeprermleam rate7) xirreaaud:aurfOce area). Es ,MbdwormoFMxehafdwipalwaa3rlp ponds ens -Ally b..a>0,(PVVaAmnm Cd. 13«fd.islCM,20 a>4 cd. ee, cd. la«ra. is+r:a-2p ed. t .a (p.. ad+m hasty avbmt-sea} [w:xerwro<eerou darn-aree,ae,.d ahtdad sre�, ane•:ue xwnrnar nar«+atiad daaa, a.e( ICd. 2 x, (oreperainpre�n m�pieallfor parmlaam aa�ci • (parocola8mi Canna .pap pamWim 1ma)1 : ipwrrdegan bet81ttw1aca wrW F iwxle pmmra6nn bxlnxaa M',B1 allsorC erear,.deroMaae BNarM! per9de4di 97241 meal P_aLiroMbl vnAariv oflbwa'hmdwlain pa�lelo'1 E'aeha m a mardAly 68'82 If> 0. {Prasious mdtl7memr5pe).ed. a3-, �. i4+eat 25. Cal MPwcd"m1 haeelwlncg )fmtwr Pxod*wbath andr when:laded(year, al�erw:se zrm,s amidMm bMiR:se( Caj. 22 • W. 25 7ahfa A-6. Nater 6atandx far Zero Discha.ge with Summer IrT1gation and rilntr St'w" and Percolation Dhpusal 1-311.25 Year Ralnfap, General Plan Bulid C" Mali t)r Awsrege Influent Flaws t�R+i*1 (aa07 100.0 lae6) 4,1593' in 7.9 rnaYdda2e dgm+191 1 .t ( S 14 1 1 16 1 2D .22 MAIN FNPI)T PARAMETERS -I in 25 Rdereum 3rd M,rdafw7 Par*. P.& Beema ft*. 6 C- rdaaM-Op AffaSG &Gratia Arwrrf Gam Taow V ¢urge Toted Tr�lmsdlAeaw e4aeerde 1.1 1.0 1.0 10 variC4 Sadacd Areas(ac.)'. 190 Reir�Fdi ET. fiiff rd FIm Irlaralll R{ le Pp nelnne9 Pic o ran M-" xsp. Sk-9. nialma8 Pere Rak" vep. Parc hrigaam need flows bwelluxh 0)bdmf4e 1'Yadtde Rardtll EvaP Pwa Te/Frim 9ltrgge' Bbrype- 14"^r�nln9 Month rt8. n I - Ano lac417W acinlmo 8ohslRm wq+,/ma ao�:l Ar.�+1mo aoinhnm acethno &-a/ ahlmv WArLA o winlmn7 as�inlRla �1me xs.7rilo RdariaA acilll7ro ac-rinn Perc "-Jm0 Jan. &� 0.7 1rr4 1,7,903 3.267 1,253 (eta) a62e) 11,753 0 0 0 0 4 9,760 Be we (ea3) 0 269 Mom 6 '_. (T2rett2) FeR.536 1.55 135 11,156 (5567 1.018 (1,055] 593 11.160 0 o d 0 e 12,050 11-7 am !742] 0 224 'i2,- 8,2&4 I'r Z 4.15 3.38 36 12,980 507 903 (1,36)7 127) 11.187 0 0. 0 0 0 12.360 10.8 eta (999) 0 0 w" 3,802 (_14.424) Apr. 2-54 5-17 38 1450 8.412 463 11,742) (5,427) 16E13 1,657 (4,819) 2;025 (580) 11,7261 39n 3.5 330 {1,2591 0 Q 7;061 5" (4,634)flay 3.03 5.58 103 53,093 8186 tee 17,9TP) (1.265) 17,8!19 673 (6134) 621 ( 0m) (5.766 4.330 3.8 134 {1.461) 6 0 3,003 205 .lode 026 7.51 216 32,966 8,504 50 (2,168 5.498 12.401 173 (7,000) 2x19 (5;35} (11,5251 4,560 4.1 34- {7,593) 4 0 3,000 (4;3161 ul7 0.08 7.B7 1.9m 13.519 13,878 18 '(2.2557 6,337 6,054 54 (7.336) Be 00,7591 (}7,97@7 IWO 1A 11 (1.646) '4 0 52 (4,5021 0.10 5.85 %453 13,907 111,570 to 12.062) 6,144- 0 Bq (9,385) 79 16,428] (14.6777 5.7 13. (two) 0 0 0 is 5.003 (4:574) - 4PL 0.5.8 5.11 3,562 12980 Maas lit (1,731, (1.6447 1:044 360 14.7831 464 (3,784) (7,7017 .0,490 6,170 5:8 76 (i',251k 0 0 20 (4,370) Ora. 1.6d .3.29 1,289 13,9" 9,553 312 (1,3.65) 16,M 7,337- 1.071 19.0677 1,309 (1.4993 (2,165) 4-790 42 :213 (890} 4.995 116' Nw. 4.15 1.54 48 f2.376 8=4 791 (1,037 )7.963} 55,300 A 0 0 0 0 4,200 3.6 641 0 0 4.833 326 13.6687 0e4 5.19 0.76 57 1z (7„157) 967 {9047 7,175 9,125 0 0 0 0 0 175 [r40k A 0 x,001 933 (3.308} dais 503 .9 S 4+41. actin t max slaoma ,.4 rmi.. WSW 575 Me) 0 46 20.000 .4,131 t�R+i*1 (aa07 100.0 lae6) 4,1593' in 7.9 rnaYdda2e dgm+191 iM9gi (Kim) MAIN FNPI)T PARAMETERS Sloa'ge Molar Summa WOW P..Mk r PWb$"al AHAA Arinud Par*. P.& Beema ft*. 6 C- rdaaM-Op M- DwP-mY Rena CO 4.0 15.0 158 Evepohen ,A-CwttcienL /4 1.1 1.0 1.0 10 variC4 Sadacd Areas(ac.)'. 190 130 600 -2W 053 796 Ef6,ciar y(%1 70% 70% fk rerl%1 45% 55% A4ere9e eA!r..VP kdk-I Pbw (,hgdk 11.60 M-*& fish end p- P- Usage (m01 0110 Te tropY - IAW (t) R i.IM dams tram Lod C. wea64e a+aSan {1261 -2061) 141 I-orlg-Mm monadd eaemgareAsrBr�4a Err fn�west ClMl5 smear. (sl Raler.�dir�du�fd rv�bwel>4mrra4 (411(idlwGimlfzelrerd sow rale-m�Wbirsn ard cawerdad rnaae.n^19AI xfman9ay Baw tazbrlx36.6) z Iraanne. afdaysTn es nx,ndr)1 (6) Cd. t eface area) (7) - rcu.2 y (e>9pob-OItw aralridsd b ebrnlle PondaS • (slaraga Ps,rss Pdredaam rale))'s {s8sa9e p 'surt9caaiea) (a).Cd, 5 4 ca: a +CW. 7+ W. 6 + Cd. t5 (9)A> 0, (Reuin-nmmlm aWOO)' Cd.'9 [19) Ld1 f z (861108 & W- sl0- se4) 00-(CdLXx{sr+patenepira9p,laar5aaabr>b Ba69raea)x E+ dg!asswaiace araa)1lirtalr igasa at6eenq�l f121 Cd. t x (@nmd-,�) 113)-(Cd.2 x (eA.V riapnaal w.Tde411 lea cad3 a (ran r rs area)) r(mm elRcka+ay) (14)1-4-d Cd. 11f ..O CIC 14 - 115)Esllrnr d Saw raa dmplmgs71. 9eabmni -K-i.(tel Cal. fez351.3 x(ni. .fdoJnfl-,. (11 (ar} Gd. 1 a (wepams'-F.. ), 178)-{Cal.2: fevapoprapiapan rceffi4i4nt for wetmrms]+{weBaMade�n per+blaeotra1e17-x 1vrsOsdeamfaaeam�. (19}E*mwedvdg at8awsWwIvnrMw4 p ds momad)d7had, 12oY 6> 0, 1predwr+lnsdu afar�l +Ga1. 16+ Cd. 194 Gat 29 (21)a>• o, cd. 16+Cd. 1e+ca: is. bx z9 1121 Cd.1 z fPsra'abmllean arefac88nH}i1Ylnlar prtdeOm Caxin ansa wryer enadalt Orad. dlrrialee amererPsmisBen tiaNn ale9t ]241 IEsOruletl ,nehl�n2 aS ���d®,t En rsraNaBaltresn&!•Wermfa9'an hemsd+�ar�ddatlan ra1e11xlHermlaHon ha�sulracv areai.p+I'.der rxmaHan daakiarea when N.oded pa®r. op�eMise annrler parmfa6onlaegin area] (291 H o. [PreMa® murthe'slaage}+ 2o? Cci. 2� Ca. 25fNrbeae )261 W. 2Mp...v,atia, Iae;7i sumca seal (wear perogapon rxBa,a,®wAwi, Rlydedgemr, ofhorvna6-wimlr p@rmla6dn baa41 drp} 1271(X4.22- W. 25 9. California Department of Pesticide Regulation On 23 December 1991, the State Water Board Chairman signed a MOU with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to ensure that pesticides registered in California are used in a manner that protects water quality and the beneficial uses of water while recognizing the need for pest control. The State Water Board and nine Regional Water Boards are responsible for protecting the beneficial use of water in California and for controlling all discharges of waste into waters of the state while OPR is the lead agency for pesticide regulation in California. This will be accomplished by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) initially upon voluntary compliance to be.folloyd by regulatory -based encouragement df BMPs as circumstances dictate. Mandatory compliance will be based, whenever possible, on DPR's ' implementation of regulations and/or pesticide use permit requirements. However, the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards retain ultimate responsibility for compliance with water quality objectives. The agreement was revised on 19 January 1993 to facilitate implementation of the original agreement. See Appendix Item 21. 10. Implementation of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program's Recommended Plan In January 1992, the State Water Board Chairman signed a MOU with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Food and Agriculture. The MOU is an agreement by the agencies to use the management plan described in the September 1990 final report of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program as a guide for remedying subsurface drainage and related problems. See Appendix Item 22. 11. California Integrated Waste Management Board On 16 December 1992, the State Water Board Executive Director signed a MOU to address the Regional Water Board's review of Solid Waste Assessment Test reports. See Appendix Item 23. 12. Bureau of Land Management On 27 January 1993, the Stat6 Water Board Vice Chairman signed a MOU to address nonpoint source water quality issues on public lands managed by the Bureau.. See Appendix Item 24. Control Action Considerations of the Central Valley Regional Water Board Policies and Plans The following policies were adopted, or are hereby adopt6d, by the Regional Water Board. The first four policies listed were adopted as part of the 1975 Basin Plan. Items 7 through 11 are new policies: 1. Urban Runoff Policy a. Subregional municipal and industrial plans arerequired to assess the impact of urban runoff on receiving water quality and consider abatement measures if a problem exists. b. Effluent limitations for storm water runoff are to be included in NPDES permits where it results in water quality problems. 2. Wastewater Reuse Policy The Regional Water Board encourages the reclamation and reuse of wastewater, including treated ground water resulting from a cleanup action, where practicable and requires as part of a Report of Waste Discharge an evaluation of reuse and land disposal options as alternative disposal methods. Reuse options should include consideration of the following, where appropriate, based on the quality of the wastewater and the required quality for the specific reuses: industrial and municipal supply, crop irrigation, landscape irrigation, ground water recharge, and wetland restoration. Where studies show that Year-round or continuous reuse or land disposal of all of the wastewater is not practicable, the Regional Water Board will require dischargers to evaluate how reuse or land disposal can be optimized, such as consideration of reuse/disposal for part of the flow and seasonal reuseldisposal options (e.g., dry season land disposal). IMPLEMENTATION IV -14.00 1 September 1998 MEMORANDUM, City of Lodi, Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Community Development Director Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: Final Program EIR for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. Summary The City of Lodi is proposing a 5,280 -acre (includes 140 acres of the existing White Slough property) Sphere of Influence around our White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility in order to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities and buffer space are available to serve the needs of the City as contemplated by the existing General Plan. The City of Lodi has prepared this Final Program EIR to provide the necessary environmental review and to provide the public, Responsible and Trustee Agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the Sphere of Influence program. It should be noted that the action before the Planning Commission concerns the EIR only and not the proposed Sphere of Influence designation. Background The City of Lodi Public Works Department has been studying the long -tem disposal options for White Slough for several years. A primary concern is the continuing viability of discharging treated effluent into the Delta in the future. Because of this, the City contracted with West Yost and Associates to prepare a technical study to look at various options that would provide for land application of treated effluent to meet the City's current General Plan build -out condition. This Environmental Impact Report analyzes the environmental effects of creating a Sphere of Influence that corresponds with these scenarios. This Sphere of Influence concept will be reviewed by the City Council along with the Final EIR at a future meeting. Should the City Council find the sphere proposal to be in the City's best interest, an application will be made to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for their action. Environmental Impact Report The Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of creating a Sphere of Influence for three program options. Additionally, alternatives to the options have also been reviewed. The Final EIR is the two bound documents containing both the Draft and Final EIR. The Final document being the required responses to the four comment letters received during the public comment period as well as minor changes and edits to the DRAFT EIR. The EIR identifies issue areas that were evaluated. The summary of impacts and suggested mitigation measures is shown in Table 2-1 of the Final document. All of the impacts identified can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of Impacts 4.1.1, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 all dealing with Land Use/Agricultural Resources. For those impacts, the Commission will find a Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in the Findings of Fact document incorporated in to the Resolution presented for your action. Once again, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the certification of the Final Environmental impact Report subject to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in the draft resolution. Respectfully Submitted, Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director Attachment RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 04-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING THE CERTIFICATION OF FINAL PROGRAM ENVIORNMENTAL IMPCT REPORT (ETR 03-02) FOR THE WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has studied and is recommending the certification of this document; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report was prepared and posted on September 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a Notice of Completion for a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and posted on April 22, 2004; and , WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on April 24, 2004 with a public review period to close on June 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, due to the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan and the declaration of holiday by the Lodi City Council on June 11, 2004, the comment period was extended to June 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, written comments were received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi has responded to each comment received pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on July 31, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained and referenced in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prior to recommending its certification to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report is kept on file for public review within the Community Development Department located at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA; and ,k NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. All mitigation measures as specified in. the Final Environmental Impact Report are hereby incorporated. 3. The separate document entitled "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Program" are hereby incorporated into this Resolution. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends the certification for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Program of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. Dated: August 11, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 04-39 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a meeting held on August 11, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Aguirre, Mattheis, Moran, White, and Chairman Haugan NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Heinitz and Phillips ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CITY OF L,ODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROGRAM 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the approval of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence Program (Project), as proposed by the City of Lodi (Lodi) and as described in the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final E1R (FEIR) on the Project. The DEIR and FEIR include a detailed description of the Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of alternatives to the Project. The Draft EiR was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Lodi received comments on the DEIR and provided responses to comments, which are contained in the FEIR. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES Lodi is proposing a 5,280 acre (includes the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF) Sphere of Influence around the White Slough WPCF to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth under the existing General Plan of the City of Lodi. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program has been designed to meet the following primary objectives: Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (MGD)]. Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. 775395.1 ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities. ■ Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability. ' 3. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for Lodi's decision on the Project approval includes the following: -- The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the DEIR for the Project; ■ Any responses to the NdP; ■ Other public notices in conjunction with the Project; ■ The DEIR for the Project; Any comments submitted by the public, other agencies, or other persons during the public comment period on the DEIR; ■ The FEIR for the Project; ■ The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; All findings and resolutions adopted by Lodi in connection with the Project; Any reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by Lodi, with respect to Lodi's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to Lodi's action on the Project; Any minutes and/or transcripts of public meetings held by Lodi in connection with the Project; Matters of common knowledge to Lodi, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; ■ Any materials described in Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). The custodian of the documents is Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director, City of Lodi. 2 775395.1 4. FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency is to issue a written finding reaching one or more of following three allowable conclusions. The first allowable finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment" (Public Resources Code (PRC), §.21081, subd. [a]). The second allowable finding is that "[t]hose changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency" (PRC, § 210$1, subd. (b)). The third allowable conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the ,mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report" (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid- or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they afire infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: `legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [."Goleta II"] [ 1990] 52. Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].). In cases in which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits are rendered acceptable despite its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta U, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents Lodi's findings under CEQA, relies on substantial evidence in the record in support of each of these findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.). 5. EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, Lodi hereby commits to implementing these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a set of obligations that will come into effect when Lodi approves the Project. 3 775395.1 a . . 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the Project, as provided by Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21081.6. Lodi will use the MMP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. Lodi will consider the MMP during its certification of the FEiR. 7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS The EIR identified the following significant or potentially significant impacts. For some impacts, mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. However, other impacts remain significant and unavoidable. • For these impacts, a rationale is provided explaining why the impact cannot be avoided, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. 4.1 Land UselAericultural Resources. 4.1.1 Impact 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a Implement conditions of the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act guidelines and standards regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.1b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local Significance, and shall avoid converting any Williamson Contract lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract termination. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: 4 775395.1 ❑ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd: [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). . ' ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly'trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC; § 21081, subd. [c]). Rationale: The proposed program bvould meet City of Lodi General Plan Land Use and Growth Management policies that require that the City maintain ample buffers between incompatible land uses. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface, thus preserving open space areas amidst development and includes a WPCF odor buffer, mosquito buffer, a buffer to protect sensitive receptors, and a buffer to reduce noxious weed growth. The proposed program would also include provisions to provide adequate land for development of public uses to support existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial. land uses; and would provide for the maintenance of an adequate level of service in the City's sewer collection and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development (City of Lodi 1991 a). The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent, however, with City of Lodi General Plan policies to minimize conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed sphere limits are located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non- agricultural uses. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated lands could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. The CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands. It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. Consistent with the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan, the CDFA recommended that the use of compensatory and strategically located agricultural land conservation easements be considered, as well as the provisions detailed in the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFA 2003). Additionally, the CDFA recommended consultation with the CDC regarding Williamson Act Contract termination, and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies. 5 775395.3 The proposed program meets San Joaquin County General Plan Management Housing Element policies, as the proposed Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface and.would include buffers to compatibly integrate into the neighborhoods it could ultimately serve. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent however, with San Joaquin County General Plan policies to provide for the protection of agricultural, lands needed for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises, small-scale farming operations, and the preservation of open -space; recognition of agricultural lands that contain concentrations of small-scale agricultural operations and dwellings; and to minimize the impact on agriculture in the transition of agricultural areas to urban development. As previously stated, the proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland. However, most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non- agricultural uses. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the General Plan, Objective 3 provides for the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth (San Joaquin County 1992a). The proposed program does, to some extent, minimize effects of growth on agricultural land as existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. However, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins, which would convert agriculturally - designated land. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent with a portion of the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan as it could impact agricultural lands between Eight Mile Road in Stockton and Harney Lane in Lodi (San Joaquin County 1992b) and eliminate a portion of the open space between these communities that helps to define the edges of each City and provides both visual relief and a sense of identity for each community (San Joaquin County 1992b). If any of these lands were used for future storage ponds and/or percolation basins, it would convert agricultural uses and eliminate a portion of the open space buffer between Lodi and Stockton. The proposed program is consistent with most of the policy elements of the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Act and would promote planned, orderly and efficient development as per Section 56377 of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. However, the proposed program may not guide development away from prime agricultural lands uses if reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins were located on lands designated as such. The proposed program is consistent with San Joaquin County LAFCO criteria and guidelines. In summary, the proposed program is inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Pian, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. 6 775395.1 With no mitigation available beyond following the guidelines and policies of the San Joaquin County LAFCO, provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act as closely as possible and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 4.1.3 Impact 4.1.3 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands. Significance Potentially Significant I MiBgation Measures 4.1.3 Upon Sphere of Influence buiidont, provide appropriate compensation to property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.1.4 Impact 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 7 775395.1 Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ❑ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ■, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). Rationale: As discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the proposed program area would be almost entirely comprised of agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). As also previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, Sphere of Influence buildout would be inconsistent with some of the policies and guidelines of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, as it could potentially include reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins on agricultural lands. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The General Plan EIR identified that implementation of planned growth under the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural lands (City of Lodi 8 775395.1 1990). The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Similar to the City of Lodi General Plan, implementation of planned growth under the County General Pian would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land (San Joaquin County 1992c). Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. As previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands`is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. This is considered a beneficial impact. Reconfiguring the proposed Sphere of Influence would not eliminate the future impact on agriculturally -designated lands, as most of the lands in the vicinity of the WPCF are agriculturally -designated lands and include property under Williamson Act Contracts. This impact to agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contract, is considered significant. Although it is not possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally - designated lands, this impact is still considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 4.1.5 Impact 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. Mitigation Measures 4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 9 775395.1 With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: , ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ❑ Changes or alterations have been required-iri, ox incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction'of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). . Rationale: As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4. 1.1 and W 4.1.4, buildout of the proposed PCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed program. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately. 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. However, this conversion would be in addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general. It should be noted that the potential future use of percolation basins is rural in nature and does not preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. 10 775395.1 Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on' important farmland in the County would be minimized through the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land. Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General -Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally -designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 4.2 Geoloyy, Soils and Seismicity, 4.2.1 Impact 4.2.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence on soils with building constraints could impair the function of the facilities and/or create hazards. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.1 Prior to final design and construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed soils/geotechnical study. Recommendations from this study shall be incorporated into the final design and construction for the project according to accepted engineering practices. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). 11 775395.1 ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment 'opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.2.2 Impact 4.2.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion within the proposed program area. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain a Notice of.Intent and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction Activities. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (PRC, § 21081, gubd. ja]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7 Hydroloey and Water Quality. 4.7.2 Impact 4.7.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in flooding impacts. 12 77s395.1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the issued Waste Discharge Requirements, the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) b Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.3 Impact 4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to groundwater. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be located such that potential groundwater impacts are avoided to the extent possible. 13 775395.1 4.7.3b The City shall comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such requirements may include design criteria to maintain separation of wetland and storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land application to ensure that regulatory standards for reclaimed water are met, monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitoring program.. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public. Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant etfects on. the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for -the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures. or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.4 Impact 4.7.4 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to surface water quality. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: 14 775395.1 ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment'(P?RC, § 21081, subd.' [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological,' or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.5 Impact 4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. Significance Potentially Significant Mitikation Measures 4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.6 Impact 15 775395.1 4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8 Air Quality. 4.8.2 Impact 4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate short-term emissions from construction activities. 16 775395.1 Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) regarding the Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate. 4.8.2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying with the SJVUAPCD's District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8020 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved Roads. 4.8.2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall properly maintain equipment to reduce NOx levels. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8.3 Impact 4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate objectionable odors in the program vicinity. 17 775395.1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include an odor buffer of approximately 500 feet to protect development in the proximity of -the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8.4 Impact 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4,8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone 18 775395.1 Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ I Not Significant, Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on. the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, o>� can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC; § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 2081, subd. [c]). 4.9 Hazardous Mate!Uls/Health Risks. 4.9.3 Impact 4.9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could involve the growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater, which creates a concern that the public could be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Department of Health Services and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in accordance with Section 60323 of the Water Recycling Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant 19 775395.1 Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, '§ 21081, subd. [a]j ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, §.21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.9.4 Impact 4.9.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could expose program area residents to discomfort, nuisances, and potential adverse health-related effects by exposing them to mosquitoes, which can carry serious human illnesses. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.4 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a buffer zone around mosquito -breeding habitat to address health-related effects associated with mosquitoes. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). 20 775395.1 ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or .'other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]).. 4.9.5 Impact 4.9.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could interfere with designated aircraft flight patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and. the Lodi Air Park as a result of migratory birds. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that oecur within the proposed Sphere of Influence sliall include a separation distance between airport facilities and any open water that provides habitat for migratory birds. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: 0 Significant ■ Not Signifipant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: a Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.10 Bioloeical Resources. 4.10.5 Impact 4.10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of wetlands. 21 775395.1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.5a As a condition of issuance of's grading permit associated with' potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall require avoidance of . sensitive biological resources, including wetlands and "waters of the U.S." (see Figure 4.10-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, the City of Lodi shall design the project to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources. 4.10.5b For potedtial future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and "waters of the U.S.," the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; a Section 404 wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following: Minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources; Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.) is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. 22 775345A Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required for the proposed project. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC,. § 21081, subd. [a]) Q Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). 0 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.10.6 Impact 4.10.6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate special -status plant or wildlife species. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.6a The City of Lodi shall complete detailed special -status species surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi shall redesign the project to minimize impacts. 23 775395.1 4.10.6b For unavoidable impacts to.listed special -status species associated with future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: an Incidental Tape permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to state listed species; and Section 7 or 10 biological opinion or incidental take permit from the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following: Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife specigs; Construction related avoidance and protection of onsite s special - status plant and wildlife species (i.e. construction worker training, riestrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to special - status plant and wildlife species: - Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would require the City to passively or actively relocate some species, create or enhance habitat for the species, or preserve and restore on -or offsite habitat for the species. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite special -status species preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could conduct offsite special -status species habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for species impacts. Mitigation may include restrictions on the timing 24 775395.1 and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the implementation of.construction btst management practices, etc. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the,environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another. public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or . other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.,10.7 Impact 4.10.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could disturb nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites are determined under future Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found, to be present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction activities outside the bird nesting season (typically January 15 through August 15 of each year). 4.10.7b If construction activities cannot be completed within the specified non -breeding season of August 16th to January 14th of each year, the City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the nests. The California Department of Fish and Game may also require the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or 25 775395.1 Management Agreement to reduce and potentially offset impacts to nesting raptors. At a minimum the City shall conduct the following when nesting raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere of Influence buildout project site: ■ Conduct a nesting raptor survey to identify active raptor nests. ■ Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically 1/, mile, but can be reduced through negotiations with CDFG); ■ Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area until young in nest are fledged. ■ Allow contractor to remove tree in its entirety only after young have fledged (as verified by CDFG and/or a qualified biologist). ■ Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re -planting of the same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest tree eliminated. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). Impact 4.10.8 4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian habitats or native trees. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 26 775395.1 0 • 4.10.8 To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees and loss' or degradation of riparian woodland habitat associated with future projects under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to identify locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall conduct some or all of the following: Avoid impacts to native trees. Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and individual tree loss through a combination,of project design and construction -related avoidance of native trees. Construction -related avoidance and protection of trees would include the installation of protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access roads near native trees to be retained; Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat areas. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite babitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. The City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final native tree compensation approaches. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.11 Cultural Resources. 27 775395,1 4.11.1. Impact 4.11.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could impact standing structures with potential historical significance. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 Site-specific archival research and architectural field surveys would be required prior to undertaking any future projects within the WPCF Sphere of Influence that could impact the potential historical significance of standing structures within the program area. I With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.11.2 Impact 4.11.2 Ground -disturbing actions associated with future buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the accidental destruction of previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or could result in the uncovering of Native American human remains. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 28 775345A 4.11.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and designated Native American representatives shall be required prior to undertaking any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of Influence in the future. 4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved in any form of ground disturbance (i.e., trenching, grading, etc.) shall, be advised of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or human remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately and the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be notified. In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section 21083.2(Q, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted, who shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the resource. 4.11.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, California Law requires that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the San Joaquin County Coroner is contacted. If the Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.9$. A note to this effect shall be included on all construction plans and specifications. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]), ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, 29 775395.1 A . 0 make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 8. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will potentially cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, Lodi considers the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, as proposed. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15126.6(e), Lodi is to consider among the alternatives to the Project a "No Project" alternative. Lodi evaluates whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta {1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also Public Resources Code, § 21002.). The EIR examines the following two alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant impacts. • Alternative 1: Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres). • Alternative 2: No Project Alternative. 8.1 Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres) The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP requesting that a reduced acreage alternative be developed to address future potential impacts on agricultural lands (See Appendix A to DE1R, CDFA letter)(CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Altdrnative of 4,240 acres would allow for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split. Chapter 5 of the DE1R provides a discussion of the Reduced Acreage Alternative, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in similar impacts under buildout as the proposed Sphere of Influence program. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would however eliminate the surrounding agricultural land buffers, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The agricultural buffers proposed under the proposed program would ensure that existing farmland would be retained in farmland. This would not occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also result in greater land use impacts, air quality impacts, and health risks than the proposed program, as it would not include the urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also not result in as much beneficial habitat retention for common wildlife species and special -status species as the proposed program. For these reasons, and those further discussed in the EIR, the Reduced Acreage Alternative is rejected. 30 775395.1 M 8.2 No Project Alternative Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by Section 15.126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of evaluating this alternative is to determine the impacts that could occur without implementation of the proposed program. Under the No Project Alternative, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and.storage areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within a Sphere of Influence. It should be noted, however, that additional lands may still be needed for future land disposal and storage areas if Sphere of Influence lands were not made available. Under the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if the WPCF Sphere of Influence A not created. Chapter 5 of the DEIR provides a discussion of the No Project Alternative, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, under the No Project Alternative, a Sphere of Influence would not be created for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs, however lands may still be required for future land disposal and storage needs under the City of Lodi General Plan buildout. The No Project Alternative would not include the surrounding agricultural land buffers as proposed under the proposed program, which -could potentially result in the loss of more farmland than the proposed program. The No Project Alternative could also result in a greater impact to wastewater services due to inadequate land disposal area to ultimately serve fixture growth discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not assist in considering making lands available to comply with future Water Discharge Requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and would fail to develop a coordinated approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of wastewater in the City of Lodi. The No Project Alternative would result in greater land use impacts, public service and utility impacts, hydrology and water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and health risks over the proposed program. As the No Project Alternative would not create a Sphere of Influence planning designation and would not eliminate the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area, the beneficial impact on biological resources cannot be considered. Additionally, the No Project Alternative fails to specifically meet the identified program objectives. For these reasons, and those further discussed in the EIR, the No Project Alternative is rejected. 9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, CEQA provides that the decision making body of the lead agency is to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA provides that the lead agency state in writing the 31 775395.1 `' ! reasons supporting the Project approval, despite its impacts, by way of a statement of overriding considerations. (See PRC § 21081(b); CEQA Guideline §'1.5093).. The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impact: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Land Use/Agricultural 4.1..1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City. of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. Lodi has determined that, even with mitigation, these impact remains significant and unavoidable. Additionally Lodi has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this examination, Lodi has determined that none of these alternatives satisfies the following three criteria: (1) clearly meets project objectives, (2) is clearly environmentally preferable to the Proposed Project, and (3) is economically feasible. As a result, to approve the Project, Lodi is to adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. Lodi finds that the Project would have the following benefits: Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (MGD)]. ■ Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. 32 775395.1 ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities. ■ Increase local control and accountability over .decisions affecting the community and its future viability. ■ Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would likely increase habitat quality for common wildlife species. (See DEIR Chapter 4, Impact 4.10.2). • The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat protection for special -status species. (See DEIR Chapter 4, Impact 4.10.4). Lodi finds that the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Project, that the benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, and Lodi hereby adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Under CEQA, the lead agency must circulate draft documents, independently review and consider the EIR, and as part of the certification of an EIR, find that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. Lodi circulated the DEIR, responded to comments to the DEIR, independently reviewed and considered the EIR, and determined that the EIR reflects its independent judgment. 33 C-jor4 SAN JC#QUIN FARM BURF#U FEDERATION MEETING TODAY'S CHALLENGES / PLANNING FOR TOMORROW RECEIVED A UG 0.1 2004 July 21, 2004 City of Lodi COMMUNIT-YDEVPLOPMENiDEPT Rad Bartlam CITY OF LODE Director, Community Development Department PO Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Dear Mr. Bartlam: The San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation (SJFB) representing over 6,000 farm families is opposed to the City of Lodi's Sphere of influence amendment for the White Slough facility. Although this amendment does not result in the actual conversion of agricultural land, SJFB ' believes it is premature and not necessary. The amendment is not necessary for the City to annex land in the future. This sphere of influence change will only devalue ag land by limiting the type of crops that will be planted. It will discourage long term investments in agricultural operations, investments that ensure agricultural longevity. If the City of Lodi is serious about making ag a permanent industry between Stockton, it must make decisions that support the industry not restrict it. SJFB believes this amendment is reactionary to the city of Stockton's Sphere of Influence Boundary change, another amendment that SJFB is opposing. These are reactionary planning strategies and should not be approved. There are too many creative solutions available to allow reactionary tactics to be executed. Sincerely, Kenny ins President, San Joaquin Fane Bureau Federation P.O. BOX 8444 • 3290 NORTH AD ART ROAD • (209) 931-4931 • STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95208 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-181 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 03-02) FOR THE WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY, AND FURTHER DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO DESIGNATE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing on August 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City of Lodi Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility, adopted Resolution No. P.C. 04-39 at the August 11, 2004, public hearing, approving the EIR for certification; and WHEREAS, notice thereof having been given according to law, an affidavit of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, a public hearing was held September 1, 2004, by the Lodi City Council to consider the certification of the Final Program EIR for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The Lodi City Council certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the Final EIR was presented to the Lodi City Council (the decision-making body of the City of Lodi), that the Lodi City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Lodi City Council, and the Lodi City Council does hereby approve certification of the Final EIR for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility pursuant to the CEQA. 3. All mitigation measures as specified in the Final EIR and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Final EIR are hereby approved, adopted, and incorporated into this Resolution. 4. The separate document entitled "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence Program" is hereby approved, adopted, and attached to this Resolution, marked Exhibit A. 5. The Lodi City Council hereby approves, adopts, and incorporates herein the Mitigation Monitoring Program accompanying the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council hereby authorizes and directs staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation. Commission to designate the Sphere of Influence discussed in the EIR. Dated: September 1, 2004 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2004-181 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting heli September 1, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Beckman, Hitchcock, Howard, and Mayor Hansen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Land ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk 2004-181 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROGRAM 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This document provides the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the approval of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence Program (Project), as proposed by the City of Lodi (Lodi) and as described in the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR (FEIR) on the Project. The DEIR and FEIR include a detailed description of the Project, an analysis of its potential environmental effects, and an analysis of the effects of alternatives to the Project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Lodi received comments on the DEIR and provided responses to comments, which are contained in the FEIR. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES Lodi is proposing a 5,280 acre (includes the 1,440 acres of the existing WPCF) Sphere of Influence around the White Slough WPCF to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth under the existing General Plan of the City of Lodi. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program has been designed to meet the following primary objectives: Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1994 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (MGD)]. Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. 775395.1 ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community. services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities. Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability. ' 3, REOORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for Lodi's decision on the Project approval includes the following:, The Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the DEIR for the Project; Any responses to the No P; Other public notices in conjunction with the Project; The DEIR for the Project; Any comments submitted by the public, other agencies, or other persons during the public comment period on the DEIR; The FETR for the Project; The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project; All findings and resolutions adopted by Lodi in connection with the Project; Any reports, studies, memoranda, maps, and other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by Lodi, with respect to Lodi's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to Lodi's action on the Project; Any minutes and/or transcripts of public meetings held by Lodi in connection with the Proj ect; Matters of common knowledge to'Lodi, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any materials described in Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). The custodian of the documents is Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director, City of Lodi.. 2 775395.1 4. FINDINGS UNDER CEQA Under CEQA, for each significant environmental -effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency is to issue a written finding reaching one or more of following three allowable conclusions. The first allowable finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment" (Public Resources Code (PRC), §.21081, subd. [a]). The second allowable finding is that "Whose changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency" (PRC, § 21081, subd. (b)). The third allowable conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological,' or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, made infeasible the .mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report" (PRC, § 21081, subd, [c]). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid- or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they aie infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), [3]). Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ["Goleta II"] [1990] 52- Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].). In cases in which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency, after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency found that the project's benefits are rendered acceptable despite its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. [b]). The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents Lodi's findings under CEQA, relies on substantial evidence in the record in support of each of these findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.). 5. EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, Lodi hereby commits to implementing these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a set of obligations that will come ilhto effect when Lodi approves the Project. 3 775395.1 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for the Project, as provided by Public Resources Code (,PRC) section 21081.6. Lodi will use the MMP to track compliance with adopted mitigation measures. Lodi will consider the MMP during its certification of the FEIR. ' 7. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND FINDINGS The E1R identified the following significant or potentially significaint impacts. For some impacts, mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. However, other impacts remain significant and unavoidable. - For these impacts, a rationale is provided explaining why the impact cannot be avoided, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. 4.1 Land Use/Agricultural Resources. 4.1.1 Impact 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan,. the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Pian, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a Implement conditions of the San Joaquin'County Local Agency Formation Commission and Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act guidelines and standards regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.1b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local Significance, and shall avoid converting any Williamson Contract lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract termination. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: 4 775395.1 ❑ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environmeht (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) p Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ' ■ Specific economic, legal, social, techn'oltogical, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly'trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC; § 21081, subd. [c]). Rationale: The proposed program bvould meet City of Lodi. General Plan Land Use and ' Growth Management policies that require that the City maintain ample buffers between incompatible land uses. The propo$ed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface, thus preserving open space areas amidst development and includes a WPCF odor buffer, mosquito buffer, a buffer to protect sensitive receptors, and a buffer to reduce noxious weed growth. The proposed program would also include provisions to provide adequate land for development of public uses to support existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; and would provide for the maintenance of an adequate level of service in the City's sewer collection and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development (City of Lodi 1991 a). The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent, however, with City of Lodi General Plan policies to minimize conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed sphere limits are located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non- agricultural uses. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated lands could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. The CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands. It should, be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. Consistent with the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan, the CDFA recommended that the use of compensatory and strategically located agricultural land conservation easements be considered, as well as the provisions detailed in the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFA 2003). Additionally, the CDFA recommended consultation with the CDC regarding Williamson Act Contract termination, and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies. 775395.1 The proposed program meets San Joaquin County General Plan Management Housing Element policies, as the proposed Sphere of Influence was desigrd to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface and.would wtnclude buffers to compatibly integrate into the neighborhoods it could ultimately we. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent however, with San Joaquin C�ynty General Plan policies to provide for the protection of agricultural, lands needed for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises, small-scale farming operations, and the preservation of open -space; recognition of agricultural lands that contain concentrations of small-scale agricultural operations and dwellings; and to minimize tl}e impt on agriculture in the transition of agricultural areas to urban development. As previously stated, the proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland. However, most of the existipg farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not'require a conversion to non- agricultural uses. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the General Plan, Objective 3 provides for the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth (San Joaquin County 1992a). The proposed program does, to some extent, minimize effects of growth on agricultural land as existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. However, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins, which would convert agriculturally - designated land. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent with a portion of the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan as it could impact agricultural lands between Eight Mile Road in Stockton and Harney Lane in Lodi (San Joaquin County 1992b) and eliminate a portion of the open space between these communities that helps to define the edges of each City and provides both visual relief and a sense of identity for each community (San Joaquin County 1992b). If any of these lands were used for future storage ponds and/or percolation basins, it would convert agricultural uses and eliminate a portion of the open space buffer between Lodi and Stockton. The proposed program is consistent with most of the policy elements of the Cortese - Knox -Hertzberg Act and would promote planned, orderly and efficient development as per Section 56377 of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. However, the proposed program may not guide development away from prime agricultural lands uses if reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins were located on lands designated as such. The proposed program is consistent with San Joaquin County LAFCO criteria and guidelines. In summary, the proposed program is inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. 6 775345. With no mitigation available beyond followirig the guidelines and policies of the San Joaquin County LAFCO, provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act as closely as possible and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.1b, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 4.1.3 Impact 4.1.3 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.3 Upon Sphere of Influence buildout, provide appropriate compensation to property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21481: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.1.4 Impact 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 7 775395.1 Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on. future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ❑ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public . agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). Rationale: As discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the proposed program area would be almost entirely comprised of agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). As also previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, Sphere of Influence buildout would be inconsistent with some of the policies and guidelines of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, as it could potentially include reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins on agricultural lands. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The General Plan EIR identified that implementation of planned growth under the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural lands (City of Lodi 8 775395.1 1990). The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Similar to the City of Lodi General Plan, implementation of planned growth under the County General Plan would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land (San Joaquin County 1992c). Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. As previously discussed under Land Use/AgriculturAl Resources Impact 4.1.1, the CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands'is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. This is considered a beneficial" impact. Reconfiguring the proposed Sphere of Influence would not eliminate the future impact on agriculturally -designated lands, as most of the lands in the vicinity of the WPCF are agriculturally -designated lands and include property under Williamson Act Contracts. This impact to agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contract, is considered significant. Although it is not possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally - designated lands, this impact is still considered significant and .unavoidable after mitigation. 4.1.5 Impact 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. Mitigation Measures } 4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 9 775395. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ■ Significant ❑ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section ,21081: ❑ Changes or alterations have been required -iii, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction 'of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ■ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). Rationale: As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4:1.1 and 4.1.4, buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed program. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents: However, this conversion would-be in addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general. It should be noted that the potential future use of percolation basins is rural in nature and does not preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. 10 775395.1 Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on' important farmland in the County would be minimized through the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land. Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General- Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally -designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable after mitigation. 4.2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity. 4.2.1 Impact 4.2.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPt~F Sphere of Influence on soils with building constraints could impair the func4on of the facilities and/or create hazards. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.1 Prior to final design and construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed soils/geotechnical study. Recdmmendations from this study shall be incorporated into the final design and construction for the project according to accepted engineering practices. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) Q Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ' 11 775395.1 ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment 'opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.2.2 Impact 4.2.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion within the proposed program area. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain a Notice of.Intent and comply with the Ceutral Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction Activities. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality. 4.7.2 Impact 4.7.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in flooding impacts. 12 775395.1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the issued Waste Discharge Requirements, the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081 ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.3 Impact 4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to groundwater. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be located such that potential groundwater impacts are avoided to the extent possible. 13 775395.1 4.7.3b The City shall comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards, anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such requirements may include design criteria to maintain separation of wetland and storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land application to ensure that regulatory standards, for reclaimed water are met, monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitofing program., With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Publip Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avgid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, st}bd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within,the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency.(PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,. including considerations for -the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible 'the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.4 Impact 4.7.4 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to surface water quality. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: 14 775345.1 0 ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment`(P.RC, § 21081, subd.-[a)) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 210,81, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological,' or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.5 Impact 4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and Salt Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC,§ 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.7.6 Impact 15 775395.1 C C� 4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. Significance Potentially Significant I , Mitigation Measures 4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ r Changes or alterations have been required iiorated into, the project which mitigate 8 � n, or incorporated or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8 Air Quality. 4.8.2 Impact C 4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate short-term emissions from construction activities. i 16 775345. E Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.2a . Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) regarding the Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate. 4.8.2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying with the SJVUAPCD's District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8.020 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 80.6$ (Paved and Unpaved Roads. , 4.8.2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall properly maintain equipment to reduce NOx levels. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social," technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8.3 Impact 4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of influence could generate objectionable odors in the program vicinity. 17 775395,1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of %fluence shall include an odor buffer of approximately 500 feet to protect development in the proximity of -the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Signif ctint ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.8.4 Impact 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone 18 775395.1 Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended" 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ ' Not Significant, Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on. the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, o+ can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC; § 2108 1, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.9 Hazardous Materials/Health Risks. 4.9.3 Impact 4.9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could involve the growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater, which creates a concern that the public could be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Department of Health Services and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in accordance with Section'60323 of the Water Recycling Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant 775395.1 ■ Not Significant I] Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) . ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.9.4 Impact 4.9.4' Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could expose program area residents to discomfort, nuisances, and potential adverse health-related effects by exposing them to mosquitoes, which can carry serious human illnesses. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.4 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a buffer zone around mosquito -breeding habitat to address health-related effects associated with mosquitoes. With Mitigation the Effects arc found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b)). 20 775395.1 ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technologibal, or "other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [p]).- 4.9.5 Impact 4.9.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could interfere with designated aircraft flight patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and, the Lodi Air Park as a result of migratory birds. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures i 4.9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that occur witbin the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a separation'distance between airport facilities and any open water that provides habitat for migratory birds. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.10 Biolosical Resources_ 4.10.5 Impact 4.10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of wetlands. 21 775395.1 Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.5a As a condition of issuance ofa grading permit associated with' potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed' Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall require avoidance of . sensitive biological resources, including wetlands and "waters of the U.S." (see Figure 4.10-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, the City cif Lodi shall design the project to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources. 4.10.5b For potedtial future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and "waters of the U.S.," the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; a Section 404 wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The above permits are likely to contain stipulitions that require the City to complete some or all of the following: ■ Minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources; ■ Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); ■ On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.) is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. 22 775345.1 v Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed.Sphere of -influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required for the proposed project. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ , Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.10.6 Impact 4.10.6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate special -status plant or wildlife species. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.6a The City of Lodi shall complete detailed special -status species surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites wader proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi shall redesign the project to minimize impacts. 23 775395.1 4.10.6b For unavoidable impacts to.listed special -status species associated with future WPCF projects tbat'occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall�obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: an Incidental Take permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to state listed species; and a Section 7 or 10 biological opinion or incidental take permit from the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following; Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife specils; Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite s special - status plant and wildlife species p.e. construction worker training, restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to special - status plant and wildlife species'. - Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would require the City to passively or actively relocate some species, create or enhance habitat for the species, or preserve and restore on -or offsite habitat for the species. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite special -status species preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could conduct offsite special -status species habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for species impacts. Mitigation may include restrictions on the timing 24 775395.1 and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the implementation of construction blest management practices, etc. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the.environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted. by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). , ❑ Specific economic, legal, social; technological, or. other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4..10.7 Impact 4.10.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could disturb nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites are determined under future Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found to be present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction activities outside the bird netting season (typically January 15 through August 15 of each year). 4.10.7b If construction activities cannot be completed within the specified non -breeding season of August 15`h to January 14A of each year, the City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the nests. The California Department of Fish and Game may also require the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or 25 775395.1 Management Agreement to reduce and potentially offset impacts to nesting raptors. At a minimum the City shall conduct the following when besting raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere of Influence buildout project site: ■ Conduct a nesting raptor survey to identify active raptor nests. = Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically'/. mile, but can be reduced through negotiations with CDFG); ■ Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area until young in nest are fledged. ■ Allow contractor to remove tree in its entirety only after young have fledged (as verified by CDDand/or a qualified biologist). ■ Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re -planting of the same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest tree eliminated. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, §21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). . ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). Impact 4.10.8 4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian habitats or native trees. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 26 775345.1 • IF 0 4.10.8 To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees and loss' or degradation of riparian woodland habitat associated with future projects under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to identify locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall conduct some or all of the following: ■ Avoid impacts to native trees. ■ Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and individual tree loss through a combination,of project design and construction -related avoidance of native trees. Construction -related avoidance and protection of trees would include the installation of. protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access roads near native trees to be retained; • Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat areas. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preservearea. The City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final native tree compensation approaches. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081; subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.11 Cultural Resources. 27 775395.1 4.11.1 Impact 4,11.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could impact standing structures with potential historical significance. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 Site-specific archival research and architectural field surveys would be required prior to undertaking any future projects within the WPCF Sphere of Influence that could impact the potential historical significance of standing structures within the program area. 7 With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: , ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,. make infeasible the mitigation measures or -alternatives identified in the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 4.11.2 Impact 4.11.2 Ground -disturbing actions associated with future buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the accidental destruction of previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or could result in the uncovering of Native American human remains. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 28 775395.1 4.11.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, and consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and designated Native American representatives shall be required prior to undertaking any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of Influence in the future. 4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved in any form of ground disturbance (i.e., trenching, grading, etc.) shall, be advised of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or human remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately and the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be notified. In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section 21083.2(i), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted, who shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the resource. 4.11.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, California Law requires that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the San Joaquin County Coroner is contacted. If the Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5097.98. A note to this effect shall be included on all construction plans and specifications. With Mitigation the Effects are found to be: ❑ Significant ■ Not Significant Finding(s) per Public Resources Code, Section 21081: ■ Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (PRC, § 21081, subd. [a]) ❑ Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by the other agency (PRC, § 21081, subd. [b]). ❑ Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, 29 775395.1 A . 0 make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in. the environmental impact report (PRC, § 21081, subd. [c]). 8. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the project will potentially cause significant environmental effects, as outlined above, Lodi considers the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, as proposed. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15126.6(e), Lodi is to consider among the alternatives to the Project a "No Project" alternative. Lodi evaluates whether one or more of these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the project's unavoidable significant environmental effects. {Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [ 1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443-445 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727]; see also Public Resources Code, § 21002.). The EIR examines the following two alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether these alternatives could meet the project's objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening its significant impacts. • Alternative 1: Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres). • Alternative 2: No Project Alternative. 8.1 Reduced Acreage Alternative (4,240 Acres) The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP.requesting that a reduced acreage alternative be developed to address future potential impacts on agricultural lands (See Appendix A to DEIR, CDFA letter)(CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Alternative of 4,240 acres would allow for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split. Chapter 5 of the DEIR provides a discussion of the Reduced Acreage Alternative, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in similar impacts under buildout as the proposed Sphere of influence program. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would however eliminate the surrounding agricultural land buffers, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The agricultural buffers proposed under the proposed program would ensure that existing farmland would be retained in farmland. This would not occur under the Reduced Acreage AIternative. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also result in greater land use impacts, air'quality impacts, and health risks than the proposed program, as it would not include the'urban-open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also not result in as much beneficial habitat retention for common wildlife species and special -status species as the proposed program. For these reasons, and those further discussed in the EIR, the Reduced Acreage Alternative is rejected. It 30 775195.1 8.2 No Project Alternative Consideration of the No Project Alternative 'is required by Section 15.126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The purpose of evaluating this alternative is to. determine the impacts that could occur without implementation of the proposed program. Under the No Project Alternative, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and,storage. areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within a Sphere of influence. It should be noted; how6ver, that additional lands may still be needed for future land disposal and storage areas if Sphere of influence lands were not made available. Under the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if the WPCF Sphere of Influence J not created. Chapter 5 of the DER provides a discussion of the No Project Alternative, which discussion is incorporated herein by reference. As discussed in Chapter 5, under the No Project Alternative, a Sphere of Influence would not be created for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs, however lands may still be required for future land disposal and storage needs under the City of Lodi General Plan buildout. The No Project Alternative would not include the surrounding agricultural land buffers as proposed under the proposed program, which. could potentially result in the loss of more farmland than the proposed program. The No Project Alternative could also result in a greater impact to wastewater services due to inadequate land disposal area to ultimately serve future growth discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not assist in considering making lands available to comply with future Water Discharge Requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and would fail to develop a coordinated approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of wastewater in the City of Lodi. The No Project Alternative would result in greater land use impacts, public service and utility impacts, hydrology and water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and health risks over the proposed program. As the No Project Alternative would not create a Sphere of Influence planning designation and would not eliminate the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area, the beneficial impact on biological resources cannot be considered. Additionally, the No Project Alternative fails to specifically meet the identified program objectives. For these reasons, and those further discussed in the EIR, the No Project Alternative is rejected. 9. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS When a project results in significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, CEQA provides that the decision making body of the lead agency is to balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA provides that the lead agency state in writing the 31 775395.1 reasons supporting the Project approval, despite its impacts, by way of a statement, of overriding considerations. (See PRC § 21081(b); CEQA Guideline §'1.5093). The Proposed Project would have the following significant unavoidable impact: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Land Use/Agricultural 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City, of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. ' 4.1.4, The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated t lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result In the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the lass of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. Lodi has determined that, even with mitigation, these impact remains significant and unavoidable. Additionally Lodi has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Based on this examination, ,Lodi has determined that none of these alternatives satisfies the fallowing three criteria:' (1) clearly meets project objectives, (2) is clearly environmentally preferable to the Proposed Project, and (3) is economically feasible. As a result, to approve the Project, Lodi is to adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15043 and 15093. The Statement of Overriding Considerations allows a lead agency to cite a project's general economic, social, or other benefits as a justification for choosing to allow the occurrence of specified significant environmental effects that have not been at least substantially mitigated. The statement explains why, in the agency's judgment, the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effect. Lodi finds that the Project would have the following benefits: Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (MGD)]. ■ Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. 32 775395.1 ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts.associated with wastewater treatment facilities. ■ Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability. ■ Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would likely increase habitat quality for common wildlife species. (See DEIR Chapter 4, Impact 4.10.2)., ■ The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat protection for special -status species. (See DEIR Chapter 4, Impact 4.10.4). Lodi finds that the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Project, that the benefits of the Project outweigh and override the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, and Lodi hereby adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Under CEQA, the lead agency must circulate draft documents, independently review and consider the EIR, and as part of the certification of an ETR, find that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. Lodi circulated the DEIR, responded to comments to the DEIR, independently reviewed and considered the EIR, and determined that the EIR reflects its independent judgment. 33 775395.1 • CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 1, 2004 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarOing•this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 3.33-1702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 1, 2004 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 345 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter: a) certification of FINAL Pibgram Environmental Impact Report for the While Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, Cafifomia. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Dated: August 19, 2004 Approved as to form: D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney JACITYURMFORMSNOTCOO.00C 6l179µ NOTIMOF PUSUC-HEAfi 4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that On Wednesday, September 1 2004 at the tour of 7. -Do p.m., OF as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council. Will conduct a Public Hearing at the 'Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pins Street, Lodi, to con- sider the following matter.. - a} certification of FINALProgram Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make epplicpUon to the San Joauqin Local Agency formation Commission (LAFCO) 'to designate the Sphere of Influence Information regarding this Item may. be obtained in the offtce of the Community owalopmert C+partmept. 221 West ?ire Street, Lodi, Cali mi1q: All intersated.per- sons are Invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with 14 Cit Clerk at any lime prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be. made at said. hear- ing. It you Challenge the subject matter in court, you may be IWMW to 1 rating only those issues you or $WrWMB else raised at the Public Hearing described in thie notice or in written correapondenoa doWend to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing. 13y Order of the Lodi City Council s: SUSAN J, BLACKSTON City Clerk . Daate& August 19, 2004 . ' Tpf9Y9d as to to": s: D. STePMEN SCHWASAUER City Attorney August 21, 2004 x —7021 DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CERTIFICATION OF FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY AND DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) TO DESIGNATE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE On Thursday, August 19, 2004, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the certification of FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence (attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A"), was posted at the following four locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 19, 2004, at Lodi, California. Administrative Cleric form Wecpost.doc ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK Jennifer M. Perrin, CMC Deputy City Clerk DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CERTIFICATION OF FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY AND DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE SAN JOAQUIN LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) TO DESIGNATE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE On August 19, 2004, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a letter of Public Hearing to consider the certification of FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence, marked Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 19, 2004, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: N . TA' CITM CLEI PATRICIA OCHOA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Forms/deemail.doc ORDERED BY: SUSAN BLACKSTON CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI JENNIFER M. PERRIN DEPUTY CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LODI CITY COUNCIL 221 WEST PINE STREET, LODI, CA 95240 -- TELEPHONE (209) 333-6702 DATE: Wednesday, September 1, 2004 TIME: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard PLACE: Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi SUBJECT: To consider the certification of FINAL Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and direct staff to make application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate the Sphere of Influence INFORMATION REGARDING THIS MATTER MAY BE OBTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 221 W. PINE ST., LODI. WRITTEN STATEMENTS MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, 221 W. PINE ST., 2ND FLOOR, LODI, AT ANYTIME PRIOR -TO THE HEARING SCHEDULED HEREIN, AND ORAL STATEMENTS MAY BE MADE AT SAID HEARING. ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ARE CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH. THE CITY OF LODI DOES NOT FURNISH INTERPRETERS, AND, IF ONE IS NEEDED, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON NEEDING ONE. ANYONE WISHING TO BE HEARD ON THE ISSUE MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT DESERVES TO BE NOTED THAT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE DOES NOT GUARANTEE NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS RESIDING IN OR OTHERWISE USING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, EACH RESIDENT OF THIS NOTICE IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO BRING THIS NOTICE PROMPTLY TO THE ATTENTION OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS WHOM THE RECIPIENT FEELS MAY Be INTERESTED IN OR AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL IN ORDER THAT ALL PERSONS MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE ISSUE. IF YOU CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLERKICITY COUNCIL AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. Date Mailed: August 19, 2004 PublicHearing/Notices/PHNotice.doc SUSANJ.BLAdkSTON CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF LODI Mailing List -- Notification of Public Hearing set for September 1, 2004 Consider the Certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility and Direct Staff to Make Application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to Designate the Sphere of Influence 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP;SITUSNUM;SITUSDIR;SITUSSTNAME;S ITUSTYPE 05512010;HALL, TIMOTHY R TR ETAL ;47375 W DAKOTA AVE ;FIREBAUGH ;CA;93622;11495;N. ;THORNTON ;RD 05525026;VALLEM, LOUIS V & ANNE R TR ;3404 W KINGDON RD ;LORI ;CA;95242;3404;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05509002;RIO BLANCO RANCH CORP ;7000 S INLAND DR ;STOCKTON ;CA;95206;11400;N ;RIO BLANCO ;RD 05513002;BALCAO, HELEN LIMA TR ETAL ;13436 N THORNTON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242,,13402;N ;THORNTON ;RD 05516032;0&C FARMS LP ;4484 W TREDWAY RD ;LORI ;CA;95242;5991;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05514006;COLDANI, RAYMOND H & B;13199 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;13199;N ;RAY ;RD 05518005;KINGDON PROPERTIES ;16514 E LONE TREE RD ;ESCALON ;CA;95320;12145;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05522005;VAN RUITEN RANCH LTD;J4101 W TURNER RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;2170;W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 05522033;SILVA, LELAND & KIM ;2550 W ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;2550;W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 05525013;MART, DYAN TR ;44904 SANDY CIR ;EL MACERO ;CA;95618;13151;N ;NEELEY ;RD 05514002;LEHR, TED D;5800 KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5800;W ;KINGDOM ;RD 05514003;RIZZOLO, EUGENE & M TRS ;5764 W KINGDOM RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5764;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05525019;SCATENA, BRUNO & ELVIRA TR ;3724 W KINGDON RD ;LORI ;C:A;95242;3724;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05514013;LERINDEGUI, PAUL JR ;PO BOX 1711 ;LODI ;CA;95241;5882;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05514014;AHERN, JOHN J ETAL ;5560 W KINGDOM RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5560;W ;KINGDOM ;RD 05515003;COLDANI, STEVEN MICHAEL ;14000 N GUARD RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;14613;N ;THORNTON ;RD 05515004;COLDANI, RAYMOND & B J ETAL ;1806 W KETTLEMAN LN #J ;LODI ;CA,95242;14401;N ;THORNTON ;RD 05515007;COLDANI, RAYMOND & B ;13199 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;13950;N ;THORNTON ;RD 055250290EATH, JEFFREY ;13555 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13555;N ;NEELEY ;RD 05525030;MEATH, ROBERT HENRY TR ;13649 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; ; ; 05517007;MERRY, OREST V & C J:13811 N DE VRIES RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13811;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05517008;MACIEL, KAREN J;13751 N DEVRIES RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;13751;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05517009;MARION, GEORGE J & BARBARA J T;13665 N DE VRIES RD ;LODE ;CA;95242;13655;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05517011;RAI, IQBALJIT S TR & M K TR ET;3500 KINGDON RD ;LORI ;CA;95242;13846;N ;NEELEY ;RD 05517012;RANDALL, SARA M ;13180 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13810;N ;RAY ;RD 05517032;REGO, JOHN & A TRS ;13579 N DEVRIES RD ;LODI ;CA;95242; 13591; N;DE VRIES ;RD 05517033;REG0, MICHAEL L & SHIRLEY A TR;PO BOX 2569 ;LODI ;CA;95241;13550;N ,NEELEY ;RD 05525031;AUSTIN, JOHN D & LYNNE TR ;13859 N NEELEY RD ;LODE ;CA;95242;0; ; ; 05518001;RANDALL, SARA M;13180 N RAY RD ;LODE ;CA;95242;4251;W ;TREDWAY ;RD 05518003;FONTES, EURICO & ROSA ;1134 EL CAMINO AVE -,STOCKTON ;CA;95207;3300,W ;TREDWAY ;RD 05518012;C & C FARMS LP. ;4484 TREDWAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;4250;W ;TREDWAY ;RD 05519002;DAVILLA LODI FAMILY PTP ETAL ;21550 EDEN CANYON RD ;HAYWARD ;CA;94552;11685;N ;THORNTON 05522002;MAGEE, JERRY K:768 KETTLEMAN LN ;LODI ;CA;95240;11800;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05522003;WU, JENNIE TR ;1539 HYDE ST ;SAN FRANCISCO ;CA;94109; 1 1790;N ;DE VINES ;RD 05522022;LAWRY, M E & A A TRS ;1515 W ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;'11750;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05522034;VAN RUITEN RANCH LTD ;463 W TURNER RD -,LODI ;CA;95240;2490;W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 05522036;iAUCHLAND, ROBERT EDWARD ETAL;700 E ARMSTRONG RD ;LORI ;CA;95240j 1568;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 05522D40;PHILLIPS, MICHAEL J & KRISTY T;2210 W WOODBRIDGE RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; 05522041;PHILLIPS, MICHAEL J & K A TR E;4580 W HWY 12 ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; ; ; 05525015;MEATH, GREGORY THOMAS & FERNAN;13721 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13721;N ;NEELEY ;RD 05525020; PETERSEN, JOHN T & JANETTE G;3838 W KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3838-,W; KINGDON ;RD 05525021;FOLETTA, BROS INC ;PO BOX 890877 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95269;4040;W ;KiNGDON ;RD 05525027;RAi, IQBALJIT & MANJEET TR ETA;3500 KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3500;W ;KINGDON ;RD 05525032;AUSTIN, JOHN D TR ETAL ;13859 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; ,Attomey at Law, Bainbridge, Laura;433 W. Pine Stree1;Lodi;CA;95240 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 W. PINE ST. P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1 91 0 Community Development CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 W. PINE ST. R O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 Herum Crabtree Brown Attn: Brett S. Jolley 2291 West March Lane, Suite B100 Stockton, CA 95207 Hakeem, Ellis & Marengo Attn: Mike Hakeem 3414 Brookside Road, Suite 100 S-VVC C -ken, CA aha tG /3579 117 . 31 aoo� f RECEIVED AUG � 1 2004 City Clerk City of Lodi - -AT �,,,,�`,,� 0 ,uo 10 �CC _ ICCA D S �� B �PR -PD EUD FIN 7PW �FD COM XW y a RECEIVED 2004 City Clerk City of Lodi STOEL — S RIVES LLPA oornbirratiun with Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy August 31, 2004 By Facsimile/E-Mail/Regular Mail Lodi City Council City Hall P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 City Clerk's Note: This communication pertains to ITEM G-3 (public hearing) on the September 1, 2004 City Council agenda. Ill Sutler Street. Suite 700 RECEIVED San Francisco. California 94M AUG 3 1 2004 City GierK "Cit/ of Lodi Devin M. IVEsTiSR Direct (415) 617-8904 dmivester@stoei.com Re: White Slough Sphere of Influence EIR (SCH #2003092066) Dear City Council Members: main 41S.617.8900 fax 46.676.3000 www.Aodoom On behalf of the City of Stockton, we ask that the City of Lodi consider the following comments in deciding whether or not to certify the above referenced Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'. Due to substantial deficiencies in the EIR, as described herein and in comments submitted on the draft EIR, we believe substantial revision and recirculation of the ETR is required. THE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS IS INSUFFICIENT This EIR's analysis of potential impacts and mitigation measures is cursory at best and as explained below, the City's response to numerous comments that the document is merely a program level document does not excuse the shallow analysis. Program EIR The CEQA standard for program EIRs does not allow a lead agency to avoid or defer analysis of impacts but rather requires the lead agency to perform an even more thorough review with regard to certain types of impacts. A program EIR is designed to "(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EAR on an individual action, (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, ...(4) Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." (CEQA Guidelines § 15168(b).) "Designating an EIR as a program EIR also does not by itself decrease the level of analysis otherwise required in the EIR." Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes Redevelopment Agency (2000) 82 SanFran-166263.1 0060669-00002 CC HR CM Oregon Is Washington —CALIB SCD California PR Utah EUD PD Idaho FIN .,Pw FD __,COM Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 2 Cal.AppAth 511, 533. "The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the 'rule of reason' [citation], rather than any semantic label accorded to the EIR." Id. at 533-4 citing (Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc. v. Board of Harbor Commissioners, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at pp. 741-742, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 618, fn. omitted.) "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." Friends of Mammoth, 82 Cal.App.4th at 534 (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15146.) A program EIR is designed for analyzing program -wide effects, broad policy alternatives and mitigation measures, cumulative impacts and basic policy considerations, as opposed to specific projects within the program. Id. (citing CEQA Guidelines § 15168(b)). However, the Guidelines also state a program EIR `will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible." (CEQA Guidelines § 15168 (c)(5), emphasis added.) Here, the City of Lodi has failed to meet the minimum requirements of CEQA in the preparation of this program EIR. In particular, the DEIR's analysis fails in the areas in which a program level document's analysis should be most comprehensive — cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and alternatives. As a result, the City of Lodi has no choice but to substantially revise the document and recirculate it. Air Quality The EIR does not provide an adequate discussion of the project's air quality impacts. It concludes that the proj ect would not have significant air quality impacts apparently predicated on the view that an odor buffer would reduce impacts on nearby land uses, yet the EIR defers a discussion of the efficacy of such an odor buffer to a later project -specific Elk. While some generality is typical of program EIRs, as discussed above, even program EIRs should be as specific as the circumstances allow. There is no reason in the present circumstances to defer a discussion of the efficacy of an odor buffer of the sort proposed in the EIR. Land Use The EIR does not adequately discuss the project's potential for land use conflicts. For much the same reasons that the EIR does not adequately discuss the project's air quality impacts, it also does not adequately discuss the project's potential to conflict with surrounding land uses and plans. SanFran-166263.1 0060869-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 3 Cumulative Impacts One of the areas in which a program level EIR is supposed to perform a more thorough or in- depth analysis than a project EIR is cumulative impacts. The review of such impacts in this EIR is insufficient. No where does the DEIR clearly identify which projects are included in the cumulative impacts analysis. "A cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval." (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421,431 With regard to cumulative impacts, the EIR must assess the collective or combined effect of the project or program in question and other foreseeable project. (See, Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) This EIR fails to meet this standard. For all but three impacts areas, the DEIR dismisses the potential for cumulative impacts in three or four sentences with no analysis or evaluation of data. This is the case with regard to soils, noise, visual, public services, hazardous materials, biological and cultural resources. The discussion of cumulative impacts to these resource areas is facially inadequate. With regard to the cumulative impacts that are discussed, the discussion is insufficient and the application of mitigation measures is completely without analysis. For example, cumulative air quality impacts are found to be potentially significant. The DEIR imposes a single mitigation measure that merely requires implementation of existing policies and then finds, without analysis or discussion, that this measure will render the cumulative impact less than significant. This is inadequate — the EIR must actually discuss the efficacy of suggested mitigation measures and quantify the reduction in air emissions that will result from implementation of the measures. While it is true, as observed in the responses to comments, that requiring compliance with applicable environmental laws may serve as adequate mitigation of impacts in an appropriate situation, it is also true that compliance with such laws does not necessarily assure that a project does not have significant effects. The EIR must explain how this measure will reduce this project's cumulative effects to less than significant. Cumulative impacts to water quality are also deemed less than significant after mitigation with no analysis of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The program envisions the depositing of wastewater to land over an area of over 5,000 acres on top of planned development as envisioned in the Lodi General Plan, the Stockton General Plan and the San Joaquin County SanFran-166263.1 0060869-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 4 General Plan with the downslope waterway, the San Joaquin River, listed as an impaired water body. The DEIR defers quantification of the potential degradation of surface water and groundwater quality as speculative but then finds, without any analysis at all, that requiring WDRs and complying with best management practices would render the cumulative impacts to water quality less than significant. This cursory review of significant cumulative impacts to water quality fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. Alternatives The alternatives analysis in the DEIR limits its discussion to only one alternative aside from the no project alternative. This is inadequate as a matter of law because the DEIR fails to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. CEQA requires that an HIR consider and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Specifically, Guidelines section 15126.6(a) provides, "An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines further state, "tile discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." Guidelines section 15126.6(b). The DEIR analyzes only one project alternative other than the "no project" alternative. This alternative, the so-called `reduced acreage alternative," however, includes more acreage than two of the proposed optional projects and is thus, not a reduced alternative at all. This analysis fails to meet the minimum requirements of CEQA with regard to alternatives. The DEIR also should explore another alternative not mentioned, i.e., to use the treated water for irrigating parks and landscaping within nearby developed areas. Such an alternative could reduce the acreage of any associated sphere of influence revision and could be beneficial to the communities of both the City of Lodi and the City of Stockton. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The City of Lodi's responses to comments received on the DEIR are for the most part inadequate. The responses in many cases ignore the precise issue raised by the commenter and respond with generalizations about the level of analysis in a program level EIR. These responses are inadequate because they are conclusory and do not provide sufficient reasoning to support the City's position. CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b) requires "[T]he major environmental issues SanFran-166263.1 0060969-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page S raised when the Lead Agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." Comments Regarding Air Quality Impacts Several commenters noted that the EIR's review of air quality impacts was insufficient. The responses improperly defer analysis to the later selection of a project. Not only is the DEIR's analysis insufficient but the responses to comments on this issue are also inadequate since they provide no explanation for why, as the City of Lodi claims, the analysis cannot be performed at this time. One commenter also recommends a health risk assessment be performed. (Comment A-4.) This suggested mitigation measure is rejected and it is suggested that such as assessment might be performed in the future. But the response offers no explanation as to why a health assessment might not be a feasible measure to implement at this time. The response is inadequate and the failure to include this feasible mitigation measure requires recirculation. Comments Regarding Growth Inducing Impacts Comment A-2 raises concerns that the DEIR's discussion of growth inducing impacts is insufficient. The response provided by the City of Lodi is inadequate. The comment states that the DEIR's analysis of growth inducing impacts should be measured with reference to actual conditions as opposed to that which is projects based on the applicable planning documents. The response completely overlooks the commenter's point and instead provides a recitation of the distinction between program and project level EIRs. The response is inadequate for at least two reasons. First, the baseline for measuring impacts, growth inducing or other, is, as the commenter correctly points out, the conditions that exist on the ground rather than what is projected by various planning documents. This does not change when an EIR is described as a program EIR instead of a project EIR. The response's failure to respond to this point renders it inadequate under CEQA. Second, a program level ETR rather than providing less analysis of growth inducing impacts than a project level ETR should actually provide a more substantial analysis of these impacts. This is particularly true where, as here, the program under consideration is a sphere of influence expansion which by its very nature is designed to accommodate future growth. The response merely states that the analysis in the DEIR was proper without providing any explanation. It SanFran-166263.1 0050869-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 6 describes growth inducing impacts as "speculative." Growth inducing impacts are by necessity projections of potential futures development resulting from the proposed project or program. In addition, the DEIR itself, in other sections, acknowledges that it will be growth inducing. Specifically, section 3.1 indicates, "A Sphere of Influence is defined as a planning boundary outside of a city or special district's legal boundary that designates the agency's probable future boundary and service area." (DEIR p. 3-1, emphasis added). It further describes the program's purpose as "to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi." (Id.) In direct contrast, the City's response states, "There is no reason to conclude that the establishment of the sphere of influence would be growth inducing." (FEIR p. 4-3.) Both the analysis of growth inducing impacts and the response to comments on the topic are legally inadequate. The City must complete this analysis and recirculate the DEIR for further public review and comment. Comments Regarding Cumulative Impacts Comment A-3 identifies several commercial and residential projects that should be addressed in the cumulative impacts section of the document. The response states that the developments identified by the commenter were included "at a program -level of analysis." (FEIR p. 4-4.) The response refers to page 4-3 of the DEIR but no such page exists and no where does the DEIR clearly identify its basis for cumulative impacts analysis. Thus, the response, which merely states that the identified projects are included, is inadequate. Some explanation of projects considered in the cumulative impacts analysis is necessary. Moreover, as explained above, a "program -level of analysis" of cumulative impacts should actually be more extensive than at a project -lord, and thus, this response does not serve to explain the limited discussion, Comments Regarding Agricultural Impacts Comment A-6 asks the City to quantify agricultural impacts. The Resources Agency also states that further information on impacts to agricultural lands is warranted. The response states that since the impact is considered unavoidably significant no quantification of the impacts is necessary. This response is legally inadequate. CEQA case law plainly holds that concluding that an impact is significant and unavoidable is no substitute for providing adequate analysis of the impact. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal_App.4cn 1344 (finding air quality impact analysis inadequate even sanFran-166263.1 0060869-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2404 Page 7 though EIR determined them to be unavoidably significant). The City of Lodi provides no explanation for why quantification of the impact might be difficult or impossible and, in fact, this type of impact is easily quantifiable since it involves a set amount of impacted farmland. In addition, the Resources Agency recommends in its comment letter (comment C-5) that the EIR should include use of agricultural easements to mitigate agricultural impacts. The City's failure to incorporate this feasible mitigation measure requires recirculation. Comments Regarding Alternatives Analysis Several commenters, including the City of Stockton, commented that the DEIR failed to discuss a reasonable range of alternatives in that it did not discuss alternatives using the remainder of Shin Kee Tract and areas east of Highway 1-5 and north of Kingdon Road, Tredway Road, and Harney Lane and that the DEIR did not identify or discuss alternatives that were rejected from consideration. (Comments A-9 and B-3.) The City of Lodi responded that a detailed discussion of site suitability was presented in the Sphere of Influence Technical Report and that the foregoing suggested areas were "primarily precluded ... due to conveyance issues." The remainder of Shin Kee Tract is surrounded by water and levees; therefore conveyance of effluent to this location would be significantly more difficult than delivery to the designated Sphere of Influence areas. In addition, conveyance to the Shin Kee Tract would require crossing a state wildlife area. The areas located to the east of I-5 and north of Kingdon Road, Tredway Road, and Harney Lane were also considered; however, if the City were to restrict land application to these areas, the City would need to provide additional pumping and conveyance. Furthermore, any applications north of Hwy 12 or east of the Union Pacific Railroad would require additional subsurface conveyance facilities to circumvent these rights-of-way. (Response B-3.) Lodi echoed the foregoing in its response to Comment A-9, adding that "[t]hese alternatives, and all other potential alternatives to the proposed program, were considered infeasible as there were no alternatives that would meet the program's objectives. (Response A-9.) These responses fall short of what CEQA requires. Selecting alternatives to be discussed in an EIR is a two-stage process. First, the lead agency identifies potential alternatives SanFran-166263.1 0060869-00002 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 8 that meet the threshold tests defining suitable alternatives. Second, the lead agency considers the suitable alternatives that remain and identifies a reasonable range for review in the EIR; it is in this second stage that one or more typical alternatives representing the range of options available is chosen. There are four common threshold tests used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR: (1) The alternative does not meet most of the basic project objectives, (2) it is not potentially feasible, (3) it cannot substantially reduce significant environmental effects, or (4) it is plainly unreasonable. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) & (c). "The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c). The CEQA Guidelines define "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines § 15364. They elaborate by providing a nonexclusive list of factors that may be considered in assessing feasibility: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, whether the project proponent already owns the site, and whether the project proponent can acquire, control, or have access to the site if it does not own it. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1). Here, two reasons are offered for excluding the suggested alternatives from discussion in the EIR: (1) Pointing to "conveyance issues," the EIR implies that the alternatives are not potentially feasible. (2) the EIR states that the alternatives would not "meet the program's objectives." With rospoet to the first reason, a determination of monomie infeasibility must be supported by evidence and analysis showing that an alternative cannot reasonably be implemented due to economic constraints. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 737 (a determination that an environmentally superior alternative is economically infeasible must be supported by evidence showing that the additional costs or lost profits would make the project impractical). The EIR offers no such evidence or analysis. With respect to the Shin Kee Tract, the EIR simply states that conveyance of effluent to that area "would be significantly more difficult" than conveyance to the proposed project area. It does not say—or show—that the difficulties of conveyance would render the project impractical. With respect to the other suggested areas, Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 9 Lodi merely notes that conveyance to such areas would require additional pumping or subsurface facilities; it does not say or show that such facts would render the project impractical. It is important to recognize a difference in the assessment of alternatives in the two stages. When selecting alternatives for an EIR, the lead agency's task is to identify a range of alternatives that will satisfy basic project objectives while reducing significant impacts. Alternatives that are not at least potentially feasible are excluded at this stage because there is no point in studying alternatives that cannot succeed. The focus is on the question of whether an alternative can, as a practical matter, be implemented. At the project approval stage, the decision -makers weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of the project and the alternatives deemed to be potentially feasible, taking into account environmental, economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations. The result is a decision either to approve the project or adopt one of the alternatives. The agency makes this decision after considering the entire range of issues and policies relevant to its action on the project. A decision to reject the alternatives in favor of the project is referred to as a determination that the alternatives are infeasible. Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zishke, Practice Under The California Environmental Quality Act § 15.9, p. 592 (Jan. 2002 Update). Here, the City of Lodi eliminated the suggested alternatives from discussion in the EIR without assessing their potential feasibility on their own merits as required in the first (scoping) stage. Instead, before an EIR was prepared, the City apparently engaged in the weighing of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the project and the suggested alternatives and found the alternatives `would be significantly more difficult" to implement. That is the very type of analysis that CEQA requires be discussed in the EIR. The suggested alternatives, thus, should not have been excluded from the EIR, they should have been discussed in it. With respect to the second reason, little need be said as it is plainly specious. The EIR simply asserts in a single statement that the alternatives would not serve the project's objectives; it offers no supporting explanation or evidence. As the suggested alternative areas have much the same character as the proposed project area, there is no reason to suppose that they would not serve the project's objectives. The EIR should be revised to discuss a reasonable range of alternatives encompassing the suggested areas and then recirculated for public comment. saffmn-]56263.1 oo60869-00001 Lodi City Council August 31, 2004 Page 10 RECIRCULATION Is REQUIRED CEQA requires a DEIR to be recirculated when: (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043). Guidelines section 15088.5(a) This DEIR must be recirculated because it was fundamentally inadequate precluding meaningful comment. The DEIR was particularly inadequate with regard to its analysis of air quality impacts, land use impacts, cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts and alternatives. The deficiencies in these areas, as described both herein and in previous comments, are so fundamental that the analyses must be almost completely rewritten and, thus, recirculated for public review. Yours truly, bila - David Ivester DMUtp cc: Konradt Bartlam, Director, Lodi City Community Development Department Stockton City Council Mark E. Lewis, Stockton City Manager Richard E. Nosky, Stockton City Attorney James Glaser, Stockton Community Development Director 5anFron-166263.1 0060869-00002 DRAFT EIR RECEIVED $10 - 1 2004 City Clerk CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Draft Program Environmental Impact Report April 14, 2004 Prepared for. City of Lodi Community Development Department P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Prepared by. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Incorporated 1909 Capitol Avenue, Suite 304 Sacramento, CA 95614 916.803.2309 TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WPCF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................. .................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction................................................................... ............. 1-1 1.2 Proposed Program...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Program.......................................................................... 1-3 1.4 issues to be Resolved and Areas of Concern. .......................................... .................... 1-4 1.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts............................................................................. 1-5 2.0 INTRODUCTION.. ............... -,- ...... -- ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Purpose of the EIR................................................ ................ 2-1 2.2 CEQA EIR Process................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Assumptions Used in the EIR...................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Terminology Used in the EIR...................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 EIR Organization........................................................................................................2-5 4/23/2004 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM................................................................................3-1 3.1 introduction................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Program Location.......................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Program Background.................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Other Project Relevant to the Proposed Program......................................................... 3-6 3.5 Proposed Program ................................................. .. 3-7 3.6 Proposed Program Objectives..................................................................... ... 3-17 3.7 Alternatives to the Proposed Program........................................................................ 3-17 3.8 Elements and Actions Associated with the Proposed Program ..................................... 3-19 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................................4-1 4.0 Introduction to the Environmental Analysis................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Land Use/Agricultural Resources............................................................................. 4.1-1 4. 1.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.1-1 4.1.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.1-9 4.2 Geology, Soils and Seismicity.................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.2.1 Setting................................................................... .................................. ... 4.2-1 4.2.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.2-5 4.3 Noise......................................................................................................................4.3-1 4.3.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.3-4 4.4 Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.4.1 Setting........................................................................................................4.4-1 4.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.4-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. i City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4/23/2004 Draft Program EIR Table of Contents 4.5 Public Services and Utilities .................................... 4.5.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.5.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 4.6 Traffic and Circulation ........................................... 4.6.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.6.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 4.7 Hydrology/Water Quality ....................................... 4.7.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.7.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 4.8 Air Quality/Odor.................................................... 4.8.1 Setting .................................................... 4.8.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 49 Hazardous Materials/Health Risks .......................... 4.9.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.9.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 4.10 Biological Resources .............................................. 4.10.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.10.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... 4.11 Cultural Resources ................................................ 4.11.1 Setting ...................................................... 4.11.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............... .................................................. 4.5-1 .................................................. 4.5-1 .................................................. 4.5-4 .................................................. 4.&1 .......---...............................4.&1 .................................................. 4.6-2 .................................................. 4.7-1 .................................................. 4.7-1 .................................................. 4.7-5 .................................................. 4.&1 .................................................. 4.&1 .................................................. 4.8-8 .................................................. 4.94 .................................................. 4.9-1 ................................................ 4.9-5 ............... .............. ......... .....•-..4.10-1 ......... ...................................... 4.10-1 ............................................... 4.10-19 .................................................4.11-1 .... . .............. .............................. 4.11-1 .......... .. .................... .. ............... 4.11-7 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Program.......................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Reduced Acreage Alternative..................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 No Project Alternative................................................................................................ 5-5 5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................................... 5-8 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM.................................6-1 6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Development and Growth Trends of the City of Lodi ................................................... 6-2 6.3 Growth Effects of the Proposed Program..................................................................... 6--2 6.4 Secondary Effects of Growth...................................................................................... 6-4 7.0 OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts ... .............................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..................................................................... 7-4 8.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS.......................................................... ..8-1 9.0 ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................... 9-1 10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................1(1-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence ii Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EM 4123/2004 Table of Contents List of Tables 1-1 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures........................................................ 1-6 3-1 1990 General Plan Projected Populations and Corresponding Wastewater Flow Rates ............. 3-5 3-2 Land Areas Requirements for Option 1 (acres) ..................................................... ............ 3-8 3-3 Land Areas Requirements for Option 2 (acres)................................................................... 3-10 3-4 Land Areas Requirements for Option 3 (acres) ..................................................... .......... 3-12 4.2-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale For Earthquakes .................... 4.2-2 Soil Series Drainage Characterization................................................................................. 4.2-3 4.3-1 Typical Construction Noise Levels..................................................................................... 4.3-5 4.3-2 Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment............................................................ 4.3-6 4.8-1 Major Criteria Pollutants................................................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................... 4.8-3 4.8-3 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Designations and Classifications........................................................................................ 4.8-3 4.8-4 Ambient Air Quality at Stockton Monitoring Sites............................................................... 4.8-4 4.10-1 Specialstatus Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the White Slough WPCF Sphere of InfluenceArea................................................................................................................4.10-6 4.10-2 Special status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the White Slough WPCF Sphere of InfluenceArea................................................................................................................4.10-7 List of Figures 3.1 Proposed Sphere of Influence Location................................................................................. 3-2 3.2 Proposed Sphere of Influence Area...................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Land Disposal and Storage Option 1................................................................... .............. 3-9 3.4 Land Disposal and Storage Option 2.. ................................. 3.5 Land Disposal and Storage Option 3 ................................... 3.6 Reduced Acreage Alternative ... ..... ............. -- ............ ....... 4.1-1 Proposed Sphere of Influence Existing Zoning ..................... 4.1-2 Proposed Sphere of Influence Agricultural Designations....... 4.2-1 Proposed Sphere of Influence Soils Map ............................. 4.10-1 Habitat Occurring within the Proposed Sphere of Influence.. ................................................ 3-11 ................................................ 3-13 ................. I .............................. 3-18 ............................................... 4.1-2 ............................................... 4.1-4 ............................................... 4.2-4 ..............................................4.10-4 Appendices _ Appendix A NOP and NOP Comments Received Appendix B San Joaquin County LAFCo Guidelines Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Species List Appendix D List of Species Observed in the Sphere of Influence Project Area Appendix E Letters Mailed to Individuals and Organizations Identified by the NAHC Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. iii City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 4/2312004 Draft Program EIR 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi (City) has prepared this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to provide the public and Responsible and Trustee Agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of Lodi White SIough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence program. The City of Lodi Community Development Department will act as the Lead Agency for the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence Program EIR. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a new governmental program or to adopt a new body of regulations in a regulatory program. The program EIR will enable the City of Lodi to examine the overall effects of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout and will allow them to take steps to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14), and San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) guidelines and criteria. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is a public information document that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed program, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed program that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires that state and local government consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority. Establishing the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence constitutes a "program" under CEQA. The EIR is an informational document used in the planning and decision-making process. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a program. PROPOSED PROGRAM OVERVIEW The City of Lodi is proposing a 5,280 acre (includes the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF and its associated properties) Sphere of Influence around the White Slough WPCF to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long- term future growth under the existing General Plan of the City of Lodi. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1-i City ajLodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ojlnjluence 04123104 Draft Program EIR 1.0 ExecadveSummary changes. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program has been designed to meet the following primary objectives: ■ Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 million gallons per day (MGD)]. ■ Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities. ■ Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability. 1.2 PROPOSED PROGRAM Three storage and land disposal options have been identified that would allow the City to meet the long- term goals of the WPCF to accommodate growth as allowed in the City of Lodi General Plan. However, the preferred long-term land application option to provide for 100 percent reuse of the City's effluent could not reasonably be determined at this time. Therefore, the proposed Sphere of Influence would include sufficient land area to provide for land disposal of reclaimed water of the identified storage and disposal options as well as meet state land disposal requirements; provide for land disposal of biosolids per EPA guidelines; and provide for an urban -open space interface. The best practical estimate for the proposed program is for the 5,280 acre Sphere of Influence around the existing WPCF, providing for the area requirements for each of the three land disposal options described below. Note that the acreage requirements for the options below include the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF. LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 1 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE IN PONDS (3,890 ACRES) Year-round land application reuse would include applying biosolids and reclaimed water to dedicated lands during the summer irrigation season from the beginning of April through October. Flows generated in the winter would be stored from October until the irrigation season begins in April. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties for irrigation, which would either be City owned or under long-term agreement with the City to accept the high quality recycled water. After the irrigation season(s), effluent would be held in storage ponds until the following irrigation season (West Yost 2003). City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 1-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 1.0 Executive Summary LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 2 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND PERCOLATION BASIN DISPOSAL (2,310 ACRES) This Land Disposal Option would also include land application from April to October; however, in addition to winter storage, reclaimed water would also be disposed of in percolation basins. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties. Most of this reclaimed water would be used for irrigation, while the remaining reclaimed water would be applied to an approximate 200 acre area of permanent percolation basins. After the irrigation season(s), some of the land application area would be converted to percolation basins for the winter, to create approximately 770 acres of percolation basins. During the winter months, reclaimed water would both be stored and partially disposed in these percolation basins. All of the percolation basin area would need to be owned and operated by the City, while the dedicated land application areas could be made available to the City for disposal under an agreement to accept recycled water for irrigation (West Yost 2003). LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 3 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION (4,470 ACRES) This Land Disposal Option would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 acre treatment wetland facility that is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other Land Disposal Options, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months, however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored in ponds and used to create a large, seasonal reuse wetland, thereby providing valuable wildlife habitat in the Delta region. Vegetation in the wetlands would attract wildlife, and facilities could provide an environment suitable for both educational and recreational purposes (West Yost 2003). The proposed Sphere of Influence program would create a zone of consideration for future WPCF projects and would not include any of the actions as described in the three above Land Disposal and Storage Options. Project -level environmental review under CEQA would be conducted prior to any project -related actions taking place in the Sphere of Influence. 1.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15123[b][3] and 15126[d]) requires an EIR to consider a range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the program objectives of the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence. The Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative are described below: Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. 1-3 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 04/23104 Draft Program ElR 1.0 Executive REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE (4,240 ACRES) The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP requesting that a reduced acreage alternative be developed to address future potential impacts on agricultural lands (See Appendix A for CDFA letter)(CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Alternative of 4,240 acres would allow for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would not allow for as much flexibility in disposal methods and would not include areas to buffer disposal activities from other uses. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within a Sphere of Influence. It should be noted, however, that additional lands may still be needed for future land disposal and storage areas if Sphere of Influence Iands were not made available. Under the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if the WPCF Sphere of Influence is not created. These alternatives are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives Analysis. 1.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED AND AREAS OF CONCERN In accordance with Sections 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lodi Community Development Department prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR on September 15, 2003. The NOP was available for public and agency review and comment for a 30 -day period, which ended October 15, 2003. The NOP and meetings with the City of Lodi identified that the proposed Sphere of Influence could result in impacts in the following environmental issue areas that are evaluated in the EIR: ■ Land Use/Agricultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity ■ Noise • Visual Resources ■ Public Services and Utilities • Traffic and Circulation ■ Hydrology/Water Quality • Air Quality/Odor City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 1-4 Hughes Environmental ConsuRants, Inc. Drat} Program EIR 04/23/04 1.0 ExecudveSuinmary ■ Hazardous Materials ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Growth Inducement ■ Cumulative Impacts 1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The designation of the proposed Sphere of Influence allows the City of Lodi to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at this time. Following this approach, when one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence are proposed, the City of Lodi would be required to examine the individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in this Program EIR. If the future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout activities have effects beyond the summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures detailed in this Program EIR, further CEQA compliance would be required. Table 11 presents a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize potential impacts as a result as implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options developed within the proposed Sphere of Influence. Project -level environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted, if necessary, prior to any actions taking place in the Sphere of Influence. In the table, the level of significance of each environmental impact is indicated both before and after the application of the recommended mitigation measures(s). For detailed discussions of all program impacts and mitigation measures, the reader is referred to environmental analysis sections in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis. Hughes Environmental Consuitsnts, Inc. 1-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04113104 Draft Program EIR 1.0 Executive Summary Insert Summary Table 1-1 (Will be included in Draft EIR) City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 1-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION 4.1 LAND U5 EI AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. 4.1.2 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could increase the potential for surrounding land use conflicts. These conflicts would predominately occur on lands adjacent to the northern and southern proposed Sphere of Influence limits. 4.1.3 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands. 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. CU4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San S 4.1.1a Implement conditions of the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg ortese-KnoxHertzberg Act guidelines and standards regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4. 1.1 b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local Significance, and shall avoid converting any Williamson Contract lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract termination. SU LS 4.1.2 None Required LS PS 4.1.3 Upon Sphere of Influence buildout, provide appropriate LS compensation to property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law. S 4.1.4 implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on SU future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. CS CU4.1.5aImplement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on CSU future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Significant/Indirect = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consuhants, Inc. 1-6 - GFty of Lode Wh-Slough WPCFSpherr offirflu — 412312004 Draft Program RIR cilities associated with buildout of the TABLE 1-1 Sphere of Influence on soils with building associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed soils/geotechnical study. Recommendations from this LEVEL OF LEVEL of construction for the project according to accepted SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL OF tONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER SIGNIFICANCE Intent and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water MITIGATION MITIGATION AFTER Discharges associated with Construction Activities. LS led with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.2.3 None Required LS MITIGATION _oss of production from these lands CU4.1.5bimplement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones L5 terse effect on the overall agricultural and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. LS, AND SEISMICITY LS cilities associated with buildout of the PS 4.2.1 Prior to final design and construction of facilities LS Sphere of Influence on soils with building associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of impair the function of the facilities and/or Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed soils/geotechnical study. Recommendations from this study shall be incorporated into the final design and LS construction for the project according to accepted engineering practices. cilities associated with buildout of the PS 4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS LS Sphere of Influence could temporarily proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain a Notice of ind and water erosion within the Intent and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water i area. Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction Activities. LS led with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.2.3 None Required LS ce could expose people and structures to ;mic hazards. L5 icllities associated with buildout of the LS 4.3.1 None Required LS Sphere of Influence would temporarily vels in nearby areas. LS Icilitles associated with buildout of the LS 4.3.2 None Required LS Sphere of Influence would temporarily ,al construction vehicle trips and would Significant = S SignificantAndirect = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = 8 Itanh, Inc _ 1-7 aty of'Lodi Whin Slough WPCF Sph— oflnfl -- Drafi Program EIR PS Beneficial = 8 dough WPCF Spline of In /-- Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.7.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. 4.7.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in flooding impacts. 4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to groundwater. 4.7.4 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to surface water quality. CU4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the LS 4.7.1 None Required PS 4.7.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the issued Waste Discharge Requirements, the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts. PS 4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be located such that potential groundwater impacts are avoided to the extent possible. 4.7.3b The City shall comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such requirements may include design criteria to maintain separation of wetland and storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land application to ensure that regulatory standards for reclaimed water are met, monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitoring program. PS 4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. PS CU4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF LS LS LS LS LS Less than Significant= LS Significant = S Significant/Indirect = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Benefidal = 9 Hughes Environmamtal Consult nts, Inc 1-9 City of Lotti white Slough WPCF Sphere of,150 ce 04123104 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES BEFORE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. CU4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. 4.8 AtRQUALITY 4.8.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. 4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate short-term emissions from construction activities. Sphere of Influence buildout projects. PS CU4.7.6aPotential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. LS 4.8.1 None Required S 4.8.2a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District regarding the Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate. 4.8.2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8020 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved Roads. 4.8.2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS LS LS Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificantAndirect = Sll Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Coreuttents, Inc 1-10 CYry of Lodi White MoWh WPCFbbhme ofl4hiewe 44/23/04 haft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION 4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate objectionable odors in the program vicinity. CU4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization i n the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. proposed Sphere of Influence shall properly maintain equipment to reduce NOx levels. PS 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS proposed Sphere of Influence shall include an odor buffer to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. S CU4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality LS policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Pian, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALSIHEALTH RISKS 4.9.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.9.1 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could require an increase in the frequency of hazardous materials deliveries. 4.9.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.9.2 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could result in an increase in hazardous waste generation. 4.9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within PS 4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary involve the growing of crops that are irrigated with treated approvals from the Department of Health Services and the wastewater, which creates a concern that the public could Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in be exposed to health threats associated with the treated accordance with Section 60323 of the Water Recycling Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificantAndirect = 84 Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 1-11 01y of Lo& Whue Shxegh {fPCFSphenr oflnjl-- 04/23/04 Draft Program ETR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION effluent. Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. 4.9.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.9.4 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of Influence could expose program area residents proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a buffer zone to discomfort, nuisances, and potential adverse health- around mosquito -breeding habitat to address health- related effects by exposing them to mosquitoes, which can related effects associated with mosquitoes. carry serious human illnesses. 4.9.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of Influence could interfere with designated aircraft proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a separation flight patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air distance between airport facilities and any open water that Park as a result of migratory birds. provides habitat for migratory birds. 4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat retention for common wildlife species. 4.10.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would likely increase habitat quality for common wildlife species. 4.10.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in habitat loss for common wildlife species. 4.10.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat protection for special - status species. 4.10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of wetlands. LS 4.10.1 None Required B 4.10.2 None Required LS 4.10.3 None Required B 4.10.4 None Required PS 4.10.5a As a condition of issuance of a grading permit associated with potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall LS B LS B LS Less than Significant = LS Significant= S Significantfindirect = Sn Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 1-12 City of Lodi Wkte,S"jh WPCF $henoflnflio e 04123104 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION require avoidance of sensitive biological resources, including wetlands and "waters of the U.S." (see Figure 4.10-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, the City of Lodi shall design the project to minimize impacts onsensitive biological resources. 4.10.5b For potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and "waters of the U.S.," the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; a Section 404 wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601 Stream bed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all Of the following: ■ Minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources; • Cons truction-related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); ■ On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Significant/Indirect = 511 Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes EnvironlnelKal Consukants, Inc 1-13 City of Lad White Slough WPCF re of1VhWnCE 04123/04 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER (MITIGATION MITIGATION 4.10.6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate special - status plant or wildlife species. and restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.) is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required for the proposed project. PS 4.10.6a The City of Lodi shalt complete detailed speciai-Gtatus species surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi shall redesign the project to minimize impacts. 4.10.6b For unavoidable impacts to listed special -status species associated with future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: an Incidental Take permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to state listed species; and a Section 7 or 10 biological LS Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificantAndirect = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consukants, Inc 1-t4 Oty of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sph— oflnJhie>wce 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION opinion or incidental take permit from the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or ail of the following: ■ Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species; • Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsitespecialstatus plant and wildlife species (i.e. construction worker training, restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would require the City to passively or actively relocate some species, create or enhance habitat for the species, or preserve and restore on -or offsite habitat for the species. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite special -status species preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could conduct offsite special -status species habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificanVlndirect = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Signiticant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes £nvlronnwrttal Consullsnts, Inc 1-15 City of Lade While Slough WPCFsphere oflnfluence 04123/0¢ Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE MITIGATIONSIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MEASURES AFTER MrrioAT1oN MITIGATION Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for species impacts. Mitigation may include restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the implementation of construction best management practices, etc. 4.10.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of LS Sphere of Influence could disturb nesting raptors and facility expansion sites, once these sites are determined other migratory birds. under future Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found to be present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction activities outside the bird nesting season (typically January 15 through August 15 of each year). 4.10.7b If construction activities cannot be completed within the specified non -breeding season of August 16th to January 14th of each year, the City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the nests. The California Department of Fish and Game may also require the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Management Agreement to reduce and potentially offset impacts to nesting raptors. At a minimum the City shall conduct the following when nesting raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere of Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Signititcantllndirect = Sll Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Envitomnen el Conauttents, Inc 1-16 City of La& White Slough WPCFSphene offnf -- 04/13104 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION Influence buildout project site: • Conduct a nesting raptor survey to identify active raptor nests. • Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically % mile, but can be reduced through negotiations with CDFG); • Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area until young in nest are fledged. • Allow contractor to remove tree in its entirety only after young have fledged (as verified by CDFG and/or a qualified biologist). • Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re- planting of the same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest tree eliminated. 4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.10.8 To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees LS Sphere of Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian and loss or degradation of riparian woodland habitat habitats or native trees. associated with futu re projects under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to identify locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall conduct some or all of the following: • Avoid impacts to native trees. ■ Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and individual tree loss through a combination of project design and construction - related avoidance of native trees. Construction - related avoidance and protection of trees would Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SigniFicantAndired = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Envlronmsntal Consultants, Inc 1-17 City of Lodi white Slough WPCFSph— ofleflueru9e 04123104 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION include the installation of protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access roads near native trees to be retained; Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat areas. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. The City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final native tree compensation approaches. 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence PS 4.11.1 Site-specific archival research and architectural field LS could impact standing structures with potential surveys would be required prior to undertaking any historical significance. future projects within the WPCF Sphere of Influence that could impact the potential historical significance of standing structures within the program area. 4.11.2 Ground -disturbing actions associated with future PS 4.11.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, LS buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence and consultation with the Native American Heritage could result in the accidental destruction of previously Commission and designated Native American undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or representatives shall be required prior to undertaking could result in the uncovering of Native American any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of human remains. Influence in the future. 4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved in any form of ground disturbance (i. e., trenching, Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificantAndirect = SII Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, frit -- - 1-18 City of Lodi Whim Slough WPCF S,ph— ofhO-- 04123104 Draft Program EIR TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL Of LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNIFICANCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION grading, etc.) shall be advised of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or human remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately and the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be notified. In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section 21083.2(i), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted, who shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the resource. 4.11.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, California Law requires that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the San Joaquin County Coroner is contacted. If the Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) and PRO Section 5097.98. A note to this effect shall be included on all construction plans and specifications. Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Signlficantllndirect = 81 Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consult nts, Inc 1-19 CityofLodi Whfte St -ugh WPCF-vp*e- ofhylfu- 04/23/04 D -ft Program EIR CHapter 2 Page 1 of 5 CHAPTER 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on them. The primary purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform agencies and the public of any significant environmental effects associated with the proposed City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence Program. The City of Lodi Community Development Department will act as the Lead Agency for the proposed program. CEQA requires that a lead agency neither approve nor carry out a project unless significant environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level, or unless specific findings are made attesting to the infeasibility of altering the project to reduce or avoid environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15091, 15092 and 15163[c]). An acceptable level is defined as eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening the significant effects. CEQA also requires that decisionmakers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the City of Lodi may still approve the program if it believes that social, economic, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable impacts. The City would then be required to state in writing the specific reasons for approving the program based on information in the EIR, as well as other information in the public record. The process is defined as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" by the state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093. Ultimately, this EIR will be used by the City of Lodi as a tool in evaluating buildout of the proposed program's environmental impacts and can be further used to modify, approve, or deny approval of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout based on the analyses provided in this document. TYPE OF EIR The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This draft ETR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168. Under CEQA, a Program EIR is a first-tier environmental document that assesses and documents the broad environmental impacts of a program with the understanding that more detailed review may be required to assess future projects implemented under the program. The Program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a new governmental program or to adopt a new body of regulations in a regulatory program. This Program EIR will enable the City of Lodi to examine the overall effects of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout and will allow them to take steps to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects. This Program EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that could potentially occur as a result of program implementation, and attempts http://www.lodi.gov/soi/chapter_2.htm 08/03/2004 CHapter 2 Page 2 of 5 to the extent feasible, to anticipate WPCF buildout development that could occur as a result of the proposed Sphere of Influence program. 2.2 CEQA EIR PROCESS NOTICE OF PREPARATION In accordance with Sections 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lodi prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR on September 15, 2003 (see Appendix A). The NOP was available for public and agency review and comment for a 30 -day period, which ended October 15, 2003. These notices were circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed program. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft Program EIR and are presented in Appendix A. The City received letters from the following agencies and interested parties: • Laura E. Bainbridge, Attorney at Law, September 25, 2003 — Laura E. Bainbridge represents Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Coldani, and Steven Coldani, whom own a significant amount of property that falls within the proposed Sphere of Influence of the White Slough WPCF. Although there were no specific comments on the Sphere of Influence, the letter states that they are reserving the right to make specific comments when they receive more specific information. The letter also states concerns regarding bio -solid disposal issues, increased odor and air pollution, mosquito problems, increased traffic and resultant noise and dust problems, increased noise due to the facility itself, and diminuation in the value of the subject property due to the increase in the size and scope of the WPCF. Concerns regarding biosolids disposal are addressed in Section 4.9, Hazardous Materials under impacts 4.9.1 and 4.9.3. Potential odor, air pollution, and dust concerns are addressed in Section 4.8, Air Quality/Odor under impacts 4.8.2 and 4.8.3. Potential mosquito issues and associated health related hazards are addressed in Section 4.9, Hazardous Materials under impact 4.9.4. The potential for increased traffic as a result of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout is addressed in Section 4.6, Traffic/Circulation under impact 4.6.1. Potential noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.3, Noise under impacts 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. The potential for the diminuation in the value of the Coldani property due to the increase in the size and scope of the WPCF is addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use/Agricultural Resources under impact 4.1.2. • California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), October 20, 2003 - The main concerns in the CDFA comment letter were that the proposed Sphere of Influence would include more than 3,000 acres of Prime and Unique Farmlands, including lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act. The CDFA advised that the environmental document address the impacts of the proposed program on agricultural land and the associated Williamson Act contracts. They indicated that the analysis should address the direct conversion, cumulative, and growth -inducing impacts of the proposed program. The CDFA indicated that this potential impact is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands. They indicated that the environmental document should also address the Williamson Act contract termination impacts of the program in consultation with the California Department of Conservation (CDC). Finally, the CDFA indicated that the environmental document should include a discussion of program alternatives and http:l/www.lodi.gov/soi/chapter_2.htm 08/03/2004 CHapter 2 Page 4 of 5 mentioned in the Notice of Determination (NOD)(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093[c]). 2.3 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE EIR The San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 and the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan serve as the overall guiding policy documents for the unincorporated areas of the County. The City of Lodi General Plan serves as the current land use and policy documents for the City of Lodi. The elements and policies of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the City of Lodi General Plan, and the Lodi Community Plan were generally examined on a "program" level in relation to the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary. Project -level environmental review under CEQA would be conducted, and if necessary, a separate environmental document would be prepared prior to any project -related actions taking place in the Sphere of Influence. 2.4 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE EIR This Draft Program EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the proposed program. ■ Significance Criteria: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level or "threshold" an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this EIR include standards set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, factual or scientific information, regulatory standards of local, state, and federal agencies, and guiding and implementing goals and policies identified in the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the Lodi Community Plan. ■ Beneficial Impact: A beneficial impact would result in the improvement of an existing physical condition in the environment (no mitigation required). ■ Less Than Significant Impact: A less than significant impact would cause no substantial change in the environment (no mitigation required). ■ Potentially Significant Impact: A potentially significant impact may cause a substantial change in the environment; however, additional information is needed regarding the extent of the impact. For CEQA purposes, a potentially significant impact is treated as if it were a significant impact. ■ Significant Impact: A significant impact would cause a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of program effects using specified significance criteria. Mitigation measures and/or program alternatives are identified to reduce program effects to the environment. ■ Significant and Unavoidable Impact: A significant and unavoidable impact would result in a substantial change in the environment that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a less -than -significant level if the program is implemented. ■ Cumulative Significant Impact: A cumulative significant impact would result in a substantial change in the environment from effects of the program as well as surrounding projects and reasonably foreseeable development in the surrounding area. ■ Mitigation Measure: The EIR also identifies feasible mitigation measures that avoid or substantially reduce the program's significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125.4). http://www.lodi.gov/soi/chapter_2.htm 08/03/2004 CHapter 2 Page 5 of 5 2.5 EIR ORGANIZATION This Draft Program EIR is organized into ten chapters as discussed below. Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary. A summary of the program description, a description of the issues to be resolved and areas of controversy, the significant environmental impacts that would result from program implementation, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts is provided in this chapter. Chapter 2.0, Introduction. This chapter describes the purpose and organization of the EIR and the EIR preparation, review and certification process. Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program. Chapter 3.0 describes the program background, existing WPCF facilities, planned facilities, and projected build -out flow rates; describes the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence; outlines program objectives, describes the program alternatives; and lists the elements and actions associated with the proposed program approval. Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis. For each environmental issues area, such as Land Use/Agricultural Resources, Chapter 4.0 describes the existing environmental setting, discusses the environmental impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, and identifies mitigation measures for the impacts. Cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are detailed in this section. Chapter 5.0, Alternatives Analysis. Chapter 5.0 describes the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative and compares them with the proposed program. Chapter 6.0, Growth Inducing Impact of the Proposed Program. Chapter 6.0 discusses the potential for the proposed program to induce urban growth and development. Chapter 7.0, Other Statutory Considerations. Chapter 7.0 discusses several issues required by CEQA, including cumulative impacts. Chapter 8.0, Document Preparers. Chapter 8.0 provides the names of the ETR authors and consultants. Chapter 9.0, Acronyms. Chapter 9.0 provides a list of acronyms used in the EIR. Chapter 10.0, Bibliography. Chapter 10.0 provides a list of reference materials and persons consulted during the preparation of the EIR. Appendices. This section includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the EIR, as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis. http://v,,ww.lodi.gov/soi/chapter-2.htrn 08/03/2004 3.0 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CHAPTER 3.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM 3.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi is proposing a Sphere of Influence around the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi. The existing 1,040 acre WPCF has been annexed to the City of Lodi. A Sphere of Influence is defined as a planning boundary outside of a city or special district's legal boundary that designates the agency's probable future boundary and service area. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes, and is intended to encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. The City of Lodi Community Development Department will act as the Lead Agency and will prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence. The document will be prepared in accordance to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and San Joaquin County LAFCO guidelines and criteria. 3,2 PROGRAM LOCATION The City of Lodi is located at the juncture of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, about 50 miles east of the Carquinez Strait and 25 miles west of the Sierra Nevada foothills, Lodi i5 Sitaated between Sacramento and Stockton on State Highway 99, and is the northernmost city of San Joaquin County. The White Slough WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area adjacent to Interstate 5, approximately 6.5 miles west-southwest of the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California (see Figure 3.1— Proposed Sphere of Influence Location). The White Slough WPCF property is approximately 1,040 acres, which includes 390 acres of area irrigated with the City's treated effluent and industrial flows. The treatment plant and the City's effluent -irrigated lands are surrounded by pasture lands to the north, south, and west of the program site (City of Lodi 1992). Interstate 5 runs north to south, crossing the City's property just cast of the White Slough WPCF. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3-1 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR BY S— �r•....Bm 9f ~. '.i• 4. To Loa R r ..o °,., A » :s r' e. r ° 1 ...... ..... I ..�,." 7 4 g , I KINGDON ROAD yav �lA:� AI - •e� m Kingdz I ; � 6« T k y .�1 �` mss♦ �''wBroIBF`= 1 _ .. _ ..p H IVEI' NEwHFv uHF 1 w fl w rsa '._ D i R-r. c .. _ t _ • * 1�Iw.... Y RO_AO � Tin '° S"sji { N ' N E E - - a. �_ -lam ,•' [ '. T R A G .. T:.'"- -' c -- _.... 23 - a........ — I �® I 24 ra' L Nk��, `T m - s ar �: p y STORAGE PONDS' 3 i o ^A. f ffi i IG wel DREAGER.Syq„�UT B•:..:. wrl _ 9 - o �JG RQ fl AD z � sarn, OI�T IlAllf WP [ CF TREATMENT ( � - - r • w«I... i � FACILMES � ° •4; . V \ ; i m . - nl. , +. T R A C T y . tea � ° ........ 9 _.. ...._ TELETI�NE Smvn SCUT `_- ---�P ,� � _, .. { � t v g • 5 - ... _... _ E : 36. _ —_. ..__..... ......E r: = ♦ ..: LEGEND: - — -- - BOUNDARY OF CITY-OWNED LAND — — - BOUNDARY OF EXISTING EFFLUENT IRRIGATION & AREAS FiM" 3.1 W E B T — - _ BOUNDARY OF BIOSOLIDS LAND APPLICATION AREAS Proposed Sphere of Influence Location mm City of Lod White Slbugh WPCF Sphere of Musnoe x 0 0 T T - 3.0 Descrilstion of the Program The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program, as shown in Figure 3.2 -- Proposed Sphere of Influence Area, would be located on primarily agricultural finds surrounding the existing WPCF; and would be bound by Kingdon Road to the north, Telephone Cut to the south, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks to the east, and Bishop Cut to the west. 3.3 PROGRAM BACKGROUND EXISTING WHITE SLOUGH WPCF TREATMENT AND REUSE FACILITIES The White Slough WPCF currently produces approximately 6.5 millions gallon per day (MGD) of secondary treated wastewater. The current disposal practices include both non-food crop irrigation on approximately 790 acres of the City owned property surrounding the WPCF main treatment facilities during the summer months, and a surface water discharge to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) during the winter months. The municipal wastewater undergoes full secondary treatment, which consists of bar screening, grit removal, primary sedimentation, activated sludge treatment, secondary clarification, and chlorination/ dechlorination. From approximately May 1 st through August 31st, the City elects to divert treated municipal effluent flows to the storage ponds for eventual reuse. From approximately September 1 st through April 30th, the City discharges it municipal effluent to the Delta; however, effluent is also diverted to the storage ponds during these months in the case of occasional minor plant upsets that would cause the City's discharge to exceed effluent limitations (West Yost 2003). Industrial influent flows are directed to the City's storage ponds during the non -irrigation season (October through April) and directly to the City's land application facilities during the remainder of the year. These flows are dominated by the discharge from one large food processor; and therefore, vary significantly throughout the year, with the greatest volume received during the late summer months (West Yost 2003). Biosolids are currently disposed via land application on approximately 510 acres of the City owned properties. Following anaerobic digestion, biosolids are sent to a concrete lined lagoon, where they are stabilized and excess liquids are decanted. The treated biosolids are then blended with the combined treated municipal effluent and industrial flows stored in the City's ponds, and applied by surface spreading to the City's fields. Applications typically occur during the summer months, in a manner consistent with the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for land application of biosolids (West Yost 2003). The City also operates an extensive tailwater return and runoff control system for their properties surrounding the WPCF. These facilities are currently used year-round to control and prevent runoff of the Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3-3 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23104 Draft Program EIR 3 0 Descripfion of the Program irrigation tailwater and local wet -season runoff. In addition to these flows, runoff and tailwater flows that originate off the City owned site are also captured for return to the City's storage facilities. Although the exact volume of these captured flows has not been determined, based on discussions with City staff, the pond storage facilities must generally be emptied via irrigation prior to the onset of the winter months predominately to assure adequate storage is available for the runoff flows (winter storage volumes are also used to hold effluent flows during plant upsets) (West Yost 2003). CURRENT PLANNED FACILITIES UPGRADE In early 2001, the City completed a Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) that defined several potential treatment, discharge and reuse options to meet the design flow demands of 8.5 MGD, as well as to satisfy near-term anticipated discharge requirements. Using the "roadmap" outlined in the WWMP, the City has identified a preferred alternative that relies on a combination of several treatment and reuse options, and includes the development of a treatment and reuse wetland and an intermittent surface water discharge to the Delta. This preferred alternative and a combination of several treatment and reuse options are currently being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project EIR (West Yost 2003). PROJECTED BUILD -OUT FLOW RATES Flow rates for the long-term build -out conditions for the City of Lodi are presented in the 1990 General Plan, where the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD. This flow rate was calculated by assuming a 100 -gallon per capita per day increase for each new member of the population, where the population projections include the Planned Residential Reserve discussed in the General Plan. Additionally, the anticipated flow rate also includes expected contributions from new industrial and commercial uses. A breakdown of this calculation is shown in Table 34 —1990 General Plan Projected Populations and Corresponding Wastewater Flow Rates. At a 1.5 percent growth rate, it is estimated that the WPCF would likely receive flows at this level in approximately 40years, thus requiring additional sewerage facilities and waste disposal areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (West Yost 2003). TABLE 3-1 1990 GENERAL PLAN PROJECTED POPULATIONS AND CORRESPONDING WASTEWATER FLOW RATES Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3-5 City of Lodr White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnflue.ce 04/23/04 Drof} Program EIR Population Flow Rate mgd) Projected Conditions 46,719 6.0 Additional Low Density Housing 2,329 0.23 Additional Low Density Housing 736 0.07 Additional Low Density Housing 206 0.02 Eastside Residential 107 0.01 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3-5 City of Lodr White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnflue.ce 04/23/04 Drof} Program EIR 3.9 Descr' tion o the Pro ram TABLE 3-1 1990 GENERAL PLAN PROJECTED POPULATIONS AND CORRESPONDING WASTEWATER FLOW RATES 3.4 OTHER PROJECTS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CITY OF STOCKTON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The City of Stockton General Plan Update process is currently in the early update stages. The City of Stockton indicated that a Draft EIR for the General Plan Update is anticipated to be available in Summer - Fall 2004 (Stagnaro 2003). The current Study Area Map for the General Plan Update includes a Planning Boundary that extends north to Armstrong Road, which is within the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence southerly boundary. However, it is understood that the Study Area Map outlines the area that would be used when collecting information for the General Plan Update and would generally include more area than anticipated for future General Plan inclusion and may not affect the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi's General Plan at buildout. DELTA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT The City of Stockton prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Delta Water Supply Project, involving a surface water diversion facility and new conveyance pipelines, would serve the increasing water demands of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area (COSMA) by adding an intake at the southwestern tip of Empire Tract on the San Joaquin River (City of Stockton 2003). The City of Lodi WPCF discharges treated wastewater to Bishop Cut/White Slough via Dredger Cut. Due to lack of dilution in Dredger Cut, the City is planning to relocate its discharge to Bishop Cut to take advantage of higher net flows. This is being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project, which is currently in the ADEIR phase. The City of Lodi is concerned that the proposed new City of Stockton intake location would further reduce net flows in Bishop Cut under various Delta flow conditions, which could result in increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements on the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available in the event that Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements for surface water discharge cannot be met in the future (City of Lodi 2003a). City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 3-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 Population Flow Rate (mgd) Planned Residential 21,820 2.18 Planned Residential Reserve 24,645 2.47 Industrial 0.62 Total 96,562 11.6 3.4 OTHER PROJECTS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CITY OF STOCKTON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE The City of Stockton General Plan Update process is currently in the early update stages. The City of Stockton indicated that a Draft EIR for the General Plan Update is anticipated to be available in Summer - Fall 2004 (Stagnaro 2003). The current Study Area Map for the General Plan Update includes a Planning Boundary that extends north to Armstrong Road, which is within the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence southerly boundary. However, it is understood that the Study Area Map outlines the area that would be used when collecting information for the General Plan Update and would generally include more area than anticipated for future General Plan inclusion and may not affect the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi's General Plan at buildout. DELTA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT The City of Stockton prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Delta Water Supply Project, involving a surface water diversion facility and new conveyance pipelines, would serve the increasing water demands of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area (COSMA) by adding an intake at the southwestern tip of Empire Tract on the San Joaquin River (City of Stockton 2003). The City of Lodi WPCF discharges treated wastewater to Bishop Cut/White Slough via Dredger Cut. Due to lack of dilution in Dredger Cut, the City is planning to relocate its discharge to Bishop Cut to take advantage of higher net flows. This is being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project, which is currently in the ADEIR phase. The City of Lodi is concerned that the proposed new City of Stockton intake location would further reduce net flows in Bishop Cut under various Delta flow conditions, which could result in increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements on the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available in the event that Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements for surface water discharge cannot be met in the future (City of Lodi 2003a). City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 3-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 3.0 Desc ' tion of the Program 3.5 PROPOSED PROGRAM The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence, as shown in Figure 3,2 — Proposed Sphere of Influence Area, includes areas that would be potentially required for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions, including the Planned Residential Reserve, if surface water discharges were determined to be unfeasible due to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan), the State Implementation Plan, or Total Maximum Daily Load regulations that may be imposed in the future. The proposed Sphere of Influence would include sufficient land area to provide for land disposal of reclaimed water per the state mandated Title 22 Reclamation Requirements; provide for land disposal of biosolids per EPA guidelines and the State General Biosolids Permit; and provide for an urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth. The three Land Disposal and Storage Options were developed to meet these long-term needs, including the following (see the following section and West Yost and Associates Technical Memorandum available for review at the City of Lodi Community Development Department for a more detailed description of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options)(West Yost 2003). Note that the acreage requirements for the Options below include the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF and its associated properties. ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 1 (3,890 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 2 (2,310 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Percolation Basin Disposal ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 3 (4,470 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Wetlands Reclamation and Storage However, until additional information and requirements by the Central Valley RWQCB are made available, the preferred long-term land application alternative to provide for 100 percent reuse of the City's effluent could not reasonably be determined at this time. The proposed Sphere of Influence would also encompass the area required for wastewater storage and disposal facilities, adequate buffer areas, and has been expanded to encompass local parcel boundaries. Therefore, suitable land area of approximately 5,280 acres (this acreage requirement is larger than the greatest acreage requirement of any of the Options, because the proposed components of each Option require different physical Iocations, resulting in a greater land acreage requirement) would be set aside to provide for the area requirements for each of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, which are described as follows: Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 3-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13104 Draft Program E!R 3.0 Description of the Program+ LAND DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OPTION 1 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE IN PONDS (3,890 ACRES) Under this option, }ear -round land application reuse would include applying biosolids and reclaimed water to dedicated lands during the summer irrigation season from the beginning of April through October. Flows generated in the winter would be stored from October until the irrigation season begins in April. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties for irrigation, which would either be City owned or under long-term agreement with the City to accept the high quality recycled water. After the irrigation season(s), effluent would be held in storage ponds until the following irrigation season (West Yost 2003). The recommended conceptual layout of Land Disposal and Storage Option 1 is shown in Figure 3.3 — Land Disposal and Storage Option I_ As displayed in Table 3-2 — Land Area Requirements for Option 1, it is estimated that to provide the necessary 2,350 acres of land application area, approximately 3,130 acres of land would be required. Additionally, to provide the needed 690 acres of storage basins, approximately 760 acres would be necessary. As shown in Figure 3.3, the recommended conceptual layout includes land areas that are contiguous with the City -owned property, and provides an odor and mosquito buffer for the facilities located therein TA13LE 3-2 LAND AREAS REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 1 (ACRES) Existing Storage or Disposal Facilities Facility Area Potential Facilities Total Area Required Required Land Area Internal Roads, Berms, & Conveyances Area (a) Buffer Area Surplus Land Application Area Storage Basins 40 650 70 - - 760 Land Application Area 440 1,914 190 490 100 (90 net) 3,130 Total 480 2,560 1 -N-01 490 1 100 3,890 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area LAND DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OPTION 2 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND PERCOLATION BASIN DISPOSAL (2,3110 ACRES) This Land Disposal and Storage Option would also include land application from April to October, however, in addition to winter storage, reclaimed water would also be disposed of in percolation basins. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties. Most of this reclaimed water would be used for irrigation, while the remaining reclaimed water would be applied to an approximate 200 acre area of permanent percolation basins. After the irrigation season(s), some of the land application area would be converted to percolation basins for the winter, to create approximately 770 acres of percolation basins. During the winter months, reclaimed water would both be City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 3-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program ELR 04/23/04 i n• _. - ' � it \ f ° N ortVr ' ....... !A eN ii Q � K111 COON ROAD I o _, F _ _ 16^ • - '\!,' � r Kingdon �f 's » c HARNEY LANE TREDWAY 'ROAD OA =ee° wag a ami UT a ve D.REAGEI_s..e !� oi. Sa a 7 - wVn WWI - LL : - .n �t,..._ _.._ -Ia .�_=.- �."yam , '• ; iL n - T 'R A C T. .....". ... 4 _u. • � m TELE'Pl"I01 SCUT O - , k k : S A N. E) f 4 - wag n EXISTING CITY OWNED PROPQfiY PIANNTD TREIM M WETI IN—` OMR MNTTE SLOUGH WLW1fE AREA — 130 APPROX ACRES NET OELTA BOUNDARY 720 APPROX ACRES CROSS (y REOURED LAND AREA FOR OPTION I 550 APPADX ACRES NEr r yuev 3.3 70 APPROX ACRES NIEi NAL ROWS. BERMS, d: CONVEYANCE'S � W E 8 T ® - +o APPROx. ACRES NEf - 2.00 APPROX. ACRE" GARM Land Disposal And Storage Option 1 APPLICATION AREA.'- 2.I/o APPROX. AIRES NET '°° "°° City of Lodi WWtB $IOUgh WP(,F Sphere Of h snce r o a s 41110- D APPROMN. ACHES cTTr OWNED BUFFER i AaPROx. ACRES NEi - 200 APPRM ACRES WEII NAL ROADS. BERNS. k CONVEYANCES 90M[ N rvs AMOCJA3B 3. D Descr tion of the Pro ram stored and partially disposed in these percolation basins. All of the percolation basin area would need to be owned and operated by the City, while the dedicated land application areas could be made available to the City for disposal under an agreement to accept recycled water for irrigation (West Yost 2003). The recommended conceptual layout of Land Disposal and Storage Option 2 is shown in Figure 3.4 -- Land Disposal and Storage Option 2. As displayed Table 3-3 — Land Area Requirements for Option 2, it is estimated that to provide the necessary 1,450 acres of land application area, approximately 1,880 acres of land would be required. Additionally, to provide the needed 190 acres of storage basins, approximately 210 acres would be necessary. Finally, approximately 850 total acres would be required to provide 770 acres of percolation basin disposal area. As shown in Figure 3.4, the recommended conceptual layout includes land areas that are contiguous with the City -owned property, and provides an odor and mosquito buffer for the facilities located therein. TABLE 3-3 LAND AREAS REQUIREMENTS FOR OPTION 2 (ACRES) (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. LAND DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OPTION 3 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL. PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION (4,470 ACRES) This Land Disposal and Storage Option would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 acre wetland facility that is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other Land Disposal and Storage Options, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months, however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluenre 3-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program KIR 04/23/04 Potential Facilities Percolation Basin Area Internal Roads, Surplus Storage or Required Converted to Beans, & Land Disposal Existing Land Summer Ag. Conveyances Buffer Application Total Area Facility Facilities Area Land Area(a) Area Area Required Storage 40 150 - 20 - - 210 Basins Land 390 net 490 570 110 220 - 1880 Application 100 buffer Area Dedicated - 200 - 20 - - 220 Percolation Basins b Total 1 530 840 1 570 150 1 220 1 0 1 2,310 (a) Area estimated to be approximately ten percent of the Required Land Area (b) Total gross required land area for percolation basins is 850 acres, with 770 acres net percolation basin area. Approximately 630 gross and 570 net acres of the percolation basin area will also be used for land application, and is included in those totals. LAND DISPOSAL AND STORAGE OPTION 3 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL. PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION (4,470 ACRES) This Land Disposal and Storage Option would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 acre wetland facility that is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other Land Disposal and Storage Options, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months, however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluenre 3-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program KIR 04/23/04 •1.•rr1•rd•1�• �.r Od1r1a11. +•►a11.Ir1. �NO EMEN •lydrair 0lo ♦!1dAA1Ad d� — _ _ _+ �___ Om IVA 1 A11r1r1r111rA119r1+i ♦1• ra •y1 1 dr1r11A A < +1. ,IVaAd1e d rte•• rAd id►Ii 1` '. � � � f � �-11�d�� ♦ irrArrdrrArlirrl�Drard1a11+ •+ �•-. S3 •1AAd♦1d1x11+ � `�. � -±� 1 �1�111rrr1 +♦i*d♦11�`ai1�D1ar1r1.1ia F � S i i 4 a� ♦♦1 11 / � . 1 � - r' � � ''11111♦ G 111r 1111♦ + x?-�,� \♦11.1 r♦ �;. �Ir r11r1r/ - �A+i r111rr. 4•`1'►rrrllr♦ �-,,`,.. 1. lilyddl►a`. i`'o�fr111d11.11111111 R•FIr1//!r. •► ♦/♦1•x1.1 - E a g .. � I r r 1♦♦ r 1• • 1 r r 1 r r/ ly1 ••d�1 ►1r • ♦ 11r •1411 � it + � A � �.r-r-♦_ i'.AirililidiAA <�i1i _ •�A1 iid •di♦ /1111 r1r11 'ii1r1r1r1 `"�. tri/raddAlidrl+d/ i i mac. EE.. qff - a.. tc.. _ � i.,. _ ii+ � ii •i i � :•Ela.'11. `I � . • � • ..: • . s = • . . 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Sections 4.1 through 4.11 in this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provide an integrated presentation of the setting, environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the issue areas identified in Chapter 2.0. Potential effects of buildout of the proposed White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence program, including cumulative effects, are identified, along with mitigation measures recommended to lessen or reduce future potential impacts, if possible. ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS GENERALLY USED TO EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROGRAM BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ASSUMED IN THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR Section 15125(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the program as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The CEQA Guidelines also specify that this description of the physical environmental conditions is to serve as the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether impacts of a program are considered significant. The environmental setting conditions of the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary are described in the technical sections of the Draft Program ETR (see Sections 4.1 through 4.11). In general, these setting discussions describe the setting conditions of the program site and the surrounding area as they existed when the NOF for the program was released on September 15, 2003. GENERAL PLAN CON3ISTENCYANALYSIS As required by CEQA Guidelines 15125(d), each technical section of the EIR (Sections 4.1 through 4.11) has been evaluated for consistency with policies contained in the City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document, the San Joaquin County General Plan Policy Document, and the Lodi Community Plan. San Joaquin LAFCO guidelines and the provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act were also reviewed against the proposed program. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4-I City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental SCOPE OF THE EIR This Draft Program EIR was prepared primarily using information derived from previous relevant environmental documents and guidelines, including the Technical Memorandum on the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan 2001, the 1988 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Draft and Final EIR, the 1992 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Supplemental Draft and Final EIR, The City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the San Joaquin County LAFCO guidelines and criteria. The initial study, combined with comments received in response to the NOP, identified the following issues to be discussed in this EIR: ■ Land Use/Agricultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity ■ Noise ■ Visual Resources ■ Public Services and Utilities ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Hydrology/Water Quality ■ Air Quality/Odor ■ Hazardous Materials • Biological Resources 11 Cultural Resources ■ Growth Inducement ■ Cumulative Impacts SETTINGS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SECTIONS As required by CEQA Guidelines, the setting describes the environment in the program and study areas "as it exists before the commencement of the program." The setting is presented from site, local, subregional an/or regional perspectives, as appropriate to each environmental topic. As required by CEQA Guidelines, the effects of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are defined as changes to the environmental setting that are attributable to the program. The designation of the proposed Sphere of Influence allows the City of Lodi to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at this time. Following this approach, when one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence are proposed, the City of Lodi would be required to examine the individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in this Program EIR. If the future WPCF Sphere of influence buildout activities have effects beyond the summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures detailed in this Program EIR, further CEQA compliance would be required. Project -level environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted, if necessary, prior to any actions taking place in the Sphere of Influence. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF" Sphere of Influence 4-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 4.0 Environmental Analysis Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence within this document are identified and determined to be less than significant, potentially significant, cumulative significant, or significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impact analysis in this EIR is also based on buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, as well as approved and anticipated urban development in the City of Lodi and surrounding area, and as identified in the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the Lodi Community Plan. A summary of cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 7.0, Other Statutory Considerations. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, a significant impact is "... a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the program..." For each category of physical condition evaluated in the EIR, criteria for significance have been developed using the CEQA Guidelines, City of Lodi and San Joaquin County standards, San Joaquin County LAFCO standards, or the "significance thresholds" of federal, state, regional, or local agencies. Significance criteria vary fir each environmental issue analyzed in this EIR and are defined at the beginning of each impact analysis section. Mitigation measures identified in this report are characterized in one of three categories: 1) necessary to reduce the identified impact below a level of significance; 2) recommended to reduce the magnitude of a significant impact, but not below a level of significance; and 3) recommended to reduce the magnitude of a less than significant impact. Where implementation of more than one mitigation measure is needed to reduce an impact below a level of significant, this fact is noted. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, mitigation follows the strategy of avoid/minimize/rectify/reduce over time/compensation. According to the Guidelines, this strategy includes: ■ Avoiding the impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. ■ Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation. ■ Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. ■ Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of an action. ■ Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere offnfluence 04123/04 Draft Program EIR 4.1 LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.0 Environmental 4.1 LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the regional land use setting, characterizes land uses surrounding the proposed program area, and discusses the proposed Sphere of Influence program in the context of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and other adopted plans and policies. 4.1.1 SETTING EXISTING LAND USE The proposed WPCF Sphere of influence includes areas that would be potentially required for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plast buildout flow conditions, including the Planned Residential Reserve, if surface water discharges were determined to be unfeasible due to Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan), the State Implementation Plan (SIP), or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations that could be imposed in the future. The proposed Sphere of Influence would include approximately 5,280 acres of land as required for land disposal and storage facilities, adequate buffer areas, and expansion to encompass existing parcel boundaries. Note that the 5,280 acreage requirement includes the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF and its associated properties. The Ixoposed Sphere of Influence would be located on primarily agricultural lands surrounding the existing WPCF; and would be bound by Kingdon Road to the north, Telephone Cut to the south, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks to the east, and Bishop Cut to the west. The majority of the proposed program area is currently located in an unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. The City of Stockton is located just south of the proposed sphere limits. The proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries include the WPCF, which is located in San Joaquin County, but is owned and annexed to the City as a noncontiguous part of the City of Lodi. City of Lodi Zoning and General Plan designations for the WPCF are "Public" (see Figure 4.14 -- Proposed Sphere of Influence Existing Zoning)(City of Lodi 1990). This designation provides for government-owned facilities, public and private schools, and quasi -public uses such as hospitals and churches. The San Joaquin County General Plan and Zoning apply to the remainder of the lands proposed for inclusion and are designated as "Agriculture 40" lands (San Joaquin County 1992a). These are lands generally committed to agriculture with viable commercial agricultural enterprises that require large land areas to efficiently produce their crops (San Joaquin County 1992a). Some Freeway Service Commercial (Commercial -FS) lands are located directly adjacent the northerly sphere boundary, which provides for commercial uses oriented almost exclusively to serving the needs of Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-I City ofLodt White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR r a m + m � x T rxa♦ q m� yxbe` x t .,� �a _ � • _.i �- Js� �� v ��. a 4 , k '. : .. m r I m �� F T '.. ' w♦ t�� 'v . ®x � Y Pj w n *a a s W H r♦ Lr y� 1. y "`.. � a r .: a w r • . x i � a r + + s __ Y 6 � m > w v w I r 'A.� e a a- x p II I.3 i • , s c^. « m r « �„p Y y KINGOONR e m Ikp g: m � � «�..: � �� � �w;a w .sa x♦ ,tet ._.err «I .e u � + + N*-* +', - i » 3 e._s, :..- > .x!. r. . aN uliE r .. TREDMY'IF♦ s ♦ js 5 e m e a a ^` Y ♦'v^ y Y V %Cr �4 r o �8 rY�. ��e Y Q'p x s r ¢W♦w a ®'y t Y�'ya/♦ •Mn' .a w r . .. aq. � a e a ma , a S a ate« � a -��. . ♦ t r '!�. - w a - a . rv• � w �i „fir + � . a �s #•r L � b s < 'ro m `y - , r� �a_� "� ��s Sax �r a % Ia�a�-a imp s+v♦w '.♦ r♦.# o..rr . arm +e a'�m sew..♦s . .. ..i r� e w. sr m»a .a+ >» <� ♦'a ♦ r , r b,,:r m . +r;. 1. • . '. + s t - -r. ,::: ® ,�'.® w r'r b3 ♦ + rb ♦ a� �� a'�wrs sw ♦ ♦ ♦ 's r♦+. '_e m a a W r v: ♦ MrC 7+"�">�' •'-- 3"` v W.4 -� - dAo'si` moi. r &A T Tv v l p :♦ r� ate♦ Sr i _ + m r r _ .. .. ® 'M ♦ ♦may a b a:w -rRs 4' ♦ b qm - i m . w w a ♦ w r . � . , + .. . a -a w . s w w''.t `a-� . . , �s•��♦a«�sam�♦♦sF -0+♦' ` +. s=. o-�....�_ _ - Jtl G r I S S A t} D a s x � > .. ^ r 4 . w w - a♦�♦ ♦xw w w ®w r� w v a w ♦ r ♦� • - • . t x x SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 81 LOW -MED- DENT RES- ADMIN- - PROFESSIONAL UlCCCLCL[llfLLf� CITY OF LODI PROPERTv HIGH 9ENSIiY RES. MIXED USE N F'gure 4.1-1 w e s r A RICULruRAL-aa COMMERCWi PARxS AND RECREAnON Proposed Sphere of Influence Zoning City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence r kTM 4,0 Environmental Analysis LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES the freeway traveler (San Joaquin County 1992a). A large parcel of Commercial Recreation (Commercial- R) designated land is located directly adjacent the southerly sphere boundary, which provides for major recreation -oriented, commercial activities and associated facilities (San Joaquin County 1992x). The City of Stockton zoning, south of Eight Mile Road, is also shown on Figure 4.1-1 — Proposed Sphere of Influence Existing Zoning (City of Stockton 2004). The Kingdon Drag Strip is located within the easterly portion of the proposed Sphere of Influence, which was initially used as a drag strip, but is now used by small crop dusting planes. The surrounding area is rural and sparsely populated. Residences in proximity to the proposed Sphere of Influence limits are associated with agricultural uses. The proposed Sphere of Influence includes a major transportation and utility corridor connecting northern and southern California. Both Interstate 5 and three major power transmission lines pass through the program limits. Lying at the edge of the Delta, the WPCF and the proposed surrounding Sphere of Influence is adjacent to marsh and aquatic habitats important to both migratory birds and resident fish and wildlife (City of Lodi 1988). AGRICULTURAL LANDS Agricultural land in San Joaquin County is economically important and provides benefits such as wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and open space, all of which contribute to the rural character of the area. San Joaquin County contains large areas of highly productive soils which are capable of producing a wide variety of crops and constitute a major portion of the economic base of the County (San Joaquin County 1992a). The San Joaquin County General Plan and Zoning apply to the proposed Sphere of Influence lands surrounding the WPCF site and are designated as agricultural lands (i.e., Agriculture 40). These lands are used primarily for agricultural production that are valuable to the region. Based on San Joaquin County farmland mapping provided by the California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the proposed Sphere of Influence includes mostly Prime and Unique Farmland (see Figure 4.1-2 — Proposed Sphere of Influence Agricultural Designations) (San Joaquin County 2003). There are also some lands designated as Farmland of Local Importance and Urban lands. Based on correspondence from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (see discussion below) (CDFA 2003). Williamson Contract Lands Under the provisions of the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act 1965, Section 51200), landowners contract with San Joaquin County to maintain agricultural or open space use of their lands in return for reduced property tax assessment. The contract is self -renewing and the landowner may notify Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinJluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR ® Prime Farmfand QD Grazing Proposed sphere of influence w e 8 T Figure 4.1-2 Statewide Importance ® Urban City -awned land 0 1,500 3,000IM Unique Farmland Note: Agricultural © Feet Proposed Sphere of Influence Agricultural Designations " s z City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence ural data Local Importance - Water provided by the City of Lodi. 4.0 Environmental Ar'+ai sis ND USEIAGRICULTURAL RESOURCES the County at any time of an intent to withdraw the land from its preserve status. Withdrawal involves a period of tax adjustment to full market value before it can be converted to urban uses. However, a contract may be immediately cancelled if said cancellation is in the public interest, pursuant to Government Code 51282 (a). Based on the California Department of Conservation's Williamson Act maps for San Joaquin County, some lands proposed for Sphere of Influence inclusion are under Williamson Act Contracts (CDFA 2003). CITY OF STOCKmN GENERAL PLAN UPDATE As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, the City of Stockton General Plan Update process is currently in the early update stages. The City of Stockton indicated that a Draft EIR for the General Plan Update is anticipated to be available in Summer -Fall 2004 (Stagnaro 2003). The current Study Area Map for the General Plan Update includes a Planning Boundary that extends north to Armstrong Road, which is within the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence southerly boundary. However, it is understood that the Study Area Map outlines the area that would be used when collecting information for the General Plan Update and would generally include more area than anticipated for future General Plan inclusion and may not affect the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi's General Plan at buildout. REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodi General Plan As previously stated, the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries include the WPCF, which is located in San Joaquin County, but is owned and annexed to the City as a noncontiguous part of the City of Lodi. City of Lodi Zoning and General Plan designations for the WPCF are "Public." The City of Lodi General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy 3 requires that the City shall ensure the maintenance of ample buffers between incompatible land uses. Goal B, Policies 1 through 6 require new development to minimize its conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. Goal H, Policies 1 through 3 include provisions to provide adequate land for development of public uses to support existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Goal J, Policies I and 2 provide for the maintenance of an adequate level of service in the City's sewer collection and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development (City of Lodi 1991a), Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-5 City of'Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere offaftuence 04/13/04 pra.ft Program FIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis ND USA ICL L RESOURCES San Joaquin County General Plan As previously stated, the San Joaquin County General Plan and Zoning apply to the majority of the proposed Sphere of Influence lands, excluding the White Slough WPCF, and are designated as "Agriculture 40". The San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Element under Agricultural Land, Objectives 1 through 3, and related policies, provide for the protection of agricultural lands needed for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises, small-scale farming operations, and the preservation of open -space; recognition of agricultural lands that contain concentrations of small-scale agricultural operations and dwellings; and to minimize the impact on agriculture in the transition of agricultural areas to urban development. These goals and policies generally call for the establishment of well -designated farmlands (i.e., Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance), implementation of the County's Right to Farm Ordinance, preservation of agricultural land, enforcement of agricultural land conversions, establishing minimum parcel size and buffers, and establishing Williamson Act Contracts. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the General Plan, Objective 3 provides for the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural finds and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth (San Joaquin County 1992a). Under the Housing Element, Objective 2, Policy 3 states that permitted non-residential uses and activities shall be compatibly integrated into the neighborhoods they serve. San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan The San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan states that this plan area is susceptible to development pressure due to its location and states that development outside the communities would have a severe negative impact on the area's farms, vineyards and orchards. It also states that it is "imperative that land between Eight Mile Road in Stockton and Harney Lane in Lodi remain in agricultural use" and that the open space between these communities helps define the edges of each city and provides both visual relief and a sense of identity for each community (San Joaquin County 1992b). An easterly segment of the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary is located between Eight Mile Road in Stockton and Harney Lane in Lodi, and therefore encroaches upon this area that has been designated to remain in agricultural use. It should be noted however, that under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, this land would most likely remain in agricultural use. The Cortese-Knav-Hertzberg Act The Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act of 2000 establishes procedures for local government changes in organization, including the creation of a Sphere of Influence. The San Joaquin County LAFCO is responsible for implementing their guidelines and criteria and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. The Act's basic purpose is the discouragement of urban sprawl and the encouragement of the orderly formation of City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.1-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental And sis LANUSE/AGRICULTURAL REO E5 local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances and state law. Section 56375 (a) of the Act grants LAFCO the authority to review and approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially, or conditionally, proposals for changes of organization or reorganization, consistent with written policies, procedures, and guidelines adopted by the commission. Specific policy elements established by the Act are as follows: ■ To encourage orderly growth and development patterns (Section 56001); ■ To shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each County and its communities (Section 56301); and ■ To guide development away from open space and prime agricultural lands uses unless such action would not promote planned, orderly and efficient development (Section 56377). Section 56425 of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act requires that in order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities, LAFCO shall develop and determine the Sphere of Influence of each local governmental agency within the County and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. The following provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act Section 56425 regarding Spheres of Influence must be considered: At least 30 days prior to submitting an application to the commission for a determination of a new Sphere of Influence, or to update an existing Sphere of Influence for a City, representatives from the City shall meet with County representatives to discuss the proposed sphere, and its boundaries, and explore methods to reach agreement on the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected City and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. If no agreement is reached between the City and County within 30 days, then the parties may, by mutual agreement, extend discussions for an additional period of 30 days. If an agreement is reached between the City and County regarding the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the proposed sphere, the agreement shall be forwarded to the commission, and the commission shall consider and adopt a Sphere of Influence for the City consistent with the policie s adopted by the commission pursuant to this section, and the commission shall give great weight to the agreement in the commission's final determination of the City sphere. ■ If the commission's final determination is consistent with the agreement reached between the City and County pursuant to subdivision (b), the agreement shall be adopted by the both the City and County after a public hearing. Once the agreement has been adopted by the affected local agencies and their respective general plans reflect that agreement, then any development approved by the County within the sphere shall be consistent with the terms of that agreement. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-7 City ofl odi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Ana! sis LAND UMAGRICULTURAL RESOURCES If no agreement is reached pursuant to subdivision (b), the application may be submitted to the commission and the commission shall consider a Sphere of Influence for the City consistent with the policies adopted by the commission pursuant to this section. In determining the Sphere of Influence of each local agency, the commission shall consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open -space lands. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. Upon determination of a Sphere of Influence, the commission shall adopt that sphere, and shall review and update, as necessary, the adopted sphere not less than once every 5 years. ■ The commission may recommend governmental reorganizations to particular agencies in the County, using the Spheres of Influence as the basis for those recommendations. Those recommendations shall be made available, upon request, to other agencies or to the public. The commission shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure wide dissemination of the recommendations. Recent state law (AB 2370) prohibits LAFCOs from approving annexation of Williamson Act contracted land to a City. However, it should be noted that this exclusion of Williamson Act lands does not apply to the creation of a Sphere of Influence. San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) The primary consideration for creation of a Sphere of Influence is the meeting of the criteria factors outlined in the San Joaquin County LAFCO Sphere of Influence guidance document, adopted June 21, 1968, which is provided in Appendix B. The primary considerations for the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence are to assure that adequate land is available to provide ample sewerage facility and waste disposal services. The guidance document states that the purpose of a Sphere of Influence is as follows: • To insure orderly urban growth in the areas adjacent to a City, community or district, and in particular those areas which might reasonably become a part of such entities at some time in the future; • To promote cooperative planning efforts between the various Cities, County and districts, to insure proper effectuation of their respective general plans; • To coordinate property development standards and encourage timely urbanization with provisions for adequate and essential services such as sewer, water, fire, and police protection; City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere offnf[uence 4.1-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13104 4.0 Environmental Anal sis LAUSE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES • To assist other governmental districts and agencies in planning the logical and economical extension of a] governmental facilities and services, thus avoiding unnecessary duplications; and ■ To assist property owners to plan comprehensively for the ultimate use and development of their land. The provision of water transmission lines; sewerage facilities; police and fire protection; waste disposal; parks and recreation; storm drainage; school system services; street circulation; geographic, economic, and social relationships; and green belts should be considered in the creation of a Sphere of Influence. 4.1.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA For purposes of this EIR, the following criteria, based on the CEQA Guidelines, local and regional standards, and professional practice were used in determining whether proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would result in a significant land use impact: ■ Conflict with City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, and San Joaquin County LAFCO policies and standards, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. ■ Conflict with any applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the program; • Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity; ■ Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community; ■ Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area; • Conflict with established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the area; or • Result in the loss of productive agricultural land or impair the productivity of prime or active farmland. METHODOLOGY The land use evaluation is based on qualitative evaluation of the effect of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout on existing and future planned land uses in the program area. The environmental analysis assumes that the proposed program would result in the use of approximately 5,280 acres for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions. It is important to note that this assumed development pattern has been utilized to evaluate "worst-case" environmental effects of the program, and that the applicants have not proposed, and are not preparing any such development at this time. This evaluation also addresses consistency of the proposed program with the Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-9 City Df Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere oflnfuence 04/23/04 Drat Program FIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis ND US A ICULTURAL RESOURCES City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, and San Joaquin County LAFCO standards and guidelines. Impact 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Act. The proposed program would meet City of Lodi General Plan Land Use and Growth Management policies that require that the City maintain ample buffers between incompatible land uses. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface, thus preserving open space areas amidst development and includes a WPCF odor buffer, mosquito buffer, a buffer to protect sensitive receptors, and a buffer to reduce noxious weed growth. The proposed program would also include provisions to provide adequate land for development of public uses to support existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses; and would provide for the maintenance of an adequate level of service in the City's sewer collection and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development (City of Lodi 1991a). The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent however, with City of Lodi General Plan policies to minimize conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. The proposed sphere limits are located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 7003). it should be noted that most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated lands could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. The CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands. It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. Consistent with the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan, the CDFA recommended that the use of compensatory and strategically located agricultural land conservation easements be considered, as well as the provisions detailed in the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan (CDFA 2003). Additionally, the CDFA recommended consultation with the CDC regarding Williamson Act Contract termination, and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies. The proposed program meets San Joaquin County General Plan Management Housing Element policies, as the proposed Sphere of Influence was designed to maximize the benefits of an appropriate urban -open space interface and would include buffers to compatibly integrate into the neighborhoods it could ultimately serve. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent however, with San Joaquin County General Plan policies to provide for the protection of agricultural lands needed for the continuation of commercial agricultural City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.1-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EM 04/13104 4.0 Environ>:eentaiAnal s" LAND AGRICUL C enterprises, small-scale farming operations, and the preservation of open -space; recognition of agricultural lands that contain concentrations of small-scale agricultural operations and dwellings; and to minimize the impact on agriculture in the transition of agricultural areas to urban development. As previously stated, the proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland. However, most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the General Plan, Objective 3 provides for the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth (San Joaquin County 1992a). The proposed program does, to some extent, minimize effects of growth on agricultural land as existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. However, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins, which would convert agriculturally -designated land. The proposed program is somewhat inconsistent with a portion of the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan as it could impact agricultural lands between Eight Mile Road in Stockton and Harney Lane in Lodi (San Joaquin County 1992b) and eliminate a portion of the open space between these communities that helps to define the edges of each City and provides both visual relief and a sense of identity for each community (San Joaquin County 1992b). If any of these lands were used for future storage ponds and/or percolation basins, it would convert agricultural uses and eliminate a portion of the open space buffer between Lodi and Stockton. The proposed program is consistent with most of the policy elements of the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Act and would promote planned, orderly and efficient development as per Section 56377 of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. However, the proposed program may not guide development away from prime agricultural lands uses if reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins were located on lands designated as such. The proposed program is consistent with San Joaquin County LAFCO criteria and guidelines. In summary, the proposed program is inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a Implement conditions of the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act guidelines and standards regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.1b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local Significance, and shall avoid converting any Williamson Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-11 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program OR 4.0 EnvironnmentelAnel Sis ND US"A RICULTURAL RESOURCES Contract lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract termination. Significance After Mitigation With no mitigation available beyond following the guidelines and policies of the San Joaquin County LAFCO, provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act as closely as possible and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1.lb, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1.2 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could increase the potential for surrounding land use conflicts. These conflicts would predominately occur on lands adjacent to the northern and southern proposed Sphere of Influence limits. The City of Lodi is located to the northeast of the proposed lands for Sphere of Influence inclusion, and the City of Stockton is located to the south. The more immediate surrounding lands are pasture lands, which are rural and sparsely populated. The potential for land use conflicts between the proposed program and these immediately adjacent passive lands uses would be considered low. Freeway Service Commercial (CommercialFS) lands are located directly adjacent the northerly sphere boundary, which provides for commercial uses oriented almost exclusively to serving the needs of the freeway traveler. Additionally, a large parcel of Commercial Recreation (Commercial -R) designated land (currently undeveloped) is located directly adjacent the southerly sphere boundary, which provides for major recreation - oriented, commercial activities and associated facilities. These existing and future land uses could be incompatible with future WPCF facilities at proposed program buildout. Residences in proximity to the proposed Sphere of Influence limits could also be potentially impacted as a result of the proposed program Portions of lands included within the proposed Sphere of Influence are included on the City of Stockton Study Area Map for the General Plan Update, which is currently being initiated by the City of Stockton. The current Study Area Map for the General Plan Update includes a Planning Boundary that extends north to Armstrong Road, which is within the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence southerly boundary. However, it is understood that the Study Area Map outlines the area that would be used when collecting information for the General Plan Update and would generally inelude more area than anticipated for future General Plan inclusion and may not affect the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi's General Plan at buildout. In order to eliminate potential land use conflicts with surrounding lands and the potential diminuation in the value of surrounding properties due to the increase in WPCF size, the proposed Sphere of Influence would provide for an urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth. The odor buffer would be provided within the proposed Sphere of Influence to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. The minimum City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.1-12 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EfR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Anal sis LAND U RICUL S C odor buffer distance recommended for land disposal sites and polishing lagoons is 500 feet, which is equivalent to the buffer described above that would be required for biosolids disposal projects. The minimum odor buffer recommended for wastewater treatment facilities is 1,500 feet. Due to the size of the potential future land application area, all of the future WPCF treatment process units would be located well within 1,500 feet of the Sphere of Influence boundary. Therefore, a minimum odor buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed around potential future ponds and reclaimed water land application areas. Actual buffer distances are dependent upon local site conditions such as prevailing wind direction. The prevailing wind at the WPCF is from the west at an average of four miles per hour (1983-2000, CIMIS station #42, Lodi), which is moderately low. Furthermore, with the proposed upgrade to Title 22 water quality, it is anticipated that odor issues associated with land disposal would decrease. Therefore, the minimum buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed for the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence (West Yost 2003). A mosquito buffer of 400 meters (approximately 1,300 feet) was identified as the conservative dispersal distance for mosquitoes, per "Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: a Technology Assessment' (FPA 1999) and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District 2004) and the provided technical article on "Managing Mosquitoes in Surface -Flow Constructed Treatment Wetlands" (Walton 2003). Therefore, according to these documents, a buffer zone of approximately 1,300 feet would prevent the majority of mosquitoes from leaving the wetland site and would be provided for with the proposed Sphere of Influence (West Yost 2003). The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would include buffer zones to protect individuals living or working in developed areas near the WPCF from nuisance conditions. While the minimum buffers recommended by regulatory agencies and other resources would likely provide protection for most individuals, adequate protection should also be available for potential sensitive receptors. The buffer zones included in the proposed Sphere of Influence, in general, exceed the recommended minimum, with the exception of the buffer around the land application areas. However, it is anticipated that nuisance conditions associated with the potential future land application areas would be minimal due to the high quality of effluent that would be used (West Yost 2003). Noxious weeds are often associated with newly developed areas and often dominate the urban -open space interface. By including buffers as open space within the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence that would remain planted in an agricultural crop, the level of impact associated with future potential development would be minimized and would reduce noxious weed growth (West Yost 2003). As the proposed Sphere of Influence would provide for an urban -open space interface, including the provisions as described above, the potential for land use conflicts at buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence is considered less than significant. Significance Less Than Significant Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-13 City ofLadi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program NJ? 4.0 Environmental Ana! ais 1XND USEIAGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measures 4.1.2 None Required Impact 4.1.3 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands. The proposed Sphere of Influence lands belong to a significant number of landowners. Approximately 50 landowners could be impacted under Sphere of Influence buildout. Most of these lands are used for agricultural purposes, and some of the agricultural lands could be impacted as a result of potential future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins anticipated under Sphere of Influence buildout. The willingness of landowners to cooperate with the City of Lodi and/or the ease of future land acquisition by the City of Lodi is unknown at this time. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.3 Upon Sphere of Influence buildout, provide appropriate compensation to property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law, Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. As discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the proposed program area would be almost entirely comprised of agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). As also previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, Sphere of Influence buildout would be inconsistent with some of the policies and guidelines of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act, as it could potentially include reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins on agricultural lands. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The General Plan EIR identified that implementation of planned growth under the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural lands (City of Lodi 1990). The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 4.1-14 Hughes EnVlronmental Consultants, Inc. D -ft Program FIR 04123/04 4.0 Environmental Analsis LANDA RICULTUM RMOURCES that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Similar to the City of Lodi General Plan, implementation of planned growth under the County General Plan would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land (San Joaquin County 1992c). Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. As previously discussed under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impact 4.1.1, the CDFA indicated that the conversion of farmlands is particularly pertinent to this program, as the program has the potential to remove a barrier to further urban growth onto important farmlands (CDFA 2003). It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. This is considered a beneficial impact. Reconfiguring the proposed Sphere of Influence would not eliminate the future impact on agriculturally -designated lands, as most of the lands in the vicinity of the WPCF are agriculturally -designated lands and include property under Williamson Act Contracts. This impact to agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contract, is considered significant. Significance Significant Mitigation Measures 4.1.4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Although it is not possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally -designated lands, this impact is still considered significant and unavoidable. CUMUL,4TIVE IMPACTSAND MITIGATIONMEASURES 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4.1.1 and 4.1.4, buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.1-15 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnflaence 04123104 Drat Program FJR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis LAND USEIAGRICULTURAL RESOURMS for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed program. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. However, this conversion would be in addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general, It should be noted that the potential future use of percolation basins is rural in nature and does not preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on important farmland in the County would be minimized through the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land. Significance Significant Cumulative Mitigation Measures 4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4,1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally - designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively significant. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.1-16 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY This section describes the geology of the general program area and analyzes issues such as potential exposure of people and property to geologic hazards, landform alteration and erosion associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout. It also discusses the types of soils that have been identified in the program area and their properties as they relate to proposed program area buildout. In addition, potential geologic and seismic hazards such as earthquakes and landslides are addressed. 4.2.1 SETTING The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence is located on level terrain that has been in agricultural production for many years. Elevations within the proposed Sphere of Influence range from 60 to 65 feet above mean sea level. SEISMIC HAZARDS Faults Faults are indications of past seismic activity. It is assumed that those that have been active recently are the most likely to be active in the future, although, even inactive faults may become active in the future. Faults within the vicinity of the Lodi area include the San Andreas Fault Zone, Hayward fault, Calaveras fault, Green Valley -Concord fault, Midland fault, and the Tracy -Stockton fault. Seismic activity on these faults, specifically in the Midland Fault Zone and along the Tracy -Stockton fault, has the greatest potential for causing damage in the Lodi area. Seismic activity in other parts of the state can also affect the program area, but potential impacts are not considered as great. No faults are known to cross through the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. However, as with much of California, the Lodi area is subject to earthquake damage (City of Lodi 1990). Groundshaking The most serious direct earthquake hazard is the damage or collapse of buildings and other structures caused by groundshaking which, in addition to property damage, can result in injury and death. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale has a range of values from I to XII with the lowest value representing the least intense seismic event. On the other hand a seismic event generating a MMI value of XII represents total damage to manmade improvements and the ability to see seismic waves migrate over the ground surface. Table 4.2-1 is an outline of the generalized relationship between the Richter Magnitude and MMI scale. Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc, 4.2-1 City of Lodi Khite Slough RPCFSphere oflnfluence 04123104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmeniwl Ana_ l s _ OLQG IL , AND SEISMICITY TABLE 4.2-1 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE FOR EARTHQUAKES Richter Magnitude Modified Scale Mercalli Effects Of Intensity K=1+213 la Scale 1.67 (0.1-0.9) 1 Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. 2.33 (1.0-2.9) II Felt by only a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of building. Delicately suspended objects may wing. 3.0 (3.0-3.9) III Felt quite noticeably in doors, especially on upper floors of building, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing a truck. Duration estimated. 3.67 (4.0-4.5) IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing cars rocked noticeably. 4.33 (4.6-4.9) V Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. 5.0 (5.0-5.5) VI Felt by all, many frightened and run out cors. Some heavy fumiture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster and dams ed chimneys. Damage slight. 5,67 (5.6-6.4) VIl Everyone runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving cars. 6.33 (6.5-6.9) VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monument, watts. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving in cars disturbed. 7.0 (7.0-7.4) IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. 7.67 (7.5-7.9) X Some well built structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Railway lines bent. Landslides consMerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed, slopped over banks. 8.33 (8.0-8.4) M Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of services. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. 9.0 (8.5+) XII Total damage. Waves seen on ground. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air. M, = Surface wave magnitude, I, = Epicentral intensity. Intensity scale comparison by Richter (1958). Richter Magnitudes in parenthesis are by CDMG. MMI Table by Bolt. The potential damage for earthquake groundshaking in the Lodi area is a maximum intensity of VIII of the MMI scale. An earthquake of intensity VIII could cause alarm and structural damage would be moderate, depending on structural design. As the White Slough WPCF and the proposed Sphere of Influence is within Zone 3 of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Risk Map of the United States, the City requires that all new structures be designed to withstand this intensity level (City of Lodi 1988). Liquefaction, settlement, lateral spreading, lurch cracking and earthquake -induced landslides may also result from groundshaking. Given that the Lodi area is relatively flat, earthquake -induced landslides are City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4,2-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program FIR 04123/04 4.0 Environmental Anel sia GEOLOGY. S L I uncommon to the area, these ground effects are not anticipated. In addition, liquefaction and subsidence are also considered unlikely for the Lodi area (City of Lodi 1988). SOILS As can be seen in Figure 4.2-1— Proposed Sphere of Influence Soils Map, several dominant soil series comprise the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. Table 4.2-2 — Soil Series Drainage Characteristics displays these soil series classified with respect to drainage. TABLE 4.2-2 SOIL SERIES DRAINAGE CHARACTERIZATION Soil Series Drainage Tujunga Somewhat excessively drained soils Tokay Well drained Acampo Moderately well drained Kingdon Moderately well drained Devries Somewhat poorly drained Guard Poorly drained Ryde Very poorly drained Source: West Yost, 2003 General soil trends indicate improved drainage from west to east proximal to the WPCF. The depth to groundwater also increases in this direction (West Yost 2003). REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodfi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Conservation Element Goal D, Policy 1 requires that the City shall require developers to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan to conserve soil resources. Health and Safety Element Goal B, Policies Ithrough 5 require that new structures and facilities within the City be designed to withstand seismic and geological hazards by compliance with the Uniform Building Code and avoidance of areas with differing expansive soil properties (City of Lodi 1991a). San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Public Health and Safety Element under Seismic and Geologic Hazards provides for Objectives 1 and 2, and associated policies, to reduce the risk of life and property Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. 4.2-3 City of Lode White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Envirvmmenhd Anal sis G90LOGY, SOIL5, AND SEISMICITY City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.2.4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23104 _ 4.0 Environmental Analysis GEOLOTY7, SOILS, AND SEISMEW1 and increased governmental cost from potential seismic occurrences and to minimize the adverse economic, social and physical impacts from geologic hazards. Specifically, the plan states that public service facilities shall not be located within one-eighth of a mile of any active fault. The General Plan provides for the implementation of open space, building requirements, building inventories, public information, and erosion control to avoid issues related to geology, soils, and seismicity (San Joaquin County 1992a). 4.2.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A geologic or soils impact would be considered significant if buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would result in any of the following: ■ Locating structures for human occupancy within the trace of an active fault; ■ Exposing people to strong seismic ground shaking; ■ Potential damage from liquefaction; ■ Exposing people to hazards from tsunami or seiche inundation or volcanic hazards; ■ Exposing people or property to hazards from landslides, mudflows, or avalanches; ■ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or filling; ■ Potential damage from expansive soils; • Loss of availability of a known mineral resources; or ■ Destruction or modification of unique geologic features. The following geologic hazards are not present within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries: tsunami, seiche, existing volcanic and geothermal activity, glaciation, mass wasting, avalanches, and elevated sustained wind velocities from tornado or hurricane. In addition, the proposed Sphere of Influence is located outside of any designated Mineral Resource Zones that identify potential mineral resource significance. METHODOLOGY Data for the following program level analyses was taken from existing reports relating to local and site- specific geology and soils. These reports included the City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan 2001, the 1988 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Draft and Final EIR, the 1992 White Slough Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.2-5 CityafLodi "Me Slough WPCFSphere oflnJluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 EnvironnrentalAna! sis 60—LOG60—LOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Supplemental Draft and Final EIR, the 2003 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Aeration, Filtration, and UV Disinfection Improvements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City of Lodi General Plan and General Plan EIR, and the San Joaquin County General Plan. Impacts to prime farmland soils are addressed in Section 4.1, Land Use/Agricultural Resources. Impact 4.2.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence on soils with building constraints could impair the function of the facilities and/or create hazards. Construction of future storage basins and/or reuse wetlands associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence should be located immediately surrounding the WPCF, where the soil series is more poorly drained. Therefore, the types of facilities located in this area would have a natural liner to protect the groundwater. Land application of wastewater should occur in soils that have more drainage, to reduce the potential for adverse conditions that could be associated with poorly drained soil. Future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to determine the potential creation of hazards and would be required to mitigate potential impacts, as necessary. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4,21 Prior to final design and construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed soils/geotechnical study. Recommendations from this study shall he incorporated into the final design and construction for the project according to accepted engineering practices. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.2.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion within the proposed program area. Construction of future land application lines, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would involve excavation, grading, and construction zone soil disturbance. Erosion control practices required by the City of Lodi Grading Permit/Improvement Plan process would be employed during construction to minimize erosion from disturbed areas. In addition, any future project City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.2-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. DrafD Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environnecnud Analsis GEOLOGY, S, AND SEISMICITY construction activities would be required obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. The General Permit requires adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the control of erosion and other potential water quality problems associated with construction activities, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain a Notice of Intent and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction Activities. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.2.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could expose people and structures to geological or seismic hazards. Construction of potential future storage ponds and/or percolation basins associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would not result in additional exposure of people to geologic or seismic hazards. None of the faults in the vicinity of the proposed Sphere of Influence limits are known to be active. The future storage ponds andlor percolation basins would be constructed to current Uniform Building Code standards, which would minimize the potential for damage due to ground shaking. Ground failure, including liquefaction, is not expected to occur due to the depth of the water table and soils present. Constructed facilities would meet current standards for earthquake stability and would be designed to withstand anticipated seismic hazards associated with Seismic Zone 3. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.2.3 None Required CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Geotechnical impacts tend to be site specific rather than cumulative in nature. Impacts regarding surficial deposits, namely erosion and sediment deposition, can be cumulative in nature. The reader is referred to Chapter 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality regarding potential cumulative water quality impacts from soil erosion. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.2-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program RAR 4.0 EnvironnrentalAnal sig G OLOGLS, AND $05MICITY is not anticipated to result in significant geology, soils, or seismicity impacts. Additionally, geoloogy and soils impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative geology, soils, or seismicity impacts in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofln./luence 4.2-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13104 4.0 Environnmental Anal sis 4.3 NOISE This section discusses the existing noise environment in the proposed Sphere of influence program vicinity, and identifies potential noise impacts and mitigation measures related to future Sphere of Influence buildout. Specifically, this section analyzes potential noise impacts due to and upon development of the program relative to applicable noise criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. 4.3.1 SETT[NG BACKGROUND Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exert a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Pressure waves traveling through air exert a force registered by the human ear as sound. Sound pressure fluctuation can be measured in units of hertz (Hz) which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). When all the audible frequencies of a sound are measured, a sound spectrum is plotted consisting of each measured Hz and corresponding sound power level. The audible sound spectrum consists of a range of frequency spanning 20 to 20,000 Hz. The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the sound frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is rnt equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum (20 to 20,000 Hz). As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasized the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ears decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. NOISE EXPOSURE AND COMMUNITY NOISE An individual's noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout the Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.3-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04123/04 Draft Program E!R 4.0 Environmental Analysis N ISE day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources such as aircraft flyovers, vehicle passbys, sirens, etc., which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time -varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: Leq: the equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). LmaX: the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. L, o: the noise level that is equaled or exceeded 10 percent of the specified time period. The L, 0 is often considered the maximum noise level averaged over the specified time period. L9 o: the noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time perio d. The L90 is often considered the background noise level averaged ever the specified time period. Ldn: 24-hour day and night A -weighted noise exposure level which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night ("penalizing" nighttime noises). Noise between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dB to take into account the general annoyance of nighttime noises. CNEL: similar to the Ldn, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5 dB "penalty" for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10 dBA penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. EFFECTS OF NOISE ONPEOPLE The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: ■ Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; + Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, leaming; and ■ Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide City of Lodi White Slough WPCF'Sphere oflnfluenae 4.3-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Anal*sis OI E variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual's past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way is compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted; the so-called "ambient noise" level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. NOISE A TTENUATION Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary and mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 9 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and noise barriers, either vegetative or manufactured, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or streets with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 4 to 6 dB. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS The existing WPCF and the proposed Sphere of Influence lands are located in an agricultural area on both sides Interstate 5. Freeway and roadway noise represents the dominant noise source in the program vicinity. Agricultural and light industrial activities also contribute to the noise environment. The Kindgon Drag Strip, which is used by small crop dusting planes, is located along the easterly boundary of the proposed Sphere of Influence. Existing noise levels in the program area adjacent to Interstate 5 are expected to exceed 65 dB, which is deemed excessively noisy per the City of Lodi General Plan (City of Lodi 1990). The WPCF itself does not generate significant noise through normal operations. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences are located within and adjacent to the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries and are associated with agricultural uses (City of Lodi 1988). REGnATORY BACKGROUND Federal and State Federal and state governments have established noise standards and guidelines to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. The federal government regulates noise levels in the work place, aircraft noise, and noise emitted by certain products of the time of manufacture. Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 CFR, Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass -by noise standard is 80 dB at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are Hughes Environmental Consuktants, Inc. 4.3-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfiuence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis NOISE-- implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers. The State of California regulates noise levels of motor vehicles and freeway noise affecting classrooms, sets standards for sound transmission control and occupational noise control, and identifies noise insulation standards and airport noise/land use compatibility. Local communities generally regulate land use/noise level compatibility, allowable levels on private property and levels associated with the use of certain types of sources. City of Loiff General Plan The Noise Element of the City of Lodi General Plan contains policies and implementation programs to minimize noise impacts associated with future development. Policies A-1 through A-5 require that noise impact analyses be performed for development projects that may cause or significantly contribute to adjacent properties becoming noise impacted. As the potential buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would not significantly contribute to adjacent properties becoming noise impacted, a detailed noise impact analysis was not performed. San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Element under Noise provides for Objective 1 and associated policies to ensure acceptable noise environments for each land use. The plan states that development shall be planned and designed to minimize noise impacts on neighboring noise sensitive areas and to minimize noise interference from outside noise sources. The General Plan provides for the implementation of the Development Code, acoustical reports, enforcement of state and federal noise regulations, and the Building Code to regulate noise impacts (San Joaquin County 1992a). 4.3.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Thresholds of significance are those established by Title 24 standards and the City's General Plan Noise Element. Buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence could have a significant effect on the environment if it would satisfy the following conditions: ■ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Lodi Noise Element (noise levels up to 75dB are considered conditionally acceptable for manufacturing and other industrial facilities) and the San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Noise Element; • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; ■ A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or Gly of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.3-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Anff sis OISE TABLE 4.3-2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Construction Equipment Noise Level (dBA, Leg) Dump Truck 88 Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer 85 Scraper 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 76 Backhoe 85 Source; Cunniff, Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977 In a worst-case scenario, it can be assumed that areas within and surrounding areas of construction activity would be intermittently exposed throughout the construction phase to noise levels upwards of 89 dBA, Lig, depending on surface topography and distance to construction activity. This worst case construction related noise impact would be limited to the duration of activities such as excavation and ground clearing, which would require the use of heavy machinery. Noise levels of this magnitude would not be expected to occur frequently or for long durations of time. Implementation of the policies contained in the City of Lodi Noise Element and the San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Noise Element would assist in the reduction of future construction -related noise levels. Additionally, it is anticipated that future reuse wetlands and storage ponds would be constructed to the west and immediately surrounding the existing WPCF, away from existing residential development. Therefore, future construction noise would not pose a significant noise impact and would not expose people to severe noise levels. Future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to determine the potential noise impacts and would be required to mitigate potential impacts, as necessary. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 None Required Impact 4.3.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would temporarily generate additional construction vehicle trips and would subsequently temporarily increase roadside ambient noise levels. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.3-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Envireamental Anal sis Hulffff Increased vehicle trips related to construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, both automobiles and heavy trucks, would likely result in offsite construction noise in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County. As the temporary addition of daily construction trips is not expected to double the existing traffic volume on Thornton Road, North Interstate 5 Frontage Road, or the surrounding grid pattern two-lane roads, the impact to noise levels would be less than significant. Additionally, implementation of the policies contained in the City of Lodi Noise Element and the San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Noise Element would assist in the reduction of future construction -related vehicle trip noise levels. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.3.2 None Required CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES As previously described, future operation of the White Slough WPCF within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary is not expected to result in any significant increase in stationary noise levels. Future operation of the WPCF is not expected to substantially increase traffic volumes in the program area that would result in a significant increase in transportation noise. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere cf Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts. Additionally, noise impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative noise impacts in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.3-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.4 VISUAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR describes the existing visual resources of the White Slough WPCF and the proposed Sphere of Influence lands, summarizes the landscape characteristics of the surrounding area, and discusses the potential visual impacts associated with proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout. The analysis focuses on the anticipated alteration of the landscape characteristics of the program area, with particular attention paid to impacts on views from Interstate 5. 4.4.1 SET11NG VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION Lodi is located in California's Great Central Valley, a vast, relatively flat depositional plain dominated by agricultural land uses with the backdrop of the Coastal Range. The surrounding landscape is characterized by row crops, pastures, orchards, and vineyards. VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The view of the area surrounding the proposed Sphere of Influence is one of agricultural fields with scattered agricultural and residential buildings. The visual and aesthetic environment is characterized by typical views of intensive agricultural land uses. Dairies, field croplands, and orchards dominate a generally uncongested viewshed. The visual character is rural, with Interstate 5 running north to south, within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary. Some highway oriented commercial facilities are located along the northern Sphere of Influence boundary. On a clear day, the Coast Range and Mount Diablo can be seen in the distance to the west (City of Lodi 1988). The existing White Slough WPCF within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary is viewed mainly by motorists traveling south on Interstate 5. A row of eucalyptus and conifer trees perpendicular to Interstate 5 are the most visible features of the program site from a distance. It should be noted that Interstate 5 is designated as a Scenic Route for the agricultural and rural value, the topography, and the connection to other scenic routes. As motorists near the facility, the treatment ponds and facility structures come into view, A greenscapc buffer, consisting of more eucalyptus and conifer trees and grass, partially obscures the view of the facility, including the parking lot, as motorists pass (City of Lodi 1988). Nighttime lighting for the 24-hour operation of the facility is currently present on the site. Some of the waterways within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary are used by recreationists for boating and fishing. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.4-1 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere ofirt luence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analsis VISUAL R 3 RCES REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodi General Plan City of Lodi General Plan Urban Design and Cultural Resources Element Goal 1, Policies I and 2 require that industrial areas upgrade and enhance aesthetic quality through the screening of industrial operations visible from streets, site landscaping, and screening of parking lots (City of Lodi 1991a). San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Element under Open Spaces provides for Objective 1 and the preservation of open space for the continuation of commercial agricultural and productive uses, the enjoyment of scenic beauty and recreation, the protection and use of natural resources, and the protection from natural hazards. Based on the San Joaquin County General Plan, Interstate S within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits designated as a Scenic Route for the agricultural and rural value, the topography, and the connection to other scenic routes. Development proposals along scenic routes cannot detract from the visual and recreational experience. The General Plan provides for the implementation of open space, resource conservation areas, waterways access, waterways requirements, urban open space, acquisition of open space, and scenic route enhancement to avoid visual resource issues (San Joaquin County 1992a). 4.4.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA An aesthetic or visual resources impact would be considered significant if buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would result in any of the following: ■ Introduction of physical features that are substantially out of character with the surrounding area; Alteration of the site so that the scale or degree of change appears as a substantial, obvious, and disharmonious modification of the overall scene (to the extent that it clearly dominates the view); ■ Disruption of adjacent areas from new night lighting; or ■ Inconsistency with the policies of the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.4-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis VISUAL RESOURCES METHODOLOGY The determination of potential visual resource impacts was based upon future buildout of the WPCF within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary. The use of additional lighting is not anticipated under Sphere of Influence buildout. Impact 4.4.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of influence would result in the development of new facilities. Construction of future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins would potentially occur under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence. It should be noted that these facilities would most likely be located as close as possible to the existing WPCF to reduce conveyance costs and to improve site controls. These new facilities would be screened by existing facilities and greenscape buffers (i.e., northern and eastern screening with eucalyptus and conifer trees), and should not be highly visible from Interstate 5. Berms and other water holding facilities associated with potential storage ponds and percolation basins could be visible from surrounding viewsheds. However, improvements would be non - obtrusive and would result in less than significant scenic impacts. The establishment of wetland plant species and associated wetland wildlife species would result in beneficial visual impacts to the surrounding environment. Land application of wastewater could require the use of additional lift stations. However, given that existing irrigation and distribution facilities are located in these areas, potential visual impacts would be considered less than significant. It should also be noted that any new facilities associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be required to comply with the City of Lodi Development Code (City of Lodi 1991a). Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.4.1 None Required CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES As the Qty requires that all new industrial development receive the approval of the City of Lodi Development Code and San Joaquin County requires that scenic route enhancement provisions are implemented, no cumulative impacts were identified for visual resources as a result of the proposed Sphere of Influence and potential future projects. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in significant visual impacts. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative visual resource impact in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4,4-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluenm 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.5 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.5.1 SETTING LAW ENFORCEMENT The City of Lodi Police Department provides police protection services to all areas within the City limits, including the existing White Slough WPCF (City of Lodi 1990). The San Joaquin County Sheriffs Department provides police protection services to the unincorporated portion of San Joaquin County within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. The California Highway Patrol handles traffic issues on the unincorporated roadways within San Joaquin County. The Sheriff s Office also staffs a boating safety division and is designated as "scene manager" in disasters ranging from toxic spills to major flood activity (San Joaquin County 1992a). FIRE PROTECTION The City of Lodi Fire Department provides fire protection and emergency services for the City. Four fire stations are operated by the Fire Department. Emergency travel time for responding to fres is four to five minutes west of Lower Sacramento Road. In the remainder of the City, travel time is approximately three minutes. Insufficient water pressure for fire fighting is a problem in some areas of the City (City of Lodi 1990). Fire protection in the unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County, including the majority of the proposed Sphere of Influence program area, is mainly provided by rural fire districts or the adjacent City of Lodi Fire Department. More remote areas are under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Forestry (San Joaquin County 1992a). Hazardous materials in Lodi are primarily the responsibility of the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services. The City of Lodi Fire Department has prepared a Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan (HMEP) for the City, outlining procedures for handling hazardous material spills (City of Lodi 1990). WASTEWATER The White Slough WPCF provides for the treatment of City of Lodi wastewater. See Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, for a description of the existing system. Fire protection in the unincorporated portions of San haquin County, including the majority of the proposed Sphere of Influence program area, is mainly provided by septic systems. Hughes Environmental Consultants, lne. 4.5-1 City of Lodi White Slough WFCF Sphere of influence 04123104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES WATER SERVICE The City of Lodi operates the water distribution and supply system serving the City. The City of Lodi and the majority of the area surrounding Lodi rely on groundwater as their source of domestic water supply. Historically, the water table has been declining over time with increased development in the basin. The groundwater aquifers provide adequate water supply to the City's wells, but there is some uncertainly concerning the limits on the aquifer's ability to supply adequate water for future development. The City's water supply facilities currently consists of 25 wells drawing on 150 foot to 400 foot deep aquifers. The "safe yield" of the aquifer serving as the source of the City water supply has not been determined. This is primarily due to the variability in recharge from the Mokelumne River (City of Lodi 1988). Most of the system's services are unmetered (City of Lodi 1990). Water service in the unincorporated portions of San Joaquin County, including the majority of the proposed Sphere of Influence program area, is provided by the City of Lodi and individual wells. STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Storm drainage service is provided by the City of Lodi through a series of major trunk lines, detention basins, and pump stations. City stormwater is discharged to the Mokelumne River and the WID Canal. Stormwater runoff from the WPCF drains to surrounding agricultural land owned by the City of Lodi, and back to storage ponds. SOLID WASTE Solid waste management and disposal in San Joaquin County is governed by the San Joaquin County Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), which defines programs for recycling, resource recovery, and disposal. Solid waste in the City of Lodi and the proposed Sphere of Influence program area is collected under contract with Central Valley Waste Services, and deposited at the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill. The landfill is owned and operated by San Joaquin County (City of Lodi 1988). UTILITIES The WPCF uses electricity provided by Lodi's Electric Utilities Department to drive the treatment process. The City of Lodi is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA). The NCPA develops approximately 75 percent of its own energy needs, with the remaining 25 percent purchased from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and other utilities. The WPCF is located within a major utility corridor connecting northern and southern California. Three major power transmission lines pass through the facility. City of Lod€ White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.5-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 4.0 Environmental Analyst's PUBLIC SER IC 5 AND UTILMES King Video Cable provides cable television to the City of Lodi and surrounding area. Pacific Bell provides telephone services to the City of Lodi, including the WPCF. SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES The Lodi Unified School District (LUSD) serves the City of Lodi, north Stockton, and unincorporated portions of northern San Joaquin County. PARKS AND RECREATIONPROGRAMS The City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Department operates 21 standard park facilities and recreation programs. REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Health and Safety Element Goal D and related policies includes provisions related to preventing crime and promoting the personal security of Lodi residents. The General Plan also includes provisions for the establishment and maintenance of adequate utilities and public services and facilities to provide for buildout under the General Plan. The General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element Goal A and related policies includes provisions to establish and maintain a public park system suited to enhancing the livability of the urban environment. San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Public Health and Safety Element under Fire Safety and Law Enforcement, Objectives 1 and 2, and related policies, provide for fire protection and law enforcement for the public's health and safety and the prevention of fire and law enforcement hazards through physical planning. The Infrastructure Services Element under Wastewater Treatment, Objective 1 and related policies, ensure that adequate wastewater treatment and disposal of liquid waste is provided for. Under Water Supply, Objective 1 and related policies, ensure that adequate and safe water supply is available for County users. Under Stormwater Drainage, Objectives 1 and 2 and related policies, ensure that the collection and disposal of stormwater in a manner that least inconveniences the public is provided for, as well as compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Under Solid Waste Disposal, Objective 1 and related policies, ensure the safe and efficient disposal or recycling of wastes generated in San Joaquin County. Under Utility Corridors, Objectives 1, 2, and 3 and related policies, provide for the protection of the public from hazards associated with utility corridors, protection of scenic values from inappropriately located overhead utility liens, and protection of land uses from the placement of utility corridors across property at inappropriate locations. The Public Facilities Element under Recreation, Objectives 1 through 4 and related policies, provide for the protection of recreation resources and the servicing of the recreational needs of San Joaquin County. Under Educational Facilities, Objective 1 and Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.5-3 City of Lodi White Stough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Drat Program EIR 4.0 EnyWnaetntW Anal is L ANO UTUTIES related policies, ensure that adequate educational facilities are provided to serve the County (San Joaquin County 1992a). 4.5.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA For the purposes of this EIR, an impact would be considered significant if buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would: • Result in a need for new or altered governmental services in the areas of fire protection of police protection. ■ Result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas systems, communications systems, or solid waste and disposal utilities. • Be inconsistent with the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. METHODOLOGY Future potential hazardous materials and public health issues were evaluated through a thorough review of existing and future proposed WPCF design within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and an understanding of the potential need for additional public services and utilities. Impact 4.5.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could increase the amount of biosolids (sludge) and solid waste requiring disposal. The proposed Sphere of Influence would allow for expansion of the City's existing biosolids disposal area. Furthermore, as wastewater flows increase, the biosolids generation rate would also increase. It is proposed that these biosolids be disposed within the Sphere of Influence land application areas (assuming the property is City owned and all applicable regulatory requirements are met). The successful implementation of the policies of the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan, along with compliance with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), EPA biosolids disposal requirements (as well as any other applicable environmental criteria) would ensure that potential impacts associated with increased solid waste requiring disposal would be mitigated to a less than significant level. It should be noted that any future projects proposed within the Sphere of Influence would be required to address the potential increase in solid waste disposal, and mitigate as necessary. Significance Less Than Significant City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 4.5-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 EnvironmentalAnai sis PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILMES Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 None Required Impact 4.5.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could require additional utility services. It is unknown at this time if additional utility services (water, electricity, telephone, cable) would be generated as a result of buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence. It should be noted that providing additional utility service to the WPCF would not require extensive alterations to the current systems. Future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to determine additional utility service needs and mitigate potential impacts, as necessary. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.5.2 None Required Impact 4.5.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could require additional police protection services, fire protection services, and emergency response services. In the past, WPCF operations have not resulted in a significant demand upon these services. Given this record, the trained emergency response personnel at the WPCF, and the strict regulation of handling and transport of hazardous materials, the demand upon these services is not anticipated to change as a result of buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence. Additionally, future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to determine additional service needs and mitigate potential impacts, as necessary. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.5.3 None Required Impact 4.5.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could impact existing park and recreational facilities. Hughes Envinanmantal Consultants, Inc. 4.5-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Ana! sis PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES There are no parks or recreational facilities within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. The potential construction of facilities associated with future buildout would ensure that the subject lands would remain in recreational open space and would enhance the natural environment. Therefore, potential impacts to park and recreation facilities would be less than significant. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.5.4 None Required CUMULATI VE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES No cumulative impacts associated with public services and utilities have been identified as a result of the proposed Sphere of Influence program. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in a significant need for additional public services and utilities. Additionally, public service and utility impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative impacts to utility services, police protection services, fire protection services, emergency response services, park and recreational facilities, and school district services in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. City of Ludi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.5-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Dray Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This section of the EIR describes transportation and circulation conditions in the area of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence and identifies potential impacts associated with proposed program buildout. The analysis focuses on potential impacts to the surrounding roadways and evaluates the program's consistency with City of Lodi and San Joaquin County transportation policies. 4.6.1 SETTING The most important regional roadway within the proposed Sphere of Influence is Interstate 5, which runs almost in the middle of the lands proposed for inclusion. Interstate 5 is a six -lane, divided, grade - separated freeway. It runs parallel to State Route 99, and together they provide regional access to Stockton and Sacramento. Interchanges on Interstate 5 are at State Route 12 to the north, and at Eight Mile Road to the south of the WPCF (City of Lodi 1988). State Route 12 is a two-lane major east -west facility that crosses Interstate 5 just north of the program site. State Route 12 provides access to Fairfield, Lodi, and eastern San Joaquin County (City of Lodi 1988). The main facilities of the White Slough WPCF are located adjacent to Interstate 5 and south of the State Route 12 interchange at the North Interstate 5 Frontage Road/Thornton Road undercrossing (City of Lodi 1988). Thomton Road runs through the majority of the proposed Sphere of Influence in a north -south direction and is a two-lane, rural roadway that generally runs parallel to and on the east side of Interstate 5. The North Interstate 5 Frontage Road runs east -west from Thornton Road, crosses under Interstate 5, and turns north just past the WPCF entrance. On the east side of Interstate 5, a grid pattern of rural, two- lane roads serve the agricultural community west of Lodi (City of Lodi 1988). The main rural roads that are included within the proposed Sphere of Influence are Kingdon Road to the north and Tredway Road, Neely Road, and De Vries Road to the east. Southerly and westerly Sphere of Influence lands are accessed by unimproved agricultural roads. Both Interstate 5 and State Route 12 are minimally congested at times. Traffic on the North Interstate 5 Frontage Road is mostly limited to vehicles entering or exiting the WPCF or accessing peripheral ponds and Delta slough waterways. This roadway operates well below its daily capacity. The roadways of the local grid serving agricultural properties within the proposed Sphere of Influence, including Thorton Road, Tredway Road, Neely Road, and De Vries Road carry relatively little traffic (City of Lodi 1988). REGULATORY BACKGROUND Traffic operations for roadway segments and intersections are evaluated based on their measured "level of service." Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the quality of traffic operating conditions, with potential service levels varying from "A" (free-flow traffic conditions) to "F" (traffic volume equal to or greater than capacity). Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.6-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere (f influenve 04YZ3104 Drat Program EIR 4.0 Enviroxmenta1 Ax ff sis T FFIC W CIRCULATION City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi generally considers LOS C or better as acceptable traffic operating conditions (City of Lodi 1990). General Plan Circulation Element Goal A, Policies 1 through 12 establish that the City will provide for a circulation system that accommodates existing and proposed land uses and provides for the efficient movement of people, goods, and services within and through Lodi (City of Lodi 1991a). General Plan Goal E encourages the use of the bicycle as an alternate mode of transportation. San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Transportation Element provides for Objectives 1 and 2, and the related policies, that indicate that the transportation needs of residents and business shall be met with a well -coordinated transportation system, including provisions for the reduction of transportation impacts on air quality and the coordination of transportation and land use planning. The General Plan provides for the implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), air quality management, promotion of transportation issues, and transportation system management (San Joaquin County 1992a). State Caltrans operates and maintains all state routes and highways within San Joaquin County, including Interstate 5. Caltrans has adopted a worst-case acceptable operating standard of LOS D in rural areas and LOS D in more urban areas. 4.6.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following criteria were used to determine the significance of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout impacts regarding traffic: • Result in an increase in existing traffic levels that would result in project area roadways to operate at a LOS below the LOS standards set forth by the City of Lodi General Plan (LOS D) and the San Joaquin County General Plan (LOS C); • Substantially contribute (more than 4 percent) to traffic conditions that already exceed City and County LOS standards; ■ Result in inadequate parking capacity; or ■ Conflict with transit, pedestrian and bicycle uses. The proposed program is not expected to result in any operational impacts to transit, rail, waterborne or air transportation facilities or services. Thus, these transportation systems are not further evaluated in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 4.6-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Program EIR. It is also not anticipated that Sphere of Influence buildout would result in the need for additional operational employees and the associated increase in traffic levels. Therefore, operational related traffic impacts are not analyzed in this Program EIR. METHODOLOGY Review of the program's potential impact to transportation and circulation in the program area was based on review of the 1988 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Draft and Final EIR, the 1992 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Supplemental Draft and Final EIR, the City of Lodi General Plan and General Plan EK and the San Joaquin County General Plan Transportation Element. Impact 4.6.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily increase the level of traffic on program area roadways. Construction of future land application lines, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence could increase the level of traffic on program area roadways. Construction vehicles and equipment expected to be used include, but are not limited to, haul trucks, dump trucks, delivery and service trucks, and construction workers' vehicles. This additional traffic would be temporary and is not expected to exceed LOS D on Interstate 5, North Interstate 5, State Route 12, Eight Mile Road, Thornton Road, Kingdon Road, Tredway Road, Neely Road, De Vries Road and the surrounding grid pattern of two-lane roads included within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. The small percentage increase to already low traffic volumes would not be considered significant. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 None Required CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES Given the relatively low traffic volumes on surrounding roadways and roadways ncluded within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and the low traffic volumes that could be generated as a result of future plant expansion, cumulative transportation and circulation impacts would be considered less than significant. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in significant traffic and circulation impacts. Additionally, traffic and circulation impacts associatcd with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative traffic and circulation impacts in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County, Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.6-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.7 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY This section describes water features within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits, including bodies of water, existing flood patterns, probable groundwater characteristics, and water quality standards. It also discusses potentia 1 issues concerning the quality of water during future construction associated with buildout within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. 4.7.1 SETTING SURFACE WATER The White Slough WPCF and the proposed Sphere of Influence limits are located on the eastern edge of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta waterway system. The sloughs and canals in this area generally drain southward and westward into the San Joaquin River, approximately 25 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River (City of Lodi 1988). The WPCF currently discharges effluent into Dredger Cut, a man-made channel that connects to both White Slough and Bishop Cut. These waterways, in turn, are connected to the San Joaquin River by Disappointment Slough, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Honker Cut. Dredger Cut is a manmade channel which was constructed in the early 1900s to provide drainage for agricultural lands in the area. Dredger Cut, White Slough, Bishop Cut, Telephone Cut, and other Delta channels are normally dominated by tidal flows (West Yost 2001). The WPCF current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), are applied at the discharge into a side slough at Dredger Cut. The current interim discharge requirements include secondary treatment and disinfection limits, biotoxicity requirements, dissolved oxygen limits, nitrogen loading limits for land application, and related requirements. FLOODING Lands west of Interstate 5 in the vicinity of the WPCF and the neighboring areas are located within the 100 -year floodplain of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (City of Lodi 1991a). The 100 -year flood elevation is estimated to be eight feet above mean sea level, compared to ground elevations of three feet near the peripheral canal ponds and seven feet near Interstate 5. Thus, floodwaters are about five feet deep on the western edge of the effluent -irrigated fields diminishing to about one foot deep near the treatment works. Since they are not protected by levees, the lowermost fields are inundated by floods more frequently than the recurrence of the 100 -year flood (City of Lodi 1988). It should be noted that the Rio - Blanco Tract, an approximate 700 acre parcel included within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries, is surrounded by levees that are slightly above the 100 -year flood line. However, these levees were not constructed to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards. Therefore, although it is technically located with the 100 -year floodplain area, the Rio Blanco Tract is likely protected for up to the 100 -year flood event (West Yost 2004). Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-1 City of Lodi Fnile Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfheence 04/23104 Draft Program EIR 4,0 Environmental Anal sis W5ROLOGYANATER QUALFFY GROUNDWATER The entire Central Valley is underlain by a vast thickness of alluvium, which is saturated below a relatively shallow depth (approximately 50 feet below the surface). The alluvial layers are part of the aquifer system that extends the length of the valley. Locally, the aquifer is recharged by the Mokelumne River (City of Lodi 1990). The City of Lodi uses groundwater as its sole source of municipal water supply. Nitrate contamination of the groundwater supply is a concern. This contamination is most likely due to agricultural practices (City of Lodi 1990). Saltwater intrusion is a also a major concern to Lodi and surrounding communities that rely on groundwater for water supply. Groundwater recharge by the Mokelumne River appears to currently protect the Lodi area from saltwater intrusion (City of Lodi 1990). The groundwater table is moderately shallow under much of the existing WPCF site. Based on testing executed by Kleinfelder and Associates, groundwater was encountered at depths of between approximately 5.5 and 10.5 feet, but was not generally encountered in the ten foot deep borings. Groundwater was noted in monitoring wells around the WPCF in 1989 at depths of seven to 14 feet. Fluctuations in groundwater depth were anticipated to be the result of local irrigation practices (Kleinfelder 1999). Based on soil data discussed in Section 4.2, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, soil trends indicate improved drainage from west to east across the proposed Sphere of Influence limits, and depth to groundwater also increases in this direction (West Yost 2003). REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Conservation Element Goal A, Policies 1 through 10 include provisions to protect water quality through monitoring and conservation strategies. The Health and Safety Element of the General Plan includes provisions to prevent the loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to flooding (City of Lodi 1991a). San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Element under Water Resources and Quality, Objectives I through 6, and related policies, provide for the protection of surface water aid groundwater and encourage wastewater reclamation efforts. These goals and policies generally call for strict water quality maintenance, management of water resources, and water conservation. The Public Health and Safety Element under Flood Hazards provides for Objective 1 and associated policies, to protect people and property from flood hazards. Specifically, the plan states that new industrial development shall be required to have protection from a 100 -year flood through the implementation of flood hazard identification and flood control structures (San Joaquin County 1992a). City of Ladi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfJuence 4.7-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environments_lAnalysis Water Quality Control Plan, Fourth Edition, for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan implements the Porter -Cologne Act and, along with applicable State Board water quality policies (e.g., the California Ocean Plan), serves as the State Water Quality Control Plan applicable to the watershed draining to the Delta, as required pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. As such, the Basin Plan includes the following components: ■ Designation of beneficial uses. ■ Establishment of water quality objectives. Implementation programs and policies to achieve water quality objectives for all waters in the Basin, including the Delta. Beneficial Uses The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses of the of the Delta as municipal drinking water supply, industrial water supply, agricultural irrigation and agricultural stock watering water supply, body contact recreation, other non -body contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, navigation, aquatic habitat, fish migration habitat, warm spawning habitat and wildlife habitat. Water Quality Objectives To protect the designated beneficial uses of a water body, effluent limitations are currently set by the Regional Board, using the policies and guidelines outlined in both the Basin Plan and the State Implementation Plan (which is discussed below). The Basin Plan provides both in -stream water quality objectives for the protection of fish and wildlife (where the objectives that are required to be met to protect a coldwater freshwater aquatic habitat are the most restrictive), and site-specific objectives for protection of specific water bodies with known impairments. Implementation Programs and Policies The Basin Plan also provides that there are ten State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) water quality control policies to which Regional Board actions must conform, including the SWRCB Resolution No. 77-1, "Policy and Action Plan for Water Reclamation in California." This policy was adopted in January 1977 and states that reclamation actions must be implemented by the SWRCB, Regional Boards and other agencies. In general, Resolution 77-1 declares that the state shall undertake all possible steps to encourage the development of water reclamation facilities that meet one of the three conditions below, focusing on areas where water supplies are short and reclaimed water can supplement or replace other water supplies without interfering with water rights or in -stream beneficial uses. One of the following conditions should apply to any state supported reclamation project: Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-3 Cary of Lodi White Stough WPCF Sphere oflaAence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sus ROL A QUALITY ■ Beneficial uses will be made of wastewater that would otherwise be discharged to marine or brackish receiving waters or evaporation ponds. ■ Reclaimed water will replace or supplement the use of fresh water or better quality water. ■ Reclaimed water will be used to preserve, restore, or enhance in -stream beneficial uses. State Implementation Plan The EPA adopted the National Toxics Rule (NTR) in February 1993, and the California Toxics Rule (CTR) in April 2000. These rules contain priority pollutant water quality standards that are applicable to the White Slough WPCF discharge. The State Board adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (also known as the State Implementation Plan (SIP)) in March 2000, which then became affective on May 22 of that year. This document contains guidance on implementation of the NTR and CTR criteria. The White Slough WPCF current permit was adopted in February 2000, prior to adoption of the SIP. Therefore, while the current permit does contain effluent limitations for some priority pollutants, the current effluent limits were not established based on the guidelines of the SIP. The City's existing permit expires January 28, 2005. Therefore, it is anticipated that the next permit will contain stringent effluent limitations based on SIP guidelines. Total Maximum Daily Loads Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state identify those waters within its boundaries for which existing controls and effluent limitations alone do not ensure attainment of water quality objectives. The resulting list is referred to as the "303(d) list." The CWA further requires that states establish a priority ranking for waters on the 303(d) list, then, in accordance with the priority ranking, establish Total Maximum Daily Load limitations. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a number that represents the assimilative capacity of a receiving water to absorb a pollutant. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time (the traditional approach) or in other ways such as toxicity or a percentage reduction or other appropriate measure relating to a state water quality objective. A TMDL is implemented by reallocating the total allowable pollution among the different pollutant sources (through the permitting process or other regulatory means) to ensure that the water quality objectives are achieved. The SWRCB has recently approved the proposed 303(d) list, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is currently reviewing these recommendations. The following constituents are included in the 303(d) list for the Delta: City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.7-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 4.0 RnvhvxmentalAnal sis H t Y ■ Chlordane ■ DDT ■ Diazinon ■ Dieldrin ■ Dioxin Compounds ■ Exotic Species ■ Furan Compounds ■ Mercury • PCB's ■ Selenium • Dissolved Oxygen ■ Salinity From this list, only mercury, dissolved oxygen and salinity are listed as having municipal discharges as a potential source. This does not eliminate, however, future TMDL based limitations on the White Slough WPCF discharge for the other compounds on the list. Title 22 Disinfection Requirements The Department of Health Services (DHS) sets the standards for effluent reuse to protect public health. These standards are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (Title 22) and include specific treatment criteria and use restrictions that are applied to all reclamation projects in the state. Based on current interpretation of state policy, Title 22 standards also are applied through the state NPDES permitting process to surface water discharges where the effluent is diluted less than 20:1 by the receiving water, and where the water may be used or diverted for agricultural irrigation or full body contact recreation beneficial uses. For these conditions, the same standards under Title 22 for unrestricted irrigation reuse and reuse in unrestricted recreational impoundments would also be applied to the discharge. The City's discharge does not consistently meet a 20:1 dilution ratio with its receiving stream; therefore, the City's current discharge permit requires that tertiary effluent standards be met year round by April 2004. The City is currently requesting an extension to January 28, 2005. 4.7.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A hydrologic impact of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be considered significant if it met any of the following criteria: ■ Generate substantial storm water runoff; ■ Cause substantial flooding; Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environwental Anal sis HYDROLOGY/WATERQUALTY ■ Expose people or structures to flood hazards; r Significantly alter the course, direction , or volume of surface water flows; ■ Alter groundwater flows; or I Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Water quality impacts resulting from proposed program buildout would be considered significant if they would: ■ Substantially degrade water quality; ■ Contaminate a public water supply; or ■ Substantially degrade or deplete water resources. METHODOLOGY The hydrology/water quality evaluation is based on qualitative evaluation of buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence and potential future impacts to immediately surrounding surface waters, San Joaquin River, and the groundwater basin. This evaluation is based on review of the Basin Plan, the City of Lodi General Plan and General Plan EIR, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan, and the Technical Memorandum on the City of Lodi Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence prepared by West Yost and Associates. Impact 4.7.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. Construction of future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would not result in additional runoff associated with increased impervious surfaces at the WPCF. The recommended facilities protect the existing land use and site absorption. While the recommended wetland, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins would be considered impervious when full, these facilities would be sized to hold all captured stormwater for eventual beneficial reuse. Furthermore, the facilities associated with Sphere of Influence buildout would allow for capture of site runoff from local agricultural fields such that it could either be used for beneficial purposes such as crop irrigation and habitat creation, or discharged per state guidelines. Future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to maximize the potential for absorption and runoff control. Therefore, these measures would ensure that potential impacts associated with increased solid waste requiring disposal would be mitigated to a less than significant level. City of Lodi White Slough WFCF Sphere of Influence 4.7-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program ,EIR 04/23104 4.0 Environmental A ' at s HYDROLOUY—&—ATER QUALITY Significance Less Than Significant Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 None Required Impact 4.7.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in flooding impacts. Construction of potential future facilities associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence could result in increased exposure of people and/or property to the risk of injury and damage in the event of a 100 -year flood. However, protection from a 100 -year flood must continue to be provided for the WPCF, as this is a requirement in the WDRs issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. Furthermore, any additional storage, wetland or percolation basin facilities may also need to be protected from the 1 -in -100 year flood zone. As previously discussed, the 1 -in -100 year flood zone extends through approximately half of the City's WPCF existing properties. Therefore, if these areas within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits are to be used for the expansion of the WPCF storage, or reuse facilities, a Letter of Map Revision from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS) that would modify the 100 -year flood zone boundary, (such that these properties would not be included in this 100 -year flood zone), may be required. Another potential option under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout is for the City to obtain permission from the FEMA to construct additional levees surrounding the potential storage and wetland areas to exclude 1 -in -100 year flood events. It should be noted that processing and approvals with the Central Valley RWQCB, the ACOE, and FEMA would occur with implementation of a specific project. As the proposed Sphere of Influence is being considered on a programmatic level, potential impacts associated with future specific projects must be considered under separate environmental review. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the issued Waste Discharge Requirements, the Army Corps of Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 EnvirohmentalAnal Nis ROL . . 'ATER QUALFY Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to groundwater. Based on the recommendations made in the Sphere of Influence Technical Memorandum prepared by West Yost and Associates, potential future storage basins and reuse wetlands should be located in the more westerly portion of the proposed Sphere of Influence properties where the soil series is more poorly drained. The types of facilities located in this area would have a natural liner to protect the groundwater. The Technical Memorandum also recommcnds that potential future land application sites occur in areas that have more drainage, to reduce the potential for adverse conditions that may be associated with poorly drained soils (West Yost 2003). Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be located such that potential groundwater impacts are avoided to the extent possible. 4.7.3b The City shall comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such requirements may include design criteria to maintain separation of wetland and storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land application to ensure that regulatory standards for reclaimed water are met, monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitoring program. Significance After M itigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.7.4 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to surface water quality. Future construction related activities within the proposed Sphere of Influence have the potential to impact water quality. The release of sediments, fuel, oil, grease, solvents, concrete wash and other chemicals used in construction activities could impact water quality if allowed to enter surrounding waterbodies. As described in Section 4.2, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure the future City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.7-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis HYDR005GYNVATER QUALrrY project construction activities would not result in impacts to water quality. Future project construction activities would be required obtain a Notice of Intent and comply with the Central Valley RWQCB's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. The General Permit requires adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the control of erosion and other potential water quality problems associated with construction activities, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. Future construction within the proposed Sphere of Influence could create minimal impervious surfaces that would prevent precipitation from infiltrating. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in flooding problems in the area, or contribute to a cumulative flooding impact. Additionally, flooding impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-9 City of Lodi Where Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04!23/04 Draft Program EfR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis MDROLOGYNVATER QUALITY As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, the City of Stockton prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Delta Water Supply Project, involving a surface water diversion facility and new conveyance pipelines, which would serve the increasing water demands of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area (COSMA) by adding an intake at the southwestern tip of Empire Tract on the San Joaquin River (City of Stockton 2003). The City of Lodi WPCF discharges treated wastewater to Bishop Cut/White Slough via Dredger Cut. Due to lack of dilution in Dredger Cut, the City is planning to relocate its discharge to Bishop Cut to take advantage of higher net flows. This is being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project, which is currently in the ADEIR phase. The City of Lodi is concerned that the proposed new City of Stockton intake location would further reduce net flows in Bishop Cut under various Delta flow conditions, which could result in increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements on the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas are available in the event that the City cannot meet increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements in the future (City of Lodi 2003a). The downslope San Joaquin River waterway, as identified in the SWRCB's 303(d) list, is currently listed as impaired for a variety of constituents, and its ability to assimilate additional pollutants is limited. Impacts on surface water quality also affects groundwater quality, since groundwater is recharged through percolation in watercourses and in exposed soils. Quantification of the potential degradation of surface water and groundwater quality would be speculative since the extent of the impact would depend on the future location and type of development that would occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Lodi as served under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Stockton, and in the surrounding unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. Potential impacts to surface water and groundwater are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. Any future project proposed within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to analyze specific project related impacts on surface water and groundwater. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all ne cessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.7-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drafi Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.8 AIR QUALITYIODOR This section describes the air quality of the general program area and analyzes issues such as potential impacts to existing air quality as a result of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout. Potential odor impacts are also addressed. 4.8.1 SETTING AIR BASIN CLIMATOLOGY The City of Lodi is within the northern portions of the eight -County San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). This air basin is a well -drained climatic region, primarily because of the topographic barriers which form distinct boundaries on three sides of the basin. The western boundary is formed by the Coast Range, the southern boundary by the Tehachapi Mountains, and the eastern boundary by the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Only the northern boundary is not marked by a distinct topographic feature. Lodi lies within the low, flat San Joaquin Valley. This area is characterized by hot summers and mild winters. The San Joaquin Valley is quite and due to a rain "shadow" created by the series of coast mountain ranges separating the valley from the Pacific Ocean. Within the northern San Joaquin Valley, northwesterly winds dominate during the spring and summer months. During fall and winter, northwesterly winds still dominate, but wind direction is more variable and calm conditions are more frequent. The climate and geography of the San Joaquin Valley is conducive to air quality degradation. The summertime wind pattern carries pollutants from adjacent air basins. Locally generated pollutants are also carried to the south where ventilation is restricted by the mountains. The fall and winter periods are characterized by frequent periods of stagnation. These conditions result in elevated concentrations of pollutants such as suspended particulates and ozone. AIR QUALITYSTANDARDS Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These standards are set at levels which avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 4.8-1 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and typical sources. Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. 4.8-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 EnvironanenUd Analysis AIR QUALITY1000IR TABLE 4.8-1 MAJOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant Characteristics HeaRh Effocft Major Sources Ozone A highly reactive Eye Irritation The major sources ozone photochemical pollutant precursors are combustion created by the action of Respiratory function sources such as factories and sunshine on ozone impairment. automobiles, and evaporation of precursors (primarily reactive solvents and fuels, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Often called photochemical smog, Carbon Carbon monoxide is an Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust, combustion Monoxide odorless, colorless gas that transport in the of fuels, combustion of wood in is highly toxic. It is formed by bloodstream. woodstoves and fireplaces. the incomplete combustion of fuels. Aggravation of cardiovascular disease. Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Nitrogen Reddish -brown gas that Increased risk of acute Automobile and diesel truck Dioxide discolors the air, formed and chronic respiratory exhaust, industrial processes, during combustion. disease, fossil -fueled power plants. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil - gas with a pungent, irritation obstruction lung disease. powered power plants, industrial odor. processes. Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of Aggravation of chronic Combustion, automobiles, field Matter dust, soot, aerosols and disease and heartllung burning, factories and unpaved other matter which are small disease symptoms. roads. Also a result of enough to remain suspended photochemical processes. in the air for a long period of time. Source: CARB,(http:l/www.arb,ca.gov/agsiaags2.pdf) The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4.8-2 for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid healtli-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and PMI o. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 4.8-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 4.0 Environmental Anel sis AIR QUALITYIODOR TABLE 4.8-2 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS P0Ilutant Averaging Time Federal Primary State Standard Nonattainment/Serious Nonattainment/Severe Standard Designation to be determined Ozone 8 -Hour 0.08 PPM -- Particulate Matter (PM -10) 1-Hour 0.12 PPM 0.09 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8 -Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1 -Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM — 1 -Hour -- 0.25 PPM Annual Average 0.03 PPM -- Sulfur Dioxide 24 -Hour 0.14 PPM 0.05 PPM 1 -Hour -- 0.5 PPM PAhzs Annual Average 15 ug/m3 12 ug/m3 24 -Hour 65 ug/m3 -- PM,o Annual Average 50 ug/m3 20 ugitn3 24 -Hour 150 ug/m 3 50 ug/m 3 Lead 30 -Day Avg. -- 1.5 ug/m 3 Month Avg, 1.5 ug/m3 — PPM = Parts per Million ug/m' = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: GARB (http://www.arb.ca.gov/ags/aags2.pdf) CURRENTAm QuALITy The San Joaquin Valley has been designated serious nonattainment by the US EPA for Q (ozone) and PMI. (particulate matter, dust). The CARB has designated the Valley as severe nonattainment for 03 and nonattainment for PM, n. Current state and federal designations in the SJVAB for each criteria pollutant are shown in Table 4.8-3. TABLE 4.8.3 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (SJVUAPCD) DESIGNATIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS Criteria Pollutant Designation/Classification Federal State Ozone (03) — one hour Nonattainment/Serious Nonattainment/Severe Ozone (03) — eight hour Designation to be determined No State Standard Carbon Monoxide —Stanislaus County Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Particulate Matter (PM -10) Nonattainment/Serious Nonattainment Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.8-3 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere offnfluence 04/23/04 Dra�i Program EIR 4.0 EnvironmentalAnal sis AIR QUALITMDOR TABLE 4.8-3 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT (SJVUAPCD) DESIGNATIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS Criteria Pollutant Designation/Class) cation Federal State Particulate Matter (PM -2,5) Designation to be Determined Designation to be Determined Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified Attainment Sulfates (SO4) No Federal Standard Attainment Lead — Particulate No Designation Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) No Federal Standard Unclassified Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Source: SJVUAPCD (http://www,valleyair.org/aginfo/attainment.htm) The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) and CARB operate a network of air quality monitoring sites within the San Joaquin Air Basin. The closest to the program site are located in Stockton about 15 miles west of the program site. There are two monitoring sites in Stockton. The East Mariposa monitoring site measures only ozone. The Hazelton Street monitoring site monitors ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxice. Table 4.8-4 summarizes recorded exceedances of State and Federal standards at these monitoring sites for the period 2000-2002. Table 4.8-4 shows that the federal/state standards for ozone and particulate matter are frequently exceeded in the program area. TABLE 4.8-4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT STOCKTON MONITORING SITES PollutantlStandard Days Exceeding Standard In: 2000 2001 2002 East Mariposa Monitoring Site Ozone 1 -Hour State 4 5 5 1 -Hour Federal 0 0 1 0 1 8 -Hour Federal 0 1 1 Hazelton Street Monitoring Site Ozone 1 -Hour State 4 5 2 1 -Hour Federal 0 0 0 8 -Hour Federal 0 1 0 Carbon 8 -Hour State/Fed. 0 0 0 Monoxide 1 -Hour State 0 0 0 Nitrogen 1 -Hour State 0 0 0 Dioxide M 0 24 -Hour State 9 10 10 24 -Hour Federal 0 0 0 PM2.5 24 -Hour Federal 1 2 0 Source: CARE,(http://www,arb.ca.gov/ags/aags2.pdf) City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.8-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 EnvironmentalAnel sis AIR-QUALITY/ODOR ODOR The current odor situation at the White Slough WPCF was evaluated through site visits, assessment of existing data, and discussions with WPCF staff. Odor problems in the vicinity of the WPCF result from both regional and local sources. Unpleasant odors in the region primarily originate with the livestock operations common to the general area, specifically dairy farming. The impact of these odors depends on the prevailing breeze relative to the source and the sensitivity of the receptor. Odors are common at wastewater treatment facilities in general, and are sometimes emitted from the WPCF. Odors associated with the WPCF treatment operations typically originate from the influent sewers, the headworks, grit washing and storage, the primary sedimentation basins, septic discharge, grease truck unloading and the scum sump, the digesters, digester gas combustion, the Budge lagoon No. 2, and the dissolved air flotation thickener. The expansion of these facilities is not associated with the buildout of the Sphere of Influence. Odors also can be emitted from the land application sites, typically during the early fall when large volumes of cannery wastewater is applied to the reuse area. It is not clear whether the City would continue to apply cannery wastewater directly to their fields in the future. However, any increases in the amount of the industrial wastewater received by the WPCF would not, necessarily be associated with the buildout of the Sphere of Influence. The City of Lodi has received some complaints of odors from the WPCF. Characteristically, these complaints occur in the early fall during the canning season, on warm, windless nights when odors build up over the facility and drift near residences in the surrounding area (Kerlin 2003). The City indicates, however, that most odors in the area occur intermittently and are often attributable to dairy operations and fertilization activities in neighboring agricultural fields. As described in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, as development increases around the WPCF, odor control could become a significant issue. Therefore, a buffer would be provided within the proposed Sphere of Influence to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. HEALTH EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS The primary air quality problems in the Lodi area are q and PM10. The following is a discussion of the health effects of these pollutants. Ozone 03 is produced by chemical reactions, involving nitrogen oxides (NQ and reactive organic gases (ROG), that are triggered by sunlight. No. are created during combustion of fuels, while ROG are emitted during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Since 03 is not directly emitted to the atmosphere but is formed as a result of photochemical reactions, it is considered a secondary pollutant. In the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, ozone is a seasonal problem, occurring roughly from April through October. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.8-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnflaence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis AI QUALI IOQOR 03 is a strong irritant that attacks the respiratory system, leading to the damage of lung tissue. Asthma., bronchitis and other respiratory ailments as well as cardiovascular diseases are aggravated by exposure to ozone. A healthy person exposed to high concentrations may become nauseated or dizzy, may develop a headache or cough, or may experience a burning sensation in the chcst. Research has shown that exposure to 03 damages the alveoli (the individual air sacs in the lung where the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the air and blood takes place). Research has shown that 03 also damages vegetation. Suspended Particulate Master Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. "inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined as "suspended particulate matter" or "PM,fl". Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). PM2.5i by definition, is included in PM,o. PM,o is small suspended particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter, which can enter the lungs. The major components of PM are dust particles, nitrates, and sulfates. PM is directly emitted to the atmosphere as a by-product of fuel combustion and the wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads. Small particles are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Particles greater than 10 microns in diameter can cause irritation in the nose, throat, and bronchial tubes. Natural mechanisms remove most of these particles, but particles less than 10 microns in diameter are able to pass through the body's natural defenses and the mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract and enter into the lungs. The particles can damage the alveoli, tiny air sacs responsible for gas exchange in the lungs. The particles may also carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds, which adhere to the particle surfaces and can enter the lungs. AIR POLLUTANT SOURCES The City of Lodi contains a multitude of air pollutant sources. Automobiles and truck exhausts, industrial combustion, combustion of natural gas in homes and businesses for space and water heating, and evaporation of paints and solvents are typical urban air pollutant sources. The City of Lodi is nearly surrounded by agriculture lands, which generate pollutants through equipment and vehicle exhausts, tilling, burning, unpaved road travel, and evaporation of pesticides. City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.8-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23104 4.0 Environmental Analysis IR QUALITY OR REG ULA TOR Y BACKGR0 UND Federal Program The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, requires the state to identify areas not meeting the federal primary standards (i.e., non -attainment areas). San Joaquin County was one of the many non -attainment areas in California that failed to meet the federal air quality standards by 1987. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 require that new non -attainment plans be prepared and submitted to the USEPA. The SJVUAPCD has adopted federal non -attainment plans for PM10 and CO. State/Local Program The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 requires local air pollution control districts to prepare air quality attainment plans for non -attainment pollutants. Under the state CCA, San Joaquin County is considered non -attainment for two pollutants: O, and PK o. City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Conservation Element Goal F and associated policies include several provisions for the improvement of air quality, including coordination with the SJVUAPCD regarding the permitting of projects that may impact air quality and the development of appropriate mitigation (City of Lodi 1991 a). San Joaquin County General Plan To achieve compliance with federal and state standards, San Joaquin County adopted an Air Quality Management Pian (AQMP) in 1982, which contains strategies to reduce emissions from mobile sources, including the direct control of vehicle emissions. In 1988, the County also began an inspection maintenance program to reduce emissions from automobiles. The San Joaquin County General Plan (San Joaquin County 1992a) contains several policies to protect air quality, including the following: • San Joaquin County shall meet and maintain all state and national standards for air quality. ■ Motor vehicle emissions shall be minimized through land use and transportation strategies, as well as by promotion of alternative fuels. ■ Projects shall be designed to minimize concentrations of carbon monoxide (hot spots). ■ Air quality hazards from pesticides shall be minimized. ■ The elimination of chlorofluorocarbons shall be supported. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.8-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04123/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis AI K QUALI f M DOR 4.8.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In the following analysis, an air quality impact would be considered significant under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout if any of the following criteria were met: ■ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ■ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; ■ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; ■ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; ■ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; • Result in estimated carbon monoxide concentrations exceeding the California Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (PPM) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm averaged over 1 hour (SJVUAPCD 1999); ■ Result in new direct or indirect emissions of ozone precursors (ROG or NOO in excess of 10 tons per year (SJVUAPCD 1999); ■ Expose members of the public to objectionable odors will be deemed to have a significant impact (SJVUAPCD 1999); or ■ Expose sensitive receptors (including residential areas) or the general public to substantial levels cf Tonic Air Contaminants would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact (SJVUAPCD 1999). The SJVUAPCD significance threshold for construction dust impacts is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The SJVUAPCD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM,,, beyond that required by district regulations. METHODOLOGY Project -related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts due to construction, and long-term impacts due to project operation. PMto and dust would be the primary short-term air pollutants resulting from future project construction within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. Potential odors City ofLodr White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnflaence 4.8-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis AIR QUALITYb-5bW from the future projects contained within the proposed Sphere of Influence would be the primary long- term air pollutant resulting from future project operation. Given the minor increase in the operational features and staffing under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, it is not expected there would be a significant increase in operational stationary or mobile air contaminants. Thus, the impact analysis below is focused on future construction air pollutant emissions and odor impacts. It should be noted that the City of Lodi has not proposed a specific project, and are not preparing any such development at this time. Future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to analyze potential construction and operational air quality impacts, and mitigate as necessary. Impact 4.8.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pians. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is currently a federal and state non -attainment area for PM,o and ozone. The SJVUAPCD's PM,o Attainment Plan was recently adopted. The federal regional ozone plan is the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan (OADP) and Amended 2042 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan. The state -mandated ozone attainment plan is the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan Revision 1997-1999. Proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be judged to conflict with implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. A project would be judged to obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would interfere with implementation of the Transportation Control Measures contained in the plans. Proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would not conflict with any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures None Required Impact 4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate short-term emissions from construction activities. Future construction -related emissions associated with Sphere of Influence buildout would include dust generated from two phases of construction. This first phase of construction would most likely involve the initial site preparation activities such as site grading and Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.8-9 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnJluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis AIR QUAL excavation. The second phase of construction activities would most likely involve the actual construction of land application lines, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. It is not possible at this time to determine the short-term emissions associated with future Sphere of Influence buildout construction activities. As the region is in non -attainment for PM 10, future projects would be subject to District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8020 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved Roads). On the basis of the potential to cause or contribute to ambient air quality standard violations in the program vicinity, and to expose people to relatively high concentrations of dust, fugitive dust emissions from construction of future Sphere of Influence buildout projects would be a temporary significant air quality impact. As previously discussed, future projects within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to determine short-term emissions from construction activities and mitigate potential impacts, as necessary. Significance Significant Mitig ation Measures 4.8.2a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall coordinate with the SJVUAPCD regarding the Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate. 4.8.2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying with the SJVUAPCD's District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8020 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved Roads. 4.8.2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall properly maintain equipme nt to reduce NOx levels. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate objectionable odors in the program vicinity. The existing WPCF is an intermittent source of odor. Odors that are emitted from the WPCF at times are the result of influent sewers, the headworks, grit washing and storage, the primary sedimentation basins, septic discharge, grease truck unloading and the scum sump, City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.8-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Urafi Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis AIR QuALITY10DOR the digesters, digester gas combustion, the sludge lagoon No. 2, the dissolved air flotation thickener, and the land application sites (West Yost 2001). Odors also can be emitted from the land application sites, typically during the early fall when large volumes of cannery wastewate r is applied to the reuse area. Odor can be an existing issue to the few surrounding residents in the general vicinity of the WPCF. As previously described, as development increases around the WPCF, odor control could become a significant issue. Therefore, a buffer would be provided within the proposed Sphere of Influence to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. The minimum odor buffer distance recommended for land disposal sites and polishing lagoons is 500 feet. The minimum odor buffer recommended for wastewater treatment facilities is 1,500 feet. Due to the size of the future potential land application area, all of the WPCF process units would be located well within 1,500 feet of the Sphere of Influence boundary. Therefore, a minimum odor buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed around future potential ponds and reclaimed water land application areas. Actual buffer distances are dependent upon local site conditions such as prevailing wind direction. The prevailing wind at the WPCF is from the west at an average of four miles per hour (1983-2000, CIMIS station #42, Lodi), which is moderately low. Furthermore, with the proposed upgrade to Title 22 water quality, it is anticipated that odor issues associated with land disposal would decrease. The minimum buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed for the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence (West Yost 2003). Therefore, if proper buffers, loading rates, and operational practices were implemented under Sphere of Influence buildout, potential odor impacts would be minimal. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include an odor buffer to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.$-11 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis AIR QUAL O Significance Significant Mitigation Measure 4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphe re of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.8-12 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program Elk 04/13/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis 49 HAZARDOUS MATERIALSMEALTH RISKS This section provides information on safety hazards associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence program. The reader is referred to Section 4.2, Geology, Soils and Seismicity for information regarding impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards, Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality for information regarding impacts associated with water quality and flooding, and Section 4.8, Air Quality regarding air quality hazards. 4.9.1 SETTING Hazardous waste is defined as any waste material that is a potential threat to human health and environment, having the capacity to cause serious illness or death. In any urbanized environment, hazardous waste and its safe handling and disposal is an issue that must be addressed. Hazardous materials are subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government. A summary of the most pertinent regulations and their administering agencies is provided in the following subsections. FEDERAL At the federal level, human exposure to chemical agents, and in some cases the environment and wildlife, is regulated primarily by four regulatory agencies: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC plays a limited role (primarily the labeling of consumer products) in regulating hazardous materials as they pertain to the proposed program The FDA primarily regulates food additives and contaminants, human drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics. Similarly, the FDA plays a limited role in regulating hazardous materials as they pertain to the proposed program In addition to these regulatory agencies, the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates the interstate transport of hazardous materials. The EPA and OSHA administer several critical congressional statutes, with each statute's emphasis on the protection of human health and subsequent economic costs of such protection. For instance, under separate statutes, the EPA and OSHA may be mandated to regulate exposure to an identical substance using different significance thresholds based on the exposed individuals and the agency represents, healthy workers are he primary focus of OSHA and the general public and environment being the primarily focus of the EPA. These differences often reflect the Congressional objective of the statute, the ability of the administering agency to regulate the substance of concern, and the economic benefits of the subject regulation. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.9-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis HAURD-OUTS-MATERIALSIHEALTH RISKS STATE At the state level, hazardous materials are regulated through a number of statutes and numerous regulations. These laws, many similar in their federal counterparts, regulate the use, storage, disposal, and transport of hazardous chemicals. The primary state regulatory authorities, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA), administer many of these laws. CITY OFLODI/SANJOA QUIN COUNTY Hazardous materials in Lodi are primarily the responsibility of the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services. The City participates in the identification and cleanup of the City's hazards. Source problems in the City include leaking underground fuel tanks, PCBs, and electrical hazards. Lodi's roadways and railroads are used routinely to transport hazardous materials. The transport of these materials are regulated by various state agencies, depending on the material involved; regulations deal with routes, safe stopping and parking places, labeling, packaging, and signage. Because of workforce constraints, only spot-checking is possible; yet numerous citations are issued. The City has taken measures to reduce the risks to residents of transporting hazardous materials, including enforcement of an ordinance prohibiting commercial vehicles from parking on residential streets (City of Lodi 1990). The City of Lodi Fire Department has prepared a Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan (HMEP) for the City, outlining procedures for handling hazardous material spills. WHITESLOUGH WPCFHAWDOUSMATERIALS Several chemicals that could be considered hazardous materials are currently used for treatment at the WPCF. These chemicals include chlorine and sulfur dioxide gas. It should be noted that these chemicals are intended to be phased out of use at the WPCF after 2004, as a result of the transition to ultraviolet disinfection facilities. A release of these chemicals into the environment could pose a threat to human health and safety. Diesel fuel, waste oil, lubricants and oils, and latex paint are also used at the WPCF, however, they are used in small quantities and represent minimal concern. The current discharge of effluent into Dredger Cut could potentially pose health problems related to bacterial contamination of recreationists and heavy metal accumulation in fish. Routine Maintenance Program City of Lodi WPCF operations staff routinely service the machines, pumps, devices, and instruments required for the proper operation and functioning of the WPCF. A computerized maintenance database system tracks maintenance efforts and maintenance schedules, assuring that each WPCF system is provided the appropriate and timely preventative and predictive maintenance. Such maintenance includes City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.9-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Anal sis HAZARDOUS A RIALS H ISK the routine replacement of parts, routine re -calibration of alarms and measurement devices, and routine visual inspection of WPCF systems. Training City of Lodi WPCF personnel receive safety training to a degree appropriate to each employee's responsibilities, whether they are general employees or members of an emergency response team. Personnel are routinely drilled on emergency response procedures. Simulation drills are used as a training tool as well as an assessment of first response capabilities. OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/HEALTH RISKS There are ten sites within the City of Lodi listed with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that no longer require remediation activities. The DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List), that also tracks Calsites (i.e., mitigation or Brownfield sites that are subject to Annual Workplans and/or are listed as Backlog sites (CBA 2003). There are four identified Calsites within Lodi that are currently considered active remediation sites. None of these sites are located within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. The San Joaquin County Environmental Heal Department administers an Underground Storage Tank (UST) program that includes permitting procedures for the installation and/or removal of USTs, repair and retrofit, and closure in place of existing USTs. As of May 2002, there were 24 USTs within Lodi listed within the database that were associated with some level of contamination to either the groundwater and/or soils around them. (CBA 2003). None of these sites are located within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Hazardous Materials Management Plan The use and storage of hazardous materials at the WPCF is regulated by the San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health Services. To comply with Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City of Lodi must detail the operating and storage procedures involving acutely hazardous materials (AHMs), including chlorine, in a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). A hazard assessment of the WPCF, including a discussion of the consequences of the release of ARMs into the environment and management practices for the storage and use of AHMs is required in the HMMP. The major goal of the plan is to protect public health and environment by promoting the safe use and disposal of hazardous waste. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.9-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis H RDOUS MATERLALSIHEALTH RISKS City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Health and Safety Ele meet Goal C and related policies includes provisions related to preventing the loss of lives, injury, and property due to urban fires. Goal E and related policies includes provisions to protect residents from the effects of hazardous substances, and Goal F and related policies includes provisions to ensure that City emergency procedures are adequate in the event of potential natural or human made disasters. San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Public Health and Safety Element under Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Objectives 1 and 2, and related policies, provide for the protection of the environment and the public health and safety from past, present, and future exposure of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as well as the reduction of hazardous wastes. These goals and policies include the use of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan and a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The General Plan also includes an Emergency Preparedness section, to minimize the loss of life, damage to the environment and the destruction of property from natural or man-made emergencies (San Joaquin County 1992a). Federal Aviation Administration Requirements The Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are both airport facilities located in the proximity of the WPCF. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, open water facilities, such as storage ponds, should be constructed with a sufficient separation distance from airports, to decrease the potential for interference from migratory birds with the designated flight patterns of aircraft. FAA regulations include the following requirements: ■ Airports serving piston -powered aircraft - A distance of 5,000 feet is recommended between an airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and a wildlife attractant (such as open water). ■ Airports serving turbine -powered aircraft - A distance of 10,000 feet to the nearest wildlife attractant is recommended. ■ Approach or Departure airspace - A distance of five statue miles is recommended, if the wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Wildlife studies and management planning are required or recommended where the attractant does not fall outside of the five -mile radius and has the potential to significantly alter bird flight patterns. It is assumed that airplanes that use the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are piston -powered aircraft. Therefore, it is also assumed that a separation distance of 5,000 feet would likely be required between these airport facilities and an open water area associated with potential future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.9-4 iiughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis KAZA�`Ous [ TERLA SIKEALTH R sR s 4.9.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA For the purposes of this EIR, the following significance criteria are used to consider the potential significant hazardous materials and health risks associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout: ■ Involve the use, production, or disposal of materials that pose a hazard to people, animal or plant population in the area affected; • Create a substantial potential public health or safety hazard due to risk of upset (accidents); ■ Violate applicable laws intended to protect human health and safety or would expose employees to working situations that do not meet health standards; or ■ Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. METHODOLOGY Future potential hazardous materials and public health issues were evaluated through a thorough review of existing and future proposed WPCF design within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and an understanding of the hazards and risks inherent to the materials used in the sewage treatment process. Future facilities associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans, as no major streets or emergency routes included with the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be impacted. Additionally, the creation of potential fire hazards would most likely not occur under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence. Therefore, analysis of these potential future impacts are not included in the impact analysis. Any future project proposed within the Sphere of Influence limits would be required to analyze these issue areas, as necessary. Impact 4.9.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could require an increase in the frequency of hazardous materials deliveries. It is unknown at this time if buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would require the use of additional hazardous materials. However, if additional deliveries would be required, the Federal and state agencies determine driver -training requirements, road labeling procedures, and container specifications for hazardous materials transport. Hazardous material deliveries would be transported by licensed transporters and would require special vehicles with cargo containers designed to withstand impacts as a result of a typical highway accident. The successful implementation of the policies of the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan, along with ongoing administration of the City's Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan and all pertinent federal and state regulation would minimize the Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.9-5 City of Lodi White Stough {PPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13/04 Drat Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis HAZARDOUS RI LSMEAL H RISKS potential hazardous materials impacts of the proposed Sphere of Influence program to a less than significant level. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.1 None Required Impact 4.9.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in an increase in hazardous waste generation. The use and storage of existing hazardous materials at the WPCF is regulated by the San Joaquin County DEHS. To comply with Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City of Lodi must detail the operating and storage procedures involving AHMs, including chlorine, in a HMMP. A hazard assessment of the WPCF, including a discussion of the consequences of the release of AHMs into the environment and management practices for the storage and use of AHMs is required in the HMMP. It is unknown at this time if buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would result in the increase in hazardous waste generation. However, if additional hazardous waste was generated as a result of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, the existing HMMP would be updated to address the potential use of additional hazardous materials or the creation of new hazards as a result of the proposed program. This plan would include specifications concerning the proper handling and storage of potentially hazardous materials, as well as proper procedures for cleaning up and reporting of spills. Additionally, the Central Valley RWQCB has required that any discharged effluent be disinfected to a level such that potential health problems would not occur. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.2 None Required Impact 4.9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could involve the growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater, which creates a concern that the public could be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent. The California DHS has stated that the use and the distribution of recycled water on animal feed crops must comply with the Department's Water Recycling Criteria, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations and all other state laws and regulations related to recycled water. The Water Recycling Criteria requires the submittal of an engineering report for all recycle water projects in accordance with Section 60323 of the Water Recycling City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.9-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis HAZARDOUS MATERIALSIHEALTH RISKS Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. If land application of wastewater was practiced within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits, the DHS would require that the City of Lodi prepare and submit the engineering report to the Department and the Central Valley RWQCB for review and approval. It should be noted that processing and approvals with the DHS would occur with implementation of a specific project. As the proposed Sphere of Influence is being considered on a programmatic level, potential issues with future projects must be considered, however cannot be specifically mitigated at this time. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the De partment of Health Services and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in accordance with Section 60323 of the Water Recycling Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.9.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could expose program area residents to discomfort, nuisances, and potential adverse health- related effects by exposing them to mosquitoes, which can carry serious human illnesses. The potential future use of reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins could provide mosquito -breeding habitat. Mosquitoes can carry diseases that could affect the health of surrounding residents. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, a mosquito buffer of 400 meters (approximately 1,300 feet) was identified as the conservative dispersal distance for mosquitoes, per "Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: a Technology Assessment" (EPA 1999) and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District 2004) and the provided technical article on "Managing Mosquitoes in Surface -Flow Constructed Treatment Wetlands" (Walton 2003). Therefore, a buffer zone of approximately 1,300 feet would prevent the majority of mosquitoes from leaving the potential future wetland sites (West Yost 2003). The proposed Sphere of Influence limits were developed with consideration of these criteria and the future health-related effects associated with mosquitoes. Significance Potentially Significant Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.9-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program FIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis HAZARDOUS MATERIALSMEALTH RISKS Mitigation Measures 4.9.4 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a buffer zone around mosquito -breeding habitat to address health-related effects associated with mosquitoes. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 49.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could interfere with designated aircraft flight patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park as a result of migratory birds. As previously discussed, The Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are both airport facilities located in the proximity of the WPCF and proposed Sphere of Influence lands. According to FAA regulations, open water facilities, such as storage ponds, should be constructed with a sufficient separation distance from airports, to decrease the potential for interference from migratory birds with the designated flight patterns of aircraft. The airplanes that use the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park are piston -powered aircraft. Therefore, based on previously discussed FAA requirements, a separation distance of 5,000 feet would be required between these airport facilities and an open water area associated with reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. A 5,000 -foot separation distance surrounding these airports would likely include most of the available area adjacent to and east of the WPCF. Therefore, any future facilities that have open water surfaces that may attract wildlife (c.g, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins), would need to be located outside of the separation area. The proposed Sphere of Influence limits were developed with consideration of these criteria and the potential interference of aircraft flight patterns as a result of migratory birds. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a separation distance between airport facilities and any open water that provides habitat for migratory birds. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES No cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials have been identified as a result of the proposed Sphere of Influence program Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result 0of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.9-$ Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis HAZARDOUS AT MALS L H RISKS' of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in significant hazardous material impacts. Additionally, hazardous material impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Thus, the proposed Sphere of Influence is not expected to substantially contribute to any cumulative hazardous material impacts in the City of Lodi or San Joaquin County. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.9-9 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis 4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR describes the existing biological resources of the White Slough WPCF and the proposed Sphere of Influence lands and discusses the potential vegetation, wildlife, speci4status species, and wetlands and "waters of the U.S." impacts associated with proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout. The following analysis is based on information presented by May & Associates, 2003. 4.10.1 SET'T'ING GENERAL SETTING The White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence site consists primarily of agricultural lands, including row and field crops (i.e., alfalfa, com, tomatoes, and hay), orchards and vineyards, and fallow fields located adjacent to Interstate 5 (1-5). The existing WPCF site is approximately 1,040 acres, of which approximately 790 acres are irrigated with treated effluent and industrial flows. The area is relatively flat and encompasses numerous ditches, drains, and channeled creeks, most of which are associated with ongoing agricultural production. The existing WPCF is the largest developed feature onsite. The program site is located adjacent to the existing California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) preserve at White Slough. There are a few small developed areas (i.e., houses, farm outbuildings, bams, etc.) located on agricultural parcels within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUD YMETHODOLOGY Literature Search A review of the following existing information was conducted to identify sensitive biological resources (i.e., special -status plant and wildlife species and sensitive plant communities) known to occur, or with potential to occur in the White Slough WPCF study area. Several data sources were reviewed, including: ■ True color aerial photographs provided by West Yost Associates; ■ A records search of the CDFG Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2003); ■ Information from the California Native Plant Society RAREFIND database (CNPS 2001); • Potential species occurrence information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Species List prepared for the program (see Appendix C); ■ Species occurrence information for Swainson's hawk (Buten swainsoni, Estep 1992, 2000a, 2000b) and giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas; Barry 2002); and ■ May & Associates, Inc. unpublished file information regarding biological resources in the region. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-1 Cary of Lode White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The review of existing information resulted in development of an initial list of specialstatus plant and wildlife species known from the program vicinity. This list was used to focus the reconnaissance -level site investigation on the biological resources with potential to be present in the area. Additional literature consulted in the preparation of this report is listed in at the end of each Chapter and associated section as References. Field Surveys A reconnaissance -level site investigation was conducted on November 18, 2003 by May & Associates, Inc.'s Senior Biologist Bill Roper for the WPCF Sphere of Influence program area, and a previous site assessment of the White Slough WPCF was conducted on June 3 and 4, 2003 by Senior Biologist Bill Roper and Wildlife Biologist Erin Serra. Due to limited property access, the reconnaissance -level site assessments focused on: Refining aerial photographic interpretation (i.e. spot-checking, describing, and mapping natural communities encountered); and Assessing the suitability of observed natural communities to support the special status species known from the region. Accessible portions of the program area were surveyed from public roadways and other existing access points that were visible by vehicle or on foot. Inaccessible areas were mapped based on aerial photographic interpretation and extrapolation of data from known sites. All plant communities, habitat types, and other notable features were mapped on aerial photographs at a scale of )-inch equals 2,000 feet. Limitations That May Influence Results Populations of plant and animal species of concern are known to $uctuate naturally from year to year depending upon a variety of biotic and abiotic factors, including drought, flooding, seed production, consumption by herbivores and omnivores, and prey base. As reported by the CNPS, a comparison of 1986 survey data with previous surveys indicated that population numbers of special -status plant species in appropriate habitat may fluctuate over time (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Consequently, the observations (or lack thereof) of species of concern within the program area reflect only a temporal "snapshot" of these species' distributions. Given these limitations, this assessment includes a rigorous analysis of each species based on habitat suitability and recorded occurrences within the vicinity of the program area. COMMON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The White Slough WPCF 5,280 -acre Sphere of Influence encompasses the following common habitats: City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-2 Hughes Env ironmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 EnvironmentalAnalysis - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ Row and field crops (primarily alfalfa, tomatoes, wheat, corn, and hayfields; 4,086 acres); ■ Orchards and Vineyards (831 acres); and ■ Developed areas (363 acres). The most common row and field crops within the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence area are alfalfa and wheat. Additionally there are areas within the Sphere of Influence area in irrigated pasture, tomato, and corn production. There are very few fallow fields within the Sphere of Influence area, Field margins and spaces between fields are mostly unvegetated. Row and field crops and ruderal lands provide some habitat values to dependent wildlife species, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and red -shouldered hawk (Buten lineatus); foraging and migratory movement corridors for common mammals including coyote (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gopher (Thomomys bottae), rat (Rattus norvegicus), mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyt), etc.; and habitat for common reptiles such as western fence lizard &etoporous occidentalis), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Vineyards and orchards are located in the eastern portion of the Sphere of Influence area. Vineyards and orchards typically lack other vegetation and only provide marginal habitat for common wildlife species. Within these common habitats there are ditches and canals which may qualify as jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and may also support special -status species (see discussion below). A list of species observed in the study area is provided in Appendix D. SENSITIVE HABITATS The program area encompasses the following sensitive habitats (see Figure 410): ■ Managed Wildlife Habitat (i.e., CDFG habitat preserve including wetland and riparian habitats); and ■ Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other "Waters of the U.S." (i.e., ditches, canals, and waterways). Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EfR 1►6 08 EC Figure 4.10 Habitat Occurring Within The Proposed Sphere of Influence `dY of Lodi Wpffe Skuah WNPCF Sphere -of dpauenw 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Managed Wildlife Habitat Managed wildlife habitat consists of a mosaic of managed natural habitats, including riparian scrub and woodland, emergent marsh, seasonal wetland, and open water habitats. This sensitive habitat is present on the CDFG preserve lands (Figure 4.10-1). Riparian woodland and scrub is characterized by an overstory of mixed riparian trees and shrubs such as willow (Salix sp.) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Riparian woodland has a developed overstory of open canopied trees, while riparian scrub consists of scattered individual riparian shrub and trees species. Both of these vegetative types provide important habitat for dependent common wildlife species, including red-tailed hawk and red -shouldered hawk; foraging and migratory movement corridors for common mammals including coyote, skunk, raccoon, gopher, rat, mouse, ground squirrels, etc.; and habitat for common reptiles such as western fence lizard, common garter snake, and gopher snake. In addition, this habitat provides roosting and nesting opportunities for specialstatus Swainson's hawk and other raptors and may contain blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana), the host plant for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). Portions of this habitat type may meet the definition of jurisdictional wetland habitat, especially riparian vegetation within the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of canals and ditches. Seasonal wetland/grassland, emergent marsh, and open water habitat was also observed on the CDFG preserve lands. Seasonal wetland/grassland habitat is characterized as an herbaceous plant community made up of a diverse mixture of perennial and annual plants, creeping wildrye (�eymus triticoides), ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Portions of this habitat type appear to meet the definition of jurisdictional wetland habitat, especially seasonal wetland vegetation within the OHWM of canals and ditches. This habitat often intergrades with emergent mash and open water habitats. Emergent marsh habitat is made up of perennial emergent plant species such as bulrush (Scirpus acutus), cattail (Typha sp.), and water primrose (Ludwigia sp.). Open water areas are mostly unvegetated. Wetland, emergent marsh, and open water habitats in general support a wide variety of common wildlife species. In addition, these plant communities provides suitable habitat for numerous speciakstatus plant and wildlife species (i.e. giant garter snake; Northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata; mason's lialeopsis, Lilaeopsis masonii; delta mudwort, Limosella subulata; rose mallow, Hibiscus lasiocarpus; and Suisun marsh aster, Aster lentus; see Tables 4,10-1 and 4.10-2). Canals and Ditches This habitat type is present throughout the site, with the highest quality examples occurring on the CDFG preserve lands and surrounding Rio Blanco Tract. Ditches and canals convey water and include a mixture of maintained (i.e., vegetation -free, channeled waterways) and un -maintained waterways that support patches of emergent wetland and seasonal wetland vegetation. Portions of this habitat type that exhibit an OHWM and convey water for long durations during the growing season appear to meet the definition of jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." This vegetation type provides suitable habitat for numerous special Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04123104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLE 4.10-1 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE WHITE SLOUGH WPCF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA Species Status' Distribution Habitat Identification occurrence In (Fed/Stat Requirements Period Study Site efCNPS) Not observed at Suisun Marsh Aster -1-11B Sacramento/San Brackish and June -October study site. (Asterlentus) Joaquin Delta, freshwater marsh Suitable habitat is Suisun Marsh resent Rose mallow 442 Scattered small Freshwatermarsh Aust- 5etem bar Not observed at study site. ( Hibiscus locations in central Suitable habitat is lasiocarpus) California , from present Butte County to San Joaquin County Not observed at Delta tuie pea -1-11B Sacramento/Son Freshwater and May -June study sills. (Lathyrus japsonii Joaquin River delta, brackish marsh Suitable habitat is var. jepsonil) south San Francisco present Bay area Not observed at Mason's lilaeo P sis 4Rl1B SacramentolSan Tidal zone of June -August g study site. (Lilaeopsis masonir) Joaquin River delta freshwater and Suitable habitat is brackish marshes present Not observed at Delta mudwort -142 SacramentolSan Mud banks in Summer study site. (Limosella subulata) Joaquin River delta marsh or riparian Suitable habitat is scrub present " STATUS EXPLANATIONS FEDERAL E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. C = Category 1 candidate for federal listing. Species for which USFWS has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat to support proposals to list them. SC = species of concern; formerly Category 2 candidate for federal listing. PE = proposed for listing as endangered. PT = proposed for listing as threatened. -- = no listing status. E = listed as endangered under the CaliFomla Endangered Species Act. R = listed as rare under the California Endangered Species Act. This category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some plants previously listed as rare retain this designation. T = listed as threatened under the Callfomia Endangered Species Act. CP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concern. = no listing status. CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 1B = List 113 species: rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = List 2 species: rare, threatened or endangered in California, more common elsewhere. 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution, a watch list. City of Ladi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drafi Program EIR 04123104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLE 4.10.2 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE WHITE SLOUGH WPCP SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-7 City of Lodr White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR Legal Status* Common and Identification Scientific Name Federal State Distribution Habitat Association Period Comments Valley elderberry T --Central Valley Dependent on Year round for Suitable habitat for longhorn beetle and surrounding elderberry shrubs (host host plant and elderberry shrubs is esmocerus foothills below plant) as a food plant. exit holes; present, particularly alifomicus 1,500 feet Potential habitat is March -,lune for Within the CDFG imorphus elevations. shrubs with stems 1 adults Nildlife area. inch in diameter within Central Valley. Northwestern SC SSC Nestern Aquatic turtle: requires February bserved during field pond turtle Nashington to ponds, slow-moving November surveys. Suitable Clemmys iorthern aterways such as habitat is present arrnorafa alifornia, mostly creeks and irrigation armorata Nest of the Sierra ditches where water Nevada crest. ponds. Prefers habitats with basking sites, aquatic egetation, and uitable upland abitats for egg4aying. Giant Garter T T Occurs in the Found in sloughs, March -Octobet Not observed during Hake Central Valley anaIs, and other smal I field surveys, Thamnophis gigas from Fresno nort aterways, where however, suitable o the here is a prey base of habitat is present Gridley/Sutter mall fish and uttes area; has mphibians; requires �rassy een extripated banks and rom areas south emergent vegetation Df Fresno. for basking, and areas f high ground protected from flooding wring winter. wainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni -- T ower acramento and Nests in oaks or ottonwoods in or near Spring and Summer Not observed during geld surveys, (nesting) an Joaquin Ind iparian habitats; owever, Swainson's alleys, the orages in grasslands, iawks have been lamath Basin, irrigated pastures, and )bserved within the Butte Valley. grain fields. tudy area and uitable habitat is resent California black C;MNB T;FP ermanent Drimarily found in tidal Year-round Not observed during rail MC esident in the alt marshes leld surveys, aferallus an Francisco 3ssociated with heavy however, suitable "amaicensis ay and growth ofpickleweed; habitat is present cofumiculus astward through nay also occur in he Delta into brackish marshes or acramento and freshwater marshes at an Joaquin low elevations. ountles; small opulations in arin, Santa ruz, San Luis bispo, Orange, Riverside, and Im erial Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-7 City of Lodr White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLE 4.10.2 SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE WHITE SLOUGH WPCP SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AREA Common and Scientific Name Legal Status* Federal State Distribution Habitat Association Identification Period Comments ounties. astern SSC 3entral and pen annual Year-round Not observed during burrowing owl C;MNB outhern coastal rasslands or perennia geld surveys, fhene cunicularia MC iabitats, Central rasslands, deserts, however, suitable ypugea ialley, Great nd scrublands iabitat is present asin and haracterized by low - deserts. rowing vegetation. Dependent upon urrowing mammals especially California round squirrel) for u rrows. * STATUS EXPLANATIONS FEDERAL E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. D = delisted C = Category t candidate for federal listing. Species for which USFWS has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat to support proposals to list them. SC = species of concern; formerly Category 2 candidate for federal listing. PE = proposed for listing as endangered. PT = proposed for listing as threatened. -- = no listing status. MNCMC = USFWS: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern STATE E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concern. = no listing status. status plant and wildlife species (i.e. giant garter snake; Northwestern pond turtle; mason's lialeopsis; delta mudwort, rose mallow, Suisun marsh aster, and Delta tule pea; see Tables 4.104 and 4.10-2). The banks of these habitats are often favored by western burrowing owl. ,SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Special -Status species are defined as plants and animals that are: ■ legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts or under other regulations; • considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing; or ■ considered sensitive because they are unique, declining regionally or locally, or at the extent of their natural range. City of Lodi Whete Slough WPCF Sphere offnfluence 4.10-8 Hughes Env ironmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program EIR 04123104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Specifically, SpecialStatus plant species are: ■ Plants listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 50 CFR 17.12 for listed plants and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species). ■ Plants that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal (ESA; 50 CFR Part 17, June 13, 2002; 40657-40679). ■ Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under the CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). • Plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be "rare, threatened, or endangered" in California (Lists 1B and 2 in CNPS [2001]). • Locally important occurrences of plants listed by CNPS as plants which more information is needed and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4, respectively, in CNPS [2001]). ■ Plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California ESA (14 CCR 670.5). ■ Plants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.). ■ Plants considered sensitive by other federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management) or state and local agencies or jurisdictions. • Plants considered sensitive or unique by the scientific community or occurring at the limits of its natural range (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Specifically, Special -Status animal species are: ■ Animals listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal ESA (50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species). ■ Animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (54 CFR 554). • Animals that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380). ■ Animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened and endangered under the California ESA (14 CCR 670.5). ■ Animal species of special concern to the CDFG (DFG 2003). ■ Animal species that are fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians] [DFG 2003]). SpeciaWArtus Plant Species The program area encompasses suitable habitat for the following sensitive plant species, primarily in areas within the boundaries of the CDFG preserve: • Suisun marsh aster Hughes Environmental Consutlants, Inc. 4.10-9 City of Lodi WhireStough WPCP,Spheroe of[V?uence 04/13/04 grafi Program Elk 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ Rose mallow • Delta tule pea ■ Mason's lilaeopsis ■ Delta mudwort Suisun Marsh Aster. Suisun Marsh aster is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). Suisun Marsh aster is known from marshes and swamps in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) (elevation 0.500 feet) in Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties (CNPS 2001). CNPS considers Suisun Marsh aster rare in California and elsewhere (List 1B). Suisun Marsh aster is most characteristically found in areas with brackish water chemistry and its occurrences near the study area represent some of the easternmost locations (i.e., most freshwater) for the species. One occurrence is reported near the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Mokelumne River (May & Associate's file information), and one occurrence is also recorded on the South Fork of the Mokelumne River at the mouth of Potato Slough (CNDDB 2003). No Suisun marsh aster were observed within the Sphere of Influence area during reconnaissance surveys, however, because the species is relatively common in this portion of the Delta, it is considered likely to occur within the program area, especially within the CDFG preserve. This species has limited suitable habitat available in the program area, along the edges of slow-moving brackish waterways. Rose Mallow. Rose mallow is a perennial herb that is a member of the hibiscus family (Malvaceae). In California, rose mallow is found in wet banks of freshwater marshes and swamps (elevation 0394 feet) throughout Butte, Contra Costa, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, and Yolo Counties. Rose mallow also occurs in the southern and central eastern United States. (CLAPS 2001). Rose mallow inhabits the zone of emergent marsh that is exposed to daily tidal inundation, such as the margins of in -channel islands and low berms on levees. Consequently, these areas are typically exposed to constant erosive action from wind and boat wakes. In natural settings this species almost always occurs within dense stands of cattails, tules, or dogwood and appears to require the substrate stabilizing properties of these associated species for successful colonization. Two populations of rose mallow are recorded near the program area, located along the South Fork of the Mokelumne River, between River Miles 6 and 7, and near River Mile 14 (CNDDB 2003). No rose mallow were observed during reconnaissance surveys, however, because the species occurs in numerous locations in the vicinity of the study area and is relatively common in this portion of the Delta, it is considered highly likely to occur within the program area, especially within the CDFG preserve. This species has limited suitable habitat available in the program area, along the edges of waterways with permanent water and dense stands of tules and cattails. Delta Tule Pea. Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonit) is a perennial herb that is a member of the pea family (Fabaceae). Delta tule pea is found in coastal and estuarine marshes (both fresh and brackish City ojLodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ojlnfluence 4.10-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES water) of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and the San Pablo Bay. Currently, Delta tule pea is found from 0-13 feet in elevation in Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties (CNPS 2001). CNPS considers the Delta tule pea as rare (List 1B). Most populations are small and are threatened by agriculture, water diversions, and erosion (CNPS 2001). There are four CNDDB occurrence records near the program area, three along the South Fork of the Mokelumne River, and one along the North Fork of the Mokelumne River near River Mile 3 (CNDDB 2003). No delta tule pea were observed during reconnaissance surveys, however, because this species occurs in numerous locations in the vicinity of the study area and is relatively common within near -water riparian and marsh habitats in this portion of the Delta, it is considered highly likely to occur within the program area, especially within the CDFG preserve. Suitable habitat for this species is limited within the program area to the edges of waterways (i.e., ditches and canals) with emergent vegetation. Mason's Lilaeopsis. Mason's lilaeopsis is an inconspicuous, prostrate, creeping perennial herb in the carrot family (flpiaceae). Mason's lilaeopsis is found in brackish or freshwater marshes and swamps and riparian scrub (elevation 032 feet) in Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties (CNPS 2001). Mason's lilaeopsis is California state listed as rare and is considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (List 1B) by CNPS. Mason's lilaeopsis occupies a narrow niche within the emergent marsh habitats of the Delta. Typically found growing in the muddy, unvegetated band that is transitional between the zone of nearly continuous inundation (i.e., open water) and tule or cattail growth. There are several known occurrences of the species near the program area, including one occurrence on the South Fork of the Mokelumne River near River Mile 6, and four populations on the South Fork of the Mokelumne River between Beaver Slough and River Mile 7 (CNDDB 2003). No mason's lilaeopsis were observed during reconnaissance surveys, however, because the species occurs in numerous locations in the vicinity of the study area and is relatively common within near -water riparian and marsh habitats in this portion of the Delta, it is considered likely to occur within the program area, especially within the CDFG preserve. This species has limited suitable habitat available in the program area; along the edges of waterways (i.e., ditches and canals) with emergent vegetation. Delta Mudwort. Delta mudwort (Limosella subulata) is a small, inconspicuous, perennial herb that is a member of the family Scrophulariaceae. The habitat affinities and threats to this species are similar to those for Mason's lilaeopsis. Delta mudwort is found in muddy or sandy intertidal flats and scrub in marshes and swamps (elevations 43 meters) in Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties in California, in Oregon, and elsewhere (CNPS 2001). CNPS considers Delta mudwort rare in California (List 2) but more common elsewhere. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-11 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program E!R 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES There are occurrence records for this species located north of the program area, on the South Mokelumne River, two just south of Beaver Slough, and two between River Miles 5 and 8 (CNDDB 2002). Delta mudwort was not observed during surveys, however has limited potential to occur along waterways within the program area with permanent year-round water. Special -Status Wildlife Species The program area encompasses suitable habitat for the following sensitive wildlife species: • Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (blue elderberry shrubs). ■ Northwestern pond turtle. ■ Giant garter snake (both aquatic habitat [agricultural canals and ditches with year-round water] and upland habitat). ■ Swainson's hawk (foraging habitat). • California black rail. ■ Western burrowing owl. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is federally listed as threatened (CDFG 2003b). VELB is closely associated with blue elderberry, the obligate host plant for the beetle's larvae. VELB's life history is assumed to follow a sequence of events similar to those of related taxa. Female beetles deposit eggs in crevices in the bark of living elderberry plants. Presumably, the eggs hatch shortly after they are laid and the larvae bore into the pith cf the trunk or stem. When larvae are ready to pupate, they move through the pith of the plant, open an emergence hole through the bark, and return to the pith for pupation. Adults exit through the emergence holes. The entire life cycle is thought to encompass two years from the time eggs are laid until adults emerge, mate, and die. (USFWS 1984) VELB has probably always been rare and of limited abundance (USFWS 1984). The substantial reduction in Central Valley riparian vegetation in the last 150 years suggests that the beetle's range has contracted and that remaining populations are discontinuous (USFWS 1984). Site-specific surveys for blue elderberry and for exit holes were not performed during this reconnaissance -level analysis. Elderberries are most Ikely to occur along levees of waterways and possibly in fallow fields of the program area. If they occur within the known range of the Valley elderberry longbom beetle, blue elderberry shrubs are considered suitable to support the species. Northwestern Pond Turtle The Northwestern pond turtle is a federal Species of Concern and a state Species of Special Concern (CDFG 1992). There are two subspecies of the Western pond turtle: Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) and Southwestern pond turtle (C. m. pallida). The Western pond turtle occurs in suitable aquatic sites west of the crest of the Sierra Nevada in California and in parts of Oregon, Washington, and Mexico (Stebbins 1985). The Northwestern subspecies is generally found from San Francisco north to the Columbia River Drainage in Oregon and City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnjluence 4.10-12 Hughes Env lronmental Consultants, Inc. Grafi Program EIR 04/13104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Washington. In contrast the Southwestern subspecies occurs south of San Francisco Bay to Northwestern Baja California, Mexico. (57 FR 4576145762, October 5, 1992). Northwestern pond turtles have been observed in the study area (May & Associates, Inc. file information). Riparian scrub habitat is considered suitable pond turtle nesting habitat. There is one CNDDB record of Northwestern pond turtle in the vicinity of the program area, also occurring in the north and south forks of the Mokelumne River. Suitable habitat for the species is described as permanent slow moving waterways and ponded areas, especially habitats within the CDFG preserve, and the waterways surrounding Rio Blanco Tract. Giant Garter Snake. The giant garter snake is restricted to the Central Valley of California. Populations have been found from Gridley in Butte County south to Buena Vista Lake in Kern County (Barry 2002). Reproductive giant garter snake populations have been found only in sump or otherwise very low elevation regions within the Central Valley. During the past 40 years the giant garter snake has disappeared from most sites in the San Joaquin Valley that formerly supported its populations, mostly as a result of water diversion, development, and agricultural conversion (Barry 2002). Populations north of ,Stockton in the Sacramento Valley have generally been stable but are now threatened by urbanization, particularly in south Sacramento County and the American Basin. Giant garter snakes occur along slow-moving permanent waterways including creeks, sloughs, canals, drainage and irrigation ditches, and rice fields, typically in areas of dense bordering vegetation (i.e., grasses, tules, cattails, various sedges and rushes, willows, salt bush; Barry 2002). Giant garter snakes also require upland regions (above winter flood levels) very close to primary marshland habitat. They use these upland regions for basking and they use underground retreats above flood level as winter hibernacula. Rodent burrows and rock piles are favored retreats for hibernation and for short-term shelter (Barry 2002). There are several giant garter snake occurrences known from White Slough adjacent to the program area on lands managed by the CDFG. There are records from in the Staten Island region to the north of the program site and from Stone Lakes (in Sacramento County). There are also records to the west at Liberty Island in Yolo County (CNDDB 2003). Habitat within the program area ranges from low -quality to moderate -quality aquatic habitat. Suitable aquatic habitat for the species includes agricultural ditches and canals with permanent water. The levee along both rivers provides suitable hibernacula habitat during the late -fall and winter months. Swainson's Hawk Swainson's hawk is a federal Species of Special Concern and is California state listed as threatened (DFG 2003a,). California currently supports between 500 and 1,000 breeding pairs of Swainson's hawk, which represents less than 10 percent of the historic population (Bloom 1980). The Central Valley population (400-900 breeding pairs) extends from Tchama County southward to Tulare and Kings Counties and is isolated from the rest of the species' range east of the Sierra Nevada. Apparently there is no movement between the Central Valley breeding population and other populations Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-13 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfiuence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Estep 2000a and 2000b). There is a small population of Swainson's hawks that winters in the Central Valley, particularly in the Delta around Bouldin Island (Yee pers. comm.). Swainson's hawks nest in large, mature trees and forage in large, open plains (grasslands) and agricultural fields and pastures. The majority of Swainson's hawk nests are located in riparian habitats (Estep 1984). Typical Swainson's hawk habitat consists of a riparian corridor for nesting and suitable agricultural crops for foraging. In the Central Valley, Swainson's hawks feed primarily on small rodents (such as voles) and large insects, usually in fields that support low vegetative cover (to provide access to the ground) and provide the highest densities of prey. No Swainson's hawks were observed foraging in the agricultural fields within the study area during the 2003 reconnaissance -level field visits; however, Swainson's hawks have been observed with the Sphere of Influence Area prior to the 2003 field visits (May & Associates, Inc. unpublished field notes). There are two CNDDB records of nesting Swainson's hawk from within the study area, located along Thornton Road, adjacent to the East Thornton site (CNDDB 2003) as well as numerous records of Swainson's hawk nests from the region, including occurrences along Beaver Slough and Thornton -Walnut Grove Road. Swainson's hawks are known to winter at nearby Bouldin Island. Because of the presence of multiple nest site occurrences in the vicinity of the study site over several years, and because of the suitability of the row and field crops and fallow agricultural lands that are encompassed by the program area, it is considered extremely likely that Swainson's hawks use the program site for foraging and that individual Swainson's hawks occasionally nest in large trees in and adjacent to the program site, especially within the riparian habitats of the CDFG preserve. California Black Rail. The California black rail is a federal Species of Concern, is state listed as threatened, and is fully protected by CDFG (CDFG 2003). Black rails occur in emergent wetlands in the San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, and a few scattered locations in southern California (Zeiner et al. 1990). There is one CNDDB record of California black rail within the study area, at the CDFG preserve. Suitable marsh habitat occurs along the South Fork of the Mokelumne River (CNDDB 2003). Black rail habitat is largely lacking along the North Fork of the Mokelumne River. Surveys for black rails were not conducted, however, based on the presence of a known occurrence on the CDFG preserve, the species is considered very likely to occur. Suitable habitat within the program area consists of the seasonal wetlands, emergent marsh, and riparian habitats with the CDFG preserve and surrounding fallow fields. Western Burrowing Owl. The Western burrowing owl is a federal Species of Concern, a BLM Sensitive Species, and a state Species of Special Concern (CDFG 2003). Burrowing owls occur in annual and perennial grasslands, agricultural fields, deserts, and open scrublands throughout the lowlands, valleys, and deserts of California. They are also found in large urban vacant lots. These owls nest in burrows created by California ground squirrels. They also nest in artificial City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-14 Hughes Env Ironmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES burrows, such as nest boxes and 4 -inch diameter PVC pipes. Burrowing owls use burrows for nesting, wintering, and cover during migration stopovers. Burrowing owls often use the same area for nesting, wintering, and foraging for several years. No burrowing owls were detected during the 2003 reconnaissance level field surveys. However, their presence in the program area is considered highly likely, based on the condition of the row and field crops and fallow fields of the site, the presence of a prey base (insects), and the vicinity of the program site to known burrowing owl occurrences (CNDDB 2003). Agricultural row and field crops are considered marginally suitable to support the species (due to repeated disturbances to this habitat type). Levees along waterways are also considered moderately suitable to support the species. REG ULA T OR Y BA CKGRO UND Several federal, state, and local laws and policies pertain to the biological resources that occur within the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence area. This section provides an overview of the environmental regulations that may relate to program impacts on biological resources. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation's wetland habitats, including lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated the authority to issue wetland permits under the CWA to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS). Programs conducted under the CWA are directed at both point -source pollution (waste discharges from discrete sources such as pipes and outfalls) and nonpoint-source pollution (stormwater runoff from land areas, including construction sites). The CWA maintains that all discharges into the nation's waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; issuance of such permits constitutes the CWA's principal regulatory tool. Section 444 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S.," including wetlands. Under Section 404, the ACOE is responsible for issuing Department of the Army permits (Section 404 wetland permits) to authorize the placement of dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional waters. The ACOE issues two types of wetland permits under Section 404: General Permits (either nationwide permits [NWPs] or regional permits) and Standard Permits (either letters of permission or individual permits). General permits are issued by the ACOE to streamline the Section 404 process for nationwide, statewide, or regional activities that have minimal environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. Standard permits are esued for activities that may have more than a minimal adverse environmental impact. The ALOE typically exerts jurisdiction over that portion of the project site that contains "waters of the U.S." and adjacent or isolated wetlands. This translates approximately to the bank -to -bank portion of a creek along its entire length, up to the OHWM, and adjacent wetland areas that will either be directly or indirectly adversely affected by a proposed program. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-15 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13104 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S." at the study site under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout could require an individual Section 404 permit if impacts on "waters of the U.S." exceed 113 of an acre, and if federally listed species or their habitats are affected by the project. Because portions of the study area consist of lands that were reclaimed from the historic marshes of the Delta, the ACOE may exert jurisdiction on artificially excavated ditches that currently function to drain the surrounding landscape (CFR § 328.3: Definitions; 51FR219: 41217, November 13, 1986). Clean Water Act Section 401 Section 401 of the CWA requires that applicants for a federal license or permit, such as a Section 404 permit, for any activity that may result in a discharge to navigable waters, obtain a water quality certification from the state. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, RWQCBs) is the California agency designated to issue Section 401 certifications. The federal agency cannot issue the permit unless the state issues or waives Section 401 certification, and any conditions of the state's certification must be included as conditions of the federal permit. If the state denies the request, the federal permit cannot be issued If the state fails to act on the request for certification within a mandated time frame, the request is deemed waived. If a Section 404 permit is required as a result of construction impacts associated with future Sphere of Influence buildout , a 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver would be obtained from the RWQCB. Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the "take" of endangered or threatened wildlife species. USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. The ESA requires USFWS and NMFS to maintain lists of threatened and endangered species and provides for substantial protections for listed species. NMFS jurisdiction under the ESA is limited to the protection of marine mammals and fishes and anadromous fishes; all other species are subject to USFWS jurisdiction. Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under the ESA as endangered and most species listed as threatened. Take, as defined by the ESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined by regulation as "any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification." All or some forms of take of threatened species are prohibited by regulation at the time of listing (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3. Mechanisms, however, are in place that provide for exceptions to the Section 9 take prohibitions. These are addressed in Section 7 (for federal actions) and Section 10 (for nonfederal actions) of the ESA. Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat critical to such species' survival. To ensure that its actions do not result in jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat, each federal agency must consult with USFWS regarding federal agency actions City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-16 Hughes Environmental Consultants, lne. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Section 7 consultation is initiated when the federal agency submits a written request for initiation to USFWS, along with the agency's biological assessment (BA) of its proposed action. If USFWS concludes that the action is not likely to adversely affect a listed species, the action may be carried forward without further review under the ESA. Otherwise, USFWS or NMFS—or both ---must prepare a written biological opinion (BO) describing how the agency's action will affect the listed species and its critical habitat. if the BO concludes that the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat, the opinion must suggest "reasonable and prudent alternatives" that would avoid that result. If the BO concludes that the project as proposed would involve the take of a listed species, but not to an extent that would jeopardize the species' continued existence, the BO must include an incidental take statement. The incidental take statement must specify an amount of take that may occur as a result of the action and suggest reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impact of the take. If the action complies with the BO and incidental take statement, it may be implemented without violation of the ESA, even if incidental take occurs. For the proposed program under buildout, the likely federal lead agency will be the ACOE during the Section 404 wetland permitting process (assuming that future projects have an effect on jurisdictional wetlands). The federal ESA and EPA Section 404 guidelines prohibit the issuance of wetland permits for projects that would jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species. The ACOE must consult with USFWS when threatened or endangered species may be affected by the proposed project to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 permit would jeopardize the species. In the context of the study site, the federal ESA would be triggered if development resulted in take of a threatened or endangered species (e.g., giant garter snake) or if issuance of a Section 404 permit or other federal agency action could adversely affect or jeopardize a threatened or endangered species. California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is similar to the federal ESA but pertains to state -listed endangered and threatened species. CESA protects wildlife and plants listed as threatened and endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission. CESA prohibits the take of state -listed wildlife and plants and requires an incidental take permit for authorization of take. The California Fish and Game Commission defines take as any action or attempt to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." The requirements for an application for an incidental take permit under CESA are described in Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code and in final adopted regulations for implementing Sections 2080 and 2081. Incidental take may also be authorized if the state -listed species is also listed under the federal ESA or is part of an approved Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Finally, take can be authorized under 2081 for species identified as candidates for listing (e.g., take authorization for western burrowing owl which is currently a candidate species). CESA requires state agencies to consult with the CDFG when preparing CEQA documents to ensure that the state lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. It directs agencies to consult with CDFG on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFG to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFG to identify "reasonable and prudent alternatives" to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc, 4.10-17 City of LothWhite Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program E!R 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES determine that there are "overriding considerations"; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species. The state CESA prohibits the taking of state -listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. CDFG exercises authority over mitigation projects involving state -listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. CDFG may authorize taking if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. CDFG requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines. Section 1601 and 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement Under Chapter 6 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG is responsible for protecting and conserving the state's fish and wildlife resources. Section 1601 and 1603 of the code describes CDFG's responsibilities and states that public and private applicants, respectively, are required to obtain an agreement to "divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from those resources derive benefit, or will use material from the streambeds designated by the Department." The CDFG regulates work that will substantially affect resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes in California, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607. Any actions that would alter the flow or bed of a water body or occur within its annual high-water mark may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Iocal CDFG warden or unit biologist typically has responsibility for issuing Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements. These agreements usually include specific requirements related to construction techniques and remedial and compensatory measures to mitigate adverse impacts. CDFG also may require long-term monitoring as part of a Section 1601 or 1603 agreement to assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. California Department of Fish and Game Codes for Protection of Birds and their Nests Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds of prey or their nests or eggs. The CDFG may issue regulations authorizing take. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful as is taking of any parts, nests, or eggs of such birds (16 USC 703). For those covered species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and also protected by the MBTA, a Special Purpose Permit must be obtained. The Special Purpose Permit is valid for three years from the effective date of the permit, provided that the ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit remains in effect for that period. The Special Purpose Permit shall be reviewed provided that the permittee continues to fulfill its obligations under the HCP and IA. Each renewal will be valid for the maximum period of time allowed by 50 CFR Section 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal. City of Ladi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-18 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13/04 4 D Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Conservation Element contains policies and implementation programs to minimize impacts to biological resources resulting from future development. Goal E and associated policies require that the City protect sensitive native vegetation and wildlife habitats and fisheries resources (City of Lodi 1991a). San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Resources Element under Vegetation, Fish, and Wildlife Habitat provides for Objectives I and 2 and associated policies to protect and improve the County's vegetation, fish, and wildlife resources, and to provide undeveloped open space for nature study, protection of endangered species, and preservation of wildlife habitat. Specifically, the plan states that resources of significant biological and ecological importance shall be protected, including wetlands; riparian areas; rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats as well as potentially rare or commercially important species; vernal pools; and significant oak groves and heritage trees. Cumulative impacts to biological resources shall be avoided (San Joaquin County 1992a). Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program The San Joaquin Council of Governments is implementing the recently adopted Habitat and Open Space Conservation Plan (HOSCP). The HOSCP is a conservation plan supporting the application for a federal permit under Section 10(a)(1)(13) of the Endangered Species Act and a state permit under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. The purpose of the HOSCP is to promote biological conservation and the continuation of agricultural practices within the San Joaquin Valley while allowing urban development to proceed according to local land use plans. Future Sphere of Influence buildout projects would be developed to meet the requirements of the San Joaquin HOSCP. 4.10.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRJTERIA In the following analysis, an impact to biological resources would be considered significant if proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would result in any of the following criteria to be met: ■ The project would 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 CDFG or USFWS (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). ■ The project would 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 CDFG or USFWS (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). ■ The project would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-19 Cary of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ The project would interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). • The project would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). • The project would preservation policy or ordinance (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). • The project would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). • A substantial adverse effect on critical deer winter ranges (winter and summer), migratory routes, and fawning habitat (professional judgment). ■ Substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife or plants (professional judgment). ■ A substantial adverse effect on locally occurring natural communities (e.g., oak woodlands, annual grasslands, etc.; professional judgment). ■ A substantial adverse effect on large areas of non -fragmented natural habitat, including but not limited to blue oak woodlands, valley foothill riparian, and vernal pool habitat (professional judgment). ■ Results in a substantial reduction in fish populations (e.g., increased mortality, change in habitat availability that substantially affects survival, growth, migration, cr reproduction of fish species), or substantial adverse effects to important spawning areas for anadromous fish (professional judgment). METHODOLOGY Defining a Sphere of Influence, in and of itself, is a planning designation and is not expected to directly impact biological resources within the program area in the near future. However, the planning designation would indirectly affect land uses by eliminating the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area. This effect is considered a beneficial impact on biological resources, as described below. The future expansion of facilities and additional applications of wastewater within the Sphere of Influence area, and the future operation of the facilities (i.e., application of treated effluent onto lands that support biological resources within the Sphere of Influence) could affect biological resources, both beneficially and adversely. These impacts are also described below. It should be noted that future Sphere of Influence buildout projects would be developed to meet the requirements of the San Joaquin HOSCP. The mitigation measures described below were developed in association with the HOSCP requirements. Impact 4.10.1 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat retention for common wildlife species. City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.10-20 Hugtow Env Ironmental Consukants, Inc. Drat Program EIR 04/13/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields that can provide movement corridors and foraging areas for common wildlife species. The Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also prevent land conversion, which would result in increased buffering of the existing CDFG preserve lands. Significance Less Than Significant (Beneficial) Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 None Required Impact 4.10.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would likely increase habitat quality for common wildlife species. The future application of treated water onto fallow lands and row and field crops, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins under proposed Sphere of influence buildout would provide additional nutrients and water to sustain common plant species and would likely increase forage and cover for common wildlife species. Significance Less Than Significant (Beneficial) Mitigation Measures 4.10.2 None Required Impact 4.10.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in habitat loss for common wildlife species. Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate common biological resources, including common habitats and species. Because this habitat loss would be relatively minimal, given the presence of similar habitat in surrounding areas and the regional abundance of common wildlife species, this impact would be considered less than significant. Significance Less Than Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.3 None Required Hughes EnVironmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-21 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 4.10.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in habitat protection for special -status species. The designation of the Sphere of Influence would prevent the future land conversion to residential and urban uses, resulting in protection of sensitive biological resources (i.e., wetlands, "waters of the U.S.", riparian woodlands, and seasonal wetlands) that provide habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife species. The Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would result in increased buffering of the existing CDFG preserve lands that support sensitive biological resources. Significance Less Than Significant (Beneficial) Mitigation Measures 4.10.4 None Required Impact 4,10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of wetlands. Construction of future land application lines, reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would involve excavation, grading, and construction zone soil disturbance. Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate sensitive wetland habitats (i.e. canals and ditches and other "waters of the U.S.", some riparian woodlands, seasonal wetlands). Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.5a As a condition of issuance of a grading permit associated with potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall require avoidance of sensitive biological resources, including wetlands and "waters of the U.S." (see Figure 4.10-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, the City of Lodi shall design the project to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources. 4.1O.5b For potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable impacts to wetlands and "waters of the U.S.," the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; a Section 404 wetland permit from the Army Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4.10-22 Hughes Env lronmental Consultants, Ine. Draft Program EIR 04/13104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following: Minimization of impacts to sensitive biological resources; Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.) is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the pe rmits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required for the proposed project. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 410.6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate special -status plant or wildlife species. Construction of future facilities associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would involve excavation, grading, and construction zone soil disturbance. These activities could eliminate individual special -status species, or degrade or eliminate habitat that supports specialstatus species (see Tables 4.10-1 and 4.10-2). No listed plant species are likely to be present within the program area. Non -listed plant species with the potential to occur within the program area include: Suisun marsh aster, rose mallow, Delta tule pea, Mason's lilaeopsis, and Delta mudwort. As discussed above in Section 4.10.1, habitat for these species is present within the program area and could be impacted by construction activities. Listed wildlife species that could be present within the program area include: Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, giant garter snake, and Swainson's hawk. Non -listed wildlife species with the potential to occur within the program area include: Northwestern pond turtle, California black rail, and Western burrowing owl. As discussed above in Section 4.10.1, habitat for these species is present within the program area and could be impacted by construction activities. Hughes Environmontal Consultants, Inc. 4.10-23 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program ELR 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.6a The City of Lodi shall complete detailed special -status species surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi shall redesign the project to minimize impacts. 4.10.6b For unavoidable impacts to listed special -status species associated with future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: an Incidental Take permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to state listed species; and a Section 7 or 10 biological opinion or incidental take permit from the United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following: Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species; Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite s special -status plant and wildlife species (i.e. construction worker training, restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would require the City to passively or actively relocate some species, create or enhance habitat for the species, or preserve and restore on -or offsite habitat for the species. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite special -status species preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could conduct offsite special - status species habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for species impacts. Mitigation may include Cq of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofrnJluence 4.10-24 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program EIR 04/23104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the implementation of construction best management practices, etc. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 410.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could disturb nesting raptors and other migratory birds. Construction of future facilities associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would involve excavation, grading, and construction zone soil disturbance, activities that could remove trees that contain nests of raptors and other migratory birds. These activities could eliminate active nests, or prevent or disturb nesting activities. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites are determined under future Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found to be present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction activities outside the bird nesting season (typically January 15 through August 15 of each year). 4.10.7b If construction activities cannot be completed within the specified non -breeding season of August 16" to January 14"h of each year, the City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the nests. The California Department of Fish and Game may also require the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Management Agreement to reduce and potentially offset impacts to nesting raptors. At a minimum the City shall conduct the following when nesting raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere of Influence buildout project site: ■ Conduct a nesting raptor survey to identify active raptor nests. ■ Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically % mile, but can be reduced through negotiations with CDFG); ■ Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area until young in nest are fledged. ■ Allow contractor to remove tree in its ertirety only after young have fledged (as verified by CDFG and/or a qualified biologist). ■ Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re -planting of the same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest tree eliminated. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.10-25 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIX 4.4 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact 4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian habitats or native trees. Construction of future facilities associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would involve excavation, grading, and construction zone soil disturbance, activities that could remove native trees, including riparian woodlands and individual native trees. Riparian habitats and native trees are of concern to resource agencies, due to continued statewide losses of these resources. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.10.8 To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees and loss or degradation of riparian woodland habitat associated with future projects under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to identify locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall conduct some or all of the following: Avoid impacts to native trees. Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and individual tree loss through a combination of project design and construction -related avoidance of native trees. Construction -related avoidance and protection of trees would include the installation of protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access roads near native trees to be retained; Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat areas. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. The City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final native tree compensation approaches. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES Common Biological Resources Biological resource impacts, if they occur, would add to the cumulative loss of similar resources in the local area and region. For common habitats and plant communities, such as row and field crops and fallow fields, the incremental losses that could result from the buildout of the Sphere of Influence are not, in and of themselves, considered large enough to add substantially to regional losses related to urban and City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4,10-26 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drat Program EIR 04/13104 4.0 Environmental Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES agricultural land conversion in the greater Lodi area. Therefore, cumulative erects on these common habitats would not be considered significant. Sensitive Biological Resources Impacts on sensitive biological resources (i.e. wetlands and jurisdictional "waters of the U.S.," riparian habitats, special status species and their habitats) resulting from the buildout of the Sphere of Influence would contribute to cumulative losses of sensitive biological resources in the local area and region. It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence buildout could contribute to biological resources through the creation of reuse wetlands. However, based on the substantial beneficial effects anticipated to result from the Sphere of Influence Designation (i.e. protection of open space lands, buffering of high quality CDFG preserve lands, preservation of onsite biological resources, potential creation of reuse wetlands); the limited potential for project effects on sensitive biological resources; and the substantial amount of compensatory mitigation in the local area that is being undertaken by the SJCOG, Inc., the cumulative loss of sensitive biological resources resulting from Sphere of Influence buildout is anticipated to be less than significant. Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. 4.10-27 Ciry afLodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04123/04 Drafd Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Ana! sis 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing cultural resources setting within the limits of the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program, based on the results of a record search, literature review, field inventory, and consultation with Native American groups. This discussion also provides an evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from proposed project buildout. Finally, mitigation measures that are needed to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less -than - significant level are presented. The City of Lodi, as CEQA Lead Agency, is responsible under Section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3) of CEQA for determining the significance of impacts on historical and unique archaeological resources. The analysis in this EIR section fulfills this requirement. 4.11.1 SETTING CULTURAL RESOURCESRESEARCHMETHODS Cultural resources inventory methods included prefield and field research. Prefield research included a records search at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), review of historical maps and published and unpublished information on the archaeological, ethnographic and historical developments of the study area. Archival research for the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program area was conducted in several stages at the CCIC. The first stage was conducted for proposed facility improvements within the existing White Slough WPCF site and included areas within 0.5 mile of the existing site (CCIC Record Search File No. 4845L, dated February 3, 2003). The second stage was conducted for proposed off-site expansion of the White Slough WPCF and includes areas within 0.5 mile of proposed land disposalareas, pipelines and other off-site facilities (CCIC Record Search File No. 4966L, dated June 11, 2003). The most recent record search was conducted for portions of the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence that were not included in the two previous record searches (CCIC File No. 5123L, dated November 10, 2003). Search of the CCIC files included review of mapped cultural resources and cultural resource surveys, and review of the National Register of Historic Places, the CaUornia Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), California Historical Landmarks (1996), the California Points of Historical Interest listing (May 1992 and updates), the Historic Property Data File (Office of Historic Preservation current computer list, updated October 15, 2003), the Caltrans State and Local Bridge Survey (1989 and updates), the Survey of Surveys (1989), General Land Office (GLO) plat maps, and other pertinent historic data. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.11-1 City ofLodr White Slough WPCF Sphere offnJluence 04/23/04 Draft Program E1R 4.4 Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RESOURCES Prefield research also included a Native American contact program that began by contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to obtain a Sacred Lands File search and a list of potentially interested Native Americ an contacts within the program area of impact. The NAHC did not identify any specific site information within the program area. Letters were mailed to individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC (see Appendix E), notifying them of the proposed Sphere of Influence. Previously, a letter dated February 20, 2003, was received from Ms. Burley, Chairperson of the California Valley Miwok Tribe regarding the proposed on-site improvements at the White Slough WPCF. The letter stated fiat the California Valley Miwok Tribe has no specific issues regarding the proposed on-site improvements, but that because the Miwok Indians traveled regularly through the program area, there is a general concern that Indian artifacts could be found in this area. The letter requested that the Tribe be kept apprised of Miwok artifacts, if any are found at this location. No other comments regarding the proposed on-site improvements, off-site expansion, or WPCF Sphere of Influence have been received to date (November 20, 2003). Records of archaeological surveys at the CCIC indicate that most of the proposed White Slough Sphere of Influence lands remain unsurveycd. Only one survey is recorded within the proposed Sphere of Influence. In 1990, Wohlegemuth completed A Cultural Resource Inventory of Four Alternative Power Plant Locations for the Northern California Power Agency Stand Alone Combined Cycle Project, Place and San Joaquin Counties, California (CLIC Survey #SJ 850), which presents the results of archaeological survey on two small power plant sites within the proposed Sphere of Influence: one adjacent to the existing White Slough WPCF on the south and one northeast of the White Slough WPCF along Interstate 5 (I-5) and Kingdon Road The two proposed power plant site locations comprise a total of 16.6 acres. No cultural resources were located during the course of this inventory. In July 2003, Peter Jensen conducted a survey within a portion of the Sphere of Influence where expansion of the White Slough WPCF was under consideration. The survey was not completed due to changes in the project design and preparation of a survey report is awaiting final project design, which will be used to identify and execute archaeological survey objectives. The CCIC has records for an additional five archaeological surveys on lands adjacent to or within 0.25 mile of the Sphere of Influence. In 1995, J. Meyer completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for a proposed golf course, 1.0 mile south of the White Slough WPCF and directly south of the Rio Blanco Tract (CCIC Survey # 2590). The remaining surveys are north of the Sphere of Influence, along the State Route 12 (SR 12) corridor. Three surveys were conducted in 1999 along this corridor. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural resource inventory for the SR 12/Thornton Road Realignment Project (CCIC Survey #SJ 3522), Hibbard conducted an inventory for Caltrans for a small road project located between State Routes 5 and 12 in the program area (CCIC Survey #SJ 2673), and Laylander completed a negative archaeological survey along two sections of SR 12 where Caltrans proposed to construct passing lanes (CCIC Survey #SJ 3 804). In 2000, Norton completed a cultural resorces survey of a proposed SR 12 widening project and proposed Thornton Road realignment (CCIC Survey #SJ City ofGodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.11-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drag Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Anal sis CULTURAL RESOU 4285). No cultural resources were located during any of the five recorded surveys on lands in the inurnediate program vicinity. Since the White Slough Sphere of Influence EIR is being prepared at a programmatic level and no ground disturbance is presently proposed, intensive pedestrian surveys were not conducted for this program However, reconnaissance window survey of the proposed Sphere of Influence program area was undertaken in October 2003. NATURAL SETTING The proposed Sphere of Influence program area is located in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta and San Joaquin River Valley, primarily in low-lying agricultural lands. Overall, the program area appears to contain lands ranging from low to moderate in archaeological sensitivity. The program site is near sea level with little range in elevation (sea level on the west to 20 feet above mean sea level on the east). The area has been substantially disturbed by flooding, construction of roads and water reclamation/distribution features, and agriculture. Prehistorically, the grasslands, riparian corridors, rivers, marshes, sloughs, and seasonal lakes of the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta represented one of the richest environments in California and supported some of the largest populations in the state. Prior to the large-scale reclamation efforts of the late l 9th and early 20th centuries, the program area was apparently seasonally flooded and was unsuitable for agriculture. A GLO Plat map dated 1853-1867 indicates that the western portion of the program site is "land subject to periodical overflow and unfit for cultivation." Following land reclamation, much of the program area was subjected to historic ranching and fanning, giving way to intensive mechanized agriculture following the turn-of--the-20th century. Several water distribution features have been constructed in this area over the years, all of which remain in use and have been substantially modified from the original features in conjunction with water delivery expansion, general improvements, and maintenance requirements. While numerous excavated canals and ditches are located within the vicinity, there are no natural permanent surface water sources within or immediately adjacent to the program area. Bear Crcck and Pixley Slough are located over one mile south of the program area. CULTURAL SETTING Archaeological sites older than 8,000 years are very rare throughout north -central California. Sites in the northern San Joaquin Valley are often found buried under deep alluvial deposits; this may partly explain the fact that very early sites are lacking in the archaeological record for the area (Moratto 1984). Evidence of occupation in becomes more common from sites after 8,000 BP. Early artifact assemblages exhibit a great diversity of tool types, but a conspicuous lack of tools associated with intensive acorn processing (e.g., ground stone). It appears that the earliest inhabitants of the area frequently relocated Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.11-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis CULTURAL RESOURCES their residential bases in response to seasonal changes in resource distribution. This overall adaptive pattern appears to have persisted for roughly 3,000 years. Around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, a dramatic intensification of land use is noted in the archaeological record. By about 2,500 to 3,000 years BP, valley populations were apparently larger, more sedentary, and better nourished than their predecessors. Acorns became a primary staple and the appearance mortars and pestles and a possible shift from milling stones and handstones to mortars and pestles is noted at sites from this time period. Beginning around 1,500 years BP, there is archaeological evidence of populations with complex social organizations, trade networks, food storage and redistribution systems, ceremonial/funerary patterns, and territoriality. There is evidence of increasing resource intensification and increasing use of riverine resources (as indicated by an increase in fishing implements and fish and shellfish remains). The earliest system archaeological work in the Lodi vicinity was conducted by E.J. Dawson. Dawson excavated numerous sites in the area from 1912 to 1930 and recognized in the archaeological record a sequence of cultural changes over time, similar to the sequence described above. However, this sequence was not generally accepted for another 10 years. Further to the south, various federal and state agencies collaborated to salvage archaeological remains threatened by the construction and filling of the San Luis, Los Banos and Little Panache reservoirs. These systematic excavations, which took place from 1962 to 1968 led to a refining of the Central California prehistoric sequence for the western San Joaquin Valley (Moratto 1984). More recently, there has been little systematic archaeological work in the program vicinity. The program area is within the territory ascribed ethnographically to the Plains Miwok (Levy 1978) or to the Northern Valley Yokuts (Latta 1977; Wallace 1978). The area is at the southern end of the Plains Miwok range and at the northern end of the Northern Valley Yokuts range. The nearest known Yokuts tribe was the "Yatchikumne," located in Stockton. The Plains Miwok and Northern Valley Yokuts were hunter -gatherers who focused their settlement and subsistence along major stream courses to fish the abundant salmon runs, but consumed a diversity of locally -available resources, including oak acorns and deer. In addition, Irople would travel periodically to avoid floods and summer heat to collect more distant seasonally available resources, hunt large game, and engage in trade and social events with neighboring groups. Introduction of the Euroamericans to the region brought an outbreak of malaria and smallpox that ravished the Native American population in 1833. Recorded history in the program area comprises a number of historical developments, including: early Spanish exploration; land reclamation; and development of transportation systems in the Valley which opened the area up to intensive agriculture and industrial development. The program area is within Elkhorn Township, the original boundaries of which were established on August 15, 1953 and included Union Township and portions of Liberty, Elliott, and O'Neill Townships. City of Lodi White Slough {PPCF Sphere offnfluence 4.11-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 Environmental Analysis U RALRESOURCES Boundaries of the township shifted over the next 20 years. Andres Pico claimed about half of the township under an alleged grant, purporting to have been given June 6, 1846 by his uncle, Pio Pico, who at that time was Governor of California (The Lewis Publishing Company 1890). The Kingdon locale indicated on historic USGS quad maps (1952, 1978) along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad at the eastern edge of the Sphere of Influence, was originally called West Lodi when the BNSF railroad first reached it in 1909. The railroad renamed the place in 1915 (Gudde 1998). Lodi, which was founded in 1869 as a Central Pacific Railroad Company railroad station, was originally called Mokelumne City. The existence the Mokelumne Station and Mokelumne Hill settlements caused some confusion and several years later, the settlement was renamed Lodi. The origins of this name are unknown, but one story has it that it was named after a popular race horse that was stabled in the town at that time. Another story is that the name "was suggested by the historic event of Napoleon at the Bridge of Lodi" (Tinkham 1923). Prior to its settlement, the Lodi area was reported to be a "waste of sand, forest, trees, sage brush, and jackrabbits" (Tinkhatn 1923). In 1869, the settlement included a hotel, store, depot, post office, and stage line. In 1870, the San Joaquin & Sierra Nevada Railroad, a narrow-gauge track ran east -west through Lodi (The Lewis Publishing Company 1890). The City of Lodi incorporated on December 6, 1906. Agriculture in San Joaquin County from the 1850s to the mid 1880s was based primarily on wheat and other crops that could be raised without the need for extensive irrigation. The height of the "grain era" of was largely over by 1880, after a series of failed crops negatively affected production and income. Although grain continued to be grown on a large-scale basis into the late 1890s, a conversion to more water -intensive fruit and nut orchards in the program area was underway (Thompson & West 1979). in ensuing years, improvements to the transportation system and to shipping in the program area, along with the development of large-scale water distribution projects (e.g., the California Aqueduct and the Central Valley Project, or CVP) and land reclamation projects, stimulated intensive agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and in the Delta region. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES IN THE PROGRAM AREA No prehistoric or historic sites or features are currently recorded within the program area. The History of San Joaquin County, California (Thompson & West 1879), records historic ranches in the Elkhorn Township. An 1853-1867 GLO Plat map show several features of the built environment, including houses, gardens, fences, roads, and drainage ditches within the proposed Sphere of Influence lands. A 1910 historic map shows historic buildings and structures located within the proposed Sphere of Influence lands. USGS quad maps dated 1952 and 1978 shove a number of pumps and pump houses within the proposed Sphere of Influence. Historic USGS quad maps also depict the old BNSF railroad alignment adjacent to the eastern program site boundary, with an east -west trending spur approximately 0.25 mile north of the northern Sphere of Influence boundary. Topography and existing dirt roads indicate that the Hughes Environmental Consultaft, Inc, 4.11-5 Cory of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program! EIR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis CULTURAL O S railroad alignment likely continued westerly, along the northern boundary of the proposed Sphere of Influence. Finally, at the southwestern corner of the proposed Sphere of Influence, bounded by Dredger Cut, Bishop Cut, and Telephone Cut, is the Rio Blanco Tract, an historic -era land grant. As noted above, disturbance to the ground surface has been substantial within the program area, as a result of over 100 years of farming and ranching throughout the general area, including excavation of major and minor irrigation canals, installation of pumps, grading associated with construction of adjacent roadways, construction of several overhead electrical transmission lines, and construction of several residential and ranching related structures. No evidence of prehistoric occupation or presence was encountered during archival research or site reconnaissance, and no information concerning prehistoric resources or traditional use areas was received from contacted Native American representatives. These findings duplicate the results of several surveys on nearby lands, suggesting that agriculture may have effectively obliterated any evidence of prehistoric presence within this area. Nevertheless, the potential remains that prehistoric archaeological resources lie deeply buried under alluvial sediments in the proposed Sphere of Influence program area. No evidence of historic -period ranching, homesteading or refuse disposal was observed during the recent reconnaissance of the program area. Again, these results are likely at least partially explained by the extensive disturbance (primarily agriculture and construction of roads and water conveyance features) to which the Sphere of Influence lands have been subjected. The possibility remains that historic resources could be encountered within the White Slough Sphere of Influence. Standing buildings could be of an age that renders them potentially significant. The potential historic significance of features of the built environment, including houses, gardens, fences, roads, drainage ditches, and the old BNSF railroad grade has not been evaluated. REGULATORY BACKGROUND City of Lodi General Plan The City of Lodi General Plan Cultural Resource Element Goal J and related policies requires that the City preserve and enhance Lodi's historical heritage through the implementation of a historic preservation ordinance, working with property owners in seeking registration of historical structures as State Historic Landmarks or listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and consulting with the California Archaeological Inventory, CCIC on any projects that could have an impacts on cultural resources (City of Lodi 1991a). San Joaquin County General Plan The San Joaquin County General Plan Vegetation, Fish and Wildlife Element under Heritage Resources, Objective 1 and related policies, provide for the protection of San Joaquin County's valuable architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural resources. These policies require teat significant City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.11-6 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13/04 4.0 Environmental Analyst's CULTURALRESOURCES archaeological and historical resources shall be identified and protected from destruction (San Joaquin County 1992x). Under the Housing Element, Objective 2, Policy 3 states that permitted non-residential uses and activities shall be compatibly integrated into the neighborhoods they serve. 4.11.2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA A project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource (California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5[b]). The CEQA Guidelines (Section 10564.5[c]) also require consideration of potential project impacts to "unique" archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources. Impacts to resources that do not qualify as historical resources or "unique" archaeological sites are not considered significant, and need not be considered further in the CEQA process (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2). CEQA establishes statutory requirements for establishing the significance of archaeological sites in (PRC) Section 21083.2 and historical resources in PRC Section 21084.1. Section 21083.2 defines a `unique archaeological resource" as "...an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: ■ It contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. ■ It has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. ■ It is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event. Section 21084.1 defines historical resources as those listed on or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The California Register establishes a second set of criteria for determining the significance of historical resources, which by definition includes both prehistoric -era and historic -era resources (PRC Section 5020 et. seq.). The California Register establishes 50 years as the period in which sufficient time has passed to allow a scholarly perspective in understanding the historic importance of a resource. An historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: ■ It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; Hughes Environmental Consultaeks, Inc. 4.11-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 4.0 Environmental Analysis CULTURAL RE OU 5 ■ It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; ■ It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or ■ It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. An historical resource must also retain the integrity of its physical identity that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The two PRC sections operate independently to ensure that significant potential effects on archaeological and historical resources are considered as part of a project's environmental analysis. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines also recommend provisions be nude for the accidental discovery of archaeological sites, historical resources, or Native American human remains during construction (PRC Section 21083.2(i) CCR Section 15064.5[d and fl). METHODOLOGY The determination of potential cultural resource impacts was based upon future buildout of the WPCF within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary. No archaeological resources have been identified within the proposed White Slough WPCF 4)here of Influence and the establishment of an Sphere of Influence around the WPCF will not, in itself, impact cultural resources. However, ground -disturbing actions and other actions associated with future buildout of the WPCF within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundary could result in significant impacts within the program area. Mitigation for these impacts is presented below. With mitigation, potential impacts to cultural resources are rendered less than significant. Impact 4.11.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could impact standing structures with potential historical significance. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 Site-specific archival research and architectural field surveys would be required prior to undertaking any future projects within the WPCF Sphere of Influence that City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 4.11-8 Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. Drafl Program EIR 04/23/04 4.0 EnvironmentaL4nalysis CULTURAL R 5500 could impact the potential historical significance of standing structures within the program area. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.11.2 Ground -disturbing actions associated with future buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the accidental destruction of previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or could result in the uncovering of Native American human remains. Archaeological findings during ground disturbance could include, but are not limited to chert, basalt, or obsidian chipping debris and tools, ground or pecked stone tools, thermally altered rock and charcoal concentrations (hearths), locally darkened soil (midden) containing shell, faunal bone, charred seeds, and thermally altered rock, historic trash dumps, or other historic features. Ground disturbance associated with buildout of the WPCF would also occur in areas with potential to contain Native American human remains that have not been previously identified. If such resources are encountered during project construction, significant impacts are possible. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.11.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, and consultations with the Native American Heritage Commission and designated Native American representatives shall be required prior to undertaking any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of Influence in the future. 4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved in any form of ground disturbance (i.e., trenching, grading, etc.) shall be advised of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or human remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted immediately and the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be notified. In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section 21083.2(i), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted, who shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the resource. 4.11.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, California Law requires that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the San Joaquin County Coroner is contacted. if the Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4.11-9 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EfR 4.0 Environmental Anal sis CULTURAL RESOURCES 5097.98. A note to this effect shall be included on all construction plans and specifications. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impacts to cultural resources tend to be site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature. Cumulative impacts are possible where impacts will occur to sites associated with the lives of an historically important person or to sites that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a particular master. Cumulative impacts are also possible where impacts will occur to sites within an archaeological or historic district or historically significant landscape. However, the proposed White Slough Sphere of Influence program would not result in a significant adverse effect on cultural resources, and therefore would not contribute to any potential cumulative cultural resource impacts. City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence 4.11-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13/04 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the alternatives analysis in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. If a significant project -related impact would be avoided under the alternative, or if the alternative would cause a significant impact that would not occur under the proposed program, the impact category is generally discussed in the following sections. Currently, the City of Lodi provides reclaimed water for irrigation of the fields surrounding the existing White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) from April through October. If 100 percent land disposal of effluent becomes necessary in the future, however, the City would likely need to evaluate several options to determine a preferred long-term disposal scenario. Three Land Disposal and Storage Options were developed to meet these long-term needs, including the following (see Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program for a detailed description of these Options): ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 1 (3,890 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Storage in Ponds ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 2 (2,310 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Percolation Basin Disposal ■ Land Disposal and Storage Option 3 (4,470 acres) - Reclamation on Agricultural Property from April through October with Winter Wetlands Reclamation and Storage However, until additional information and requirements by the Central Valley RWQCB are made available, the preferred long-term land application alternative to provide for 100 percent reuse of the City's effluent could not reasonably be determined at this time. The proposed Sphere of Influence would also encompass the area required for wastewater storage and disposal facilities, adequate buffer areas, and has been expanded to encompass local parcel boundaries. Therefore, suitable land area of approximately 5,280 acres (actual acreage of the affected parcels to provide for all of the above Options) would be set aside to provide for the area requirements for each of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options. The designation of the proposed Sphere of Influence allows the City of Lodi to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at this time. Following this approach, when one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence is proposed, the City of Lodi would be Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnftuence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 5.0 Alternatives An sis required to examine the individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in this Program EIR. If the future WPCF Sphere of Influence build out activities have effects beyond the summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures detailed in this Program EIR, further CEQA compliance would be required. 5.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15123[b][3] and 15126[d]) requires an EIR to consider a range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the program objectives of the proposed. White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence. The Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative are described below: REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE (4,240 ACRES) The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP requesting that a reduced acreage alternative be developed to address future potential impacts on agricultural lands (See Appendix A for CDFA letter)(CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Alternative of 4,240 acres would allow for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would not allow for as much flexibility in disposal methods and would not include areas to buffer disposal activities from other uses. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within a Sphere of Influence. It should be noted, however, that additional lands may still be needed for future land disposal and storage areas if Sphere of influence lands were not made available. Under the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if the WPCF Sphere of Influence is not created. At this time, the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative are the only reasonable alternatives to the proposed program. This section is intended to evaluate the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence program and compare the impacts associated with the Sphere of Influence program with the impacts associated with the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 5-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draf} Program EIR 04123104 5.0 Alternatives 5.3 REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS OF THE REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE LAND USEIAGRICULTURALRESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would be inconsistent with some of the current land use policies of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would eliminate the surrounding agricultural land buffers, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The agricultural buffers proposed under the proposed program would ensure that existing farmland would be retained in farmland. This would not occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The potential for land use conflicts predominately with lands adjacent to the northern and southern limits could occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would not include the urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth and could therefore result in greater land use conflicts (i.e., odor and mosquito impacts to residential properties) than the proposed program. The need to acquire private lands would also be required under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Similar to the proposed program, he potential disturbance of geologic and topographic features and impacts associated with soil erosion and soil constraints from construction and grading activities associated with buildout of the Reduced Acreage Alternative would occur. NOISE The potential temporary noise impacts, including additional construction vehicle trips, associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence program would also occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. VISUAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in the future development of additional WPCF facilities under buildout. This impact is considered less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICESAND UTILITIES The Reduced Acreage Alternative could have an impact on fire protection, emergency response services and law enforcement services under future WPCF buildout conditions, similar to the proposed program. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 5.0 Alternatives Anal&sis TRAFFIC AND CIR CULA 7YON Similar to the proposed program, temporary impacts associated with additional construction vehicle traffic associated with the Reduced Acreage Alternative buildout would occur. HYDROLOGYMATER QUALITY The Reduced Acreage Alternative would make lands available to facilitate compliance with future WDRs issued by the Central Valley RWQCB and would allow the City to develop a coordinated approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of wastewater in the City of Lodi. Similar to the proposed program, the Reduced Acreage Alternative could result in potential surface water impacts associated with stormwater runoff, groundwater, and flooding impacts associated with future buildout. AIR QUALITY/ODQR The Reduced Acreage Alternative would generate short-term emissions from construction activities associated with future buildout, similar to the proposed program. The Reduced Acreage Alternative could alter the current operation of the White Slough WPCF and the existing potential for odor problems. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would not include an odor buffer, and could result in greater future potential odor impacts over the proposed program. HAZARDOUS MATENALS AND HEALTH RISKS Similar to the proposed program, hazardous materials storage and handling procedures could change under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. Impacts associated with chemical deliveries and use of hazardous chemicals at the WPCF, would, like the proposed program, be less than significant under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The potential growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, which creates a concern that the public may be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent, would occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. Under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, the creation of potential adverse health and safety-related effects related to the exposure of mosquitoes (i.e., potential future use of reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins could provide mosquito -breeding habitat) and the interference with designated aircraft patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park (i.e., open water facilities could result in interference from migratory birds) potentially associated with buildout would occur. This potential future impact would be greater under the Reduced Acreage Alternative than the proposed program, as the appropriate land buffers would not be included. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 5-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13/04 5.0 Alternatives Analysis BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in beneficial habitat retention for common wildlife species and special -status species and an increase in habitat quality as a result of the future use of reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins for the storage and disposal of wastewater. The potential loss of habitat for common wildlife species, special -status plant or wildlife species, nesting raptors and other migratory birds, and wetlands and riparian habitats or native trees would be the same as the proposed program under the Reduced Acreage Alternative, as the additional 1,040 acres (i.e., 5,280 acres versus 4,240 acres) under the proposed program would be buffer areas and would retain surrounding lands in an agricultural designation. It should be noted that the retainage of this 1,040 acres of agricultural land under the proposed program that would not occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative could result in beneficial habitat impacts. Similar acreage disturbance would occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the proposed program, as both alternatives include appropriate land area to accommodate any one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options. Similar to the proposed program, the Reduced Acreage Alternative would indirectly affect land uses by eliminating the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area. This effect is considered a beneficial impact on biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, potential impacts on standing structures with potential historical significance and the potential accidental destruction of previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources associated with ground -disturbing activities could occur. These potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Again, it should be noted that similar acreage disturbance would occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the proposed program, as both alternatives include appropriate land area to accommodate any one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options. 5.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Consideration of the No Project Alternative is specifically required by Section 15126.6(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of evaluating this alternative is to determine the impacts that could occur without implementation of the proposed program. Under the No Project Alternative, a Sphere of Influence would not be created for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs, however lands may still be required for future land disposal and storage needs under the City of Lodi General Plan buildout. Hughes Environmental Consuflents, Inc. 5-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 5.0 Alternatives Analysis LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The No Project Alternative would be inconsistent with some of the current land use policies of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan. The No Project Alternative would not include the surrounding agricultural land buffers as proposed under the proposed program, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The potential for land use conflicts predominately with lands adjacent to the northern and southern proposed Sphere of Influence limits could occur under the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the potential for future land use conflicts could be greater than under the proposed program, as projects would not be as informed as to the potential location of future wastewater facilities. The No Project Alternative would not include the urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth and could therefore result in greater land use conflicts (i.e., odor and mosquito impacts to residential properties) than the proposed program. Under the No Project Alternative, future buffers proposed with specific WPCF expansion projects could be eliminated and could potentially result in greater land use conflicts. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY As lands would still be required for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs under the No Project Alternative, the potential disturbance of geologic and topographic features and impacts associated with soil erosion and soil constraints from construction and grading activities associated with the future WPCF expansion would occur. NOISE Similar to the proposed program, the potential temporary noise impacts, including additional construction vehicle trips, associated with the construction of future wastewater land disposal and storage needs would occur under the No Project Alternative. VISUAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, the No Project Alternative would result in the future development of additional WPCF facilities under buildout. This impact is considered less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Implementation of the No Project Alternative could have an impact on fire protection, emergency response services and Iaw enforcement services under future WPCF buildout conditions, similar to the proposed program. The No Project Alternative could, however, result in an impact to wastewater services due to inadequate land disposal area to ultimately serve future growth discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan. City of Lodl White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 5-6 Hughes Environmental consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/13104 5.0 Alternatives Analysis TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Similar to the proposed program, temporary impacts associated with additional construction vehicle traffic associated with future WPCF buildout would occur under the No Project Alternative. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY The No Project Alternative would not assist in considering making lands available to comply with future WDRs issued by the Central Valley RWQCB and would fail to develop a coordinated approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of wastewater in the City of Lodi If lands were not made available to comply with future WDRs, discharge of effluent into surface waters may need to occur, and violations could be issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. Similar to the proposed program, the No Project Alternative could result in potential surface water impacts associated with stormwater runoff, groundwater, and flooding impacts associated with future WPCF buildout. AIR QUALITY/ODOR The No Project Alternative would generate short-term emissions from construction activities associated with future WPCF buildout, similar to the proposed program. The No Project Alternative would not include an odor buffer, and could result in greater future potential odor impacts over the proposed program. Similar to the proposed program, the No Project Alternative could alter the current operation of the White Slough WPCF and the existing potential for odor problems. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HEALTH RISKS Similar to the proposed program, hazardous materials storage and handling procedures could change under the No Project Alternative. The potential growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater under WPCF buildout, which creates a concern that the public may be exposed to health threats associated with the treated effluent, would occur under the No Project Alternative. The creation of potential adverse health and safety-related effects related to the exposure of mosquitoes (i.e., potential future use of reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins could provide mosquito -breeding habitat) and the interference with designated aircraft patterns at the Kingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air Park (i.e., open water facilities could result in interference from migratory birds) potentially associated with WPCF buildout could occur. This potential future impact could be greater under the No Project Altemative than the proposed program, as the appropriate land buffers would not be included. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, the No Project Alternative would most likely result in beneficial habitat retention for common wildlife species and special_status species and an increase in habitat quality as a Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 5.0 AlternadvesAnalysisT .. result of the future use of reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins for the storage and disposal of wastewater. However, as lands are not being set aside for consideration for future WPCF buildout needs under the No Project Alternative, the extent of this beneficial impact is unknown. The potential loss of habitat for common wildlife species, special -status plant or wildlife species, nesting raptors and other migratory birds, and wetlands and riparian habitats or native trees would also occur under the No Project Alternative, similar to the proposed program. The proposed Sphere of Influence planning designation would indirectly affect land uses by eliminating the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area. This effect is considered a beneficial impact on biological resources. The future expansion of facilities and additional applications of wastewater within the Sphere of Influence area, and the future operation of the facilities (i.e., application of treated effluent onto lands that support biological resources within the Sphere of Influence) could affect biological resources, both beneficially and adversely. As the No Project Alternative would not create a Sphere of Influence planning designation and would not eliminate the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area, the beneficial impact on biological resources cannot be considered. CULTURAL RESOURCES Similar to the proposed program, potential impacts on standing structures with potential historical significance and the potential accidental destruction of previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources associated with ground -disturbing activities could occur under the No Project Alternative. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Acreage Alternative would result in similar impacts under buildout as the proposed Sphere of influence program. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would however eliminate the surrounding agricultural land buffers, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland, including Prime and Unique Farmlands and lands currently under the protection of the Williamson Act, than the proposed program. The agricultural buffers proposed under the proposed program would ensure that existing farmland would be retained in farmland. This would not occur under the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also result in greater land use impacts, air quality impacts, and health risks than the proposed program, as it would not include the urban -open space interface including an odor buffer, a mosquito buffer, protection of sensitive receptors, and a reduction in noxious weed growth. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would also not result in as much in beneficial habitat retention for common wildlife species and special -status species as the proposed prograrn. Under the No Project Alternative, a Sphere of Influence would not be created for future wastewater land disposal and storage needs, however lands may still be required for future land disposal and storage needs Cary of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 5-8 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 5,0 Alternatives Analysis under the City of Lodi General Plan buildout. The No Project Alternative would not include the surrounding agricultural land buffers as proposed under the proposed program, which could potentially result in the loss of more farmland than the proposed program. The No Project Alternative could also result in a greater impact to wastewater services due to inadequate land disposal area to ultimately serve future growth discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not assist in considering making lands available to comply with future WDRs issued by the Central Valley RWQCB and would fail to develop a coordinated approach to planning for the future infrastructure needed to adequately store and dispose of wastewater in the City of Lodi The No Project Alternative would result in greater land use impacts, public service and utility impacts, hydrology and water quality impacts, air quality impacts, and health risks over the proposed program. As the No Project Alternative would not create a Sphere of Influence planning designation and would not eliminate the possibility of land conversion to residential and other uses within the planning area, the beneficial impact on biological resources cannot be considered Additionally, the No Project Alternative fails to specifically meet the identified program objectives. The proposed Sphere of Influence could avoid or reduce most of the significant adverse environmental impacts considered under buildout, and would provide the most effective means to achieve the multifaceted program objectives. Under the proposed Sphere of Influence program, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas would be considered to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan), guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes would be provided, efficient provisions of community services and the prevention of duplication of service delivery would be encouraged, potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities would be avoided to the extent possible, and local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability would be increased. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence would also provide the benefits of enhanced water quality, preservation of open space, prime agricultural land and habitat preservation, in addition to providing assurances that the City of Lodi could meet its long-term sewerage disposal needs. In summary, the proposed Sphere of Influence program mcets the program objectives more fully than the Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative and is therefore the recommended alternative. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5-9 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program FIR 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CHAPTER 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM 6,1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15126[d]) require an evaluation of the growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. A growth inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as: The way in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this definition are public works projects which would remove obstacles to population growth, would tax community service facilities, or encourages or facilitates other activities that cause significant environmental effects. It is not assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (WPCF) EXPANSION BACKGROUND The WPCF was originally constructed in 1966 and had a rated average dry weather flow capacity of 3.5 MGD. The plant has undergone two major expansions since initial construction. In 1976 the plant was expanded to increase its average dry weather flow capacity to 5.8 MGD, and in 1990, the plant was expanded to its current configuration with the design average dry weather flow capacity of 8.5 MGD. The average dry weather flow to the WPCF is currently about 6.5 MGD. As discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan, development that would be allowed under the General Plan would increase total treatment plant capacity needs to approximately 11.6 MGD and increase the need for collection lines (City of Lodi 1990). The proposed Sphere of Influence program would create a zone of consideration for future WPCF projects to ensure that sufficient land area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas would be available to serve the longterm future growth of the City of Lodi (City of Lodi 1990). Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with, or accommodated by, the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans (e.g., General Plans) provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service and solid waste service. A project that would Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6-1 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04123104 Draft Program EIR - &0 Growth taducing Impact!?Lkte Proposed Action community defines the location, type and intensity of growth, it is the primary means of regulating development and growth in California. The Gty of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan are the overall guiding documents that designate new development and general growth in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County. Environmental effects of growth anticipated under both General Plans were evaluated in the City of Lodi General Plan EIR and the San Joaquin County General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA. The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence program would assist in supporting planned growth under the City of Lodi General Plan, but would not exceed the 11.6 MGD wastewater treatment capacity as allowed per General Plan buildout (City of Lodi 1990). Although the proposed Sphere of Influence would provide a framework that could ultimately provide wastewater service to support future growth, development of several other public facilities and services would also be required to support growth. These public facilities and services would include, but are not limited to, roadway improvements, water service, electrical and natural gas distribution facilities, and public schools. Based on studies and research regarding growth patterns, the following general conclusions can be made regarding the growth -inducing effects of infrastructure: ■ The lack of adequate infrastructure can be a constraint to economic development. ■ The provision of infrastructure can have a major effect on the location, timing, and pattern of development. ■ Though public investment in infrastructure is an acceptable means of attempting to foster economic development, empirical research yields ambiguous conclusions as to the effectiveness of such investment. ■ Infrastructure, by itself, is not sufficient to induce economic growth, other favorable economic factors must be present, and are generally more important. ■ Certain regions, notably those that are older, larger, or more congested, are more likely to benefit economically from infrastructure investment than rural, lagging or newer regions. ■ Certain types of infrastructure, notably transportation, may have a more simulating effect on growth than other types. In addition, the location and amount of future growth would continue to be controlled by the City as guided by the General Plan and adopted growth and development controls and standards. Implementation of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would assist the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County in providing potential lands for more long-term wastewater needs and would provide the framework for planned growth in the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would also allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to urban lands. It should be noted that the proposed Sphere of Influence program Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. _ 6-3 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere of hy7uence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 6.0 Growtk Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action induce "disorderly" growth (in conflict with the local land use plans) could indirectly cause additional adverse environmental impacts and other public services impacts. Thus, to assess whether a project with potential to induce growth would result in adverse secondary effects, it is important to assess the degree to which the growth associated with a project would or would not be consistent with applicable land use plans. As previously stated, allowed growth as discussed in the General Plan would increase total WPCF treatment needs to approximately 11.6 MGD and increase the need for collection lines (City of Lodi 1990). The future wastewater treatment needs as determined by the City of Lodi General Pian could not be accommodated within the existing WPCF treatment facilities. Therefore, future WPCF expansion projects would be required to treat allowed growth and to meet future Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would ensure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas would be considered to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence Planning Designation would allow for the retention of row and field crops and fallow fields and would prevent land conversion of important farmlands to residential and other urban lands. The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence is also consistent with growth trends as discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan, and therefore would not be considered growth -inducing. 6.2 DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH TRENDS OF THE CITY OF LODI The target population through 2007 is 70,741. This represents a two percent annual growth rate from the 1987 population level of 45,794 (West Yost 2001). According to the City's 1998 Residential Growth Management Schedule, the population of Lodi was 55,681 in January 1998 (City of Lodi 1998). Population projections for San Joaquin County and its cities have been developed by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) for year 2020. SJCOG's growth projection for Lodi is that the City will grow to a population of 69,156 by 2020, a growth rate of 0.99 percent. This is the lowest growth rate of the seven cities in the county. The total county growth rate was estimated to be 1.92 percent. At the General Plan target of two percent growth rate, the population would be 86,000 by the year 2020 (West Yost 2001). 6.3 GROWTH EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth in a community or region is based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables include regional economic trends, market demand for residential and non-residential uses, land availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services, proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and regulatory policies or conditions. Since the General Plan of a City of Lodi White SIDugh WPCF Sphere ofln}luence 6-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draf} Program EIR 04/23104 6.9 Growth Ind cinR Impact of the Proposed Action does not include any "actions" to increase the wastewater treatment capacity of the WPCF. Future WPCF expansion projects proposed within the Sphere of Influence would be required to address the potential growth effects, and mitigate as necessary. Therefore, the potential growth effects of the proposed program would accommodate growth as allowed in the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. 6.4 SECONDARY EFFECTS OF GROWTH The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would assist in developing a long-term land availability strategy for reliably meeting future discharge and wastewater treatment capacity requirements to meet community needs through the year 2020. As the consideration of future lands to be potentially considered for future WPCF projects could accommodate planned growth as allowed for by the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin General Plan under buildout, it could indirectly result in some secondary environmental effects of growth that are associated with the adopted General Plans. The secondary environmental effects of growth associated with this program are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, and the General Plan Final EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the General Plan adoption (City of Lodi 1991b): ■ Land Use— Direct Land Use Changes: The conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural lands, of which 500 acres are Williamson Act Land, to urban uses. Beyond 2007, the conversion of approximately 3,600 acres of prime agricultural lands, of which 700 acres are Williamson Act Land, to urban uses. • Land Use — Direct Land Use Changes: Cumulative conversion of prime agricultural and Williamson Act lands to urban uses. ■ Geology and Soils — Soils: Overcovering of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural soils. Beyond 2007, the overcovering of approximately 3,600 acres of prime agricultural soils. ■ Aesthetics and Urban Design — Changes in Aesthetic Quality: Change in views from agricultural to urbanized areas. As most of the proposed Sphere of Influence lands are located within the unincorporated portion of San Joaquin County, the secondary environmental effects of growth associated with this program are also addressed in the San Joaquin County General Plan. The following significant and unavoidable impacts are associated with San Joaquin County General Plan adoption (San Joaquin County 1992c): ■ Land Use and Agricultural Resources: About 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. An additional 10,000 acres of prime farmland within existing City limits of incorporated acres would also be developed. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 6-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 &0 Growth Inducing Impact of the Pro osseed Action • Transportation: Countywide vehicle trips would increase significantly between 1990 and 2010 under the growth allowed by the General Plan. An additional 1.29 million daily vehicle trips would be generated due to growth in population and employment within the County. ■ Transporation: State and County roadway operations at the outer edges of San Joaquin County and in adjoining Counties would be affected by growth in San Joaquin County. ■ Transportation: The need for new and additional rail grade crossing improvements would increase significantly due to growth throughout the County. ■ Air Quality: Growth projected in San Joaquin County would have a significant impact on regional emissions of ozone precursors and PMo. The growth projected by the General Plan exceeds that accounted for in the regional attainment plans. ■ Air Quality: Growth projected in San Joaquin County would have a significant impact on emissions of carbon monoxide. • Biotic Resources: Implementation of the General Plan would eventually result in the conversion of about 37,000 acres of existing habitat to urban habitat. As previously stated, proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout could indirectly result in contributing to some of the above secondary environmental effects of growth that are associated with the adopted General Plans. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere oflnfluence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 7.0 OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER 7.0 OTHER STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As permitted by Section 15130(l)(B) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, cumulative impacts are evaluated based on growth projections and associated public service improvement projects of the program area's adopted regional planning document. The potential cumulative impacts of buildout of the proposed White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence, when combined with erects of growth and development forecasts for the City of Lodi General Plan service area and the San Joaquin County General Plan, could result in cumulative impacts to the environment. Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence program could indirectly result in impacts created in conjunction with development in the program area and the region, and could cumulatively and significantly affect the character of areas surrounding the program area, creating impacts, both adverse and beneficial. Potential cumulative effects associated with Sphere of Influence, buildout have been considered and identified (if they are expected to occur) for each environmental analysis included in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft Program EIR. The significant cumulative impacts and mitigation measures are listed below. LAND USWAGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4. 1.1 and 4.1.4, buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed program. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of influence 04/13/04 Draft Program EIR 7.0 Other StatuLory Considerations Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EIR, Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. However, this conversion would be in addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general. It should be noted that the potential future use of percolation basins is rural in nature and does not preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on important farmland in the County would be minimized through the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land. Significance Significant Cumulative Mitigation Measures 4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally - designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively significant. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY 4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. Future construction within the proposed Sphere of Influence could create minimal impervious surfaces that would prevent precipitation from infiltrating. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of Influence buildout is not anticipated to result in flooding problems in the area, or contribute to a cumulative flooding impact. Additionally, flooding impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 7-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program VR 04/23/64 7.0 Other Statutory Considerations Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, the City of Stockton prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Delta Water Supply Project, involving a surface water diversion facility and new conveyance pipelines, which would serve the increasing water demands of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area (COSMA) by adding an intake at the southwestern tip of Empire Tract on the San Joaquin River (City of Stockton 2003). The City of Lodi WPCF discharges treated wastewater to Bishop Cut/White Slough via Dredger Cut. Due to lack of dilution in Dredger Cut, the City is planning to relocate its discharge to Bishop Cut to take advantage of higher net flows. This is being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project, which is currently in the ADEIR phase. The City of Lodi is concerned that the proposed new City of Stockton intake location would further reduce net flows in Bishop Cut under various Delta flow conditions, which could result in increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements on the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas are available in the event that the City cannot meet increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements in the future (City of Lodi 2003a). The downslope San Joaquin River waterway, as identified in the SWRCB's 303(d) list, is currently listed as impaired for a variety of constituents, and its ability to assimilate additional pollutants is limited. Impacts on surface water quality also affects groundwater quality, since groundwater is recharged through percolation in watercourses and in exposed soils. Quantification of the potential degradation of surface water and groundwater quality would be speculative since the extent of the impact would depend on the future location and type of development that would occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Lodi as served under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Stockton, and in the surrounding unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. Potential impacts to surface wate r and groundwater are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. Any future project proposed within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to analyze specific project related impacts on surface water and groundwater. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7-3 City ofl odi K%jte Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 7.0 Other Statutory Considerations Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant AIR QUALITY 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Significance Significant Mitigation Measure 4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines allows the decision-making body of the lead agency to determine if the benefits of a proposed program outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of implementing the program. The City of Lodi would approve the program with unavoidable adverse impacts if it prepares a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" setting forth the specific reasons for making such a judgment. A list of unavoidable adverse impacts identified in this EIR is provided below. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 7-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04/23/04 7.0 Other Statutory Considerations For each of the unavoidable impacts, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" if the City approves the program. The following significant unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence program have been identified. LAND Us FIAGRICULTuRAL RESOURCES 41.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Act. 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 7-5 City of Lodi White Siough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 8.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS CHAPTER 8.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERS CITY OF LODI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Lodi Community Development Department, Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director P.Q. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 EIR CONSULTANTS Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. (HEC) 1909 Capitol Avenue, Suite 304 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.803.2309 Project Manager: Elizabeth Hughes (HEC) EIR Technical Writer: Jerusha Hall (HEC) Noise: Jerusha Hall (HEC) Traffic/Circulation: Jerusha Hall (HEC) Air Quality: Donald Ballanti Jerusha Hall (HEC) Biological Resources: Matt Gause, May & Associates, Inc. Catherine Leblanc (HEC) Cultural Resources: Jennifer Nachmanoff (HEC) Graphics: West Yost and Associates Colette Schantz (HEC) Technical Review: Elizabeth Hughes, HEC Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 8-1 n City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04123104 Drat Program EIR 9.0 ACRONYMS CHAPTER 9.0 ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ACOS Army Corps of Engineers ADP Attainment Demonstration Plan AHM Acutely Hazardous Material AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BA Biological Assessment BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe BMP Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CARB California Air Resources Board CAI California Archaeological Inventory California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CaiOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act CCIC Central California Information Center CCR California Code of Regulations CDC California Department of Conservation CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide COSMA City of Stockton Metropolitan Area CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission CTR California Toxics Rule CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9-1 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4/23/2004 Draft Program EIR 9.0 Acronyms _ dBA A -weighted decibel Delta Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DOT Department of Transportation DPR Department of Parks & Recreation Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EC Electrical Conductivity EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERP Emergency Response Plan ESP Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FDA Food and Drug Administration FEC Federal Energy Commission FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Mapping FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GLO General Land Office HASR Historical Architecture Study Report HMEP Hazardous Materials Emergency Plan HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan HOSCP Habitat and Open Space Conservation Plan Hz units of hertz km kilometers L,)Q noise level equaled or exceed 901/6 of the specified time period L10 noise level equaled or exceed 10% of the specified time period LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission Ldn 24-hour day and night A -weighted noise level L, equivalent sound level Lmax maximum noise level LOS Level of Service LUSD Lodi Unified School District in meter MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MGD million gallons per day MMRP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NCPA Northern California Power Agency NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NES Natural Environmental Study City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 9-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123/04 9.0 Acronyms NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NIC Northeast Information Center NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO, Nitrogen Dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOD Notice of Determination NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NO, Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NTR National Toxics Rule WP Nationwide Permit 03 Ozone OADP Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OHWM ordinary high water mark PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PM 10 Particulate Matter # 10 microns PPM Parts Per Million PSR Project Study Report PRC Public Resources Code ROG reactive organic gases RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement SCS United States Soils Conservation Service SDWR State Department of Water Resources SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SR State Route SS Suspended Solids SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVUAPCD San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS TMDL Total Dissolved Solids Total Maximum Daily Load USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USSCS U.S. Soils Conservation Service UST Underground Storage Tank ViC volume/capacity Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9-3 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 9.0 Acronyms VELB Valley Elderberry Longhom Beetle VPD vehicles per day WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility WWMP Wastewater Management Plan City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 9-4 Hughes Environmental ConsWtants, MC. Draft Program EIR 04123104 10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER 10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barry, S. 2002, Giant Garter Snake Habitat Assessment for the Sleepy Hollow Unit 2 site. Dixon, CA. Bainbridge, Laura E. 2003. Letter from the Attorney at Law who represents Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Coldani, and Steven Coldani., September 25, 2003, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, 1971. California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2003. Comment letter on the Notice of Preparation for the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence Project. October 20, 2003. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. CARE. 2003. California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM), (www.arb.ca.gov/adam/), 2003. CBA. 2003. City of Lodi 2003-2009 Housing Element Administrative Draft EIR, City of Lodi. Cotton/Bridges/Associates. November 2003. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Joaquin River Basin Plan. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. City of Lodi. 1988. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., April 1988. City of Lodi. 1990. City of Lodi Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental impact Report. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., April 1990. City of Lodi. 1991a. City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., April 1991. Cityof Lodi. 1991b. City of Lodi General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., April 1991. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10-1 City of Lodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 41.23/1004 Draft Program EIR 10.0 Bibliography T City of Lodi. 1992. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion. Prepared by EIP Associates, April 1992. City of Lodi. 1998. City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 1998, Adopted in accordance with Ordinance #1521 dated September 18, 1991. City of Lodi. 2003. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Aeration, Filtration, and UV Disinfection Improvements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Hughes Environmental Consultants, March 2003. City of Lodi. 2003a. Delta Water Supply — Response to Notice of Preparation. Prepared by J.D. Hightower, December 8, 2003. City of Stockton. 2003. City of Stockton Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Delta Water Supply Project. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates, November 14, 2003. City of Stockton. 2004. City of Stockton Zoning Map. Provided to West Yost and Associates in GIS format. March, 2004. Cunniff. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. 2003a. Records search of Terminous and Lodi South USGS Quadrangles. Department of Fish and Game. 2003b. Special Animals. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. 1992. 1991 annual report on the status of California state -listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. Sacramento, CA. EPA 1999, Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: a Technology Assessment. Prepared by Environmental Resources Engineering Department, Humboldt State University; CH2MHi11; and Wetland Management Services, March 1999. Estep, J. A. 2000a. Nesting Swainson's hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin habitat conservation area: 2000 annual survey results. Prepared for: The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Swainson's hawk Technical Advisory Committee, Sacramento, CA. . 2000b. Diurnal raptor eyrie monitoring program. (Project W -65-R-1, Job No. II -2.0). California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations. Sacramento, CA. Estep, J.A. and S. Teresa, 1992. Regional conservation planning for the Swainson's hawk in the Central Valley of California. In: Wildlife 2001: populations, pages 775 to 789, D.R. McCullough and R.H. Barrett, editors. Elsevier Applied Science, New York. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence 10-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Drafi Program EIR 04/13104 10.0 Biblio h General Land Office (GLO). 1853-1867. Survey Plat of Township 3 North, Range 5 East, Mount Diablo Meridian (Sheet No. 41-201). On file, Bureau of Land Management, Cadastral Survey Division, Sacramento. Gudde, E. 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kerlin, Del. 2003. Assistant Water/Wastewater Treatment Superintendent at the White Slough WPCF. Personal communication. 2003. Kleinfelder. 1999. Percolation Testing for the Proposed Lodi Wastewater Master Plan Study. July 1999. Levy, R. 1978. Eastern Miwok. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, pp. 398-413. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. May & Associates. 2003. Biological resources assessment report in support of the City of Lodi's Sphere of Influence Programmatic EIR for ht White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. November 20, 2003. Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology, pp. 167-216. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. San Joaquin County LAFCO. 1968. Sphere of Influence Guidance Document. June 21, 1968. San Joaquin County. 1992a. San Joaquin County General Plan 2010, Volume I: Policies and Implementation. Adopted July 29, 1992 and amended July 2002. San Joaquin County. 1992b. San Joaquin County General Plan 2010, Volume IL Community Plans. Adopted July 29, 1992 and amended September 2000. San Joaquin County. 1992c. San Joaquin County General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, May 1992. San Joaquin County. 2003. San Joaquin County Farmland 2000, Mapping provided by Jim Van Buren, San Joaquin County Senior Planner. July 23, 2003, San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District. 2004. Letter to Richard Prima, City of Lodi Public Works Department Director, regarding mosquito control in treatment wetlands. January 8, 2004. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. 1999. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, August 20, 1998 (Revised June 1, 1999). San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1997. PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan, May 15, 1997. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 10-3 City Df Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 04/23/04 Draft Program EIR 10.0 Bibliography _ Stagnaro, David. 2003. Personal conversation with David Stagnaro, City of Stockton Community Development Department Senior Planner regarding the current City of Stockton General Plan Update. December 20, 2003. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Survey Plat of Township 3 North, Range 6 East, Mount Diablo Meridian (Sheet No. 41-202). On file, Bureau of Land Management, Cadastral Survey Division, Sacramento. The Lewis Publishing Company. 1890. An Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California. Chicago, IL: The Lewis Publishing Company. Thompson & West. 1879. History of San Joaquin County, California, with Illustrations. Reprinted 1968. Berkeley, CA: Howell -North Books. Tinkham, G. H. 1923. History of San Joaquin County, California with Biographical Sketches of The Leading Men and Women of the County Who Have Been Identified with Its Growth and Development from the Early Days to the Present. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Recovery plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Portland, OR. Wallace, W. J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, pp. 462-470. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Walton, William. 2003. Managing Mosquitoes in Surface -Flow Constructed Treatment Wetlands, Publication 8117, University of California, Riverside. 2003. West Yost and Associates. 2001. City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan. January 2001. West Yost and Associates. 2003. Technical Memorandum on the City of Lodi Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence. October 23, 2003. Yee, David, Biologist. 2003. San Joaquin Audubon Society. Stockton, CA. Telephone conversation on April 1, 2003, Zeiner, D., Laudenslayer, F., Mayer, K., and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume 2 — birds. (California Statewide Habitat Relationships System.) California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. City of Lodi White Slough WPCP Sphere of rnfluence 10-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Draft Program EIR 04123104 APPENDIX D LIST OF SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROJECT AREA PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED DURING FIELD SURVEYS ]M1 idate.Species Common Name Sclentlfic Name American crow Corvusbrach rh nchos Black -tailed hare Lepus califomicus Botta's pocket gopher Thomom sbottae Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus California qroundsquirrel S ermo hilusbeeche i Common garter snake Thamno his sirtalls Coyote Canis latrans European starling Sturnus vulgaris House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Raccoon Procyon lotor Norway Rat Rattus norva icus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red -winged blackbird A elaius phoeiceus Red -shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Western fence lizard Scelo orous occidentalis Scientific Name Common Name Amsinckia spp. Fiddleneck Avena fatua Wild oat Brassicaspp. Mustard, field mustard Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceous Soft chess Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed Epilobium sp. Willow -herb Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed Erodium botrys Big -beak filaree Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lepidium latifolium Broadleaf pepperweed Leymus Triticoides Creeping wildrye Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Medicago sativa Alfalfa (cultivar) Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Paspalum dllatatum Dallis grass Pichris echiolodes Bristly ox tongue Polygonum aviculare Knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium Willowsmartweed Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass Rumex crispus Curly dock Scirpus acutus Bullrush Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail Verbena sp. Vervain FINAL EIR RLOCLUMLEM SEP - 1 2004 City Clerk city of Lodi CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Final Program Environmental Impact Report July 29, 2004 Prepared for., City of Lodi Community Development Department P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Prepared 6y: Hughes Environmental Consultants, Incorporated P.O. Box 191036 Sacramento, CA 95819 (916) 803-2309 TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM- FINAL PROGRAM EIR 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Organization of the Document............................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. . 2-1 2.2 Proposed Program .............................. ................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Program................................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Issues to be Resolved and Areas of Concern ......................................................................2-4 2.5 Summary of Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................ 24 2.6 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................... 2-8 2.7 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ............................................ ........... 2-8 2.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts............................................................ ........... 2-9 3.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR.............................................................4-1 5.0 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR........................................................... 5-1 List of Tables 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ............................. ................. ........ ................... 2-10 Appendices Appendix A Correspondence Appendix B NOP Distribution List Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. i City of Lodi White Stough WPCF Sphere of Influence July 29, 2004 Draft Final Program EIR CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1,0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Drab EIR) on the creation of a Sphere of Influence around the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) was submitted to the State Clearing House and released for public and agency review on September 15, 1999. A 45 -day review and comment period was initiated on April 15, 2004 and closed on June 1, 2004. This document includes comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR for the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program and comprises the Final Program EIR (Final EIR) for the proposed project. The Final Program EIR is an informational document that must be considered by the City of Lodi (the lead agency) before the City of Lodi Planning Commission and the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approve or reject the proposed program. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132) specify that: The Final EIR shall consist of.- (a) f (a) The Draft EIR or a revision of that draft (i.e., corrected pages from the Draft EIR). (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. (d) The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In addition to consideration of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission is required to make findings of fact regarding the significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and project alternatives, as well as a statement of overriding considerations for significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. The findings, and any statement of overriding consideration, are made after the Planning Commission has considered the Final EIR and are included in the public record. Likewise, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) is adopted at the same time as the findings and is also included in the public record. However, the findings of fact, the statement of overriding considerations, and the MAW are separate documents and are not included in the Final EIR. Huphss Envi vnn*ntei Cmsuhwds, Inc. 1-1 City of Lod,White slough WPCF.Vphene ofInjlerence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR 1.0 luirodudion 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT The Final EIR is organized into five chapters. Chapter 2.0, Executive Summary, provides a brief project description and presents a summary table of project environmental effects. Chapter 3.0, Comments on the Draft EIR, provides a list of commentors and copies of written comments (coded for reference). Chapter 4.0, Response to Comments, provides the lead agency responses to the written comments in Chapter 3.0 and sutnmatizes corrections made to the Draft EIR. Chapter 5 A, Minor Changes and Edits to the Draft EIR, includes corrections and additions to the Draft EIR text as a result of comments made on the Draft EIR. Any changes to the Draft EIR are indicated by revision marks (underline/strikeout). Comments received on the Draft EIR do not indicate new significant impacts or "significant new information" that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. City of LaN ii W(e Slough WPCF $phem of Inhoe 1-2 Hughes Emmhomm mUl Consultants, Inc. Final Program EIR J*29. 2004 CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi is proposing a 5,280 acre (includes the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF) Sphere of Influence around the White Slough WPCF to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available to serve the long-term future growth under the existing General Plan of the City of Lodi. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence is intended to provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence program has been designed to meet the following primary objectives: ■ Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi [the City's 1990 General Plan build out flow is estimated to be approximately 11.5 million gallons per day (MGD)]. ■ Provide guidance to the San Joaquin County LAFCO for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. ■ Encourage efficient provisions of community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. ■ Avoid potential future land use conflicts associated with wastewater treatment facilities. • Increase local control and accountability over decisions affecting the community and its future viability. 2.2 PROPOSED PROGRAM Three storage and land disposal options were developed to meet the long-term goals of the WPCF to accommodate growth as allowed in the City of Lodi General Plan. However, the preferred long-term land application option to provide for 100 percent reuse of the City's effluent could not reasonably be determined at this time due to the changing regulatory climate and technological advancements in wastewater treatment. Therefore, the proposed Sphere of Influence would include sufficient land area to provide for land disposal of reclaimed water per state requirements; provide for land disposal of biosolids per State and EPA requirements; and provide for an urban -open space interface. The best practical estimate for the proposed program is for the 5,280 acre Sphere of Influence around the existing WPCF, Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2-1 City ofLodi White Slough WPCF &k- oflnjl-- July 24, 2004 Final Program EIR 2.0 Executive Summu�r + _ providing for the area requirements for each of the three land disposal options described below. Note that the acreage requirements for the options below include the 1,040 acres of the existing WPCF. LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 1- RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE IN PONDS (39890 ACRES) Year-round' land application reuse would include applying biosolids and reclaimed water to dedicated lands during the summer irrigation season from the beginning of April through October. Flows generated in the winter would be stored from October until the irrigation season begins m April. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties for irrigation, which would either be City owned or under long-term agreement with the City to accept the high quality recycled water. After the irrigation season(s), effluent would be held in storage ponds until the following irrigation season (West Yost 2003). LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 2 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND PERCOLATION BASIN DISPOSAL (2,33.0 ACRES) This Land Disposal Option would also include land application from April to October; however, in addition to winter storage, reclaimed water would also be disposed of in percolation basins. During the summer months, reclaimed water would be conveyed to nearby agricultural properties. Most of this reclaimed water would be used for irrigation, while the remaining reclaimed water would be applied to an approximate 200 acre area of permanent percolation basins. After the irrigation season(s), some of the land application area would be converted to percolation basins for the winter, to create approximately 770 acres of percolation basins. During the winter months, reclaimed water would both be stored and partially disposed in these percolation basins. All of the percolation basin area would need to be owned and operated by the City, while the dedicated land application areas could be made available to the City for disposal under an agreement to accept recycled water for irrigation (West Yost 2003). LAND DISPOSAL OPTION 3 - RECLAMATION ON AGRICULTURAL. PROPERTY FROM APRIL THROUGH OCTOBER WITH WINTER STORAGE AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION (4,470 ACRES) This Land Disposal Option would include summer irrigation with reclaimed water, with some winter storage and reuse in a 600 acre reuse wetlands facility. This wetland facility would be constructed in addition to the 130 acre treatment wetland facility that is proposed for the current upgrade. As with the other Land Disposal Options, reclaimed water would be applied to agricultural property during the summer months. In the winter months, however, the reclaimed water would be partially stored in ponds and used to create a large, seasonal reuse wetland, thereby providing valuable wildlife habitat in the Delta City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflxflueme 2-2 Hughes EnOmnmentsl Consultants, Inc. Final Program EER Judy 29, 2004 2.0 Executive Summary region. Vegetation in the wetlands would attract wildlife, and facilities could provide an environment suitable for both educational and recreational purposes (West Yost 2003). The proposed Sphere of Influence program would create a zone of consideration for future WPCF projects and would not include any of the actions as described in the three above Land Disposal and Storage Options. Project -level environmental review under CEQA would be conducted prior to any project -related actions taking place in the Sphere of influence. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROGRAM CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15123[b][3] and 15126[d]) requires an EI:R to consider a range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the program objectives of the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence. The Reduced Acreage Alternative and the No Project Alternative are described below: REDUCED ACREAGE ALTERNATIVE (4,240 ACRES) The Reduced Acreage Alternative was developed in response to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) letter on the proposed program NOP requesting that a reduced acreage alternative be developed to address future potential impacts on agricultural lands (CDFA 2003). The Reduced Acreage Alternative of 4,240 acres would allow for all of the wastewater storage and disposal methods described under the three Land Disposal and Storage Options, however this alternative would not include any land buffer areas. Acreage is included in the Reduced Acreage Alternative such that property lines would not be split. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would not allow for as much flexibility in disposal methods and would not include areas to buffer disposal activities from other uses. No PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No Project Alternative, sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage areas to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi (the buildout flow is estimated to be approximately 11.6 MGD per the 1990 City of Lodi General Plan) would not be provided for within a Sphere of Influence. It should be noted, however, that additional lands would still be necessary for future land disposal and storage areas. Under the No Project Alternative, the San Joaquin County LAFCO could lack guidance for individual proposals involving the City of Lodi and surrounding area special district's jurisdictional changes. The potential for future land use conflicts associated with wastewater facilities could also occur if the WPCF Sphere of Influence is not created. Hooes EmAroneeewetaI Consultants, Inc 2-3 City ofLodi Mute SloWk WPCF *here oflnjly«ence July 24, 2004 Final Program BIR 2_0 Executive Summar_ 2.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED AND AREAS OF CONCERN In accordance with Sections 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Lodi Community Development Department prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR on September 15, 2003. The NOP was available for public and agency review and comment for a 30 -day period, which ended October 15, 2003. The NOP and meetings with the City of Lodi identified that the proposed Sphere of Influence could result in imrpacts iii the following environmental issue areas that are evaluated in the EIR: ■ Land Use/Agricultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity ■ Noise ■ Visual Resources ■ Public Services and Utilities ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Hydrology/Water Quality ■ Air Quality/Odor ■ Hazardous Materials ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Growth Inducement ■ Cumulative Impacts 2.5 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As permitted by Section 15130(1)(B) of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, cumulative impacts are evaluated based on growth projections and associated public service improvement projects of the program area's adopted regional planning document. The potential cumulative impacts of buildout of the proposed White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Sphere of Influence, when combined with effects of growth and development forecasts for the City of Lodi General Plan service area, the City of Stockton General Plan, and the San Joaquin County General Plan, could result in cumulative impacts to the environment. Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence program could indirectly result in impacts created in conjunction with development in the program area and the region, and could cumulatively and significantly affect the character of areas surrounding the program area, creating impacts, both adverse and beneficial. Potential cumulative effects associated with Sphere of Influence buildout have been considered and identified (if they are expected to occur) for each environmental analysis included in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft Program EIR. The significant cumulative impacts and mitigation measures are listed below_ City ofLod# Whue Slo■gh WPCF Sphere of IV%- to 2-4 Hughes Emkonnnntal ConsuNents, Inc. Final Pmgram EIR hely 29, 2X4 1.0 Executive Summary LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated lands, adding to the loss of important farmland in San Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. As previously described under Land Use/Agricultural Resources Impacts 4. 1.1 and 4.1.4, buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of farmland. The proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural land, of which most is designated as Prime and Unique Farmland (San Joaquin County 2003). Some of the Prime and Unique Farmlands included in the proposed Sphere of Influence are currently under the protection of the Williamson Act (CDFA 2003). Most of the existing farmland could be used for land application of wastewater and would not require a conversion to non-agricultural uses. This is considered a beneficial impact of the proposed program. However, depending on the final method used for wastewater storage and disposal, agriculturally -designated land could be required for reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. Based on the City of Lodi General Plan EK Chapter 4, the development of agricultural lands to urban land uses under the General Plan would allow for conversion of approximately 1,550 acres of prime agricultural land. The San Joaquin County General Plan EIR indicates that about 32,280 acres of prime farmland would be removed from the County to accommodate future residential and employment growth. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land associated with future buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence would be consistent with growth accommodating findings of both General Plan documents. However, this conversion would be in addition to anticipated farmland conversions associated with urban growth of the City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County in general. It should be noted that the potential future use of reuse wetlands is rural in nature and does not preclude sites from being used as farmland in the future. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Under the Community Organization and Development Pattern Growth Accommodation Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the minimization of the effect of growth on agricultural lands and other environmental resources, while providing for orderly growth is provided for. Potential cumulative impacts on important farmland in the County would be minimized through the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land. Significance Significant Cumulative Mitigation Measures 4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Hughes EaWronmental Consultants, Inc. 2-5 Oty ofLadi Me Slough WPCFS,phere oflejl—e tidy 29, 2004 Final Program Ela 2.0 Executive Summ?y Significance After Mitigation Although it would not be possible to provide for wastewater storage and disposal facilities for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions without including agriculturally - designated lands, this impact is still considered cumulatively significant. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY 4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. Future construction within the proposed Sphere of Influence could create minimal impervious surfaces that would prevent precipitation from infiltrating. Future growth in the City of Lodi that could be served as a result of Sphere of influence buildout is not anticipated to result in flooding problems in the area, or contribute to a cumulative flooding impact. Additionally, flooding impacts associated with City of Lodi buildout are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF Sphere of Ianuence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact 4.7.5 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodl, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could increase the potential for surface and groundwater degradation. As discussed in Chapter 3.0, Description of the Program, the City of Stockton prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Delta Water Supply Project, involving a surface water diversion facility and new conveyance pipelines, which would serve the increasing water demands of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area (COSMA) by adding an intake at the southwestern tip of Empire Tract on the San Joaquin River (City of Stockton 2003). The City of Lodi WPCF discharges treated wastewater to Bishop Cut/White Slough via Dredger Cut. Due to tack of dilution in Dredger Cut, the City is planning to relocate its discharge to Bishop Cut to take advantage of higher net flows. This is being considered in the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Improvement Project, which is currently in the ADEIR phase. The City of Lodi is concerned that the proposed new City of Stockton intake location would further reduce net flows in Bishop Cut under various Delta flow conditions, which could result in increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements on the City of Lodi. The proposed Sphere of Influence is intended to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land City of Lodi White SY-gh WPCF,"e- ofla lttence 2$ Hughes Environmental Consulta ta, Inc. Final Pmgram EIR July 29, 2004 -- _ 2.0 Executive Summary disposal and storage areas are available to meet increased Central Valley RWQCB discharge requirements in the future (City of Lodi 2003a). The downslope San Joaquin River waterway, as identified in the SWRCB's 303(d) list, is currently listed as impaired for a variety of constituents, and its ability to assimilate additional pollutants is limited. Impacts on surface water quality also affects groundwater quality, since groundwater is recharged through percolation in watercourses and in exposed soils. Quantification of the potential degradation of surface water and groundwater quality would be speculative since the extent of the impact would depend on the future location and type of development that would occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Lodi as served under buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, in the City of Stockton, and in the surrounding unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. Potential impacts to surface water and groundwater are addressed in the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. Any future project proposed within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits would be required to analyze specific project related impacts on surface water and groundwater. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.73a and 4.73b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant AIR QUALITY 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting in increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Significance Significant Mitigation Measure 4.8.4 Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan Hughes EnvWonrnsntal Consultards, Inc. 2-7 City of edi R'hire Sloth *?CFSphero oflnjl'uenee July 29, 1004 Rml Program EIR 2.0 Executive Summa and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Clean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Sigufticance Anter Mitigation Less Than Significant 2.6 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE U"ACTS Section 15093(a) of the CEQA Guidelines allows the decision -malting body of the lead agency to determine if the benefits of a proposed program outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of implementing the program. The City of Lodi would approve the program with unavoidable adverse impacts if it prepares a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" setting forth the specific reasons for making such a judgment. A list of unavoidable adverse impacts identified in this EIR is provided below. For each of the unavoidable impacts, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" if the City approves the program. The following significant unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence program have been identified. LAND USE/AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Act. 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence includes agriculturally -designated lands, Including property under Williamson Act Contracts. 2,7 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Buildout under the proposed Sphere of Influence program could result in the short-term construction - related impacts to the project area. If the identified mitigation measures are approved and implemented as a part of the program and as determined necessary in future project -level environmental review, the proposed program would not result in direct, significant irreversible environmental impacts or commitment of resources, except as identified in Section 2.6 above. City ofLodi White MmWh WPCF SOere ofinfluenm 2-8 Hughes EnvhWnwnta1 iConsullal+ts. Inc. Final Phvram EIR July 24, 2004 20 Executive Summary 2.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The designation of the proposed Sphere of Influence allows the City of Lodi to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at this time. Following this approach, when one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence are proposed, the City of Lodi would be required to examine the individual activities to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed m this Program Elk. If the future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout activities have effects beyond the summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures detailed in this Program EIR, further CEQA compliance would be required. Table 2-1 presents a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize potential impacts as a result of implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options developed within the proposed Sphere of Influence. Project-Ievel environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted, if necessary, prior to any actions taking place in the Sphere of Influence. In the table, the level of significance of each environmental impact is indicated both before and after the application of the recommended mitigation measures(s). Hughes Envkonmental Consultants, Inc. 2-9 Cary of Lodi Whife SI-Wh WPCF Sphere oflnjl-- July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES sroNAFICA CE g ORSONME MITIGATION MITIGATION 4.1 LAND UWAGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would be inconsistent with some provisions of the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the San Joaquin County Lodi Community Plan, and provisions of the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act. 4.1.2 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could Increase the potential for surrounding land use conflicts. These conflicts would predominately occur on lands adjacent to the northern and southern proposed Sphere of Influence limits. 4.1.3 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in potential land use conflicts with property owners within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits and could require the acquisition of private lands. 4.1.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Includes agriculturally -designated lands, including property under Williamson Act Contracts. S 4.1.1a Implement conditions of the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission and Cortese -Knox - Hertzberg Act guidelines and standards regarding the protection of agricultural lands on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4. 1.1 b To the extent possible, future reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins shall not be located on lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmlands of Local Significance, and shall avoid converting any Wiiliamson Contract lands. Future project applicants shall consult with the California Department of Conservation regarding Williamson Act Contract termination. SU LS 4.1.2 None Required LS PS 4.1.3 Upon Sphere of Influence buildout, provide appropriate LS compensation to property owners as necessary, in compliance with federal and state law. S 4.1.4 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1a and 4.1.1b on SU future WPCF Sphere of influence buildout projects. CU4.1.5 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could CS CU4.1.5a Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1.1 a and 4.1.1 b on CSU result in the future conversion of agriculturally -designated future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. lands, adding to the loss of Important farmland in San Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificantAndi ect = SA Significant Unavoidable a SU No Impact = NO Potentially SigniRc ent = PS Beneridal z B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2-10 City afLodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence July 19, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEAsuREs SIORE GNIFICANCE B TER MrmATION MmGATION Joaquin County. Loss of production from these lands could have an adverse effect on the overall agricultural economy. 4.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY CU4.1.5b Implement the use of Agriculture -Urban Reserve Zones and the use of San Joaquin County guidelines for the conversion of agricultural land on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. 4.2.1 Constriction of facilities associated with buildout of the PS 4.2.1 Prior to final design and construction of facilities LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence on soils with building associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of constraints could impair the function of the facilities and/or Influence, the City shall conduct a detailed create hazards. soile/geotechnical study. Reoomnfendatbns from this study shall be Incorporated into the final design and construction for the project according to accepted engineering practices. 4.2.2 Construction of facilities associated with bulidout of the PS 4.2.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain a Notice of expose soils to wind and water erosion within the Intent and comply with the Central Valley Regional Water proposed program area. Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with Construction Activities. 4.2.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.2.3 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could expose people and structures to geological or seismic hazards. 4.3 NOISE 4.3.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the LS 4.3.1 None Required LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would temporarily increase noise levels in nearby areas. 4.3.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the LS 4.3.2 None Requlred LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would temporarily generate additional construction vehicle trips and would Less then Significant - LS Signincent - S Sigroicanbindirec t - SA Significant Unavoidable - SIJ No Impact = NO Poi olty Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-11 City ofLodi nire Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Significantnndirect = SII Skin licant Unavoklahle = SU No impact - NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-12 CiryofLodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluen- Julyy 29, 2004 Final Program FIR LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT $ltNrKAWE BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION MnmATm subsequently temporarily increase roadside ambient noise levels. 4.4 VISUAL RESOURCES 4.4.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would LS 4.4.1 None Required LS result in the development of new facilities. 4.5 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.5.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.5.1 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could increase the amount of biosolids (sludge) and solid waste requiring disposal. 4.5.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.5.2 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could require additional utility services. 4.5.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.5.3 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could require additional police protection services, fire protection services, and emergency response services. 4.5.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.5.4 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could impact existing park and recreational facilities. 4.6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4.6.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the LS 4.6.1 None Required LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could temporarily increase the level of traffic on program area roadways. Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Significantnndirect = SII Skin licant Unavoklahle = SU No impact - NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-12 CiryofLodi While Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluen- Julyy 29, 2004 Final Program FIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT S � C MITIGATION MEASURES s RCE� MmGATION MITIGATION 4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.7.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.7.1 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. 4.7.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.7.2 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of Influence could result in flooding impacts. proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Issued Waste Discharge Requirements, the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and San Joaquin County regarding flooding impacts. 4.7.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.7.3a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of Influence could result in impacts to proposed Sphere of Influence shall be located such that groundwater. potential groundwater Impacts are avoided to the extent possible. 4.7.3b The City shall comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards anti -degradation policy with respect to groundwater. Such requirements may Include design criteria to maintain separation of wetland and storage pond bottoms from groundwater, testing of wastewater prior to land application to ensure that regulatory standards for recialmed water are met, monitoring wells, and/or a groundwater monitoring program. 4.7.4 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the PS 4.7.4 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 on future WPCF LS proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in Sphere of Influence buildout projects. impacts to surface water quality. CU4.7.5 From a regional standpoint, cumulative development In the PS CU4.7.5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 on future WPCF LS Less than Significant = LS Significant - S Signillcantlindirect = Sli Significant Unavoidable - SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Benetiaial = B Hughes Environmental Consultanta, Inc 2-13 City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere oflnjlsence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT City of Lodi, the City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County could expose people and structures to hazards associated with local and regional flooding. CU4.7.6 From a regional perspective, cumulative development in the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County could Increase the potentlal for surface and groundwater degradation. 4.8 AIR QUALITY 4.8.1 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could c onflid with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. 4.8.2 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Could generate short-term emissions from construction activities. LEVEL OF 3WAFCANCE BEFOREE MITIGATION MEASURES AAITIGATION Sphere of Influence buildout projects. PS CU4.7.6a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary Waste Discharge Requirements from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4.7.6b Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7.3a and 4.7.3b on future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout projects. LS 4.8.1 None Required S 4.8.2a Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Unified All, Pollution Control District regarding the Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate. 4.8.2b Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall be required to reduce particulate emissions by complying with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Prohibitions), Including implementation of control strategies detailed under Rule 8020 (Constriction, Demolition, Excavation & Extraction Activities), 8030 (Handling and Storage of Bulk Materials), and 8060 (Paved and Unpaved Roads. 4.8.2c Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION LS LS LS Leas than Significant = LS Significant = S Significant/indirect = Sll Significant Unavoidable - SU No Impect = NO Potentially Srgnillcarrt = PS BenaAcial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-I4 City ofLadi While Slough WPCFShhere oflnfluence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4.8.3 Construction of facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could generate objectionable odors in the program vicinity. CU4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate Increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan, resulting In increased urban development and a continuing pattem of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. 4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALSIHEALTH RISKS 4.9.1 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could require an increase in the frequency of hazardous materials deliveries. 4.9.2 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could result in an Increase in hazardous waste generation. 4.9.3 The potential future land application of wastewater within the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence limits could involve the growing of crops that are irrigated with treated wastewater, which creates a concem that the public could be exposed to health threats associated with the treated LEVEL OF S1 WICAMM BEFORE MITIGATION MEASURES MMGATION proposed Sphere of Influence shall properly maintain equipment to reduce NOx levels. PS 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include an odor buffer to protect development In the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. S CU4.8A Implement the City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Vafley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the Calffomia mean Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan on future WPCF Sphere of Influence bulldout projects. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION LS LS LS 4.9.1 None Required LS LS 4.9.2 None Required LS PS 4.9.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Department of Health Services and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, in accordance with Section 80323 of the Water Recycling LS Less than Significant = LS Significant = S S001cantllndiraot - SA Sign cant Unavoidable - SU No Impact - NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-15 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF ,*here oflnjluence July 29, 2004 Final Program E!R TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT LEVEL OF $� MmcATioN MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF S CE AFTER MmiiAnoN effluent. Criteria, Article 7, Chapter 3, Division 4, Title 22, California Code of Regulations. 4.9.4 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.9.4 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of influence could expose program area residents proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a buffer zone to discomfort, nuisances, and potential adverse health- around mosquito --breeding habitat to addrm health- related effects by exposing them to mosquitoes, which can related effects associated with mosquitoes. carry serious human illnesses. 4.9.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.9.5 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the LS Sphere of Influence could interfere with designated aircraft proposed Sphere of Influence shall include a separation flight patterns at the l(ingdon Drag Strip and the Lodi Air distance between airport facilities and any open water that Park as a result of migratory birds. provides habitat for migratory birds. 4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning LS 4.10.1 None Required LS Designation would result in habitat retention for common wildlife species. 4.10.2 Facilities associated with buitdout of the proposed WPCF B 4.10.2 None Required B Sphere of Influence would likely Increase habitat quality for common wildlife species. 4.10.3 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF LS 4.10.3 None Required LS Sphere of Influence could result in habitat loss for common wildlife species. 4.10.4 The proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence Planning B 4.10.4 None Required B Designation would result in habitat protection for special - status species. 4.10.5 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS 4.10.5a As a condition of issuance of a grading permit associated LS Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of wetlands. with potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall Less than Significant = LS Significant = S SignificentAndirec•,t - SA Significant Unavoidable - SU No Impact - NO Potentially signircent = PS Beneficial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-16 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere ofinfluence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ErmRONIMENTAL IMPACT BE MITIGATION MEASURES S CE EFORE AFTER MITIGATION MITIGATION require avoidance of sensitive biological resources, Including wetlands and "waters of the U.S." (see Figure 4.10-1). If full avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, the City of Lodi shall design the project to minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources. 4.10.515 For potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence that result in unavoidable Impacts to wetlands and "waters of the U.S.," the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit: a Section 401 water quality certification or waiver from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Hoard; a Section 404 wetland permit from the Amry Corps of Engineers; and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The above permits are likely to contain stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the following: m Minimization of Impacts to sensitive biological resources; • Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite sensitive biological resources (i.e. construction worker training, installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); ■ On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable impacts to sensitive biological resources. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include two to three acres of preserved and restored habitats for each acre of impacted habitat There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation Less Than Significant = LS SoAcard - S Soffcantfia* ct = SA SWi icent Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potenfielly Significant - PS Benefic lat - B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-17 City of Lodi "ite Slough NPCFSphere oflnf ij— July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF S OFICANCE s CE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES BE AFTER � MMQATION MITIGATION 4.10.6 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could reduce or eliminate special - status plant or wildlife species. and restoration opportunities associated with the CDFG preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.) Is implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could complete offsite habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project associated with proposed Sphere of Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable impacts on sensitive biological resources, the City of Lodi shall contact the Individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. The City shall comply with stipulations included in permits required for the proposed project - PS 4.10.6a The City of Lodi shall complete detailed special -status species surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites under proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are determined. Where special -status species are found to be present, the City shall avoid the species and their habitats through re -design to the extent feasible. Where full avoidance of a special -status species and its habitat is not possible, the City of Lodi shall redesign the project to minimize Impacts. 4.10.6b For unavoidable impacts to listed special -status species associated with future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi shall obtain and comply with the following permits prior to issuance of the grading permit an Incidental Take permit from the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to state listed species; and a Section 7 or 10 biological LS Lees than Significant = LS Significant - S Significant/Indimct - S11 Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant = PS Beneficial - 6 Hughes Environs+ I Consultants, Inc 2-18 City of Lodi White Mough WPCFSphere of Influence July 29, 2004 Final Program M TALE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES L.EvEL of LEVEL of ENvivtoNMENTAL IMPACT � � MITIGATION MEASURES SWWrANCE AFTER M1MIZATION MMOATION opinion or incidental take permit from the Unified Stated Fish and Wildlife Service for impacts to federally listed species or their habitats. The above permits are likely to contain Stipulations that require the City to complete some or all of the folbwlrp: Minimization of impacts to special -status plant and wildlife Species; ■ Construction -related avoidance and protection of onsite spedal-status plant and wikilffe species (i.e. construction worker training, restrictions on the tinting and duration of construction acdvftMs, Installation of protective signage and fencing, onsite monitoring, designation of construction sites and access roads near sensitive resources); ■ On- or offsite compensation for unavoidable Impacts to special -status plant and wttdlife species. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would require, the City to y or ac Uveiy relocate acme spades, create or enhance habitat for the spades, or preserve and restore on -or offatte habitat for the species. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onelte special -status species preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the CalNomis Department of Fish and Game preserve area. In addition, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. is Implementing a Habitat and Open Space Conservation Program that could conduct of�ite special -status species habitat restoration and preservation on behalf of the City of Lodi. Final compensatory mitigation requirements for future WPCF project assodatod with proposed Sphere of Less 1= Big 11m = LS :epnMlw a S 810 i fdNlNkW*W It SN Signiftsr t tlnsvokkft = 3U No Imped = NO powamy Slar"amt = ps 9MIsAGIsr = B Hughes EnO onm/ntel Consuidslts, Inc 2-19 City of Lod Whine Slotwh WPCF 5b, leen of 1p& -- July 29, 2004 Final ftsmm Ell? TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SIGN11FICANICE BEFORE MITIGATION 4.10.7 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS Sphere of Influence could disturb nesting raptors and other migratory birds. MITIGATION MEASURES Influence buildout would be developed as conditions of the permits referred to above. In the event of unavoidable Impacts on special -status species, the City of Lodi shall contact the individual regulatory agencies for more details regarding final compensatory mitigation requirements for the project. For unavoidable impacts to non -listed special -status species, the City of Lodi shall consult with the appropriate resource agency (i.e., CDFG or USFWS) concerning recommended mitigation to compensate for species impacts. Mitigation may include restrictions on the timing and duration of construction activities, onsite monitoring, the implementation of construction bast management practices, etc. 4.10.7a The City of Lodi shall require nesting bird surveys of facility expansion sites, once these sites are determined under future Sphere of Influence buildout projects. Where bird nests are found to be present, the City shall require the contractor to conduct construction activities outside the bird nesting season (typically January 15 through August 15 of each year). 4.10.7b If construction activities cannot be completed within the specified non -breeding season of August 113th to January 14th of each year, the City of Lodi shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game to develop measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the nests. The Califomia Department of Fish and Gare may also require the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Management Agreement to reduce and potentially offset impacts to nesting raptors. At a minimum the City shall conduct the following when nesting raptors are in close proximity to a future Sphere of LEVEL OF SiGNIFFCANCE AFTER MniGATm LS Less than Significant - LS ftnm wnt = S Signific:ant/Indireu = SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentialty Signlflcatnt = PS Se -is flrdal = B Hughes Envlronmenftl Consuttents, Inc 2-24 City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere oflnfluence July 19, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCE BEFORE MITIGATION 4.10.8 Facilities associated with buildout of the proposed WPCF PS Sphere of Influence could eliminate or degrade riparian habitats or native trees. 4.10.8 LCL of MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Influence buildout project site: ■ Conduct a nesting raptor survey to Identify active raptor nests. • Establish a buffer area around active raptor nests (typically % mile, but can be reduced through negotiations with CDFG); ■ Prohibit contractor from conducting work within the buffer area until young in nest are fledged. ■ Allow Contractor to remove tree in its entirety only after young have fledged (as verified by CDFG andfor a quallfied biologist). • Restore lost native trees by requiring onsite re- planting of the same species at a minimum ratio of three seedlings for each nest tree eliminated. To offset the incremental effect of loss of native trees LS and loss or degradation of riparian woodland habitat associated with future projects under proposed Sphere of influence buildout, the City of Lodi shall conduct a tree survey to identify locations of native trees near planned facilities and shall conduct some or all of the following: ■ Avoid Impacts to native trees. ■ Where avoidance is not possible, minimize habitat fragmentation and individual tree loss through a combination of project design and oonstnlction- related avoidance of native trees. Construction - related avoidance and protection of trees would Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Slgnificantlindirect - SA SignMeant Unavoidable - SU No Impact = NO Potentially Significant - PS Berleficial = a Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-21 City of Lodi While Slough WPCFSpherre of Influence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BEF $ CA CE MITIGATION MEASURES MITIG um 4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence could impact standing strictures with potential historical significance. include the installation of protective signage and fencing to designate construction sites and access roads near native trees to be retained; Conduct onsite compensatory plantings of native trees to offset the loss of native trees and riparian habitats. Typical compensatory mitigation requirements would include planting a minimum of three trees of the same species as that eliminated. Riparian plantings shall be made adjacent to existing riparian habitats to establish larger riparian habitat areas. There is a fortuitous compatibility of onsite habitat preservation and restoration opportunities associated with the California Department of Fish and Game preserve area. The City of Lodi shall contact the Califomia Department of Fish and Game for recommendations for final native tree compensation approaches. PS 4.11.1 Site-specific archival research and architectural field surveys would be required prior to undertaking any future projects within the WPCF Sphere of Influence that could Impact the potential historical significance of standing structures within the program area. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MMGATION LS 4.11.2 Ground -disturbing actions associated with future PS 4.11.2a Site-specific archival research, archaeological surveys, LS buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence and consultation with the Native American Heritage could result in the accidental destructlon of previously Commission and designated Native American undiscovered archaeological or historical resources, or representatives shall be required prior to undertaking could result in the uncovering of Native American any ground disturbing projects within the Sphere of human remains. Influence in the future. 4.11.2b Contractors and construction personnel involved In any form of ground disturbance (i.e., trenching, Less than Significant = LS Significant = S Slgnifl Wridirect - SA Significant Unavoidable = SU No Impact = NO Potentiamy Sigracant - PS Benslicial = B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-22 City of Lodi White Stough WPCF Sphere of Influence July 19, 2004 Final Program EIR TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SO �CE MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE NCE BE � MITIGATION MITIGATION grading, etc.) shall be advised of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural resources or human remains. If such resources are encountered or suspected, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be hatted immediately and the City of Lodi Community Development Department shall be notified. In accordance with CCR Section 15064 (f) and PRC Section 21083.2(1), a qualified professional archaeologist shall be consulted, who shall assess any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the resource. 4.11.2c If bone is encountered and appears to be human, Caftfomia Law requires that potentially destructive construction work is halted and the San Joaquin County Coroner Is contacted. If the Coroner determines the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will attempt to identify the most likely descendant(s), and recommendations will be developed for the proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with CCR Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Section 5057.98. A note to this effect shall be included on all construction pians and specifications. Less than Significant = LS Significant - S So"cantAndicact - SA SoAcaant Unavoidable - SU No Impact = NO Potendshy SignNicant = PS Senefiolal - B Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc 2-23 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF&*ere ofloyfl-nce July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR CHAPTER 3.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT E!R CHAPTER 3.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR Leftr In&Vftal or S%Pa wy Affiliation Date A Brett S. Jolley Herum Crabtree Broom Attorneys At Law June 14,2004 Richard E. Stowell ECOLOGIC June 19, 2004 B James E. Glaser DeCity pfSto ldon Community Development June 14, 2004 nt C Dennis J. aBryant The Resources Agency of California, June 1, 2004 Division of Land Resource Protection D Raymond Hoo San Joaquin County Community June 1, 2004 Development Depwtment E Terry Roberts California State Clearinghouse June 2, 2004 The above letters were written to the attention of the City of Lodi Community Development Department. It should be noted that no letters were submitted to the State Clearinghouse during the public review 1eriod- Huohas Envkonnnntal Consuttanta, Inc. 3-1 City ofLodi White Slough WPCFS,phere ofInJlurwe Judy 19,1004 Final Program EIR June 14, 2004 A t t o r n e y s VIA HAND DELIVERY Konradt Bartlam, Director City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, California 95240 At L a w Re: Comments on Wt k Slough $iphergof Influence EIR. Dear Mr. Bartlam: Brett s. Jolley bjolley@herumcrabtree.com llece►VED JUM 14 20 CowMwITy C O�p N7OEPT This office represents the Stockton Family Farmers Coalition, a group of San Joaquin County farmers and property owners interested in protecting farming practices and property rights of farming families in the Greater Stockton and Lodi areas. The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Sphere of Influence Project referenced above. My client is vitally interested in Lodi discharging a public duty to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. These comments are founded on the principle that an EIR acts as an informational document identifying potentially significant impacts of a project, as well as alternatives and mitigation measures necessary for informed decision-making (Pub.Res.C. §21002.1), and that an EIR's findings and conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. As the State Supreme Court explains, an adequate EIR "must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision -makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences" and "must include detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." Id. This EIR does not meet that threshold. As discussed in greater detail below, this EIR omits significant relevant information from its analysis and several of its findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. I. LODI CANNOT ACT AS THE LEAD AGENCY ON THIS PROJECT Of primary importance to this analysis is Lodi's improper designation of itself as the Lead Agency (p. 1-1). Simply stated, Lodi has no jurisdiction to act as the Lead Agency on this Project — that responsibility goes to LAFCO. 229.1 Wast Niarck lane ,Scaife 8100 Sfockfon, CA 95207 • Tel 209.472.7700 • Fax 209.472.7986 • Modesfo Tel. 209.525.8444 rProfessionol Corporation A-1 Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 2 A "Lead Agency" is defined as "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project." CEQA Guidelines §15367 (emphasis added). That is, the designation of the lead agency does not arise from the environmental review, as the EIR infers; rather this fact is determined according to which agency will approve the project. In this case Lodi has no authority to approve the Sphere of Influence application. As the EIR correctly notes at p. 4.1-7 the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Act "grants LAFCO the authority to review and approve or disapprove" this Project. Thus, LAFCO, not Lodi, is the Lead Agency for this Project. Lodi is merely a project applicant. The fact that some of the Project may include land within Lodi's city limits is irrelevant to this analysis per CEQA Guidelines §15051(a) ["If the project is to be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency."]. More importantly, the lead agency is vested with authority to "cause the [EIRI to be prepared." CEQA Guidelines § 15367. Because LAFCO, rather than Lodi is the Lead Agency for this Project, the entire EIR prepare by Lodi is defective and LAFCO, not Lodi, must prepare an EIR for this Project. 1I. TPROVIDE ADEQUM ANALYSISOF THE PROJECT'S POTENTLAL TQ INDUCE GROWTH. The EIR implies that growth -inducing impacts from this Project will not be significant because the Project will simply accommodate growth as designated in the Lodi General Plan. (pp. 6=1 to 6-3.) This conclusion is flawed on two counts: (1) Lodi must consider the conditions on the ground, not what growth is possible under the General Plan and (2) Government use restrictions cannot abbreviate public agency evaluations of growth inducing effects. Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines is cited at page 6-1 of the EIR, but is substantially misquoted. That section requires an EIR to analyze how the project may directly or indirectly foster population or economic growth or the construction of additional housing. "Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas)." The Project under review in this EIR — which ultimately expands the WPCF — is necessary to accommodate future growth planned by Lodi. Thus, this Project will cause growth that cannot otherwise occur and the EIR does not adequately assess such impacts. A. The EIR Does Not Consider Existing Uses f the Land. In determining growth impacts, the City must look at the actual uses of the land, not what is possible under the General Plan. For example, see Gentry V. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359,1416, which cautions, "the local agency is required to compare the newly authorized land use with the actually existing conditions; comparison of potential impacts ... with potential impacts under the existing general plan is insufficient." Moreover, City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, in which the Court ordered that an EIR study the cumulative growth inducing impacts of the development of street which "did not connect to any other street" and did not "involve the construction of buildings or the introduction of any land uses that do not presently exist" further explains, "there is no indication in CEQA that mere conformity with a general plan will justify a finding that the \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 14 38-Uo8\BSJ\37384.doc A-1 (cont.) A-2 Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 3 project has no significant environmental effect. Certainly general plan conformity alone does not effectively `mitigate' significant environmental impacts of a project." Id. at 1332. Thus, relying on the General Plan for a growth baseline, rather than the conditions on the ground, creates a false conclusion that growth impacts from this Project will not be significant. The EIR should be revised and recirculated to fix this defect. B. Stanislaus Audubon Precludes Reliance on Governmental Use Restrictions Government use restrictions are not recognized as authority to abbreviate public agency evaluations of environmental effects — in fact, they have been expressly rejected by the Courts. By way of illustration, in Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 144, County and developer attempted to defend their environmental review of a golf course against a challenge that the project was growth inducing by arguing that the land was subject to a Williamson Act contract and zoning designation that restricted the land to agricultural uses. Therefore, according to the County and developer, the Williamson Act and zoning restrictions prevented the Project from having a growth inducing effect. However, according to the Appellate Court, contractual and zoning restrictions can change over time and therefore cannot substitute for environmental review at the time of project approval. Id. at 156-57. This dictate is equally applicable in Lodi where, pursuant to State Planning and Zoning law, the General Plan can be amended up to 4 times each year. Gov. C. § 65358(b). Thus, what the EIR authors view as "orderly" proposed growth under the General Plan's current restrictions, may be entirely different, and "disorderly" in one year. Moreover, the EIR ignores the possibility that the Project will induce growth in other jurisdictions. For example, the enclosed June 10, 2004 article from the Lodi Newt; Sentinel indicates that Lodi allows wineries outside the city limits to deposit effluent in the WPCF. The article further states that based on a study by West Yost & Associates, a consulting firm hired by both Galt and Lodi, the City of Galt is considering sending its wastewater to the WPCF. Accordingly, the EIR cannot rely on the General Plan to reach the conclusion that the Project will not be growth inducing -- the Project itself must be evaluated for its growth inducing impacts in Lodi and in other relevant jurisdictions. III. THE ETR OMITS RELEYANT_PRQsIECTS FROM ITS ANALYSIS. The EIR must assess the Project's relationship to the ProStyle Sports Complex and nearby residential and commercial projects which are omitted from its analysis. CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1) requires the EIR establish a cumulative impacts baseline in one of two ways: Either by preparing a list of relevant project or by using a related planning document. This is because CEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis of "other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects." CEQA Guidelines §15355(b). This EIR adopts the "list of projects" method at Section 3.4, entitled, "Other Projects Relevant to the Proposed Program." However, this EIR lists only two other projects — the Stockton General Plan Update and the Delta Water Supply Project while omitting three relevant projects from its list. Pursuant to Rural Landowners Association v. Lodi City Council (1983) 143 Cal.app.3d 1013, 1023 omission of such information is a prejudicial legal error. \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 1438-008\BSJ\37384. doe A-3 Mr, Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 4 A. ProStyle Sports Co lex In December 2001 the City of Lodi released a draft EIR for a project identified as the ProStyle Sports Complex (State Clearinghouse Number 1999112095 -incorporated herein by reference) on property owned by the City of Lodi adjacent to the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. The identified purpose of the ProStyle project is to "provide the City and region with a world class athletic training and sports event center with visitor accommodations, retail commercial and support services." The ProStyle project includes athletic fields, dormitories, a shopping mall, and a hotel and is located within the area of the current Project. However, the EIR makes no mention of the ProStyle project. Unless the ProStyle application has been formally denied or withdrawn with prejudice, it is stall a pending application and is considered a "probable future project" which must be considered in this EIR. Without such information it is impossible to determine whether the Project's air pollution, water, health, land use, and other impacts will be significant and the EIR fails its purpose as an informational document. B. Commercial and Residential Development at Eight Mile Rd and Hwy 12 Moreover, the EIR also fails to address the fact that significant residential and commercial development is currently underway only about one mile to the South of the Project boundaries at the intersection of Eight Mile Road and Interstate 5 (see Fig 4.1-1) commonly referred to as "Spanos Park West." The EIR also omits the "Flag City" project at 1-5 and SR 12 from its analysis. That project includes fuel stations, hotels, and restaurants. This Project significantly depletes the buffer between Flag City and the WPCF area and Flag City should be included. This EIR does not explain why these related projects are omitted from the list of projects and the EIWs analysis for this Project, thus precluding informed decision making and public participation. The omission of relevant information "is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation." San Joaquin. Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.AppAth 713, 722. The EIR should be revised to include an analysis of cumulative impacts related to these additional projects and recirculated for public comment. CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. IV. THE EIR DOES NOT -PROVIDE _A LEGALLY ADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF AIR QVIA-LITY IMPACTS The EIR concludes that all impacts to air quality will be reduced to less -than -significant levels (pp. 4.8-8 to 4.8-12) but does not correlate these findings to the "significance criteria" listed at page 4.8-5. Specifically, the EIR apparently concludes that the Project will not "expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations," will not ".create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people," will not "expose members of the public to objectionable odors [which will] be deemed to have a significant impact" or "expose sensitive receptors (including residential areas) or the general public to substantial levels of Toxic Air Contaminants [which] would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact." (p. 4.8-8) but does not explain why. The EIR's analysis of air quality impacts is deficient in three respects. \\\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 14 38-008\BSJ\37384.doc A-3 (cont.) Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 5 A. The EIR's Cgnglusion That an "Odor Buffer" Will Reduce Significant ImRacts is Not SuRRorted by Any Evidence. This EIR and the ProStyle EIR conclude that odor impacts will be "potentially significant" without mitigation, but each concludes these impacts can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. However, each ETR prescribes different mitigation to reach this conclusion., The ProStyle EIR indicates that the preparation of an "odor control study" will mitigate these impacts, while this EIR concludes that an undefined "odor buffer" will be satisfactory. Neither conclusion is accompanied by any evidence to explain how this impact will actually be mitigated through either proposal; these proposals contradict one another in that one mandates analysis without action, while the other requires action without analysis. The EIR states the purpose of this Project is to create a sphere of influence to ultimately establish an additional 2,310 tp 4,470 acres for "land disposal of reclaimed water" and "land disposal of biosolids" on the east and west sides of Interstate 5 (p. 3-7). Presumably, such increased activity would create significant odor, however the EIR claims the majority of the odor impacts come from agricultural operations: "most odors in the area occur intermittently and are often attributable to dairy operations and fertilization activities in neighboring agricultural fields." (p. 4.8-5.) To the contrary, the ProStyle EIR states, "The [WPCF] plant produces odors characteristic of a sewage treatment plant. Odors increase on a temporary basis when irrigation with secondary treated effluent and application of biosolids occur on adjacent properties, or due to cannery water," and concludes that the odor impacts from the WPCF operations are potentially significant. (ProStyle EIR at p. 4.7- 15.) Thus, at the very least the EIR must explain why the Project will not create a significant impact in exposing members of the public and sensitive receptors to objectionable odors and substantial air contaminants. The conclusion that an "odor buffer" of indeterminate size and location will reduce potentially significant odors to less -than -significant (p. 4.8-11) is legally deficient because the EIR does not explain how such a buffer will actually reduce the impact. Stated slightly differently, the EIR does not offer any evidence to support this conclusion. Specifically, what is the basis for concluding that a buffer will mitigate these impacts? What size buffer will be used? Where will the buffer exist? How will the land for the buffer be secured or acquired? The document's failure to address these issues — in turn deferring analysis to a later date -- violates the Sundstrom Principle and creates a legally inadequate EIR. The designation of an elusive "odor buffer" is also not a satisfactory mitigation measure for this Project because it is not enforceable. As CEQA Guidelines 5 15126.4(a)(2) explains, "Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments." No such condition, agreement or legally -binding instrument to establish such a buffer exists at this time. Thus, this impact is not mitigated to less -than -significant. Any response that such analysis is not required because this Project only expands the Sphere of Influence and does not actually expand the treatment activities at the WPCF does not satisfy CEQA. CEQA requires any evaluation of a project to consider the "whole of the action" which may impact the environment and may include several governmental approvals — not just a single governmental approval such as the \\nt oas\prolaw\documents\1438-008\BSJ\37384.doc A-4 (cont.) Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 6 expansion or creation of a sphere of influence. CEQA Guidelines §15378_ This prohibition of piecemealed review is necessary to ensure that an agency "consider the cumulative environmental effects of its action before a project gains irreversible momentum." City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1333. Thus, the approval of this sphere of influence "to assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space are available" (p. 1-1) creates irreversible momentum toward the ultimate buildout of the Project and the impacts of this whole action must be evaluated in this EIR. B. Compliance with Existing La is Not a Suff'c'ent MitiLration Measure. The second flaw is found in the EIR's analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. The EIR states that "Buildout of the proposed. WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Plan. ..The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin" and that such impacts will be "significant". (p. 4.8-11 to 12). However, without explanation, the EIR concludes this impact is reduced to less than significant through the adoption of a single mitigation measure which "implements" various state and local air quality "policies." This conclusion does not pass CEQA muster: As City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332, cited previously, explains, "there is no indication in CEQA that mere conformity with a general plan will justify a finding that the project has no significant environmental effect. Certainly general plan conformity alone does not . effectively 'mitigate' significant environmental impacts of a project." Id. at 1332. Likewise, mere conformity with state and local air quality guidelines alone does not effectively - mitigate significant air quality impacts. The EIR's finding of significant impact without mitigation was based upon a presumption that the Project would not violate applicable State and local regulatory requirements. This simply does not make sense and is not supported by any evidence. The EIR's conclusion that the effects will be potentially significant requires actual mitigation not just conformity with relevant policies. C. A Health Risk Assessment is Reauired. A health risk assessment is required to quantify the risks to the population from air pollution associated with the Project. The EIR states that Os and PMioare the "primary air quality problems in the Lodi area" and also notes "[r]esearch has shown that exposure to Os damages the alveoli (the individual air sacs in the lung...)" and that PMio also "can damage the alveoli" and "may also carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds, which adhere to the particle surfaces and can enter the lungs." (p. 4.8-5 to 4.8.6). The EIR omits any reference to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The EIR also indicates that the Project may cause significant health effects, but never details the severity of the effects — to what extent the effects will impact the environment and the people.! Some assessment is required to quantify the additional ' See for example Churg, A. and Brauer, M., Humait Lung Parenchyma Retains PM2.s Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 155:2109-2111 ("There is extensive epidemiologic evidence that increased levels \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 1438-008\BSJ\3 7 384.doc A-4 (Cont.) Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 7 asthma and other respiratory diseases or the progression of existing respiratory disease that could result from the Project's admittedly significant emissions of fugitive dust, PMio, and ozone pollution (p. 4.8-10). Without such analysis, this EIR leaves the public without any useful information regarding the Project's impact to health in the form of air quality deterioration. Thus, a health risk assessment should be included in the EIR, and the EIR recirculated for public comment with the inclusion of this new information. V. EXPANSION OF THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE IS NOT RELATED TO SECURING ADDITIONAL LAND FOR FUTURE DISCHARGE Section 3.6 of the EIR identifies as the primary objective of the Project:. "Assure that sufficient area for future construction of land disposal and storage facilities and waste disposal areas are available to serve the long-term future growth of the City of Lodi." (p. 3-17) Ironically, the Project is not necessary to accomplish this goal. Specifically, if Lodi desires to secure land for development of its wastewater site it is entitled to approach any property owners with offers to purchase or lease the property. No evidence of such negotiation is identified in the EIR. In fact, it appears that Lodi is attempting to accomplish a de facto taking of the property by creating a regulatory interest in the property to preclude development thereon without offering any compensation to the owners of those properties or, in the alternative, this may.simply be an effort to devalue property currently outside Lodi's sphere which does not currently carry the stigma of being planned for waste discharge facilities to allow purchase by Lodi at a reduced rate at a later date. This is not the purpose of State annexation law and disregards the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. VI. IMPACTS FROM LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE NOT QUANTIFIED. Impacts 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 (p. 4.1-14 to 4.1-15) state that buildout of the Sphere of Influence could result in the loss of important agricultural land including Williamson Act Land and that such impact is significant even with mitigation. However, the EIR does not include any mapping of Williamson Act lands within the Project site, and omits any quantification (i.e. acreage totals) of Williamson Act lands that would be lost as part of the Project. The loss of agriculturally designated lands is also identified as a significant impact (p. 7-1). of the inhalable particulate fraction of air pollution (PMlo) are associated with increased morbidity and mortality._. These data indicate that human lung parenchyma effectively retains PM2.s, suggesting that attempts to determine the particles responsible for chronic particulate pollutant effects should concentrate on this size range."), Dockery et al, An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities, N Engl J Med 1993;329:1753-9 ("Although the effects of other, unmeasured risk factors cannot be excluded with certainty, these results suggest that fine - particulate air pollution, or a more complex pollution mixture associated with fine particulate matter, contributes to mortality in certain U.S. Cities.") \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 1438-00$\BSJ\3 7 384.doc A-•4 (Cont. A-5 Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 8 However because the acreage of effected Williamson Act lands is omitted from the EIR, neither the public nor the decision -makers can determine the extent of the Project's specific A -B or cumulative impacts to the loss of agricultural lands. Without this information, the (Cont.) decision makers and public are simply left to guess. Additional evidence must be included in the EIR and the document should be recirculated for public review of the new evidence. VII. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC IMPACTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL MDENCE. Section 4.6 regarding Traffic and Circulation is incomplete and warrants additional review. Specifically, Impact 4.6.1 states that the proposed Project could temporarily increase the A-7 level of traffic on local roadways (p. 4.1-3). However, the EIR's finding of less -than - significant does not identify the existing levels of service on any roads around the Project site and omits any indication of the number of trips (or car vs. truck composition) that may be generated by construction activities associated with the Project. Thus, the statement that the Project would result in a less -than -significant impact to roadways is not based on any evidence, let alone substantial evidence. VIII. THE EIR INCOHERENTLY CONCLUDES THE PROJECT IS PROTECTED FROM FLOODING. Section 4.7, Hydrology/Water Quality (p.4.7-1), contradicts itself regarding flooding. As to whether the Rio Blanco Tract portion of the Project site is protected from 100 year floods, the EIR states: "It should be noted that the Rio Blanco Tract, an approximate A_8 700 acre parcel included within the proposed Sphere of Influence boundaries, is surrounded by levees that are slightly above the 100 year flood line. However, these levees were not constructed to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards. Therefore, although it is technically located within the 100 year floodplain area, the Rio Blanco Tract is likely protected for up to the 100 year flood event." This text does not make sense; it states that the 100 year levees do not meet FEMA standards, yet, without explanation, concludes that the areas would be adequately protected in the event of a 100 year flood. What evidence supports the conclusion that this impact will not be significant in light of the evidence of sub -standard levies? IX. THE EIR'S ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DOES NOT ATI FY CE 'S REQUIREMENTS. Section 15326.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that "An EIR shall describe a range of A_9 reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." This EIR does not satisfy these requirements. \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 1438-008\BBSJ\37384.doc Mr. Konrarlt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 9 A. EIR does not Provide a lunare of Reasonable Alternatives. This EIR includes only one project alternative besides the CEQA-mandated "No Project" alternative - the Reduced Acreage Alternative which eliminates the "buffer" and would still result in significant environmental effects. This single alternative is not a "reasonable" alternative that offers a more environmentally benign version of the Project, but rather an alternative that eliminates the Project's built in "mitigation" and thus can be rejected by the applicant out of hand. The absence of other real alternatives to the Project that achieve project objectives precludes informed decisionmaking and public participation. No project alternatives that evaluate the Project on a smaller scale but maintain the "buffer" were analyzed. Moreover, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 requires that an EIR "identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly describe the lead agency's determination." This EIR does not identify or discuss alternatives that were rejected from consideration. This omission is important in light of the fact that the EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Discussion of rejected alternatives in the EIR may have provided some basis for the Project applicant's decision to evaluate only one alternative in addition to the required No Project Alternative. B. Errors Rua-rdingThe BIR's Analysis of the "No Project" Alterpative The analysis (and subsequent rejection) of the No Project Alternative is defective in three respects: First, the analysis states that the No Project Alternative would result in the loss of more farmland than the proposed Project. However, this conclusion is based on a comparison of the No Project Alternative to the "beneficial" impacts associated with the proposed Project, and not a comparison to existing conditions (See discussion of Gentry v. City of Murrieta, above). That is, the EIR assumes, without sufficient evidence that without the Project the existing area will be developed. However, this conclusion ignores the fact that the No Project Alternative, as described a page 5-2, would not provide "future construction of land disposal and storage areas" for wastewater treatment. The use of off-site farmland for disposal of wastewater requires additional approvals that would not automatically occur under the No Project Alternative. Accordingly, no evidence links the No Project Alternative to the urbanization of farmland, and would especially not result in the development of more farmland than would occur as part of the proposed project. For, as CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 plainly states, "The `no project' analysis shall discuss... what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." No evidence indicates that the General Plans of Lodi, Stockton, or San Joaquin County designate the land for urban development in the future. Moreover, available wastewater treatment infrastructure under the No Project Alternative could actually preclude the development of additional farmland within the proposed Sphere of Influence. \\nt_oas\prolaw\documents\ 2 438-008\BSJ\37384.doc A-9 (cont.) Mr. Konradt Bartlam June 14, 2004 Page 10 Second, the analysis states that the No Project Alternative would result in the illegal discharge of effluent into surface waters; this is a faulty assumption. This finding is based on the further assumption that demand for wastewater treatment in Lodi would be allowed to exceed capacity, and that if capacity is exceeded, illegal wastewater dumping would occur in violation of RWQCB regulations. The more probable scenario is that development entitlements in Lodi would not be granted until adequate wastewater treatment capacity were available. The conclusion that the No Project Alternative would result in illegal dumping of wastewater is simply speculative, and is grounded in the notion that the City would deliberately allow its WPCF to violate RWQCB regulations. Accordingly, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the EIR rejects the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative on the basis that the alternative would not achieve the supposed beneficial effect of the proposed project. As explained above, no evidence supports that conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EIR. Please provide notice to this omce regarding any public hearings or decisions on this Project or the EIR. In addition, please find a letter from environmental consultant, Rich Stowell, Ph.D. attached which includes additional comments on the EIR. Very truly yours, BRETT S. JOLLEY Attorney -at -Law Enclosures cc: Clients Bruce Baracco, LAFCO Executive Officer \ \nt_oss\prolaw\documents\ 1436-008\BSJ\37384.doc A-9 (cont.) Printable Version page 1 of 2 Gait trying to decide what to do with its sewage By Rm Farrow News -Sentinel Staff Writer The city of Galt has to do something with its sewage to satisfy state water authorities, so it came up with a new idea. How about shipping its waste to Lodi? Not to worry, Lodi -- the Galt City Council hasn't made any decisions on how or where to discharge its waste, but Lodi isn't out of the question. The news that Galt has its eye on Lodi's wastewater plant came as a surprise on Wednesday to Richard Prima, Lodi's public works director. Although it was briefly discussed at a recent Galt City Council meeting, Galt officials haven't even asked their Lodi counterparts if they would be receptive to the idea. "We're guessing the answer is no, but we need to at least ask the question," said John Griffin, an assistant public works engineer for the city of Galt. "It's just an idea -- is Lodi available?" West Yost & Associates, a Roseville firm hired by the city of Galt to study several possible methods to discharge its wastewater, is quite familiar with Lodi's wastewater operation -- Lodi is also a client. "You don't know if it's a good idea before you give it a cursory look," Prima said. "I look forward to their call." Galt officials don't offer an answer as to how to the city's wastewater would be transported to Lodi. That question is to be answered in West Yost's study. The city is allowed to discharge treated waste into Laguna Creek, just north of Galt, between Nov. 1 and April 30. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board bans Galt from discharging into Laguna Creek the rest of the year because the creek, a tributary of the Cosumnes River, flows into the Delta. Laguna Creek is dry during the dry summer months. The Galt City Council allocated $155,000 to West Yost to study different locations to dispose the city's waste, which is projected to measure 3 million gallons per day by the time the city reaches a population of 30,000. Galt currently has more than 22,000 residents. "As of today, we don't have the capacity to pick up that much extra," Prima said, who added that transporting sewage from Galt to White Slough, located off Interstate 5 between Eight Mile Road and Highway 12, would be costly. "I know where Galt is; it's not exactly close to our plant," Prima said. Lodi's wastewater plant is about 20 miles from Galt. Galt's look at Lodi's wastewater plant isn't the first time Lodi has been approached for help in solving http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2004/06/10/news/07_sewage_040610.prt 6/11/2004 L ! tll�µvav Y v� vwv�a someone's wastewater problems. ..�M_ _ —` In 2002, the Lodi City Council voted to allow local wineries outside the city limits to deposit their effluent at the city's wastewater plant. Cities throughout California are looking at millions of dollars in expense as their sewage disposal permits are renewed by the state. In Galt, it will cost about $40 million over the next five years to upgrade the city's sewer treatment plant according to new stringent requirements as part of the city's sewage discharge permit, which was renewed in January, Public Works Director Doug Gault said earlier this year. In addition to Lodi's plant, West Yost will study the feasibility of Galt joining the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District and piping sewage 10 miles north to Elk Grove, buying more than 400 acres of land to dump its sewage and sending sewage to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for use as reclaimed water. "I'm glad to see they're looking at alternatives and thinking outside the box," Prima said of his neighbors to the north in Galt. West Yost's study on Galt's wastewater options is due to be completed in October. Contact reporter Ross Farrow at t http://www.lodinews.com/articies/2004/06/10/news/07_sewage 040610.prt 6/11/2004 bbllnf[un4 11:.3[ 140 Consulting "nears PYWOO David R. Bennett Charts G. Sunbw Robert W. Fmeridc Fr%R ell F k J. Fahlera Jefray R. Heuser Rkhad E Skmel Jumc 10, 2004 Brett Jolley, tel• Harum Craii*w Brown 2291 West March Late, Suite B100 Stockton, CA 95207 Re: City of Lodi, White Slough'W>PCF Sphere of Influence Project Dear Mr. Jolley, Pertuant to your request, we have reviewed the Draft EIR for tha City of Lodi, White Slough Sphere of Influence Project. Basal on that review, we offer the following coaaicnents which identify several m tonal deficiencies with the doctuncgL The draft Program ETR covers oaly a proposed "change in status" of roughly 4,200 acres of private pmpcM The draft Program EIR defers Project -level Forts to a finre date prior to any physical modification being made to the mvironmart within the 4,200 acre am This deferral results in the draft. Program EIR contabdog little technical substvioc to justify the, propriety of the "cliaage in status" being proposed; and t1mvib a it does little to justify the propriety of the proposed "change in status" project which has real, immediate impacts on the owners of the a$actcd properties, regardless of whether any physical modifications are ever made to their properties by rho City of Lodi. A hindamental question is whether the following droll Program ETR statement (Section 3.5`) is true, false, or of unknown validity (teat in pa=thesms is added for context clarity). "Land application (o£ effluent) is Rely a viable long -turn option if the requirements associated with surface water discharge cannot be met" The draft Progmrn I?IR in Section 4.7.1 discloses SWRCB Resolution No. 77-1 which encourages reclamation, but fails to disclose SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 (see Attachment A) 3876 Ailhereon Road, Suite 1 - Rocklin, California, 95765 0 Phone (816) 7T3-BIOO 0 Fax (916) 7734MB Ob/ 1lel/'L00q 1 ! : JZ yl0 / !JU44 f GIAJL.iJ�714 r ivuiex.6 r\iiw7 i t9 VLf A. Brca jolly June 10, 2004 Page 2 whieb prohibits effluent disposal practices fiorn causing degradation of groundwater in excess of water quality objectives. ' The City's pioposed effluent reclamation plan may case degradation of first recoverable groundwater in excess of the Regional Board's 450 mg(L water quality objective for Total Dissolved Solids Cite., salinity). The standard groundwater protection language firm a recent (2003) Regional Board permit showing this requirement (and others) related to effluent reclamation and concerns over degradation of groundwater is presented in Thee draft Pmpm EIR needs to be supplemented with as analysis of current and projected fimae eluent salinity eoncentrations'(as well as the concentrations of other Regional Board listed contaminants) to disclose if it is even=edible that 1he foregoing quote from the draft Program EIR is true. Effluent salinity should increase over time as the percentage of wades conserving fixtures in the city increases, as the city grows. The analysis must also disclose any effluent Win* increases that result 5 -am the effluent reclamation process, specifically the salt concentrating effect of evapotranspiration by vegetation being irrigated with aMueaat. An example of the kinds of affluent salt balances that should be in this EIR to provide some mxhble assessment of the viability of lam application is presented in Attachment C, *ich is from a draft of a SWRCB training handbook on land disposal of effluent. If biosoiids are being applied to the effiva# rcciamation lands (per Section 3.5], the salt impact of these biosolids must be incladed.in. the mdt.balance. It is expected that the salklit of fust recovcrable groundwater in the 4,204 acre ares is already impacted as a result of the current agricultural activity. However, ifthe effluent hes a salinity greater than the salinity of water used historically tea irrigate these lands, then switching the crop irrigation supply to more saline effluent will result in further salinity degradation of an already degraded groundwater re. ource, .contrary to SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16. Thus, a comparison between effluent salinity and historical irrigation water supply salinity is necessary to access the accuracy of the foregoing draft Program EIR statement. The EM! s analysis of salinity impacts and tho long-term viability of effluent reclamation on these properties should discuss California Water Code §13523.5 (Attachment b), and the 1985 opinion rendered by SWRCB Chief' Counsel. William R. Attwatear (Attachment E). It is our understanding from conversations with Regional Board staff{WendylWyels, Chief ofthe Waste Discharge to Land Unit) that § 13523.5 has no bearing on -the reclamation of effluent via Waste Discharge Requirements. A-10 (Cont.) U01 1[Af .r.sAUe i .. _+ �&V r I-JU4-tu uI#ka1V=.r_KjjW f_"L= Gj/ Lj Brvd Jolly Jane 10, 2004 Page 3 Draft Program EIR Section 4.7.1 correctly lists salinity as being an a muffo- rental concern in the Delta upda CWA, Section 303(d). It is out understanding that the ThML process applies to both point source discharges and non -point source ditsdbarM such as sul=face drainage fi'om agricultural irrigation areas. The EIR needs to disclose how moving the cf$usnt discharge to land, concentrating the effluent salt by evapotranspiration, and having the co=ntrttod effluent salinity leach into the Delta as a non -point source represents any impmvernent over the status quo. If the EIR analysis finds that the concentrated effluent salinity does not eventually percolate into the Delta, then the EIR needs to disclose whore this salinity concentrated water goes, or builds up, or whatever the; analysis says it does without degrading water quality. The analysis needs to disclose the ultimate fate of the rfflueaat salt mass under current 6.5 MGD flow conditions and proposed 11.6 MGD flow conditions to address a #imdamental principle of the T DL process that the loadhnass of the conteaninant of concern tin this case salinity) is to decrease: to restore the impaired water resource, not mores to 180 percent of convent loads (11.6 MOD/6.5 MGI=1.8). In Section 4.7.311 the draft Program EIR suggests that rouse wetlands should be located in poorly drained soils that have a `natural liner to protect the groundwater". The ER should document how this proposed plan is different from, and therefore is nx)m viable tLan, the Kesterson R=rvoir experience. The City appew to be proposing to disposc into a wetlands environment an effluent that is not of adequate quality for discharge to a surface water, pre surnably becaasc the effluent is toxic to wildlife, at least to same dagree. A wetlands environment (hlw Kcstersoat) tends to concentrate toxicants by evaporationlevapotrauspiration, and provides an ideal setting for those eoncenbmted toxicants to further concent rate by bioaccumation in the wetlands wildlife. We recognize that monitoring wildlife for bioacm=tion of toxicants in the proposal wcdin& can avoid a repeat o€Kesterson by stopping effluent discharge to the wetlands; but if we know that we will stop effluent discharge to the wetlands at some point, thein the wetlands may not be a Nable long-term option". Disclosure of toxicant levels in the eluent and their bioaccumulation overtime in the wetlands is necessary. It is also necessary to discuss why it is enviroume,"y acceptable to discharge to wetlands And land (and therefor to underlying groundwater, recognizmg soil treatment) an effluent that is not of adequate quality for discharge to surface waters. Where do the toxicants applied to land and wetlands go? Do they buildup to where the soil/wetlands is impacted such that the application of eluent must stop? Would stopping the effluent discharge to land be expected In 20 years. 50 years, or when based on what is known about the effluent and biosolids metals concentrations? These metals should be removed by, and therefore accumulate in, the fine textured soils in the proposed reclamation area. A-10 (Cont) 17011[Jf LVG'Y Rr..'(. JAVr d�U`f U Brea Jolly June 10, 2004 Pap 4 . The City cun=dy has an effluent irrigation arm. Quamtitative information on the impact of ft operation, on first recoverable groundwater and on the accumulation of metals in these soils would be appropriate supplemental data to the foregoing analyses of the long term viability of the proposed City plans- These analyses on the viabilitytfeasaMity of City plans need to be done, now, because the "change in status" project being analyzed by this EIR has real impacts on pnVerty owners, now. Chapter 5 of the draft Program EER appears to be deficient because it does not consider the most obvious alternative of having the residents and businesses of Lodi improve their wastewater quality to where it can be discharged safely to surface waters. It appears that City residents and businesses can afford to do more, and pay more, to provide better prctrratment and treatment of their wastewater based on the Black & Veatch report, California wastewater Charge Survey 2004, which shows Lodi as having the lowest sewer um fees and lowest sewer connection fees in San Joaquin County. The Lodi rates are substantially lower than sates paid by people in many rural communities such as in Calaveras County immediately cast of San Joaquin County. Besides providing better treatment, the City may be able to reduce or solve its wastewater quality problems by doing mora to claw up the pollution at its sources in the community. 'There appears to be no evidence in the draft Program Elly that Lodi has an aggressive pollution source control program (including puixlic outreach and cduucation)-to keep residents f -am -conveniently flushing problematic wastes dower their sinks and toilets. That is no evidence that Lodi is improving its potable water supply (such as ,may be appropriate to reduce its salinity andlor to redruce its corrosiivity to copper water pipes, a common cause of effluent capper toxicity). The implication that the City of Lodi believes it cannot comply with future Waste Discharge Requirements from the Regional Board suggests that its commerciaVindustrial Pretreatment Program (a requirement of the Clean Water Act) omy be deficient, outdated, or otherwise ineffective. Without discussion of these alternatives, the draft Magnan EIR appears to condone the notion that it is more appropriate to inconvenience non -Lodi residents them fedi residents to solve wastewater problems orated by Lodi residents and businesses. At the minimum, an alternative should consider that all fixture growth of Lodi (fi-om current 6.5 MGD flows to lauildout 11.6 MGD flows) needs to fiord and build wastewater treatment facilities capable of discharging to surface waters such that existing non -Lodi residents no not inconvenienced for the bcnefit of future Lodi development. A-� o (Cont. . "bilo/zoaq 1l:.Jz =bII30440 LVkJLlJl7LL4 G417114GCK.LM r" -w- OOIL3 Brett Jolly June 10, 2004 � S Draft Program EIR Section 4.12 discu6ses a mosquito buffer of 1,300 feet. Out building is rougly 2,000 feet downwind frons► a sawdl (several acre), natural wetlands containing mosquito fish. Mosquitoes drift Som the vwedands an the prevailing bm= in late summer Io such an extent that we have had to spray the exterior of the building to kill mosquitoes. Our fM-brand experience is that 'a 1300 foot buffer is inadequate to control nuisance mosquito conditions under specific climatological conditions. We request that the EiR contain a statement from the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District that a 1300 foot buffer is, or is not, sufficient to control breeze -driven dispersal of mosquitoes. Draft Prog= BIR Section 4.4.3 does not address fully the issue of health rusks posed by effluent irrigation ofcrop& Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 only addresses health risks posed by pathogenic organisms in efflucnt. It dors not address health risks f6rom heavy metals, synthetic organics, carcinogens, etc. Bawd on oux experiaaces with the Regional Board regarding of ft=t application to land, it is my pwfassioual m&wjiag opinion that the draft Program EiR is deficient in information necessary to support a fundamental preuaise of the proposed project that "laud application is likely a viable long-term option•'. Sincerely, Richard E. Stowell, P.E., MD. e„aMet AOdwI& A hu* s A-10 (cont.) DR. RICHARD E. S110WILL9 P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER EDUCATION Ph.D, Environmrerital Engineering, University of California, Davis M.S., Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis B.S., Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University, magna cum laude REGISTRATION Civil Engineer No. 38812, California SUMMARY Dr. Stowell joined in the formation of ECOLOGIC Engineering in 1993 following 16 years with Dewante dt Stowell Engineers. Sines 1977, Dr. Stowell has specialized in water quality related engineering: wadewatertrestment, wastewater disposal, and the planning, environmental assessments, and permitting associated with waste% asWr pr*cts of all types (municipal, industrial, eominerdal, and agricultural). Specific areas of expertise include: ♦ Wastewater facilities planning, including assessment of the most critical issue of bow disposal of the treated wastewater is to be accomplished. Wastewaterfacilities pemrntting, including development and negotiation of novel pemitting concepts that meet legal requirements, are protective of the environment, and are more cost effective than conventional permitting concepts. + Wastewater facilities design, including treatment facilities, disposal facilities, and upgmdes and/or retrofits of existing facilities. + Wastewater facilities environmental impad assessments, including California Toxics Rule assessments, effluent receiving water quality assessments, anti -degradation analyses, and groundwater monitoring. + Wastewater facilities trouble shooting, including investigative, diagnostic analysis of problematic wastewater facilities and/or associated data to determine the cause(s) of the problem, and solutions to the problem. Since 1983, Dr. Stowell has worked primarily as a: . Prqed msu; Chief facilities planner, Chief process analysis and designer, - Chief environmental assessment engineer (primnly in developing wastewater dispersal alternatives and negotiating the . associated wastewater discharge permit); and, - As a specialized consultant to other engineers and consultants both internal and external to his own firm. RESEARCH Original rrnaarch of algal population dynamics in wastewater treatment and disposal ponds and how those seasonal dynamics impact wastewater quality, receiving water quality, and compliance with permit requirements, including the ability to disinfect pond efiluent. This research has been particularly useful in the design of wastewater ponds, obtaining unique and cost effective wastewater permits for pond systems, and trouble shooting pond system problems. Beneficiaries of this and related work include the Cities of Willows, Williams, Colus% Maxwell, woodland, Livingston, Escalon, Ripon, Rio Vista, Dixon, Live Oak, Angels, Ione, and Ceres as well as several smaller communities such as Elk Grave, Courtland, Cleadalm Oaks, Woodbridge, Copper Cove, and South Sutter Irrigation District. Original research of the wastewater treatment perfomnanee of and reliability of constructed wetlands wastewater treatment systems. Specific resesach topics have included treatment performance and nuisance potential, particulady midge, mosquito, and odor nuisance. Dr. Stowell designed a wetlands research facility for the University of Arizona. He has also designed pilot scale wetlands ECOLOGIC Dr. Richard. Stowell, P.E Page2 treatment systems for the Cities of Stocldon and Roseville, and has analyzed the potential of wetlands for several otlw eommnnities including Caves, Woodland, Colusa, and Cleadalm 031M. PUBLIC EDUCATION + Recruiterd by California State University, Sacramento, to teach classes in water quality, and in the analysis and design of water and wwaewatertreatrrrent facilities (1985 to 1997) Prior to his corporate respoasbilkies requiring all of his available time. + Has authored numerous papers to inform city councils and city residents about 1) wastewater treatment and regulations, 2) the environmental consequences of various wastewater disposal practices, and 3) the costs and benefits of various wastewater treatment and disposal practices. An informed city council and public arc generally more supportive of wastewater Projects required by current regulations. Recant informational tallo and/or papers have been prepared for many conitnrnities including Dixon, San Andreas, Williams, Willows, Bear Valley, and Angels. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLANNING • Project Manager and chief analyst for the City of, Woodland wastewater treatment and disposal Master Plans in 1986,1996, and 2001. Each plan has developed staged expansion alternatives to 24 MGD and has 1) made maximum cast effective use of existing facilities, 2) added new facilities to add capacity and/or to comply with new regulations, and 3) concdved and planned around possrbk new treatment and/or disposal facilities that may become necessary based on analysts of trends in regulations. A result of this planning is that Woodland has had low wastewater service costs in comparison to other cities discharging effluent to surfk= waters. + Chief wastewater facilities planning analyst for the City of Dixon since 1985. A result of'this planning is that Dixon has had low wastewater service costs in comparison to other cities discharging effluent to land. • Specialized consultant to the master planning of the new City of Lincoln advanced treatment facility designed to be expanded in stages up to at least 12 MGD. + Wastewater facilities planning on an "as neede(r" basis for many communities over the past 10 years including Live Oak, Williams, Willows, Colusa, Ceres, San Andreas, Ripon, Livingston, Woodbridge, Escalon,. Hear Valley, etc. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PERMITTING + Developed the novel NPDES perm for Mountain House. Unique features of the permitting and associated negotiations included 1) getting the buildout capacity (5A MGD) for a commmuity that does not exist listed as the permitted capacity so as to establish, in essence, a reservation to make that level of discharge if the effluent is otherwise compliant with permit requirements, 2) getting credit for the pollution abatement resulting fromtaking irrigated agricultural land out of production, 3) getting a NPDES permit concurrent with a separate land application perrmt to minimize possible legal challenges and project delays that could rftWt from the more conventional "one permit" approach, and 4) getting a permit allowing discharge in the Delta adjacent to the two aqueduct intakes. + Developed the concept of stopping and starting effluent discharges so as to avoid exposing the aquatic ecology in the effluent receiving water to chronic Levels of effluent contan inants thereby avoiding potentially costly chrome exposure effluent limitations. + Developed alternative effluent limitations for PH so as to avoid unnecessarily restrictive effluent limitations on ammonia. + Developed the concept of aggravated impacts to rivers resulting from discharging effluent to land adjacent to rivers (versus discharging the effluent directly to the river). + Negotiated and/or facilitated the acquisition of wastewater permits for numerous commmrities and industries for over 20 years including Roseville, Lincoln, Auburn, Woodland, Dixon, Williams, Willows, Colusa, Mountain House, Clearlake Oaks, South Sutter Irrigation District, EMLOGIC Dr. Richard E Stowell, P.E. Page 3 Donner Summit P.U.D., Ripon, Woodbridge, Cares, Livingston, J.R. Wood Inc., Kellogg Garden Products, Bear Valley, San Andreas, Grass Valley, Lake Wildwood, Flag City, Pilot Travel Center, Jackson, Brentwood, Diablo Grande, tray Station, and Rio Vista to name a few. WASTEWATER FACILITIES DESIGN + Chief designer of the core City of Woodland wastewater facility. • Chief process designer for the City of Dixon. • Specialized consultant to the designers of several wastewater treatment plants including Lincoln (biologies nutrient removal, orBNR), Brentwood (BNR), Mountain House (BNR), Cache Creek Casino (BNR), Core ,% Ripon, Diablo Grande (BNR), Williams, Willows, Colusa, Woodbridge, Sas Andreas, Ripon, and Live Oak + Professor of wastewater facilities design at California State University, Sacramento, from 1985 to 1997. RECLAMATION + Reclamation permitting consultant for Diablo Grande golf course, Del Webb Sun City (Roseville) golf course, Cohisa County Canning Corporation fodder crops, J.R. Wood fodder and food crops, and City of Lincoln fodder crops. + Prepared the Title 22 Engineering Reports for reclamation of wastewater for Diablo Grande (golf course) and City of Lincoln (Fodder crops). + Assisted with the preparation of Title 22 Engineering Reports for Rio Vista (golf course), Mountain House (fodder craps), Morgan Creek (golf course), and Del Webb Sun City (golf course). • Assessed reclamation as a wastewater disposal option for many communities including Livingston, Ripon, Ceres, Woodland, Dixon, Clearlake Oaks, Williams, and Live Oak. WASTEWATER RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Authored portions of the environmental impact assessments for several wastewater facilities including Lincoln (Auburn Raven), Auburn (Auburn Ravine), Grass Valley (Wolf Creek), Lalm Wildwood (Wolf Creek), Cle adalm Oaks (Cache Creek), and Mountain House (Old River). • Authored ERWQA's (Effluent Receiving Water Quality Aunssrr ats) for Cameron Park (Doer Creek), El Dorado Hills (Carson Creek), and Grass Valley (Wolf Creek). • Authored Recreational Use Surveys for Dixon and Williams. • Analyzed and forecast the impacts (or lack thereof) of discharged wastewaters on receiving waters as part of the permitting process for several communities (listed partially under Waste:waterFacttlities Permitting). WASTEWATER FACILITY TROUBLE SHOOTING + Assisted with resolving effluent disinfection problems at several cities including west Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon, Willows, Williams, Livingston, Elk Grove, and Merced. + Assisted with process control umlifications to enhance the pedbrmance: of several activated sludge and pond -typo processes including Woodland, Merced, C 3e adake Oaks, Willows, Williams, Lake Wildwood, Ripon, Sanger, and Brentwood. COMMERCIAL{INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER • Treatment, disposal, and permitting consultant to J.R. Wood regarding treatment and disposal of food processing wastes. + Permitting and disposal consultant to Kellogg Garden Products, malmr of soil amendments. + Treatment, disposal, and permitting consultant to Pilot Travel Center, Dunnigan facility (highway comrrrcrcial wastewater). ECOLOGIC Dr. Richard E Stowell, RE Fuge 4 + Fan itting and disposal consultant to Colusa County Canning Company (food processing wastewater). + Disposal consultant to MacMillan Bloedel Paper Manufacturing. + General wastewater consultant to the Cache Creek Casino (high str 4b domestic waste). + Permitting and disposal consultant to Flag City (highway conn, raal wastewater). + General wastcwater consultant to the Milk Farm (highway commercial wastewater). + General industrial wastewater consultant to the City of Dixon. + Specialized consultant to Patterhon Sand and Gravel. + General industrial wastewater ooasultant to the City of IAWkw for its Keow Venturrs industrial park wastewater facility. STORMWATER AND DEWATERING WATER + Peimitting consultant to Trimark Communities relative to 1) disposing of construction dewatering water to land and to surfaoe waters, and 2) dung of storm water. + Consultant to SAFCA mgarding use of wetlands to treat urban storm water. + Specialized consultant to the consultant preparing the storm water cost-baaafk guidance manual for Caltrans. + Specialized consultant to the eonsukaAs assessing storm water tnestmont in the Tahoe Basin for Caltrans. F Eco=LOGIc IM1101:4004 1 I: SL iib t l3i344G r.LAJ..L".L1, r-MUIM uoi 4a Attachment A SWCB Resoludon No 046 Ub/ ILY Y VU C4 1 f ; JZ ":U 0 1 1 10440 STA . TZ WAM RESMO . ES.' COMM ZOAM -Twownoff No. W.- is STATEUM 'OF TOMOY'VM'. TO NAMMUN HIM QUALITY OF, Vi7md- —1 N CALTYaMak wamms the Caur-Ornia, LegialOure bAx deolartd that it is the po3lcy of the State that the granting of permits- and =cames ,'or umppropriated vater and the dispoaal of Wastes .into the waters -of the State sbqll 'be. wo regulated as +,.p achieve hlgh�s� water ,quality consistent vlth maklimm be'�*flt to the pea 16 of the State and, abill. b6 controlled so an to promote tie peAae health., oatety and- vd1fare of the pepp2e of the State; and wMmns water quality- clontrol poliojaz have been' acid are beibg adopted for waters of the State; axA wHEMS the quality of some watera of the Stat -6 is--Ulther t -ban that -established by the adopted poll -vies a -rid It- In -the inteft* and purpose or thid Beard that- addh hightfi- abal q= -� -2 be 7 maintained to the maxinum extehivasstbii e6riilsi6ent- with the. deo-:Larati-on bf the Engle-2fttdro; NOW, THERIP-M" BI; IT MBOUM-0 i. Whenever the e3dstli* quality or water is better' than. the quality *vstablIsdied. In pol1cles" an of the daite on 4,oh such-j)bUciez 'beeqme effective,. suoh hfth qaoialty will be.wa:Lntaj:xwd until it hays been den tistrated ta-tlie State that wW change w111 be consistent• With ma=nor bene- fit to the people of the StaCttj wM not. tt e'*&oxAbly affect present and aiit:Leipatod.bersiifici'l-use of saih.wateir ar a . 4 will -not result. In vaVer quality. leas than that.presdrdUed in the Policies. 2. Arr activity: whi-oh prodvoez, -or may produce A v"te or In- creased volume or eonoe.atratlon- of,- waMtg: Arid which diff - chanes or propomen tp div.6hsaza to Lizi0thg hlih quAlIty waters- wJ11 be required to meet was" dise.harge requirementa which will result ln- -thd beat praotloOlei tr*&twejmV or von- trol of the -discharge necessary to a Burie that fa) .8 POIIU- tion- or nuisance W13.1 not ododr afid- the h U;hest va"r quality consistent with raxlirm.befie -it to tie -people Of the State will be mai&aix'2ed.., in jAplemeritIM,thia policy,, the Secretary bf the interiorvinbei :kept aclv-�s;ed: anti vill: to pz-6414ed Wth suah infOr- matUn *as he will need to ftschaftv� M - his r6sponsib11ltlet under the Federil Water r6jjuti6fi bontral Act. . 06/10/2004 17:82 �:Ilbl[iMQ48 t.LAAA)U1l: tnasrrt.rctrvu rritz U01 40 BE TT F R884L1i8U that :espy opt this resmution to lor.- wairded to the Be=e g of the: lntersicr an -part of 4a31torats t a witer quiali'y. control. pcll*y autaa3.aa�fon, `MOK2Zoff notthatwater its,i .�t�t3:aenr�at",�o �,o� a •.s�aol��.ion �T .� r��. � a'ra iwt.ai b e =S ► # itdr eoaTaat�, dQ�a3 ld •an Dkeds fttoobrr 28 � ' s`e: �..T�ayokircea -2- gbl I at 4004 It. zz 71 a r f 004.40 _ Attachment B 2M Regional.Bwrd . m* wage Ub/ 1 G/ L13014 t r - ZZ 71 o r r Avti•ro wASMDMCHA MMUMSMRSORDFANo.Rs,M03-W19 14 WESTERN Hff LS WATER DISIMCT AND DEAKO GRANDE LDr M PARTWERSED DIABLO GRANDE WASTEWATER RLCLAMATMN FACIL ff Y STANISLAUS COUNTY 3. No stored wasatewades or effluent diall have a pH less tban 6.5 or geatw than 9.0. D. CAmwal Solids Disposal SpecUicatim Sludge maaau the solid, semisolid, mud liquid reddqu v mpvod d"iug p ffinzy, wcbnft y, or advanced wastewater t ntroant processes. Solid waste refers to grit and wrec bW Sege led daring Peary tratbant• Residual &lodge meaw sb>tdgcthat will uw be mbjaat to f eater treatn>ent at the facility. Siosolida refers to sludge that has undergone sufficient treatmu= sand testing to qualify for reuse pursuant to federal and state regulations as a sQ amendagmt far aSdculta% silvieultu v, hmdmdhrro, and land renlamafwwL 1. Sludge and solid waste shall be removed from sareans, sumps, ponds, and clarifiers as needed to ensure optimal Pleat operation. 2. Tueatant and dorap of sluilp Shall be confined to tlaa trednat qty property, and aha11 be coaducted in a.maram e r 69 precludes infiltrartics of waste consdtiuents tuft *oM Rare a was; or at oonadttratioas chat Mill violame the Grow*hyme r Lb*ations of this Order: 3. Any storage of residual sludge, solid waste, and biosolids at gat facility "I be tempom, sod tt waste shall be controlled and contained in a mamma that rninanfm Ieachate formation and precludes infllMdon of waste r000taeots bAo soils less a mass cc at corvcpatrat s Ole will violate the Quundwater Moitatiorss of Ibis Order. 4. Residual sludge, biosolids, and solid waste shall be QV osed of iia a maoanct approved by the Executive Officer and cowl tcM with TStle 27. Removal for ti 0w fit, disposal, or muse at disposal sites operated is mcordance with valid waste discharge regairernerats issued by a regional waLtr qu ty control board WM satiety this spedfica dm 5. Use and disposal of biosoli th sbssrll comply wife tier self=implemenfing .tb laal regulations of 40 CFR 503, which ane subject to eniiot+c=cnnt by the U.S. TBPA, not* Regional Boaud. ff d=* the life of this Order, ft state aceepts primacy for. plementntionof 40 CFR S03,tbe Regional Dowd may also i9date eaftcamedwheaa appropriate. E. VYattrReclamsrtioa Specitfcadions l . Application of rreclaimcd water •shall be otm&od tal this dadp&tod reolanuadm area as defined in this Order. 2. • Reclaimed water shall meat *a c terk wntained in "fide 22, CCR 3. ReclabaW water shall bo used in cwVliano with Title: 22, Article 3 ("Uses ofRocycled Wates"?, - 4. Public conbut with reclaimed wastcwarter 4hall be controlled through use of %runs amd cautionary signs, aadlasr other approprikfe mems. Perimeter warning signs bw1i;ie ft that roeldmed water is is use. shall be posted at leant every 500 feet along tlre• property boundaty, at each corner, sad at each ,tuxes road eaf 9we to the irrigation area. The size and count of these sips WWI be as described in Section 60310 of I"nrle 22. Additionatiy, reclaimed water Vu/ 1 V! i. V•...Z w . . r... rw ... .... ..,. ... ���� _._ _ �.. .-. �. .....�.. .�.... • .--•.w� rte• �� W SAM DISCRAROE REQ LWMat S ORDERNO. P—%=34019 is WRnVW HU I WATM DISTWCr AND DUKD GR AHM LSff= FAIMERSHIP DIABLO MANDE WASTSWAT£RRSCLANATIONFAQLM STANOLAUS COUNTY cot&oBers, valves, sad simile Vpuftmanm AbsM be axed wish rwWmcd water wamillg' signs, and shall be equipped wi$r removable ltsadlea or locking mecbsabms to prevent public accem or tasnpaing. S. Application ofreelaimed water sha11 comply with the Mowing suck regah manta: Edge of reImsfion area to property Wmdary 25 Edge of iw mation am to public roW 30. Edge of recti msti m area to irrigation well 100 Edge of reciamstlon arca to domade wall 100 Edge of reclunaam area to mwmuxk or Mural amfare vvatatr &%ft t:e course 2 So As defined by floe rwaoed aro podaoed atartaE 4, IP" = Y�ealadia� 4"m used exei� pec UA*&W ret am 6. AppReation of reclaiasad water d4rall be by shad Sow only {erg., flood or fits ow iYngati*. 7. Quick ou*ms, if used, shill be of ar type,or sxm" d ia. at x uaw, that pants opwAfim cWy by authorized pommel. Hose bibs stall not be used. 8. Any carmochom between the reclaimed water convoymwe rfsW a and xwponabls wam aonveyaax system, g v=Wwater supply wA at mrfice waft aWply source for do purpose of supplementing, redaimcd water shall be equipped with s baa dkw pmvrutian devlea _ 9. Application TAN ibr recited water shall not mooed agmnon& tofu cooasideriag the amp, nail, ciematA end ixrigdaa mit system in a000rdsnca with the walwbalaoce m6mitted with the RVD. 10. hkigatian ntnofi (La., UNsdet•) ftU be wwpld* oontWmad within the desipfA%d water rxlamation area and "I not eater say sarfaco waw draitsap oou me, 11. Bdpdon with mWined vat= dell not be pezformed within 24 boos of a forecasted stoma, duffing or witlin 24 hours :Ser any precipitation event, nor wban the s mund is satmated. 12. Sterna water runoff generated mm flea 24 hou m after the end of the last irrigation emt may be released from the j�pclamafion area to storm water conveyor Am 13. no acclamation arca shall be managod to prevent breeding of usosquitoes. Ta partieularr. a There shall be no staa&* wager 49 home atter irrigation; b. Tailwater ditches must be mahlained eaeentlally free ofemergaut. oar qr ml, and floaaduS vagctatiaa, and; 19b/1131'eurJ4 1 r. JL ;Uof fJOYYo I r+P+t_ LA.0 t. 11 WASTE flISC11AIWE MQUINJUEMS OR.DEANo.1t20D34014 1 WNTEWM S WATER DISIV=AND DL93LO GRANDE »D PARTNERSW DIABLO GRANDE WAFrEWATER RECLAMA110M FACILITY STANISL US COUNTY c. low-premm and unprea rized pipelines and ditchn accessible to mosgnimcs shall not be uW to atom o luem. F. Grauedwater Unitadons I. polecat of waste constittawts from any portion of dm VAVTF and reclamation area shall not cause groundwater to: L Contain any of UN following consdwcv is in cow4atratiom greater than listed or greater than natural background quality, wWchever is greater. Boron mgJL 0.7 Chloride tng/L I % Iron MWL 03 lvlmpnese Mgff, 0.05 Sodium mg/L dg Total Colitizm Qrgataisrns 1Vow1w ML C2.2 Total Dissglved Solids r MWL 450 TOW MUDS= 2nVL 10' Nitrite, (as N) MZ(L 1 Mhits (as 1 =WL 10 Aa4r=WR (aa NHS n4o 1.5 Drama= 4 8romodiddoromathane µgll 0.27 Chlorofam. µ81i 1.1 Di l _ 0.37 A ww"" impact Int fort WOMM !6t seretat dimhvd cowduaw is Wdittaasr fuse H"11ae wpar+ * [a.=., iltalWW (euboaau and Mcatbowtj c kkan, b.atm, t% cad pew, } b. Coataim any Constituent not identified in Groundwater Limitation F.I ,a in conccetrationa 8eater than #racicground quality (wbethw c emkal, physical, biological, bactenolopW, radiological, or some otherproparty or clatactarisdc� c. Exhibit s pH of lea dm 6.5 or grader dum 8.5 pH units. d- Impart taste, odor, toxicity,, or color that creates aui=nce or impairs auy-banc5cial use. G. Provistoas 1. All of the following reports abaci be submitted parsnaat to Section 13267 o£tbo California Water Code and shall be propzred as described in Provision (3.3. Attachment C Draft SMI CS Training Handbook Salt Ralanc* ExaMple tib/ 1CJ/ LCJVI+ ! . JL .)Lu r r .ruwtiu LVL�1s.1iV v.ui� x_�\11 r.a r�..w �-•• �... nU7iMOD Aww k"Not Ewpoulm Roti 44 moo' ANf 1.511GD 1 �Z8 �I(3D 1,376 EC =1,490µR 1,709PUM 1,0669* (8^00o lbs'} -I Ecm salt p mmwffom mdvdm aww wut Matt X93 MW (8.345 (4,564 -438 Mq L) = 3,20 OM br Al 27 W*) Figure 7.8 Salt Balance for Reclamation Area Attachment D UNOWit WaW Code §13523.6 Salinky-emVOon VO/ �Uf LVVY i [.J; J1U/ /JV11V �v4Lw1M L. Mia �V..yIM J Caftmie H,eafth Laws -Related to Recyded WaW Jame 2001 Edifion Water Code 13523.1. Master permit regtdremenits (a) Each -regional board, after consu ting with, and recelAng the recommendafons of, the State Department of Health Services and any party who has requested in writing to be consulted, with the consent of the proposed permittee, and after any necessary hewing, may, In lieu of issuing waste discharge requiremonis pursuant to- Section 13263 or water reclamation requimments pu suard to Section 13523 fbr a user of redalmed water, issue a master redamodon penit to a supplier or distributor, or both, of radalmed water. (b) -A master redanrration permit shsli include, at least, all of the following: (1) Waste discharge- requirements~ adopted pursuant to Arty 4 (commencing with Section 13260) of Chapter 4, (2) A requirement that the permittee comply with the ur#orm statewide recLe"tion criteria estabikJ-wd pursuant to bion'135.21. -Pernrnt cQndldons for a use of reclaimed water not addressed by the un fpm statewide water reclamation criteria shall be ulcered on a case-by-case basis-. (3) A requirement that the permittee establish and enforce ivies or regutatttms for redaimed water users, goven-in9 the design and construction of r3datmed water use facilities and the use of reclaimed water. In acaordanee with the uniform statewide reclamation criteria estabMed pursuant to Section 13521. (4) A requirement that the permittee submit a quarterly report slurnmarizing' reclaimed water use, including the total amount of reclaimed water supplied, the total number of r edidrn4id water use atter, and the kxadons of those sites, including the names of the hydrologle areas underift the reclaimed water use sites. (5) A requirement that the permittee conduit periodic inspections of the facilities of the reclaimed water users to monitor compliance by the fusers with the uniforrn statewide reclamation criteria established pursuant to Settlor~ 13621 and the requirements of the master reclamation permit. (6) Any other requirements determined to be appropriate by the regional board. 13523.5. Salinity exception A regional board may not deny issuance of water redlamation requirements W a project which violates only a salinity standard in the basin plan. r.muf i V! LVVY i r r'L ! V. I JV w 4rLLUV1iV LIVUA PV—{ -I\111 eti�t a r Attachment E ChW Counsel VVIIiIam R. Aima* Opinion 061113/2VU4 1 1: JZ `J1bf /Jb44W tL&L_wlU tx1U1r _MK.LM r-MML ItV [Z5 M.ernora.ndurn To : 'i -id a It, Delaney Ex irtive ffMer San Dino Rgi-o l Board OFFICE OF THE_ CSI& Cr1K1. from : 5FAU Wrt 0 rMURC% CCMWX BOA= seas MATER CKiE =MN 13521.5 (VKM MnAM709 MPXM R FEB 0'? WS ..ISSUE bm Wier CodeSeczior;: 13M -S 41rte8r[i¢ a ReQibnal grater *ATT r Conti l 8osr: i'Raoianal 'Board) to issue vases-�'i�3dunc twqMremnl: v&iC do not teApiamat• a sal i ai ty stamdard -U a regianal utter qual ft!► =ntrat plan jba laz pi a v)l CONCLUSION, Xv. . Uixer' Code Section 13M.15" which pro v i dd tT;lt WW Foci aM#V_&n reoreninfi aar not be de'n'ied stolely .an- the mast --s of at b'aVh :pl6 z*7461ty ward, 4991 i as caly tea water iikl x6nVA recpTr*Rar&a O..r'e t to. > df=barye requi-r�ets- It dons acrt::cr*Ate• ab -a=e0ti6n to a RWa6tl ScarVs retsposeXil itr to imp? smear: the apps sva81 ei basi ri plan through wa*e idi'scharge A,. Statu#'o . , flverrviffm the potW-G019904 Wittr'91alitY CnOW kt.. 014tsion 7 tic Ina rr�' W-ttiva 13wol, of tiro California Xatar• to4a;, r'st, liafaa:'s .a.•cacnvr• tzivs waxer gaQuy Comtrol pr a� r= far the Stwte~ of Cal,ifoM&- 1`hT Pragrw Inc) ad" pmv"Usiv.'as for dig fssuanee- of gait& d1w-hearse, T; egdrawnts for- -the dtSCierpb of Wasta-etUb at'reets Or--mAy- affect abe q"Ilty of the waters of the sta-te. 1t -ail sa ircrl odes pr Wl sfons for the issuance of vittpr rwl aaati a n i a di reomts fdr the me -,oV=I tecl ti sm vaster. ' The povfsicr s governing fssuawA of waste discharge arse aad,thft prav3Vions gove=raiatg ts:sa awa! cis •uattr :te:cl amaa;'ton : eoui'r Wt$—00AAMtdte* too' dystivi t prcgrms, •govttrnd by--diaeras- 4pa of, tbe: � .*App 4 [ astacins with Sactioh ZMW) of VIvisiat 7 of the 1tdt& We prberf eUs for 'adopxlar. of baslat pliris_.Ud'f4r issuan e�eif•• s`�e'disc3crr " reguir"enrs. Win 01.ara3 desipatz benefir.141 -use v of waxers witt;3fl t -hg . a-gian, set water quality oblacrives to• prote-ct bentficiaal'uses, anif. provide for a progriaa to achieve• those aojact yes. C&4', hater Code SS13241 ani 13242. Basfft p; suis may :acTttde p abibitions agafhst. the df.sth;t ge of wast -r-, or cartain tltp23 of wasza, is �peci fled ai-ets .br WW* -r -spsci f •e con0 tions- Td. 533-243. GOI Lt" 6V-- -- -- . -+.+. . v.+--.+ �.,..�r.v �.av u •v.+11��1tairii Ladin H. 0-alaneY . F.XWVr.3ve .Off icar The prl.&I'pal oeaft - Of impi emeriti ng b4zi n- pl aits Is t. r uagji wajt� di:sOar5e requi rdtarm ts. haste di sth rge tegWr2wmtz• aim governed by *apter 4 of livision 7 of the Wer, Cads; tdth enforcement :ani# impleaentarfon. of *aste- diic"rg' a requirewnts providdd for by Mo pter'•5 kaziencial u�th Sertioft 13366.1, except :that for point source discharges. to surface graters the. proviScans of Chapter 5Z (comencing wil* Semi= 1.3370.1 pft-nail 4a the extant of lay imonsinency. Any ptWsaa dischargin'or pt-oposip tzi disyharge waste that could. affect the quality of ibe wit -eft of the State. must sumit a report of ww�u discharge.Id_ -S-13260- VO certain I'lifted exceptions, rib persan sant initiate• any new di arse of wam or make any si&teiial -change in WV disc -targe prior to the•.issuame.vf waste' 4ischarge, reviraments by the llegional Board.- See id. -5:132$4. Ire 'prescribing wade discharge requ,i rests,, the . kn oriel Board must tam into consider..ati.an the beneficial uses to be pro ected -and must ispTement any r•eleveft. b in pl,iz. M., 11326J;. Chpter T- (coa zw iag with SEctiva 13:O), .eati#1 ed the- Mer R=Iamatfdn Law, acvw•ns water, racl aastfoa regi rwduts, ''� later •RwIamatf 64- Lav . provi2es that the Oepartmnt. o'` .ileal rh Sakes (' 1. shat?l eitahi.f slit statewide recl aaiti on criteria for v rjri ng :types of use- of reel alafed -water` where such uses v4 affect public_ balth. Id. -SMZ.I Any p~rsan• - �`• :. . m.laiglrq or proposing to. re0 alm water q' using or proposing. -U v:i , . �reclaiegd .water for purposes for Aich. i-ec'faraat�raxr . feria have, been estab)Ished oust .file .a repot -With the Reo-onal Board, except: far etre ' eecTaxiV,on of wazer used sal.ely hs.' part of if Vrodtsci�xd_; XanufactOI ning or precessing operation:. See. id. 13522.15. No- pe mon ray rtxlaiia wafiet� roc use recl.a`li ed watier� fol' any arse fW *ii:h .a rt of water- rm;-_TAaaiicm is required until the Regianal. Uard fspes -reclamation requirements; or• determines that. no -wrtar recl'tWtitn require6wts are necessary. Sak Id. �I3524. iii prescribing Crater reel oration requirements. the Asgf al ward m t -et such 'iitait Mbns as are Wc'essary to protect tine �1#d ireatth�• safety, vd. wal.fare. 52e id. x'13523.• in some vases, basi'a p .an oh�et �tves'mV be Used es .guida=, as an indication of tire- water q=Tlty' which vauld suppot- certiin beneficial uses.. But the Raegiontl Board - is not regOred to incorporate basun plan objectives -in ti;rstdr :rac]a z'lan'. requ'iroents. Wdeer re0-matito requi remaots mast isicorpor ate, or be In cWifor maned- 41U. Vz5 ` .statewide recl.aaat• oa criterf e� . • Id. The Mater Reclrmaiion Law applIts' to..'tae- of reclaimed -wator, whether -- -not tI%M Is. W di•schar ce to the w}'�rs'. of- • tire' s't e.. -.,'•If : a di scharge ft - involved; the issuer of wat e-•recl' mactiOW. qui-�ient's'.des• dot of CR; xhe R"lanal Board's- wWwrity toy stah'[_3sti•��xaste drsthaz�e= nequi't•em : Id: X1.3527.. Water Code J13523.5, as. added by 1984 41•. Stats. Cir , -Sgt. Is part Of 'Che. Mater Reclam&tion Lia►. 5ec•tion 13523,.3 provides: "A regional'' board .fty. • . not deny issuaace cF water rec]emation requi-rim� to. &--'pr sect xihittr;:a v1.olZ Ves only a -salinity stand" in the basic pl-an.' 06/ 1b/ 24104 ! 1. _5Z 71bt fjv"v , � — __ Ladin B. Mair fxecutivO Officer B. FacrWal BCkground Y3+ FF_B 0 7 95 . The Cacrrrt�► o` San Digo praposs'S to use treaf. ss#, ant from the Buena , Sanitation District's zreat*mt fa Tity for irr#gata i• df- the Lbt r Ridge Bal f Course. The WomT foam has is' s*id wfter. reci zaiatii n •re4d-rammu and waste .di schargs regtrf mi*_nts for the use .and .di sch of trEa%8d eff tent as part of the projwct. The waste diubat" reiialreamts, Usutd, in Regions-] Board tinder No. 79-766 have -bee. amende. In accordaw:e Atli State, Water Resources Control Soerd order W6. WQ sat .ao of fl uebt .Iiiai ation for total diss0'ved-Wids..of SSO sag/j•. in 80-7., the State Board -ford that -chit lab mg/1 1.S-sitaatign- could best. &L tieve -the ' cbj,ec•ti ve set in the appl kabl e. basin :plar.. fine 5~�e. Sowd. atm -found that an effluent lWtas:im based. oto the Uvel. of 'otdt d1s~solved- -solids. In effi uarat. givers secondary %matmen•t;.abodt $50 69A , would: reMt fn an increase in salt batt! ng- rich w6ul d be, si gpiffm-It In. tents of gr�cmdw e,_& da.Stada'tion. A] th6Ugh ' U tLsce'ssary. Water recl:amatioa requiramenUAhd waste dfscharge .ftqufrsmerMs have. ba=n yssuedv 'tt(e: rte) �Matlon om 'Jam bas not beo fr±itla'ted, •sppaNntly because of tire• cast df treating t�- .effi Uent to the. level required to • meet waste d -i seharge "mquir emanta. -The Coisnty ndw requestsapp"val for the prejei, +•ting allof•_ -the effluent 1 izOtat3 ons est0 i shed. in the want df scharge ftquirevient; Except that i~vr 'total .Ossalved sol irks. 'The concentrati. o of total diis6lved .. sol-fd's would be appiroximately. 8wt1.v*/1. The QAim jy stateg' that fts request is shade under the provision: of dater Code. Sectiod MSZ34, You have requested guidance zvacernithe. 4p�k4blTliy of hater Code 58ctiarr 1368.$, ba'rh as applitd• to c isWific rwM t the minty and' as to other prapose4 4fschmTes for which, waste dUcharge requiraents have not rat bear establ i sired. C. Artalysis .of Section 13$23.4 In detei iaf fig 1eg3siative oten't,• the .Courts -turnfiat to -the: i"e«aa f stature, Lid give effect to the osua7 ox� i ar3► art of �� I angerage mp l oyed, Pal os yerdo Facu1Assoc] ati.on -Y,;. P41 t+s. Ver4as Perri•s7csAj Ilnffi ed SchooT�ii st` ri ct. ZI Cal .' ca . p r:,- 39.,` T1119781 As statasl, previously., dater tbdi: e V 5f ort .13523-.5 provides: f . "'A regidirai board may nax deny A rsuan„e..o.i= water rec'i astefiap requiraments m a -proaLWt 4,filistr violate.s"+oAU, a, -sal. nily standard in the basin pTan." , "' The clear import of this UngUaga is that in cdrisi dering whether To fssrta water reclama-rJon requiremwts, for both.ezistiN proffectss and projects which- may,be pr-oposk i.ri he future, a• Regiorral avard may rrot decide to dear waUr reci.awatfoa. requirements• solely on ii.W basis that -the salinity of the recl aiwed water exceeds th'e Aevel set .by a basf:n P1 an abjactji Ve. Ladin H. F3al MOY F.xechit.i re Officer -4- FEB Q935 Nater Code: Section 13M.;5 does riot repi re or m0or:ze a. llegtaoal 80'4rtl to issue waste di schargo require hts 'that hid porahft. a -di Se$;1rS&_ rich - is incons ist"t W iU app] lciri a basf a -� t an- a4$edti ves. The l.a'in l midge of Section 1=34 Tt'ws to: "Qattr rec7'amation Mgcr�iremeats�a not mwastk. -di schtr+ge reqtnremft ts" and nothing is ttW:g.tAXtdrzveal s a. Gaiti:r�ary legislative intent. Indeed, the. rules- of. st tutbiy- canstrttttico,, rpjAf +rce the concitsicz apparent on Vie. face of section 13523.-5! that it applies to water moral amation requirem`nts., not waste Iiscbag; requirements. rat various parts of a statute mst -be hanaoixtd "by considering ate particular secti-M It qua�r�a on in- the ntext rif the sts#�ory. €eam-awork as a.. wFhol e. Pali s Yerdes Faculty Assoc'i•atim v: Palos lterde's Ashi nsul a unified 'Sc{I=t�Ir1� . d at : , d a"tl�'9, 14" i�:Rp'tr. at . 'P1 acgrent o . actlon ].3523.5- as. part..of Chap'terr- 7 of tht ate, the. Mater Reci aaatihn Law, iasmead 'cf as part of Chapter 4 or, Chapter 5, -Aich address issuance, impTneenta'tioni and e0brcemet ,of wasU dischVVa requinMedts, indicates that -Section'13523.5 is Mt im:dnded to apply U :paste discharge rWrements,. 'dater: Codi Section .1-35271!, Wi ch is alfa par DIC tine stater RL-cl a wtfun Lair,. provides fib' relevant pant.: ' " WatMttg to -'rens " xbapzer preyei.M the app;vprIata! •rgegionat baand. �rar •tilts iTistiing Waste discharge i*quirmehrts it a=dischatve i5iieva3ve�l� . 1.4oreover, If Soc'tion 13325.5 autftori=d- a. Regional• Bard tt _irscti; -.'Ante dischargen e requiremts eh(rh.- Wre :inconsi simt with, a bosh! :p.1an ab3er�tf Y*, 5mction 1332,3.5 would =fTi4t with w.arer Code Section 1320" w614b }provides that wam disci vq.e reVir-�t . slhaTl• iopl.eramaz. +e basin P1 ens. .A statete .sthadId not be inte.Mrated to create such. a core ic- unl US he t AngUage of the ste-4t= pl aial-y .-and tmaobfgrrotcsly, scf ' requi res. WUJ I.A Section 1352.3.5, h,ei:ng: hprvrr" speci fic tAd' *mActtd Ta*_ that. 13253, probably. WrjU d ;Ladl In the' eves •0f !near and. Unavoidable carhfl ict,. different sections of a siatute -should be cons ed• to aghteve hanuany 'betwm saeoringly confltctiag sections rather. holding %!here -is a confli•cz: State C erhsa6ton ithsura=ie Fuad v -.-:Industrial Acc daint Ira i zMan,�� _ 6 ' ,, ' _ .. : a ��. , 3 tr _ 361 �, The Section 13253 proVisa om -r'#q tiring iuplehntatibn of `basim p1ah=s appf IUs only to' waste, diitbaraz' rei#ih`Fl`er�ts, -rhot`1, ver rp 0 ion " r�egiuiriients_ So long as Sectidn'LM3.5 -i s. 1lfterpr2ted':.0 •adds;#.,ss Ww reel.amation ragairemmits, that waste jdisc#urge recuir�e fs,, thefe. i5 7hd ? conflict amgng the relevant provisiow'• of #ee Porter-C61-ogare Vater 1 ijallty Control J�ct_ 8. :i.8 ' slative 41istar .. Tlpe State Nater Resources tarrtrof Board- 'State Board i etas i ong- rec'dguln-d butt setti ng effCuerrc I ftitatiorrs : for• total dis01.0d sdl Ids Ms, pt -"taw a significant policy 144.1m •in the San Diego. Rgdon, that of bil:wcft g -the need to protect groundwater 4uAll.ry and zbL-.-neediyo. erxcbp�ge Xastew&Ur recl imati on. in state. Board Resol'nti on W.4 -7$-w5 and StAti : 8bard and r No. VQ- 80-7, the State Beard sought to er+coui-agt artd far1T f:lra%a Wotan- ` nen oration .1efT1`e protecting wa'tar• -quality from sf� of ffcarrc d'ri.,vratio: , W01 LW 4UU' 1 f. JL —I r —v...R.V41V a "T L. e _J Likdin- g. DelaheY Execot-ii-e- Off I -Cer FEa 0 In adoMkq Order 11b. 94 V-7, tkw'Staia Board x0cludeed: Alt is.our- hap4i tfiz-C, -recja:jatiloa -can npw proceed- mdre MP.M. in'tht San Oft9b Basin." Pe Y The Legislature shacud WaUr Qdz Section 1350.6 U 1984,, .as part of a bili autM-ed' by Sena -Tar ItCorquadal e and sponsored PY --de State. Sow -d 0 1 .9 2131 - i1984 Gal. Stats. Ch. 134y .) The. b f I I &Akl.S peimar-i ly w6th r_jy�l -11abTliq for water quality vibilations. Section'S of thLe W.11, Whio adids Secti6n ISS-233-5'to the 16ater Co4,.,, was. ikddtd -to tine 1 ilj_ as part• of aL paOwae of madments offered by -Assemblyman- iieOeq, 9W pmented the bill In Ue- Assmably. Calf fbrzriaU#gf sl#W-e, 198344 Reaular S*s1F'=' Assembly Daily ,Journal 38492, 197W (AugLMt'27* 1984). 1,6so amenoventi were =do affur vhe bil I - bad passed =thg. Assafil y Uys and s6ads cmjartte4_ anti biallbry thes bill pess2d the Assz*1:y. Calff"ta, Ltgisl-Mrt, X89 -K R"91 Ar S"M on, 'Sematt Recafss'HisUry 775 (bctabar 1084). Al,ttw ligisTat-i've record does -not 'iq%dfi:Wte tlhe- reason for zAedfng this seiittpn" -the. Stat* Ward recognizes that it fts 'Mded at the behest -of As$,-obj-yWgR -Sterl Ing,, -a meabor- of the Ways. and iLeam CoMfttaA, Why fvpres�nts a district in the- Sm Dior tjf6' sUtme Board tof tis belief 04--amandmexr- was DLCOSS. ecensi i.�amat.I_On -PmjW--ts in tho San of ego btsfahavwmot pr*c-.ede4 rkoj'dly emuo.* Uniting the Ragjpnal 2Wr&Vs-d1-sqrvticm to dwW water reef mation rmni raments Day JbiT p =mmt •recl.a2tWir' pr -AJ ects, bft- ;&&IM -y vf I I -not db much to encauraq* recl:amotionperkU which vied w� * idl=harge requirements. D1S-USsi=s tetwbeirMsemblymM SUA400 Vgd'Stata Eloarxl- mobers vA staff Indt-i-aU -*zd A� Iymim SterlIve le'anded . t4fieir?_4 tha. hu a26nftwt pr obah7Y-Woul d -&-Imi-e to prime vastewaur r4amettan than Is Tibely to results. fr= the,--sUtutory jangu� Wed by the eaund t. But bit' i#1 icable rulAsdf.,#?.tM1ry dmtructi-am do not it thl St-&tz goat W cannruerUatar. -CO& 5e&,6. I*= - 13SO - 5 so , 43 -U uthorime' I SsUlAre of - WAZU -.dt�zr� -reMli rezents whlcb WA & pervit a in conflict with &�bLOiL-pl%v. ablax-tive. In cmsuzns a suwtg, the 'Ca11fOr-niA'COVr.0 WM hOt CDn3i1kr the MOVY" or UndV-3tandfcp of indlyiftal 1 egA-slaTo " Stitem.w.ft u ofir Veraa-1 belief or in -t -wt' by UO'I'vidual, -bigisi.atam, -Oviin b.Y the aiftor af, a. �.111 , are ve, admi ssib le smie of I egg sl z 'M ve fntents--, he 010y, exteptlbns W -this 1-01t used to throm"cl e: OffiAs I eaAing vp U W= &C"a" of 1 egisI.G-tiom" -ivid •for, statfteaii-13rfuted upon x0tftm- of the LegisTehl-re as. -a- lettw-ev-1-evistative item. fterrim, stftMehft., by i zdi4d. dual I e9ts I-atars as M. 166_�ea:ntno br, -Purwsa' `6# -' Am enazit.-`iet j#j 4 a. Tkachery Amcar l'4n 1-i. Sm. - be� P consl dmcr by titre cuufts.� -,Tel Morld, bi- t==W1jtY 61.1 !te zfvtri M' C&M.34 C_92, -7W7 ble IVU A=vrdin§1y. the Stxtk.Ahd Woft] SoTafrd--- s. have -no -choice' but to ftterpmt 94a x Cadi 4.2--4.100 1 3M. -0 is 9--itorden"o: Ath its Plain - meanim-, as gicrbT a water -CrIZUBS an- .gxC%3tfOn to. Aegi-oval' Ruai'd1s: ccl'igait3zb -the aoplfcabli ka-sth PT an viron, wpaste,-dischar ts -ftsuecr� . ge reqv1r=tn are .tadi n Vit_. Dal awy - - Executive- dff.Ficer `- -4- -FES 67 05 At the same time, -it € pst be recogoizied that Vt r Code Sectiva Lim. J is. ane 0 sevara3' Vtteer� We Secti.aas eflliiu ps a Tegislative fatent to, praeats r►+astg�ret r�ec1 aaa do - See tera3ly Cal. Vater- C. SSS•, IMOf 1210. 13510. ` 135x 1, 13512, I3 , n#530,• %355,1 . Mile. these . sectigms iia sat override' the q=Mc regVr is of the Parter4aiogne Ulter.-QUIi`ty Contml, Act ca merAUS issuance .041M di scUrge r`grrirewnts, where the Stat_ .and Regional Boards have dt=petiow under tht act -thee pw 44. e i.RtQ account 'tbe 1:09is7 atiire pal -icy -of pronati'. wastewater tiee�a�htiats. In stttiag yder 4al-f ty 6 je�ml ves the Ste `e -and Rog ional Sbards • 0101fld �&�der the nom, for wastgwater rec matron, and in. prescr•ib3ng sft - . dfscharg�e r.-equirma tts the -5taie aaii Reyi.onal Board's sha ild seek to: encourage wastewaur reci,= tion where con-sistent with water qual ity an�3e::cfYes. - 0 11iae R. Attwa'ter �x Harry.SawalIar Assistant Deputy Director State Board Lynn Johnson - liner• a$ghts Randy Kanoase 01.PA r.oc: Regicual Board Azrora.�$ JUN -14-2604 11:08 FZOM:COMM DELI 209937BB93 TO:209 333 5842 P.004,004 MW M 5� CITY OF STOCKTON COMMUNITY DSVELOFMWr DEPARTMBNT City HA1i • 425 N. fil Aorado Street • Stockton, CA 95242-1997 (209) 937-8266 June 14, 2004 City of Lodi Community Development Department Konradt Salem, Cornnvonity Development Director P.O. Box 3005 Lodi, CA 95241 Attention. Ekabeth Hughes COMMENTS REGARDING THE DRAFT EWRONl ISMTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE CITY OF LOW WWE GL OUGH WAVER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY L18�CF1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (8011 PROJECT City of Stockton staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the WhI1e Slow WPCF SOI Project, The City of Stockton has several concerns related to the adequacy of the DEIR, as follows: The SOi expansion area request Is premature because the amount of land required for the three options varies from 2,310 acres to 4,470 acme (excludkV buffer areas). Thereellbre, the proposed 801 expansion area could be reduced and thereby mltlgate the B-� environmental effects of the project. A determination of the pre#erred option should be made in consukatton with affected local, state and federal agencies and incorporated Into the $01 request and related environmental document. p The DEIR Is Inadequate because It does not include any discussion with regard W the B-2 propomed SOI and Its relationship to the existing City of Stockton General Plan and SOI boundary. A Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable afternobves to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project but would wy-oldor substant l& lessen any of the significant effeds of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the altematives. The DEIR is not odequate because It does not include an $01 expansion B-3 alternative that explores the viability of MgdM&S the potential usage of the remainder of Shin Kee Tract, as well as areas east of 1-5 and north of Kingdon Road, Tredway (toad, and Harney Lane. The rwnainder of Shin Kee Tract and the noted areas east of 1.5 could be utilized for the SOI expansion and ultimate WPCF expansion. If such an Stacktk on 1999 JUN -34-2004 11:08 FRO : COMM DEU 20%37SB93 TD:209 333 6942 P. 002/004 City of Lodi Community Developmont Depeftent June 14, 2004 Page 2 atternattve was previously considered bit not further analyzed in the EIR, no account of B-3 this consideration was Included In the SIR as specified by �e CEQA Guidelines. �(CO1} . The City of Lodi proposed this SOI expansion after the City of Stockton released no Draft General Plan Study Area Map on August 13, 2003, On September 15, 20M, more than a month after the release of the Study Area Map, the City of Lodi released its NOP for the SOI showing an overlap batween potential boundaries. A representative from the City of Lodi attended the OPAT meeting of September 24, 2003 and did not mention B-4 Lodl's proposal to change its SOI boundary. The City of Stockton released its Draft Preferred General Plan Land Use, Circulation and 801 boundary Map on May 26, 2004, that shows an overlap of the noted Sd1 boundaries. The City of Stockton requests that the City of Lodi amend its poesibie $01 expansion boundary so that it does not con#iict with the City of Stockton's potential S01 boundary. D The City of Stock n's Draft Preferred General Plan Land Use, Circulation and SOI boundary Map designatea three urban •'pillages" which mriap andfot ImmedlaWy abut the City of Lodre proposed WPCF $01 sol.thsrly boundary. The' potential urian ruses which may be developed adjacent to the City of Lodre proposed WPCF expansion area would be exposed to potentially significant adverse air quality and other unacceptable B-5 land use compatibility conflicts. Thm potential Impacts should be addressed in the EER and mi#gated by recitrectirig the WPCF expgnslon to the north by maxlrnlzing the use of the remainder or Shin Kee Tract and lands east of 1-5, north of Kingdon Road, Tredway Road and Harney Lane. The City of Stockton believes that areas slated to accommodate growth In the City of Lodi should logically be located closer to the City Itself. The City should shoulder tore responsibility of the WPCF expansion, as well as the benefits. A distribution fiat for the NOP and the 0C1R should be 1 plifded in the DFIR. The City of Stockton Community Development. DepadMent did not recelve a NOP and found out after the and of the 30 -day review period about the proposed Sol expansion. The City B-6 of Stockton thea had to contact the Lodi Community Development Department to request a copy of the NOP and UW it receive a copy of the EIR when It was aircuiatod for public review. )s- For the reasons stated above, and the fad that significant new information should be added to the DFIR, the City of Stockton requests that ti the City of Lodi decides to go forward with the 801 expansion request, tW the DEIR be reclrctated prior to any B-7 discretionary action by the City of Lodi or the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). In closing, h Is our position that the City of Lodi treed not pursue a $OI expansion when it can achieve the project objective of expanding the lard area that may be requited by exercising its B-8 ability to purchase and/or enter Into long-term laaaes to arrive at the same end. I would like to reiterate the City's belief that the City of Lodi should bear the responsibilities (i.e. environmental impacts) of the WPCs" expansion, as well as the benefits. We wish to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above -referenced document and to coordinate our plarnkV efforts. Please - direct copies of subsequent: environmental documentation, as well as any dotifications of meetings regarding the proposed juN.-i4-2864 11:08 FROM -,COMM DEV 2099378893 TO: W9 333 6842 P.OM.,004 City of Lodi ComnwoN D6vetopment Department June 14, 2W PgAe 3 project, to me at the abovb-rwtad addrm. • Should you have any questions regarding our comments please foci free to contirat vee at (209) 9037-8444. J SUTY 3la4SER MUDEVELOPMENT DfREGTQR JEO:DJS:wm ca: Son Joaquin County LOW Agengy Formawn Commission Atte: Sn * Bsracoo, ExecuM Director 1 B4 Esat Hazelton Avenue Stwkton. CA 98285 John Cadmit Un Joaquin Valley Air Poyltt Control Dlstrfat 42.30 Kk man Avers. SuM 334 ModeeW, CA 9W5 emc: Mark Lewis, City Mans�pr Gordon Pslw, Dgwty City MWager Michael M. Nib*k, Deputy DirocW, CDD/Plam" Division. Dgvld J. Stegnaro, AICP, SWor Planr* ::ODMAIORPWISE%COS. CDD.CDD.Llbrary:38WS, 4 I JUN 02 2004 2.32PM CITY OF LODI 203 33'3 61W p.2 Jon -11-2101 10:11 Frow"01VIVON OF LJIND 2Eg01W FIOTMION Sbkoc Memorandum I0WITU30 1-M F.aa0tft.. F-864 THE RKIDURCES AODICY OR CAL ORMA Ta Pro cl Coordinator oar. Juga 1, 2W4 Rosourcas Agency Mr. lied Badlem Lodi Community Devalopffont Department P.O. Box 30M Lobi, CA 96241 AW.I7dlllrmis J• Ac drag As tens Dreclor, Dlwislon of Land Resource Protection s Draft Program Ernirorw11M11 l Impact Report (OPEIR) forthe WhIN SWO Washer Po"son Coretml Feoiiity Stere of lnf xwm SON# The Depwtmarrt of COM rvaaiian's DMslon of l.asnd Resouroe Protecdon (Division) rnorsaiiors fer laarnd converebn on a aUdswnicle basis and admk* t m the Caiforria. Land ComeaPvafail7n (Wiliarn3on) Act sand athar agriculk" land oorssenras n programa. The Olvilon hale mvW*ed In vbmm DPEIR and No thea► foia ft cornnortits rith respect to the pmjeasaa polor" irrgxmft on morel lgnd. The prorld involves expansion of the While Slaugh Water Pollution Control Facliity Sphere of irMuence (SO) from 1,044 acres to SAM AMOS 10 saQcanmadaW future Lodi gm*lh. The OPEIR Holes that the city's"of 140 pennant reuse of fluent could not be reaaWed, toreftre, saAaent lamed area would be needso for land deposal of rodam,od water. b osoWs and urban -open swpaoe interface. The DPEIR also now that pralect irtrpM ntaatlon could result in conveaaian sof acgricuthmaaa lands, including WW& under Will4nsort Act contmet, and may involve aoquMm of private lands. The Division recommends fhaat the fostlloOM it ft be addreaed or Clarified in to Fetal Program Ertvirraprnerttal Impact Fi9aort (FPEIA) to dorumW aryl tram the project's impacts an agriculttrrai Tends And lands under WgWrAw Act I or*aot. Williamson Act Issues On Papa 4.1 -0, the DPEIR noles that LOOM Agesltoy Form4tkV1 Corner aAFC Oi) are prohbiled from anrA*q hand under W111larrrs on Act conoW to a city. The DPEIR then daaa that t1w staatuw do" not aappiy the same praohibition to creation of an SOI. An 901 boundary typically defines the probabfa ultimate physical boundaries exi service area of a ldx;l garvsrrvTwOW agency. In many cases, Sot expanaiosns am folM ead by luanmeatlons of the same territory. In fad, Government Cods Section w2e.s rweronces this situsation and prohibits t.AFC•0 approval of an 901 C-1 .gun Ue 2004 2:32PM CITY OF LORI 209 333 6842 p.3 J%*- x-HG4 WU frmrDIVISIO11 OF LAND RETU11110E PROTECTION 11111"2MIX T-169 P.80"M F -SU Mr. Rad eardam June 1, 2004 SubjW Drat Program Enwmnmentsl Impact R%mrt (BPEtR) fw the White Slough Water Pasution Contrd Facility Sphere of tnAuls;t m %I* 200308 Mage 2 of 3 chwuge:that would result in prtwieT m of sewwfwaftr taclllliies or roams to con#ractod areas. (T'i'ts se fon also pmWdes Game eaamptiOM It specified flrurings can be made.) There, the FPEIR should clarify If amexation Is a foresee prject following the SOl expWalon. On Paps 4.1-5 to 4.1.5, the DEIR provides a description of the Callfomid tared Conservation (WHamson) Act and Bs provisions for terminating eMatlrrg centrads Mrough tfk► ronrenwal or MMMUM process. It should be noted that, at a general rule, LwW can be WlMdrawn from Wi liarmorr Act cWtImM. only through ft nine-year normewal process, knrnedlate termination Wa cancellation is resestv+ed for 'eatraordlnme, urrbreseen sltuaftne (See SWM club v. city of Hapl►erd (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852-13M). The city or County of yurkdtct n mat approve a request for suet ces vmllation, and base that alpptovai ori apedic findirW ttwkt are supported by substanti8sl sysdence (Goverrsrent Code Section 51262). At 11116 time when WilloWn Act (:dt1UW MWOUatttm is propcysect, we reoorrlrrK 0 then $ d =Mion of the Endings be included in 9* s9 MMAnMI dommmmllon for the project. Finally, the no** of tate hearing to aapprore the tentlsrtive cancellation, and a copy of the landowner's pets on, mast be TriUW to ft Din9ctor of the Depaertmerit at Conservatbon ten (10) woddng days prior to the heaving. (The notice should be mailed to Darryl Young, Director, Department of Conservation, clo Division of Land Resource Protection, 801 K Street MS 18-11)1, ft mento. CA 95814-3520.) C-1 (cont.) C-2 On PAgf 4.1-14, t#Te DPEIR nerves that the ease of future land ac quisi0on is currently unknown. Howe+nl:r, the plc acquislilon of contraeW lambs is a prmbalble foreseeable C-3 action delated to this prvjed and should be discussed. (The lac acquWtlon }process, indUding natlfslWn requires, atlnd required findings tine dewed In Gummment Code Section 51290 et seq.) The Division alo recornrnends inciussllon of a map showing the locations of agricultural C-4 preserves and types d lands under Williamson Act contract (Farmland 5ecurky Zone, prime, nor-prirm) in the proposed 801 area. This irtiMrr agon could be shown on a map similar to F9" 4.1-1. AWIcultuml Land knpwb and Wgiation Me"um The FPEIR should provide further irdomatian on the project`s poteMlal Impacts on agricultural productivity of lands using recta irsned water or used for Mosold disposal. For examples would appliMon result In resVicttons on types of crops grown or time periods in which land COWS cat be used for food production? C-5 On Page 4.1-10, the DPEIR mentions sugges W use of compensatory and strategically tacsAed agricultural=-aervagon easeMnts. The FPEIR should provide further oonsideration of the use of agricultural conservation easements whether eAwant to the Jun Ue EU04 2:32PN CITY aF LODI 2a9 333 6842 P.4 Jun -U-2104 10.22 Fto"V1140KOF LAW AEIOW MIEtTION 11163273430 1-756 1.0004 F-364 Mr. Rad Bardsm Jura 1, 2004 9ubjeft Draft Pro MME Wftarm Impact Ropert (E FUR) fW to water PoIft" CoMroi I=aoiltty Ophero of lnNence SM 200$0920ft P"630f3 PmjW area or elsewhere in ft menu. This could be tau& the WVA purchm of rv4*M essemonft tied 10 the project, owes the donation of mk%pftn fees to a Met M&nal or etas NWO Woarb� or gWWV, rduding iend tusk and omWN t, who" purpose hrcdudss to purchase, tiding and makme ianoe of aptuftn d conservation su menu. Informs ton abW coneenra*m easamw to Is anal on the Dki*Ws wOW, or by oortact ft the Wslon at the addnm acrd phone number haled below. The blvi:lalon's webeft 1ddreaa is: Thank you for to apportwrity 1a cogs on 2* DPIE R. If you hos, gruestions our our comawft, or r+e im techniaai saskonce or inforrwwWon on est rand C-000 - , please mad the Mvilfion at 801 K SfreiK MS 18-01, Sacrarlen14, Cst9onrla 96814; or. phone (918) 824-0850. cs~ San ,bapuln County RCD 3488 Won Ham[W Lane. SUM A S3odcton, CA 982f9 C-5 (cont.) SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMWJNiTY DEYELOPU MT DEPARTMENT 1010 F- HA W W AVE., 8700MR, CA 964061 U PHONE; 20 MM -3121 FAX: M/ft"10 June 1, 2004 Konradt Barham, Community Development Director Community Development Department City of Lodi 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 C.... RECEIVED JUN o3 &4 EE 40 Re: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence EIR Dear Mr. Bartlam: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this item. The Community Development Department has reviewed this item and offers the following comments: Page 4.1-1 "I..and Use/Aarlcuitural ResouMs" The County General Plan designation for the land surrounding the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is AIG (General Agriculture). The zone is AG -40 (General Agriculture, 40 -acre minimum lot size). The land surrounding and including the Kingdon Airport has a General Plan designation of P (Public Facility). Parcel No. 055-320-57, within the Flag City area and along the northern boundary of the proposed Sphere of Influence of the WPCF, has. a Zoning of C -FS (Freeway Service Commercial). Two Use Permits have been approved on this parcel. The first Use Permit is for a full-service truck stop, which includes truck parking, gas and diesel sales, truck repair and maintenance, food services, retail stores, ancillary services, and a truck scale. This Use Permit will expire on July 20, 2004. The second Use Permit is for a 181 -unit recreational vehicle park, which includes an office, clubhouse, maintenance/storage building, and restrooms. This Use Permit will expire on January 18, 2005. Please include the Community Development Department on the EIR mailing list. Feel free to call me at 468-3164 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RayrIn6nd Hoo Associate Planner D-1 D-2 I D-3 JUN 04 2004 11:39AM CITY OF LODI 209 333 6842 p.2 r STATE OF CALIFORNIA .* Governor's Office of Plannin&and Research State Cle.aringhou'e and planning Unit Arnold Ckwarm R�Vfi "'� JUM 2, 2004 ,SUN Q 3 20 Roti BvdmOPT Gitlr of Lodi C" OF LC&r Canmunity. Developer Deparmwnt . P.D. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95242 Siiject: City of Lodi White Slough Want Pollution Cowral Facility Spheit of Ilafluelift SCSIM 2DO3092066 L)OU Rad Hartlaua, The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected stale ap=es for review. The mview period closed ea June 1, 2004, a31d no stale agcwim std coA>ttltstts by that date. This lett E-1 acknowledges that you have coiWhed with the"State Clean ighouse review requ=mcn,ts for draft environmental domata, pursuant to the Califacais Env l Quality Act. Pkase call the State Clean house at (916)445-06I3 if you have any questions regarding the environnxntal review process. If you have a question about the above-named prgje ct, please refer to the tent State Clearinghodsa number when coatactitig this off= smerely, IL tTRo DirwWr, State CkWiNkWC 1400 #ENIM S7RM P.O. BOX 300 &WRAMEITI'Q CALIFORNIA 9M12.31141 T64 (915) 4454613 PAX (911) 333 -Mi s www.Wx pr ,Dino U -r cuu-r 1 1 : JUHM G A 17 OF LOD I 209 333 6842 P.3 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SC/iilt 2003092066 . PMVeCt Title City of Lodi White Slough Water PoWrtion Control Fadlity Sphere of Irdluer= Load Agency Lodi, City of Type EIR Draft EIR desciiptJon The City of Lodi proposes to create an appm6&nate 5.280 acre Sphere of Influence to provide land that would potentially be required for wastewater storage and disposal facWles Assoc{aid with itis WhKe Slough WPCF for City of Lodi General Plan buildout flow conditions if future surface water discharges were determined to be unfeasible. Lead Agency Contact - - Name Rad 6artiam Agency CIty of Lodi Phorle 2W333-6711 I:klx email Address Community Developmem Department P,p. Sox 3006 _._ City Lodi' Project Location - cou ty San Joaquin City Region Cross Stiroefs 1-5 PWVW NO. rowaship Range Section Base Proximity to: Htphteeys I -S A+r"M Kingon Drag Strip RaUwoys BNSF wJftrmys DredW Cut, Bishop cud, white Sloto Schools Land Use City of Lodi Zoning for the existing WPCF is "Public". Son Joaquin County Zoning for the whainder of the lands is "ilgricuture 40". Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual: Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeoiogio•Historic; Drainage/Absorptlon; Mood PlairVFiooding: GoologiclSeismic; Public Services; RecreatioryParks; Soil Em_Wgn/Cgrnu*orrlc3radirr�; Solid Waste; ToxidHazardous; TratficiCkCulation; Wildlife; Water Supply; WetlandlRipartan; Water Quality; Vegnfation; Grvrvltt inducing; Landuse; Cumulative I fieds R*vknwing Aesources Agency; Deparimerrf of+ Conservation; Department of Fish and Game. Region 2; Delta Ageasles Proieotlon Commission; Department of harks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources: Callrans, District 10: Department of Food and Agrkulture; Integrated Waste kUnagernenl Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water PmWam State Water Resources Control Board. Ohision of Water Quality; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento); Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Recehred 04/15/2044 Start of Review 04/15/2Uo4 End of Review 06/01/2004 Note., Blanks in data fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. CHAPTER 4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 4.0 RESPONSE TO COMA4ENTS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR LETTER A. BRETT S. JOLLEY /RICHARD E. STOwELL, HERUM CRABTREE BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAw 1 ECOLOGIC RESPONSE A -I Public Resources Code section 21067 provides that the lead agency is "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment." CEQA Guidelines, section 15051 provides that "[i]f the project will be carried out by a public agency, that agency shall be the lead agency even if the project would be located within the jurisdiction of another public agency." Here, Lodi has prepared a program EIR for a proposed Sphere of Influence amendment around the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility to assure sufficient area. for the future construction of land disposal, storage facilities, and buffer space to serve long-term future growth of the City of Lodi. Lodi will be the agency carrying out the project. LAFCO will have discretionary approval authority over the project. Thus, Lodi is the lead agency and LAFCO a responsible agency. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21069 (defining responsible agency); see also Ci of Reddin v. Shasta Cmp- LAFCO, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1169 (1989) (city, not LAFCO, was the lead agency for a proposed annexation by the city; LAFCO was a responsible agency). Additionally, where two or more agencies are potential lead agencies, CEQA Guidelines section 15051(d) permits the agencies to designate one agency as lead agency by agreement. Prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, Lodi consulted with the San Joaquin LAFCO regarding designation of the lead agency on this program. LAFCO agreed that Lodi should serve as the lead agency for the program. Loch's lead agency designation and status was verified by Bruce Banraco, LAFCO Executive Officer, several times. The initial conversations between Lodi staff and the Executive Officer took place prior to initiating Lodi's environmental document, more than a year ago. Follow up conversations occurred in March 2004 and again on June 24, 2004. LAFCO staff and legal counsel advised Lodi that Lodi should be the Lead Agency, with LAFCO having a responsible agency role. It should also be noted that a recently released proposal from the City of Stockton to expand its Sphere of Influence designates the City of Stockton as the lead agency under CEQA. Thus, designation of cities as lead agencies for sphere of influence amendment designations does not appear to be uncommon. Hughes Emtirormantal Consultants, Inc. 4-1 City of Lodi "iieSloWh WPCFSphereoflhfl—e Judy 29, 2004 Final Program EIR 4.0 Response to Comxwnts on tke Draft PrWwm EIR RESPONSE A-2 Several of the comments in this letter refer to the inadequacy of the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR as a project -level EIR. The proposed Sphere of Influence has been analyzed as a program; therefore, a program -level EIR has been prepared as required under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIR.s, each applicable to different project circumstances. The Draft EIR prepared for the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168. Under CEQA, a Program EIR is a first-tier environmental document that assesses and documents the broad environmental impacts of a program with the understanding that more detailed review may be required to assess future projects implemented under the program. The Program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a new governmental program or to adopt a new body of regulations in a regulatory program. The Program EIR for the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that could potentially occur as a result of program implementation and to anticipate WPCF buildout development that could occur as a result of the proposed Sphere of Influence program (City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR, pages 2-1-2-2). In the Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR, three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence are considered, and the potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for these three options have been analyzed on a program level. Project -level environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted prior to any actions taldng place in the Sphere of Influence (City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR, page 4-2). Implementation of the proposed program as discussed in the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR would result in the formation of a sphere of influence only. It would not result in or allow for the development of any real property, i.e., it would not be an "action" requiring a project -level CEQA review. The implementation of a Sphere of Influence does not include changes related to reorganization, such as annexation to a City, nor does it grant development entitlements or approvals. CEQA Section 15152(f)(3)(C) was recently revised, and now requires Lead Agencies to prepare subsequent EMs for projects included in program -level analyses even if the program -level EIR concludes a significant unavoidable impact for a certain resource area. In the subsequent EIRs, the Lead Agency must present analyses for significant and unavoidable impacts and must adopt specific overriding considerations for the particular project, even if these overriding considerations have already been adopted for the program -level EIR. For the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence program -level EIR, for example, the land use and agricultural resource impacts (identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts) would need to be reevaluated in detail in the CEQA document prepared for specific project to be constructed within the Sphere of Influence. CEQA provides that an EIR is to discuss growth inducing impacts of the project. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(5); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126(d); 15126.2(d). A general analysis of the projected r City ofl odi Whine Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfluence 4-2 Hughes Environmental Cwsuftnts, Inc. } Final Program FIR July 19, 2W4 4.0 Response to Comments on tke Draft Program EIR growth is sufficient; detailed analysis is not required. See Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa Countt Bd. of Sup.'s, 91 Cal. App. e 342, 369 (2001). The Draft EIR sets forth its discussion of growth inducing impacts of the proposed program and includes a discussion of growth anticipated under the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County General Plans. The Draft EWs discussion of growth inducing impacts is sufficient under CEQA. The citation on page 6-1 of the EIR has been corrected (see corrected page 6-1 included in Chapter 5.0). A. The comment refers to "conditions on the ground" which the commentator suggests should be considered, but does not specify the conditions to which the commentator is referring. The suggested growth inducing impacts presented by the commentator are speculative. In addition conditions "on the ground" do not differ substantially from what is described in the City of Lodi General Plan. A City of Antioch v. City Cquncilof the City of PittsburYy 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325 (1986) and Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanishm 33 Cal. App. 4th 144 (1995), cited by the commentator do not compel further analysis of growth inducing impacts. Stanslaus Audubon Society, Inc. concerned the approval of a negative declaration for a country club. City of Antioch concerned the construction of a roadway and related improvements. Both cases concerned the approval of a negative declaration, and the issue i% both cases was whether it was necessary to prepare an EIR at all in light of future contemplated protects. Here, the City has prepared an EIR (as opposed to a negative declaration). An EIR is a much more substantial form of environmental review than a negative declaration. The Draft EIR properly analyzes growth inducing impacts, as provided by CEQA. The comment refers to the impact of the Sphere of Influence as growth inducing because the City may consider in the future receiving wastewater from other agencies, including the City of Galt. The City has had no discussions with Galt regarding receiving Galt's wastewater. There is no reason to conclude that the establishment of the Sphere of Influence would be growth inducing, as any potential future connection to the WPCF would need to be evaluated in detail and any growth inducing issues would be addressed through subsequent project -level EIR documents. RESPONSE A-3 A & B, CEQA provides that an EIR is to discuss cumulative impacts. "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4-3 City of Lodi White Staagh WPCFWem oflnjl —e Judy 29, 2004 Final Program EIR 4.0 Response to Comments on the Draft Program EIR other environmental impacts. See CEQA Guidelines § 15355. An EIR's discussion of cumulative impacts is guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness. See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b). A discussion of cumulative impacts may be based either on a discussion of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A), (B). The City's Draft EIR properly sets forth a discussion of anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed program in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIR, considering growth and development forecasts for the City of Lodi General Plan and the San Joaquin County General Plan. See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(B). The comment identifies two projects (the ProStyle Sports Complex and certain residential and commercial development underway near Eight Mile Road and Highway 12). According to personal communication between Konradt Bartlam of the City of Lodi and Anders Hauge of PARSONS, the Prostyle Sports Complex is not moving forward and has been withdrawn. Therefore, this project has not been included in Section 3.4 of the DEIR. As noted on page 4-3 of the DEIR, the cumulative analysis is based on approved and anticipated urban development in the City of Lodi and surrounding area, therefore the commercial and residential developments at Eight Mile Road and Highway 12 are included in the cumulative analysis of the Sphere of Influence at a program -level of analysis. As discussed above for Response A-2, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project option eventually chosen by the City of Lodi would be analyzed in detail in the project -level EIR that would be prepared for the project. The commentator's citation to Rural Landowners Ass'n v._City of Lodi, 143 Cal. App. 3d 1013 (1983), does not support the proposition asserted, to wit, that omission of consideration of the projects identified by the commentator constitutes a "prejudicial legal error." The Rural Landowners Ass'n case found prejudicial error in the city's approval of a project prior to its submission of the environmental documents to the State Clearinghouse, as required by CEQA. That is not the case here. The Draft EIR here was properly circulated to the State Clearinghouse for comment. See State Clearinghouse No. 2003092066. An urban -open space interface is included as part of the proposed program, resulting in the maintenance of buffers between the proposed project option, once it is selected, and surrounding land uses (see pages 3-15 through 3-17 in the DEIR). The potential sizes of buffers are presented in the Sphere of Influence DEIR, however, the exact sizes of the buffers would be determined once a specific proposed project option is selected. RESPONSE A-4 As discussed above in Response A-2, implementation of the proposed program as discussed in the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR would result in the formation of a sphere of influence only. Potential impacts of the three options for the Sphere of Influence Program have been discussed on a program level in the DEIR. As discussed in Response A-2 and in the impact discussions in Section 4.8 of the DEIR, City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphem ofln}luence 4-4 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Final Program ETR July 29, 2004 4.0 Response to Comments on the Draft Program EIR project -related impacts will be analyzed in detail in the project -level EIR once the proposed project option is selected by the City of Lodi. A. As discussed above for Response A-3, the ProStyle Sports proposal is no longer being pursued. As discussed above for Response A-2, potential odor effects and mitigation that could result from the implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage options have been discussed in Section 4.8 of the DEIR. Specific odor -related impacts and mitigation would be discussed in more detail in the project -specific EIR once a proposed project option is selected by the City. As cited on page 4.8-11 of the DEIR, West -Yost & Associates, on page 17 of its Technical Memorandum on the City of Lodi Water Pollution Control Facility Sphere of Influence (October 23, 2003), presents information on industry - suggested minimum odor buffer distances, and a minimum odor buffer distance of 500 feet is recommended. Once the specific proposed project option has been selected, a more detailed analysis of the size of the proposed odor buffer would be included in the project -specific EIR to be prepared by the City of Lodi. The necessity for the implementation of additional odor -reducing mitigation would be considered in this project -specific EIR. See discussion of City of Antioch v. City Council of the City of Pittsburghh included in Response A-413 below. B. A condition requiring compliance with environmental regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure. See Leaonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal, App. 3d 1337, 1355 (1994). The Draft EIR suggests air quality mitigation through future WPCF Sphere of Influence buildout compliance with the following air quality regulatory plans/policies: City of Lodi General Plan air quality policies, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control policies, the 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and Amended 2002 and 2005 Rate of Progress Plan, and the California Air Act Triennial Progress Report and Plan. See Draft EIR at 4.8-11 to 12. City of Antioch v. City Council of the City of Pittsburgh,, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325 (1986), cited by the commentator, involved the adoption of a negative declaration. The court set aside the negative declaration based on a finding of a potentially significant impact, and required an EIR. The court noted that compliance with the general plan alone does not insulate a project from the preparation of an EIR where it can be fairly argued that the project will generate a significant environmental impact. Id. at 1332. Here, the City of Lodi is preparing an EIR (as opposed to a negative declaration). The draft EIR has identified impacts and proposed mitigation measures. The mitigation measures proposed in response to Hughm Em Wonnwntal Consultants, Inc. 4-5 City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere oflnflmwe July 14, 2004 Final Anq ram EIR 4 0 Response to Comments on the Draft Program BIR identified air quality impacts are not limited to compliance with L"'s General Plan, but proposed compliance with other air quality standards, as well. C. As discussed above for Response A-2, potential air emission effects and mitigation that could result from the implenKntation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage options have been discussed in Section 4.8 of the DEIR. Impact 4.8.2 discusses the potential construction -related emissions that could result from the construction of whichever WPCP option is chosen by the City, including dust (which would include fine particulate matter). Specific air quality -related impacts and mitigation would be discussed in more detail in the project -specific EIR once a proposed project option is selected by the City. The City would determine at the time of the future environmental review whether or not the preparation of a health risk assessment is warranted. In general, health risk assessments are prepared for facilities emitting toxic substances, e.g., toxic "hot spots" emitting cancer-causing substances, which would not be the case for the WPCF. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District was sent both the Notice of Preparation and the DEIR for the proposed program and has expressed no concerns regarding the program to the City of Lodi. RESPONSE A -S Sphere of Influence amendments and detached annexations are planning tools that are encouraged under California Law to prevent land use conflicts. See Cal. Gov't Code sections 56001, 56425. Lodi's SOI amendment is needed to prevent just that, land use conflicts. Indeed, the City's proposed program includes a buffer between the pollution control facility and any uses that may border it. Land use planning decisions, such as the amendment of a sphere of influence, do not constitute "takings" of property by government agencies. See e.g. Selby v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal. 3d 110 (1973) (enactment of a general plan is not an inverse condemnation or taking). By the program analyzed in this EIR, the City of Lodi is not seeking to acquire property and is not seeking to devalue property or avoid its obligations to pay the fair market value of any land it may acquire. If and when the City of Lodi makes any acquisitions of property it will comply with the California and United States Constitutions in all respects, including just compensation provisions of these Constitutions. RESPONSE A-6 As discussed above for Response A-2, potential agricultural effects and mitigation that could result from the implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage options have been discussed in Section 4.1 of the DEIR. Because there is no physical development associated with the establishment of a Sphere of Influence, agricultural lands would not be lost as part of the proposed program. Specific agricultural impacts (including the quantification of agricultural lands or production to be lost, if applicable) and City oflndi While Slough WPCFbph— oflnfheence 46 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Final Program EIR July 29, 2004 0 Response to Commen& on the Draft Program EIR mitigation would be discussed in more detail in the project -specific EIR once a proposed project option is selected by the City. As discussed on pages 4.1-15, 4.1-16, 7-1, and 7-2 of the DEIR, cumulative impacts to agricultural lands may be significant since the proposed program would be located almost entirely on agricultural lands, and, depending upon the proposed project option selected by the City, some of this land may require conversion to reuse wetlands, storage ponds, and/or percolation basins. This impact is considered cumulatively significant in the DEIR even after the implementation of mitigation. The addition of estimated acreage impacts to Williamson Act lands is unlikely to change this conclusion and would not represent significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR under CEQA Section 15088.5. RESPONSE A-7 As discussed above for Response A-2, potential traffic effects and mitigation that could result from the implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage options have been discussed in Section 4.6 of the DEIR. Because there is no physical development associated with the establishment of a Sphere of Influence, traffic impacts would not directly result as part of the proposed program, however potential impacts of possible projects under the program have been discussed in the DEIR. Specific traffic impacts (including expected changes in levels of service within the area and expected numbers of construction - and operation -related car and truck trips) and mitigation would be discussed in more detail in the project - specific EIR once a proposed project option is selected by the City. RESPONSE A-8 The information presented in the EIR document was not correctly transferred from the Sphere of Influence Technical Report that was developed by WYA. The flood zone information should be stated as follows: "The 1 -in -100 year flood zone extends through approximately half of the City's existing properties. Therefore, if these area are to be used extensively for the expansion of the City's treatment, storage, or wetland reuse facilities, it is likely that a Letter of Map Revision that modifies the 100 -year flood zone boundary, (such that these properties would not be included in this 100 -year flood zone), would be required. A Letter of Map Revision for Bishop Cut Tract, south of the Rio Blanco Tract, was applied in 1992 based on upgrades that were made to the levees surrounding that property. Therefore, there is potential for a similar Letter of Map Revision to be granted for the Rio Blanco Tract and/or the City's properties. Another potential option is for the City to construct additional levees surrounding the proposed storage and wetland area to exclude 1 -in -100 year flood events. FEMA flood insurance rate maps show the 100 -year flood elevation for the treatment plant area at elevation 8 feet based on the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum. FEMA typically requires a three-foot free board above Hughes EnvlronnwrM Camulfanfs, tm 4-7 City of Lodi White Slough WPCF,"m oflnfluenee July 19, 2004 Final Program ER 4.0 Aespoam to Commosts on the Draft Program EIR the 100 -year flood elevation; therefore, levees would need to be constructed at approximately 11 feet. It has been assumed for this report that the storage and wetland facilities will be located inside the flood zone based on the other desirable criteria of this area, such as proximity to existing facilities, ease of conveyance, and preferred soil types. However, if neither a letter of map revision nor additional levee construction were approved, then the storage and wetland facilities would likely need to be relocated to outside of the flood zone where the proposed land application facilities are located. The displaced land application area would then be relocated to inside the flood zone." RESPONSE A-9 A. CEQA Section 15126.6 states: "an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project." The DEIR considers two alternatives: the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The consideration of this number of alternatives is reasonable for a program -level document (see response above for comment A-2). As mentioned in the response to comment letter B from lames E. Glaser, City of Stockton Community Development Department, the areas specifically mentioned in the comment letter were primarily precluded from the Sphere of Influence due to conveyance issues. The remainder of the Shin Kee Tract is surrounded by water and levees; therefore, conveyance of effluent to this location would be significantly more difficult than delivery to the designated Sphere of Influence areas. The areas located to the east of I-5 and north of Kingdon Road, Treadway Road, and Harney Lane were also considered; however, if the City were to restrict land application to these areas, the City would need to provide additional pumping and conveyance. Furthermore, any applications north of Hwy 12 or east of the Union Pacific Railroad would require additional subsurface conveyance facilities to circumvent these utilities. These alternatives, and all other potential alternatives to the proposed program, were considered infeasible as there were no other alternatives that could meet the program's objectives. A The No Project Alternative addresses the scenario where the City would not have sufficient area to handle land disposal of all treated effluent generated by the current plant capacity and buildout of the City's General Plan. However, this alternative also assumes that the future requirements imposed on the City by the Central Valley RWQCB for surface water discharge would be so difficult to meet that land disposal of treated effluent would be the only viable option. Therefore, even if a Sphere of Influence was not formed, lands would still be required for future land disposal, and farmland would be affected by land disposal of treated effluent with no proposed urban -open space buffer as identified in the Sphere of influence DEIR. Therefore, the land use conflicts would likely be greater for the No Project Alternative. Cityoflodi *%aeSloagh WPCF Sph— offnfl-- 48 Hughes Environmental Consukaft. Inc. Final Program EIR July 29. 2004 4.9 Response to Comments on the Dmf Program EIR The discussion of the No Project Alternative for hydrology/water quality does not focus on increased capacity. It discusses a regulatory change in the WDRs that would lead the City to total land disposal of treated effluent. As the City currently discharges to surface water, this change in regulation could result in the City needing to implement significant treatment measures to avoid violations. Therefore, land disposal of the City's treated effluent under their existing capacity would be more viable. Therefore, if the WDRs were such that land disposal would be the most viable option, the Sphere of Influence alternative would be environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative in that the Sphere of Influence program identifies specific land disposal options, and the Sphere of Influence DEIR addresses the impacts and mitigation measures associated with this program. RESPONSEA-IO (ECO:LOGICLETTER) The comment states that the proposed Sphere of Influence will have "real, immediate impacts on the owners of the affected properties, regardless of whether any physical modifications are ever made to their properties by the City of Lodi." The Sphere of Influence only allows the City of Lodi to provide input regarding potential future uses of the area designated within the Sphere of Influence and does not give the City discretion over land use. Therefore, the proposed Sphere of Influence would have no direct impact on the land owners' ability to submit future land use/permit applications to San Joaquin County. The comment also presents a detailed discussion of many of the very complex issues that must be addressed in today's ever changing State regulatory climate. While these arguments are valid and must be considered before any future project is implemented, it is not appropriate in the Sphere of Influence program -level EIR. The purpose of the Sphere of Influence is to provide the City with additional flexibility in considering potential future land application options for their treated effluent. It is not clear at this time; however, that land disposal will be the preferred future alternative. Additional treatment and/or source control should also be investigated as potentially viable options for meeting future discharge limitations. The comment also questions the validity of the following statement: "Land application (of effluent) is likely a viable long-term option if the requirements associated with surface water discharge cannot be met." Comment noted. This statement has been modified as following: "Land application of effluent is a potentially viable long-term option if the requirements associated with surface water discharge cannot be reasonably met with available technologies." The comment also questions the potential for a future land disposal project to cause degradation of groundwater in excess of water quality objectives. The City's discharge is to surface waters that have all Huoes Envlranmsnhl Consultants, Ina. 4-9 City of Lodi White Slough WPCFSphere of In l -- July 29, 2004 Final Program OR 4.0 Response to Comments on the Draft Program EIR the same designated beneficial uses as the underlying groundwater. 'Therefore water quality objectives applicable to a land application project would also be applicable to a surface water discharge. Furthermore, land application projects are not subject to aquatic toxicity water duality objectives, which can be some of the most restrictive limitations applied to wastewater discharges to surface water bodies — particularly where no dilution is available for the discharge as is the case for the City of Lodi. Furthermore, many constituents that would potentially cause degradation of a surface water would likely be either further degraded or sequestered within the soil horizon between the land application area and the underlying groundwater. Therefore, it is anticipated that any future surface water limitations will likely be more limiting than potential future limitations placed on a land application project. The City has determined that the establishment of the Sphere of Influence will provide the additional flexibility they may need to consider such an option in the future. Each of the three potential land application projects discussed in the EIR document would have a varying degree of impact on the underlying groundwater. It may be determined that none of the alternatives would be viable as they are presented in the Sphere of Influence EIR and that additional mitigation would be needed to protect underlying groundwater. The comment discusses salinity -based effluent limitations as a particularly onerous restriction that is being placed on land application projects. If it is determined in the future that a land disposal project is the most viable and preferred option, the City will need to take into account the potential impacts on groundwater salinity and perform a detailed assessment similar to the one presented in Attachment C of the comment letter. The comment also states that if the water that is currently applied to the Sphere of influence area for irrigation has less salinity than the City's effluent, future degradation is likely to occur. The City does not have information regarding the current water supply for the Sphere of Influence properties; however, data collected by the City for the first recoverable groundwater in the areas located to the east of the WPCF shows an average electrical conductivity (EC) concentration of greater than 1,000 pmhos/cm (micro mhos/centimeter), while the City's effluent has an annual average EC concentration that ranges from 644 pmhos/cm to 696 pmhos/cm. The City recognizes that future water conservation practices (as well as the application of industrial wastewater and biosolids) may also contribute to additional salinity loadings to the underling groundwater; however, these considerations would need to be taken into account at the time that a future project is being identified. If it is determined that the preferred future discharge scenario would inevitably result in groundwater salinity impacts, the City could potentially implement one (or more) of the following mitigation options: • Blend the effluent with an alternative water supply that does not have high salinity concentrations, thereby reducing the overall impact to underlying groundwater City of Lo& White Slough WPCF,*here oflnflumce 4-10 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Final Program EIR Ady 29, 2004 4.0 Response to Coa mmu on the Draft Program EIR • Treat biosolids to a Class A standard and apply offsite • Require pre-treatment for highly saline industrial discharges Each of these measures would result in a modification to the potential land application projects discussed in the EIR. However, by establishing the Sphere of Influence based on the currently available planning assessment, the City will have an opportunity to continent on potential future uses of the lands surrounding the WPCF. The comment also discusses potential impacts associated with the development of a reuse wetland, including bioaccumulation and mosquito controls. Again, the proposed Sphere of Influence does not in any way commit the City to creating a reuse wetland facility. If in the future, the City determines that such an opportunity is desirable, the issues raised in the comment would need to be considered in detail in a project -level EIR. LETTER B. JAMES E. GLASER, CITY OF STOCKTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESPONSE B -Y As discussed above for Response A-2, the proposed project option has not yet been selected by the City of Lodi, therefore, the program -level EIR prepared for the Sphere of Influence has included all of the potential areas that might be impacted once the proposed project option is selected. A Reduced Acreage Alternative has also been analyzed in Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR. Upon adoption of the Sphere of Influence by LAFCO, the City of Lodi will evaluate the proposed project option and alternatives in a project -level EIR. Affected local, state, and federal agencies will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed project option in the Notice of Preparation and project -level DEIR. RESPONSE B-2 The Sphere of Influence DEIR discusses the City of Stockton General Plan Update, which includes the existing General Plan and Sphere of influence, on pages 3-6 and 4.1-5. The impact analysis in this EIR is based on expected impacts resulting from the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence, as well as approved and anticipated urban development in the City of Lodi and surrounding area, and as identified in the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, the Lodi Community Plan, the City of Stockton General Plan, and discussions with the City of Stockton regarding its General Plan Update (Stagnaro 2003). The current Study Area Map for the General Plan Update includes a Planning Boundary that extends north to Armstrong Road, which is within the proposed City of Lodi Sphere of Influence southerly boundary. Hughes ErwIramn mvial Consultants, Inc. 411 City ofLodi White Sloagh NTCFSpkere ofinfl—e July 24, 2004 Final Program EIR 4 Respenu to Care• mb on i*e Draft Program EIR RESPONSE B-3 During the development of the Sphere of Influence Technical Report, a detailed discussion of site suitability was presented. As discussed in that document, the areas around the WPCF that were evaluated for inclusion within the Sphere of Influence were considered based on the following criteria: • Proximity to the WPCF • Zoning • Delta Boundary • Flood Zone • Ease of Conveyance • Soil Types • Airport Set -Back Distances Based on a review of all of these criteria the proposed Sphere of Influence area was identified as the preferred location for potential future land disposal activities. The areas specifically mentioned by the comment were primarily precluded from the Sphere of Influence due to conveyance issues. The remainder of the Shin Kee Tract is surrounded by water and levees; therefore, conveyance of effluent to this location would be significantly more difficult than delivery to the designated Sphere of Influence areas. In addition, conveyance to the Shin Kee Tract would require crossing a state wildlife area. The areas located to the east of I-5 and north of Kingdon Road, Treadway Road, and Harney Lane were also considered; however, if the City were to restrict land application to these areas, the City would need to provide additional pumping and conveyance. Furthermore, any applications north of Hwy 12 or east of the Union Pacific Railroad would require additional subsurface conveyance facilities to circumvent these rights -of way. The DEIR considers two alternatives: the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Acreage Alternative. The consideration of this number of alternatives is reasonable for a program -level document (see response above for comment A-2). These alternatives, and all other potential alternatives to the proposed program were considered infeasible, as there were no other alternatives that could meet the program's objectives. RESPONSE B-4 Comrrrent noted; this comment is not related to an environmental issue. The City of Lodi has spent more than one year analyzing the options for the Sphere of Influence Program EIR; West Yost and Associates has been under contract with the City in order to analyze this program since 1999. On September 25 and October 21, 2043, the City of Lodi requested that the City of Stockton remove land owned by the City of Lodi from. the City of Stockton's Study Area for the ongoing General Plan Update (see Appendix A for letters from Konradt Bartlam, City of Lodi Community Development Department, to James Glaser, City City of Lm* ML -gawk WPCFS*k—offio— ce 412 HuWm EnWwNnental Consuftoft, Inc. Find PhWam MR Aly 29. 20014 4.0 Response to Comments on the Draft Prograin EIR of Stockton Community Development Department). The Notice of Preparation for the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence EIR (dated September 15, 2003) and the DEAR (dated April 14, 2004) were both mailed to the City of Stockton Community Development Department (see Appendix B for the mailing list for the Notice of Preparation and DEIR). The proposed Lodi Sphere of Influence is outside of the Stockton Sphere of Influence that was in existence at the time of the release of the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR. The continent indicates that the City of Stockton released a Draft Preferred General Plan Land Use, Circulation and Sphere of Influence boundary map on May 26, 2004. The City of Stockton map shows an overlap of the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence Boundaries as described in the City of Lodi Program Sphere of Influence Draft Program EIR, which was released on April 14, 2004 to the State Clearinghouse and the public for a 45 -day review. The City of Stockton needs to take into consideration that their proposed Sphere of Influence overlaps the City of Lodi's proposed Sphere of Influence. RESPONSE B-5 The proposed program does not represent an expansion of the Lodi WPCF. As discussed above in Response A-2, implementation of the proposed program as discussed in the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR would result in the formation of a sphere of influence only. Potential impacts of the three options for the Sphere of Influence Program have been discussed on a program level in the DEIR. As discussed in Response A-2 and in the impact discussions in the DEIR, project -related impacts will be analyzed in detail in the project -level EIR to be prepared for the WPCF improvements project, once it is selected by the City of Lodi, including potential air quality and land use impacts. See discussion for Response B-3 concerning the infeasibility of the use of the Shin Kee and other suggested lands. RESPONSE B-6 The distribution list for the Notice of Preparation and the DEIR is included in Appendix B of this FEIR. The Notice of Preparation and DEIR were mailed to the City of Stockton Community Development Department as denoted in the distribution list. The City of Stockton has been provided with the opportunity to comment on the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR, and the City of Lodi has prepared Responses BI -B-8 to address these comments. RESPONSE B- % None of the additional information to be added to the DEIR or included in this FOR represents "significant new information" requiring DEI, recirculation according to CEQA Section 15088.5. Hughes EnAronnW to l Consulbnts, Inc. 413 City of Lodi "ire Slough WPCF Sphere oflnfliume July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR 4.0 Response to Comments on the Draft Program EIR RESPONSE B-8 See Response A-5 above. LETTER C. DENNIS J. O'BRYANT, THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION RESPONSE C-1 The City of Lodi has no plans to annex lands, including current Williamson Act lands, within the Sphere of Influence at this time. The proposed program would not result in the provision of sewer/water facilities or roads to contracted areas. As discussed above in Response A-2, implementation of the proposed program as discussed in the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence DEIR would result in the formation of a sphere of influence only. Potential impacts of the three options for the Sphere of Influence Program have been discussed on a program level in the DEIR. As discussed in Response A-2 and in the impact discussions in the DEIR, project -related impacts will be analyzed in detail in the project -level EIR to be prepared for the WPCF improvements project, once it is selected by the City of Lodi, including potential impacts to agricultural lands and Williamson Act lands. RESPONSE C-1 See Response C-1 above concerning future environmental review. In necessary, the City would follow required regulations concerning the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts as discussed in the comment, including notification of the Director of the Department of Conservation. RESPONSE C-3 If the acquisition of contracted lands is required under the proposed project option selected, the City would analyze potential impacts and mitigation as discussed in Response C-1. The City of Lodi is aware of and has experience in the public acquisition process, including the notification requirements and the required findings as detailed in Government Code Section 51290 et seq. Lands would not be acquired until the CEQA process is complete and the proposed project option approved. RESPONSE C-4 As discussed in Response C-1 above, a figure showing the location of Williamson Act lands will be included in the project -level EIR that would be prepared for the project by the City of Lodi. City of Lodi White Slough WPCFS,phere oflnfluenue 4-14 Hughes Environmental Consuftants, Inc. Final Program EIR July 29, M 4.0 Response to Commmb on the Draft Program EIR RESPONSE C -S See Response C-1 for a discussion of future environmental review. In the further environmental review of the proposed project option, once selected, the City would analyze impacts and propose necessary mitigation if the use of reclaimed water or biosolid disposal would occur on agricultural lands. LETTER D. RAYMOND HOO, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESPONSE D-1 As discussed above in Response C-1, project -related impacts will be analyzed in detail in the project -level EIR to be prepared for the WPCF improvements project, once it is selected by the City of Lodi, including potential impacts to agricultural lands. Figures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 have been revised and are included in Chapter S.Q. RESPONSE D-2 The parcels noted are outside of the Sphere of Influence (see Figure 4.1-1, which has been revised). The San Joaquin County Community Development Department is included on the Notice of Preparation and DEIR distribution list (see Appendix B). LETTER E. TERRY ROBERTS, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE RESPONSE E-1 Comment noted. Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4-15 City of Lodi Wkite Slough WPCFSphere ofh)luence July 29, 2004 Final Program ErA CHAPTER 5.0 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 5,4 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIRlEA Changes to the text of the Dmf} Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been identified in the responses to comments section of this document (Chapter 4.0). None of these changes constitute new significant information or result in any significant impacts of the proposed project. Replacement pages of the DEIR are included here with edited sections identified with strikeouts and underlines. Hines Environmental Consultants, Inc. 5-1 City ofLoth White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence July 29, 2004 Final Program EIR The P–roDosed SOI has been agnalmd as a • thereforea o -level EIR has been pEwwed as required under CE A. The MA Guidelines idenfify several b2Es of EIRs each a licable to different project circumstances. The Draft EIR prepared„ for the City of Lodi Sphere of Influence (SOD has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Sections 15168. Under CEQ_A, a Program EIR is a first-tier environmental document that assesses and documents the broad environmental impacts of a proMm with the u—nd Mt—anding that more detailed review ma be re aired to assess future rojects implemented under the program. The Program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a new governmental program or to adapt a new body of regulations in areatony program. The Pro ream EIR for the Cijy of Lodi SOI focuses ptMgjjly on the changes in the environment that could pptentiall occur as a result of program implementation and attempts, to the extent feasible, to anticipate WPCF buildout development that could occur as a result of the proposed SOI urogram(City of Lodi SOI DEIR, pages 2-1-2-2). In the Lodi_ SOI DEIR, three Land Disposal and Storage Options within the Sphere of Influence are considered,_ and thepotential environmental impacts and pmgsed mitigation measures for these three options have been analyzed on a program level. Project -level environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted prior to anv actions taking lace in the SOI Litt of Lodi SOI DEIR, paw -2). Implementation of the proposed program as discussed in the Citv of Lodi SOI DEIR would result in a political boundary change only. It would not result in or allow for the development of an ►j real propM, i.e., it would not be an "action" requiring a project -level CEOA review. The implementation of an SOI does not include changes related to reorganization. such as annexation to a City, nor does it grant development entitlements or approvals. Any future specific proposal concerning the use of the Lodi SOI project site would be required to submit an application containing subse uuent environmental review to the City of Lodi iprior to development. CEOA Section 15152(f)(3)(C) was recently revised, and now requires Lead Arfencies to subsequent EIRs for projects included in grogram -level analyses even if the pmgram-level EIR concludes a sianificant_unavoidable impact for a certain resource area. In the subsequent EIRs, the Lead Agency_ must present analyses for significant and unavoidable impacts and must adooptspecific overriding considerations for the particular project even if these ov r�riding considerations have already been adopted for the program -level EIR. , For the City of Lodi SOI prog=4evel EIR, for exarnple, the land use and agricultural resource impacts (identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts) would need to be reevaluated in detail in the CEOA document VpWgMd for ific pLojects to be constructed within the SOI. Hughes Environena W1 Consultants, Inc. 2-4 Cry ofLodf WhfreRough WPCFSphereoflnjl-- duly 19, 2004 Drafi Program EIR 10 Descr' ' s of the Pr® roam The following details the criteria used in developing the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence. LAND DISPOSAL OF RECLAIMED WATER One potential issue with the current WPCF surface water discharge to the Delta is that unknown future effluent limitations could be set that cannot be met with available technologies. As regulations within state policy become more stringent with respect to surface water discharges, wastewater treatment facilities throughout the state are considering advanced treatment technologies and looking toward wastewater reuse to reduce or eliminate surface water discharges. Furthermore, state policies are well established that encourage the use of water reclamation when feasible; therefore, this option would likely be pursued by the City in lieu of extensive advanced treatment facilities. Due to the advantageous location of the White Slough WPCF in a predominantly agricultural area, land a lication of effluent is a pgtatzlly viable Ion -term o tion if the mW4kements associated with surface water discharge cannot be reasonably met with available technologies.-applieahm is Therefore, the proposed White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence would include sufficient land area to provide for 100 percent land disposal at the future flow rate of 11.6 MGD in the event that the Basin Plan, the State Implementation Plan, and/or Total Maximum Daily Load requirements could not be met with available treatment facilities (West Yost 2003). LAND DlspoSAL OF BIOSOLIDS The City has an existing site-specific permit that allows than to apply biosolids an their existing site, which are located inside the Delta Boundary (designated in Section 12220 of the California Water Code). Biosolids are currently applied to approximately 510 acres of the existing City owned properties surrounding the WPCF and the City is currently permitted to land apply biosolids on up to 950 acres of their existing property around the WPCF. However, according to state policy, biosolids application is not encouraged inside the legal Delta Boundary (West Yost 2003). Therefore, if the City needed to expand the existing permitted biosolids disposal area, new properties would likely be needed outside of the designated Delta Boundary. Furthermore, future regulations could potentially be imposed that would require the City to move all existing and future biosolids disposal outside of the Delta Boundary. Under either of these conditions, the City would likely need to identify new areas appropriate for biosolids disposal, where the City may need to procure enough new lands to meet all their future biosolids disposal needs. However, at this time, it is assumed that the City would be City of Lodi White Slough WPCF.Sphem ofinjluenre 3-14 Hughes EFMronmental consultants, Inc. Dmft Program SIR July 4 429 204 4.0 EnvironmentarlAnaysu SCOPE OF THE EIR This Draft Program EIR was prepared primarily using information derived from previous relevant environmental documents and guidelines, including the Technical Memorandum on the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence, the City of Lodi Wastewater Master Plan 2002, the 1988 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Draft and Final EIR, the 1992 White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Supplemental Draft and Final EIR, The City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and the San Joaquin County LAFCO guidelines and criteria. The initial study, combined with comments received in response to the NOP, identified the following issues to be discussed in this EIR: ■ Land Use/Agricultural Resources ■ Geology, Soils and Seismicity Noise ■ Visual Resources ■ Public Services and Utilities ■ Traffic and Circulation ■ Hydrology/Water Quality ■ Air Quality/Odor • Hazardous Materials ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Growth Inducement Cumulative Impacts SETTINGS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SECTIONS As required by CEQA Guidelines, the setting describes the environment in the program and study areas "as it exists before the commencement of the program." The setting is presented from site, local, subregional an/or regional perspectives, as appropriate to each environmental topic. As required by CEQA Guidelines, the effects of proposed Sphere of Influence buildout are defined as changes to the environmental setting that are attributable to the program. The pLoRosed SOI has been anal as a • therefo a -level EIR has been ared as required under CE A. The MAA Guidelinesidenti several jXKs of EIRs each a licable to di u t o ct circumstances. The Draft EIR =Md for the Qfty of Lodi S here of Influence SO has been r as a Progam EIR pmuant to CMA Guidelines Sections 15168. Under CEA a Pro EIR is a first-tier environmental document that assesses and documents the broad environmental ixn acts of a program with the— that more detailed review Mn be Mguired toss future projects implemented under the program. The Program EIR can be used effectively with a decision to carry out a newovernmental Maam or to Adept a new body of TeRUlatiOnS in a regWgLoa program. The Pro am EIR for the Cily of Lodi SOI focusesrimaril on the than es in the environment that could tentiall City of Lodi White Slough WPCFS*hem oflaflue m 4-2 Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. Pmft P -g-- EIR July 4129- 2004 4 0 EnvirommentdAna6wis occur as a result of program implemientation and @A ts, to the extent feasible to anticipate WI'CF buildout development that could occur as a result of the proposed 501 MogMM (City of Lodi S- 1 DEM pages 2-1-2-2). In the Lodi 501 DEM three Land Di; serosal and Storage Options within the Sphere of influence are considered,rand the potential environmental i and mitigation measures for these three options have been analyzed on a program level. Project -level environmental review for implementation of one of the three Land Disposal and Storage Options would be conducted prior to any actions taking place in the SOI L it� of Lodi SOI DEIlL Fagg 421. Irn�lementatipn of the proposedprogram as discussed in the Ci of Lodi SOI DEIR would result m the formation of a sphere of influence only. It would not result in or allow for the development of any real property i.e., it would not be_ an "action" requiring ay> o -level CEQA review. The implementation of an SOI does not include char es related to E2gEginiggon. such as annexation toAAEjW,,_nq_rdoeri it oyM development entitlements or approvals. AnY future specific proposal concerning the use of the Dodi SOI project site would be required to submit an application containinpusubsmuent environmental review to the Cjjy of Lodi prior to devel went. CSE "!A Section 15152M(3 C) was recently revised, and now requires Lead .Agecncies to MMare submwent EIRs for projects included in pr ram level analyses ev_eYn if the Wogsam-level EIR concludes a significant unavoidable impact for a_ certain resource area. In the subsequent EIRs, the Lead Agcy must present analyses for significant and unavoidable impacts and must adoptspecific overndinn considerations for the particular_ project, even if these overriding considerations have already been adopted for the program -level EIR. For the City of Lodi SOI_program-level EIR for example, the land use and agricultural resource impacts (identified as significant unavoidable adverse impacts) would need to be reevalua .ed in detail in the CEA document prepared fors ific projects to be constructed within the SOI. r . !.. _ �•WfAFTAW.41M N row. F f Hughes Environmonhl Consultants, Inc. 4-3 City of Lodi White SloWh WPCF."e- Oflnjl— My #4;9, 2004 Dmf t Progmm EM a f •l f fin• _ +! ♦ • r• wM • rl ':r .rl' a e - TM.x•r rt __ I- _ '+ - �.� � • '� 4 •f. • • r 4. � •� i� • v ♦•s+in .r.r, .aa- •.f �_i 4�.� � �R�} `i - ♦ - _ f 'a `• - y. �l w. ! -'r-- �. r r,' •� +- •*5 T �+ I 'w_�� ? y **__rrta r ! ,'I - •�• i~ -h�r�• 'I•r.T I 'I• •� .�. . •I' I. - -� .� - ♦+.♦ _*♦ r s.'.rrrSSS . r • r""�•. 1� - ,I y. .'I • . ,. � { •I I 1 +} r •,' � « • �a r ' r • r I . r �' 4 ' • . . . *a..Af� a.`a-l+r_ w • • •L rw'a • ►wrl+ r r ! .:"N � . « . I + � • • . . • .4 - • r I • �. it } . � . a ., ..! - • ♦fir'. if y • ♦#{� • r --"r w • • ♦ x r r i t + ♦ r _ •�• •�• ��+ y w'.. r'♦. iS I e+ ate r i -i r.-� r' �.{ -'f• ��� a 1:.=. T. r _ a 66ff .�'r♦ R' aR • it' • Ti r I « - ♦ I V • ... • . i r . ` a '+'f } i i • T• �- --3- -aY'+I a Ta T• •r j� i" .► •'� �• .. rl�"r-a J.,_w '• r ♦ 3 .� + e • a • a . r w • • !Ij Z'a � I far . r .• k ' ♦ ♦ s ♦ F. --f f + a .I r - s r' ' s f i,y�s' - T s -.y..- . . •'Y.'R •- �+. IA. -� '.t .•ny r � �4',,p.r•. I.�. • x rte: Kiaiar r rr• .'1 •.;. l a ♦ • w « « •„,.e. .i -r♦ ' �. �,. z 1' • � <.r ..' arr••'•' +. � 'a'a r ib.• - r- t y'., �• - - !• . if - . .,♦ . • • eY rzYy,y r., s-..5.. , - w ,.. • . Y s • ! ,. • . «i - ' r ' .' . A. *-HMl;E1' ' • 7" a-,:. • y i I I. } `.si+ • 'r'`r'r'•'w .'r°'• rw• • r._. r . • TREDWAY ` 3. �.'a'r !:`'1. •• '•3"' .'1 « w' •~ r5 `'d� _ v �r.- a a d• •- - 7w 'dol _•. r_ •p Y .I RC,µp ' --YYY+ -I it r a • ••i « f,• 'ii• -f Y' V. Rti,• /� /%/ �''' h . . . rs�, .'i•"...I$" . ... . - a.:4 r.` • a. 'T+:x'.r.•>.•T . o' «• - ••$a'• + r�Yj al !' ♦•i+. .•. . . � --a-..-A �'� r ✓r�/ � - � 9. • ••�' �, *• •M.\ .lyr .rP ." r . 'i- �la ''Ir -10 '�••-+'"'s'f -'rf' "I•°� ,b-.s?s •r. .r.+. r a _ /� /' •'•� ✓ .�1. w '. L .• .' • aTt r • !r K J'a� r h••I '� � • � £ /'% _i•'• .' rk �'. '. �4 • n rF �• r -i .I �ra♦r+�:!. • 11 . n.+ ` + / / / /'r /' r' _ - r T ,•� r 4 fir. •• •r }. • r � e• I•� 1 K -- ••n. •��` % / / /, � � ' � / � «r'T . • a. 5 :�.:e.i s - .M � r4. ._w..d?'°g_,��► w,i.:. '. 1.1 •T. �♦ - uI•. ••' �'"4'', - S ' //1. o'f'f/ / t/ / .,I`.'•_ _ .aa .f•'r 4•t. r.." D. a e;:� Y• s _ ria '' / +fie//' 1 ,f , m'1 .�. : n • -x-r +� r -i- 'k' .7`• i `� /. ��// �lJ /+ i� � �� / � '.�. . ._.+: ,. _ .. ..� d.•.•atr r � ��.''. .�• rr+'u • r�' + `r10 �L. N C-g� i �n / ' r / / /�� / .a . . . . aha/a �• a ♦. .R.°•_: - - "f WA + Y pr .r .� �.�. �-�fW '. s _ �.. '.i'. �`5• Mfr -`1rs �yi �`i aRi• �f4 a rh.a r, •51,. : .a:•'.'-.'`Y+.� •mar •• a�.^ .••'.I _ .•. ^. . .' V' , . . aJwM •F• . . • 1'al .a.�..k� t _ -,- - r r-4 'q•+ • - - �4r • •`r.I' _ p rrL r . . .. tt[[ - 1'k1-�....1 ...,. ��•,•' ' t a •�« •• ra. -'. - .�ti :y ••.may �. .�. '}� I�-•• ..�, "r i•"-•'_ •Ia .'1'S '..'. `.i �' . ���Y a• • . e '• �•11' PF•�. .+ ~ 5 .µ-`w9. .nay'-' ''i{•* •c+=,'3 ` _ •"-•• YJr. S . '� . a'3r �u •' '.rr� 'Aa3+aa. .T. . .. , .R fI 'S h K. lf,W G- ..$ 1'A'Md --rrrb to nwtir,n.l a. i. ai• .�.�,.'', ` �'.J.+�.• . �e ,f' �r a • a « a � : - .�•r• • Al T_^1` -i4- _nE- �� y, :,.-_ __y _:. °.^___ •'�.'_. �-.`.. a.. --"� r + ' �'.-. '---�.�:� :".fid" -"-,r"" `- �-`-r�•s"" !ex�rftwLe,y i� - f!!F ' �' _ 1 f ' , . . `" 'w.' .'I - '�' -! - - �I'P 'a+'• I••�•'.'. .'-'!'• '# 1�� ...-tri •�♦••'L •►' y:r LEGENQ: LOW -Elm. DEHS171' RES. ADMIN. - PRDFES510NAL �..�� SPHERE OF ]NFLUENCE BOUNDARY NIGH DENSITY RES. MIXED USE CITY OF LODI PROPERTY CDAIAERCULL PARKS AND RECREATION FV" 4.1-1 WE 8 T AGRICULTURAL-4DPueLlc USE 0 2200 �Proposed Sphere of influence Existing Zoning mm � 6wMiRni City of Lodi Wtdte Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence r o s T Sowem San Joagdn GwAfty GwwW Plan Idly 1 and My Of StOCk Wn Zmfi1Q SCALE IN FEV s ANAMMM LEGEND: ® PRIME FARMLAND GRAZIN PROPOSED SPHERF OF INFLUENCE N 1P E. ti l ®STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE URBAN CITY -OWNED 0 1,100 2,200 Figure 4.1-2 ED UNIQUE FARMLAND OTHER ®Feet Proposed Sphere of Influence Agricultural Designatior}s 0 LOCAL WORTANCE WATER I City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence ' -in r 4.0 E11iro1Martad A!!d �is_ _ _ --• _—,_ _—� Impacts associated with buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence within this document are identified and determined to be less than significant, potentially significant, cumulative significant, or significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impact analysis in this EIR is also based on buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence, as well as approved and anticipated urban development in the City of Lodi and surrounding area, and as identified in the City of Lodi General Plan, the San Joaquin County General Plan, and -the Lodi Community Plan the Ci f Stockton General Plan and discussions with the Ci of Stockton !eRa—rding its General Plan Update (S%jAwo 2003. A summary of cumulative impacts is provided in Chapter 7.0, Other Statutory Considerations. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, a significant impact is "... a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the program..." For each category of physical condition evaluated in the EM criteria for significance have been developed using the CEQA Guidelines, City of Lodi and San Joaquin County standards, San Joaquin County LAFCO standards, or the "significance thresholds" of federal, state, regional, or local agencies. Significance criteria vary for each environmental issue analyzed in this EIR and are defined at the beginning of each impact analysis section. Mitigation measures identified in this report are characterized in one of three categories: 1) necessary to reduce the identified impact below a level of significance; 2) recommended to reduce the magnitude of a significant impact, but not below a level of significance; and 3) recommended to reduce the magnitude of a less than significant impact. Where implementation of more than one mitigation measure is needed to reduce an impact below a level of significant, this fact is noted. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, mitigation follows the strategy of avoid/minimize/rectify/reduce over time/compensation. According to the Guidelines, this strategy includes: ■ Avoiding the impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation. ■ Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. ■ Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of an action. ■ Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Gry of Lo& Whole S7oWh WPCF 4*ere of IM'Tu—e 4-4 Hughss Environnm tsl Consukents, Inc. Dmf[ Program EIR July ,Fq9- 20W 4.0 Environnrenta(Analvsis 4.7 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY This section describes water features within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits, including bodies of water, existing flood patterns, probable groundwater characteristics, and water quality standards. It also discusses potential issues concerning the quality of water during future construction associated with buildout within the proposed Sphere of Influence limits. 4.7.1 SETTING SURFACE WATER The White Slough WPCF and the proposed Sphere of hifluence limits are located on the eastern edge of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta waterway system. The sloughs and canals in this area generally drain southward and westward into the San Joaquin River, approximately 25 miles upstream from its confluence with the Sacramento River (City of Lodi 1988). The WPCF currently discharges effluent into Dredger Cut, a man-made channel that connects to both White Slough and Bishop Cut. These waterways, in turn, are connected to the San Joaquin River by Disappointrnent Slough, Fourteen Mile Slough, and Honker Cut. Dredger Cut is a manmade channel which was constructed in the early 1900s to provide drainage for agricultural lands in the area. Dredger Cut, White Slough, Bishop Cut, Telephone Cut, and other Delta channels are normally dominated by tidal flows (West Yost 2001). The WPCF current Waste Discharge Requirements (WRs), issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), are applied at the discharge into a side slough at Dredger Cut. The current interim discharge requirements include secondary treatment and disinfection limits, biotoxicity requirements, dissolved oxygen limits, nitrogen loading limits for land application, and related requirements. FLOODING Lands west of Interstate 5 in the vicinity of the WPCF and the neighboring areas are located within the 100 -year floodplain of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (City of Lodi 1991a). :Fhe 100-yearr--0eeel near the periphera4 canal ponds mid wyert feet nm L-ftrAa* S. ghm, floodwaters are about five feet deep on the western ed�e-ef the effhtent ft-rigated fiel& diiv�iqhirlg to about one foot deep near the beabnent Therefore if these area are to be used extensively for the expansion of the City's treatment, storage, or wetland reuse facilities, is likely that a Letter of Map Revision that modifies the IQ0 year flood zone bguund . (such that these pr,opertl'es would not be included in this 100: -year flood gone . would be required. A Letter of Map Revision for Bishop Cut Tract. south of the Rio Blanco Tract, was applied in 1992 based on Lipgrades that were made to the levees surrounding that-proQerty. Therefore there is �otentiai for a sim ar Leiter of Mqp Revision to be granted for the Rig Blanco Tract and/or the Ci 's pLoMerties. Hughes &wlronmental Consultants, Inc. 4.7-1 Cay nfLo& Whoe Slough WPCF 50here ofl4luenm July 4429 2004 Dmfs Pmg—n FJR 4.0 EAWrennenad Analysis HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY Anot JM_potential option is for the City to construct additional levees surrounding the proposed storage and wetland area to exclude 1 -in -100 year flood events. FEMA flood insumce rate maps show the 100 -year flood elevation for the treatment pint area at elevation 8 feet based on the 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum. FEMA typically requires a three-foot free board above the 1007y.,ear flood elevation; therefore, levees would need to be constructed at appEoximately 11 feet It has-been assumed for this Koort that the storage and wetlandfaci ides will be located inside the flood zone based on the other desirable criteria of this area such gLVn2ximiW to existing facilities ease of conveyance, and Weferred soil t Ws. However, if neither a letter Qf map revision nor additional levm construction were approved, then the storage and wetland facilities would likely need to be relocated to outside of the flood zone where the pM9sed land a lication facilities are located. The di laced land a lication area would then be relocated to inside the flood zone. suffewAed by levees dtat are slightly above the 1 00 -year fie(W !me. Hewever, these levees were n 109 yetw flood event (West Yost 2004)-. GROUNDWATER The entire Central Valley is underlain by a vast thickness of alluvium, which is saturated below a relatively shallow depth (approximately 50 feet below the surface). The alluvial layers are part of the aquifer system that extends the length of the valley. Locally, the aquifer is recharged by the Mokelumne River (City of Lodi 1990). The City of Lodi uses groundwater as its sole source of municipal water supply. Nitrate contamination of the groundwater supply is a concern. This contamination is most likely due to agricultural practices (City of Lodi 1990). Saltwater intrusion is a also a major concern to Lodi and surrounding communities that rely on groundwater for water supply. Groundwater recharge by the Mokelumne River appears to currently protect the Lodi area from saltwater intrusion (City of Lodi 1990). The groundwater table is moderately shallow under much of the existing WPCF site. Based on testing executed by Kleinfelder and Associates, groundwater was encountered at depths of between approximately 5.5 and 10.5 feet, but was not generally encountered in the ten foot deep borings. Groundwater was noted in monitoring wells around the WPCF in 1989 at depths of seven to 14 feet. Fluctuations in groundwater depth were anticipated to be the result of local irrigation practices (Kleinfelder 1999). Based on soil data discussed in Section 4.2, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, soil trends indicate improved drainage from west to east across the proposed Sphere of Influence limits, and depth to groundwater also increases in this direction (West Yost 2003). City of Lodi While MoWh WPCF4Aere offiyh-- 4.7-2 Hughes Emrlroomento) Consultants, kv— Dmft P -p.,. aR July "2-0 204 4.0 EnvironmentdAxalpis AIR QUALfTYIODOR the digesters, digester gas combustion, the sludge lagoon No. 2, the dissolved air flotation thickener, and the land application sites (West Yost 2001). Odors also can be emitted from the land application sites, typically during the early fall when large volumes of cannery wastewater is applied to the reuse area. Odor can be an existing issue to the few surrounding residents in the general vicinity of the WPCF. As previously described, as development increases around the WPCF, odor control could become a significant issue. Therefore, a buffer would be provided within the proposed Sphere of Influence to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. The minimum odor buffer distance recommended for land disposal sites and polishing lagoons is 500 feet. The minimum odor buffer recommended for wastewater treatment facilities is 1,500 feet. Due to the size of the future potential land application area, all of the WPCF process units would be located well within 1,500 feet of the Sphere of Influence boundary. Therefore, a minimum odor buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed around future potential ponds and reclaimed water land application areas. Actual buffer distances are dependent upon local site conditions such as prevailing wind direction. The prevailing wind at the WPCF is from the west at an average of four miles per hour (1983-2000, CMS station x#42, Lodi), which is moderately low. Furthermore, with the proposed upgrade to Title 22 water quality, it is anticipated that odor issues associated with land disposal would decrease. The minimum buffer distance of 500 feet would be proposed for the White Slough WPCF Sphere of Influence (West Yost 2003). Therefore, if proper buffers, loading rates, and operational practices were implemented under Sphere of Influence buildout, potential odor impacts would be minimal. Significance Potentially Significant Mitigation Measures 4.8.3 Potential future WPCF projects that occur within the proposed Sphere of Influence shall include an odor buffer of approjim telt' 500 feet to protect development in the proximity of the White Slough WPCF from odor impacts. Significance After Mitigation Less Than Significant CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEA SURES 4.8.4 Buildout of the proposed WPCF Sphere of Influence would accommodate increased growth associated with the buildout of the City of Lodi General Pfau, resulting is increased urban development and a continuing pattern of urbanization in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The overall cumulative effect of new development throughout the air basin would slow the rate of improvement and/or require enactment of more stringent control measures throughout the basin. Hughes 6wlronmontsl Consultants, Inc. 4.8-11 Ciiy ofLodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnf -a- July 4429 2004 Draft Program FJR CHAPTER 6.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM 6.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15126[d]) require an evaluation of the growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. A growth inducing impact is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as; Growth -Inducing Lmnet of the Proposed Project. Discuss the wpbs in which the aMposed protect could foster economic or population grgivih, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surroundingenvironment. Included in this are projects which would remoxe obstacles to pot�ulcttion_growth La major a RmiongLaq waste water treatment plant might for example allow, for more construction in service areas. Increaes in the population may tux existing community service facilities reguiring consimction of new facilities that could cause i i cant envie nmenta! cts. Also discuss the characteristic o some proiects which mqy ggeourage and facilitate other the environment, either individual) or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that owth in ang area is necessari! beneficial. detrimental. or of little significance to the environment. -..b, WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (WPM EXPANSION BACKGROUND The WPCF was originally constructed in 1966 and had a rated average dry weather flow capacity of 3.5 MGD. The plant has undergone two major expansions since initial construction. In 1976 the plant was expanded to increase its average dry weather flow capacity to 5.8 MGD, and in 1990, the plant was expanded to its current configuration with the design average dry weather flow capacity of 8.5 MGD. The average dry weather flow to the WPCF is currently about 6.5 MGD. As discussed in the City of Lodi General Plan, development that would be allowed under the General Plan would increase total treatment plant capacity needs to approximately 11.6 MGD and increase the need for collection lines (City of Lodi 1990). The proposed Sphere of Influence program would create a zone of consideration for future WPCF Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6-1 City of Lodi Where slough WPCF Sphere ofInflumce July 4429 2004 Draft Program &R CHAPTER 8.4 DOCUMENT PREPARERS CITY Of LODI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Lodi Community Development Department, Konradt Bardam, Community Development Director P.O. Box 3006, Lodi, CA 95241 EIR CONSULTANTS Hughes Environmental Consultants, Inc. (HEC) P.O. Box 191036 Sacramento, CA 95819 916.803.2309 Project Manager: Elizabeth Hughes (HEC) EIR Technical Writer: Jerusha Hail (HEC), Catherine LeBlanc (HEC) Noise:_ Jerusba Hall (HEC) Traffic/Circulation: Jerusha Hall (HEC) Air Quality: Donald Ballanti Jerusha Hall {IAC) Biological Resources: Matt Gause, May & Associates, Inc. Catherine Leblanc (IEC) Cultural Resources: Jennifer Nachmanoff (HEC) Graphics: West Yost and Associates Colette Schantz (HEC) Technical Review: Elizabeth Hughes, HEC CEQA ATTORNEY Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard 400 Capitol Mall, 27b Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-4407 916.321.4500 Legal Review: Jonathan P. Hobbs, Attorney at Law HuWes Environmental Consultants, Inc. &1 City of Lodi Whae Slough ffp F4Aere oflnflu— July 19, 2004 Draft program EIR 10.0 Bihlio h City of Lodi. 1992. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion. Prepared by EIP Associates, April 1992. City of Lodi. 1998. City of Lodi Residential Growth Management Schedule 1998, Adopted in accordance with Ordinance #1521 dated September 18, 1991. City of Lodi. 2003. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Aeration, Filtration, and UV Disinfection Improvements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Hughes Environmental Consultants, March 2003. City of Lodi. 2003a. Delta Water Supply — Response to Notice of Preparation. Prepared by J.D. Hightower, December 8, 2003. City of Stockton. 1990. Ci1y of Stockton General Plan. Adopted January 22. 1990. Amended November 3, 1998. City of Stockton. 2003. City of Stockton Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Delta Water Supply Project. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates, November 14, 2003. City of Stockton. 2004. City of Stockton Zoning Map. Provided to West Yost and Associates in GIS format. March, 2004. Cunniff. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977. Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. 2003a. Records search of Terminous and Lodi South USGS Quadrangles. Department of Fish and Game. 2003b. Special Animals. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. . 1992. 1991 annual report on the status of California state -listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. Sacramento, CA. EPA 1999. Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: a Technology Assessment. Prepared by Environmental Resources Engineering Department, Humboldt State University; CH2MHill; and Wetland Management Services, March 1999. Estep, J. A. 2000a. Nesting Swainson's hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin habitat conservation area: 2000 annual survey results. Prepared for: The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Swainson's hawk Technical Advisory Committee, Sacramento, CA. . 2000b. Diurnal raptor eyrie monitoring program. (Project W -65-R-1, Job No. 11-2.0). California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations. Sacramento, CA. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Sphere oflnjluence 10-2 Hughes Environmental Consulbnts, Inc. E Draft Program ETR July 4422 2094 APPENoix A CORRESPONDENCE CITY COUNCIL SUSAN HITCHCOCX. Mayor EMILY }COWARD Mayor Pro Tempore JOHN BECKMAN LARRY D. HAM9E N KEITH LAND Marcie 4 9, 2003 c.va .343 001te CITY OF LORI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 Community Devalopment (209) 333-6714 FAX (21)9) 333-6842 Anders Hauge PARSONS 2233 Watt Avenue, Suite 330 Sacramento, CA 45825 Dear Andy: P .:i H. DIXON FLYNN City Manager SUSAN .i, BLACKSTON Chy Clark RANDALL A. HAYS City Attorney This letter shall confirm our telephone conversation regarding Prostyle sports. Based on verbal rgxtsen"on to me by the proponent, Ben Goehring, the project is not moving forward. I have requested written confirmation of this fact,, but have not received anything as of this date. Therefore, I am making the administrative determination to close out our files and would request ym do the sam for the environmental analysis. it was a pleasure working with you and your staff. I hope to have the opportunity in the future to retain your services. Si rely, adt But Com nunity Development Director cc: Senior Plattner Ben Goehring September 25, 2003 James Glaser Community Development Director City of Stockton 425 N. El Dorado Stockton, CA 95202 Dear Jim: As you know, I attended the Stockton GPAT meeting on September 241h. The discussion regarding the planing study area was interesting. It appears that the boundary includes land that is owned by the City of Lodi and is within our ineorpmted limits. I would respectfully request that this land be removed from your study area because there is no benefit in collecting data for property that the City of Stockton is unable to eventually incorporate in their General Plan. Additionally, as a follow up to the Measure K renewal meeting hold at GOC on September 246,1 requested a breakdown, by sub -region, of the responses to the question dealing with preserving agricultural lands. You may find it interesting to note that B2a1a of those within the Stockton area felt the issue was very important. Further, 42% had a negative satisfaction with how the issue is being handled. Do you intend to bring this information to the GPAT? Thank you for your consideration. S' erely, t Bartlam Community Development Director cc: City Manager _ _ MVV JJJ V./� F •� CITY COUNCIL N. DIXON FLYNN EMILY HITCHCOCK,ITCHCMayor CITY OF L O D I City Manager EMILY HOYYARD SUSAN J. SLACKSTON Mayor Pro Ternpore CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET City Clerk JOHN MAN P,O. BOX 3006 RANt?ALL A. �A� LARRY b�CNAi�SEI� LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 Attorney KEITH LAND Community Development (209) 333-6714 FAX (2109) 333-6642 September 25, 2003 James Glaser Community Development Director City of Stockton 425 N. El Dorado Stockton, CA 95202 Dear Jim: As you know, I attended the Stockton GPAT meeting on September 241h. The discussion regarding the planing study area was interesting. It appears that the boundary includes land that is owned by the City of Lodi and is within our ineorpmted limits. I would respectfully request that this land be removed from your study area because there is no benefit in collecting data for property that the City of Stockton is unable to eventually incorporate in their General Plan. Additionally, as a follow up to the Measure K renewal meeting hold at GOC on September 246,1 requested a breakdown, by sub -region, of the responses to the question dealing with preserving agricultural lands. You may find it interesting to note that B2a1a of those within the Stockton area felt the issue was very important. Further, 42% had a negative satisfaction with how the issue is being handled. Do you intend to bring this information to the GPAT? Thank you for your consideration. S' erely, t Bartlam Community Development Director cc: City Manager F i '. U4 M t: i I Y OI- LUU 1 209 333 6842 P.1 Crry cmiNrii SUSAN H TCI �C^.^.V �w'jiCrr EMILY HOWARD Mayor Pro Tempore JOHN BECKMAN LARRY D. HANSEN KErM LANG October 21, 2003 CITY OF LORI CITY MALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 9524t-1910 Community Development (209)333-6714 FAX (209) 333-6842 James E. Glaser Community Development Director City of Stockton 425 N. El Dorado Street Stockton, CA 95242 Dear Jim: DIWN FLYNN city Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk RANDALL A. HAYS City Attorney Pe1ew Fax Not 7571 TOq X�M r UAMpLcb ph,o y Pe,a,e % r IF"S I am in receipt of your letter dated October 14, 2003 regarding the Stockton Preliminary Phoning Study Area Map. As I mentioned to you previously, I turdwA nd tltie basis of slaving a study algia. However, we are adamantly opposed to the area including property within the City of Lodi as eun=dy shown. Amain, I would respectfully request that your map be amended immediately. Further, as the City of Lodi has demonstr ed in the past, we aria interested in retaining a separator between our community and Stockton. Any policy direction that would ultimatcly move the Stockton sphere of influoncc to Armstrong Road will be apposed. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this issue. Sincerely, t Bartlann Commu city Development Director KBAw Enclosure Cc: City Manager APPENDix B NDP AND DER DimmunoN L►sr CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 3330 N AD ART RD STOCKTON, CA 95215 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER gUALITY CONTROL BOARD 4TTN: PATRICIA LEARY 3443 ROUTIER RD STE A 3ACRAMENTO , CA 95827 3ITY OF LODI POLICE bEPARTMENT BOW ELM ST ',ODI, CA 95240 ,ITY OF STOCKTON COMMUNITY )EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .45 N EL DORADO ST 'TOCKTON, CA 95202 use 2emPlate for 5160' -- CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 901 P ST SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SAN JOAQUIN MOSQUITO & VECTOR LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ABATEMENT DISTRICT ATTN: MAMIE STARR ATTN: JON STROH 1305 E VINE ST 7759 S AIRPORT WY LODI, CA 95240 STOCKTON, CA 95206-3918 CITY OF LODI FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 W ELM ST LODI, CA 95240 CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - 221 W PINE ST LODI, CA 95240 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY SAN JOAQUiN COUNTY LAFCO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1860 E HAZLETON AVE 1810 E HAZLETON AVE STOCKTON, CA 95205 STOCKTON, CA 95205 ,AN JOAQUIN COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC JDMINISTRATION OFFICE POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT ATTN: LAND AGENTS LTTN: RICH LAIBLIN 4230 KIERNAN AVE PO BOX 930 22 E.WEBER STREET MODESTO , CA 95356 STOCKTON, CA 95201 TOCKTON, CA 95205 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 10 I976 E CHARTER WY STOCKTON, CA 95205 V 1,q-1v-L')Y-- 1. APN;OWNER;ADDRESS;CITY;STATE;ZIP;SITUSNUM;SITUSDIR;SITUSSTNAME;SITUSTYPE 2. 05512006;CALIFORNIA, STATE OF ; ; ; ;00000;11501;N ;THORNTON ;RD 3. 05512010;HALL, TIMOTHY R TR ETAL ;47375 W DAKOTA AVE ;FIREBAUGH ;CA;93622;11495;N ;THORNTON ;RD 4. 05515010;CALfFORNIA, STATE OF ; ; ; ;00000;7878;W ;ST RT 12 ;HY 5. 05525026;VALLEM, LOUIS V & ANNE R TR ;3404 W KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3404;W ;KINGDON ;RD 6. 05509002;RIO BLANCO RANCH CORP ;7000 S INLAND DR ;STOCKTON ;CA;95206;1 1400; N ;RIO BLANCO ;RD 7. 05513002;BALCAO, HELEN LIMA TR ETAL ;13436 N THORNTON RD ;LODI :CA-,95242;I340ZN ;THORNTON ;RD 8. 05514009;BALCAO, HELEN LIMA TR ;13436 N THORNTON RD ;LODI :CA;95242;5580;W ;KINGDON;RD 9. 05516032;C&C FARMS LP ;4484 W TREDWAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5991;W ;KiNGDON ;RD 10. 05514006;COLDANI, RAYMOND H & B ;13199 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95240; 1 3199;N ;RAY;RD 11. 05518005;KINGDON PROPERTIES ;18514 E LONE TREE RD ;ESCALON ;CA;95320;12145;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 12. 05522005;VAN RUITEN RANCH LTD ;J401 W TURNER RD ;LODI ;CA;952422170;W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 13. 05522033;SILVA, LELAND & KIM ;2550 W ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;2550;W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 14. 05525013;MART, DYAN TR ;44904 SANDY CIR ;EL MACERO ;CA;95618:13151;N ;NEEELEY ;RD 15. 05514002;LEHR, TED D;5800 KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5800;W ;KINGDON ;RD 16. 05514003;Rf7ZOLO, EUGENE & M TRS ;5764 W KINGDON RD -,LODI ;CA,95242;5764;W ;KINGDON ;RD 17. 05525019;SCATENA, BRUNO & ELVIRA TR ;3724 W KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3724;W ;KINGDON ;RD 18. 05514013;LERINDEGUI, PAUL JR ;PO BOX 1711 ;LODI ;CA;95241;5882;W ;KINGDON ;RD 19. 05514014;AHERN, JOHN J ETAL ;5560 W KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;5560;W ;KINGDON ;RD 20. 05515003;COLDANI, STEVEN MICHAEL ;14000 N GUARD RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;14613;N -.THORNTON ;RD 21. 05515004;COLOANI, RAYMOND & B J 1"TAL ;1806 W KETTLEMAN LN #J ;LODI ;CA;95242;14401;N ;THORNTON ;RD 22. 05515007;COLDANI, RAYMOND & B ;13199 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;13950;N ;THORNTON ;RD 23. 05525029;MEATH, JEFFREY ;13555 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13555;N ;NEELEY ;RD 24. 05525030;MEATH, ROBERT HENRY TR ;13649 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; ; : 25. 05517007;MERRY, OREST V & C J ;13811 N DE VRIES RD ;LODI ;CA.95242;13811;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 26. 05517008;MACIEL, KAREN J :13751 N DEVRIES RD ;LODI ;CA,95240;13751;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 27. 05517W9;MARION, GEORGE J & BARBARA J T;13665 N DE VRIES RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13655;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 28. 05517011;RAI, IQBALJIT S TR & M K TR ET;3500 KINGDON RD ;LODI CA;95242;13846;N ;NEELEY ;RD 29. 05517012;RANDALL, SARA M ;13180 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA95242;13810;N ;RAY ;RD 30. 05517032;REGO, JOHN &A TRS ;13579 N DEVRIES RD :LODi ,CA;95242;13591;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 31. 05517033;REGO, MICHAEL L & SHIRLEY A TR;PO BOX 2569 ;LODI ;CA;95241;13550;N ;NEELEY ;RD 32. 05525031; AUSTIN, JOHN D & LYNNE TR ;13859 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0: ; ; 33. 05518001;RANDALL, SARA M ;13180 N RAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;4251;W ;TREDWAY ;RD 34. 05518003;FONTES, EURICO & ROSA ;1134 EL CAMINO AVE ;STOCKTON ;CA;95207:3300;W ;TREDWAY ;RD 35. 05518006;DAVILLA LODI FAMILY PTP ETAL ;21550 EDEN CYN RD ;HAYWARD ;CA;94552;12020;N ;THORNTON ;RD 36. 05518012;0 & C FARMS LP ;4484 TREDWAY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;425G;W ;TREDWAY ;RD 37. 05518013;REGO, JOHN & A TRS ;13579 N DEVRIES RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; 38. 05518014;REGO, MICHAEL L & SHIRLEY A TR;PO BOX 2569 ;LODI ;CA;95241;0; 39. 05519002;DAV1W4 LODI FAMILY PTP ETAL ;21550 EDEN CANYON RD ;HAYWARD ;CA;94552;11685;N ;THORNTON 40. 05522002;MAGEE, JERRY K;768 KETTLEMAN LN ;LODE ;CA;95240;11800A ;DE VRIES ;RD 41. 05522003'WU, JENNIE TR ;1539 HYDE ST ;SAN FRANCISCO ;CA;94109;11790,N ;DE VRIES :RD 42. 05522022;LAWRY, M E & A A TRS ;1515 W ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;1 1750;N;DE VRIES ;RD 43. 05522034;VAN RUITEN RANCH LTD ;463 W TURNER RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;2490,,W ;ARMSTRONG ;RD 44. 05522036;LAUCHLAND, ROBERT EDWARD ETAL;700 E ARMSTRONG RD ;LODI ;CA;95240;11568;N ;DE VRIES ;RD 45. 05522040;PHILLIPS, MICHAEL J & KRISTY T;2210 W WOODBRIDGE RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0;; ; 46. 05522041;PHfLLIPS, MICHAEL J & K A TR E;4580 W HWY 12:LODI ;CA;95242;0; ; 47. 05525015;MEATH, GREGORY THOMAS & FERNAN;13721 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;13721;N ;NEELEY ;RD 48. 05525020;PETERSEN, JOHN T & JANETTE G ;3838 W KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3838;W ;KINGDON ;RD 49. 05525021;FOLETTA, BROS INC ;PO BOX 690877 ;STOCKTON ;CA;95269;4040;W ;KINGDON ;RD 50. 05525027;RAI, IQBALJIT & MANJEET TR ETA; 3500 KINGDON RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;3500;W ;KINGDON ;RD 51. 05525032;AUSTIN, JOHN DTR ETAL ;13859 N NEELEY RD ;LODI ;CA;95242;0; ;; 52. ,Aftomey at Law, Bainbridge, Laura;433 W. Pine Street;Lodi;CA;95240