HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - July 7, 2010 D-17 PHAGENDA ITEM b .W101
A% CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
im
AGENDA TITLE: Set A Public Hearing for July 21, 2010 to Consider the Certification of the Final
Mitigated Negative Declarationfor the Surface Water Treatment Facility
MEETING DATE: July 7,2010
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set a Public Hearing for July 21, 2010 to consider the
certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Surface Water Treatment Facility
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Surface
Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) project has been prepared. In
accordancewith CEQA, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
was circulated to responsible agencies as well as the State Clearinghouse for review. The Notice of
Availability was also published in the Lodi News Sentinel on May 20, 2010 and posted at the County
Clerk's Office, the City of Lodi website, and the project site for the required 30 -day period. The
required 30 -day review period for this project commenced on Thursday, May 6, 2010 and ended on
Monday, June 7, 2010. Copies of the Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
are on file and available for review at the following locations:
• Community Development Dept., 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
• Public Works Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240
• Lodi Public Library, 201 West Locust Street, Lodi, CA 95240
• Online: www.lodi.gov/com dev/EIRS.html.
A total of three comments were received (Caltrans District 10, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District and from San Joaquin County Council of Governments). At the conclusion of the
public review period, all written comments were responded to and incorporated in the Final MND.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not Applicable
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
KB/IB/kjc
Attachment:
Surface Water Treatment Facility Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPROVED:
Interim City Manager
Draft Initial Study /
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
May 2010
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300
Folsom, CA 95630
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Contents
Chapter1- Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Background........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Objectives........................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.1 Protect and Restore Groundwater Resources.......................................................................1-3
1.2.2 Provide Adequate Water Supply to Accommodate Long -Term Growth.............................1-4
1.3 Document Organization.................................................................................................................. 1-5
Chapter 2 - Description of Proposed Project.........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Project Location..............................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Proposed Facilities..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Raw Water Pump Station.....................................................................................................2-1
2.2.2 Raw Water Pipeline..............................................................................................................2-6
2.2.3 Surface Water Treatment Facility.........................................................................................2-6
2.2.4 Finished Water Main..........................................................................................................2-12
2.2.5 Access Road.......................................................................................................................2-12
2.2.6 Well Modifications.............................................................................................................2-17
2.3 Construction.................................................................................................................................2-19
2.3.1 Clearing and Grubbing.......................................................................................................2-20
2.3.2 Excavation and Sitework....................................................................................................2-20
2.3.3 Structural Facilities.............................................................................................................2-22
2.3.4 Paving and Striping............................................................................................................2-22
2.3.5 Electrical, Process Mechanical, and Instrumentation.........................................................2-22
2.3.6 Architectural, Landscaping, and Security...........................................................................2-23
2.3.7 Startup and Testing.............................................................................................................2-23
2.3.8 Staging Areas......................................................................................................................2-24
2.3.9 Environmental Commitments.............................................................................................2-24
2.4 Operations and Maintenance........................................................................................................2-25
2.4.1 Autostrainers.......................................................................................................................2-25
2.4.2 Membrane System..............................................................................................................2-25
2.4.3 Chemical Systems..............................................................................................................2-28
2.4.4 Chemical Storage, Pipelines, and Containment..................................................................2-30
2.4.5 Residuals Handing..............................................................................................................2-30
2.5 Responsible Agencies and Permits...............................................................................................2-31
Chapter3 - Environmental Setting........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 General Setting...............................................................................................................................3-1
3. 1.1 Land Use...............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Topography and Geology.....................................................................................................3-2
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.1.3 Climate and Air Quality.......................................................................................................3-2
3.1.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................................3-3
3.1.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................3-5
3.1.6 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................3-7
3.1.7 Noise...................................................................................................................................3-10
3.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................................3-12
3.2.1 State Agencies....................................................................................................................3-12
3.2.2 Local Agencies...................................................................................................................3-13
Chapter 4 - CEQA Initial Study Checklist............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Approach to Analysis.....................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Environmental Resources to Be Evaluated.....................................................................................4-2
Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................4-3
Agricultural and Forest Resources.............................................................................................4-5
AirQuality.................................................................................................................................4-7
BiologicalResources...............................................................................................................4-12
CulturalResources...................................................................................................................4-18
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity................................................................................................4-21
Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................................................................4-24
Hazards and Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................4-26
Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................4-30
LandUse and Planning............................................................................................................4-35
MineralResources...................................................................................................................4-36
Noise........................................................................................................................................4-37
Populationand Housing...........................................................................................................4-47
Discussion................................................................................................................................
4-47
PublicServices........................................................................................................................4-48
Recreation................................................................................................................................
4-49
Transportation/Traffic.............................................................................................................4-50
Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................................................4-55
Chapter5 - Determination......................................................................................................................5-1
Chapter6 - References............................................................................................................................6-1
Chapter7 - List of Preparers..................................................................................................................7-1
Cityof Lodi...........................................................................................................................................7-1
HDREngineering.................................................................................................................................. 7-1
PaulMiller Associates...........................................................................................................................7-1
ICFInternational...................................................................................................................................7-1
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality
Appendix B Noise
Figures
Figure2-1.
Project Location...............................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2.
Groundwater Well Locations...........................................................................................2-3
Trees Within the SWTF Site and Access Road.............................................................4-15
Figure 2-3.
Layout of Raw Water Pump Station................................................................................2-5
Existing Noise Environment at Project Site...................................................................4-40
Figure 2-4.
Existing SWTF Site.........................................................................................................2-6
Typical Construction Noise Levels................................................................................4-41
Figure 2-5.
Layout of SWTF Facilities..............................................................................................2-8
Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment....................................................4-42
Figure 2-6.
Access Road and Intersection Improvements................................................................2-13
Vibration Exposure Thresholds.....................................................................................4-44
Figure 2-7.
Existing Location of Entrance.......................................................................................2-15
Estimated Maximum Construction Vibration Levels....................................................4-45
Figure2-8.
SWTF Entrance..............................................................................................................2-15
Figure 2-9.
SWTF as Viewed from Turner Road.............................................................................2-16
Figure 2-10.
Surface Water Treatment FacilityProcess Flow Schematic...........................................2-26
Figure 4-1.
Trees Affected by Project Construction.........................................................................4-17
Figure 4-2.
Noise Measurement Locations.......................................................................................4-39
Tables
Table 1-1. Summary of Existing and Projected Average Daily Water Demand (mgd) ....................1-4
Table 2-1. Existing Groundwater Wells..........................................................................................2-18
Table 2-2. Chemicals for Membrane System..................................................................................2-28
Table2-3. Process Chemicals.........................................................................................................2-29
Table 2-4. Regulatory Requirements and Permits for SWTF Facilities..........................................2-31
Table 3-1. Typical noise levels.......................................................................................................3-10
Table 3-2. Standards for Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, and Agriculture...............................3-11
Table 4-1.
Estimated Construction and Operation -related Criteria Air Pollutants ..........................4-10
Table 4-2.
Trees Within the SWTF Site and Access Road.............................................................4-15
Table 4-3.
Existing Noise Environment at Project Site...................................................................4-40
Table 4-4.
Typical Construction Noise Levels................................................................................4-41
Table 4-5.
Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment....................................................4-42
Table 4-6.
Vibration Exposure Thresholds.....................................................................................4-44
Table 4-7.
Estimated Maximum Construction Vibration Levels....................................................4-45
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility fli
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acronyms
ACH
aluminum chlorohydrate
ADA
American Disabilities Act
AF
acre-feet
AFY
acre-feet per year
BMP
best management practice
BPS
best performance standard
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CDFG
California Department of Fish and Game
CIP
clean -in-place
City
City of Lodi
CMU
concrete masonry unit
CNEL
community noise equivalent level
CO2
carbon dioxide
CO2E
carbon dioxide equivalents
County
San Joaquin County
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
CY
cubic yards
dB
decibel
dBA
A -weighted decibel
DWR
Department of Water Resources
EFM
enhanced flux maintenance
GHG
greenhouse gas
gpm
gallons per minute
HDPE
high-density polyethylene
hp
horsepower
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility iv
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ldn
day -night average sound level
Leq
equivalent sound level
mgd
million gallons per day
mg/L
milligram per liter
MMT
million metric tons
NAHC
Native American Heritage Commission
NOx
nitrogen oxides
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PAC
powder activated carbon
PG&E
Pacific Gas and Electric
PLC
programmable logic controller
PM
particulate matter
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
ROG
reactive organic gases
RWQCB
Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWPS
raw water pump station
SCADA
supervisory control and data acquisition system
SJVAB
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
SWTF
Surface Water Treatment Facility
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UPRR
Union Pacific Railroad
WID
Woodbridge Irrigation District
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility V
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the potential environmental effects
of the construction and operation of the City of Lodi's (City) proposed Surface Water
Treatment Facility (SWTF or Proposed Project). The primary purpose of the proposed SWTF is
to provide a secure, reliable supplemental supply of water for the City to meet the current and
future water needs thereby reducing dependence on groundwater.
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The City is the CEQA Lead Agency.
1.1 Project Background
The City currently utilizes groundwater as its sole water supply source. As part of a regional
effort to stabilize the groundwater basin, the City plans to reduce its groundwater pumping. To
achieve this goal, the City contracted with Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) in May 2003
to purchase 6,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of WID's pre -1914 Mokelumne River water
entitlement for a period of 40 years (City of Lodi and WID, 2003).
The City has not yet used any of the purchased WID water; however, the water has been
"banked." The 2003 Agreement allows the City to carry over and have credit for unused water
of up to 18,000 acre-feet (AF) during the initial three years of the agreement. In January 2008,
the First Amendment to the 2003 Agreement extended the City's right to carry over and bank
24,000 AF of water for later usage until October 15, 2010, for a combined total of 42,000 AF,
and extended the term of the purchase agreement by approximately four years, to October 15,
2047. In March 2008, a Second Amendment to the 2003 Agreement allows the City to sell
during 2009 through 2011, up to 6,000 AFY banked by the City, for a total of 18,000 AF to
fund the SWTF.
Under the 2003 Agreement, the diversion of WID water from the Mokelumne River is
permitted from March 1 through October 15. In April 2009, WID and East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (EBMUD) signed a supplementary agreement allowing the City to utilize the
water year-round. From March 1 through October 15, the City will receive 5,000 AF; and from
October 16 through the end of February, the City will receive 1,000 AF. Banked water can only
be used from March 1 through October 15.
WID was able to contract with the City as a result of its conservation efforts to convert to drip
irrigation. The WID/City agreement allowed WID to finance the replacement of the aging
Woodbridge Dam and incorporate state-of-the-art passage structures and diversion screens for
anadromous fish. These improvements would enable WID to keep Lodi Lake full most of the
year.
The WID purchase is intended to supplement the City's groundwater supply to meet current
water demands and to reduce the City's dependence on the groundwater aquifer, which is in an
City of Lodi _
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
overdraft condition (17,140 AFY pumped in 2008 vs. 15,000 AFY safe yield) (City of Lodi,
2009a). Groundwater conditions in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin are
threatened primarily by groundwater withdrawals to the east and south of the City, which has
resulted in saline water intrusion from the west (Dyett & Bhatia, 2007). For these reasons, the
City proposes to build the SWTF.
The SWTF is proposed as part of a conjunctive use program that would integrate surface water
and groundwater management. The surface water component would be the WID water that
would be delivered to the SWTF for treatment and distribution to the City. The groundwater
component would be well water that is currently pumped for distribution to the City. With the
implementation of the SWTF, the City would pump less groundwater and the groundwater
levels would be allowed to recover by in -lieu (natural) recharge.
The treated surface water supply would account for about one-third of the total delivery into the
water distribution system, on average, but would potentially range under current demand
conditions from 18 to nearly 100 percent of the total delivery depending on day-to-day water
demands. The remainder of the water supply would be groundwater, supplied by the City's 27
existing wells and one planned well, which would be improved to meet regulatory
requirements.
The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan projected that the future water supply would include
groundwater, surface water, and recycled wastewater (RMC, 2006). The groundwater supply
would be an average minimum of 15,000 AFY from now until year 2030, based on an
estimated safe yield of the groundwater basin. The projected surface supply would be 6,000
AFY for 44 years based on the WID contract. However, in some years when the WID water is
reduced to 3,000 AFY, the City would pump 18,000 AFY from the groundwater. In addition, as
the City grows in area the safe yield would increase.
The City has conducted a conceptual design and feasibility evaluation of alternatives for a
SWTF, storage facilities, and distribution system improvements capable of utilizing the full
6,000 AFY of WID water (HDR, 2008). Construction of a SWTF located west of Lodi Lake
was identified as the preferred alternative to meet the City's water supply needs and objectives.
The SWTF would include a raw water pump station (RWPS) near the WID canal that would
pump water from the WID intake structure, fitted with a 36 -inch pipe, to a 30 -inch raw water
pipeline to the SWTF. From the SWTF, a treated water pipeline would deliver water to the
City's existing water distribution system. The design firm capacity of the initial phase SWTF
would be 8 million gallons per day (mgd) with the ability to produce 10 mgd with all
membrane skids in operation. Sometime in the future, the SWTF would be expanded in stages
to provide a treatment capacity to produce 20 mgd. In compliance with Title 22, Section 64650
et seq. of the California Code of Regulations, all utilities using surface water or any
groundwater supply under the influence of a surface water supply must provide adequate
disinfection. In order to comply with these rules, chlorination facilities would be added to each
of the well sites.
City of Lodi
1-2
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.2 Project Objectives
In 2008, the City conducted a conceptual design and feasibility evaluation of alternatives for a
SWTF, storage facilities, and distribution system improvements capable of utilizing the full
6,000 AFY of WID water (HDR, 2008). Development of a SWTF located west of Lodi Lake
was identified as the preferred alternative to meet the City's water supply needs and objectives.
These objectives are:
OO To protect and restore groundwater resources.
O To provide adequate water supply to accommodate long-term growth.
O These Project objectives are discussed below.
1.2.1 Protect and Restore Groundwater Resources
Currently, all of Lodi's potable water is sourced from groundwater supplies. Twenty-seven
existing groundwater wells with a total pumping capacity of 35,200 gallons per minute (gpm)
provide Lodi with its current water supply. Therefore, annual groundwater production has
equaled the annual water demand. However, the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR, 2006) has declared that the groundwater basin underlying Eastern San Joaquin County
is overdrafted, and groundwater levels in San Joaquin County (County) and the City are
generally decreasing. The groundwater levels fluctuate over time depending on precipitation,
aquifer recharge, and pumping demands (City of Lodi, 2009a).
The continuing decline of groundwater levels in the aquifer underlying the City means that the
sustainable annual groundwater supply available to the City is less than what is currently
extracted. As a member agency of the Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking
Authority (NSJCGBA), the City is participating in the development of policies and programs,
including groundwater recharge and conjunctive use programs, intended to help eliminate the
basin overdraft condition. The City plans to reduce its overall groundwater pumping in the
future from 17,140 AFY in 2008 to a safe yield of approximately 15,000 AFY (City of Lodi,
2009a). Therefore, upon startup of the SWTF, the City would reduce groundwater pumping by
6,000 AFY to approximately 11,000 AFY, far below the safe yield of 15,000 AFY.
Therefore, the City's long term reliable water supplies include:
O Groundwater: The groundwater safe yield for the area currently covered by the City is
estimated to be about 15,000 AFY (RMC, 2006).
O Surface Water: Under terms of the 2003 Agreement with the WID, 6,000 AFY of
surface water is currently available to the City. The 2003 Agreement also provides that,
as WID irrigated lands are annexed for development, the City has the option to purchase
an additional three AFY for each acre of WID land that is annexed, up to 6,000 AF.
City of Lodi_ 3
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Purchase of the additional water is contingent on the SWTF being constructed and
operational (Welch, 2009).
Upon operation of the SWTF, the City would have a long-term, water supply of approximately
21,000 AFY available from its current safe yield of groundwater and the future surface water
supplies.
1.2.2 Provide Adequate Water Supply to Ac corri nodate Long -Term Growth
Lodi currently contains approximately 63,400 residents. Accounting for the current population
as well as new residents anticipated from recently approved projects (approximately 9,700
residents), the City's population would be 74,100 residents (City of Lodi, 2010). For this
population, a water supply demand of 20.4 mgd (or 26,345 AFY) would be required, as shown
in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Summary of Existing and Projected Average Daily Water Demand (mgd)
Land Use
Wafer Demand
Factor
EAsting
Approved Duvelopment
Projects
Total
Residential
200 gpNPbp
12.7
2.1
14.8
General Camieraal
1,800 gpd/acre
0.7
0.1
0.8
Business RxWOffioe
1,800 gpd/acre
0.2
0.0
0.2
Indistrial
1,000gpd/acre
0.8
0.0
0.8
Nixed Use
1,800gpd/acre
0.0
0.0
0.0
PublidC nasi -Public
2,200 gpd/acre
1.1
0.1
1.2
Pa WOpen Space
2,000 gpd/acre
0.6
0.2
0.8
Wacoounted for Losses (109/o of above)
1.6
0.2
1.8
Total Demand
17.7
V
20.4
Total Demand with 15% Residential Conservation from Installation of Water Meters
17.3
Soism. City of Loo, 2010.
This projection is based on the current water demand factor estimates by land use types, as
described in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (RMC, 2006). These factors are
somewhat conservative for estimating purposes to account for variations in weather, assumed
full occupancy, and the uncertainty of the type of user to occupy the non-residential parcels in
the future. To illustrate, the resulting calculated annual demand is estimated to be about 15
percent more than estimated water supply of the City in 2008; therefore these factors may be
overestimating demand. In the future, the potential 15 percent reduction in residential demand
resulting from the installation of water meters would reduce the total city-wide demand at
reasonable development to about 17.3 mgd (22,341 AFY) (City of Lodi, 2010).
City of Lodi_4
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Based on the assumptions above, the City would have a reliable water supply of 21,000 AFY
available from its current and future safe yield of groundwater and surface water supplies, and
thus, meeting 100 percent of the estimated demand.
1.3 Document Organization
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is organized into the following chapters:
O Chapter 1 - Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the background and goals of the Proposed
Project and the contents of the document.
O Chapter 2 - Project Description. Chapter 2 describes the proposed improvements for the
SWTF, the anticipated construction methods that would be used, and the known regulatory
approvals needed.
O Chapter 3 - Environmental Setting. Chapter 3 describes the existing environmental
setting for each environmental issue area.
O Chapter 4 - CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Chapter 4 discusses the potential
environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed
Project.
O Chapter 5 - Determination. Chapter 5 provides the action that is proposed as a result of
this Initial Study.
OO Chapter 6 - References. Chapter 6 provides a list of reference materials consulted during
the preparation of the Initial Study.
OO Chapter 7 — List of Preparers. Chapter 7 contains the list of preparers for this document.
City of Lodi_ 5
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Chapter 2 - Description of Proposed Project
This chapter presents the description of the Proposed Project to meet the goals and objectives as
described in Chapter 1 of this document. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide a
secure, reliable supplemental supply of water for the City to meet their current and future water
needs while reducing dependence on groundwater.
2.1 Project Location
The City owns 12.75 acres between the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) spur line and Lodi
Lake near the intersection of Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road. The SWTF would be
constructed on approximately four acres at the south end of the property adjacent to the UPRR
spur line (Figure 2-1). The entrance to the property would be an access road located at the north
leg of the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue (Figure 2-1). The entrance
would be shared with future park uses that would be constructed between the SWTF and Lodi
Lake.
The City has decided to build the RWPS on the west side of Lower Sacramento Road across
from the WID intake and fish screen and south of the WID canal on property currently owned
by WID (Figure 2-1). The proposed site layout would provide sufficient setback requirements
for safety and aesthetic considerations.
During construction of the WID fish screen structure, a 48 -inch pipe was included in the
structure to supply surface water to the City. From the 48 -inch pipe, a 36 -inch raw water
pipeline extends to the RWPS site. From the RWPS site, a 30 -inch discharge pipeline would
discharge to the SWTF (Figure 2-1). A portion of the raw water pipeline was constructed as
part of the planned widening and reconstruction of Lower Sacramento Road, and therefore, is
not part of the Proposed Project. Only the portion of the raw water pipeline located on the city -
owned property is part of the Proposed Project.
The City's water system is currently supplied by groundwater from 27 wells spaced at
approximately 0.5 mile intervals throughout the City (Figure 2-2). A 3,200 -foot long
transmission pipeline from the SWTF would connect to the existing distribution system water
mains at four points along Mills Avenue, ending at Elm Street (Figure 2-1).
2.2 Proposed Facilities
Below is a description of the RWPS, SWTF, pipelines, and well modifications. A more detailed
description of the SWTF can be found in HDR (2010).
22.1 RawWftw Pimp Station
The RWPS would deliver 2.0 to 11.5 mgd of untreated water to the SWTF at the initial phase,
and would be expandable to 23 mgd at the final phase. The initial phase is expected to be in
operation in less than three years and the final phase would be built much later.
City of Lodi 2-1
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
OFF Ir f
►Y: , ,
i;
.r U.
Lr
14C
•' � }�• , " � 'it �� I i SNI — '~ T• . �r • � _ ��t { � + „ ' 6
r ._a. /. _.J. t • . tea.,_ 7 � l d
or
qr
JL If
•
rid' �-� � � :�. _ -. . � • .i - .�
�� .. -_ :4r.= •�"'a-r � - r �,�7 '�F • • t, ��w ... _ � - - � . 1.
��a
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The RWPS would be constructed with four 30 -inch pump cans designed for 75 -horsepower
(hp) vertical turbine pumps. Initially, three 50 -hp pumps would be installed in the oversized
cans with a capacity of 5.7 mgd each. Additional capacity would be provided in the future as
required by adding a fourth pump and by replacing the 50 -hp pumps with 75 -hp pumps. The
pump station discharge would be measured by a magnetic -type flow meter located outside the
pump station (Figure 2-3).
The RWPS building would include a pump room and an electrical room. Concrete masonry
construction would be provided for aesthetics, durability, and security reasons. The RWPS
building would be designed around vertical turbine pumps, which would be mounted on a
concrete pad above the floor. Climate control would be provided for the electrical room to keep
the electrical equipment and controls within their operable temperature range. The pump station
would be ventilated.
The RWPS would receive electrical service from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) since it is
located outside the area served by the City's Electric Utility Department. A new 800 -ampere,
480/277 volt, three-phase, four -wire electrical service utility service would serve the RWPS. A
PG&E -owned transformer would be located on site and an underground conduit installed to a
nearby PG&E overhead power pole (Figure 2-3).
A diesel engine generator is planned for the future to provide standby power to enable the pump
station to run to full output during power failures. The generator would be sized for the initial
phase and would be replaced with a larger generator for the final phase. Electrical service
would be sized to supply electricity at the final phase capacity of 23 mgd.
The RWPS design would incorporate design elements to attenuate the noise generated by the
pumps and motors. These building design elements would include acoustical barrier panels on
the pump room walls and use of acoustical louvers.
Security measures would be provided to protect the RWPS from vandalism or other threats to
the City water supply. Secure locks and intrusion alarms would be provided for the doors and
electrical panels. Lighting would be provided on all sides of the building. Video cameras would
be provided outside the building and would have the ability to record and store up to 24 -hours
of data.
The RWPS site, occupying approximately 0.2 acres, would be fenced with access from Carolina
Street. Decorative fencing, facing Lower Sacramento Road and Carolina Street, would be
provided similar to the existing fish screen fencing. A sidewalk, curb, and gutter would be
constructed along the Carolina Street frontage of the RWPS.
City of Lodi 2_4
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Layout of Raw Water Pump Station
hr] FIGURE 2-3
ONF COMPANY IMany Soh ioar• Surface Water Treatment Facility I City c Lodi, CAI HDR Project No 141.107917 096
Figure 2-3. Layout of Raw Water Pump Station
City of Lodi 2-5
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.2.2 RawWater Pipeline
The 36 -inch gravity line from the WID fish screen to the RWPS and the 30 -inch discharge
pressure line from the RWPS to the SWTF, as identified on Figure 2-1, were constructed as part
of the planned widening and reconstruction of Lower Sacramento Road by the County. As
such, the construction of this portion of the raw water pipeline was covered under previous
CEQA documentation (San Joaquin County, 2004).
The 36 -inch gravity line connects to the existing 48 -inch pipe connection at the fish screen
structure. The 36 -inch gravity line crosses Lower Sacramento Road about 30 feet south of the
WID canal and terminates at the RWPS site. The maximum and minimum operating levels of
the WID canal are 41.5 feet and 36.0 feet, respectively. The centerline elevation of the 36 -inch
gravity line to the RWPS is 29.9 feet to allow gravity flow at the minimum operating level of
the WID canal.
2.2.3 SurP"VllatwTreatment Facility
The City owns 12.75 acres land between the railroad tracks and Lodi Lake. The land is flat and
grassy with scattered oak trees as shown in Figure 2-4. The SWTF would be constructed on
approximately four acres at the south end of the property adjacent to the railroad tracks. The
entrance to the property would be located at the southeast corner of the parcel at the intersection
of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue. The entrance would be shared with future park uses
that would be constructed in the future.
Figure 2-4. Existing SWTF Ste
The SWTF would have an Operations Building that would house the membranes, laboratory,
and administration and operations offices. A Chemical Building would house a workshop,
membrane feed pumps, autostrainers, chemical storage and feed systems, and a future
dewatering system. Space would be provided on the site to allow for expanding the Operations
and Chemical building s to accommodate plant expansion to 20 mgd. A third building would
contain the high service pumps and electrical room. Other components of the SWTF would
City of Lodi 2.6
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
include a reverse filtration waste tank, plate settler for reverse filtration water, sedimentation
basin, high service pump station, soda ash silo, and a three -million -gallon storage tank.
The SWTF would receive electrical service from the City's Electric Utility Department. The
SWTF is located adjacent to the City's MacLane Substation. The SWTF would require a 3,200
ampere, 480/277 volt, three-phase, four -wire electrical service, which would be sufficient to
handle the additional loads installed in the future for 20-mgd service.
A small standby generator (diesel or natural gas) would be provided to operate critical systems
(computers, lights HVAC system, etc.) in the Operations Building. A larger standby diesel
engine generator is planned for the future to provide electrical power to the SWTF in case of a
power outage. The future backup power system would operate the membrane equipment;
chemical feed system; high service pumps; facility lighting; heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment, and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
equipment during power outages. The larger standby generator system could be expanded as
the facility grows.
The SWTF would have a SCADA system that would provide control and automatic operation
of the water treatment processes as well as storage of plant operating and regulatory compliance
data. The SCADA system would include the RATS, storage facilities, and groundwater wells,
and would be set up as a fully functional network node that can be monitored remotely from the
City's central SCADA location at the Municipal Service Center.
The following sections discuss the general layout of the SWTF. A layout of the SWTF is
presented in Figure 2-5. Refer to Figure 2-10 to view the location of the various components in
the treatment process.
Stnictural Facilities
The Operations Building containing the membranes and operations and administration offices
would be located on the west side of the SWTF site and near the SWTF entrance to minimize
visitor traffic on the site. The storage tank, soda ash silo, and the high service pump station
would be placed on the southeastern portion of the site to minimize their visual impact when
viewed from the future park. Views of these structures from Turner Road would be screened by
existing trees. The finished floor elevation of both structures would be 48 feet above mean sea
level, approximately six inches above finished grade and one foot above the 100 -year
floodplain. The storage tank would be partially buried to minimize its visual impact. The
sedimentation basin would be located along the northwestern property line adjacent to the
future park in close proximity to the treatment process. Sanitary service from each building
would be routed to the existing sewer main in Turner Road as indicated in Figure 2-5. The
sewer line would be bored under the railroad tracks to Turner Road where it would connect to
an existing manhole.
City of Lodi 2.7
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Layout of SWTF Facilities
ImFIGURE 2-5
ONE COMPANY I Mdny Sodarionr• Surface Water Treatment Facility I City of Lodi, CAI HDR Project No 141 107917 006
Figure 2-5. Layout of SWTF Facilities
City of Lodi 2-8
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Operations Building
The Operations Building would house administrative offices, the operations and control room,
the process control laboratory, locker rooms, membrane filtration equipment, and associated
electrical gear. The large room that would house the filtration equipment would have ample
exterior access for the maintenance of this equipment. Roll -up doors would be placed for
installing and removing large pieces of equipment, such as the membranes, strainers, chemical
storage tanks, and pumps. Overhead doors would be placed in other areas, such as the
membrane room, and compressor and electrical rooms to accommodate equipment or truck
access.
Chemical Building
The concrete masonry unit (CMU) -block Chemical Building would include the following
rooms and equipment: membrane feed pump and autostrainers; electrical room; mechanical
room; rooms for polymer, corrosion inhibitor, coagulant, soda ash storage and feed; sodium
hypochlorite storage and feed room; aluminum chlorohydrate storage and feed; and a
workshop. Space would be provided on the site to expand the building for future facilities that
could include rooms for mechanical dewatering, ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection, powdered
activated carbon, or fluoride.
High Service Perp Station
The high service pump station would be housed in a CMU -block building that also would have
an electrical room, containing the main switch gear for the SWTF. The initial phase of the
SWTF high service pump station would have a firm capacity of 10 mgd while the final phase
capacity would be 25 mgd. The pump station's capacity would be greater than the SWTF
capacity to account for peak periods when demand exceeds treatment capacity. The initial phase
would have three 200 -hp pumps (two duty; one standby); the final phase would have six 200 -hp
pumps (five duty; one standby).
Finished V1kter Storage Tank
The finished water tank would be a partially buried, prestressed concrete tank. The tank would
serve as a storage tank for finished water at the SWTF, providing chlorine contact time to
inactivate disease -causing organisms and storage of treated water prior to pumping into the
City's water distribution system. The 130 -foot -diameter tank would store three million gallons
of water with three to four feet of free board. The inlet and discharge, and overflow pipes would
enter and exit through the floor. The tank would be 35 feet in total height, with 25 to 28 feet
above grade and seven to 10 feet below grade.
Soda Ash Silo
The soda ash feed system would consist of an outdoor silo that sits atop the feed equipment.
The silo would hold approximately 30 days storage, which would be approximately 35 to 40
tons at build -out. The steel silo would have a standard diameter of 12 feet and a cylinder height
of approximately 26 feet. A dust collector would be provided to prevent soda ash dust from
leaving the silo. The soda ash silo would be located near the point where the treated water
City of Lodi 2-9
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
pipeline enters the concrete storage tank in order to minimize the length of chemical piping.
The silo would be painted a neutral (tan or gray) color to match the other structures on the site.
Membrane Tma m t
Membrane treatment components would include a sedimentation basin, autostrainers,
membrane feed pumps, membrane modules mounted on racks, and ancillary support systems
such as CIP, and compressed air systems.
Secimmntation Basin
A sedimentation basin would protect the membranes from fine sand particles that could pass
through the autostrainers. The basin would allow sufficient contact time for coagulation and
settling of fine sand and could potentially improve water quality enough to permit operation
during winter months. The basin would be approximately 113 feet long by 35 feet wide and
would handle 12 mgd at a water depth of 16 feet.
The basin would be split into three parts: inlet channel, sedimentation basin, and effluent
chamber. After being injected with a pre -oxidant and coagulant, the raw water would enter a
two -foot -wide inlet channel that would span the width of the basin. The inlet channel would be
used to minimize turbulence and promote even flow distribution across the sedimentation basin.
A sludge collector would be installed on the basin floor to collect and discharge settled particles
directly to the sewer or to the backwash waste tank, which could reclaim the water by
thickening the solids. The final section of the basin would include an eight -foot wide -effluent
chamber that would supply the membrane feed pumps. The sedimentation basin could be
divided in the future into a flocculation basin followed by inclined settling plates, if more
aggressive pretreatment is required. Space would be reserved for a second basin upon future
expansion.
Membrane Feed Pumps
Raw water from the sedimentation basin would feed the centrifugal membrane feed pumps
housed in the Chemical Building. During the initial phase three 200 -hp pumps would be
installed (two duty; one standby) each having a capacity of 4,164 gpm (6 mgd) to provide a
firm capacity of 12 mgd. Additional capacity would be provided in the future as required by
adding a fourth pump (three duty; one standby) and replacing the 150 -hp pumps with larger
pumps, each having a capacity of 5,552 gpm.
The pumps would be designed to provide sufficient pressure through the autostrainers,
membranes, and all piping and valves to the finished water storage tank. The associated suction
and discharge isolation and check valves would be sized for the final phase conditions to make
future pump installation more cost effective.
UTTL T-77 7
Autostrainers would remove any large particles such as pine needles, leaves, or other items in
the raw water influent that pass through the fish screens and sedimentation basin. Any particles
of significant size could damage the membranes and decrease their treatment efficiency. Two
City of Lodi 2-10
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
strainers would be installed to meet the initial treatment capacity. Each autostrainer would have
a screen opening size no greater than 400 microns and be equipped with an automatic cleaning
system that would operate without the unit being taken out of service.
Membranes would serve as the primary filtration in the production of finished water quality that
would meet or exceed state and federal standards for drinking water. The SWTF would utilize a
Pall Microza pressure membrane system that would pump water through the membranes under
pressure. The membrane system would provide a positive barrier to bacteria and organisms
such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium.
The membrane system would have an initial firm capacity of 8 mgd and a total capacity of 10
mgd net production capacity. The SWTF would be expandable to 20 mgd net production
capacity. Four equally sized trains (2 mgd each) would be used to produce 8 mgd. A fifth train
would be installed to provide firm capacity when one train would be out -of -service for cleaning
and backwashing. All trains could operate to provide additional capacity.
Water and Sewer Pipelines
One 8 -inch water service pipeline would connect to the existing 8 -inch water line that runs
along the east side of the proposed SWTF site. This line would provide potable water for each
building, fire sprinklers, and onsite fire hydrants. Backflow prevention devices would be
installed on the potable water service, fire service, and irrigation lines. The potable water sent to
the group picnic area would also have a backflow prevention device.
Sanitary sewer lines would be separated both vertically and horizontally from all water lines.
Sanitary service from each building would be routed to the existing sewer main in Turner Road
as indicated in Figure 2-5. The sewer line would be bored under the railroad tracks to Turner
Road where it would connect to an existing manhole.
StonTmeter System
Stormwater collection at the SWTF would comply with the City's Stormwater Management
Program. Bordered areas would be filled with gravel as a structural best management practice
(BMP). Culverts would direct runoff from interior borders to perimeter borders where catch
basins would be placed. The borders would be excavated approximately six inches and
backfilled with gravel material or decorative rock. The gravel would serve to reduce stormwater
pollution and ongoing costs otherwise needed for vegetative landscape maintenance.
Stormwater would percolate through the gravel into the ground. Periodically, when large
volumes of stormwater are collected, the gravel would serve to filter the runoff prior to it
entering the catch basins. Borders around the perimeter of the SWTF site would have trees to
help screen the SWTF from the park. The storm drain system would connect to the existing
stormwater pump station near the SWTF entrance.
City of Lodi 2-11
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22.4 Finished Water Main
The City's existing distribution system is typical of a groundwater -based system; incorporating
27 wells distributed across the system and connected by pipelines with diameters in
predominantly 6-, 8-, and 10 -inches. None of the existing pipelines are greater than 14 -inches in
diameter. As a result, the City's distribution pipelines do not have significant capacity to
transmit large flows to or from any location. Therefore, four connections would be spread out
among the existing water mains that are 8 -inch diameter and larger. The four connection points
for the SWTF would be on North Mills Avenue at Turner Road, Yosemite Drive, Lockeford
Street, and Elm Street.
The finished water pipeline would be placed along the south side of the SWTF, parallel to the
railroad tracks. The 3,200 -foot -long, 36 inch transmission main would exit the SWTF and
follow the access road to the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue, where it
would tunnel under the railroad tracks and continue south along North Mills Avenue to Elm
Street. In the future, the water transmission main would be extended south another 2,400 feet to
West Lodi Avenue and continue west along West Lodi Avenue past Lower Sacramento Road to
serve the development west of the Lower Sacramento Road and the City's final phase peak
flows.
The SWTF would share an access road with future park land. The City plans on designing and
constructing the access road to serve both areas. The volume of traffic visiting the SWTF is
expected to be minor. Most visitors are expected to arrive by automobile; however, a few large
trucks would arrive for deliveries, construction, and maintenance.
The access road to the SWTF would extend northwest from the intersection of Turner Road and
North Mills Avenue in the southeast corner of the City's property (Figure 2-6). The road would
be 24 -feet wide with four -foot wide shoulders. The intersection of Turner Road and North Mills
Avenue would require signal modifications to accommodate a four -leg intersection.
For the westbound traffic on Turner Road, an existing raised traffic island in the intersection
would be removed to accommodate the northbound through movement from North Mills
Avenue. A new traffic signal post would be installed on the existing raised median east of the
intersection with new traffic signal heads for both eastbound and westbound left turn
movements. In addition, an existing 25 -foot signal mast -arm with a street light and signal heads
for the northbound, westbound through, and eastbound left turn movement. It would also have a
"No Right Turn" sign that would operate with the railroad crossing signal to prevent vehicles
from turning right on a red light when a train is approaching. The existing high voltage power
pole would remain.
City of Lodi 2-12
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Feet .-...ww.. 0 . M00
1 inch = 40 feet Intersection Improvements
x ( FIGURE 2-6
Surface Water Treatment Facilitv I City of Lodi, CAI HDR Pro lect No. 141.107917.006
ONE GQMPAhrYWdAy Solkiions °'
Figure 2-6. Access Road and Intersection Improvements
City of Lodi 2-13
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
For the northbound direction on North Mills Avenue, an existing left turn lane would change to
a through/left lane. The existing raised traffic island on North Mills Avenue would be reshaped
and the existing traffic signal post on the island would be relocated. The 40 -foot mast on the
traffic signal post would be removed and replaced with a street light. The existing signal post
on the right turn median would receive a new southbound signal head for southbound traffic.
For eastbound traffic on Turner Road, a left turn pocket would be added at the intersection to
allow movement to the access road. An existing raised median and street light on West Turner
Road would be relocated adjacent the new left turn lane. A new 50 -foot traffic signal mast
would be located on the southwest corner to replace the 40 -foot mast arm removed from the
island on North Mills Avenue. The crosswalk on the west quadrant would be moved west to
maintain 40 -foot spacing in front of the new 50 -foot mast.
An existing signal controller located at the southwest corner would be modified for the new
eastbound left turn and the southbound movements. All new traffic signal heads would be light -
emitting diodes (LED) to reduce energy use.
Currently, the traffic signals also function as the railroad crossing control signals. The City met
with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and UPRR to determine if any
changes to the crossing controls would be needed with the intersection improvements. Due to
the low number of incidents at the intersection, the CPUC decided to allow the existing
crossing controls to remain. American Disabilities Act (ADA), signage, and striping
improvements would be included in the proposed improvements. A preliminary design will be
submitted to UPRR for review during the 60 percent design review. This will then be followed
by submitting a General Order 88B (application for railroad crossing) to the CPUC.
New crosswalk, curb ramps, and traffic signal poles with traffic and pedestrian signal heads
would be added for the north leg of the intersection. The access road would be constructed
along the lake, which would necessitate the removal of mature trees and an earthen
embankment. The access road would be routed from Turner Road, between the existing
concrete pedestrian/bicycle path that runs along the lake and the stormwater pump station to the
SWTF's entrance gate. A second wooden power pole located in the berm would have to be
reinstalled when the berm is removed. A few street lights and park benches along the path
would be moved away from the access road to the lake side of the path. The lights at the park
and the SWTF would be integrated along with the road and the pathway.
Figure 2-7 shows the existing view from Turner Road looking towards the lake. Figure 2-8
shows a conceptual image of the same view after the SWTF is built after the removal of 12 oak
trees (three valley oaks and nine interior live oaks) along the proposed access road. Figure 2-9
shows a conceptual image of the SWTF as viewed from Turner Road after the removal of four
oak trees (one valley oak and three interior live oaks) and one black locust tree from the SWTF
site during construction.
City of Lodi 2-14
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2-7. Existing Location of Entrance
Figure 2-8. SWTF Entrance
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-15
May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2-9. SWTF as Viewed from Turner Road
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2-16
May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Signage and Striping
Directional signs on Turner Road would guide vehicles to the SWTF entrance. Parking signs
would be placed on the site to delineate ADA, visitor, and staff parking areas. The intersection
would be striped to delineate the new lanes, crosswalks, etc. Only a center line stripe and
crosswalk at the intersection are planned for the access road at this time. Additional striping and
additional width of pavement for bike lanes, etc. could be added in the future when the access
road becomes a public road shared by the park. Directional arrow pavement markings could
also be placed at that time. No lane striping would be placed on the SWTF site other than for
delineation of the fire lanes and parking stalls.
Parldng
Eight standard mixed use parking spaces and two disabled parking spaces would be located at
the SWTF entrance for City employees and visitors. The SWTF would have two entrances: one
for staff and visitors, and one for deliveries. After passing through the parking area, staff and
visitor vehicles would be directed to proceed in a counter -clockwise direction around the
SWTF. This route, which would also serve as fire access, would loop past all of the building
access points and back to either the main entrance or the delivery entrance. Large vehicles and
delivery trucks would enter and exit through the delivery gate. The main buildings would have
several large access doors that would be accessed by different types of vehicles. The area
around the buildings would be paved, providing access to these points. Concrete sidewalks
would extend four to six feet from the buildings. The finished grade for the pavement would be
four to six inches below the sidewalks, creating a curb intended to deter large vehicles with tall
trailers from damaging the roof eaves. Ramps would be constructed at roll -up doors to permit
unobstructed access when loading and unloading equipment and supplies.
22.6 VW1 Notifications
The City's water system is currently supplied by groundwater from 27 well pump stations and a
grid water main system (Figure 2-2). Well 27 will be constructed by 2011. Portable chlorination
equipment consisting of a tank of 12.5 percent sodium hypochlorite solution and a small feed
pump are used to chlorinate the well water on an as needed basis. Well 4R includes permanent
chlorination facilities and would not require any modifications. All wells except for wells 2, 8,
and 12 would be active and maintained for the lifetime of the SWTF. The City plans to
decommission wells 2, 8, and 12 in the near future. The City's wells are listed in Table 2-11.
The need for existing groundwater well modifications arises from operational and regulatory
requirements to accommodate the combined use of surface and groundwater supplies, water
quality monitoring, and disinfection guidelines. In compliance with Title 22, Section 64650 et
seq. of the California Code of Regulations, all utilities using surface water or any groundwater
supply under the influence of a surface water supply must provide adequate disinfection. In
order to comply with these rules, chlorination facilities would be added to each of the well sites.
Two federal regulations also affect the operation and structure of the City's water system. First,
the introduction of the new surface water supply will require continuous chlorination of the
City of Lodi 2-17
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
groundwater supplies due to California regulations stemming from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA's) Total Coliform Rule. This rule requires the maintenance of a
detectable level of chlorine throughout a distribution system that contains surface water.
Second, USEPA's Ground Water Rule requires sanitary surveys of groundwater supplies every
3 to 5 years and source water monitoring for coliform bacteria.
Table 2-1. Existing Groundwater Wells
Wall No.
Assured Capacity, gxn
Add Chlorine Facilities
Carrnent
1R
1,130
Yes
2
820
No
DBconnissioring planned
3R
820
Yes
4Ra
1,960
No
Raps directly to elevated storage
tank. Station includes eadsting
chlorination facilities.
5
1,180
Yes
6R
1,580
Yes
7
1,160
Yes
8
800
No
Decamissiorrng planned
9
900
Yes
10C
1,300
Yes
11R
1,320
Yes
12
800
No
DeoonTissiorrng planned
13
1,150
Yes
14
1,670
Yes
15
1,500
Yes
163
1,110
Yes
17
1,800
Yes
183
1,800
Yes
19
1,110
Yes
20,
2,070
Yes
21
2,050
Yes
223
1,400
Yes
23a
1,410
Yes
24
1,420
Yes
25
1,580
Yes
26
1,370
Yes
27
Yes
28
Yes
a equipped with grandar activated caabon
City of Lodi 2_ 1
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
To ensure compliance with state and federal regulations, modifications to the existing
groundwater distribution system would include the following:
O Chlorination of each groundwater supply to provide a minimum of 0.5 milligram per
liter (mg/L) of residual chlorine at the entry point into the distribution system.
O Continuous monitoring of the chlorine residual at each distribution system entry point.
All groundwater supply facilities would be updated with permanent chlorination facilities.
Continuous chlorination would require sodium hypochlorite tanks and an electronically
controlled chemical feed pump monitored by an online chlorine residual analyzer and
controlled by the well pump programmable logic controller (PLC). Because none of the well
pumps in the City's system have variable -frequency drives, simple on/off control of the
chemical feed pump would be sufficient.
The proposed control scheme would be to continuously feed sodium hypochlorite when a well
pump is operating. During well pump startup, the station PLC would activate the chemical feed
pump to provide 12.5 percent sodium hypochlorite solution into the well pump discharge
piping. If the analyzer detects an inadequate chlorine residual, the PLC would shut down the
well pump. The SCADA system would monitor the chlorine residual measurements, well pump
on/off status, chemical feed pump on/off status, and the chemical storage level. The control
system would alert the on-call operator of any anomalies or failures of the chlorination system
operation. Ten spare metering pumps would be kept at the City's maintenance shop.
A fiber -reinforced plastic (FRP) or high density polyethylene (HDPE) sodium hypochlorite
storage tank, local SCADA system equipment, chemical feed pumps and PLCs, and chlorine
residual analyzer would be housed in a FRP shed mounted on a concrete slab at each well site.
Taste and odor issues associated with chlorinating the groundwater supplies would be
minimized by the use of high-quality sodium hypochlorite and maintaining the chlorine
residuals in the well water at about 0.5 mg/L and in no case greater than 1.0 mg/L.
2.3 Construction
Construction is expected to take approximately 18 months. The finished water storage tank and
the soda ash silo would be the tallest structures, approximately 25 to 28 feet and 26 feet above
ground, respectively.
City of Lodi 2-19
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Concrete and CMU block would be the primary construction material for structures. Major
process piping would be made of steel and ductile iron. The chemical storage tanks would be
HDPE. The major construction phases for the SWTF and RWPS would be:
• Clearing and Grubbing
• Intersection Improvements
• Excavation and Sitework
• Structural Facilities
• Electrical, Process Mechanical, and Instrumentation
• Paving and Striping
• Architectural, Landscaping, and Security
• Startup and Testing
The primary construction equipment would be:
• Articulated trucks • Graders
• 18 -wheel dump trucks • Compactors
• Track -type tractors • Concrete pump trucks
• Excavators • Pavers
• Wheel loaders
• Scrapers
• Backhoes
23.1 gearing and Grubbing
• Personnel lifts
• Scaffolding
• Forklifts
Survey staking would be used to define the limits of the RWPS and SWTF sites. Vegetation
and trees that would interfere with construction and operation would be removed from the sites.
Approximately ten clearing and grubbing crew members would be need for this phase of
construction: nine equipment operators and a supervisor/foreman.
23.2 Excavation and Sitevuork
Excavation
Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. completed a geotechnical report for the treated water
pipeline, and SWTF and RWPS sites (HDR, 2010). Two to three feet of organic laden fill was
encountered at the SWTF and RWPS sites that would need to be removed and replaced.
City of Lodi 2-2�
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Therefore, a geotechnical engineer would be on-site during all grading operations in case soft or
undesirable soils would be encountered during excavation.
Approximately 5,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil would be excavated for construction of the
storage tank and the soda ash silo. An additional 2,600 CY of soil would be excavated for the
construction of the high service pump station, pipelines, and lakeside embankment. It is
anticipated that some of the excavated soil would be suitable for use as fill elsewhere on the
SWTF site. However, based on geotechnical data and the possibility of organics in the soil, the
soil would require testing to meet specifications prior to use. Any excavated soil that would be
unsuitable for fill would be placed around the remainder of the park site.
FII
The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Project area places the RWPS, SWTF, and
pipelines outside of the 100 -year floodplain. The Proposed Project is located in Zone X
(unshaded), which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard and above the 500 -year flood
level and protected by a levee from the 100 -year flood. However, in order to provide proper
onsite drainage for the SWTF, the entire site would be elevated to six inches, which would
require approximately 21,000 CY of fill. The 21,000 CY includes fill for the amount of top soil
that the geotechnical reports (HDR, 2010) recommend for removal since it is unsuitable plus
the extra fill needed to raise the site. Likewise, the RWPS site would need approximately
300 CY of fill to elevate it six inches for proper drainage.
All fill would be compacted to 90 percent relative density during rough grading. Foundations
would subsequently be prepared and compacted according to recommendations in Appendix A
in HDR (2010).
Dewetedng
During construction dewatering may be required for deep excavations due to the close
proximity of the Proposed Project site to the Mokelumne River, WID canal, and Lodi Lake.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) well data indicate that seasonal groundwater
levels in the Project area fluctuate between 24 and 30 feet below grade. Geotechnical
investigations of the SWTF site measured groundwater at 34 feet below grade (HDR, 2008,
2010). A boring at the RWPS found groundwater at 19 feet below grade.
The higher level encountered at the RWPS site is influenced by the WID canal, which was full
when the geotechnical investigation was conducted. The pump cans would be placed
approximately 18 feet below grade. Even with WID restricting construction to the winter
months when the canal is empty, the groundwater level could still be high enough to require
dewatering at the RWPS site.
The groundwater fluctuates with seasonal variations, rainfall, and lake level. Depending on the
construction schedule, dewatering may also be necessary during construction of the tank and
high service pump station at the SWTF site.
City of Lodi 2-2
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Grade
The entire SWTF site would be graded with slopes towards the graveled borders, which would
capture runoff from the site. Borders around the perimeter would also provide areas for
vegetative landscaping. Standard erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention BMPs
would be required during construction. Construction BMPs would conform to the City's
Stormwater Management Program and may include fiber rolls, slope tracking, and proper
equipment staging areas.
Sitework would involve installing large underground pipes (6 -inch diameter or larger),
manholes, structural foundation, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
Approximately 12 excavation and sitework crew members would be needed for this phase of
construction: seven equipment operators, four pipe layers, and supervisor/foreman.
23.3 Structural Facilities
This phase would consist of compacting and preparing the soil for all structural facilities. Prior
to pouring concrete, structural forms, rebar, and conduits would be installed for each facility.
After the concrete is poured, it would be finished and cured before the forms would be
removed. After the concrete footing, slab, and walls are poured, the overhead structural steel
and roof decking would be erected.
Approximately 14 structural facilities crew members would be needed for this phase of
construction: three carpenters to cut forms for erection of the facilities; four rebar crew
members to install structural steel; two concrete workers to pour and finish the concrete; two or
three electricians to route conduit through the structural slabs; and two equipment operators.
23.4 Paving and Striping
All parking areas, roads, and designated locations would be paved and striped. Paving would be
performed incrementally throughout the site area as large construction and non -rubber tread
equipment are removed from the site.
Approximately six paving and striping crew members would be needed for this phase of
construction: five paving and striping crew members and one grading operator.
23.5 Dectrical, Process Mechanical, and Insbumm tabon
After the structures have been erected and roofed, electrical equipment (e.g., machinery control
consoles, switchboards, lighting, etc.) would be installed. Site work such as installing pull
boxes, conduits, and cables would continue.
Process mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, mixers, and chemical injection systems) would be
installed and piped through the process facilities. Site work would continue as small diameter
chemical piping would be routed throughout the site.
City of Lodi 2_22
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
After roofs on building and facilities are secured; flow meters, level probes, pressure meters,
and other instrumentation such as process analyzers would be installed.
Approximately seven crew members would be needed for this phase of construction: four
electricians and three piping specialists.
23.6 Architectural, Landscaping, and Security
During the architectural phase, several specialized crews would apply finishes, tile and
flooring, windows, paint, and wall fixtures.
Decorative fencing or a wrought iron style fence would be constructed where the SWTF is
exposed to the park or otherwise visible from the street. On the side facing the railroad track,
one -inch chain-link fencing, eight feet in height topped with three strands of barbed wire would
be placed.
The SWTF would have three vehicular gates: the main entrance, delivery entrance, and a utility
entrance. Motorized gates would be provided at both the main and delivery entrances. The main
entrance would be located in the parking lot adjacent to the Operations Building. The delivery
entrance would be located on the other side of the storage tank from the Operations Building
and out of view. The utility gate would provide access for service or maintenance on the north
side of the Operations Building. It would be a manual gate since its use would be infrequent
and it would be normally locked. Manual gates would be provided at the parking lot in front of
the administration offices to prevent park guests from using the SWTF's parking during
weekends or after hours.
Landscaping within the facility would be kept to the perimeter to screen the SWTF and to
minimize maintenance. Evergreen trees would be placed along the fence line facing the future
park. Sixteen oak trees and one black locust trees would be removed in the construction of the
SWTF and the access road. The trees removed would be mitigated with oak trees planted in the
future park and at other city parks.
Approximately five crew members would plant trees, hydroseed, and install irrigation lines.
23.7 Startup and Testing
This final phase of construction would involve city personnel (i.e., operators, maintenance
crews, and instrumentation specialists) working with the equipment vendors to understand how
each piece of equipment would operate and function at the RWPS and the SWTF. Under city
supervision, the equipment vendors would startup and test the equipment on-site to guarantee
that pumps, mixers, gauges, SCADA system, and other operating equipment are functional and
able to meet design standards. A 30 -day performance test would be conducted to verify that the
membranes would meet specified performance standards.
City of Lodi 2_23
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This phase of construction would not involve any heavy equipment. A three-member crew
would assist with any equipment adjustments or replacements that might be required.
23.8 Staging Areas
Staging areas would be located on both the RWPS and SWTF sites and on future park land.
The staging areas would store pipe, construction equipment, and other construction related
items. The staging areas will be delineated on the project civil drawings. Staging areas would
be used for the duration of construction.
►' u� � � u =:u . �.�� a �u_�u..
Below are proposed construction methods and BMPs that will be incorporated into the
Proposed Project and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program in order to minimize
potential adverse impacts.
O All drainage patterns and grades will be returned to preconstruction conditions.
OO Comprehensive subsurface geotechnical investigations will be prepared by a licensed
geotechnical engineer prior to final design and construction of all Project facilities.
These investigations will evaluate unstable and corrosive soil conditions, shrink/swell
potential, and earthquake fault and related geologic hazards. All Project facilities will be
constructed in accordance with 2001 CBC requirements.
O All proposed facilities that include the addition of external lighting will direct all
lighting features downward to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties and public
roadways.
OO During construction, standard dust abatement and other applicable control measures will
be implemented to reduce air quality impacts from construction activities. Construction
practices will incorporate BMPs and best available control technology as identified by
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
OO Standard erosion control measures and BMPs will be identified in a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and will be implemented during construction to
reduce sedimentation of waterways and loss of topsoil.
O During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using
spark -producing equipment will be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that
could serve as fire fuel. Any construction equipment that normally includes a spark
arrester will be equipped with an arrester in good working order.
OO In the event that any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered
during ground -disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resource(s) will be
halted and the City will consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess
the significance of the find.
City of Lodi 2_24
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.4 Operations and Maintenance
The SWTF would operate continuously, 24 hours per day, every day of the year at various flow
rates during the year with ongoing operations and maintenance. The process schematic for the
SWTF is illustrated in Figure 2-10. Because the SWTF would be automated, it is anticipated
that the City would retain a relatively small task force for day-to-day operations. Projected
personnel would include a plant manager, two operators/general maintenance technicians, one
specialty maintenance technician, one instrument technician, one half-time laboratory analyst,
and one half-time administrative assistant.
It is anticipated that the staff would accept full operations and maintenance responsibility for
both the existing groundwater facilities and the new surface water supply facility. Staff hours
would be 6:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Because the SWTF would not be
continuously staffed, the staff would also be responsible for responding to emergency calls
during unattended hours of operation. Staff hours and shifts may change as more experience is
gained with plant operation.
Raw water from the Mokelumne River would be drawn through the fish screens into a 36 -inch -
diameter pipeline connecting to the RWPS. The raw water pumps would be sized to lift water
from the intake to the sedimentation basin at the SWTF. Membrane feed pumps would then lift
the water from the sedimentation basin, through the autostrainers and through membranes, and
into the storage tank. The pumps would be sized to accomplish this under the worst case
conditions, which are dirty membranes and strainers, and a high storage tank water level. The
high service pump station would be sized for a discharge pressure of approximately 65 pounds
per square inch to match the existing distribution system pressure.
24,1 Autostrainers
Raw water from the sedimentation basin would feed the membrane feed pumps housed in the
Chemical Building. Autostrainers would remove any large particles such as leaves or other
items in the raw water influent. Each autostrainer would be equipped with an automatic
backwash system that would use city water to reverse flow through one portion of the strainer
at a time to clean it. The backwash waste stream from the strainers would be sent to the
backwash waste tank for treatment with the membrane backwash water prior to recycle. The
backwash frequency would depend on solids build-up and would be triggered by a differential
pressure set point.
24,2 Membrane System
Water from the autostrainers would be pumped through the Pall membranes under variable feed
pressure. As the water flows through the membranes, the membranes would eventually foul or
clog. Two processes would be utilized to clean the membranes: (1) an air scrub in which
compressed air would be injected through the membranes; and (2) a combination backwash, or
reverse filtration, which would immediately follow the air scrub.
City of Lodi 2_25
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
IN -LW
WxM
MCKELUMNE RIVER FISH
$GREENS
A&V K
ID
RkW WATER
PUMPS
REVVFlLTRA1
RECWM PUMPS
REVERSE FILTRATIGN
PLATE SEnLER
Not to Scale
1 "vowFILTR4 w
WASTE PUMPS
r�u arta'
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
HIGIPU� GE
Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic
Im Fl:GU RE. 2-70
D•NY COMPANY Surface Water VeatmentFacifity I City of Lodi, CA I HDR Project No 14.1.107917.1305
Figure 2-10. Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 2-26
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
or wffi i— rnnbraurrae
MEMBRANE_
EEDIMEHTAT70it &61N F®
... ......_ _
_— _ — _
— _ — _
PUMPS
I AUTaSTRNHERS
1Ad1ERANES
TREAM
NNNNN.-
I
vin+nP� srancwt
I
TANK
!!I urv'ee Ja�
I
I
v�Tr.
III
F - 0N nw
I
Supp
UPPLT
nLTcza
T -K
II
I
fill
J1111
I
I
RE4ERSE
rLTRATION
NEIfIRaLpiATION
ACID 'Cr
Pp/EFM
WASTE TANK
IimAwua�noll TANK
TANK
awA+ ww
I
l
I
ro
RE41RCUlARGN
`-----------
-'°�-"�=-------J
PUMP
HIGIPU� GE
Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic
Im Fl:GU RE. 2-70
D•NY COMPANY Surface Water VeatmentFacifity I City of Lodi, CA I HDR Project No 14.1.107917.1305
Figure 2-10. Surface Water Treatment Facility Process Flow Schematic
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 2-26
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Two other processes would also be used to clean the membranes: (1) enhanced flux
maintenance (EFM), and (2) clean -in-place (CIP). The EFM process would extend the time
between CIPS. Depending on water quality and solids loading, the EFM would automatically
occur either daily or weekly. During the process the membrane system would be drained and
warm sodium hypochlorite solution would be introduced into the system. The solution would
then circulate through the membrane feed to remove accumulated debris. After the process is
complete, the solution would be drained and the membranes would be rinsed before normal
operation resumes.
Eventually the membranes may be unable to be cleaned via the reverse filtration or EFM
processes. Therefore, to fully clean the membrane system, a CIP would be performed. The CIP
process would occur every 30 to 90 days, and similar to the EFM wash, the frequency would be
dependent on the raw water quality and membrane run time. The CIP process would be
completed in two steps: (1) first, a wash in a solution of one percent sodium hydroxide and
1,000 mg/L sodium hypochlorite; and (2) followed by an acidic wash in a solution of two
percent citric acid. After the CIP process, the membranes would go through a reverse filtration
process.
Chemicals for Membrane Operation
Sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, citric acid, and sodium bisulfate would be used in
membrane operations.
Sodium hypochlorite would be used to prepare batch make-up solution for the EFM and CIP
cleaning processes. Due to the volume of sodium hypochlorite needed for EFM/CIP, it would
be stored centrally in the Chemical Building with the sodium hypochlorite needed for pre -
oxidation and disinfection. The Chemical Building would be kept cool during the summer by
the HVAC system, which would help protect the sodium hypochlorite from deteriorating. The
sodium hypochlorite would be stored in a HDPE tank; the piping material would be polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). Sodium hypochlorite would be supplied as a 12.5 percent solution.
Applications of sodium hydroxide in the membrane cleaning process would include the pH
adjustment of batch make up of the CIP/EFM system, which needs make-up water high in pH;
and neutralization of the spent citric acid used for CIP of the membrane. Sodium hydroxide
would be supplied in solution form up to a 50 percent concentration.
Citric acid would be primarily used in the CIP system. Citric acid solution would be circulated
through the membranes to clean the membranes of any biological and colloidal fouling
approximately once every three months. Citric acid would also be used for neutralization of
spent sodium hydroxide solution used for removing fouling from the membranes. Citric acid
would be supplied in liquid form as a 30 percent solution.
Sodium bisulfite would be used to neutralize any residual chlorine in the membrane unit after
EFM. A 38 percent sodium bisulfite solution would be used.
City of Lodi 2_27
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 2-2 summarizes the chemicals to be used in the membrane system. Details of chemical
storage, containment, etc. can be found in Section 2.4.4.
Table 2-2. Chemicals for Membrane System
Chemical
Parameter
Initial (8 mgd)
Fnal (20 mgd)
Sodium
Hypochlorite
Nurrber of Storage Tanks
1
2
Storage Vdume, each (indudes EFM and CIP)
400 gallons
400 gallons
Storage Tarn Capacity (day tarns)
2 to 3 days
2 to 3 days
Nurrber of Storage Totes
1
2
Sodium
Storage Tank Vdume, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tarn Capacity
3 months
3 months
Otic Acid
Minter of Storage Totes
1
2
Storage Tank Volun-e, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
4 months
4 months
Sodium Bisu fite
Nurrber of Storage Totes
1
2
Storage Tank Volun-e, each
350 gallons
350 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
37 days
74 days
24.3 Chemical Systems
Socitm Hypochlorite
Sodium hypochlorite would be used at the SWTF for: (1) pre -oxidation of raw water; (2)
disinfectant in the treated water storage tank and a chlorine residual in the distribution system;
(3) to prepare batch make-up solution for EFM of the membranes; and (4) to prepare batch
make-up CIP solution for the membranes. The latter two uses are discussed above in
Section 2.4.2.
The sodium hypochlorite storage tank would be located inside the Chemical Building, which
would be kept cool during the summer by the HVAC system. Sodium hypochlorite would be
delivered in a 12.5 percent solution for use as the primary disinfectant of raw water and in the
filtrate to achieve 0.5 -log Giardia disinfection in the treated water storage tank. Sodium
hypochlorite would also be used to prepare batch make-up solution for EFM and CIP solutions
for the membranes.
A min= Chlorohydrate
Aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) would be used, if needed, as a coagulant in both the
sedimentation basin for the removal of turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and
color; and at the plate settler to assist in the solids removal.
City of Lodi 2-2$
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CoagWant Polymer
An anionic polymer would be used in the reverse filtration recovery system to assist the ACH
and enhance performance. Using polymer would lower the ACH dosage and provide more
operational flexibility of the backwash recovery system.
Corrosion Inhibitor (Zinc Orthophosphate)
Zinc orthophosphate would be used for corrosion control when blending with groundwater. The
storage tank would be located in the chemical storage area. The zinc orthophosphate would be
injected upstream of the finished water storage tank before the high service pump station.
Socl rn Carbonate (Socia Ash)
Soda ash would be required to adjust the alkalinity of the membrane effluent prior to entering
the storage tank. The soda ash feed system would be skid mounted and installed inside the
Chemical Building. It would include a bin feeder and overhead hoist that would be used to lift
bags of soda ash into a five -ton bin. The soda ash system would be placed in its own room.
•e ..
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) was not included in the initial design; however, space has
been reserved in the Chemical Building. In the future, PAC may be added to provide taste and
odor control. PAC can be purchased and stored in bags, and fed as a powder using dry feed
machines or using bulk liquid delivery and wet feed.
Table 2-3 summarizes the process chemicals to be used by the SWTF.
Table 2-3. Process Chemicals
Cherrical
Parameter
CLrrent (8 nrgd)
Final (20 mgd)
Alurinum
Chlorohydrate
Numrber of Storage Tarks
1
2
Storage Tank Vdume, each
4,000 gallons
4,000 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
45 days
45 days
Number of Storage Drums
1
1
Storage Tank Volum, each
55 gallons
55 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
165 days
88 days
Diluted Pdymer Batch Tank Capacity
30 gallons
30 gallons
Socium Hypochlorite
Number of Storage Tanks
1
2
Storage Tank Vdume, each'
6,000 gallons
6,000 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
30 days
30 days
Corrosion Inhibitor
(Zinc Orthophosphate)
Number of Storage Totes
1
1
Storage Tank Vdum, each
1,000 gallons
1,000 gallons
Storage Tank Capacity
80 days
32 days
Sociu-n Carboryte
(Soda Ash)
fvfmnn Feed Rate
42 Whir
105lbdhr
Dry a-uncei Usage
1,000lb/day
2,500lb✓day
' Sodium hypochlorite storage includes volume for membrane C/P/EFM processes
City of Lodi 2_29
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24.4 Chemical Storage, Pipelines, and Containment
Sodium hypochlorite, ACH, corrosion inhibitor, and polymer would be stored in the Chemical
Building. Sodium hypochlorite, ACH, and corrosion inhibitor would each have their own
containment area below the building floor. Both the polymer and corrosion inhibitor storage
and feed systems would be contained behind a curb. Sodium hydroxide, sodium bisulfite, citric
acid, and a small volume of sodium hypochlorite would be stored in the CIP chemical room in
the Operations Building. Each of the CIP chemical storage and feed systems would be
contained behind a curb. Dry chemicals would be stored in bags on a platform one foot above
grade level. HDPE tanks would be used for liquid chemical storage. For sodium hypochlorite,
which is subject to degradation with storage, a maximum of 28 days storage would be used.
Double-wall piping would be used for chemical lines outside of containment areas. PVC and
chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe would be used for containment pipe; tubing would
be used to carry the product. Leak detectors would be provided at the low point on each
chemical line. The leak detection panel would feed an alarm to the main plant computer.
Flushing taps would be provided on all chemical pipes to allow for draining or flushing of
chemicals.
All chemicals stored in tanks would have a fill station to receive bulk delivery. A sump would
be provided in the sodium hypochlorite and ACH containment areas. In case of a large leak
from these chemicals, a vacuum truck would pump out the containment area and the chemicals
would be legally disposed. Alternatively, a sump pump would be provided in each containment
area to recover leakage.
The floor in front of the ACH and sodium hypochlorite tanks would be depressed
approximately 4.5 feet for spill containment. A grated floor would span the containment area.
The metering pumps would be placed atop pedestals that rise above the grating in the
containment area. Permanent tanks would sit atop concrete pedestals to ensure that the pumps
maintain a flooded suction. The containment area for each chemical would be separated to
avoid cross contamination. All containment areas would be lined with a coating system that is
compatible with the stored chemicals to protect the concrete. Chemicals spilled into the
containment areas would be pumped out.
The containment areas for the polymer, corrosion inhibitor, and CIP chemicals would be
pumped out to a truck and hauled away for proper disposal. If there is a large spill (e.g., tank
failure), a contractor would remove the spilled material.
24,5 Residuals Handing
Periodically (every 20 to 40 minutes), the membranes would go through a reverse filtration
process to remove the accumulated solids and return the membranes back to their original
operating pressure. In addition to the reverse filtration process, the membranes periodically
would need a chemical cleaning to remove any scale or particulate matter that is not removed
through reverse filtration. A CIP would also be used once every 1 to 2 months to remove the
City of Lodi 2-3�
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
accumulated organic and inorganic scales. On a more frequent basis (once per day), the
membranes would receive an EFM chemical cleaning to help extend membrane life.
After a reverse filtration sequence, the residual stream from the reverse filtration would flow to
a waste tank, which would equalize the flow fed to the thickening system. Coagulant and small
dose of polymer would be used as the thickener to efficiently separate the solids from the liquid
stream. Thickened solids would be sent to the sewer for disposal. The water would then be
recycled to the head of the plant. The treatment process would produce residual flows from
membrane reverse filtration process and the CIP neutralization tank. The CIP and EFM spent
chemical streams would be neutralized and sent directly to the sewer.
2.5 Responsible Agencies and Permits
Table 2-4 summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to
construction and operation of the SWTF. Additional local approvals and permits may also be
required.
Table 2-4. Regulatory Requirements and Permits for SWTF Facilities
Agerqf TYM of Approval Prated Component
State Agencies
Central Valley Regonal Water Quality
National Pollutant Discharge Birrination
SWTF, RA% and raw and treated water
Contrd Board
System (NPDES) OxEtruction Storm Water
pipelines
Permit
General Cyder for Dewatering and Other Low
SWTF, MAPS, and raw and treated water
Threat DisCharW to Surface WIers Permit
pipelines
NPDES Industrial Stone Water Permit
SWTF
State Historic Preservation office
Compliance with Sections 5024 and 5024.5 of
SWTF, RVVPS, and raw and treated water
the California Public F e roes Code.
pipelines
California Public Utilities Commission
Authorization to Alter HighvWRail Crossing
Treated water pipelines
Pursuant to Geri d Order 88-B
California Department of Public Hedth
Domestic Wier Supply Permit Amendment
SWTF
Local/Other Agencies
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
A #xxity to Construct
SWTF, FWWS and raw and treated water
Control District
pipelines
Permit to operate
RV%PS and SWTF
San Joaquin County
Site Approval Permit
R NPS, SWTF, and raw and treated water
pipelines
Union Pacific Railroad
Crossing and/or Ercmadvent Permit
Raw and treated water pipelines
San Joaquin Council d Gavernments
San Joaquin County NUlti-Spedes
SWTF, R MPS, and raw and treated water
Conservation & Open Space Plan Incidental
pipelines
Take lvlasures
aty of Lodi
Storm Water Managerrlent Ran
SWTF, RAPS, and raw and treated water
pipelines
Building Permit
SWTF, Rt1l % and raw and treated water
pipelines
Site Plan and Architedual Review
SWTF, RA% and raw and treated water
pipelines
City of Lodi 2-31
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Chapter 3 - Environmental Setting
This chapter describes the environmental setting for the Proposed Project. This environmental
setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the City will determine whether a
potential environmental impact is significant in Chapter 4, CEQA Initial Study Checklist.
3.1 General Setting
3.1.1 Land Use
The City is located along the Mokelumne River, adjacent to the Sacramento River Delta, in the
San Joaquin Valley between the City of Stockton, six miles to the south; the City of
Sacramento, 35 miles to the north; and along State Route (SR) 99. The City is located on the
main line of the UPRR and is within five miles of Interstate 5 via SR 12.
Major land uses currently developed in the city limits are residential (50 percent); public and
quasi -public including schools (13 percent); industrial (12 percent); commercial, including
retail and office (9 percent); vacant land (7 percent); miscellaneous land, including county,
state, and parking areas (6 percent); agriculture and wineries (1 percent), utilities (less than 1
percent), and mixed -uses (less than 1 percent) (City of Lodi, 2009a).
The 43 -acre Lodi Lake Park is the only regional park within city limits. The park is
characterized by the Mokelumne River, swimming, beaches, and large picnic areas. It is also
attached to the Lodi Lake Wilderness Area. A proposed expansion of the park, planned on the
lake's west bank area, will add approximately eight acres to the regional park (four additional
acres have been designated for the SWTF). In the Lodi General Plan, land use for the SWTF site
was designated open space (City of Lodi, 2010).
The SWTF site is situated in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 6 East of the Mount Diablo
Base and Meridian. The site is undeveloped property east of the northeast corner of West
Turner Road and North Lower Sacramento Road and north of Mills Avenue. Adjacent property
includes the railroad tracks to the west, Lodi Lake and the Mokelumne River to the east, West
Turner Road to the south, and the Masonic (Woodbridge) Cemetery to the north. Industrial
development, including a substation and power plant, is located to the west and south of the
site. The General Mills facility is located across West Turner Road to the south. Three
residences are located west of the railroad tracks along the northwest side of the site.
The SWTF site is presently a vacant field covered in non-native grass, occasional weedy
patches, and several oak trees. The site area was planted in vineyards from a point of time
between 1939 to 1941 and 1967 to 1977, possibly later (USACE, 1941; USGS, 1939, 1976;
Napton and Greathouse, 1977).
City of Lodi 3_
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• ...1 . -7 ..)
The SWTF site is located in the lower San Joaquin Valley. The site lies at an elevation of
approximately 42 feet above mean sea level. The overall topography of the site is flat.
Groundwater in the Project area exists at a depth of approximately 35 feet below ground
surface and flows in a southwesterly direction.
The SWTF site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic province. The site is located in a
large, northwest -trending asymmetric structural trough, filled with marine and continental
sediments up to six miles thick. Stream -channel deposits of coarse sand occur along the San
Joaquin River and its major eastside tributaries. The basin deposits are interbedded lacustrine,
marsh, overbank, and stream -channel sediments deposited by numerous sloughs and meanders
of the major rivers, including the Mokelumne River bordering the site (HDR, 2008).
According to the "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas (Jennings, 1994), no
active faults or Earthquake Fault Zones (Special Studies Zones) are located on or near the
SWTF site. No evidence of recent or active faulting has been observed at the SWTF site
(Youngdahl, 2010). The nearest mapped faults to the SWTF site are related to the potentially
active Vernalis and Stockton Fault zones located approximately 19 and 14 miles southwest of
the site, respectively. The nearest mapped active fault to the site is Marshall Creek -Greenville
fault zone, located approximately 30 miles to the west-southwest (HDR, 2008).
The Soil Survey of San Joaquin County describes the Project area as consisting of Tokay-Urban
land complex, 1 to 2 percent slopes (SCS, 1992). This nearly level map unit is on low fan
terraces. This unit is 50 percent Tokay fine sandy loam and 35 percent urban land. Tokay soil is
very deep and well drained; permeability is moderately rapid; and available water capacity is
high. The Urban land consists of areas covered by impervious surfaces or structures, such as
roads, driveways, sidewalks, buildings and parking lots. The soil underneath is similar to
nearby soils (HDR, 2008).
3.1.3 aimate and Air 00WIty
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) includes the counties of San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and the Valley portion of Kern County. Comprising
nearly 25,000 square miles, it represents approximately 16 percent of the geographic area of
California. The SJVAB has a population of over 3.3 million people, with major urban centers in
Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, and Stockton.
The SJVAB consists of a continuous inter -mountain valley approximately 250 miles long and
averaging 80 miles wide. On the western edge is the Coast Mountain range, with peaks
reaching 5,020 feet, and to the east of the valley is the Sierra Nevada Range with some peaks
exceeding 14,000 feet. The Tehachapi Mountains form the southern boundary of the valley.
The region's topographic features act to restrict air movement through and out of the air basin.
Airflow in the SJVAB is primarily influenced by marine air that enters through the Carquinez
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-2
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Strait, where the San Joaquin -Sacramento Delta empties into the San Francisco Bay. The
SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time. Frequent transport of
pollutants into the SJVAB from upwind sources contributes to poor air quality.
The SJVAB has an inland Mediterranean climate that is typified by warm, dry summers and
cooler winters. Summer high temperatures often exceed 100°F, averaging from the low 90s in
the northern part of the valley to the high 90s in the south. The daily summer temperature
variation can be as great as 30°F. Generally, winters are mild. Average high temperatures
during the winter are in the 50s, while the average daily low temperature is about 45°F. The
SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Annual rainfall varies from north to south, with
the northern counties receiving as much as 11 inches of rainfall and the southern counties as
little as four inches per year. Nearly 90 percent of the annual precipitation in the SJVAB falls
November through April.
Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants.
During summer periods airflow in the region is primarily influenced by marine air that enters
through the Carquinez Strait. Winds usually originate out of the north end of the San Joaquin
Valley and flow in a south -southeasterly direction through the Valley, through the Tehachapi
Pass and into the neighboring Southeast Desert Air Basin. Summer transport of pollutants into
the region from upwind sources sometimes contributes to ozone formation. Additionally, local
emissions may impact downwind communities. Winter air quality is influenced by regional
storms carrying moisture from the Pacific Ocean, with periods of calm winds between storms.
During winter months, winds occasionally originate from the south end of the Valley and flow
in a north -northwesterly direction. Also, during winter months, the Valley experiences light,
variable winds, less than 10 miles per hour. Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion
heights, create a winter climate conducive to high concentrations of certain air pollutants (e.g.,
particulate matter and carbon monoxide).
3.1.4 Biological Resources
The SWTF site is bordered by the Masonic (Woodbridge) Cemetery to the north, Lodi Lake and
the Mokelumne River to the east, and residential and industrial development to the south and
west. On August 2, 2007, a reconnaissance survey of the SWTF site was conducted as part of
the conceptual design study (HDR, 2008). A follow-up survey was conducted on February 12,
2010, which also included the RWPS site and the pipeline alignments.
Vegetation
The RWPS site is completely disturbed. The site is a dirt pad with a few weeds, and is currently
being used as a WID storage yard.
The 12.75 acres on which the raw water pipeline, SWTF site, and SWTF access road would be
located are an open field with widely scattered clumps of native valley oak and live oak
(Quercus lobata and Q. wislizenii), respectively. The habitat type is non-native annual
grassland, which is composed primarily of ruderal grasses and forbs that typically grow in
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
disturbed areas. Dominant plant species include barley (Hordeum murinum), annual bluegrass
(Poa annua), common chickweed (Stellaria media), filaree (Erodium moschatum), shepherd's
purse (Capsella bursa pastoris), yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bur clover
(Medicago polymorpha), cheeseweed (Malva sp.), and miner's lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata).
An access road to the SWTF site is located on a berm that is dominated by ruderal areas and
native oak trees and sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa). Dominant plant species include
stinging nettle (Urtica urens), common chickweed, miner's lettuce, wild oats (Avena sp.),
Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), periwinkle (Vinca major), privet (Ligustrum sp.), and
Himalaya blackberry (Rubus aermeniacus).
The treated water pipeline would be constructed in Mills Avenue. Therefore, no plant or animal
habitat would be disturbed.
No wetlands or others waters of the U.S. were observed at the RWPS and SWTF sites or along
the pipeline alignments.
Wildlife
During the reconnaissance and follow-up surveys, several ground squirrel burrows were
observed in the field. A fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) and several birds were also observed. No
special -status wildlife species were observed. Bird observations included: American goldfinch
(Spinus tristis), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna),
belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans),bushtit (Psaltriparus
minimus), common raven (Corvus corax), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi), northern flicker
(Colaptes auratus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ruby -crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),
western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata).
Special -Status Species
The SWTF and RWPS sites and pipeline alignments are not expected to provide habitat for any
special -status plant or animal species. However, the SWTF site does provide suitable foraging
habitat for Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; state threatened) and other raptors and
migratory birds as well as marginal nesting habitat for these species; although no bird nests
were observed in the site during the surveys. Special -status plant and animal species (with the
exception of birds) that are known to occur in the region are primarily associated with aquatic
habitats such as rivers and streams and other wet places including marshes and swamps, vernal
pools, and other seasonal wetlands. No such aquatic habitats occur on either the RWPS or the
SWTF site. Therefore, the RWPS and SWTF sites and pipeline alignments do not provide
suitable habitat for any non -bird special -status plant or animal species known to occur in the
region.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-4
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.1.5 Cultural Resources
Prehistoric setting
Though there is little archaeological evidence of human use of the Project area during the late
Pleistocene and early Holocene (14,000 to 8,000 before present [BP]), this is likely a product of
the archaeological record itself, rather than the lack of use of this area. Most Pleistocene and
Holocene era sites are deeply buried in accumulated gravels and silts, or have eroded away
(Moratto, 2004).
The earliest archaeological evidence of human use of the Central Valley region dates from
approximately 5,000 BP. The period from 8,000 to 4,000 BP is referred to as the Early Horizon.
During this time period, a generalized subsistence strategy is thought to have been replaced by
a more specialized strategy. This intensification can be seen in what Fredrickson (1973) has
identified as the Windmiller Pattern. Artifact assemblages and faunal remains at Windmiller
sites indicate that a diverse range of resources was exploited, including seeds, a variety of small
game, and fish (Moratto, 2004).
The Middle Horizon dates from approximately 4,000 B.C. to 1,500 BP. Sites from this period
have also been found in the Central Valley. The adaptive pattern that is found most frequently
during this period is called the Berkeley Pattern (Fredrickson, 1973), though sites displaying
the Windmiller Pattern assemblages have also been dated to the Middle Horizon. The Berkeley
Pattern differs from the Windmiller Pattern primarily in the increased emphasis on the
exploitation of the acorn as a staple. This is reflected in the more numerous and varied mortars
and pestles. This complex is also noted for its especially well-developed bone industry and such
technological innovations as ribbon flaking of chipped stone artifacts. During this period,
flexed burials replaced extended burials and the use of grave goods generally declined
(Moratto, 2004).
The period between 1,500 BP and the arrival of the Spanish in central California has been
named the Late Horizon. The predominant pattern during this period is called the Augustine
Pattern (Fredrickson, 1973). This period is characterized by large village sites, increasing
evidence of acorn and nut processing, the introduction and use of the bow and arrow, and use of
clam shell disc beads as the primary medium of exchange. During the last part of the period,
cremation became a common mortuary practice (Moratto, 2004).
Ethnographic Setting
The Project area was aboriginally inhabited by the Northern Valley Yokuts. Ethnographic work
with this group is lacking. Because of the early decimation of the aboriginal populations in the
lower San Joaquin Valley, most information regarding this group is gleaned from accounts of
Spanish military men and missionaries that have been translated. A summary of these sources
was compiled by Wallace (1978), and it is upon this work that the following ethnographic
setting is based.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-5
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Yokuts may have been fairly recent arrivals in the San Joaquin Valley, perhaps being
pushed out of the foothills about 500 years ago. Population estimates for the Northern Valley
Yokuts vary from 11,000 to more than 31,000 individuals. Populations were concentrated along
waterways and on the more hospitable east side of the San Joaquin River. Villages, or clusters
of villages, made up "miniature tribes" (tribelets) lead by headmen. Principal settlements were
located on the tops of low mounds, on or near the banks of the larger watercourses. Settlements
were composed of single-family dwellings, sweathouses, and ceremonial assembly chambers.
Dwellings were small and lightly constructed, semi -subterranean and oval. The public
structures were large and earth covered.
Subsistence among the Northern Valley Yokuts revolved around the waterways and marshes of
the lower San Joaquin Valley. Fishing with dragnets, harpoons, and hook and line yielded
salmon, white sturgeon, river perch, and other species of edible fish. Waterfowl and small game
attracted to the water also provided a source of protein. The contribution of big game to the diet
was probably minimal. Vegetal staples included acorns, tule roots, and seeds.
Most Northern Valley Yokuts groups had their first contact with Europeans in the early 1800s,
when the Spanish began exploring the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. The gradual erosion of
the Yokuts culture began during the mission period. Escapees brought foreign (European and
Native American) habits and tastes, as well as the Spanish expeditions to recover the escapees.
Epidemics of European diseases played a large role in the decimation of the native population.
With the secularization of the mission and the release of neophytes, tribal and territorial
adjustments were set in motion. People returned to other groups, and a number of polyglot
"tribes" were formed. The final blow to the aboriginal population came with the Gold Rush and
its aftermath. In the rush to the southern mines, native populations were pushed out of their
territories. Ex -miners settling in the fertile valley applied further pressure to the native groups,
and altered the landforms and waterways of the valley. Many Yokuts resorted to wage labor on
farms and ranches. Others were settled on land set aside for them on the Fresno and Tule River
Reserves.
Fistoric Setting
San Joagtin County
Early explorers visited the region relatively frequently. Eighteenth -century explorers included
Pedro Fages, Juan Bautista de Anza , and Francisco Eliza. Between 1806 and 1817, mission site
reconnaissance expeditions were led by Gabriel Moraga , Father Ramon Abella, Jose Antonio
Sanchez , and Father Narciso Duran (Hoover et al., 1990).
The first Euro -American to traverse the area was probably Jedediah Strong Smith, who opened
the Sacramento Trail in the late 1820s. Smith reported to the Hudson's Bay Company about the
quantity and quality of furs available in California, and in 1828, the company sent its first
trapping expedition. Trappers working for Hudson's Bay Company established the settlement
of French Camp south of the modern location of the City of Stockton (Hoover et al., 1990).
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-6
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
San Joaquin County remained largely unsettled during the Spanish and Mexican Periods.
Following California's Gold Rush in 1849, settlement of the region gradually increased as
former gold seekers realized the potential for crop production and cattle raising. Small towns
such as Woodbridge, Stockton, and Mokelumne (present day Lodi) were founded in the County
because railroad development throughout the area provided access, goods, and employment. In
turn, these small towns further influenced settlement patterns in the San Joaquin Valley.
Agriculture has remained a steady industry within the County during the 20th century (Tinkham,
1923; Hillman and Covello, 1985).
The City was originally founded as Mokelumne in 1869, when early settlers Charles O. Ivory
and John M. Burt established the Ivory Store, just south of the Project area. During the early
1870s, former gold miners began settling the town where they developed agricultural
properties, many of which specialized in vineyards and other orchards. In 1874, the town was
renamed Lodi. The region's close proximity to the Mokelumne River and railroad development
brought an influx of residents to the region and within four years the area's population grew to
450 residents, many of whom were German immigrants from Russia who entered the region via
the Midwest. In 1906 the City was incorporated, with a population of 1,946 (Hillman and
Covello, 1985; City of Lodi, 2006; Clark, 2009).
During the early to mid 20th century, the City continued to grow with residential and
infrastructural expansion. The region's primary industry continued to be agricultural, and the
grape and wine industry continued to be the area's predominant agricultural product. By 1940,
the City reached a population of 11,000; following World War II, the population surpassed
20,000 residents. During the late 20tt' century, the City continued to grow with residential
development. By the 1990s, the population exceeded 50,000 residents. The City continues to
have a significant agricultural and manufacturing industry to the present day (City of Lodi,
2006).
Railroad development in the San Joaquin County originally began in 1869 when the Central
Pacific Railroad laid tracks through the county, connecting Sacramento with San Jose through
the town of Mokelumne (later named Lodi). In 1870, the line was extended northward to
Oakland and southward to southern California. This railroad provided greater access for goods
transport and allowed for residential growth in the Lodi region. In 1907, the Central California
Traction Company extended the railroad, thereby linking Lodi to southern cities Stockton and
Sacramento. This railroad line was consolidated with the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1959 and
during the late 20th century, UPRR acquired the line and continues to operate it into the present
(Robertson, 1998).
3.1.6 Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they
capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, similar to a
greenhouse. The accumulation of GHGs has been implicated as a driving force for global
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-7
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
climate change, which can be described as the changes in the earth's climate caused by natural
fluctuations and the impact of human activities. Both natural processes and human activities
emit GHGs.
Global climate change is a change in the average weather on earth that can be measured by
wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Although there is disagreement as to the
speed of global warming and the extent of the impacts attributable to human activities, the vast
majority of the scientific community agrees that there is a direct link between increased
emission of GHGs and long-term global temperature. The potential adverse impacts of global
warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in quality and supply of
water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of
thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to the marine ecosystems and the
natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other
health-related problems (GARB, 2008).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature; however,
emissions from human activities such as electricity production and motor vehicles have
elevated the concentration of GHGs. GHGs include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride, and
sulfur hexafluoride (California Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)). Carbon dioxide is the
reference gas for climate change because it is considered the most important GHGs. To account
for the warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are quantified and reported as
CO2 equivalents (CO2E).
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly
Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB
32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement
emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions will be
reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
In December 2007, CARB approved the 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT)
Of CO2 equivalents of GHGs. The 2020 target requires the reduction of 174 MMT of CO2E, or
approximately 30 percent, from the State's projected 2020 emissions of 596 MMT of CO2E
(under condition considered to be business -as -usual). Also in December 2007, CARB adopted
mandatory reporting and verification regulations pursuant to AB 32, which became effective
January 1, 2009, with the first reports covering 2008 emissions. The mandatory reporting
regulations require reporting for facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary source
emissions in California. Major facilities are those that generate more than 25,000 MMT per year
Of CO2E. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric -generating facilities/ providers, cogeneration
facilities, hydrogen plants, and other stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000
metric tons/year CO2E, make up 94 percent of the point source CO2E emissions in California
(GARB, 2007).
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-8
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
In December, 2008, CARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan (GARB, 2008). The Plan
states that local governments are "essential partners" in the effort to reduce GHG emissions,
and that they have "broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive jurisdiction" over activities
that contribute to GHG emissions. The Plan acknowledges that local governments have broad
influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant
direct and indirect GHG emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local
ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Many of the proposed
measures to reduce GHG emissions rely on local government actions. The Plan encourages
local governments to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels
by 2020 (GARB, 2008). The Plan also includes recommended measures that were developed to
reduce GHG emissions from key sources and activities while improving public health,
promoting a cleaner environment, preserving our natural resources, and ensuring that the
impacts of the reductions are equitable and do not disproportionately impact low-income and
minority communities.
SB 97 "2007 Statutes, Ch. 185" acknowledges that local agencies must analyze the
environmental impact of GHGs under CEQA. As required by the bill, the State Office of
Planning and Research submitted to the Natural Resources Agency its proposed amendments to
the State CEQA guidelines for the effects and mitigation of GHG emissions. The amendments
added a new set of environmental checklist questions (VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions) to the
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and are presented in Chapter 5. The amendments became
effective on March 18, 2010.
To assist Lead Agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in
assessing and reducing the impacts of project specific GHG on global climate change, the
SJVAPCD has adopted the Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG
Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy: District Policy — Addressing
GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead
Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of performance based standards, otherwise
known as Best Performance Standards (BPSs) to assess significance of project specific GHG
emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process, as required by
CEQA. Use of BPSs is a method of streamlining the CEQA process of determining significance
and is not a required emission reduction measure. Projects implementing BPSs would be
determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Otherwise, demonstration of a
29 percent reduction in GHG emissions, from business -as -usual, is required to determine that a
project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact. The guidance does not limit a
lead agency's authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining
significance of project related impacts on global climate change. The SJVAPCD has developed
BPSs for the following stationary sources: boilers; steam generators; gasoline dispensing
facilities; dry cleaners; oil and gas extraction, storage, transportation, and refining operations;
and co -generation (SJVAPCD, 2009).
To date, the City has not yet adopted any plan, policy, or regulation for reducing the emissions
of GHGs guiding and implementing policies intended to conserve energy and reduce climate
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 3-9
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fat Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
change in the City. The following policies contained in the recently adopted General Plan that
are applicable to the SWTF include:
OO Guiding Policy C -G10. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% over 2008 levels by
2020, to slow the negative impacts of global climate change.
O Implementing Policy C -P35. Reduce energy consumption within city government
facilities and motor fleets.
O Implementing Policy C -P36. Adopt a comprehensive Climate Action Plan.
3.1.7 Noise
Noise levels that are considered acceptable or unacceptable can characterize various
environments. Lower noise levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be
expected in commercial or industrial zones. Table 3-1 identifies decibel levels for common
sounds heard in the environment.
Table 3-1. Typical noise levels
Noise Level
dedbels
Outdoor Activity
Indoor Activity
(CEY4
90+
Gas lawn irraw at 3 feet, jet flyover at 1,000
Rods band
feet
80-90
Diesel truck at 50 feet
loud television at 3 feet
70-0
Gas lawn maker at 100 feet, noisy urban area
Garbage disposal at 3 feet, vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
60-70
ComT>ercial area
Nom -d speech at 3 feet
40-60
Quiet urban daytime, traffic at 300 feet
large business office, dislwasher next room
20-40
Quiet rural, suburban nighttime
Concert hall (background), library, bedroom at night
10-20
Broadcast / recording studio
0
Lamest threshold of human hearing
Lowest threshold of human hearing
The Amdghted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria The most oormionly used noise descriptors are the equivalent
sound level over a given time period (Leq); average day -night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn); and oomrunity noise
equivalent level (CNEL).
A decibel (dB) is a unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward from a so -roe, exert a sound pressure level
(commonly called "sound level") measured in d6. A dBA is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to time
typical hxnman ear at oomTlonly encountered noise levels.
2 The laq is a single value of a constant sound level for the same rreasUremOnit period duration, which has sound energy equal
to the tima- rying sound energy in the measurement period.
3 Ldn is the day -might average sound level that is equal to the 24 -hoar A-Adghted equivalent sound level with a ter} -decibel
penaltyapplied to right betvroen 10:00 p.m and 7:00 am
4 CNE- is time average A -weighted noise level during a 24 --hour day, obtained by addition of five decibels in the evening from
7:00 to 10:00 p.m, and an addition of a ten -decibel penalty in the night beMeen 10:00 p.m and 7.00 a.m.
Source.' motGfied from Gaffs% 1995
City of Lodi 3-10
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The A -weighted decibel (dBA) scale is cited in most noise criteria. The most commonly used
noise descriptors are the equivalent sound level over a given time period (Leq); average day -
night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn); and community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Noise
levels that are generally considered acceptable or unacceptable can characterize various
environments. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be
expected for commercial or industrial zones.
City of Lodi Standards
The applicable noise standards governing the SWTF are set forth in the Noise Element of the
Lodi General Plan and Noise Ordinance.
The City's General Plan Noise Element does not identify any compatibility standards
specifically for water treatment plants. However, the most appropriate land use category would
be Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, and Agriculture. The Noise Element identifies
compatibility standards for industrial facilities as shown in Table 3-2 (City of Lodi, 2010).
Table 3-2. Standards for Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, and Agriculture
The City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.24 contains general standards for
evaluating noise violations (City of Lodi, 2009b).
9.2A 020 A"Ic 11kisance Noise
A. General Noise Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in
addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or continue or permit or cause
to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs
the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any
reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity.
9.2A 030 Excessive Offensive or Disiming 1lioise
C. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit, or generate any noise or
sound as described herein between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. which exceeds the
ambient noise level at the property line of any residential property (or, if a condominium or
apartment house within any adjoining apartment) as determined at the time of such reading by
City of Lodi 3-11
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Outdoor Ldn or CNEL Value
Normally
Conditionally
Normally
Land Use Category
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Manufacturing and Other
Industrial Facilities
Below 70
70-80
Above 80
Notes:
CSL criteria apply to outdoor noise from souroes that operate Conti nuo Ldy or that operate frequently throLghout most of a
24-hour period.
CNEL aiteria should be applied to noise oonditions that are typical for the noise souroe, riot to conditions reflecting
temporary peak activities.
The City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.24 contains general standards for
evaluating noise violations (City of Lodi, 2009b).
9.2A 020 A"Ic 11kisance Noise
A. General Noise Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, and in
addition thereto, it is unlawful for any persons to willfully make or continue or permit or cause
to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which unreasonably disturbs
the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any
reasonable person of normal noise sensitivity.
9.2A 030 Excessive Offensive or Disiming 1lioise
C. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to cause, permit, or generate any noise or
sound as described herein between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. which exceeds the
ambient noise level at the property line of any residential property (or, if a condominium or
apartment house within any adjoining apartment) as determined at the time of such reading by
City of Lodi 3-11
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
more than five decibels. This section shall be applicable whether such noise or sound is of a
commercial or noncommercial nature (Ord. 1449 § 1 (part), 1989).
3.2 Regulatory Setting
This section summarizes the regulations that apply to construction and operation of the SWTF.
3.2.1 State Agencies
California Clean Air Act
Under the California Clean Air Act, patterned after the federal Clean Air Act, areas have been
designated as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the state standards. The Project area
is nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.51) and 8 -hour ozone. Responsibility for
meeting California's standards lays with CARB and local air pollution control districts such as
the SJVAPCD, which covers the Project area.
Porter -Cologne Mier (duality Control Act
The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter -Cologne Act) provides the basis for water
quality regulation within California and defines water quality objectives as the limits or levels
of water constituents that are established for reasonable protection of beneficial uses. The State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers water rights, water pollution control,
and water quality functions throughout California, while the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) conducts planning, permitting, and enforcement activities.
The Porter -Cologne Act requires the RWQCB to establish water quality objectives, while
acknowledging that water quality may be changed to some degree without unreasonably
affecting beneficial uses. Beneficial uses, together with the corresponding water quality
objectives, are defined as standards, per federal regulations. Therefore, the regional plans form
the regulatory references for meeting state and federal requirements for water quality control.
Changes in water quality are only allowed if the change is consistent with the maximum
beneficial use of the state, does not unreasonably affect the present or anticipated beneficial
uses, and does not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the water quality control
plans.
NPDES StonTmeter Construction Permit
The Central Valley RWQCB administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater permitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities
disturbing one acre or more of land are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES
General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity
(General Storm Water Construction Permit). The City must submit a Notice of Intent to the
RWQCB to be covered by the General Construction Permit prior to the beginning of
construction. The General Construction Permit requires the pre -construction preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP.
1 PMIo is used to describe particles of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 is used to describe particles of 2.5 micrometers or less.
City of Lodi 3-12
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
NPDES Industrial Activities Ston Tmeter Permit
The Central Valley RWQCB administers the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the
Central Valley region. The regulations require that stormwater associated with industrial
activity (stormwater) that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through
municipal separate storm sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit. The City must submit
a Notice of Intent to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Industrial Activities Permit
prior to the beginning of operation. The General Industrial Activities Permit requires the
preparation and implementation of a SWPPP.
NPDES Dowatering Permit
The Central Valley RWQCB also administers the NPDES General Dewatering and Low Threat
Discharges to Land Permit. Small/temporary dewatering projects such as excavations during
construction is regulated under the General waste discharge requirements (WDRs). The City
must submit a Notice of Intent to the RWQCB to be covered by the General Permit prior to the
beginning of construction.
California Departrnent of Health Services
The California Department of Public Health amends existing water supply permits, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 12, Chapter 4
(California Safe Drinking Water Act), Article 7, Section 116550.
California Public Resources Code Sections 5024 and 50245 (Cultural Resources)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that public projects or private
projects financed or approved by public agencies must assess the effects of the project on
historical resources. CEQA also applies to effects on archaeological sites, which may be
included among "historical resources" as defined by Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision
(a), or, in the alternative, may be subject to the provisions of Public Resources Code, Section
21083.2, which governs review of "unique archaeological resources."
Historical resources may generally include buildings, sites, structures, objects or districts, each
of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific significance.
Archaeological resources that are not "historical resources" according to the above definitions
may be "unique archaeological resources" as defined in Public Resources Code, Section
21083.2, which also generally provides that "non -unique archaeological resources" do not
receive any protection under CEQA.
3.2.2 Local Agencies
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The SJVAPCD is the primary local agency responsible for protecting human health and
property from the harmful effects of air pollution in the SJVAB, and has jurisdiction over most
stationary source air quality matters in the SJVAB.
City of Lodi 3-13
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The SJVAPCD is responsible for developing attainment plans for the SJVAB, for inclusion in
California's State Implementation Plan (SIP), as well as establishing and enforcing air pollution
control rules and regulations. The attainment plans must demonstrate compliance with federal
and state ambient air quality standards, and must first be approved by CARB before inclusion
into the SIP. The SJVAPCD regulates, permits, and inspects stationary sources of air pollution.
The SJVAPCD is required to regulate emissions associated with stationary sources such as
agricultural burning and industrial operations.
While all criteria pollutants are a concern of the SJVAPCD, and a project's air quality impacts
are considered significant if they would violate any of the state air quality standards. Ozone
precursors, PM emissions, and toxic air contaminants are emphasized in the review of
applications for an Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate.
San Joaquin Council of Governments
The San Joaquin County Multi -Species Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP),
administered by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) was implemented in San
Joaquin County in order to streamline the development process for developers. Under the
federal and state Endangered Species Acts, developers are responsible to ensure there is no
"take" of endangered or threatened species by cause of their development. The SJMSCP is
permitted to operate through U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10 and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 2081 permits. Therefore, developers can now
choose to use the SJMSCP and take care of their state and federal Endangered Species Act
requirements more easily.
The SJMSCP allows SJMSCP permittees (SJCOG, Inc., San Joaquin County and the cities of
Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton and Tracy) to issue Incidental Take Permits
or allows project applicants to mitigate for impacts to SJMSCP Covered Species resulting from
Open Space land conversion resulting from covered projects. Once an Incidental Take Permit is
issued it allows the project applicant to unintentionally "Take" a threatened or endangered
species listed under the federal and/or state Endangered Species Acts.
Union Pacific Railroad
UPRR requires permits for encroachments, crossings, or both. An "encroachment" is a pipeline
that enters the railroad company's right-of-way and either does not leave the right of way or
follows along the right of way for some distance. A "crossing" is a pipeline that enters the
railroad company's trackage from one side of the right-of-way to the other side of the right of
way in as near a straight line as possible. If an installation entails both an encroachment and a
crossing, procedures for both must be followed. If the installation method for this utility is to
involve the use of a directional drilling method, specific guidelines established by UPRR must
be met.
City of Lodi 3-14
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
city of Lodi
As part of the City's Phase II NPDES stormwater permit, the City developed a Stormwater
Management Program (SMP). The SMP has three objectives: to minimize the impact of
stormwater drainage on the residents of Lodi, to minimize the negative impacts of receiving
water quality of the Mokelumne River, and to minimize the negative impacts on the fish and
wildlife habitat. In order to accomplish these objectives, the SMP is designed to reduce the
discharge of stormwater pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), protect water
quality, and satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act.
City of Lodi 3-15
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Chapter 4 - CEQA Initial Study Checklist
This section evaluates the potential for the SWTF to have a significant effect on the
environment.
4.1 Approach to Analysis
This chapter evaluates the potential for the SWTF to have a significant effect on the
environment through the use of a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist as presented in
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (effective March 18, 2010). According to Section 15382
of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment means "... a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected
by the project." For each category of physical condition evaluated in this Checklist, impact
significance thresholds are defined for each environmental topic. Where appropriate, mitigation
measures are identified to reduce the identified impact below a level of significance. For this
checklist, the following designations are used to distinguish between levels of significance of
potential impacts to each resource area:
OO Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the
potential to be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource,
even after mitigation strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be
significant and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant
impacts are identified, an environmental impact report must be prepared to meet CEQA
requirements.
OO Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Adverse environmental
consequences that have the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less -than -
significant levels through the application of identified mitigation strategies that have not
already been incorporated into the Proposed Project description.
O Less Than Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have
been identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold
criteria for that resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
O No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the
resource or the consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-1
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.2 Environmental Resources to Be Evaluated
The following discussion evaluates the potential for the SWTF to have a significant effect on
the environment. This discussion is organized by the following resource areas:
® Aesthetics
® Agriculture and Forest Resources
® Air Quality
® Biological Resources
® Cultural Resources
® Geology/Soils
® Greenhouse Gas Emissions
® Hazards & Hazardous Materials
® Hydrology/Water Quality
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
® Land Use/Planning
® Mineral Resources
® Noise
® Population/Housing
® Public Services
® Recreation
® Transportation/Traffic
® Utilities/Service Systems
® Mandatory Findings of Significance
4-2
May 2010
fl
Aesthetics
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dismission
a) No Impact. The SWTF site is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas, and
therefore, would not have a substantial impact on any scenic vista. As a result, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The SWTF site is not located near or within a state scenic highway, and
therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. As a result, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Features associated with the
RWPS and the SWTF would result in permanent changes to the visual and aesthetic
character of the Project sites. During construction of the RWPS, construction
equipment, materials, and activities would be visible from Lower Sacramento Road and
would produce temporary adverse aesthetic effects. Construction of the SWTF would
be visible to pedestrians walking on the berm adjacent to Lodi Lake. However,
construction impacts would be temporary and are considered less than significant.
Installation of the pipelines would result in short-term changes during construction, but
would not cause permanent visual alteration since they would be buried.
The RWPS facility would be visible from Lower Sacramento Road and Carolina Street.
The RWPS layout would provide sufficient setback requirements from the streets for
safety and aesthetic considerations. Decorative fencing, facing Lower Sacramento
Road and Carolina Street, would be provided similar to the existing fish screen fencing
that would be across Lower Sacramento Road from the RWPS.
The storage tank, soda ash silo, and the high service pump station would be placed on
the southeastern portion of the site to minimize their visual impact when viewed from
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Fess Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant
With
Significant
No Impact
Impar*
Mitigation
Irxorporated
Impact
I. AESTFE nCS — WoLAd the project:
a) Have a 91sbrlfid adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
❑
b) blbstanfiaily dame scenic resmrces, inducing, but
❑
❑
❑
ED
not limited to, trees rods outcroppings, and Hi c is
bulcings Wain a state scenic ligh&*?
c) Slbstanfially degade the edsfing visual dwader or
❑
®
❑
❑
quality d the site and its surra rdingV
d) Qeate a new scone of substantial light or care
❑
®
❑
❑
Wich %a1d adversely affect day or nighttime viem
in the area?
Dismission
a) No Impact. The SWTF site is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas, and
therefore, would not have a substantial impact on any scenic vista. As a result, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The SWTF site is not located near or within a state scenic highway, and
therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. As a result, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Features associated with the
RWPS and the SWTF would result in permanent changes to the visual and aesthetic
character of the Project sites. During construction of the RWPS, construction
equipment, materials, and activities would be visible from Lower Sacramento Road and
would produce temporary adverse aesthetic effects. Construction of the SWTF would
be visible to pedestrians walking on the berm adjacent to Lodi Lake. However,
construction impacts would be temporary and are considered less than significant.
Installation of the pipelines would result in short-term changes during construction, but
would not cause permanent visual alteration since they would be buried.
The RWPS facility would be visible from Lower Sacramento Road and Carolina Street.
The RWPS layout would provide sufficient setback requirements from the streets for
safety and aesthetic considerations. Decorative fencing, facing Lower Sacramento
Road and Carolina Street, would be provided similar to the existing fish screen fencing
that would be across Lower Sacramento Road from the RWPS.
The storage tank, soda ash silo, and the high service pump station would be placed on
the southeastern portion of the site to minimize their visual impact when viewed from
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
the future park. Views of these structures from Turner Road would be screened by
existing trees. The 35 -feet -tall finished water storage tank would be partially buried (25
to 28 feet above grade and seven to 10 feet below grade) to minimize its visual impact.
The nearby soda ash silo would be approximately 26 feet tall. Trees will be planted
along the perimeter of the SWTF site to screen to screen the SWTF facilities from
public view. Decorative fencing or a wrought iron style fence will be constructed
where the SWTF is exposed to the future park or otherwise visible from the street.
O Mitigation Measure AE -1: Reduce Visual Impacts. The design of the Proposed
Project, including the choice of color and materials, shall reduce the visual impacts
of the RWPS and the SWTF. Bright and reflective materials shall be avoided.
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The RWPS and SWTF would
be new sources of light in the Project area. Both facilities would have nighttime
lighting for security. Compliance with the following mitigation measure will reduce the
potential impacts to aesthetics to less than significant.
O Mitigation Measure AE -2: Minimize Substantial Light or Glare. Outdoor light
sources shall be properly shielded and installed to prevent light trespass on adjacent
properties. Any flood or spot lamps installed will be aimed no higher than 45
degrees above straight down (half -way between straight down and straight to the
side) when the source is visible from any off-site residential property, public
roadway, or Lodi Lake Park.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-4
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not convert to non-agricultural use any Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. The SWTF would be constructed on non-agricultural
property that is owned by the City, and the RWPS would be constructed on non-
agricultural property that is owned by WID. Land uses surrounding the Proposed
Project include low density residential, general commercial, and park lands. No
farming or agriculture takes place within the Project area. As a result, the Proposed
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-5
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentiallyfir�
Fess Than
Issues (and Supporting Fo
ting Inrrrdion Sources):
Sigrific ant
Sgnwith Mitigation
ant
No Impact
Impact
lrtoorpmeted
lc
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE and FOREST FaMURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining Wutiedw impacts to farm resources, inducing timberiand, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to infomnation oonpiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fre
Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest cartoon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resorxces Board. V\br,ld the project:
a) Convert Rime Farrriand, Unique Famiand, or
❑
❑
❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shogun on
the naps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nor�aglicultural
use?
b) Conflict with eadsting zoning for agricultural use,
❑
❑
❑
or a VUlliamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with eadsting zoning for, or cause
❑
❑
❑
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or tirrberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Res<It in the loss of forest land or conversion of
❑
❑
❑
forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other dwiges in the edsting
❑
❑
❑
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
ran -agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to rarforest use?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not convert to non-agricultural use any Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. The SWTF would be constructed on non-agricultural
property that is owned by the City, and the RWPS would be constructed on non-
agricultural property that is owned by WID. Land uses surrounding the Proposed
Project include low density residential, general commercial, and park lands. No
farming or agriculture takes place within the Project area. As a result, the Proposed
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-5
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project would not affect agricultural practices or convert any farmland to non-
agricultural usage. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or
a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the Proposed Project would be constructed
on property that is owned by the City and WID. No farming or agriculture takes place
on the Project sites. The land is not zoned for agricultural use nor is it under a
Williamson Act contract. As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with
agricultural practices or a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). As stated
above, the Proposed Project would be constructed on property that is owned by the City
and WID. No forest lands occur on the Project sites. Therefore, no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
d) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use. As stated above, the Proposed Project
would be constructed on property that is owned by the City and WID. No forest lands
occur on the Project sites. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. As
stated above, the Proposed Project would be constructed on property that is owned by
the City and WID. No farmland or forest lands occur on the Project sites. Therefore, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-6
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Air Ckdity
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Proposed Project site is within the
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD that is charged with improving the health and quality of life
for all Central Valley residents through efficient, effective, and entrepreneurial air quality -
management strategies. If a project is proposed in a city or county with a general plan that
is consistent with the most recently adopted air quality plan, and if the project is consistent
with that general plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with applicable air
quality plans and policies.
The most recently adopted air quality plans are the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2007 PM10 Plan,
and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 2007 Ozone Plan identifies strategies for SJVAPCD to reach
attainment for state and federal ozone standards (SJVAPCD, 2007). The Lodi General Plan
addresses air quality problems in the area and describes climate change, its potential
impacts on the City and region, the City's contributions to global climate change, and its
energy conservation efforts to try to reduce GHG emissions and the rate of global climate
change. The Lodi General Plan also includes a review of existing air quality sources and a
comprehensive set of guiding and implementing policies. These policies are designed to
reduce air quality impacts, in order to improve public health, reduce GHG emissions, and
enhance overall quality of life (City of Lodi, 2010).
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-7
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Fess Than
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Significant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impar*
Mitigation
Irxorporated
Impar*
III. AIR (at UJTY— Mere available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district rrey be relied upon to make the folloWng deterrninrations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct inplerrentation of the
❑
❑
®
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
®
❑
❑
substantially to an adsting or projected air quality
vidadc n?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
❑
❑
®
❑
of any criteria pollutant for whidi the project region
is non -attain lent under an applicable federal or
state ambient air qualitystandard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) F)gmse sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
®
❑
concentrations?
e) Create dojedionable odors affecting a substantial
❑
❑
❑
nuffber of people?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Proposed Project site is within the
jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD that is charged with improving the health and quality of life
for all Central Valley residents through efficient, effective, and entrepreneurial air quality -
management strategies. If a project is proposed in a city or county with a general plan that
is consistent with the most recently adopted air quality plan, and if the project is consistent
with that general plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with applicable air
quality plans and policies.
The most recently adopted air quality plans are the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2007 PM10 Plan,
and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 2007 Ozone Plan identifies strategies for SJVAPCD to reach
attainment for state and federal ozone standards (SJVAPCD, 2007). The Lodi General Plan
addresses air quality problems in the area and describes climate change, its potential
impacts on the City and region, the City's contributions to global climate change, and its
energy conservation efforts to try to reduce GHG emissions and the rate of global climate
change. The Lodi General Plan also includes a review of existing air quality sources and a
comprehensive set of guiding and implementing policies. These policies are designed to
reduce air quality impacts, in order to improve public health, reduce GHG emissions, and
enhance overall quality of life (City of Lodi, 2010).
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-7
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The purpose of the Project is to increase the City's water treatment capabilities and
improve its distribution system to meet current and planned demand. The Project would be
consistent with the current land use designation, and therefore, the Project would not
require a General Plan Amendment.
In summary, the Project is consistent with the Lodi General Plan that is consistent with the
strategies identified in the 2007 Ozone Plan (SJVAPCD, 2007). Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not conflict with the region's air quality management plans and would be
considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would not
violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation. The Project would affect local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First,
during construction, the Project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating
dust. Over the long-term, any onsite stationary air pollutant sources associated with the
Project could also affect local pollutant concentrations. However, since all stationary air
pollutant sources would be subject to SJVAPCD permit requirements, they can be
presumed to have a less -than -significant impact on local pollutant concentrations.
Construction
The primary concern to the SJVAPCD during construction would be the particulate matter
(PM), specifically PMIo, emissions from dust -generating activities. The entire SJVAB is a
serious nonattainment area for PMIo and a substantial increase in PMIo emissions would be
considered significant.
Per the SJVAPCD's Guide for Assessing and Mitigation Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI),
the SJVAPCD's approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is to require
implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than to require
detailed quantification of emissions (SJVAPCD, 2002). From the perspective of the
SJVAPCD, compliance with Regulation VIII and implementation of other control
measures, depending on the size and location of the project site, would constitute sufficient
mitigation to reduce PMIo impacts to less than significant.
The following controls are required by Regulation VIII to be implemented at all
construction sites (SJVAPCD, 2002):
OO All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for
construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water,
chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or
vegetative ground cover.
O All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively
stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-8
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
OO All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and
fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust
emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
O With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of
the building shall be wetted during demolition.
O When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively
wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space
from the top of the container shall be maintained.
O All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt
from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary
brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient
wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly
forbidden.)
O Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface
of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust
emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
O Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or
more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
O Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.
Construction equipment, on -road heavy-duty trucks, and construction -worker
vehicles would also generate criteria air pollutant emissions. Emissions from
construction -worker commute trips would be minor compared to emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. Criteria pollutant concentrations of reactive organic gases (ROG)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from these emissions sources would incrementally add to
regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during the construction period.
The GAMAQI recognizes that construction equipment emits ozone precursors and
indicates that very large construction projects may exceed the annual thresholds for
ROG and NOx emissions. In which case, SJVAPCD will recommend quantification
methods for these projects on a case-by-case basis (SJVAPCD, 2002).
Because construction of the RWPS and SWTF would be considered a small construction
project, it can be assumed that the level of ROG and NOx would not exceed the
significance criteria of 10 tons per year. However, since modeling was required to calculate
GHG emissions (discussed below in section VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and the
results include criteria pollutants, estimated construction -related emissions are provided. As
shown in Table 4-1, criteria pollutants from construction of the Project would be less than
significant. Appendix A provides additional information regarding the air emission
calculations, assumptions, and methodologies.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility 4-9
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4-1. Estimated Construction and Operation -related Criteria Air Pollutants
Another issue of concern by the SJVAPCD during construction is asbestos. However, since
the Project does not include any demolition, renovation, or removal of asbestos -containing
materials and because the Project area is not identified as an area likely to contain
naturally -occurring asbestos, this issue is not discussed further (DOC, 2000).
O Mitigation Measure AIR -1. Minimize PMIo Impacts. With implementation of
Regulation VIII control measures for PMIo (SJVAPCD, 2002), PMIo impacts from
construction would be less than significant.
Operation
As shown in Table 4-1, impacts from mobile emissions would be less than significant
because the site would generate only a few employee and vendor trips per day.
A diesel generator is planned for the RWPS in the future to provide standby power to
enable the pump station The RWPS would require a standby diesel generator to run during
power failures. The generator would be sized for the initial phase and would be replaced
with a larger generator for the final phase.
At the SWTF, a small standby generator (diesel or natural gas) would be provided to
operate critical systems (computers, lights HVAC system, etc.) in the Operations Building.
A larger standby diesel engine generator is planned for the future to provide electrical
power to the SWTF in case of a power outage.
Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would include only the minimal mobile
emissions and the occasional use of the standby generators and would be well below the
thresholds of 10 tons per year for both ROG and NO,,. These sources would not lead to
further violations of the ambient air quality standards in the area. Therefore, this would be a
less than significant impact.
Permitting of standby diesel generators larger than 50 hp is required per SJVAPCD Rule
2201 — New and Modified Stationary Source Review. The units would be required to meet
all applicable emissions requirements, including those for particulate emissions.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would result in air
pollutant emissions well below the SJVAPC thresholds of 10 tons per year for ROG and
NO,,. Therefore the Project's individual impact on regional air quality would be less than
City of Lodi 4-10
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons per year)
ROG
NO,
Project Construction
0.4
2.6
Project Operations
0.7
1.3
SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance
10
10
Exceed Threshold of Significance? (Yes or No)
No
No
Another issue of concern by the SJVAPCD during construction is asbestos. However, since
the Project does not include any demolition, renovation, or removal of asbestos -containing
materials and because the Project area is not identified as an area likely to contain
naturally -occurring asbestos, this issue is not discussed further (DOC, 2000).
O Mitigation Measure AIR -1. Minimize PMIo Impacts. With implementation of
Regulation VIII control measures for PMIo (SJVAPCD, 2002), PMIo impacts from
construction would be less than significant.
Operation
As shown in Table 4-1, impacts from mobile emissions would be less than significant
because the site would generate only a few employee and vendor trips per day.
A diesel generator is planned for the RWPS in the future to provide standby power to
enable the pump station The RWPS would require a standby diesel generator to run during
power failures. The generator would be sized for the initial phase and would be replaced
with a larger generator for the final phase.
At the SWTF, a small standby generator (diesel or natural gas) would be provided to
operate critical systems (computers, lights HVAC system, etc.) in the Operations Building.
A larger standby diesel engine generator is planned for the future to provide electrical
power to the SWTF in case of a power outage.
Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would include only the minimal mobile
emissions and the occasional use of the standby generators and would be well below the
thresholds of 10 tons per year for both ROG and NO,,. These sources would not lead to
further violations of the ambient air quality standards in the area. Therefore, this would be a
less than significant impact.
Permitting of standby diesel generators larger than 50 hp is required per SJVAPCD Rule
2201 — New and Modified Stationary Source Review. The units would be required to meet
all applicable emissions requirements, including those for particulate emissions.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would result in air
pollutant emissions well below the SJVAPC thresholds of 10 tons per year for ROG and
NO,,. Therefore the Project's individual impact on regional air quality would be less than
City of Lodi 4-10
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
significant. For projects with less than significant individual impacts, the GAMAQI states
that the cumulative impact would also be less than significant (SJVAPCD, 2002).
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in b) above, the Project would not generate
substantial pollutant concentrations, and thus would not expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. Odors are addressed below in e).
e) No Impact. The SJVAPCD defines significant odor problems as:
OO More than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three year period, or
O Three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period.
In addition, Rule 4102 — Nuisance requires the following: A person shall not discharge
from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials
which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any
such person or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or
damage to business or property.
The types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include refineries,
chemical plants, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, and
transfer stations. As a general rule, raw water pumping stations and water treatment
plants do not generate odors. In addition, the Project's pumping and treatment
operations would occur in enclosed structures and distribution pipelines would be
underground. The Project would not generate objectionable odors. Therefore, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-11
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
A reconnaissance survey of the SWTF site was conducted on August 2, 2007 for biological
resources and wetlands or other waters of the U.S. An additional survey of the RATS site,
SWTF site, and pipeline alignments were conducted on February 12, 2010. Both surveys
consisted of walking through the RWPS and SWTF sites and driving along proposed pipeline
alignments that were accessible by road.
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance survey, a list of special -status species known to occur
and/or having the potential to occur in the project areas was obtained from U.S. Fish and
City of Lodi 4-12
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Less Than
Poter7tially
Signific ar t
Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Inrfonnation Soumes):
Significant
with
Significant
No Innpact
Impact
Nitigation
Irloorporated
Impact
IV. 1131O11-01(311CAL RESOURCES — V\buld the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
❑
®
❑
❑
through habitat modifications, on any species
idertfied as a candidate, sensitive, or special -
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and VVIldlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
❑
❑
❑
habitat or odw sensitive natural oa-nmunity
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and 1Mldlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
❑
❑
❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 4(A of the
awn Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pod, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
❑
❑
❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
®
❑
❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
❑
❑
❑
Calsenration Plan, Natural C Tim pity
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
A reconnaissance survey of the SWTF site was conducted on August 2, 2007 for biological
resources and wetlands or other waters of the U.S. An additional survey of the RATS site,
SWTF site, and pipeline alignments were conducted on February 12, 2010. Both surveys
consisted of walking through the RWPS and SWTF sites and driving along proposed pipeline
alignments that were accessible by road.
Prior to conducting the reconnaissance survey, a list of special -status species known to occur
and/or having the potential to occur in the project areas was obtained from U.S. Fish and
City of Lodi 4-12
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wildlife Service, CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database, and the California Native
Plant Society database. The potential for each regionally occurring special -status species to be
impacted by the Project was then evaluated based on the results of the reconnaissance survey.
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Special -status plant and animal
species (with the exception of birds) that are known to occur in the region are primarily
associated with aquatic habitats such as rivers and streams and other wet places including
marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands. No aquatic habitats occur
on the RWPS site, SWTF site, or along pipeline alignments. Therefore, the sites do not
provide suitable habitat for any non -bird special -status plant or animal species known to
occur in the region.
The SWTF site provides suitable foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk (Buteo
swainsoni; state listed threatened) and other raptors and migratory birds. Trees in and
surrounding the SWTF site provide marginal nesting habitat for these species.
Although no bird nests were observed on the site during the reconnaissance or follow-
up surveys. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce
potential impacts to Swainson's hawk foraging habitat to less than significant.
During construction several trees on the SWTF site and along the future access road
will be removed (Figure 4-1). These trees provide potential nesting habitat for various
common resident and migratory bird species. Nesting birds are protected under
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (16 USC, Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989). Removal of trees that provide nesting habitat
for birds could have an adverse effect. Construction noise and human disturbance could
cause nest abandonment, death of the young, or loss of reproductive potential at active
nests located near construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting raptors and other special -status
nesting birds during the breeding season to less than significant.
O Mitigation Measure BIO -la: Replace Swainson's Hawk Foraging Habitat. The
City anticipates that the project would be approved for participation in the San
Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP) for all facilities (RWPS site, SWTF site and pipelines). Compliance with
the SJMSCP would provide for impact avoidance measures (e.g., pre -construction
surveys during appropriate seasons for identification, construction set -backs,
restriction on construction timing) and mitigation for loss of foraging habitat for
Swainson's hawk. Avoidance measures would include, but are not limited to, the
species-specific measures presented below, which are summarized from the
SJMSCP. Incidental take minimization measures for the hawk can be found in
Section 5.2.4 of the SJMSCP.
City of Lodi 4-13
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
O Mitigation Measure BIO -lb: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Swainson's Hawks.
In order to encourage the retention of known or potential Swainson's hawk nest
trees (i.e., trees that hawks are known to have nested in within the past three years
or trees, such as large oaks, which the hawks prefer for nesting), for any nest tree
that becomes occupied during construction activities, all construction activities shall
remain a distance of two times the dripline of the tree, measured from the nest.
Alternatively, nest trees may be removed between September 1 and February 15,
when the nests are unoccupied.
O Mitigation Measure BIO -lc: Avoid Disturbance of Nesting Birds (except
Swainson's Hawk). If construction activities (i.e., ground clearing and grading,
including tree removal of trees or shrubs) are scheduled to occur during the non -
breeding season (September 1 through January 31), no mitigation is required. If
construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season
(February 1 through August 31), the following measures are required to avoid
potential adverse effects to nesting resident and migratory birds:
• A qualified wildlife biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential
nesting habitats within 500 feet of Project activities where access is available.
• If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a no -disturbance buffer
acceptable in size to the CDFG will be created around active nests during the
breeding season or until it is determined that all young have fledged. Bird nests
initiated during construction are presumed to be unaffected and no buffer is
necessary. However, the "take" of any individuals will be prohibited.
• If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is
unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required. Trees
and shrubs within the construction footprint that have been determined to be
unoccupied by nesting birds or that are located outside the no -disturbance buffer
for active nests may be removed.
b) No Impact. No riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are located on the
Proposed Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. occur on the SWTF site, access road,
or associated facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
d) No Impact. Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are
otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or areas of human disturbance
or urban development. Topography and other natural factors, in combination with
urbanization, can fragment or separate large open -space areas. The fragmentation of natural
habitat creates isolated "islands" of vegetation that may not provide sufficient area to
accommodate sustainable populations and can adversely impact genetic and species
City of Lodi 4-14
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
diversity. Movement corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by allowing
animals to move between remaining habitats, which in turn allows depleted populations to
be replenished and promotes genetic exchange with separate populations.
The Proposed Project site is located west of Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake. The
Mokelumne River provides a migratory corridor for wildlife that allows east -west
movement. The Proposed Project would not remove, degrade or otherwise interfere
substantially with the structure or function of this migratory wildlife corridor.
Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The future SWTF site and access
road contain several trees, which would be removed during construction. The City's policy
contained in the recently adopted General Plan (Implementing Policy P -P13) requires a
two-for-one replacement or transplantation for trees removed. In addition, the City
regulates the removal of trees that are defined as "heritage trees." There are no trees at the
RWPS site.
The number and species of trees that could potentially be removed during construction
is shown in Table 4-2 and Figure 4-1. Compliance with the following mitigation
measure will reduce the potential impacts to trees to less than significant.
Table 4-2. Trees Within the SWTF Ste and Access Road
Tag #
Tree Type
DBH (in)
Height (ft.)
Dripline (ft.)
Vigor
Remove
caTrnerrts
101
Valley oak
30
40
30
F
Remove
Pruned heavily for
parer lines
102
Interior live oak
30
40
30
F -G
Remove
103
Interior live oak
15
30
15
G
Remove
104
Interior live oak
16,8,4
35
20
F -G
Rema/e
Some tieback
105
Interior live oak
18,9
30
20
F -P
Remove
Shaded, diebadc
106
Interior live oak
13,14
20
20
F -P
Renbve
Shaded, leans,
dieback
107
Valley oak
33
60
25
F -G
Remaie
Weak crotch 25 feet
tp from trunk
108
Interior live oak
7
15
7
G
109
Interior live oak
32
45
25
G
Rema/e
110
Valley oak
32
40
20
F
Remove
Pruned heavily for
parer lines
111
Valley oak
18
35
20
G
112
Interior live oak
21,19
40
20
F -P
One trunk decayed
113
Interior live oak
32
45
25
F
Weak crutch at co-
dorninant sterns
114'
Valley oak
32
50
25
G
115'
Valley oak
17
20
20
F -P
Shaded, leans
116'
Interior live oak
32,19
50
25
F -G
Decay at site of past
stem rernmd
City of Lodi 4-15
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tag #
Tree Type
DBH (in.)
Height (8.)
Dripline (8.)
Vigor
Rorm,ee
Camrents
117
Interior live oak
17,15
40
20
F
Rerrnve
Leans, dieback
118
Interior live oak
14,12
20
20
F
Rerrnve
Leans, dieback
119
Interior live oak
29
45
25
P
Ranu a
Decay at base,
nearly dead
120
Interior live oak
7,6
20
10
G
Ranmve
121
Black locust
12,7,6,7,5
25
10
G
Ranu e
122
Valley oak
19
60
20
G
Ranu e
123
Interior live oak
16
35
15
G
Rerlu e
124
Interior live oak
11,11,10,7,
20,13,11
35
20
G
Rernme
125*
Valley oak
29
40
20
F
Weak crotch at oD-
doninant stens
126'
Interior live oak
7
15
10
G
127"
Valley oak
18
35
15
G
1Xr
Valleyoak
16
30
10
G
129*
Val ley oak
11,17
30
15
G
DBH—darreter breast height (rrultioe trunks)
F=fair
P = poor
G - good
O Mitigation Measure 11I0-2: Pursuant to the City of Lodi General Plan, where tree
removal is required, the City shall replace or transplant the removed tree. If
replacement occurs, a two-for-one ratio and a minimum size of 15 -gallon container
trees will be used.
f) No Impact. The San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Plan (SJMSCP) is approved as a state and federal Endangered Species Act permitting
mechanism for covered projects within San Joaquin County. In 2001, The City adopted the
SJMSCP, thereby allowing the City to use this plan to mitigate open space conversions
while satisfying CEQA requirements. The City shall follow recommendations from the San
Joaquin Council of Governments on implementation of SJMSCP requirements.
City of Lodi 4-16
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Trees Affected by Project Construction
LM FIGURE 4-1
ONE CO`MPANYI Many Solutions- Surface Water Treatment Facility I City Df Lodi, CAI HDR Project No. 141.107917 006
Figure 4-1. Trees Affected by Project Construction
City of Lodi 4-17
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Cultural Resources
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Research Methods
Efforts to locate cultural resources within the Project area consisted of conducting a records
search, review of previous investigations within and near the Proposed Project area, contacting
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native American representatives, and
a pedestrian field survey.
A records search was conducted on January 19, 2010, by staff at the Central California
Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. During the
records search, the State's database of cultural resources studies and recorded cultural resources
sites was examined for the Project site and a 0.5 -mile radius around the project area. Other
sources consulted included national and state inventories and registers of cultural resources and
pertinent historic maps.
The records search indicated that there were no prehistoric cultural resources identified in the
immediate Project area. There are four historic resources located within the Project vicinity, but
are not situated directly in the Project footprint. In addition, there are seven historic resources
recorded within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project area. There is one prehistoric resource located
within a half -mile radius of the Project area. This is CA-SJO-36 (P-39-172), which is an
occupation and burial site.
The records search indicated that the SWTF site was formerly inspected for the presence of
cultural resources (Clark, 1975; Napton and Greathouse, 1977), and that several other cultural
resources surveys have been completed within 0.5 miles of the Project site.
City of Lodi 4-18
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Less
Fess Than
Issues (and Supporting Infbrrrietion Sources)
Significarrt
fi�
SignSignificant
with Mitigation
No Inpact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
®
❑
❑
significance cif an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
®
❑
❑
paleontologic resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
®
❑
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Research Methods
Efforts to locate cultural resources within the Project area consisted of conducting a records
search, review of previous investigations within and near the Proposed Project area, contacting
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and Native American representatives, and
a pedestrian field survey.
A records search was conducted on January 19, 2010, by staff at the Central California
Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. During the
records search, the State's database of cultural resources studies and recorded cultural resources
sites was examined for the Project site and a 0.5 -mile radius around the project area. Other
sources consulted included national and state inventories and registers of cultural resources and
pertinent historic maps.
The records search indicated that there were no prehistoric cultural resources identified in the
immediate Project area. There are four historic resources located within the Project vicinity, but
are not situated directly in the Project footprint. In addition, there are seven historic resources
recorded within a 0.5 -mile radius of the Project area. There is one prehistoric resource located
within a half -mile radius of the Project area. This is CA-SJO-36 (P-39-172), which is an
occupation and burial site.
The records search indicated that the SWTF site was formerly inspected for the presence of
cultural resources (Clark, 1975; Napton and Greathouse, 1977), and that several other cultural
resources surveys have been completed within 0.5 miles of the Project site.
City of Lodi 4-18
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Consultation
Native American consultation began on January 4, 2010, with a request to the NAHC to search
its Sacred Lands file for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the Project
vicinity. A list of Native American contacts was also requested. On January 28, 2010, letters
were mailed to nine individuals, tribes, and tribal organizations, whose contact information was
provided by the NAHC. The letters requested information regarding the existence of sites that
may be affected by the proposed project. No responses have been received to date.
Surveys
A pedestrian and windshield survey was conducted of the Proposed Project area on January 6,
2010. The area was examined by driving along roads and road shoulders where visibility,
access, and terrain allowed, and by walking the areas of the proposed pipelines, storage tank,
silo, and water treatment facilities using intensive pedestrian survey techniques. No
archaeological resources were located as a result of this survey.
A survey was conducted of built -environment resources (buildings, structures, and/or linear
features) in the Proposed Project area on January 6, 2010. The survey consisted of driving and
walking the area, and noting and photographing any built -environment resources that visually
appeared to be at least 45 years old. One resource (UPRR) was noted to be within the Project
area.
a) No Impact. One architectural resource was identified in the Project area (UPRR). The
UPRR segment within the Project area was constructed in 1869 and has lost integrity
due to alterations including modern ties, paving and signage. Because of a lack of
integrity, the segment does not qualify as a significant resource for the purposes of
CEQA. Accordingly there are no historical resources in the Project area for the
purposes of CEQA. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No archaeological resources
were identified or are previously recorded in the Project area. However, the potential
exists for buried archaeological resources to be inadvertently unearthed during
construction, which would be a significant impact. Therefore, implementation of
Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
O Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Stop work if Archaeological Materials are
discovered during construction. If archaeological materials (such as chipped or
ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or non -human bone) are
inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing activities, the construction
contractor will stop work in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified
archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and develop appropriate
treatment measures. Treatment measures will be made in consultation with the City
and other parties as appropriate. Treatment measures typically include development
of avoidance strategies or mitigation of impacts through data recovery programs
such as excavation or detailed documentation.
City of Lodi 4-19
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
If cultural resources are discovered during construction activities, the construction
contractor and lead contractor compliance inspector will verify that work is halted until
appropriate treatment measures are implemented. Implementation of this mitigation
measure may be sufficient to reduce impacts on archaeological sites to less than
significant.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No paleontological resources
were observed or appear likely to be present in the Project area. However, it is possible,
although unlikely, that human remains are buried and would be unearthed during
construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No known human remains are
located within the Project area. However, it is possible that construction activities
would result in the discovery of human remains. This potential impact is considered
significant. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2 would reduce this
impact to less than significant.
O Mitigation Measure CUL -2: Stop Work if Human Remains are Discovered. If
human remains of Native American origin are discovered during ground -disturbing
activities, it is necessary for the City to comply with state laws relating to the
disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the
NAHC (Public Resources Code [PRC] 5097). If human remains are discovered or
recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City will not allow
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains until:
The San Joaquin County coroner has been informed and has determined that no
investigation of the cause of death is required; and
2. If the remains are of Native American origin:
❑ The descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a
recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation
work for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human
remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC 5097.98, or
❑ The NAHC was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to
make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC.
City of Lodi 4-2�
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a large, northwestern -
trending, asymmetric structural trough, filled with marine and continental sediments up
to six miles thick. Stream -channel deposits of coarse sand occur along the Mokelumne
River. The basin deposits are interbedded lacustrine, marsh, overbank, and stream -
channel sediments deposited by the river.
The Project site is located 65 miles east of San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) and lies
within Seismic Risk Zone 3. Earthquakes in Seismic Risk Zone 3 pose a lesser risk
City of Lodi 4-21
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Poterifially
Less Than
Less Thm
Issues (and Supportlng Inionretion Sources):
Significant
Sigrrficant
with Mtigation
Sigrrficart
No
Inpact
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
M. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — V\buld the project:
a) E)qnose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, inducing the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a krxrinm earthquake fault, as
❑
❑
®
❑
delineated on the most recent Acl ist-Rico
Earthquake Fault Zoni ng K/laP issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strang seisrric ground shaldn f?
❑
❑
®
❑
iii) Seismo-related ground failure, including
❑
❑
®
❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) it in substantial sal erosion or the loss of
❑
®
❑
❑
topsoil?
c) Be located on geologic unit or sal that is
❑
❑
®
❑
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on e)arr-ive sal, as defined in
❑
❑
®
❑
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Bolding Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property/?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
❑
❑
❑
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where swers are
riot available for the disposal of waste water?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a large, northwestern -
trending, asymmetric structural trough, filled with marine and continental sediments up
to six miles thick. Stream -channel deposits of coarse sand occur along the Mokelumne
River. The basin deposits are interbedded lacustrine, marsh, overbank, and stream -
channel sediments deposited by the river.
The Project site is located 65 miles east of San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) and lies
within Seismic Risk Zone 3. Earthquakes in Seismic Risk Zone 3 pose a lesser risk
City of Lodi 4-21
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
than those experienced in Zone 4 (such as the Bay area). According to Jennings (1994),
no active faults or Earthquake Fault Zones (Special Studies Zones) are located near the
Project site. The nearest mapped fault to the Project site is related to the Stockton Fault
Zone, which is located 13 miles to the south-southeast of the site, and the potentially -
active Bear Mountains Fault Zone (Youngs Creek Fault) located 27 miles east of the
site, the Rio Vista Fault 23 miles to the west, and the Vernalis Fault 25 miles to the
south-southwest (Youngdahl, 2010). The nearest mapped active faults to the Project
site are the Clayton and Marsh Creek faults located about 35 miles to the southwest and
the historic Greenville Fault. According to Petersen et al. (1996), the Project site can
probabilistically be expected to experience 0.2g (percent of gravity) from a seismic
event during its design life, with a 10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years).
Because the site is not on an active or potentially active fault, the potential for surface
fault rupture is low and the Proposed Project's impact would be less than significant.
Due to the absence of a permanent elevated groundwater table, the relatively low
seismicity of the Project area, and the medium dense to dense nature of site materials
(below the loose surface soils, the potential for damage due to site liquefaction, slope
instability, and surface rupture are considered negligible (Youngdahl, 2010).
The Proposed Project will be designed in accordance with the 2007 California Building
Code, Chapter 16 and constructed to meet the most current seismic and geotechnical
standards As a result, any potential impact would be less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would
include grading, cut -and -fill, and soil stockpiling, resulting in potential erosion impacts.
The potential for erosion would be increased if these activities coincide with heavy
winds or rain.
The Soil Survey of San Joaquin County (SCS, 1992) notes that soils at the Project site
consist of the Tokay-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes. The nearly level map
unit is on low fan terraces. The unit is 50 percent Tokay fine sandy loam and 35
percent Urban land. Tokay soil is very deep and well drained, permeability is
moderately rapid and available water capacity is high. The urban land consists of areas
covered by impervious surfaces or structures, such as roads, driveways, sidewalks,
buildings, and parking lots. The soil underneath is similar to nearby soils. Therefore,
the Proposed Project could potentially result in the loss of topsoil associated with
construction activities. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: Prepare and Implement
SWPPP and Construction BMPs, as discussed on pages 4-29 through 4-32.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under a) above. Any potential impact
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4_22
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under a) above. Potential impacts are
highly unlikely and are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
e) No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are necessary to
support the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
City of Lodi 4-23
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be considered to have a less
than significant impact, if BPSs are implemented. The Proposed Project would implement
BMPs to minimize operational costs. However, since the SJVAPCD has not yet developed
BPSs for turbine pumps, raw water pumping stations, and/or water treatment plants, this
impact analysis will consider the following:
1) Identification of any potential conflicts with the recommended actions identified in the
AB 32 Scoping Plan.
2) Evaluation of the relative size of the Project. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions
will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG
emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2E)2 to the state; and the project size will be
compared to the estimated state GHG reduction goal of 174 MMT of CO2E per year by
2020. As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary
point sources in California that make up 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the
Project's total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to
the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up six percent of all
stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects will not
conflict with the State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. In reaching its goals, the
CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions.
3) Evaluation of the basic energy efficiency parameters of the Project to determine
whether its design is inherently energy efficient.
2 The State of California has not provided guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of
greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and global warming concerns. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines directly
addresses this issue.
City of Lodi 4-24
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Than
an
Less Th
Issues (and Supporiirg Information Sources)
Significant
�es
Mltlgafion at With
Significant
No Impact
Irripact
lrroorporsted
Impact
VII. GREENFKXISE GAS EMSSICNS — V1buld the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emssions, either
directly or indirectly, that rr>ey have a significant
❑
❑
®
❑
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
❑
❑
®
❑
the emssions of greenhouse gases?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would be considered to have a less
than significant impact, if BPSs are implemented. The Proposed Project would implement
BMPs to minimize operational costs. However, since the SJVAPCD has not yet developed
BPSs for turbine pumps, raw water pumping stations, and/or water treatment plants, this
impact analysis will consider the following:
1) Identification of any potential conflicts with the recommended actions identified in the
AB 32 Scoping Plan.
2) Evaluation of the relative size of the Project. The Proposed Project's GHG emissions
will be compared to the size of major facilities that are required to report GHG
emissions (25,000 metric tons/year of CO2E)2 to the state; and the project size will be
compared to the estimated state GHG reduction goal of 174 MMT of CO2E per year by
2020. As noted above, the 25,000 metric ton annual limit identifies the large stationary
point sources in California that make up 94 percent of the stationary emissions. If the
Project's total emissions are below this limit, its total emissions are equivalent in size to
the smaller projects in California that as a group only make up six percent of all
stationary emissions. It is assumed that the activities of these smaller projects will not
conflict with the State's ability to reach AB 32 overall goals. In reaching its goals, the
CARB will focus upon the largest emitters of GHG emissions.
3) Evaluation of the basic energy efficiency parameters of the Project to determine
whether its design is inherently energy efficient.
2 The State of California has not provided guidance as to quantitative significance thresholds for assessing the impact of
greenhouse gas emissions on climate change and global warming concerns. Nothing in the CEQA Guidelines directly
addresses this issue.
City of Lodi 4-24
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4) Evaluation of any potential conflicts with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
With regard to Item 1, the Proposed Project does not pose any apparent conflict with the most
recent list of the CARB early action strategies. As a matter of fact, the Project would be
creating an energy efficient water system, consistent with AB 32 Recommended Actions
Measure No. W-3.
With regard to Item 2, the maximum GHG emissions that Project construction would generate
would be approximately 241 metric tons per year of CO2E. Project operations would generate
approximately 3,382 metric tons per year of CO2E (including emissions from vehicle trips,
space heating, and indirect emissions from the use of electricity). Based on the Proposed
Project's size, the Project would not be classified as a major source of GHG emissions;
operational emissions would be about 14 percent of the lower reporting limit of 25,000 metric
tons/year of CO2E.
When compared to the overall state reduction goal of approximately 174 MMT per year of
CO2E, the maximum GHG emissions for the project (3,382 metric tons per year of CO2E, or
0.002 percent of the state goal) are quite small and would not conflict with the state's ability to
meet the AB 32 goals. Appendix A provides additional information regarding the GHG
calculations, assumptions, and methodologies for the Proposed Project.
With regard to Item 3, there are, at a minimum, three elements of the Project's design that are
inherently energy efficient and keep the generation of GHG emissions to a minimum. First, as
noted above, the Project would implement BPSs that would help minimize electricity
consumption, and thus minimize operational costs and GHG emissions. Second, the Project is
relatively small in size and would not be considered a major source of GHG emissions. Third,
the Project is efficiently located between the water source and existing water mains.
With regard to Item 4, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. While the
SJVAPCD has not yet established BPS for water treatment facilities and associated equipment,
the Project would incorporate BMPs for water treatment facilities. The project would be
consistent with the SJVAPCD's approach of implementing BPSs.
The Proposed Project would not conflict with the State's goals in AB 32 nor the SJVAPCD's
guidance and policy for addressing GHG emissions, and therefore, this impact would be less
than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in a) above, the Proposed Project would not
conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the GHG emissions. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.
City of Lodi 4-25
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
I so 7777- Me -=* 7 9• •
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would involve
the use of fuels, oils, and solvents, which could potentially lead to the accidental exposure
of individuals and the environment to hazardous materials. During construction it is
City of Lodi 4-26
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Poterifially
Than
Less Th
Issues (and SLWortlng InFonrrafion Sources):
Significant
Sigrrficant
Sigrrficart
No
Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Inpad
Irripact
VIII. HAZARDS APD HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
®
❑
❑
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
®
❑
❑
en Aronirent through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident ooncitions invdving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Frit hazardous emssions or handle hazardous
❑
❑
❑
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter role of an e fisting or
I ?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
❑
❑
❑
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Governnw t Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use
❑
❑
❑
Pan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within tAa roles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or waidng in
the project area?
D For a pr jec t within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
airstrip, vvWd the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or waiting in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
❑
❑
❑
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emerger y evacuation plan?
h) Fpose people or stnxtires to a significant risk
❑
❑
❑
of loss, injury or death involving WIdand fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intarrixed with Widands?
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction would involve
the use of fuels, oils, and solvents, which could potentially lead to the accidental exposure
of individuals and the environment to hazardous materials. During construction it is
City of Lodi 4-26
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline,
diesel fuel, and hydraulic fluid would be handled on the construction site. Various
contractors for fueling and maintenance purposes could use temporary bulk aboveground
storage tanks as well as storage sheds/trailers. The potential for an accidental release exists
during handling and transfer from one container to another. Depending on the relative
hazard of the hazardous material, if a significant spill were to occur, the accidental release
could pose a hazard both to construction employees and the environment. Although typical
construction management practices limit and often eliminate the impact of such accidental
releases, there is a possibility of a spill or a release with the temporary onsite storage of
hazardous materials; this is considered a potentially significant impact. With the
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to less
than significant.
Project operation may involve the routine transport, use, storage, and/or disposal of
hazardous materials. The proposed SWTF would use potentially hazardous materials in
the treatment of surface water. Chemicals to be used for the membrane system and
other treatment processes can be found in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of this document. Sodium
hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, citric acid, sodium bisulfate, aluminum chlorohydrate,
and zinc orthophosphate are considered potentially hazardous materials. In addition to
these chemicals, paint thinners, paints, waste oils miscellaneous lubricating oils,
laboratory solvents, compressed acetylene and oxygen gas, and diesel fuel may be
stored in various small quantities throughout the Project site. Sodium hypochlorite
would be used at the groundwater well sites.
Section 2.2.4, Chemical Storage, Pipelines, and Containment, discusses various
mitigations for the SWTF. With these measures and implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures below, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
O Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Handling and Storage of Hazardous Materials.
The storage, handling, and use of construction -related hazardous shall be in
accordance with applicable, federal, state, and local laws. Construction -related
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (e.g., fuels and waste oils) shall be staged
and stored away from stream channels and steep banks to prevent these materials
from entering surface waters in the event of an accidental release. Consideration
shall also be given to keeping these materials at sufficient distance from nearby
residences or other land uses. This includes materials stages for expected use,
materials in equipment and vehicles, and waste materials.
O Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Compliance with Design Codes and Regulations.
The SWTF shall be designed to comply with all pertinent sections of the Uniform
Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, and Hazardous Materials Management Plan.
Final project design shall include, but not be limited to, the following design
features and measures:
City of Lodi 4_27
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Incompatible chemicals will be physically separated;
• Fire suppression and control systems in chemical storage areas will utilize the
appropriate fire retardant;
• All spill collection systems, containment, and aprons will be contained on site for
truck pick up and not routed to any storm drain system;
• Outdoor storage vessels will be protected from accidental vehicle contact; and
• Bulk liquid hazardous materials delivery areas will include a delivery vehicle spill
containment with collection sump.
O Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Enforce Contractual Obligations. The City shall
ensure, through the enforcement of contractual obligations that all contractors
transport, store, handle, and dispose of construction -related hazardous materials in a
manner consistent with the relevant regulations and guidelines. At minimum, these
regulations and guidelines include those recommended and enforced by the
Caltrans, the RWQCB, the City's Fire Department, and San Joaquin County.
Recommendations shall include as appropriate transporting and storing materials in
appropriate and approved containers, maintaining required clearances, and handling
materials using applicable federal, state, and/or local regulatory agency protocols.
In addition, all conditions required by the RWQCB-issued NPDES stormwater
permit for construction activities would be followed to ensure that no hazardous
materials enter any nearby waterways.
In the event of a spill, the City shall ensure, through the enforcement of contractual
obligations, that all contractors immediately control the source of any leak and
immediately contain any spill utilizing appropriate spill containment and
countermeasures. If required by the City's Fire Department, the San Joaquin
County Office of Emergency Services, or any other regulatory agency,
contaminated media shall be collected and disposed of at offsite facility approved
to accept such media.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The operation of the Proposed
Project could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment. As with all construction activities, accidents
could occur and release hazardous materials into the environment. If the SWTF has
hazardous materials above threshold limits, then with the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures HAZ -2 and HAZ-3, identified above, this impact would be reduced to less than
significant.
City of Lodi 4-2$
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not be constructed within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would not
emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. As a result, no impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
d) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on sites known to be included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,
therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As a
result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
e) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land plan or within two
miles of an airport. The Lodi Airport is more than four miles northeast of the Project site.
f) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private air strip. As
a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not impair the implementation or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a
result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
h) No Impact. The Proposed Project would be constructed in an urbanized area and would not
be constructed in an area where the risk of a wildland fire could occur. Therefore, no
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-29
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Hydrology and Mw (duality
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Lodi 4-30
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Pollergally
Than
Less Th
Less Thm
Issues (and Supporting InFamation Sources):
Sign
With Mitigation
�In
Impact
Incorporated
IX HYDROLOGY AND MTER QIiALITY — Wold the project:
a) Violate any vvAer quality standards or waste
❑
®
❑
❑
discharge reguirerrlents?
b) Substantially deplete groundvYater supplies or
❑
❑
❑
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volu nis or a laAering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which \Auld not support a fisting land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
❑
®
❑
❑
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner that would result in substantial erosion
of siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
❑
®
❑
❑
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
sufaos r n ci f in a mariner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or Contribute runoff water which would
❑
❑
❑
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stomwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoV
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
®
❑
❑
g) Place housing Wthin a 100 -year flood hazard
❑
❑
❑
area as nmpped on a federal Flood Hurd
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other authoritative flood hazard delineation
gyp?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
❑
❑
❑
structures that world inpede or redirect flood
flau\s?
i) 15pose people or structures to a significant risk
❑
❑
❑
of loss, injury or death invdving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflaw?
❑
❑
❑
City of Lodi 4-30
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction and operation of the
Proposed Project have the potential to adversely affect water quality through the
exceedance of applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
Construction
During site grading, trenching, and construction activities, areas of bare soil would be
exposed to erosive forces. Bare soils are much more likely to erode than vegetated
areas due to the lack of dispersion, infiltration, and retention created by covering
vegetation. Construction activities involving soil disturbance, excavation, cutting and
filling, stockpiling, and grading activities could result in increased erosion and
sedimentation to surface waters. In addition, hazardous materials associated with
construction equipment could adversely affect surface and groundwater quality if
spilled or stored improperly. If precautions are not taken to contain contaminants,
construction could produce contaminated stormwater runoff, a major contributor to the
degradation of water quality.
The federal Clean Water Act requires that construction sites greater than one acre be
covered under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity. Construction activities, including the staging area and drainage
connections, would exceed one acre, and therefore, would be required to obtain
coverage under this permit. The permit would require that the City (or its designated
contractor) submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB in order to be covered by the
General Permit prior to the commencement of construction. The General Permit
requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which must be prepared
before construction begins. Components of a SWPPP typically include specifications
for BMPs that must be implemented during project construction in order to minimize
the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from the construction area, and identification
of a plan to inspect and maintain project BMPs and facilities. The SWPPP would
instruct and inform construction workers of appropriate practices to reduce stormwater
runoff, erosion of loose sediments, and handling of potentially hazardous materials as
well as measures to minimize the amount of pollutants in runoff after construction is
completed. Implementing the following mitigation measure would minimize or
eliminate potential water quality impacts associated with construction surface water
runoff, resulting in a less -than -significant impact.
O Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1: Prepare and Implement a SWPPP and
Construction BMPs. The SWPPP will include a grading and erosion control plan
required for all construction plans to address potential erosion during construction.
This requirement will be integrated with the Project SWPPP, provided that it meets
the requirements of both the City and the RWQCB.
City of Lodi 4-31
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
All construction plans and activities shall implement BMPs to provide effective
erosion, runoff, and sediment control. These BMPs shall be selected to achieve
maximum sediment removal and represent the best available technology that is
economically achievable. Performance and effectiveness of these BMPs shall be
determined either by visual means where applicable (i.e., observation of above -normal
sediment release) or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of
contaminant reduction or elimination (inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the
RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.
The grading and erosion control plan shall include specific measures to accomplish
erosion and sediment control and to minimize the removal of natural vegetation. The
plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following measures.
Grading activities will be scheduled for the dry season only (April 15 to
October 15), to the extent possible. This will reduce the chance of severe erosion
from intense rainfall and surface runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation in
swale areas.
• If grading occurs during the rainy season, stormwater runoff from the construction
area will be regulated through a stormwater management/erosion control plan that
may include temporary onsite silt traps and/or basins with multiple discharge points
to natural drainages and energy dissipaters. Stockpiles of loose material will be
covered and runoff diverted away from exposed soil material. If rain causes the
work to stop, a positive grading away from slopes will be provided to carry the
surface runoff to areas where flow can be controlled. Sediment basin/traps will be
located and operated to minimize the amount of offsite sediment transport. Any
trapped sediment will be removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suitable
location onsite, away from concentrated flows, or removed to an approved disposal
site.
• Temporary erosion control measures will be provided until perennial revegetation or
landscaping is established and can minimize discharge of sediment into nearby
waterways.
• After pipelines and other underground facilities are installed, compacted backfill
shall be placed and the ground surface shall be restored to its original condition and
topography.
Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported material shall occur only in
approved construction staging areas. Temporary or permanent soil disposal
stockpile areas must be outside jurisdictional wetlands, riparian areas, and oak
woodlands. Stockpiles remaining onsite through the wet season shall be protected
(e.g., with straw bales) to prevent erosion.
City of Lodi 4-32
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
• After completion of grading, erosion protection will be provided on all cut -and -fill
slopes. Revegetation will be facilitated by mulching, hydroseeding, or other
methods and shall be initiated as soon as possible after the completion of grading
and prior to the onset of the rainy season (by November 1).
• Permanent revegetation and landscaping will emphasize drought -tolerant perennial
ground coverings, shrubs, and trees to improve the probability of slope and soil
stabilization without adverse impacts to slope stability from irrigation infiltration
and long-term root development.
• BMPs selected and implemented for the Project will be in place and operational
prior to the onset of major earthwork on the site. The construction phase facilities
will be maintained regularly and cleared of accumulated sediment as necessary.
• Hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on the construction sites will be
stored in covered containers and protected from rainfall, runoff, and vandalism. A
stockpile of spill cleanup materials will be readily available at all construction sites.
Employees will be trained in spill prevention and cleanup, and individuals will be
designated as responsible for prevention and cleanup activities.
Operation
The Proposed Project would comply with applicable water quality standards and
WDRs. Therefore, potential impacts associated with operations would be considered
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Currently the water supply for the City is
provided by groundwater wells. The primary purpose of the proposed SWTF is to provide a
secure, reliable supplemental supply of water for the City to meet the current and future
water needs while reducing dependence on groundwater. Therefore, no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During construction, the site
drainage pattern would be temporarily altered. Surface water runoff volumes and rates
generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas could increase significantly when the site is
paved and the capability of surface water infiltration is reduced or eliminated. The
Proposed Project facilities and access road would substantially increase impervious surface
area. Therefore, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1, identified above,
construction and operation impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project could alter
the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that could result in flooding either onsite
or offsite. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1, identified
above, this impact would be considered less than significant.
City of Lodi 4-33
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of the City's stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. Stormwater collection at the SWTF would comply
with the City's Stormwater Management Program. The storm drain system would connect
to the existing stormwater pump station near the SWTF entrance. Therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would not
substantially affect water quality. As discussed earlier, construction could result in minor,
temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation issues. It is expected that
groundwater would be encountered in excavations. Temporary groundwater control would
be required to lower the groundwater level below the bottom of excavation and to provide a
relatively dry and stable subgrade. Operation would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1, identified above,
potential impacts to water quality would be reduced to less than significant.
g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not redirect flood flows or otherwise place
housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
h) No Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for
predicting hazards related to floods. It forecasts the levels of inundation under various
conditions and relates the information on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). The FIRM
for the Project area places the RWPS, SWTF, and pipelines outside of the 100 -year
floodplain. The Proposed Project is located in Zone X (unshaded), which is defined as an
area of minimal flood hazard and above the 500 -year flood level and protected by a levee
from the 100 -year flood. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
i) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding resulting from a levee or
dam failure. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
j) No Impact. The Proposed Project is separated by a berm from the Mokelumne River;
however, risks associated with a seiche or tsunami are not anticipated. In addition, the
Project site is essentially level, with minimal hazards from mudflows. Therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-34
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Land Use and Planning
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.
The Proposed Project would be located within the city limits and constructed on city -owned
property. Land uses surrounding the Project site include industrial and low density
residential. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical
division, or isolation of residential or open space areas. As a result, no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would be constructed on land currently owned by the
City. The Project site is zoned as Open Space. Areas surrounding the Project site are zoned
for industrial and low density residential. The Proposed Project is in compliance with the
City's General Plan and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the San Joaquin
County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). In 2001, The
City adopted the SJMSCP, thereby allowing the City to use this plan to mitigate open space
conversions while satisfying CEQA requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-35
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Less Than
potentially
Significant
Less Than
Issues (and Supporfing IrAmmtion Sorrces)
sigrificant
with
Significant
No Impact
Impact
Mtigafion
Irroorporated
Impact
X LAND USE AND PLANNNG—Vlbuld the prgect:
a) Physically divide an established oonrrunity?
❑
❑
❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
❑
❑
❑
policy, or regulation of an agenlcyWth
jurisdiction wen the project (including, but not
lirrited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
"ronm antal effect?
c) Conflict Wth any applicable habitat
❑
❑
❑
conservation plan or natuiral oorrmuniity
caservatlon plan?
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.
The Proposed Project would be located within the city limits and constructed on city -owned
property. Land uses surrounding the Project site include industrial and low density
residential. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical
division, or isolation of residential or open space areas. As a result, no impact would occur
and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would be constructed on land currently owned by the
City. The Project site is zoned as Open Space. Areas surrounding the Project site are zoned
for industrial and low density residential. The Proposed Project is in compliance with the
City's General Plan and would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of the San Joaquin
County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). In 2001, The
City adopted the SJMSCP, thereby allowing the City to use this plan to mitigate open space
conversions while satisfying CEQA requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-35
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Mineral Resources
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project site has not been identified as a significant source of
mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project is in an area classified by the State
Geologist as MRZ-1, meaning it is highly unlikely to contain significant mineral resources.
As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known
mineral resources. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The City's General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral
resources or recovery sites in the Proposed Project's area. Further, as discussed in a), the
Proposed Project would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource
deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-36
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Less Than
Less Thm
Issues (and Siportifrg Inmlation
�
Potentially
Sigri ficant with
5gnn
No
Significant Signant Inpac t
Mtigation
Inomporated
InVect
Impact
A MNERAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
Ia~ mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
locally -important nineral resouroe
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project site has not been identified as a significant source of
mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project is in an area classified by the State
Geologist as MRZ-1, meaning it is highly unlikely to contain significant mineral resources.
As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known
mineral resources. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The City's General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral
resources or recovery sites in the Proposed Project's area. Further, as discussed in a), the
Proposed Project would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource
deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-36
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Noise
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Noise sensitive receptors (land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be
subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise) typically include residential
dwellings, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, and libraries. Noise
measurements and observations were taken near the Project site on January 26 through 28,
2010. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include the mobile home park
approximately 90 feet southeast of the proposed RWPS site, the residences approximately 280
feet northwest and Lodi Lake Park approximately 500 feet southeast of the proposed SWTF,
and residences approximately 25 feet east of the proposed distribution pipeline alignment along
North Mills Avenue.
Noise measurements and observations were taken near the Project site on January 26 through
28, 2010. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the immediate project vicinity, short-
term and long-term continuous noise levels were measured. Noise measurements were made
City of Lodi 4-37
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
ally
rcant
Fess Than
Lew Than
Issues (and Supportirg Information Sources)
Siggnilfi
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
No Impact
Irripad
Incorporated
Irripac
XII. NOISE — Wcdd the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
❑
®
❑
❑
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards d other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
❑
❑
®
❑
excessive groundborne vibration or groundmie
noise levels?
c) Aabstantial permanent increase in ambient
❑
®
❑
❑
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
e asting without the project?
d) A substantial teriporary or periodic increase in
❑
®
❑
❑
ar bient noise levels in the project vicinityabove
levels edsting without the project?
e) For a project located Withn an airport land use
❑
❑
❑
plan or, Where such a plan has rbt been
adopted, Within Mo riles of a public airport or
public use airport, %ould the project expose
people residing or wolfing in the area to
excessive noise levels?
D For a project located in the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
airstrip, Wrxid the project expose people residing
or Woking in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Noise sensitive receptors (land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be
subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise) typically include residential
dwellings, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, and libraries. Noise
measurements and observations were taken near the Project site on January 26 through 28,
2010. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include the mobile home park
approximately 90 feet southeast of the proposed RWPS site, the residences approximately 280
feet northwest and Lodi Lake Park approximately 500 feet southeast of the proposed SWTF,
and residences approximately 25 feet east of the proposed distribution pipeline alignment along
North Mills Avenue.
Noise measurements and observations were taken near the Project site on January 26 through
28, 2010. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the immediate project vicinity, short-
term and long-term continuous noise levels were measured. Noise measurements were made
City of Lodi 4-37
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
using Metrosonics db308 Sound Level Meters. Figure 4-2 shows the location of each of the
noise measurements. The continuous (48-hour) noise level measurement locations were
selected to measure existing noise sources and to measure locations that could be affected by
the project. The noise measurements are summarized in Table 4-3.
City of Lodi 4-38
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
CfiG: InLC, v[1lSL �-
. f T ` _ � rtr
ffl +s
� } i
y - r• -� �,rti s - _
„- f •, i ^ _
• � i i '; F J Z • Y,. y F � ' � �
ff ! 1
41
IL
ip
- ff - _�. l _.Y. l _•� - �, f. . X11., y `A TtlNV 4i'� r!!�
-'1.
' .; ; • � x � 'a.: � � _ • �, • � : �' , a ` '�-. - .-- �-� - . z +tee �, :. _ ... �
IF
At
s
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4-3. Existing Noise Environment at Project Site
Location
Time Period
Leq (decibels)
Noise Sources
Site 1: 50 feet from center
24-hour CNEL
Homy Averages
Unattended noise n-easurements
of Lamer Sacran-a to
measurements:
ranged from 52 - 66
do not specifically identify noise
Road and Carolina Street
1/27/10:66
sources.
1/28/10:66
Site 1: 50 feet from center
1/26/10 from
5 -minute Average
Noise from traffic.
of Laver Sacramento
11:57 am —12:07 pm
Noise Levels: 64,66
3 ade trucK 73 dBA
Road and Carolina Street
Site 2: 50 feet from center
1/26/10 from
5 -minute Average
Noise from traffic.
of Lower Saa arr>ento
12:22 —12:32 pm
ase Levels, Leq
weeding vehicle, 75 dBA
Road at railroad crossing
62,63
Site 3: 25 feet from center
24 hour CNEL
Homy Averages
Unattended nose nwisurerrerts
of North Nflls Avenue and
n>easurements were:
ranged from
do not specifically identify noise
Holly Drive
1/27/10: 70
53-73
sources.
1/28/10: 68
Site 3: 50 feet from center
1/26/10
5-Tinute Average
Noise from traffic.
of North Hills Avenue and
1259-1:09 pm
Noise Levels, Leq
Diesel truck approdmately 10 feet
Holly Drive
63,59
may, 75 dBA
Site 4, 25 feet from center
24 hour CNEL
Houiy Averages
Unattended noise measurements
of North Hills Avenue and
rreasurernents were:
ranged from 50 - 69
do not specifically identify noise
Lockeford Street
1/27/10:68
sources.
1/28/10:69
Site 4, 50 feet from center
1/26/10
5 -minute Average
Noise from traffic.
of North Nflls Avenue and
1:26 —1:36 pm
Noise Levels, Leq
Trash track, 83 dBA
Lockeford Street
61,68
Old track, 72 dBA
Figures Noise -2 through 7 in Appendix B how the hourly values for Leq, L.ax,3 L2,4 and L905 in
each hour of the long-term measurements for January 27 and 28, 2010.
The existing ambient noise levels along the Project site and in the immediate Project vicinity
are defined primarily by trucks and cars on Lower Sacramento Road and North Mills Avenue.
Additional noise sources observed in the area include miscellaneous sources such as music,
birds, church bells, airplanes flying overhead, and traffic on other nearby roadways. Operable
railroad tracks cross through the Project area, although no trains were observed. Short-term
measurements near the Project site indicate that average noise levels range from 41 to 68 Leq
dBA and are primarily dependent upon the type and speed of, and distance from the vehicle.
3 Lmax is the highest instantaneous noise measurement during any measurement period.
4 L2 is the noise level equaled or exceeded for 2 percent (approximately one minute for hourly measurements) of the specified
measurement period.
5 L90 is the noise level equaled or exceeded for 90 percent of the specified measurement period. It is often referred to as the
background noise level.
City of Lodi 4-40
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Site 1 (Table 4-3) recorded noise levels near the proposed RWPS site at Lower Sacramento
Road and Carolina Street. Two days of continuous sound level measurements along Lower
Sacramento Road indicate that the average noise level at 50 feet west of the centerline of Lower
Sacramento Road (at the current fenceline of the proposed RWPS) was 66 dBA CNEL and the
hourly Leq range is approximately 52 to 66 dBA. Short-term daytime measurements at the same
location ranged from 64 to 66 dBA. These existing noise levels are presumed to be acceptable
for manufacturing and other industrial facilities, but are considered normally unacceptable for
mobile homes.
Existing roadway noise levels along North Mills Avenue were also measured at Holly Drive
(Site 3) and Lockeford Street (Site 4), both near the proposed distribution pipeline alignment.
Two days of continuous measurements at Site 3 indicate that the existing noise level range is
approximately 68 to 70 dBA CNEL and the hourly Leq range is approximately 53 to 73 dBA.
Short-term daytime measurements at the same location ranged from 59 to 63 dBA. Two days of
continuous measurements at Site 4 indicate that the existing noise level range is approximately
68 to 69 dBA CNEL and the hourly Leq range is approximately 50 to 69 dBA. Short-term
daytime measurements at the same location ranged from 61 to 68 dBA. These existing noise
levels are considered normally unacceptable for residential land uses.
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction is expected to last for
approximately 18 months. Construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces
of noise -generating equipment, such as jackhammers, pneumatic impact equipment, saws,
and tractors. Pile driving is not anticipated as part of the Project. Construction -related
material haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the
number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used. Construction activities associated
with development of the Project would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of construction. The increase in noise could result in temporary
annoyance to residents and park users immediately adjacent to the construction site.
However, proposed construction activities would occur only during the hours permitted in
accordance with the City's Noise Regulations.
Noise levels typically associated with outdoor construction noise levels are listed in
Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
Table 4-4. Typical Construction Noise Levels
Constn rcdon Phase
Noise LeA (dBA Lim
G ound Gearing
84
Excavation
89
Foundations
78
Erection
85
Finishing 1
89
Notes: Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with
a given phase of faction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.
dBA = A weighted decibel; req = equivalent sound level
Sarce. USEPA, 1971
City of Lodi 4-41
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 4-5. Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment
Construcdon Equipment
Noise Level (dBA Leq at 50 feet)
Dump Truck
88
Potable Air Compressor
81
Caxxete Mixer(Truck)
85
Scraper
88
Jaddianmer
88
Dozer
87
Paver
89
Generator
76
Piledriver
101
Backhoe
85
Nates: dBA = A weighted decibel, Leq = equivalent sound level
Same: Oa>rrff, 1977
Noise from construction activities generally attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per
doubling of distance from the source, depending on the topography of the area and
environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and noise barriers, either vegetative
or manufactured, etc.). Where topography or physical structures obstruct a line of sight
from the noise -producing equipment to the receptor location, noise levels would be reduced
(generally by at least 5 dBA).
As shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5, the estimated construction noise levels at a distance of 50
feet could reach almost 90 dBA Leq, if there are no intervening barriers (excluding pile
driving). Pile driving would be higher; however, it is not anticipated for the project. The
proposed construction activities could be within 25 feet of the nearest home east of the
proposed distribution pipeline alignment. Noise levels could reach almost 98 dBA and
would likely violate the City's General Noise Regulations. Therefore, cconstruction noise
would be considered a potentially significant impact. In order to reduce or mitigate short-
term noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors, the City would be required to
restrict construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., per Noise Regulation
9.24.030 and should incorporate the additional mitigation measures identified below.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise -1 would reduce the potential construction
noise impacts to less than significant.
Operation of the Project could increase noise levels at the Project boundaries depending
upon the actual equipment installed and the level of insulation that is provided. The noise
levels of the new equipment would be reduced to acceptable project boundary limits. The
design of the RWPS and SWTF would incorporate elements to attenuate the noise
generated by the pumps and motors. These design elements would include acoustical
barrier panels on the pump room walls and use of acoustical louvers. However, without
City of Lodi 4-42
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
proper insulation of the pump stations, noise levels could be more than five dBA over the
ambient noise level at the property line of any residential property between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and have a significant adverse impact on nearby residences. As
shown in Appendix B, the lowest ambient noise level (L90) between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m. is 42 dBA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise -2 would reduce this potential
impact to less than significant.
The volume of traffic visiting the SWTF would be minor. The approximately six
employees and any visitors would arrive by automobile; however, a few large trucks would
arrive for deliveries and maintenance. The Project would have a less -than -significant
impact on traffic -related noise.
O Mitigation Measure Noise -1: Minimize Noise during Construction.
The following measures shall be implemented during construction:
• Construction activities shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Generators, if utilized, shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise
receptors.
• Depending on the type of equipment used and the location and duration of the
activity, physical reduction measures such as temporary noise barriers that provide
separation between the source and the receptor (e.g., temporary soundproof
structures to house portable generators) shall be provided.
• Construction equipment that is equipped, operated, and maintained with
manufacturer recommended mufflers or the equivalent shall be utilized.
• The City shall post signs at the construction site that shall include permitted
construction days and hours, expected timeframe for construction, and a day and
evening contact number for complaints about construction noise and vibration.
O Mitigation Measure Noise -2: Minimize Noise during Operation. The RWPS and
SWTF shall be designed to be consistent with the City's Noise Regulation 9.24.030.
Based on the noise measurements, existing ambient noise levels between the hours
of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. currently range between 42 and 53 dBA at nearby
residences. So as not to exceed the lowest ambient noise level by more than five
decibels, noise levels from pumps and motors shall be reduced to 45 dBA or below
at the property line of the nearest residential property, including the mobile home
park approximately 90 feet southeast of the proposed RATS and the residences
approximately 280 feet northwest of the proposed SWTF.
City of Lodi 4-43
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating
motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of groundborne
vibrations typically cause a nuisance only to people, but at extreme vibration levels,
damage to buildings may occur. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is
typically an annoyance only indoors, where the associated effects of the shaking of a
building can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only
exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and
floors of a room and may consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.
Peak particle velocity (PPV) relates to the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration
signal and is often used in measuring the magnitude of vibration. Construction vibration is
analyzed in accordance with standards established by the Transportation and Construction -
Induced Vibration Guidance Manual issued by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), as shown in Table 4-6. Continuous sources include the use of vibratory
compaction equipment and other construction equipment that creates vibration other than in
single events. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as tractor -
trailer movements. Thresholds are provided for both structural damage and annoyance.
Structural damage thresholds are considered the CEQA significance thresholds; however,
annoyance thresholds are also provided for the purposes of context.
Table 4-6. Vibration Exposure Thresholds
Type of Stnrcture
Threshold
Whidmm Peak Particle Velodty
(inches/secorxl)
Continuous Sources
Transient Sources
Older residential structures
Sh dural damage
0.3
0.5
Annoyanoe
0.1
0.9
Naw residential sh idures
Structural damage
0.5
1.0
Amoyance
0.1
0.9
Source: Caltrans, 2004
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The Project
construction is not expected to require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are
known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary sources of
vibration during construction would be from bulldozers, backhoes, crawler tractors, and
scrapers. If required, a vibratory roller would produce the greatest amount of vibration on
the Project site during typical construction activities, with a 0.210 PPV at 25 feet. If pile
driving were required for building footings, these activities could produce a maximum
1.518 PPV at 25 feet.
As noted earlier, the nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed RWPS site is the mobile
home park approximately 90 feet to the southeast. The nearest residence to the proposed
City of Lodi 4-44
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SWTF site is approximately 280 feet to the northwest. The nearest residences along North
Mills Avenue could be as close as 25 feet east of the pipeline. According to Caltrans,
vibration impacts are only a potential impact (even considering the vibration from an
impact pile driver) within 100 feet of structures (Caltrans, 2002). To be conservative, these
residences are classified as "older" residential structures, and therefore, have a continuous
vibration exposure structural damage threshold of 0.3 PPV and an annoyance threshold of
0.1 PPV. Depending on the actual location of the transmission pipeline, the nearest
construction activities could be approximately 25 feet from residences and would include
the use of typical small size construction equipment such as backhoes, graders,
jackhammers and dump trucks. Table 4-7 provides the estimated construction vibration
levels at the residences.
Table 4-7. Estimated Maximum Construction Vibration Levels
As shown in Table 4-7, 0.21 PPV is the maximum vibration the residences would be
expected to experience. These vibration levels are below the 0.3 PPV structural damage
significance threshold. However, the 0.21 PPV exceeds the 0.1 PPV annoyance threshold.
As noted earlier, structural damage thresholds are considered the CEQA significance
thresholds and the annoyance thresholds are provided for the purposes of context.
Therefore, vibrations from vibratory rollers would be considered less than significant. PPV
from backhoes, graders, jackhammers and dump trucks at 25 feet would be well below the
significance threshold. By providing a contact for reporting and potentially addressing
complaints about construction noise and vibration, implementation of Mitigation Measure
Noise -1 would mitigate the vibration levels that could be considered annoying.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See discussion under Noise item a)
above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise -2 would reduce the impact to less
than significant.
City of Lodi 4-45
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Significance Thresholds
Distance From Nearest
Predicted Nimum.im Peak
(inche-dsecond)
Receptor
Conshi#ion Activity
Particle Velocity
(feet)
(i
Sbuct ral
Darnage
Annoyance
Residences east of
25
0.2112
0.3
0.1
Nath Hills Avenue
IVlobile Harte Paris
90
0.0312
0.3
0.1
east of Lauver
(90 if pile driving were
(0.22 if pile driving were
Saaarnento Road
required)
Wired)
Nates:
1 Predicted IVlardrr m Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) assumed a worst-case scenario of a vibratory roller operating at the
given distance from the nearest residence.
2 Federal Transit Administration, M.
As shown in Table 4-7, 0.21 PPV is the maximum vibration the residences would be
expected to experience. These vibration levels are below the 0.3 PPV structural damage
significance threshold. However, the 0.21 PPV exceeds the 0.1 PPV annoyance threshold.
As noted earlier, structural damage thresholds are considered the CEQA significance
thresholds and the annoyance thresholds are provided for the purposes of context.
Therefore, vibrations from vibratory rollers would be considered less than significant. PPV
from backhoes, graders, jackhammers and dump trucks at 25 feet would be well below the
significance threshold. By providing a contact for reporting and potentially addressing
complaints about construction noise and vibration, implementation of Mitigation Measure
Noise -1 would mitigate the vibration levels that could be considered annoying.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See discussion under Noise item a)
above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise -2 would reduce the impact to less
than significant.
City of Lodi 4-45
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above in a), the
project would result in an incremental increase in temporary or periodic noise levels in the
area due to the short-term construction activities for the project. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure Noise -1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located within an airport land plan or within two
miles of an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Project
would not increase onsite exposure to aircraft noise. Therefore, no impact would occur and
no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-46
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Population and Housing
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Disamion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The SWTF would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to
protect and restore groundwater resources and to provide adequate water supply to
accommodate short-term and long-term growth. The SWTF is being designed to fully
utilize 6,000 AFY of WID water. Currently the water supply for the City is provided by
groundwater wells. The Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth,
and therefore, would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is
required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in displacing any numbers of housing
units or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed
Project site is located on vacant city -owned property. Construction of the Proposed Project
would not demolish any houses and would not affect any other housing structures. As a
result, the Proposed Project would not displace existing housing, and therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not displace any numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed Project site is located on
city -owned property. Construction of the Proposed Project would not demolish any housing
and other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed Project would not displace people
from their homes. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-47
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Fess That
Less Than
Issues (and Supporting InFonttation Sources)
Significant
Significant
With Mitigation
Signi
Irrtppaac t
InWd
Incorporated
InVact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the
project:
a) Indum substantial population gnMh in an
❑
❑
®
❑
area, either directly (for exanple, by proposing
neve homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
efarrple, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial nufters of edsting
❑
❑
❑
housing, necessitating the oonshuction of
replacement housing els&Mwe?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑
❑
necessitating the constiWion of replacernent
housing elseAhere?
Disamion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The SWTF would not induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to
protect and restore groundwater resources and to provide adequate water supply to
accommodate short-term and long-term growth. The SWTF is being designed to fully
utilize 6,000 AFY of WID water. Currently the water supply for the City is provided by
groundwater wells. The Proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth,
and therefore, would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is
required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in displacing any numbers of housing
units or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed
Project site is located on vacant city -owned property. Construction of the Proposed Project
would not demolish any houses and would not affect any other housing structures. As a
result, the Proposed Project would not displace existing housing, and therefore, no impact
would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not displace any numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Proposed Project site is located on
city -owned property. Construction of the Proposed Project would not demolish any housing
and other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed Project would not displace people
from their homes. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-47
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Public Services
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or the need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The operation and maintenance of the
Proposed Project would not be labor-intensive, and therefore, would not substantially
increase the need for city staff. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the
kinds of public services (e.g., schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities) that
would support new residents. The Proposed Project would not substantially increase the
demand for police and fire protection. As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
City of Lodi 4-48
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Fess That
Less Than
Issues (arid Supporting Inforrrption Sources)
Sign
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Inppaact
Incaporated
AV RJBUC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical irnpacts associated with the prevision
of newor physically altered govemrnent
facilities, need for new or physically altered
goverrinw l facilities, the construction of
Mich Could rause significant environmental
inpacs, in order to rr>eintain acceptable
servioe ratios, response times, or other
performmnoe objectives for ary of the
fcloWng public services:
i) Fre protection?
❑
❑
❑
ii) Pblice protection?
❑
❑
❑
iii) Schools?
❑
❑
❑
iv) Parks?
❑
❑
❑
v) Ottlerpublic facilities?
❑
❑
❑
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or the need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The operation and maintenance of the
Proposed Project would not be labor-intensive, and therefore, would not substantially
increase the need for city staff. The Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the
kinds of public services (e.g., schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities) that
would support new residents. The Proposed Project would not substantially increase the
demand for police and fire protection. As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation
is required.
City of Lodi 4-48
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Disamion
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not contribute to population growth. The
Proposed Project would only meet the current needs of the City. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated. In addition, the Proposed Project would not impact the Lodi Lake Park located
east of the SWTF site. As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include or require construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in a) above, the Proposed Project would
not increase the demand for recreational facilities nor would it impact Lodi Lake Park. As a
result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-49
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Fess Than
Than
Issues (and SLWcdrg Info rnation Sources)
Significant
SignificantLess
with Mitigation
Sigri ficant
No Impact
Irrlpac*
Irtoorporated
Irrpad
XV. CATION
a) Would the project increase the use of eadsting
❑
❑
❑
neighborhood and regional parks or alher
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
❑
❑
❑
or require the construction or e)pansion of
recreational facilities which night have an
adverse physical effect on the ermronn-aV
Disamion
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not contribute to population growth. The
Proposed Project would only meet the current needs of the City. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated. In addition, the Proposed Project would not impact the Lodi Lake Park located
east of the SWTF site. As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include or require construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in a) above, the Proposed Project would
not increase the demand for recreational facilities nor would it impact Lodi Lake Park. As a
result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-49
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
TwarisportaitionlTraffic
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project site is
located within city limits near the section of Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road
(Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description). As discussed in Section 2.2.5, an access road
from the SWTF would be constructed to the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills
Avenue. As part of the Proposed Project, signal modifications would occur to
accommodate a four -leg intersection (Figure 2-6). This would allow traffic to move
smoothly through the intersection.
City of Lodi 4-50
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potentially
Fess That
Less Than
Issues (and Supportirg Information Souses)
Significant
Significant
with Mitigation
Signi
Impact
InWd
Incorporated
InVed
XVI. TRANSPORTATIOWMAMC — Wold the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordnance or
❑
®
❑
❑
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
tatting into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and nor}motoized travel
and relevant comporwtts of the circulation
system, including but not lirrited to
intersections, streets, highways and fremEys,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
❑
❑
❑
management program, including, but riot limted
to level of service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards established by
the county motion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
❑
❑
❑
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
dirge in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
❑
❑
❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fans
equipment)?
e) Flit in inadequate erttergerrcy access?
❑
❑
❑
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑
❑
❑
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
perfonrance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project site is
located within city limits near the section of Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road
(Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description). As discussed in Section 2.2.5, an access road
from the SWTF would be constructed to the intersection of Turner Road and North Mills
Avenue. As part of the Proposed Project, signal modifications would occur to
accommodate a four -leg intersection (Figure 2-6). This would allow traffic to move
smoothly through the intersection.
City of Lodi 4-50
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Construction
Construction activities would occur over approximately 18 months and would be limited to
weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Potential traffic -generating construction activities
would consist of truck and equipment deliveries and the daily arrival and departure of
construction workers. The proposed truck routes would include State Route 99, Turner
Road, Stockton Street, and Lower Sacramento Road.
During construction, an average of five to 10 construction workers are expected to work at
the Project site and a maximum of 12 construction workers would be onsite during the most
intense construction activities. It is expected that each construction worker would drive
alone to the Project site, generating up to 12 round -trips (24 one-way trips) each day during
the most intense construction activities.
Construction would not disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of the
Proposed Project site. Construction -generated traffic would be temporary and would be
limited to bringing empty trucks and equipment to the SWTF during earthwork activities.
Construction equipment and trucks would remain onsite until completion of construction
activities. As a result, potential traffic -related impacts are highly unlikely and are
considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
The treated water pipeline would exit the SWTF site at the intersection of Turner Road and
North Mills Avenue, where it would run south down North Mills Avenue. Construction
would involve trenches construction at the intersection and open -cut trenching along North
Mills Avenue.
Construction would temporarily disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the
vicinity of the Proposed Project, thus disrupting local vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian
traffic along haul routs. Although construction -generated traffic would be temporary,
during peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project could generate up to
30 round-trip truck trips per day. However, average daily truck trips would be less and
would range from about 5 to 10 round -trips per day during construction. The primary
impacts from the movement of trucks would include short-term and intermittent lessening
of roadway capacities due to the trucks' slower movements and larger turning radii
compared to passenger vehicles. Implementation of the following mitigation measures
would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Operation
Operation of the Proposed Project would require six employees at the SWTF; therefore,
there would be minimal increase in traffic along city streets. In addition, there would be
periodic deliveries. As a result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
OO Mitigation Measure TR -1: Prepare Traffic Control Plan. The City shall require the
contractor to prepare a traffic control plan to show specific methods for maintaining
traffic flows. Examples of traffic control measures to be considered include (1) use of
flaggers to maintain alternating one-way traffic while working on one-half of the street;
City of Lodi 4-51
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(2) use of advance construction signs and other public notices to alert drivers of activity
in the area; and (3) use of "positive guidance" detour signing on alternate access streets
to minimize inconvenience to the driving public.
O Mitigation Measure TR -2: Haul Route Maintenance. Following construction, the
City shall ensure that road surfaces damaged during construction are returned to their
pre -construction condition.
b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not temporarily exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, current LOS standards. Traffic generally moves smoothly, without much
congestion, in Lodi. Most streets in Lodi operate at a LOS C or better, which is the
threshold for acceptable operations consistent with the Lodi General Plan (City of Lodi,
2009a). Lower Sacramento Road, Mills Road, and Turner all have a LOS A (indicating
free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) in the Project area (City of Lodi, 2009a).
Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to
cause any change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
d) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not propose to make changes to roadways that
would create road hazards or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards. As
discussed in Section 2.2.5, an access road from the SWTF would be constructed to the
intersection of Turner Road and North Mills Avenue. As part of the Proposed Project,
signal modifications would occur to accommodate a four -leg intersection (Figure 2-6). This
would allow traffic to move smoothly through the intersection. Therefore, no impact would
occur and no mitigation is required.
e) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not affect traffic flow, resulting in delays for
emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the Project. Most streets in Lodi operate at a
LOS C or better, which is the threshold for acceptable operations consistent with the Lodi
General Plan (City of Lodi, 2009a). Lower Sacramento Road, Mills Road, and Turner all
have a LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) in the Project
area (City of Lodi, 2009a). Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
f) No Impact. Project -related construction activities would temporarily require additional
parking for workers and equipment. However, the Proposed Project contains sufficient
space to accommodate the parking needs for construction workers and equipment. As a
result, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not cause a demand for alternative transportation.
In addition, the Proposed Project would have no impact on alternative transportation
facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-52
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Utilities and Service Systems
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Proposed Project would not
discharge wastewater to either surface water or groundwater. Any wastewaters from the
SWTF would be sent directly to the sewer. Therefore, no impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to protect and restore groundwater
resources by constructing the Proposed Project. Environmental effects that may result from
implementation of the Proposed Project are analyzed in this document and specific
City of Lodi 4-53
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
Potermtiallyfi�
Less
Less Than
Issues (anSupporting orting Information Sources)
Siglnficant
w Si Mitigation
Significant
No Im pact
Impact
Incorporated
Irrpac*
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEIVIS — M uld the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
❑
❑
❑
the applicable Regional Water Q ality Control
Board?
b) Raquire or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of edsting facilities, the construcdon
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
❑
❑
❑
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
edsting facilities, the eonstruc ion of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
❑
❑
❑
serve tine project from edsting entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
❑
®
❑
treatment previder wkich serves or may serve
the prgect that it has adequate capacityto
saw tine project's prgected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
comrmitm ants?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
❑
❑
❑
capacity to acco i radate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
❑
❑
❑
and regulations related to solid waste?
a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Proposed Project would not
discharge wastewater to either surface water or groundwater. Any wastewaters from the
SWTF would be sent directly to the sewer. Therefore, no impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
b) No Impact. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to protect and restore groundwater
resources by constructing the Proposed Project. Environmental effects that may result from
implementation of the Proposed Project are analyzed in this document and specific
City of Lodi 4-53
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts, where identified within this
document, to less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The storm drain system
would connect to the existing stormwater pump station near the SWTF entrance. Therefore,
no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
d) No Impact. No new or expanded water supplies or entitlements would be required under or
as a result of the Proposed Project beyond those already obtained. The Proposed Project
would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from its existing WID
contract of 6,000 AFY. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the SWTF would be sent directly to
existing wastewater facilities. The wastewater treatment provider has adequate capacity to
serve the Proposed Project's projected demand. Therefore, the impact is considered to be
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
f) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not generate a
significant amount of solid wastes. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is
required.
g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impact would occur and no
mitigation is required.
City of Lodi 4-54
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Potentially
Fess That
Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Infonttation Sources) Sign'ficdrtt
Significant
with Mitigation
Significant
Irrppaac t
InWd
Incorporated
InVed
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNRCANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
❑
®
❑
❑
the quality of the environmlent, substantially
reduce the ha tat of a fish or wildife species,
cause a fish or wildife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or anin-d community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important
exarrples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have inpacts that are
❑
®
❑
❑
individually limited, but axmlatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable„
means that the increr rental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have ermronmlental effects
❑
®
❑
❑
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project could have
potential effects on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water
quality, and noise. However, these effects would be mitigated by the design of the
Proposed Project and the implementation of Mitigation Measures AE -1, AE -2, AIR -1,
BIO -1, BIO -2, CUL -1, CUL -2, HYDRO -1, NOISE -1, and NOISE -2. The City has
adopted these measures as part of the construction mitigation strategy for the Proposed
Project. The particular impacts, as well as the Proposed Project design elements and
mitigation measures that would reduce them below a level of significance, are described in
the respective sections of this Initial Study checklist. All impacts have been either avoided
or reduced to less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the previous
sections of this checklist, all potentially significant impacts that could be caused by the
Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant by approaches included in the
Project design or by mitigation that would be included as part of the Project. The resources
most likely to be cumulatively affected by the Proposed Project would be air quality,
City of Lodi 4-55
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
biological resources, and water quality. These resources are discussed below; however, it is
expected that the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -1, BIO -1, BIO -2, and
HYDRO -1 would reduce potential individually limited yet cumulatively considerable
impacts to less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Proposed Project would not
directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Air quality,
hazardous materials, and noise would provide the only impacts through which the Proposed
Project could have an effect on human beings. However, all potential effects of the
Proposed Project on air quality, hazardous materials, and noise generated by general
construction activities and operation would be mitigated to less than significant through
implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR -1, HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, NOISE -1, and
NOISE -2, and therefore, would avoid causing substantial adverse effects on human beings.
The impact analysis included in this chapter indicates that for all other resource areas, the
Proposed Project would either have no significant impacts or, for impacts that would not
affect human beings, would have less -than -significant impacts with mitigation
incorporated.
City of Lodi 4-56
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration May 2010
fl
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Chapter 5 - Determination
On the basis of the Initial Study:
❑ I find that the Proposed Project WOULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared.
❑ I find that the Proposed Project may have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project/Action, nothing further is
required.
zgnalure
-?oI U
Date
_ n 1rGtA t &d 1 C( (Vi22ACI '
Printed Name and Title City Lodi
Printed Name and Title
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Affiliation
5-1
May 2010
fl
Chapter 6 - References
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in
California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin:
Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. California's Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. Mandatory Reporting of California Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Presentation in El Monte, California, December 6, 2007.
2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. December 2008.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise Supplement. October 1998.
--------- 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Division of Environmental Analysis, Office
of Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management.
2004. Transportation- and Construction -Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.
City of Lodi. 2006. Lodi Centennial Celebration: 1906-2006. Available at
www.cagenweb.com/sanjoaquin/lodi%20history.pdf
--------- 2009a. Lodi General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. November 2009.
2009b. Municipal Code.
--------- 2010. Lodi General Plan. April 2010.
City of Lodi and Woodbridge Irrigation District (City and WID). 2003. Agreement for Purchase of Water
from the Woodbridge Irrigation District by the City of Lodi. May, 2003.
Clark, K. 1975. Draft Environmental Impact for Lodi Lake Park Master Plan. Submitted to City of Lodi
Planning Department. Unpublished report on file at CCIC, CSUS/Department of Anthropology,
Turlock, Califonia.
Clark, R. A. 2009. Images of America: Lodi. Arcadia Publishing, San Francisco, California.
Cunniff, P. F. 1977. Environmental Noise Pollution. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
Dyett & Bhatia. 2007. Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure. Working Paper #1.
Lodi General Plan Update. July 2007 Draft.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
FTA -VA -90-1003-06.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6-1
May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2008. City of Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility Conceptual Design.
June 2008.
2010. City of Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility and Transmission Main Predesign Report.
January 2010.
Hillman, R. W., and L. A. Covello. 1985. Cities & Towns of San Joaquin County Since 1847. Panorama
West Books, Fresno, California.
Hoover, M. B., H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 1990. Historic Spots in California, 4t' ed.
Revised by D.E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Geologic Data Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Moratto, M. J. 2004. California Archaeology. Original edition: Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1984.
Coyote Press Salinas, California.
Napton, L. K., and E. Greathouse. 1977. Archeological Site Survey Record for CA-SJo-36. Institute for
Archeological Research, California State College, Stanislaus, Turlock, California. On file at
Central California Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System,
Turlock, California.
Petersen, M. D., W. A. Bryant, C. H. Cramer, T. Cao, M. Reichle, A. D. Frankel, J. J. Lienkaemper, P. A.
McCrory, and D. P. Schwartz. 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California. California Department of Conservation, Department of Mines and Geology,
Sacramento, California.
RMC. 2006. City of Lodi 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. March 2006.
Robertson, D. B. 1998. Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume IV. The Caxton Printers, Ltd.,
Caldwell, Idaho.
San Joaquin County. 2004. Lower Sacramento Road Corridor Improvements Project: Turner Road to
Woodbridge Road Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. January 2004.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating
Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).
--------- 2007.2007 Ozone Plan. April 30, 2007.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6-2
May 2010
fal Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
--------- 2009. Final Staff Report Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Under the California
Environmental Quality Act. December 17, 2009.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California.
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. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1941. Lodi, California, Quadrangle. 15 -minute Topographic
Series. Surveyed 1939-1941. On file at Central California Information Center, California
Historical Resources Information System, Turlock, California.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1939. Woodbridge, California, Quadrangle. 7.5 -minute Topographic
Series. Reprint of May 1910 edition. On file at Central California Information Center, California
Historical Resources Information System, Turlock, California.
--------- 1976. Lodi North, California, Quadrangle. 7.5 -minute Topographic Series. Based on aerial
photographs taken 1967, field checked 1968. Photorevised version of 1968 edition.
Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. 2010. Geotechnical Engineering Study for Lodi Surface Water
Treatment Facility and North Mills Avenue Raw Water Pipeline. Appendix A in HDR, 2010, City
of Lodi Surface Water Treatment Facility and Transmission Main Predesign Report. January
2010.
Wallace, W. J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed., Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 8: California, pages 462-470. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Welch, S., Senior Civil Engineer, City of Lodi, Public Works Department. 2009. Personal communication
with Woodbridge Irrigation District. Woodbridge — City of Lodi Storm Drainage Discharge
Agreement. October 1993.
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6-3
May 2010
fl
Chapter 7 - List of Preparers
City of Lodi
Project Manager
HDR Engineering
Project Manager
Biological Resources
QA/QC
Paul Miller Associates
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise
ICF International
Cultural Resources
City of Lodi
Surface Water Treatment Facility
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Wally Sandelin
Michele Stern
Stephen Stringer
Richard Sykes
Paul Miller
Maya Beneli
7-1
May 2010
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SURFACE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, JULY 10,2010
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SENDAFFIDAVITAND BILLTO
DATED: THURSDAY, JULY 8,2010
ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL
CITY CLERK
NNIFER W ROBISON. CMC
ASSISTANT C ITY CLERK
RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 at (time) on (date) {pages)
_NS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time) _JMR_CF _MB (initials)
fon-nAadvins.doc
4<iFot�r'
DECLARATION OF POSTING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
On Friday, July 9, 2010, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of
Public Hearing to consider certification of the Final Mitigated Negative, Declaration for
the Surface Water Treatment Facility (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at
the following locations:
Lodi Public Library
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
I declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 9, 2010, at Lodi, California.
4XINIFER ROBISON, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERK\Forms\DECPOSTCDD.DOC
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
DECLARATION OF MAILING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
On Friday, July 9, 2010, 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 Notice of
Public Hearing to consider certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Surface Water Treatment Facility, attached hereto Marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for said
matter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the
places to which said envelopes were addressed.
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 9, 2010, at Lodi, California.
Ali
Le
NIFER M. ROBISON, CMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Forms/decmail.doc
ORDERED BY:
RANDIJOHL
CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI
MARIA BECERRA
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
A...: X.
F LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
Date: July 21,2010
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Rand! Johl
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
AI9TJCE,OF PUBLIC + EARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 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, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following item:
a) Certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Surface Water Treatment Facility.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development
Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are
invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be
filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2nd Floor, Lodi, 95240, 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 close cf the public hearing.
By cf the Lodi City Council:
' ohl
City Clerk
Dated: July 7,2010
D. Stephen Schwabauer
City Attorney
CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOTCDD.DOC 7/7/10
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 7/21/10 PH MAILING LIS
EAv[i I I T B
APN
OWNER
ADDRESSI
CITY1
STATE
01501004
UNION
1416 DODGEI OMAHA
-NE-F
68179
PACIFIC
ST ROOM`
RAILROAD
830 jl
COMPANY
01501005
UNION
1416 DODGE OMAHA
NE
68179
PACIFIC
ST ROOM
RAILROAD
830
COMPANY
01501006
UNION
1416 DODGE
OMAHA
NE
68179
PACIFIC
ST ROOM
RAILROAD
830
COMPANY
01516012
ACTON, KELLY
PO BOX 23
LOCKEFORD
CA
95237
ETAL
01517006
WOODBRIDGE
PO BOX
WOODBRIDGE
CA
95258
GRANGE #482
1584
01517010
LODI
1305 E.
LODI
CA
95240
UNIFIED,
VINE ST.
SCHOOL DIST
01523007
LODI
815 W
LODI
CA
95240
UNIFIED,
LOCKEFORD
SCHOOL DIST
ST
01523014
GENERAL
PO BOX
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55440
MILLS
1113
CEREALS PROP
LLC
01523019
WOODBRIDGE
PO BOX 453
WOODBRIDGE
I CA
95258
CEMETERY
01523050
GENERAL
PO BOX
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55440
MILLS
1113
CEREALS PROP
LLC
01527001
CHRISTENSEN,
1227 N
LODI
CA
95242
TIMOTHY W SR
LOWER
& DO
SACRAMENTO
RD
01527002
ROUZER, PAUL
1221 N
LODI
CA
95242
L & VICKI
LOWER SAC
RD
01527003
DIEHL, RANDY
1215 LOWER
LODI
CA
95242
L & NANCY S
SAC RD
01527004
PHILLIPS,
PO BOX
WOODBRIDGE
CA
95258
SUE C
1266
01527005
RAU, JOHN R
1203 LOWER
LODI
CA
95242
& CHERYL
SAC RD
01527006
RICH, EVELYN
2305
LODII
CAI
95242
L TR
EILERS IN
01560001
BERGSTROM,
PO BOX 446
WOODBRIDGE CAI
95258
MARLYS
01560002
MONAHAN,
840 S
LODI
CA
95240
PATRICIA
CHURCH STI
01560003
MORENO,
1212 N
LODI
CA
95242
JANICE M TR
LOWER
SACRAMENTO
RD
-SURFACE WATER TREATMENT FACILITY 7/21/10 PH MAILING LIST
01560004
BURKE, LEO P
1216 N
LODI
CA
95242
IV
LOWER
SACRAMENTO
RD
01560005
WARREN,
PO BOX 513
HERALD
CA
95638
BRIAN &
CINDY
02903013
GENERAL
PO BOX
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55440
MILLS
1113
CEREALS PROP
LLC
03502001
WRIGHT,
900 N
LODI
CA
95242
DAVID G
MILLS AVE