The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - August 4, 2010 D-21 PHAGENDA ITEM b -2.I CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION M AGENDA TITLE: Set A Public Hearing for August 18, 2010 to Consider the Certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project MEETING DATE: August 4,2010 PREPARED BY: Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set a Public Hearing for August 18, 2010 to consider the certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Harney Lane Interim Improvement Project has been prepared. In accordance with CEQA, the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to responsible agencies as well as the State Clearinghousefor review. The Notice of Availability was also published in the Lodi News Sentinel on July 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 Wednesday, July 14, 2010 through and ends on Friday, August 13, 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.aov/com dev/EIRS.html. FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDING AVAILABLE: KB/IB/kjc Not Applicable Not Applicable Konradt Bartlam Community Development Director Attachment: Harney Lane Interim Improvements Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPROVED: _ -- Kon t Bartlam, Interim City Manager DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HARNEY LANE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR: City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241-1910 Contact: F. Wally Sandelin 209. 333.6709 PREPARED BY: ICF International 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Shahira Ashkar 916.737.3000 July 2010 1CF INTERNATIONAL ICF International. 2010. Initial study/mitigated negative declaration Harney Lane Interim Improvements. Draft. July. (ICF 00836.09.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for City of Lodi, Lodi, CA. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Description........................................................................ 1-1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1-1 ImpactTerminology............................................................................................................................1-1 ProjectDescription..............................................................................................................................1-1 Project Location and Setting.........................................................................................................1-1 ProposedProject...........................................................................................................................1-2 Construction..................................................................................................................................1-3 Permitsand Approvals........................................................................................................................1-4 PublicInvolvement..............................................................................................................................1-4 Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist........................................................................................... 2-1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................2-3 Agricultural Resources.........................................................................................................................2-5 AirQuality............................................................................................................................................2-8 BiologicalResources..........................................................................................................................2-18 CulturalResources.............................................................................................................................2-37 Geologyand Soils..............................................................................................................................2-43 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................................................2-47 Hydrologyand Water Quality............................................................................................................2-53 LandUse and Planning......................................................................................................................2-57 MineralResources.............................................................................................................................2-59 Noise..................................................................................................................................................2-60 Populationand Housing....................................................................................................................2-71 PublicServices...................................................................................................................................2-73 Recreation.........................................................................................................................................2-76 Transportationand Traffic.................................................................................................................2-78 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................................2-82 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................................2-85 Chapter 3 References Cited...................................................................................................... 3-1 PrintedReferences.............................................................................................................................. 3-1 Personal Communications...................................................................................................................3-4 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Tables 1-1 Types of Equipment That May Be Used to Construct the Proposed Project...............................1-3 1-2 Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Required for Construction...........................................................1-4 2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in California ...................................................follows 2-10 2-2 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Measured at the Stockton -Wagner -Holt School and the Stockton -Hazelton Street Monitoring Stations..................................................................................................................................................follows 2-12 2-3 Anticipated Construction Equipment........................................................................................................2-14 2-4 Construction Emissions Estimates (tons/year)....................................................................follows 2-14 2-5 Special -Status Plants Identified During Prefield Investigation as Potentially Occurring in the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project Area.........................................................................................................................................................follows 2-28 2-6 Special -Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project Study Area..........................................follows 2-28 2-7 Definition of Sound Measurements............................................................................................................2-61 2-8 Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels..............................................................................................................2-62 2-9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment........................................................................2-63 2-10 Human Response to Transient Vibration................................................................................................2-64 2-11 Human Response to Continuous Vibration.............................................................................................2-64 2-12 Community Noise Exposure..........................................................................................................................2-65 2-13 Allowable Outdoor and Interior Noise Exposure.................................................................................2-66 2-14 Existing Traffic Noise Levels.........................................................................................................................2-67 2-15 Construction Equipment Noise....................................................................................................................2-68 2-16 Calculated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors............................................................2-69 2-17 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds.................................................................................................2-79 2-18 Ramp Merge and Ramp Diverge Level of Service Criteria................................................................2-79 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements �� ICF 00836.09 Figures Follows Page 1-1 Project Location....................................................................................................................................................1-2 1-2 Proposed Project Elements.............................................................................................................................1-2 2-1 California GHG Emissions (1990, 2002-2004 Average, and 2020 Projected) .........................2-12 2-2 Sensitive Receptors...........................................................................................................................................2-12 2-3 Vegetation Communities in the Study Area............................................................................................2-26 2-4 Impacts from the Harney Lane State Route 99 Interim Improvements Project ......................2-30 2-5 Land Use Map......................................................................................................................................................2-58 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements III ICF 00836.09 Acronyms and Abbreviations AB 1493 Assembly Bill 1493 AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act ARB California Air Resources Board BMPs best management practices BP before present BPS best performance standards CAAQS California ambient air quality standards Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CCR California Code of Regulations CDFFP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane City City of Lodi CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibel DHS Department of Health Services DOC Department of Conservation DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources Earthquake Fault Zones corridors along active faults EDR report EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements �� ICF 00836.09 Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRMS Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FR Federal Register FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gas HFC -134a 1, 1, 1, 2 -tetrafluoroethane HFC -152a difluoroethane HFC -23 fluoroform HFCs hydrofluorocarbons Hz Hertz IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ISR indirect source review Ld„ day -night sound level Leq equivalent sound level LFD Lodi Fire Department LIM Land Inventory and Monitoring Lmax maximum sound level Lm;,, minimum sound level LOS level of service LPD Lodi Police Department LUSD Lodi Unified School District Lxx percentile -exceeded sound level MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding N20 nitrous oxide NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWPs Nationwide permits Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 03 ozone OHWM ordinary high water mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PFCs perfluorocarbons PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter ppv peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROG reactive organic gases ROWD report of waste discharge RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and USFWS Open Space Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide SOI sphere of influence State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan TAC toxic air contaminant TMP traffic management plan TNWs traditional navigable waters UBC 1997 Uniform Building Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey USTs underground storage tanks VMT vehicle miles traveled WDRs waste discharge requirements Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements �� ICF 00836.09 Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Description Introduction The RPM Company, in cooperation with the City of Lodi, is proposing interim improvements to the Harney Lane/State Route 99 Interchange as mitigation for the Reynolds Ranch development. The proposed improvements constitute a project under CEQA. The City of Lodi (City) is the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. The wetland delineation for this project has been completed using a preliminary jurisdictional determination approach, which assumes that wetlands in the project area are jurisdictional. Based on this assumption, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead federal agency, and is preparing a separate Categorical Exclusion for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Impact Terminology The following terminology is used in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the level of significance of impacts that would result from the proposed project. • A finding of no impact is made when the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular environmental issue. • An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that there would be no substantial adverse change in the environment and that no mitigation is needed. • An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes that there would be no substantial adverse change in the environment with the inclusion of the mitigation measure(s) described. • An impact is considered significant or potentially significant if the analysis concludes that there could be a substantial adverse effect on the environment. • Mitigation refers to specific measures or activities adopted to avoid an impact, reduce its severity, or compensate for it. Project Description Project Location and Setting The project area covers approximately 2,200 feet along Harney Lane, crossing State Route 99 in and near the city of Lodi, California (Figure 1-1). It begins west of Panzani Way and extends to Beckman Road. The western portion of the project is located within the city limits, and the eastern half is adjacent to and within the General Plan Area and Sphere of Influence (SOI) of the City of Lodi. Lodi is located in northern San Joaquin County, in the northern portion of California's Central Valley. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 1-1 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Introduction and Project Description Geographically, Lodi lies between the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to the east and San Francisco Bay to the west. Harney Lane is a two-lane road that crosses State Route 99 via an overcrossing. Hook ramps from southbound State Route 99 feed into Cherokee Lane on the west side of the highway, and similarly hook ramps from northbound State Route 99 feed into the East Frontage Road. These side roads then connect into Harney Lane. The West Frontage Road is located on the south side of Harney Lane and creates a full intersection with Cherokee Lane. All four intersections are stop controlled. The existing roadway section varies, with curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the developed areas but asphalt shoulders within the state right-of-way. The land use in the immediate project vicinity consists of a cemetery, farmland and associated buildings, single family residences, and undeveloped land. The Reynolds Ranch development will be located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Proposed Project The improvements to Harney Lane are mitigation for the additional traffic that will be generated by the Reynolds Ranch development. The proposed project would improve the Harney Lane interchange to keep the level of service (LOS) of the interchange at a level D or better until the ultimate interchange construction is completed in 2016. The interchange construction is expected to begin in 2014 and would consist of widening the highway and reconstructing the interchange. This would be accomplished through road widening and signalizing intersections. The road widening would occur mostly on Harney Lane at the approaches to the East and West Frontage Road intersections to accommodate right and left turn pockets (Figure 1-2). In addition to the intersection work, the hook on -ramps at Cherokee Lane and East Frontage Road would be widened to the inside. Fill would be placed along the inside of the loops and along the south side of Harney Lane. A small amount of right-of-way would need to be obtained to complete the project. Signals would be installed at the intersections of Harney Lane and Cherokee Lane, and Harney Lane and East Frontage Road. The connection to West Frontage Road would be severed on the south side of the intersection by the Reynolds Ranch development. The West Frontage Road already has been realigned farther west, and access to the homes along this road is maintained from the south; therefore, it is not necessary to move the road as part of this project. Cherokee Lane would be closed north of the existing highway off -ramp. The overcrossing (bridge) would remain in place until the ultimate interchange is built. As part of the project, utilities within the project area will be relocated, realigned, or extended as necessary to accommodate project construction and operation. Utilities that will be affected include underground gas and electric lines and overhead electrical lines belonging to Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), overhead electrical lines belonging to Lodi Electrical and overhead telephone lines belonging to AT&T. Impacts associated with the various utilities relocations are addressed in this environmental document pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) General Order (GO) -131 D filing requirements. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 1-Z ICF 00836.09 ,L►:. �T- `;�'• ::..� �� ', ' =:+� �, J - , � � �';'ti `moi - �} + - rvi- rte: �-i�•'a •`�.. ,y L fir' ,.t L �...� _ r 1':-.' � f%�,•+ +� �k— m m . ,r f N- unty oc ton jvK IL iv �i Mantecar iw� 99 Lathrop Ri pon -j �. - yr' t -a7'4 'q„ - - 7■R. - f FFF 1. I_',: -- �' Modesto �•rty f r •� «k rte 10 iIL �." F J .,1 Y� � ii•! .r� I r ' 11 r �t mm i _.' AA Ow Legend Study Area t r c_ C99j0 250 500 750 1,000 liY,�l LEGEND: COUNTY R/W U STATE R/W _ �I CITY R/W / �I I' n ^i CH° RQZEE=I Lo PJRK ani a �� LJ J m R N r IMPROVEMEo IID IMP Em __ __ ___ �p --- w, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT BY OTHE— Ti �--- — _ _ _ — -- — — BY MSC NFO A'.. — EY LANA CLOSE NCCESS � _ �, �I I�L I 3 TO FRONTAGE ROAD \` WESST FROPTAGE ROAD II 6a mem v O I 7CCC m J_� 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet Source: Mark Thomas & Co. 2010 Figure 1-2 'CF Proposed Project Elements INTERNATIONAL City of Lodi Construction Introduction and Project Description Project construction is expected to begin in summer 2010 and would continue for 2 to 3 months. The bulk of this time would be used to install and connect signals at the intersections. Construction is expected to occur Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction Equipment Table 1-1 lists the types of equipment that may be used to construct the proposed project. Not all the equipment would be at the site simultaneously. For instance, the grader would be used for finish grading of the roadway and would not be present during the entire period of construction. Similarly, material delivery trucks and concrete trucks would be at the site on a transitory basis. Table 1-1. Types of Equipment That May Be Used to Construct the Proposed Project Equipment Track excavator Rubber tired backhoe/loader Rubber tire loader Concrete truck Asphalt delivery dump truck Asphalt roller machine Asphalt cutter machine Asphalt grinder machine Horizontal directional boring machine Small "Ditch Witch" trencher machine Small compactors Small skid loader Water truck Pickup trucks Construction Access and Staging Areas Construction equipment would use existing roads and rights-of-way and would not require the creation of any new access roads. Equipment and vehicle staging areas would be located within the road right-of-way in previously disturbed or paved areas. One likely staging area is on the portion of Cherokee Lane to be closed. However, the construction contractor may obtain a different staging area within the project area. Prior to their use, the staging areas will be flagged and clearly marked. Best Management Practices The City will implement the following best management practices (BMPs) as part of the project in order to minimize and avoid potential impacts on environmental resources, particularly water quality. The City will have a construction inspector on-site during construction to ensure that the BMPs are implemented in a timely manner. Possible BMPs include, but are not limited to: • Erosion control o Scheduling Construction during Dry Season Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 1-3 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi o Temporary Fiber Rolls o Temporary Silt Fence o Temporary Inlet Protection o Temporary Check Dams • Contaminant Control o Temporary Truck Entrances o Temporary Concrete Washout o Hazardous Waste Management o Spill Prevention and Control o Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning and Maintenance Permits and Approvals Introduction and Project Description Table 1-2 summarizes the permits and approvals that would be required for project construction. Table 1-2. Permits, Reviews, and Approvals Required for Construction Agency Permit/Approval Status U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404, Nationwide Permit 14 and 33 Pending U.S. Fish and Wildlife San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Pending Conservation and Open Space Plan California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit Pending Public Involvement This initial study will be circulated for a 30 -day public and agency review, pursuant to Section 15105(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City will evaluate all comments received regarding the proposed project and will prepare responses to these comments. During the review period, written comments may be submitted to the following address: City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95241 Attn: F. Wally Sandelin Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 1-4 ICF 00836.09 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist Harney Lane Interim Improvements City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street P.O. Box 3008 Lodi, California 95241-1910 F. Wally Sandelin (209) 333-6709 Lodi, California RPM Construction 1420 South Mills Avenue, Ste. M Lodi, CA 95242 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial, Residential, Open Space 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: The proposed project would result in the installation of signals at the intersections of Harney Lane and Cherokee Lane and Harney Lane and East Frontage Road, and widening Harney Lane and the hook ramps to State Route 99 slightly. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses currently include residential in the northwest quadrant, a cemetery in the northeast quadrant, and agricultural land south of Harney Lane. State Route 99 runs north/south through the project area. The lands south of Harney Lane are proposed for development. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: California Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-1 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project (i.e., the project would involve at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ® Noise ❑ Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ® Transportation/Traffic ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to 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 is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. Signature Printed Name Date For Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2_Z ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ❑ that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetics Regulatory Setting The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with... enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities." (CA Public Resources Code Section 21001[b]). California designates state scenic highways where roadways pass through particularly scenic landscapes. State Route 99 is not a designated scenic highway. (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm). Existing Conditions The proposed project area is at the interchange of State Route 99 and Harney Lane, in and immediately adjacent to the city of Lodi. The project area currently is surrounded by agricultural fields, a cemetery, and a residential subdivision. The interchange of Harney Lane and State Route 99 consists of hook ramps from southbound State Route 99 feeding into Cherokee Lane on the west side of the highway and hook ramps that feed from the northbound State Route 99 into the East Frontage Road on the east side. Harney Lane is a two- lane road. The existing roadway section varies with curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the developed areas and asphalt shoulders within the state right-of-way. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-3 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Impact Discussion a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed project consists of minor lane widening and the installation of traffic signals. The widening of the road would be in keeping with the current use of the area. The addition of new traffic signals would not be out of place with the existing interchange and the planned development in the area. The project would not result in activities or construction that would alter an existing scenic vista. There would be no impact. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? The proposed project would not affect any scenic resources because there are none in the project area. No historic buildings are located in the project area. Several trees are adjacent to Harney Lane and may be removed. However, they do not constitute a scenic resource and therefore, there would be no impact. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The proposed project would widen the road slightly and result in the addition of a traffic signal on either side of State Route 99. The area currently is characterized by agricultural land and residential development. Planned development will increase the suburban character of the area. The addition of these project improvements would be in keeping with the visual character of the site and would not reduce the visual quality of the site and its surroundings. There is no impact. d. Create a new source of substantial light orglare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? The operation of the proposed project would not include any additional lighting except for the traffic signals and the safety lighting atop them, which would not be a substantial source of light or glare. Construction of the project is not anticipated to involve night construction that would entail the use of lights. Therefore, there is no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2.4 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No II. Agricultural Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In determining whether impacts on 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. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use ❑ or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing ❑ environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Agricultural Resources Regulatory Setting The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 El 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FE I�1 // The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is the state's primary program for the conservation of private land in agricultural and open space use (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.). It is a voluntary, locally administered program that offers reduced property taxes on lands that have enforceable restrictions on their use through contracts between individual landowners and local governments. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classification The Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) prepares Important Farmland maps periodically for most of the state's agricultural areas based on information from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps, Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria developed by NRCS, and land use information mapped by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). These criteria generally are expressed as definitions that characterize the land's suitability for agricultural production, physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, and actual land use. Important Farmland maps generally are updated every 2 years. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-5 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The Important Farmland mapping system incorporates eight mapping categories, five categories relating to farmlands and three categories associated with lands used for non-agricultural purposes. The five farmland mapping categories are summarized below. • Prime Farmland: Lands with the combination of physical and chemical features best able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. The land must be supported by a developed irrigation water supply that is dependable and of adequate quality during the growing season. It also must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the 4 years before mapping data were collected. • Farmland of Statewide Importance: Lands with agricultural land use characteristics, irrigation water supplies, and physical characteristics similar to those of Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to retain moisture. • Unique Farmland: Lands with lesser quality soils used for the production of California's leading agricultural cash crops. These lands usually are irrigated but may include non -irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some of the state's climatic zones. • Farmland of Local Importance: Lands of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Grazing Land: Lands in which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land are located in the project vicinity (Department of Conservation 2001). With the exception of a very small area of land in the northeastern corner of the site, the entire project site and much of the surrounding area is classified as Prime Farmland (Department of Conservation 2001). Lodi Draft General Plan The Lodi General Plan Conservation Element includes the following goals and policies that pertain to agriculture and agricultural lands. C -G1: Promote preservation and economic viability of agricultural land surrounding Lodi. C -P3: Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. C -P4: Encourage San Joaquin County to conserve agricultural soils, preserve agricultural land surrounding the city and promote the continuation of existing agricultural operations, by supporting the county's economic programs. Existing Conditions The proposed project is located on mostly developed land (i.e. roadway curb, gutter, and sidewalk). The land use in the immediate project vicinity consists of a cemetery, farmland and associated buildings, single family residences, and undeveloped land. According to the DOC's Map of Important Farmland in California, a small portion of the southwest quadrant of the project area is located in designated Prime Farmland and a small portion of the southeast quadrant is located in designated Unique Farmland. According to the California DOC's San Joaquin County Williamson Act Lands map, the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-6 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Impact Discussion Environmental Checklist a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? A portion of the southwest quadrant of the project area is rated as Prime Farmland on the DOC's San Joaquin County, California, Map of Important Farmland in California. The proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately 0.39 acre of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural uses. However, this small portion is part of a larger segment for which the conversion impact was analyzed and mitigation proposed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Reynolds Ranch (Willdan 2006). The approved Reynolds Ranch mixed-use development will be located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. Mitigation as proposed for the Reynolds Ranch development project includes payment of an Agricultural Land Mitigation Fee to the City of Lodi. Because this impact already has been mitigated, it is not considered a significant impact in relation to the proposed project. A portion of the southeast quadrant of the project area is rated as Unique Farmland on the California DOC's Map of Important Farmland in California. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of 0.18 acre of the site to non-agricultural uses. However, this small amount of conversion would be adjacent to an existing road, and the land in question does not appear to have been used for agriculture in the last several years. Therefore, the conversion of agricultural land would be considered a less -than -significant impact, and no mitigation is necessary. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? The proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, it would have no impact. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? Other than the abovementioned changes, the project would not involve changes that would result in converting Farmland to nonagricultural uses. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ® ❑ ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Air Quality Introduction The city of Lodi is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). Air quality conditions in the SJVAB are regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The following sections describe the overall regulatory framework for air quality management in California and the region, discuss federal and state ambient air quality standards, summarize existing air quality conditions in the project area, and identify sensitive receptors in the project area. Regional Climate and Topography The area's climate is considered "inland Mediterranean" and is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters. Summer high temperatures often exceed 100°F, averaging in the low 90s in the northern valley and high 90s in the south. Although marine air generally flows into the basin from the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta, the surrounding mountain ranges restrict air movement through and out of the valley. Wind speed and direction influence the dispersion and transportation of ozone precursors, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and carbon monoxide (CO); the more wind flow, the less accumulation of these pollutants. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-g ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SJVAB is limited by the presence of persistent temperature inversion (warm air over cool air). Because of differences in air density, the air above and below the inversion does not mix. Ozone (03) and its precursors will react to produce higher concentrations under an inversion and will trap directly emitted pollutants, such as CO. Precipitation and fog tend to reduce or limit pollutant concentrations. Ozone needs sunlight for its formation, and clouds and fog block the required radiation. CO is slightly water soluble, so precipitation and fog tend to reduce CO concentrations in the atmosphere. PM10 is somewhat "washed" from the atmosphere with precipitation. Annual precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley decreases from north to south, with about 20 inches in the north, 10 inches in the middle, and less than 6 inches in the southern part of the valley. Air Quality Management The air quality management agencies of direct importance in San Joaquin County include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the SJVAPCD. EPA has established federal ambient air quality standards for which ARB and the SJVAPCD have primary implementation responsibility. ARB and the SJVAPCD are also responsible for ensuring that state ambient air quality standards are met. The SJVAPCD is also responsible for implementing strategies for air quality improvement and recommending mitigation measures for new growth and development. Air quality is determined primarily by the type and amount of contaminants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and its meteorological conditions. State and federal criteria pollutant emission standards have been established for six pollutants: CO, 03, PM10 and PM2.5 [particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter]), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Within the SJVAB, the SJVAPCD is responsible for ensuring that these emission standards are not violated. Existing air quality conditions in the project area can be characterized in terms of the ambient air quality standards that the federal government and California have established for several different pollutants. For some pollutants, separate standards have been set for different measurement periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions). The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), which describe acceptable conditions, were first authorized by the federal Clean Air Act of 1970. Air quality is considered in "attainment" if pollutant levels are below or equal to the NAAQS continuously and exceed them no more than once each year. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which describe adverse conditions, were authorized by the state legislature in 1967. Pollution levels must be below the CAAQS before a basin can attain the standard. California standards are generally more stringent than the national standards. NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 2-1. Climate Change Regulatory Setting Global climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. These efforts are Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 2-9 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist concerned primarily with the emissions of GHG related to human activity that include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC -23 (fluoroform), HFC -134a (1, 1, 1, 2 -tetrafluoroethane), and HFC -152a (difluoroethane). In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an innovative and proactive approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009 model year; however, in order to enact the standards, California needed a waiver from the EPA. The waiver initially was denied by EPA in December 2007. On January 26, 2009, it was announced that EPA would reconsider their decision regarding the denial of California's waiver. On June 30, 2009, EPA granted a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. (Reference: EPA "California Greenhouse Gas Waiver' website. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/ca-waiver.htm) On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and (3) 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, a portion of this goal was placed into statute by the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goal of 1990 levels by the 2020 while further mandating that ARB create a plan that includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." The ARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan in December 2008. Executive Order S-20-06 directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state's Climate Action Team. With Executive Order S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel standard for California. Under this executive order, the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10% by 2020 through regulations to be adopted by ARB. Climate change and GHG reduction are also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate change. California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations and several other states, sued to force the EPA to regulate GHG as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007). The court ruled that GHG does fit within the Clean Air Act's definition of a pollutant, and that the EPA does have the authority to regulate GHG. On December 7, 2009, the EPA signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed greenhouse gases—0O2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well - mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare (Environmental Protection Agency 2009). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-10 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Table 2-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards Applicable in California Carbon Standard 8 hours 9.0 Standard (micrograms 10,000 Attainment Status of (parts per million) per cubic meter) Violation Criteria San Joaquin County Pollutant Symbol Average Time California National California National California National California National Ozone 03 1hour 0.09 N/A 180 N/A Ifexceeded N/A Severe N/A (<_ 12.7 ppm) nonattainment 8 hours 0.070 0.075 137 147 If exceeded If fourth highest 8 -hour concentration in a Nonattainment Serious year, averaged over 3 years, is exceeded at nonattainment maintenance area each monitor within an area Carbon CO 8 hours 9.0 9 10,000 10,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Attainment Moderate monoxide (<_ 12.7 ppm) maintenance area for Stockton 1 hour 20 35 23,000 40,000 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Attainment Moderate (<_ 12.7 ppm) maintenance area for Stockton (Lake Tahoe 8 hours 6 N/A 7,000 N/A If equaled or N/A NA NA only) exceeded Nitrogen NO2 Annual arithmetic 0.030 0.053 57 100 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year N/A Unclassified/ dioxide mean attainment 1 hour 0.18 N/A 339 N/A If exceeded N/A Attainment NA Sulfur S02 Annual arithmetic NA 0.030 NA 80 NA If exceeded NA Unclassified/ dioxide mean attainment 24 hours 0.04 0.14 105 365 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Attainment Unclassified/ attainment 1 hour 0.25 N/A 655 N/A If exceeded N/A Attainment NA Hydrogen H2S 1 hour 0.03 N/A 42 N/A If equaled or N/A Attainment NA sulfide exceeded Vinyl C2H3Cl 24 hours 0.01 N/A 26 N/A If equaled or N/A Attainment NA chloride exceeded Inhalable PM10 Annual arithmetic N/A N/A 20 N/A If exceeded If exceeded at each monitor within area NA Serious particulate mean maintenance matter 24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 If exceeded If exceeded on more than 1 day per year Nonattainment Serious maintenance PM2.5 Annual arithmetic N/A N/A 12 15 If exceeded If 3 -year average from single or multiple Nonattainment Nonattainment mean community -oriented monitors is exceeded 24 hours N/A N/A N/A 35 NA If 3 -year average of 981h percentile at each NA Nonattainment population -oriented monitor within an area is exceeded Sulfate SO4 24 hours N/A N/A 25 N/A If equaled or NA Attainment NA particles exceeded Lead Pb Calendar quarter N/A N/A N/A 1.5 NA If exceeded no more than 1 day per year NA No classification particles 30 -day average N/A N/A 1.5 N/A If equaled or N/A Attainment NA exceeded Rolling 3 -month N/A N/A N/A 0.15 If equaled or Averaged over a rolling 3 -month period Attainment NA average exceeded Sources: California Air Resources Board 2008a; California Air Resources Board 2009a; U.S. EPA 2009a. Notes: N/A = not applicable; all standards are based on measurements at 252C and 1 atmosphere pressure; national standards shown are the primary (health effects) standards. City of Lodi Environmental Checklist An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may worsen a significant impact through its incremental contribution combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG. In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined whether a project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable." (See State CEQA Guidelines sections 15064[i] [1] and 15130) To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the project must be examined with and in the context of the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. In late December 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted State CEQA Guidelines amendments addressing climate change. As of this writing, the proposed amendments are completing the administrative review process and are expected to become effective in March 2010. The pending amendments include new initial study checklist item for "Greenhouse Gas Emissions." It asks whether the project may directly or indirectly have a significant effect because of its GHG emissions and whether the project would conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation intended to reduce GHGs. The amendments to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 suggest some general categories of mitigation that would be acceptable for reducing a project's GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB recently released an updated version of the GHG inventory for California. Figure 2-1 (California Air Resources Board 2008) summarizes the total GHG emissions for California for 1990, 2002-2004 average, and 2020 projected if no action is taken. Existing Air Quality Conditions The existing air quality conditions in the proposed project area can be characterized by monitoring data collected in the region. The nearest air quality monitoring station is the Stockton -Wagner -Holt School, which monitors PM10. The nearest station monitoring 1 -hour and 8 -hour ozone, CO, and PM2.5 is the Stockton -Hazelton monitoring station. Table 2-2 summarizes air quality monitoring data from the Stockton -Wagner -Holt School and the Stockton -Hazelton monitoring stations for the last 3 years that complete data are available (2006-2008). As shown in Table 2-2, the monitoring stations have experienced violations of the state and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter, while no violations have occurred for CO. Attainment Status Areas are classified as either attainment or nonattainment with respect to CAAQS and NAAQS. These classifications are made by comparing actual monitored air pollutant concentrations to state and federal standards. If a pollutant concentration is lower than the state or federal standard, the area is classified as being in attainment of the standard for that pollutant. If a pollutant violates the standard, the area is considered a nonattainment area. If data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard, the area is designated unclassified. Unclassified designations generally occur in non -urbanized areas where levels of the pollutant are not a concern. If monitored pollutant concentrations violated the standards in the past but are no longer in violation, the area is considered a maintenance area. The EPA has classified San Joaquin County as a serious nonattainment area for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. For the federal CO standard, the EPA has classified the Stockton Urbanized Area (5/16/84,49 FR 20651) as a moderate (:512.7 parts per million) maintenance area, while the rest of San Joaquin County is an unclassified/attainment area. As stated in Table 2-1, the EPA has classified Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-11 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist San Joaquin County as a serious maintenance area for the federal PM10 standard and a nonattainment area for to the federal PM2.5 standard (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009). As stated in Table 2-1, the ARB has classified San Joaquin County as a severe nonattainment area for the state 1 -hour ozone standard. For the state CO standard, ARB has classified San Joaquin County as an attainment area. The ARB has classified San Joaquin County as a nonattainment area for the State PM10 and PM2.5 standards (California Air Resources Board 2009b). Sensitive Receptors The SJVAPCD defines sensitive receptors as "facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002)." Typical sensitive receptors are residences, hospitals, schools, parks, and places of worship. In the project vicinity, sensitive receptors include a residential subdivision in the northwest quadrant of the project area; Louis Borchardt Elementary School, which is approximately 950 feet northwest of the Harney Lane/State Route 99 interchange; the Cherokee Memorial Park located in the northeast quadrant of the project area; and scattered rural residences located south of Harney Lane (Figure 2-2). San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Thresholds Construction Thresholds SJVAPCD does not require construction emissions to be quantified. Rather, it requires implementation of effective and comprehensive feasible control measures to reduce PM10 emissions (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002). SJVAPCD considers PM10 emissions to be the greatest pollutant of concern when assessing construction -related air quality impacts. It has determined that compliance with its Regulation VIII, including implementation of all feasible control measures specified in its Guide forAssessing Air Quality Impacts (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002), constitutes sufficient mitigation to reduce construction -related PM10 emissions to less -than -significant levels and minimize adverse air quality effects. Since the publication of the district's guidance manual, the district has revised some of the rules making up Regulation VIII. Guidance from district staff indicates that implementation of a dust control plan would satisfy all of the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Cadrett pers. comm.). Further consultation with SJVAPCD staff indicates that, although explicit thresholds for construction -related emissions of ozone precursors are not enumerated in the Guide forAssessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, the SJVAPCD considers a significant impact to occur when construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NO.) exceed 10 tons per year (Barber pers. comm.). On December 15, 2005, SJVAPCD adopted Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. This rule fulfills the district's emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Attainment Plans through emission reductions from the construction and use of development projects through design features and on- site measures. Rule 9510 requires implementation of control measures to mitigate construction - related NOX and PM10 emissions from roadway projects in excess of 2.0 tons. If additional mitigation is necessary to achieve the required reductions, emissions offsets can be purchased. Compliance with Rule 9510 is separate from the CEQA process, although the control measures used to comply with the Rule 9510 may be used to mitigate CEQA impacts. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-12 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Table 2-2. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Measured at the Stockton -Wagner -Holt School and the Stockton -Hazelton Street Monitoring Stations Page 1 of 2 Pollutant Standards 2006 2007 2008 1 -Hour Ozone (Stockton -Hazelton) Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.109 0.093 0.105 1 -hour California designation value 0.11 0.11 0.11 1 -hour expected peak day concentration 0.106 0.105 0.105 Number of days standard exceededa 0.086 0.081 0.082 CAAQS 1 -hour (>0.09 ppm) 6 0 2 8 -Hour Ozone (Stockton -Hazelton) National maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.092 0.081 0.090 National second-highest 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.086 0.081 0.081 State maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.092 0.082 0.091 State second-highest 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.086 0.081 0.082 8 -hour national designation value 0.076 0.077 0.078 8 -hour California designation value 0.086 0.092 0.092 8 -hour expected peak day concentration 0.091 0.092 0.092 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 8 -hour (>0.075 ppm) 13 3 4 CAAQS 8 -hour (>0.070 ppm) 21 4 7 Carbon Monoxide (CO) (Stockton -Hazelton) Nationalb maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 2.25 2.31 1.86 Nationalb second-highest 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 2.24 2.13 1.76 California maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 2.25 2.31 1.86 California second-highest 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 2.24 2.13 1.76 Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 4.4 3.6 2.6 Second-highest 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 4.3 3.6 2.5 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 8 -hour (>9 ppm) CAAQS 8 -hour (>9.0 ppm) NAAQS 1 -hour (>35 ppm) CAAQS 1 -hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Particulate Matter (PM10)a (Stockton -Wagner -Holt) Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 69.0 61.0 71.5 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (lig/m3) 62.0 61.0 67.5 State maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 71.0 65.0 76.0 State second-highest 24-hour concentration ([Ig/M3) 65.0 64.0 67.2 State annual average concentration (µg/m3)e 26.8 24.1 29.5 National annual average concentration (lxg/m3) 26.1 23.6 29.0 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3)f 0 0 0 CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3)f 36.7 25.1 38.5 Table 2-2. Continued Page 2 of 2 Pollutant Standards 2006 2007 2008 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (Stockton -Hazelton) Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 47.0 52.0 81.2 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (lig/m3) 47.0 50.0 61.7 State maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 53.3 66.8 91.0 State second-highest 24-hour concentration (lxg/m3) 51.7 59.4 78.9 National annual designation value (µg/m3) 12.9 12.8 13.5 National annual average concentration ([Ig/M3) 13.1 12.9 14.4 State annual designation value (µg/m3) 13.0 13.0 14.0 State annual average concentration (µg/m3) e 13.5 13.5 14.4 Number of days standard exceededa NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) 20.8 34.1 27.7 Sources: California Air Resources Board 2009a; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009a. Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards. NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards. = insufficient data available to determine the value. a An exceedance is not necessarily a violation. b National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, for which statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, State statistics are based on California approved samplers. d Measurements usually are collected every 6 days. e State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria. f Mathematical estimate of how many days concentrations would have been measured as higher than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. California GHG Inventory Forecast -50 0 G0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 GD0 MilliGn tonnes CO2 equivalent ❑ Transportation o Dectric Power ■ Commercial & resWentiat o lndustr[al ■ Recycling & Waste ■ High GWP ❑ Agriculture ■ Forestry Source: California Air Resources Board 2008b. Figure 2-1 'CF California GHG Emissions INTERNATIONAL (1990, 2002-2004 Average, and 2020 Projected) jr 13 k. 'j jx:1177 7 - ,. c I LI A. 1, 7-1 7 wow Lois 136rch Elementary, ool . Cherokee Memorial Park & Funeral Home at Ill AP ^ Y I' ., . Mi ti 14 11 i Lf 1 ^ Y I' ., . Mi ti City of Lodi Operational Thresholds Environmental Checklist The SJVAPCD's thresholds of significance, as indicated in their Guide forAssessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2002) and through consultation with SJVAPCD staff, are summarized here. A project would have a significant impact if: • project implementation would produce emissions increases greater than 10 tons/year ROG. • project implementation would produce emissions increases greater than 10 tons/year NO.. • project implementation would produce emissions increases greater than 15 tons/year PM10. • project -related emissions of CO would exceed NAAQS or CAAQS. Climate Change Thresholds The SJVAPCD adopted guidance for addressing GHG emissions on December 17, 2009. No numerical thresholds have been established, but projects will be required to employ a 29% reduction in GHG emissions, consistent with AB 32 emission reduction targets. At this time, best performance standards (BPS) have not been fully identified or established for construction projects (Barber pers. comm.). Impact Discussion The proposed project entails widening and intersection improvements along Harney Lane. According to the project traffic engineer, Fehr & Peers, the proposed project would not affect vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or traffic speeds in the project area (Wallace 2009). As a result, there would be no operational emissions associated with the proposed project, the operational thresholds described above are not exceeded, and there is no impact. Impacts related to construction activity are discussed below. a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in the applicable air quality plan, which, in turn, would generate emissions not accounted for in the applicable air quality plan emissions budget. Therefore, proposed projects need to be evaluated to determine whether they would generate population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates included in the relevant air plans. As the goal of the proposed project is to improve traffic operations, it will not result in population and/or employment growth. In addition, according to Fehr & Peers, the proposed project would not affect traffic distribution, travel patterns, or operations on roadways within the project area (Wallace pers. comm. ). Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and this impact is considered less than -significant. No mitigation is required. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Implementation of the proposed project would result in the widening and improvement of Harney Lane. Temporary construction emissions would result from grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/subgrade construction, and paving activities. Pollutant Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-13 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist emissions would vary daily, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and prevailing weather. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's (SMAQMD's) Road Construction Emissions Model (Version 6.3.2) was used to estimate construction -related ozone precursors (ROG and NO,), CO, PM10, PM2.5, and CO2 emissions from construction activities. Based on information from the project engineers, the proposed project is approximately 2,200 feet. It was assumed that the proposed project would be approximately 1 mile in length, as a worst -case -scenario, with an area of 1 acre. It was assumed that a maximum of 0.25 acre would be disturbed per day. Construction is anticipated to last for approximately 1 month. The construction phases and duration are anticipated as follows: grubbing/land clearing would take approximately 2 days to complete, grading/excavation would take approximately 1 week to complete, drainage/utilities would take approximately 2 weeks to complete, and paving would take approximately 1 week to complete. One water truck would be used during the four phases of construction, and it is assumed to travel 20 miles per day. It is anticipated that 12 workers would commute 10 miles per day (four workers during the grubbing and grading phases, and six people during the drainage/paving phases). It was also assumed that 100 cubic yards of soil would be imported and exported per day and that the soil would be hauled 10 trips of 20 miles each. Table 2-3 shows the anticipated construction equipment, based on information provided by the project applicant. Table 2-3. Anticipated Construction Equipment Construction Phase Equipment Horsepower Grubbing/land clearing 1 track loader 90 2 dump trucks 445 Grading/excavation 1 soil compactor 232 2 dump trucks 445 Drainage/utilities/subgrade 1 backhoe loader 87 Paving 1 paver 224 2 dump trucks 445 1 AC compactor 130 Emissions were calculated based on the information described above. The modeling results for construction activities are summarized in Table 2-4. As construction is anticipated to last for less than 1 year, impacts of the project would be considered significant if the total emissions from the construction project were in excess of SJVAPCD threshold levels. Table 2-4 shows the maximum annual emissions for all pollutants are well below the CEQA significance thresholds. Total NO. emissions that would result from project construction would be 1.12532 tons per year. As stated above, Rule 9510 requires implementation of control measures to mitigate construction - related NO. and PM10 emissions from roadway project in excess of 2.0 tons. Therefore, indirect source review (ISR) requirements are met and the proposed project is not subject to Rule 9510. Construction of the proposed project will result in approximately 178 metric tons of CO2. These emissions are negligible in terms of California's overall GHG emissions, which were estimated to be approximately 468.8 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in 2008 (California Air Resources Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-14 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Table 2-4. Construction Emissions Estimates (tons/year) Fugitive Fugitive Total Exhaust Dust Total Exhaust Dust Project Phases ROG CO NO. PM10 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03857 0.17437 0.28826 0.04496 0.01094 0.03402 0.01663 0.00956 0.00708 47.042436 Grading/Excavation 0.05465 0.32272 0.38444 0.04864 0.01462 0.03402 0.01980 0.01272 0.00708 59.374407 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00644 0.08022 0.02342 0.03557 0.00155 0.03402 0.00800 0.00092 0.00708 10.459789 Paving 0.05615 0.21924 0.42919 0.01646 0.01646 - 0.01466 0.01466 - 61.400407 Total Emissions 0.15581 0.79655 1.12532 0.14563 0.04357 0.10206 0.05909 0.03786 0.02123 178.27704 SJVAPCD Thresholds 10 n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Exceeds Thresholds?b No n/a No No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Source: SMAQMD's Road Construction Model (Version 6.3.2). a CO2 emissions presented in metric tons per year. b After mitigation applied. Project Start Year: 2013 Project Length (months): 1 Total Project Area (acres): 1 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres): 0.25 Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day): 100 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Board 2008).. In other words, GHG emissions generated by construction of the proposed project only represent approximately 0.00000038% of California's total net GHG emissions in 2008. As previously indicated, guidance from district staff indicates that implementation of a dust control plan would satisfy all of the requirements of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Cadrett pers. comm.). Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would minimize air quality impacts from construction activities to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ -1: Prepare and Implement a Dust Control Plan to Comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Requirements to Control Construction Emissions of PM10 To control the generation of construction -related PM10 emissions, construction contractors will prepare and submit for approval a dust control plan to the SJVAPCD at least 30 days prior to any earthmoving or construction activities. The dust control plan can be completed before a contractor is awarded the contract with a condition that the SJVAPCD is notified as soon as a contract is in place. The dust control plan will include sufficient BMPs to conform to the SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII. Potential measures that might be included in the dust control plan could include, but are not limited to: • Pre -activity o Pre -water the work site and phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time. • Active operations o Apply water to dry areas during leveling, grading, trenching, and earthmoving activities. o Construct and maintain wind barriers and apply water or dust suppressants to the disturbed surface areas. • Inactive operations, including after work hours, weekends, and holidays o Apply water or dust suppressants on disturbed surface areas to form a visible crust, and vehicle access will be restricted to maintain the visible crust. • Temporary stabilization of areas that remain unused for 7 or more days o Restrict vehicular access and apply and maintain water or dust suppressants on all un - vegetated areas. o Establish vegetation on all previously disturbed areas. o Apply gravel and maintained at all previously disturbed areas. o Pave previously disturbed areas. • Unpaved Access and haul roads, traffic and equipment storage areas o Apply water or dust suppressants to unpaved haul and access roads. o Post a speed limit of not more than 15 miles per hour, using signs at each entrance and again every 500 feet. o Water or dust suppressants will be applied to vehicle traffic and equipment storage areas. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-15 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist • Wind events o Water application equipment will apply water to control fugitive dust during wind events, unless unsafe to do so. o Outdoor construction activities that disturb the soil will cease whenever visible dust emissions cannot be effectively controlled. • Outdoor handling of bulk materials o Water or dust suppressants will be applied when handling bulk materials. o Wind barriers with less than 50% porosity will be installed and maintained, and water or dust suppressants will be applied. • Outdoor storage of bulk materials o Water or dust suppressants will be applied to storage piles. o Storage piles will be covered with tarps, plastic, or other suitable material and anchored in such a manner that prevents the cover from being removed by wind action. o Wind barriers with less than 50% porosity will be installed and maintained around the storage piles, and water or dust suppressants will be applied. o A three -sided structure with less than 50% porosity that is at least as high as the storage piles will be used. • On-site transporting of bulk materials o Vehicle speed will be limited on the work site. o All haul trucks will be loaded such that the freeboard is not less than 6 inches when material is transported across any paved public access road. o A sufficient amount of water will be applied to the top of the load to limit visible dust emissions. o Haul trucks will be covered with a tarp or other suitable cover. • Off-site transporting of bulk materials o The interior of emptied truck cargo compartments will be cleaned or covered before leaving the site. o Spillage or loss of bulk materials from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment's floor, sides, and tailgates will be prevented. • Outdoor transport using a chute or conveyor o No open chutes or conveyors will be used. o Chutes or conveyors will be fully enclosed. o Water spray equipment will be used to sufficiently wet the materials. o Transported materials will be washed or screened to remove fines (PM10 or smaller). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-16 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? As described above under "b," the proposed project would not create a significant air quality impact after implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1. Therefore, a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant would not occur and this impact is considered less than significant after mitigation. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction activities are anticipated to involve the operation of diesel -powered equipment. In October 2000, the ARB identified diesel exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). The SJVAPCD does not consider construction equipment diesel -related cancer risks to be an issue because of the short-term nature of construction activities (Guerra pers. comm.). Cancer health risks associated with exposures to diesel exhaust typically are associated with chronic exposure, in which a 70 -year exposure period often is assumed. Although elevated cancer rates can result from exposure periods of less than 70 years, acute exposure (i.e., exposure periods of 2 to 3 years) to diesel exhaust typically is not anticipated to result in the concentrations necessary to constitute a health risk. Health impacts associated with exposure to diesel exhaust from project construction are not anticipated to be significant because construction activities will be well below the 70 -year exposure period; therefore, construction of the project is not anticipated to results in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons. In addition, Table 2-4 indicates that PM10 emissions from diesel exhaust are relatively low. Consequently, this impact is less than significant. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The use of diesel -powered construction vehicles may generate temporary odors while construction of project improvements is underway. However, once construction activities have been completed, these odors would cease. Consequently, this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-17 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No IV. Biological Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly ❑ or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, 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 conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Biological Resources Methodology // /1 // ❑■ n 0 ® ❑ El 0 ❑ ❑ LE 70 ICF biologists conducted a literature investigation to review existing sources of information and prepare lists of special -status species that potentially could occur in the study area. For the purpose of this report, the study area is defined as the 2,200 -foot -long project area with a surrounding 250 - foot buffer area. The following sources of information were reviewed prior to conducting the field surveys. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-18 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist • The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for records from the Lodi South U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). • California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for the Tracy USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles (California Native Plant Society 2009). • U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) list of endangered and threatened species that occur in or may be affected by the proposed project for the Lodi South USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle and San Joaquin County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). On December 10, 2008, an ICF Jones & Stokes wildlife biologist and botanist/wetland ecologist conducted a reconnaissance survey of the study area. The purpose of the reconnaissance survey was to document vegetation community types, evaluate the biological conditions in the study area, and determine the potential for presence of special -status species. The survey consisted of walking meandering transects through the vegetated portions of the study area. The botanist/wetland ecologist mapped the vegetation communities present and evaluated habitat for special -status plant species, and the wildlife biologist recorded wildlife observed and evaluated habitat for special -status wildlife species. The botanist/wetland ecologist also recorded plants observed and preliminarily identified potential wetlands for the subsequent wetland delineation. All plants observed were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible using The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993). A delineation of wetlands and other waters was conducted on October 26, 2009. The delineation was conducted using the routine on-site determination method described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) as well as the supplemental procedures and wetland indicators provided in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual for the Arid West Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). Data for wetlands and other waters were collected to support a preliminary jurisdictional determination approach during the permitting phase. Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act The ESA protects fish and wildlife species and their habitats that have been identified by USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened or endangered. Endangered refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened refers to species, subspecies, or distinct population segments that are likely to become endangered in the near future. In general, NMFS is responsible for protection of federally listed marine species and anadromous fishes, whereas other listed species are under USFWS jurisdiction. Provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA may be relevant to the project; these are summarized below. Section 9: Prohibitions Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under the ESA as endangered. Take of threatened species is also prohibited under Section 9, unless otherwise Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-19 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist authorized by federal regulations.' Take is defined by the ESA as intending "[to] harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined as "any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification." In addition, Section 9 prohibits removing, digging up, cutting, and maliciously damaging or destroying federally listed plants on sites under federal jurisdiction. Section 10: Nonfederal Actions In cases where a nonfederal entity is undertaking an action that does not have federal funding or require federal authorization (such as the proposed project), the take of listed species must be permitted by USFWS through the Section 10 process. If the proposed project would result in the incidental take of a listed species, the applicant first must obtain an incidental take permit under ESA Section 10. To receive an incidental take permit, the nonfederal entity is required to prepare a habitat conservation plan that describes project impacts and specifies conservation measures that avoid, minimize, and mitigate the project's impact on listed species and their habitat. The City of Lodi is assuming that federally listed vernal pool shrimp species are present in seasonal wetlands on the project site. By assuming presence, incidental take of these species is assumed and an incidental take permit is required. The City of Lodi will obtain coverage for incidental take through the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The proposed project would be a covered activity within the SJMSCP area. The SJMSCP, in accordance with ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(B) provides compensation for conversion of open space to non -open space uses that affect plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the plan (San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000). Federal Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted as an amendment to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which outlined the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. The CWA serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation's surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. The Federal CWA is administered by the EPA and the USACE. USACE is responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States (including lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries) and wetlands. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas that are "inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987:13). The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to permitting under CWA Section 404. Certification from the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to CWA Section 401 and EPA's Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. On June 5, 2007, the EPA and the U.S. Department of the Army issued a memorandum titled Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States that states that the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following 1 In some cases, exceptions may be made for threatened species under ESA Section 4[d]. In such cases, USFWS or NMFS issues a "4[d] rule" describing protections for the threatened species and specifying the circumstances under which take is allowed. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-20 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist categories of water bodies: traditional navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to TNWs, non - navigable tributaries of TNWs that are relatively permanent, and wetlands that abut such tributaries (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of the Army 2007). The study area is located within the service area for the Sacramento District of the USACE, which issued a public notice (SPK -2008-01557) on November 7, 2008, regarding local processing procedures for jurisdictional determinations; the preliminary jurisdictional determination approach is intended to streamline the process for applicants seeking USACE permit authorizations or jurisdictional determinations. In accordance with a preliminary jurisdictional determination approach, the seasonal wetlands and drainage ditches were interpreted to fall within the jurisdiction of the USACE Sacramento District. Applicants must obtain a permit from USACE for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. USACE may issue either an individual permit evaluated on a case-by-case basis or a general permit evaluated at a program level for a series of related activities. General permits are preauthorized and are issued to cover multiple instances of similar activities expected to cause only minimal adverse environmental effects. Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a type of general permit issued to cover particular fill activities. Each NWP specifies particular conditions that must be met for the NWP to apply to a particular project. Presidential Executive Order 13186: Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA (16 U.S. Government Code 703-711) prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the act, take is defined as the action of or attempt to "pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill." This act applies to all persons and agencies in the United States, including federal agencies. Executive Order (EO) 13186 for conservation of migratory birds (January 11, 2001) requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds. The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order also requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migratory bird populations through the following means. • Avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. • Restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds, as practicable. • Prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable. State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. A project normally is considered to result in a significant environmental impact on biological resources if it substantially affects a rare or endangered species Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-21 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist or the habitat of that species; substantially interferes with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife; or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. The State CEQA Guidelines define rare, threatened, or endangered species as those listed under CESA and ESA, as well as any other species that meets the criteria of the resource agencies or local agencies (e.g., CDFG-designated species of special concern, CNPS-listed species). The State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that the lead agency preparing an environmental impact report must consult with and receive written findings from CDFG concerning project impacts on species that are listed as endangered or threatened. The effects of a proposed project on these resources are important in determining whether the project has significant environmental impacts under CEQA. California Endangered Species Act California implemented CESA in 1984. The act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the state's definition of take. Under CESA, take is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but the definition does not include harm or harass. Section 2090 requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. CDFG administers the act and may authorize take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected). Regarding rare plant species, CESA defers to the CNPPA of 1977, which prohibits importing, taking, and selling rare and endangered plants. State -listed plants are protected mainly in cases where state agencies are involved in projects under CEQA. In these cases, plants listed as rare under the CNPPA are not protected under CESA but can be protected under CEQA. California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species The California Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species, referred to as fully protected species. Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians and reptiles. Section 3515 prohibits take of fully protected fish species. Fully protected birds are listed in Section 3511, and fully protected mammals are listed in Section 4700. The California Fish and Game Code defines take as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Except for take related to scientific research, all take of fully protected species is prohibited. Sections 3503 and 3503.5 Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the destruction of bird nests or eggs. Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and the destruction of raptor nests or eggs. California Native Plant Protection Act The CNPPA prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, and take or sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to CNPPA, which ensures that state -listed plant species are protected when state agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under CNPPA are not protected under CESA, but rather under CEQA. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-22 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Environmental Checklist Section 13260 of the California Water Code requires "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, in any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements [WDRs])." Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act definition, the term waters of the state is defined as "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Although all waters of the United States that are within the borders of California are also waters of the state, the converse is not true—in California, waters of the United States represent a subset of waters of the state. Therefore, the State of California retains authority to regulate discharges of waste into any waters of the state, regardless of whether USACE has concurrent jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. If USACE determines a wetland or other water (e.g., drainage ditch) is not subject to regulation under CWA Section 404, water quality certification under CWA Section 401 is not required. However, the RWQCB may impose WDRs if fill material would be placed into waters of the state. In accordance with a preliminary jurisdictional determination approach, the seasonal wetlands and drainage ditches in the study area were interpreted to fall within the scope of USACE jurisdiction. Local Regulations San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 The resource chapter of San Joaquin County's 2010 General Plan contains the following policies that pertain to biological resources in the study area: Policy A-1 (Open Space): The open space resources in Table VI -1 (e.g., wetlands, habitat for special - status species, heritage trees) shall be protected as indicated. Policy G-1 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat): Resources of significant biological and ecological importance in San Joaquin County shall be protected. These include wetlands; riparian areas; rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats as well as potentially rare or commercially important species; vernal pools; significant oak groves and heritage trees. Policy G-5 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat): No net loss of riparian or wetland habitat or values shall be caused by development. Policy G-15 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat): Replacement vegetation generally shall be native vegetation. Landscaping with native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in urban areas to provide suitable habitat for native wildlife, particularly in proposed open -space uses of future development. The County is in the process of updating its General Plan, and the update is scheduled to conclude in June 2011 (http://www.sjcgpu.com). San Joaquin County Tree Ordinance The eastern half of the study area (i.e., east of State Route 99) is located outside city limits. Therefore, trees located in that half of the study area fall within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County and consequently are subject to the County's Code of Ordinances, which contains provisions to preserve the County's tree resources (Title 9, Division 15, Chapter 9-1505). The removal of a native oak, heritage oak tree, or historical tree requires an approved improvement plan application (Title 9, Division 15, Chapter 9-1505.3), which requires replacement of the tree subject to requirements described in Title 9, Division 15, Chapter 9-1505.4. Nonnative trees, including horticultural species, would not be protected by the tree ordinance. The trees west of State Route 99 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-23 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist are located within city limits and are not protected under the County's ordinance. The City does not have its own tree ordinance to protect native trees within city limits. Native oaks are defined as valley oaks with stem diameters of 15.2-81.3 centimeters (6-32 inches) for single -trunk trees and a minimum combined trunk diameter of 20.3 centimeters (8 inches) for multi -trunk trees, and interior live oaks or blue oaks with stem diameters of 10.2-81.3 centimeters (4-32 inches) for single -trunk trees and a minimum combined diameter of 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) for multi -trunk trees. Heritage oaks are defined as native oaks with a single -trunk diameter of 81.3 centimeters (32 inches) or more. (All stem diameters are measured 1.4 meters [4.5 feet] above the average ground elevation of the tree.) Historical trees are defined as any trees or groups of trees given special recognition by the County Planning Commission because of size, age, location or history. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan The key purposed of the SJMSCP is to provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve Open Space and the need to convert open space to other uses while protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving landowner's property rights; providing for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially special -status species; providing and maintaining multiple -use open spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents; and accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society. The SJMSCP addresses 97 species over more than 1,400 square miles. It encompasses all of the county except for federally owned lands and area encompassing those projects not covered by the SJMSCP listed in Section 8.2.2. The SJMSCP provides compensation for the conversion of open space The SJMSCP provides compensation for the Conversion of Open Space to non -Open Space uses which affect the plant, fish and wildlife species covered by the Plan. The SJMSCP compensates for Conversions of Open Space for the following activities: urban development, mining, expansion of existing urban boundaries, non-agricultural activities occurring outside of urban boundaries, levee maintenance undertaken by the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, transportation projects, school expansions, non-federal flood control projects, new parks and trails, maintenance of existing facilities for non-federal irrigation district projects, utility installation, maintenance activities, managing Preserves, and similar public agency projects. Environmental Setting The existing conditions in the study area, sensitive vegetation communities, special -status species (i.e., plants and wildlife and their habitats), waters of the United States (including wetlands), and native oak trees are discussed below. Existing Conditions The proposed project is located at the Harney Lane/State Route 99 interchange in Lodi, California, in San Joaquin County, within the Lodi South 7.5 -minute USGS quadrangle in Township 3 north, Ranges 6 and 7 east, and Sections 13, 18, 19, and 24. The study area is located in the San Joaquin Valley geographic subregion of the Great Central Valley in the California Floristic Province (Hickman 1993:45). Approximate elevations in the study area range from 45 to 50 feet above mean sea level. Row crops, residential development, a cemetery, and a disked field surround the study area. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-24 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The existing conditions in the approximately 41.48 -acre study area, which consists of the area of potential effects (i.e., the 2,200 -foot -long project area) plus a 250 -foot buffer zone, reflect the substantial alteration of the natural environment by anthropogenic activities (i.e., the construction and operation of State Route 99 and the interchange) (Figure 2-3). The majority of the vegetation in the study area consists of either ruderal (i.e., weedy) vegetation or landscaping; however, vineyard, orchard, seasonal wetland, and drainage ditch vegetation communities are also present. Vegetation communities and associated wildlife are described below. Vegetation Communities Ruderal Ruderal (weedy) vegetation in the study area occurs along roadways, where frequent disturbance facilitates its establishment and spread; within portions of the interchange loops and areas bounded by the on- and off -ramps or the frontage road; and in the vacant field located in the southeast portion of the study area, which appears to have been disked or graded within the last few years. The plant species that make up the ruderal vegetation are mostly nonnative species that have the ability to quickly colonize disturbed areas. Representative ruderal species observed were Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), whitestem filaree (Erodium botrys), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), stinkweed (Dittrichia graveolens), and yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Because ruderal areas typically are disturbed on a regular basis by human activity, they provide low -quality habitat for wildlife. Wildlife species commonly found in urban areas are also found in ruderal and disturbed areas. Such species may include Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), yellow -billed magpie (Pica nuttalli), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Virginia opossum (Didelphus virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (Zeiner et al. 1990a:310, 460, 646, 668, 682; Zeiner et al. 1990b:2, 316). American kestrels (Falco sparverius) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicesis) frequently forage in this habitat (Zeiner et al. 1990a:136,144). Landscaped The majority of the landscaped portions of the study area are located around homes, in the cemetery, and within the interchange loops. The interchange loops appeared to be landscaped with mostly native species. Native tree and shrub species observed in landscaped areas were valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Q. wislizeni), and western redbud (Cercis occidentalis). Nonnative species observed in landscaped areas were cork oak (Q. suber), English ivy (Hedera helix), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and pepper tree (Schinus molle). Wildlife species found in landscaped areas would be similar to those described above for the ruderal community type. Vineyard The vineyard areas are located south of Harney Lane in the southwestern portion of the study area. The areas between vines typically are vegetated with ruderal species as a result of ongoing disturbance from viticultural activities. Agricultural lands (including vineyards) are established on fertile soils that historically supported abundant wildlife. The quality of habitat for wildlife is greatly diminished when the land is converted to agricultural uses and is intensively managed. Many species of rodents and birds have adapted to agricultural lands, but they are often controlled by fencing, trapping, and poisoning to Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-25 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist prevent excessive crop losses. Wildlife species associated with agricultural lands include mourning dove, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Brewer's blackbird, and several species of rodents. (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988:138.) Orchard An orchard is located north of Harney Lane near the western boundary of the study area. The type of orchard was not discernible at the time of the reconnaissance survey; however, walnuts, almonds, and stone fruit (e.g., plums) are tree crops commonly found in the region. The areas between the trees typically are vegetated with ruderal species as a result of ongoing disturbance from maintenance activities. Wildlife species associated with orchards are similar to those listed above for vineyard. Seasonal Wetland Two seasonal wetlands (W-1 and W-2) occur in the study area and encompass a total area of approximately 0.16 acre. Seasonal wetland W-1 is in the interchange loop on the west side of State Route 99. Dominant plant species observed in seasonal wetland W-1 were English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), gumplant (Grindelia camporum var. camporum), and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Seasonal wetland W-2 is in the interchange loop on the east side of State Route 99. Bermuda grass and English plantain were the dominant plant species in seasonal wetland W-2. The soils in the seasonal wetlands exhibited sandy redox, a primary indicator of hydric soils (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). The primary sources of hydrologic input for both seasonal wetlands appear to be surface runoff from the surrounding uplands, direct precipitation, roadside runoff, and flow from drainage ditches. Seasonal wetlands can provide unique habitat for a variety of aquatic invertebrates, that, in turn, provide food for other wildlife species, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), black -necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) (Zeiner et al. 1990a:32, 192, 200, 202). In addition, amphibians such as Pacific treefrog, western spadefoot (Spec hammondii), and western toad (Bufo boreas) will use seasonal pools for breeding and feeding (Zeiner et al. 1988:56, 64, 78). Drainage Ditches Eight drainage ditches (OW -2 -OW -9) are located in the study area and encompass a total area of 0.05 acre. These drainage ditches were characterized by the features listed below. • They were dry or contained only a small amount of water at the time of the site visit, although evidence of past flow (i.e., drift lines) was present. • They did not appear to remain inundated for a sufficient amount of time to support the formation of hydric soils, one of the three federal wetland criteria. • They appear to have been excavated for drainage purposes and are subject to disturbance for maintenance. • They had an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) that was identified based on the presence of matted down vegetation and/or litter and debris. • They appeared to convey flowing water only during (and for a short duration following) precipitation events in a typical year. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-26 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 J 1 •I <: 6 At IL v +� t. ■ r ' 99 1 y f M i •- arr" _ J.V.. , I • 6p 1 r } J City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Vegetation in the drainage ditches typically consisted of annual grasses such as Italian ryegrass, slender wild oat (Avena barbata), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). The CHWM represents the lateral limit of USACE jurisdiction over nontidal, nonwetland waters in the absence of adjacent wetlands (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.4[c]). Wildlife use of ditches is dependent on several factors, including the extent of vegetation within and along the ditch, whether the ditch is concrete -lined, the period of time water remains in the ditch, and the velocity of flow. Concrete -lined ditches or those with high flow velocities typically have low value for wildlife, although large ditches/canals with slower flows can be used by waterfowl. Ditches with vegetation within and along the banks and adequate duration of water can provide food, water, cover, and/or dispersal corridors for various wildlife species, such as Pacific treefrog, great egret (Ardea alba), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk. Banks of ditches could be used by California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and western fence lizard (Sceloporusoccidentalis). The ditches in the study area appear to be inundated with water for very short periods of time and are adjacent to highly disturbed or urbanized areas. Therefore, the ditches in the study area provide limited habitat for wildlife species. Sensitive Vegetation Communities According to the CNDDB, three sensitive vegetation communities are known to occur in the project region: coastal and valley freshwater marsh, Great Valley valley oak riparian forest, and valley oak woodland (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). These habitats are considered sensitive because of their high species diversity, high productivity, unusual nature, limited distribution, or declining status. None of the three sensitive vegetation communities is present in the study area. The majority of the study area supports common vegetation communities, which are habitats with low species diversity that are widespread, that reestablish naturally after disturbance, or that support primarily nonnative species. These communities generally are not protected by agencies unless the specific site is habitat for or supports special -status species (e.g., raptor foraging or nesting habitat or upland habitat in a wetland watershed). The common vegetation community types in the study area are ruderal, landscaped, vineyard, orchard, and drainage ditch. Although the seasonal wetlands in the study area appear to have formed as the result of the creation of low areas in the interchange loops during construction of the interchange, they likely would be considered sensitive vegetation community because state and federal regulatory agencies consider wetlands sensitive habitats. Special -Status Species Special -status species are plants and animals in one or more of the following categories. • species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 Code of CFR 17.11 [listed animals], 50 CFR 17.12 [listed plants], and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]); • species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (73 FR 75178, December 10, 2008); • species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (14 California Code of Regulations 670.5); • plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-27 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist • plants considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California (California Native Plant Society 2009); • plants listed by CNPS as those about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution, which may be included as sensitive species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information (Lists 3 and 4 in California Native Plant Society 2009); • animals listed as California species of special concern on California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Special Animals List (California Department of Fish and Game 2009); • animals fully protected in California (CFGC 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], [amphibians and reptiles], and 5515 [fish]); and • species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380). Special -Status Plants Based on the results of the CNDDB records search, the CNPS online inventory search, and a review of the USFWS list, 16 special -status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity (i.e., within an approximate 10 -mile radius of the study area) (California Natural Diversity Database 2009; California Native Plant Society 2009; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). Table 2-5 contains the listing status, distribution, habitat requirements, and recorded blooming period for each of the 16 special -status plant species. The previous biological conditions in the study area were altered substantially by the construction of State Route 99 and the existing interchange, and the study area is exposed to ongoing disturbance associated with the operation and maintenance of the roadways. Therefore, the study area does not contain any natural habitat (e.g., marsh, cismontane woodland, vernal pool) or microhabitat (e.g., alkaline or clay soils) that potentially could support special -status plant species. Additionally, the study area occurs outside the known elevation range of four of the 16 special -status plant species (California Native Plant Society 2009). The nearest special -status plant occurrence is Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) in a slough approximately 5 miles northeast of the study area. There are no CNDDB records for occurrences of any special -status plant species in the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Because of the lack of suitable habitat, no special - status plants are expected to occur in the study area, and no additional plant surveys are recommended. Special -Status Wildlife Based on existing information from the CNDDB records search (2009) and the USFWS (2009) list, 20 special -status fish and wildlife species are known or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the study area (Table 2-6). After reviewing species distribution and habitat requirements data and conducting a biological field survey, it was determined that 15 of these species would not occur in the project area because of the lack of suitable habitats in the study area. The rationales for the determining that these species would not occur are included in Table 2-6. The remaining five sensitive wildlife species (vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchil, vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardil, white-tailed kite [Elanus leucurus], Swainson's hawk [Buteo swainsonil, and western burrowing owl [Athene cunicularia hypugea]) have the potential to occur in or adjacent to the study area. These species are discussed briefly below. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-28 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Table 2-5. Special -Status Plants Identified During Prefield Investigation as Potentially Occurring in the State Route 99/ Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project Area Page 1 of 3 LegalStatusa Common and Scientific Federal/State/ Geographic Distribution/ Blooming Names CNPS Floristic Province Habitat Requirements Period Likelihood of Occurrence Large -flowered E/E/113.1 Historically known from Mt. Diablo Cismontane woodland, valley and April- No cismontane woodland or fiddleneck foothills in Alameda, Contra Costa, and foothill grassland; 902-1,804 feet May natural grassland habitat and Amsinckia grandiflora San Joaquin Counties; currently (275-550 meters) project area is substantially known from three natural occurrences lower than species' elevation range. Alkali milk -vetch -/-/1B.2 Southern Sacramento Valley, northern Alkaline soils in playas, valley and March- No alkaline soils, adobe clay, or Astragalus tener var. San Joaquin Valley, eastern San foothill grassland (adobe clay), June vernal pools present. tener Francisco Bay vernal pools; below 197 feet (60 meters) San Joaquin saltscale -/-/1B.2 Western edge of the Central Valley Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub, April- No alkaline soils, chenopod Atriplex joaquiniana from Glenn to Tulare Counties meadows and seeps, playas, valley October scrub, meadows, seeps, or playas and foothill grassland; below 2,739 and no natural grassland habitat. feet (835 meters) Round -leaved filaree -/-/1B.1 Scattered occurrences in the Great Clay soils in cismontane woodland, March- No cismontane woodland and no California macrophylla Valley, southern north Coast Ranges, valley and foothill grassland; 49-3, May natural grassland habitat. (formerly Erodium San Francisco Bay area, south Coast 937 feet (15-1,200 meters) macrophyllum) Ranges, Channel Islands, Transverse and Peninsular Ranges Bristly sedge -/-/2.1 Inner North Coast Ranges, High Coastal prairie, marshes and May- No coastal prairie, marshes, or Carex comosa Cascade Range, Central Valley, swamps (lake margins), valley and September swamps, and no natural northern Central Coast, San Francisco foothill grassland; below 2,050 feet grassland habitat. Bay, San Bernardino mountains, (625 meters) Modoc Plateau Succulent owl's clover T/E/113.2 Southern Sierra Nevada foothills, Vernal pools, often acidic; 164- April- No vernal pools present and Castilleja campestris ssp. eastern San Joaquin Valley 2,460 feet (50-750 meters) May project area substantially lower succulenta than species' elevation range. Palmate-bracted bird's- E/E/113.1 Scattered occurrences in the Central Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub, May- No chenopod scrub or alkaline beak Valley from Glenn to Fresno Counties valley and foothill grassland; 16- October soils present. Cordylanthus palmatus 508 feet (5-155 meters) Table 2-5. Continued Page 2 of 3 LegalStatusa Common and Scientific Federal/State/ Geographic Distribution/ Blooming Names CNPS Floristic Province Habitat Requirements Period Likelihood of Occurrence Recurved larkspur -/-/1B.2 Central Valley from Colusa* to Kern Alkaline soils in valley and foothill March - Delphinium recurvatum Counties grassland, saltbush scrub, June and Santa Cruz mountains cismontane woodland; 10-2,460 -/R/1B.1 Southern Sacramento Valley, feet (3-750 meters) April - Woolly rose -mallow -/-/2.2 Central and southern Sacramento Freshwater marshes and swamps; June - Hibiscus lasiocarpos Valley, deltaic Central Valley, and below 394 feet (120 meters) September -/-/2.1 elsewhere in the U.S. Marshes and swamps; below 10 feet May - Delta tule pea Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Legenere Legenere limosa Mason's lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis masonii Delta mudwort Limosella subulata Sanford's arrowhead Sagittaria sanfordii Side -flowering skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora -/-/1B.2 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Freshwater and brackish marshes and swamps; below 13 feet (4 meters) No alkaline soils, saltbush scrub, or cismontane woodland present. No freshwater marshes or swamps present. May- No marshes or swamps present. July (uncommonly September) -/-/1B.1 Sacramento Valley, North Coast Vernal pools; below 2,887 feet (880 April - Ranges, northern San Joaquin Valley meters) June and Santa Cruz mountains -/R/1B.1 Southern Sacramento Valley, Riparian scrub, brackish or April - northeastern San Francisco Bay freshwater marshes and swamps; November below 33 feet (10 meters) -/-/2.1 Deltaic Central Valley with Marshes and swamps; below 10 feet May - occurrences in Contra Costa, (3 meters) August Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties; Oregon -/-/1B.2 Scattered locations in Central Valley Freshwater marshes, sloughs, May - and Coast Ranges canals, and other slow-moving October water habitats; below 2,132 feet (650 meters) -/-/2.2 Northern San Joaquin Valley, east of Mesic meadows and seeps, marshes July - Sierra Nevada; New Mexico, Oregon and swamps; below 1,640 feet (500 September meters) No vernal pools present. No riparian scrub, marshes, or swamps present and project area outside species' elevation range. No marshes or swamps present and project area outside species' elevation range. No marshes, sloughs, canals, or perennially inundated habitats present. No meadows, seeps, marshes, or swamps present. Suisun Marsh aster -/-/1B.2 Sacramento Valley, Central Coast, San Brackish and freshwater marshes May- No marshes or swamps present. Symphyotrichum lentum Francisco Bay and swamps; below 10 feet (3 November (formerly Aster lentos) meters) Table 2-5. Continued a Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. - = no listing. Page 3 of 3 State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. R = listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (this category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some plants previously listed as rare retain this designation) - = no listing. California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) 1B = List 1B species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = List 2 species; rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 0.1 = seriously endangered in California. 0.2 = fairly endangered in California. * = known populations believed extirpated from that County Table 2-6. Special -Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the State Route 99/ Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project Study Area Page 1 of 4 Common and Scientific Legal Status Potential for Occurrence in the Names (Federal/State) California Distribution Habitats Study Area Invertebrates Vernal pool fairy shrimp T/- Found in Central Valley, central and south Common in vernal pools; also found in Branchinecta lynchi Coast Ranges from Tehama County to sandstone rock outcrop pools. macrolepidotus Santa Barbara County. Isolated lower reaches of rivers. populations also in Riverside County. Vernal pool tadpole E/- Found from Shasta County south to Occur in vernal pools and ephemeral stock shrimp Merced County. ponds. Lepidurus packardi Valley rivers habitat with water temperatures from 7.8 Valley elderberry T/- Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet Occur in riparian and oak savanna longhorn beetle throughout the Central Valley. habitats with elderberry shrubs; Desmocerus californicus T/T Upper Sacramento River and Feather elderberries are the host plant. dimorphus River requirements as winter -run Chinook Fish Delta smelt T/T Found primarily in the Sacramento -San Occur in estuary habitat in the Delta Hypomesus transpacificus Joaquin Estuary, but has been found as far where fresh and brackish water mix in the upstream as the mouth of the American salinity range of 2-7 parts per thousand. River on the Sacramento River and (Moyle 2002.) Mossdale on the San Joaquin River; range extends downstream to San Pablo Bay. Sacramento splittail -/SSC Occurs throughout the year in low -salinity Spawning takes place among submerged Pogonichthys waters and freshwater areas of the and flooded vegetation in sloughs and the macrolepidotus Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, Yolo lower reaches of rivers. Bypass, Suisun Marsh, Napa River, and Petaluma River (Moyle 2002). Central Valley steelhead T/- Sacramento River and tributary Central Occurs in well -oxygenated, cool, riverine Oncorhynchus mykiss Valley rivers habitat with water temperatures from 7.8 to 18°C (Moyle 2002). Habitat types are riffles, runs, and pools. Central Valley spring -run T/T Upper Sacramento River and Feather Has the same general habitat Chinook salmon River requirements as winter -run Chinook Oncorhynchus salmon. Coldwater pools are needed for tshawytscha holding adults (Moyle 2002). May occur -suitable habitat present in two seasonal pools within the study area. May occur -suitable habitat present in two seasonal pools within the study area. Would not occur -no elderberry shrubs occur in the study area Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Table 2-6. Continued Page 2 of 4 Common and Scientific Legal Status Potential for Occurrence in the Names (Federal/State) California Distribution Habitats Study Area Sacramento River winter -run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Green sturgeon (southern DPS) Acipenser medirostris Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense California red -legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Foothill yellow -legged frog Rana boylii E/E T/SSC T/C T/SSC -/SSC Mainstem Sacramento River below Keswick Dam (Moyle 2002) Sacramento, Klamath and Trinity Rivers (Moyle 2002) Found in Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region from Butte County south to northeastern San Luis Obispo County. Found along the coast and coastal mountain ranges of California from Marin County to San Diego County and in the Sierra Nevada from Tehema County to Fresno County. Occurs in the Klamath, Cascade, north Coast, south Coast, Transverse, and Sierra Nevada Ranges up to approximately 6,000 feet. Occurs in well -oxygenated, cool, riverine habitat with water temperatures from 8.0 to 12.5°C. Habitat types are riffles, runs, and pools. (Moyle 2002.) Spawn in large river systems with well - oxygenated water, with temperatures from 8.0 to 14°C Small ponds, lakes, or vernal pools in grasslands and oak woodlands for larvae; rodent burrows, rock crevices, or fallen logs for cover for adults and for summer dormancy Occur in permanent and semipermanent aquatic habitats, such as creeks and Cold- water ponds, with emergent and submergent vegetation. May estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods Creeks or rivers in woodland, forest, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow habitats with rock and gravel substrate and low overhanging vegetation along the edge. Usually found near riffles with rocks and sunny banks nearby. Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area. Would not occur -the two seasonal pools in the study area are low quality isolated pools that likely do not stay inundated long enough for successful reproduction. In addition, the surrounding area consists of a busy highway and other roads, residential development, row crops, and a disked field. Would not occur - believed to be extirpated from the valley floor (USFWS 2002). Would not occur -no rivers or streams occur in the study area Table 2-6. Continued Page 3 of 4 Common and Scientific Legal Status Potential for Occurrence in the Names (Federal/State) California Distribution Habitats Study Area Reptiles Western pond turtle -/SSC Actinemys marmorata Giant garter snake T/T Thamnophisgigas Birds White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus -/FP -/T -/T Occurs throughout California west of the Sierra -Cascade crest. Found from sea level to 6,000 feet. Does not occur in desert regions except for along the Mojave River and its tributaries. Central Valley from the vicinity of Burrel in Fresno County north to near Chico in Butte County; has been extirpated from areas south of Fresno. Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevada from the head of the Sacramento Valley south, including coastal valleys and foothills to western San Diego County at the Mexico border. Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley. Highest nesting densities occur near Davis and Woodland, Yolo County. Permanent resident in the San Francisco Bay and east -ward through the Delta into Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties; small populations in Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside, and Imperial Counties Occupies ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation canals with muddy or rocky bottoms and with watercress, cattails, water lilies, or other aquatic vegetation in woodlands, grasslands, and open forests. Species found in sloughs, canals, low gradient streams and freshwater marsh habitats where there is a prey base of small fish and amphibians; also found in irrigation ditches and rice fields; requires grassy banks and emergent vegetation for basking and areas of high ground protected from flooding during winter. Low foothills or valley areas with valley or live oaks, riparian areas, and marshes near open grasslands for foraging Nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near riparian habitats. Forages in grasslands, irrigated pastures, and grain fields. Tidal salt marshes associated with heavy growth of pickleweed; also occurs in brackish marshes or freshwater marshes at low elevations. Would not occur -Suitable aquatic habitat not present in the project area; drainage ditches do not stay inundated long enough to support this species. Would not occur -Suitable aquatic habitat not present in the project area; drainage ditches do not stay inundated long enough to support this species Low potential to occur - marginally suitable nesting habitat present; may forage adjacent to the study area. Low potential to occur - marginally suitable nesting habitat present; may forage adjacent to the study area. Would not occur -suitable habitat is not present in the project area. Table 2-6. Continued Nests in riparian areas dominated by Would not occur -suitable Dendroica petechia Central Valley, the Mojave Desert region, Page 4 of 4 Common and Scientific Legal Status alders or in mature chaparral; may also project area. Potential for Occurrence in the Names (Federal/State) California Distribution Habitats Study Area Western burrowing owl -/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including Level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low Low potential to occur- Athene cunicularia Santa Barbara Counties. the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, stature grassland or desert vegetation unlikely to occur in project hypugea southeastern deserts, and coastal areas. with available burrows. area due to location within the T = Rare along south coast. interchange but may occur no status. State adjacent to project area. E = -/SSC Permanent resident in the Central Valley Nests in dense colonies in emergent Would not occur -suitable Tricolored blackbird C = from Butte County to Kern County. Breeds marsh vegetation, such as tules and habitat is not present in the Agelaius tricolor at scattered coastal locations from Marin cattails, or upland sites with blackberries, project area. Could forage in - = no status. County south to San Diego County; and at nettles, thistles, and grainfields. Habitat adjacent field if suitable scattered locations in Lake, Sonoma, and must be large enough to support 50 pairs. nesting habitat is nearby. Solano Counties. Rare nester in Siskiyou, Probably requires water at or near the Modoc, and Lassen Counties. nesting colony. Yellow warbler -/SSC Nests over all of California except the Nests in riparian areas dominated by Would not occur -suitable Dendroica petechia Central Valley, the Mojave Desert region, willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, or habitat is not present in the brewsteri and high altitudes and the eastern side of alders or in mature chaparral; may also project area. the Sierra Nevada. Winters along the use oaks, conifers, and urban areas near Colorado River and in parts of Imperial stream courses. and Riverside Counties. Two small permanent populations in San Diego and Santa Barbara Counties. a Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. - = no status. State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. C = candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concern in California. - = no status. City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The two seasonal wetlands in the study area appear to provide suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (collectively referred to as vernal pool branchiopods). There is one record for an occurrence of vernal pool fairy shrimp approximately 10 miles from the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). There are two records for occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp within 10 miles of the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). The closest occurrence is within 5-7 miles of the study area (precise location information was not submitted to the CNDDB). Because of the expedited construction schedule, protocol -level surveys for these listed vernal pool branchiopods according to USFWS guidelines were not conducted. Instead, it was assumed that these species are present in the seasonal wetlands. Larger trees in and adjacent to the study area provide suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite and Swainson's hawk. There are no records for occurrences of white-tailed kite nests within 10 miles of the study area. The closest reported nest is approximately 12 miles south of the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). There are more than 60 records for occurrences of Swainson's hawk nests within 10 miles of the study area; 21 of these are within a 5 -mile radius of the project (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). The closest nest is approximately 2 miles from the study area. There are two records for occurrences of burrowing owls approximately 5 and 7 miles from the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Although burrowing owls may occur in the field to the east of the study area, there is low potential for burrowing owl to occur in the study area. The area of grassland in the study area is very small and several trees are adjacent to the grassland areas, which provide cover for larger birds and feral cats that could prey on burrowing owls. For these reasons, burrowing owls are unlikely to nest or be present in the study area and impacts on this owl are not expected to occur. This species is not discussed further. In addition to special -status wildlife, nesting migratory birds, including raptors, could occur in the study area and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and CDFG code section 3503 and 3503.5. Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands The two seasonal wetlands and eight drainage ditch segments in the study area were interpreted to be waters of the United States, including wetlands, in accordance with the preliminary jurisdictional determination approach (discussed below in the Regulatory Setting under Federal Clean Water Act). Native Oak Trees The majority of the trees in the study area are ornamental species (e.g., cork oak, black locust); however, native oak species (valley oak, interior live oak) are present. The majority of the native oaks were observed within the interchange loops and along the borders of the cemetery. The sizes of the native oaks within the interchange loops varied, and the native oaks in the cemetery were mature, well-established trees. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-29 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Impact Discussion Environmental Checklist a. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed project could result in adverse direct or indirect impacts on endangered, threatened, or rare species. Specific impacts and mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts are discussed below for each species that may be affected. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp It was assumed that the seasonal wetlands in the study area contain vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The proposed project would not result in the removal of suitable habitat for these listed vernal pool branchiopods. However, construction associated with intersection improvements could result in the direct temporary disturbance of 0.16 acre of suitable habitat for or mortality of listed vernal pool branchiopods during work at the inlets to the wetlands (Figure 2-4). Habitat disturbance and mortality of individual fairy shrimp or tadpole shrimp or their cysts could occur if dirt is inadvertently placed in suitable habitat. Habitat also could be degraded if sediment or contaminants (oil, gas, etc.) from construction equipment enter the seasonal wetlands. Potential indirect impacts of the project could be a small increase in the amount of water entering the seasonal wetlands due to the increased amount of paved surface surrounding the wetlands and an increase in the amount of contaminants entering the wetlands. Impacts on vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp would be considered significant without mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO -3, which include training of construction personnel and delineating the construction limits, implementing erosion control and water quality protection measures, and compensating for impacts on habitat, would avoid and minimize impacts on listed vernal pool branchiopods and would reduce impacts to a less - than -significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Conduct Mandatory Biological Resources Awareness Training for All Project Personnel and Delineate the Construction Limits Before any work, including grading and vegetation removal/trimming, occurs in the construction area, a qualified biologist will provide biological resources awareness training to all construction personnel to brief them on the need to avoid effects on environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., areas designated as habitat for special -status species, wetlands and other waters, and protected trees) and the penalties for not complying with biological mitigation requirements. The biological resources training will include a description, representative photographs, and legal status of each special -status wildlife species that may occur in the construction area. If new construction personnel are added to the program, the contractor will ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training before starting work. Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills a special -status species or finds one dead, injured, or entrapped will immediately report the incident to the construction foreman. The construction foreman or monitor will immediately notify the City of Lodi, which will provide verbal notification to the USFWS Office and/or the CDFG office in Sacramento, California within 1 working day of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-30 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist incident. The City of Lodi will follow up with written notification to USFWS and/or CDFG within 5 working days of the incident. In addition, the contractor will clearly delineate the construction limits through the use of survey tape, pin flags, orange barrier fencing, or other means and prohibit any construction - related traffic outside these boundaries. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Protect Water Quality of and Install Erosion Control Measures Adjacent to Seasonal Wetlands To prevent possible contamination of seasonal wetlands from hazardous materials such as motor oil or gasoline, vehicles and construction equipment will not be serviced within 250 feet of seasonal wetlands. If possible, all ground -disturbing activities in and adjacent to the wetlands will be conducted before the onset of the rainy season. If this is not possible, ground -disturbing activities in and adjacent to the wetlands will be avoided when the seasonal wetlands are wet or moist and during rain events. Erosion control measures will be installed adjacent to seasonal wetlands to prevent soil or other materials from entering this habitat. Erosion control features will be placed in areas that are upslope or adjacent to the seasonal wetlands to prevent any soil or other materials from entering the habitat. The locations of erosion control features will be identified on the final grading plans and construction specifications. Natural/biodegradable erosion control measures (i.e., coir rolls, straw wattles or hay bales) will be used. Mitigation Measure BIO -3: Compensate for Potential Direct Impacts on Habitat for Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods Impacts on habitat for listed vernal pool branchiopods will be compensated for through the SJMSCP. Compensation is based on the habitat that is mapped at the project site. The west side of the site (containing seasonal wetland W -ton the west side of State Route 99) is mapped as developed and no compensation would be required under the SJMSCP for impacts on this area (Mayo pers. comm.). The east side of the site (containing seasonal wetland W-2 on the east side of State Route 99) is mapped as agriculture. Compensation for impacts on wetland W-2 on the east side of State Route 99 would be at the rate for impacts on agriculture (Mayo pers. comm.). The City of Lodi will pay the applicable fees at ground disturbance. Nesting White -Tailed -Kites and Swainson's Hawks, and Non -Special -Status Migratory Birds Suitable nesting habitat for white-tailed kite, Swainson's hawk, and non -special -status migratory birds is present in and adjacent to the project area. Vegetation removal and/or trimming may be required by the project. Vegetation removal/trimming or other construction disturbance could disturb white-tailed kites, Swainson's hawks, or non -special -status migratory birds if they are nesting in vegetation to be trimmed/removed or are nesting in the immediate area when construction occurs. Removal of nests or construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Raptors (e.g., eagles, kites, hawks, owls) and other migratory birds and their nests are protected under both California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 (active bird nests) and the MBTA. Because the project would occur during the breeding season, and Swainson's hawk is a state -listed species and white-tailed kite is a fully protected species, construction activities during this time that results in the loss of eggs or nests, or causes nest abandonment would be considered an adverse impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-31 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist This impact would be significant, but implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. In addition, the implementation of this measure would avoid violation of the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA for impacts on non -special - status migratory birds. Mitigation Measure BIO -4: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting White -Tailed Kites, Swainson's Hawks, and Non -Special -Status Migratory Birds, and Implement Protective Measures If Necessary If construction must occur during the breeding season (generally between January 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys of the project site and adjacent areas within 500 feet of the project site in order to ensure that nesting Swainson's hawks, white- tailed kites, and other migratory birds will not be disturbed by construction activities. Generally, surveys for Swainson's hawks are conducted in a larger area surrounding the project site; however, because of the limited scope of the project and amount of existing activity in the surrounding area, a 500 -foot -radius survey area is adequate for the extent of potential impacts on this species. Three preconstruction surveys will be conducted within at least two of the following survey periods immediately prior to project initiation: • Period I: January 1 to March 20 • Period II: March 20 to April 5 • Period III: April 5 to April 20 • Period IV: April 21 to June 10 (surveys are not recommended during this period because Swainson's hawk identification is difficult, as the adults tend to remain in the nest for longer periods of time) • Period V: June 10 to July 30 If the biologist determines that the area surveyed does not contain any active nests, construction activities can commence without any further mitigation. If a white-tailed kite or Swainson's hawk nest site is found, consultation with the CDFG may be required to ensure project initiation will not result in nest disturbance. Removal of white-tailed kite and Swainson's hawk nest trees should be avoided if at all possible. If a nest tree cannot be maintained, the nest tree will be removed between September 1 and December 31, when nests are unoccupied. If an active white-tailed kite or Swainson's hawk nest is found in the survey area, the wildlife biologist will consult with CDFG to determine whether construction should be delayed until the end of the breeding season (August 31) or construction could begin with weekly monitoring of the nest site by a qualified wildlife biologist to determine if the nest is being disturbed by construction activities. This determination would be made depending on the location of the nest. If weekly monitoring was allowed and construction activities were found to be affecting the nesting bird, construction activities will cease until after the biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the area. If a non -special -status migratory bird nest is found at the project site or in the 500 -foot survey area, a no -disturbance buffer will be established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until the end of the breeding season (August 31) or until after a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged and moved out of the area. The extent of the buffer will be determined by the biologist in coordination with CDFG and will Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-32 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line -of -sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. b. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The study area does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities recognized by the CNDDB that are known to occur in the project region. However, the seasonal wetlands in the study area likely would be considered a sensitive natural community because, although they appear to have formed from anthropogenic activities (i.e., the construction of the interchange), state and federal regulatory agencies consider wetlands sensitive habitats. The proposed project could result in adverse direct or indirect impacts on a sensitive natural community (i.e., seasonal wetlands). The proposed project potentially could have a significant impact on seasonal wetlands if fill material is inadvertently placed in them during project construction, or if debris or contaminants from the construction site enter the seasonal wetlands. The degradation of the seasonal wetlands from fill material, debris, or contaminants would be considered a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community if no mitigation is implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and 13I0-2, which include mandatory training of construction personnel and employing erosion control measures, would avoid impacts on the sensitive natural community and would reduce this potential impact to a less -than -significant level. c. Have an adverse impact on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? In accordance with a preliminary jurisdictional approach, the seasonal wetlands (and the drainage ditches) in the study were interpreted to fall within the scope of USACE jurisdiction under CWA Section 404. Therefore, the proposed project could result in adverse direct or indirect impacts on federally protected wetlands if no mitigation is implemented. The impact would be identical to the impact on seasonal wetlands discussed under "b" above. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 would avoid impacts on federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the level of this potential impact on federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Although the two seasonal wetlands would not be filled as part of the proposed project, temporary and permanent impacts on four of the drainage ditches would occur during project construction. There would be temporary impacts on 0.002 acre of drainage ditch, and permanent impacts on 0.002 acre of drainage ditch. The drainage ditches were interpreted to be waters of the United States under the preliminary jurisdictional approach. The project proponent will obtain and comply with the conditions of the applicable federal permits (i.e., CWA Sections 401 and 404) and state requirements (i.e., WDRs from RWQCB) as part of the proposed project. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-33 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist d. Interfere substantially with the movement of a resident or migratory fish of wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project is located within and adjacent to on -ramps and off -ramps for State Route 99 and is divided by Harney Lane and State Route 99. The surrounding area consists of residential development, vineyard, a cemetery, and a disked field. Because of the location of the site and lack of unaltered habitat surrounding the site, wildlife species are unlikely to move through the project site. In addition there are no waterways in or adjacent to the proposed project for fish to move in or wildlife to travel along. Finally, the scope of the project is very small, with minor widening to existing roadways, which would not establish new barriers to movement. For these reasons, the project would not interfere with movement of fish or wildlife. The proposed project area contains seasonal wetlands that may support reproduction of vernal pool branchiopods and vegetation that may be used by birds for nesting. The project may impede the use of these areas; potential impacts on vernal pool branchiopods and nesting birds and mitigation for these impacts were discussed above under section "a." Implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in section "a" would avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife nursery sites and would reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Native oak trees located in the eastern half of the study area, which falls within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County's Code of Ordinances, have the potential to qualify as native oaks, heritage oaks, or historical trees under the San Joaquin County Tree Ordinance. A formal tree survey was not conducted during the reconnaissance survey of the study area. The project proponent will retain a certified arborist to conduct a tree survey as part of compliance with the County tree ordinance. The types of data collected during the tree survey will include tree location, number of trunks, diameter at a height of 4.5 feet above the ground surface), tree height, dripline diameter, and the health and vigor of each tree. The results of the tree survey will be summarized in an arborist report. If protected trees are present in the study area and would be removed or damaged during construction of the proposed project, the project proponent will comply with the requirements of the County tree ordinance, including appropriate compensation. Therefore, this potential impact would be considered less than significant because the project proponent will comply with the local tree ordinance as part of the proposed project. The proposed project is the first phase of a larger improvement project planned for the State Route 99/Harney Lane interchange. The affected area for the proposed project will be encompassed by the affected area for the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interchange Improvements project. Consequently, any replacement trees planted in the affected area for the proposed project would likely be removed during construction of the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interchange Improvements project. Therefore, any replacement trees required as part of the compensation for the proposed project will be planted after the completion of the State Route 99/Harney Lane Interchange Improvements project (currently scheduled for 2015). The provisions of the tree ordinance (County Ordinance Code, Title 9, Division 15, Chapter 9-1505) that pertain to removal, replacement, and development constraints are listed below. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-34 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Removal • Removal of native oaks, heritage trees, or historical trees requires an approved improvement plan application. • Additionally, heritage or historical trees may only be removed if: o the removal is in the public interest; o the tree interferes with an existing structure, utility service, or road, and no reasonable alternative exists to ameliorate the interference besides tree removal; o the tree is endangering another plant in the area due to infection or infestation; or o the tree interferes with the maintenance of flood control facilities. Replacement • Replacement stock will consist of healthy nursery stock or acorns of the species to be removed or other approved species, and will be established and maintained for at least three years. • Replacement trees will be planted as close as possible to the location of the removed tree or in a location acceptable to the review authority. • Replacement stock will be planted between October 1St and December 31St, and no later than twelve months after the date of tree removal. • Each native oak that has been approved for removal will be replaced with three trees or acorns, or a combination of both. • Each heritage or historical tree that has been approved for removal will be replaced with five trees or acorns, or a combination of both. • Permit applicants are required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the review authority that replacement stock will be planted and maintained in such a manner as to ensure that the survival of the replacement stock at the end of the three year period commencing from the date of planting. Development Constraints • Grade changes near or within the dripline of protected trees will comply with the following restrictions: o no grade changes will occur within a 6 -feet -wide radius of the trunk. o no grade changes will occur that result in the removal or addition of more than 6 inches of soil in the protected zone (i.e., dripline) of the tree. o extensive cuts or fills that are necessary beyond the protected zone will have adequate drainage to offset adverse effects resulting from changes in grade elevation. o grade changes within the protected zone of the tree will be accomplished in a manner that prevents soil compactions and injury to or removal of the tree's roots. • Before grading, protective fencing (i.e., 5 -feet -tall chain-link fence or equivalent) must be installed around the dripline of protected trees during construction. Fencing around trees growing on slopes that will not be graded is not required • Fences will remain in place throughout the entire construction period. • No equipment, materials, or supplies may be stored within the fenced area. • No trenching will be allowed within the protected zone of protected trees. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-35 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist • If retaining walls are required within protected zone, the property owner will complete that improvement before the completion of grading activities and before commencement of any construction. • Paving within the dripline of protected trees will be minimized. If paving is necessary, porous materials (e.g., gravel, loose boulders, cobble, wood chips, bark mulch) will be used. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the SJMSCP, the conservation plan that covers the area of the proposed project. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-36 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist V. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Cultural Resources Regulatory Setting California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires that public agencies (in this case, the City) that finance or approve public or private projects must assess the effects of the project on cultural resources. Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA requires that if a project would result in significant effects on important cultural resources, alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; only significant cultural resources, however, need to be addressed. Therefore, prior to the development of mitigation measures, the importance of cultural resources must be determined. The steps that are normally taken in a cultural resources investigation for CEQA compliance are: • identify cultural resources; • evaluate the significance of resources; • evaluate the impacts of a project on significant cultural resources; and • develop and implement measures to mitigate the impacts of the project only on significant resources, namely historical resources and unique archaeological resources. The State CEQA Guidelines define three ways that a cultural resource may qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review: 1. if the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR; 2. if the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k), or is identified as significant in an historical resource survey Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-37 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist meeting the requirements of PRC 5024.1(8) unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or 3. the lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5 [a]). A cultural resource may be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) if it: • is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; • is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, CEQA distinguishes between two classes of archaeological resources: archaeological resources that meet the definition of a historical resource as above, and "unique archaeological resources." An archaeological resource is considered unique if it: • is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory; • can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; or • has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind (PRC 21083.2). Lodi Draft General Plan The Conservation Element of the Lodi Draft General Plan addresses cultural resources with the following goals. C -G5: Encourage the identification, protection, and enhancement of archaeological resources. C -G6: Preserve and enhance districts, sites, and structures that serve as significant, visible connections to Lodi's social, cultural, economic, and architectural history. The following policies are pertinent to the proposed project. C -P14: In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, the City shall required that grading and construction work on the project site be suspended until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist. The City will require that a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist make recommendations for measures necessary to protect any site determined to contain or constitute a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or a unique paleontological resource or to undertake data recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of archaeological/paleontological materials. City staff shall consider such recommendations and implement them where they are feasible in light of project design as previously allowed by the City. C -P15: If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-38 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist • The San Joaquin County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and • If the remains are of Native American origin: (1) the descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a timely 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 Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or (2) the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission. Policies C -P16 through C -P21 address the preservation, maintenance, recording, and evaluation of historic buildings, structures, and districts. Existing Conditions Archaeological Setting Human occupation of the northern San Joaquin Valley is believed to date prior to the terminal Pleistocene Epoch -12,000 years before present (BP). Although few archaeological sites demonstrate evidence of human occupation of the San Joaquin Valley during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (12,000-6,500 BP), this is likely a result of the archaeological record itself rather than lack of use of this area. Most Pleistocene- and early Holocene -epoch sites are deeply buried in accumulated gravels and silts or have eroded away. (Moratto 1984.) The earliest sites close to the project area are believed to be the Farmington Complex sites in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, the Clark Flat sites, and possibly the Sky Rocket site. These sites are located east of the project area on the San Joaquin Valley -Sierra Nevada foothills interface. Artifacts associated with this time period are dominated by stemmed points and formed flake tools with diagnostic shapes; plant -processing stone tools are evident at CA -CAL -342 between 6750 and 6500 BP. (Jones & Stokes 2001:2.) Archaeological evidence from the Middle Holocene (6500-4500 BP) for the northern San Joaquin Valley is also limited to the San Joaquin Valley -foothills interface. Near the project area three sites have produced artifacts that date to the Middle Holocene. Artifacts from these sites include stemmed projectile points and formed flake tools of the Early Holocene with the addition of Pinto Series projectile points. (Jones & Stokes 2001:2.) The Late Holocene (4,500-100 BP) has been divided into Early Period -Middle Period -Late Period subdivisions by archaeologists, although an exact time frame for the periods has been the subject of debate (Fredrickson 1973; Moratto 1984; Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987; Milliken 1997). The dates used in this discussion follow Milliken (1997), and descriptions of artifacts and technologies come from Moratto (1984). The Early Period (4,500-2,500 B. P.), comparable to Fredrickson's (1973) Windmiller Pattern, is known from several lower Sacramento Valley sites and one Stockton area site (Milliken 1997). The Windmiller Pattern is characterized by the exploitation of a wide variety of terrestrial mammals, fish, and avifauna and by an emphasis on hard -seed procurement. The Windmiller Pattern purportedly reflects a lacustrine and/or marsh adaptation. This subsistence strategy may have enabled Windmiller peoples to migrate and settle throughout the expansive Delta environment (Moratto 1984). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-39 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The Middle Period of the Late Holocene extended from approximately 2,500 to 1,300 BP in Central California (Milliken 1997). Fredrickson identifies this period as the Berkeley Pattern (Fredrickson 1973; Moratto 1984). The primary difference between the Berkeley Pattern and the Windmiller Pattern is the greater exploitation of the acorn as a staple in the Berkeley Pattern, reflected by more numerous and varied mortars and pestles. The final prehistoric period is the Late Period of the Late Holocene (450-100 BP) (Milliken 1997). This period is identified by Fredrickson as the Augustine Pattern (Fredrickson 1973; Moratto 1984). The Augustine Pattern appears to be related to the Berkeley Pattern, and the differences between the two patterns may be the result of the combination of Berkeley traits with those carried into the central California region by migrating Wintuan populations from the north, an event that began approximately 1,800 years BP (Basgall and Hildebrandt 1989). This Augustine Pattern exhibited a great elaboration of ceremonial and social organization, including the development of social stratification. Exchange became well developed, and acorns were exploited with even greater intensity, as evidenced by shaped mortars and pestles and numerous hopper mortars. Ethnographic Setting The project area is located in the territory of the Northern Valley Yokuts. Northern Valley Yokuts territory is bounded roughly by the crest of the Diablo Range on the west, the foothills of the Sierra Nevada on the east, where the San Joaquin River bends northward to the south, and roughly halfway between the Calaveras and Mokelumne Rivers to the north. (Wallace 1978:17igure 1.) Population estimates for the Northern Valley Yokuts vary from 11,000 to more than 31,000 individuals. Populations were concentrated along waterways particularly the east side of the San Joaquin River. Each tribe spoke their own dialect of the Yokuts language. Similar to most Indian groups in California, the Yokuts were organized into political entities no larger than the tribelet. A tribelet consisted of a large village and a few smaller surrounding villages. Larger villages and tribelets had a chief or headman, an advisory position that was passed from father to son (Wallace 1978). 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 that were attracted to the riverine environment also provided sources of protein. The contribution of big game to the diet was probably minimal. Vegetal staples included acorns, tule roots, and seeds. (Wallace 1978.) Goods not available locally were obtained through trade. Paiute and Shoshone groups on the eastern side of the Sierra supplied obsidian. Shell beads and mussels were obtained from coastal Salinan and Costanoan groups. Trading relations with Miwok groups to the north yielded baskets, and bows and arrows. A network of trails facilitated overland transport, and tule rafts were used for water transport. (Wallace 1978.) The Yokuts first came into contact with Europeans when Spanish explorers visited the area in the late 1700s. Subsequent exposure to Europeans may have resulted from expeditions to recover Indians who had escaped from the missions. The North Valley Yokuts were affected by missions far more than were the other groups. The loss of individuals to the missions, the influence of runaway neophytes, various epidemics in the 1800s, and the arrival of settlers and miners all contributed to the disintegration of Yokuts culture. Former miners who settled in the valley applied further pressure on the native groups and altered the landforms and waterways of the valley. Many Yokuts Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_40 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist resorted to wage labor on farms and ranches. Others were settled on land set aside for them on the Fresno and Tule River Reserves (Wallace 1978). Historic Setting San Joaquin County was one of California's original 27 counties and took its name from the San Joaquin River, which in turn, was named for Saint Joachim by Gabriel Moraga in 1913. The centrally located city of Stockton has remained the county seat since the county was established (Rensch et al. 1990). Early explorers visited the region relatively frequently. The first Euroamerican to pass through the area was likely 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 city of Stockton (Rensch et al.1990). The first large influx of Euroamerican immigrants to the San Joaquin Valley was prompted by the discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills in 1848. Mining camps were established by Euroamerican and Chinese immigrants in the foothills and mountains nearby, followed by the valley settlements of farmers and cattle ranchers shortly thereafter (Hart 1978). Lodi In 1859, a small group of families established a school on a site near Cherokee Lane and Turner Road, in the present day city of Lodi. By 1869, settlers Ezekiel Lawrence, Reuben Wardrobe, A. C. Ayers, and John Magley offered the Central Pacific Railroad 12 acres of a 160 -acre town site to build a rail station. The railroad accepted, and when surveyors began laying out streets, settlers came from Woodbridge, Liberty City, and Galt to create present day Lodi (Hillman and Covello 1985). The city was officially incorporated in 1906. Public buildings constructed between 1906 and 1915 include a public library and a hospital. The City purchased Bay City Gas and Water Works in 1919. Some early industries in the Lodi area were saw mills, flour mills, vineyards, orchards, and cattle ranching. (Hillman and Covello 1985.) Archaeological Resource Identification Results of the records search for the project indicate that no previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project area and that two previous surveys were conducted within 0.25 mile of the project area (Jackson and Welch 2006; Peak 1978). The Jackson and Welch study was conducted in support of the Reynolds Ranch project and included a portion of the present project area. Consequently, ICF cultural resources staff conducted a cursory pedestrian survey of the entire project area. Most of the area surrounding area has been developed, with the exception of a vineyard in the southwest corner and an empty lot in the southeast corner. The project area is highly disturbed, and the ground surface of the portion of project area directly adjacent to the interchange is composed of imported fill. No cultural resources were noted as a result of the survey. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-41 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Native American Consultation A sacred lands search and a list of Native American contacts were requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The sacred lands search did not identify any Native American cultural resources either within or near the project area. All Native American contacts provided by the NAHC were sent letters requesting information regarding the project area. To date, no responses have been received. Impact Discussion a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? There are no identified historic resources, as defined in Section 15064.5, located within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on a historical resource. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? There are no known cultural resources located within the proposed project area. However, it is possible that buried archaeological materials are present. Disturbance or destruction of these resources may result from ground -disturbing activities associated with project -related construction. The City or its construction contractor will comply with Lodi General Plan policy C -P14, to respond to unanticipated discoveries. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? There are no known paleontological resources located in the proposed project area, but it is possible that buried paleontological materials are present. Disturbance or destruction of these resources may result from ground -disturbing activities associated with project -related construction. The City or its construction contractor will comply with Lodi General Plan policy C -P14, to respond to unanticipated discoveries. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No known human remains are present within the proposed project area. However, it is possible that construction activities would result in the discovery of human remains. The City or its construction contractor will comply with Lodi General Plan policy C -P15, in case of the discovered of human remains. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-42 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist VI. Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? 4. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Geology and Soils Regulatory Setting Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act California's Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC 2621 et seq.), enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994, is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The Alquist- Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-43 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist the traces of active faults and strictly regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (Earthquake Fault Zones). It also defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as active, and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to Earthquake Fault Zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned, and construction along or across them is strictly regulated if they are "sufficiently active" and "well-defined." A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands show evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as referring to approximately the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well-defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Hart and Bryant 1997). Seismic Hazard Mapping Act Like the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Section 2690-2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. Whereas the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake -related hazards, including strong groundshaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: the state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within Seismic Hazard Zones until appropriate site-specific geologic or geotechnical investigations have been carried out, and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans. Lodi General Plan The Conservation Element and the Safety Element of the Draft General Plan includes a number of policies related to geology, seismicity, and soils. C -G2: Maintain the quality of the Planning Area's soil resources and reduce erosion to protect agricultural productivity. C -P6: Require new development to implement measures that minimize soil erosion from wind and water related to construction and urban development. Measures may include: • Construction techniques that utilize site preparation, gracing, and best management practices that provide erosion control and prevent soil contamination. • Tree rows or other windbreaks shall be used within buffers on the edge of urban development and in other areas as appropriate to reduce soil erosion. S -G-2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding, hazardous materials, seismic and geological hazards, and fire. S -P16: Ensure that all public facilities, such as buildings, water tanks, underground utilities, and berms, are structurally sound and able to withstand seismic activity. S -P18: Require soils reports for new projects and use the information to determine appropriate permitting requirements, if deemed necessary. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-44 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Existing Conditions Environmental Checklist Lodi is located in a region characterized by low to moderate seismic activity, and no faults that displace valley alluvium are known to exist near the project site. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) indicates that the site lies in Seismic Zone 3. The project area rests on the eastern edge of the seismically active San Andreas fault system. Seismic activity along the San Andreas fault system has little potential to damage structures in the project area as it is located approximately 70 miles east of the project area. The Tracy -Stockton fault is the closest fault to the project area. It crosses from the southwest near the city of Tracy to the northeast near Linden. Where it passes beneath the city of Stockton, it has no surface trace and its position has been determined from oil well log data. While subsurface data indicate this is an inactive fault, historical earthquakes near Linden in 1881 and 1940 raise the possibility that an active fault could be located in or near the central part of San Joaquin County (San Joaquin GP). Areas that have the greatest potential for liquefaction are located where the water table is less than 50 feet below ground and soils are composed of uniform sands of loose to medium density. The project site is located in an area with moderately well- and well -drained soils of moderate to moderately coarse textures (EDR 2009). The project site is located in a relatively flat area at an approximate elevation of 52 feet above mean sea level. The general topographic gradient is in a southwesterly direction. Soils in the area consist mostly of fine sandy loams. Slope stability hazards within San Joaquin County are confined mostly to the foothills and mountains that border the valley, steep river banks, and Delta levees, none of which occur near the project site. Impact Discussion a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death from geologic activity? There are no known faults crossing through the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic -related ground failure, or landslides. The project is an expansion of existing facilities and is not in an earthquake- or landslide - prone area. There would be no impact. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project would involve the widening of Harney Lane and hook on -ramps. To accomplish this, fill would be placed along the inside of the loops and along the south side of Harney Lane. These activities would occur primarily in areas that are already paved and/or improved, or that have been previously disturbed by agriculture -related grading and tilling activities. It is not anticipated that the project would require any significant amount of grading. Therefore, the erosion and loss of topsoil as a result of the project would be considered less than significant. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-45 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The proposed project would not be located on any unstable soil or geologic units prone to landslide, slumping, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. There would be no impact. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Soils with high clay content are usually expansive. The project site soils are composed of silty loams. The proposed project is not located on expansive soil, and there would be no risk to life or property. There would be no impact. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Neither septic tanks nor alternative wastewater disposal systems are part of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-46 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling ❑ ® ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. Be located within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ® ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Regulatory Setting State agencies accept delegation of federal responsibility for the administration of hazardous materials and hazardous waste management. The Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act allows the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the RWQCB to accept implementation and responsibility for the Clean Water Act. The Hazardous Waste Control Act of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-47 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist 1977, and recent amendments to its implementing regulations, has given the Department of Health Services (DHS) the lead role in administering the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 29 (29 CFR). These regulations set the standards for safe work practices and work places, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials. California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) regulations are generally more stringent than federal OSHA regulations and are detailed in Title 8 of the CCR. San Joaquin County Hazardous Materials Plan San Joaquin County prepared a Hazardous Materials Area Plan in March 2004. This document was prepared in accordance with statutory requirements. The overall goal of the hazardous materials response system is to protect public health, prevent environmental damage, and ensure proper use and disposal of hazardous materials. San Joaquin County Multi -Hazard Plan The San Joaquin County Multi -Hazard Plan addresses the four phases of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The Plan identifies those organizations, agencies, and individuals that are assigned duties and responsibilities for responding to emergencies within the unincorporated areas of the county and in support of incorporated cities. It also provides guidance on how emergencies will be managed. Lodi General Plan The Lodi General Plan Safety Element provides guiding and implementing policies regarding hazards and hazardous materials. S -G2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding, hazardous materials, seismic and geological hazards. S -P10: Consider the potential for the production, use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials in approving new development. Provide for reasonable controls on such hazardous materials. Ensure that the proponents of applicable new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies, as necessary, for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project. Require projects to implement federal or State cleanup standards outlined in the studies during construction. Existing Conditions The information provided in this section is based on the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck (EDR report), prepared for the proposed project by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (2009). Results of the EDR report indicate that there are six underground storage tanks (USTs) within 0.25 mile of the project area. Three of these USTs are in the western portion of the project area along Harney Lane. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-48 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist However, none of the USTs listed has been reported to be in violation of any environmental regulations or to pose a threat to public health and/or safety. One site, the proposed Richards Ranch Elementary School (now the Lois Borchardt Elementary School), was listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) database identifying sites with known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further in 2001. This site also is listed under a category that includes proposed or existing school sites that are being evaluated by the DTSC for possible hazardous materials contamination. No restricted uses were indicated, but as the site was formerly an agricultural site, a risk characterization investigation was carried out in order to assess potential impacts. Currently, the status listed for the Richards Ranch Elementary School site is no further action. No other known regulated or unregulated hazardous waste generators, leaking tank spills, toxic spills, or other sites affecting the environment are located in the proposed project area. The site is not listed as a Superfund or other National Priorities List (NPL) site. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP) San Joaquin County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) map (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2000), the proposed project site is not located in a fire hazard region. The nearest schools to the project are the Lois E. Borchardt Elementary (375 Culbertson Drive) (see above) and Villa Montessori School (2525 South Stockton Street). Both are located approximately 1/8 mile west from the project alignment. The nearest airport to the project area are the Lodi Airpark, located approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site, and the nearest private airstrip is Lodi Airport located approximately 7 miles north of the proposed project site. Impact Discussion a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction of the proposed project would involve small quantities of commonly used materials, such as fuels and oils, to operate construction equipment. However, because standard construction BMPs would be implemented to reduce the emissions of pollutants during construction of the proposed project, this impact is considered less than significant. Any potentially contaminated areas encountered during construction would be evaluated by a qualified hazardous material specialist in the context if applicable. Once construction is complete, there would be no further use of hazardous materials or potential exposure associated with the project. There would be no impact during project operation. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The project could create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (such as petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used in the project area and transported to and from the area during construction. Accidental releases of small quantities of these substances Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-49 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist could contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and groundwater, resulting in a public safety hazard. This impact would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of the SWPPP and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Develop and Implement a Spill Prevention Plan to Reduce Exposure of People and the Environment to Hazardous Conditions The City's contractor will develop a Spill Prevention Plan to prevent the pollution of surface water and groundwater and to promote the health and safety of workers and other people in the project vicinity. The Spill Prevention Plan will address: • handling procedures and storage requirement for hazardous materials; • spill clean-up procedures for areas and processes in which spills may potentially occur; • standard operating procedures and employee training to minimize accidental releases; and • notification procedures in case of a spill. The City will review and approve the plan prior to construction. The contractor will be required to implement these plans during construction. c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest schools, Lois E. Borchardt Elementary and Villa Montessori, are located approximately 1/8 mile from the project alignment. Although the proposed improvements would not change existing conditions, there is the potential for a hazardous spill or accident during construction. However, implementation of HAZ-1 discussed above would mitigate the potential risk of accidental spills in construction areas. No new significant sources of hazardous materials would be introduced by the project. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, this impact is considered less than significant. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The project site is not located on a Superfund or other NPL site and therefore would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to such sites. There would be no impact. e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The proposed project site is located more than 3 miles northeast of the Lodi Airpark and outside any airport land -use plan or safety zone. Therefore, there would be no impact. f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest private airstrip is located approximately 7 miles southwest of the proposed project site. The project is not within any airport land -use plan or safety zone. Therefore, there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-50 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? During construction, emergency access to and in the vicinity of the project site potentially could be affected by lane closures, detours, and construction -related traffic. As noted in the Traffic/Transportation section, a Traffic Management Plan would be implemented to ensure its Contractor prepares a traffic management plan during the final stage of project design to ensure there is no interference with emergency vehicles/services or response/evacuation plans. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? According to the CDFFP San Joaquin County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire) map (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2000), the proposed project site is not located in a fire hazard region. There would be no impact associated with wildland fires. No mitigation is required. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-51 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-52 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Water Act Important applicable sections of the federal CWA (33 USC 1251-1376) include: • Sections 303 and 304 provide water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of CWA. Certification is provided by the RWQCB. • Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the Central Valley RWQCB. The proposed project would have a footprint greater than 1 acre. As a result, an NPDES General Construction Permit will need to be obtained prior to any construction activities. One requirement for an NPDES permit is the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that provides BMPs to prevent the discharge of pollutants and sediments into receiving waters. • Section 404 establishes permit programs for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act The State of California's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.) provides the basis for water quality regulation in California. The act requires a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the state. Based on the report, the RWQCBs issue waste discharge requirements to minimize the effect of the discharge. Report of Waste Discharge The ROWD is pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260. Section 13260 states that persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, other than into a community sewer system, must file an ROWD containing information that may be required by the appropriate RWQCB. HCC is filing an Amended ROWD in accordance with the Settlement Agreement from March 2006, Order No. 115-2006-0025. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-53 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Local Lodi General Plan Environmental Checklist The Safety Element of the Lodi General Plan addresses flooding and water quality issues. S -G2: Prevent loss of lives, injury, illness, and property damage due to flooding, hazardous materials, seismic and geologic hazards and fire. S -P1: Continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure that local regulations are in full compliance with standards adopted by FEMA. Existing Conditions Surface Water The project area is located in the San Joaquin River basin, one of three major watersheds in California. It covers 15,880 square miles. The principal streams are the San Joaquin River and its large tributaries: the Cosumnes, Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, Chowchilla, and Fresno Rivers. The major surface water feature in the project vicinity is the Mokelumne River, which borders the city of Lodi to the north. Impoundment of the Mokelumne River at Woodbridge forms Lodi Lake, which serves as a diversion for the Woodbridge Irrigation District South Main Canal. This canal provides irrigation water to agricultural land west and south of Lodi. Groundwater The project overlies the Eastern San Joaquin groundwater basin, which is an integral, interconnected part of the Central Valley groundwater basin. The groundwater in the basin is contained in the Mehrten formation and overlying younger aquifer units below the city. The aquifer underlying Lodi is largely unconfined. Groundwater is encountered nearest to the surface in the northwestern portion of Lodi near Woodbridge at approximately 20 feet below ground surface but is approximately 60 feet below ground surface at the project site. Primary sources of recharge to the aquifer underlying Lodi are seepage from the Mokelumne River, deep percolation of rainfall, regional sources including the Delta and along the Sierra mountain -front, and percolation of irrigation water, particularly in the areas that use surface water from the Woodbridge Irrigation District. Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates 100 -year floodplains and publishes the information on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). According to the FIRM, the proposed project area would be protected from a 100 -year flood; however, a 500 -year flood would inundate the area (FIRM map 06033). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-54 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Impact Discussion a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? and f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed project could result in the release of small amounts of vehicle and equipment fluids during construction and a slight increase in impervious surfaces and therefore in a slight increase in runoff. The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degrade water quality. Any potential impacts would be less than significant because the project would have to comply with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit, which include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The impact of the proposed road improvements project would be minimal in terms of adverse effects on groundwater resources. The project does not contain elements that either add to or draw from groundwater. Therefore, there is no impact. 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 or siltation on site or offsite? and d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or offsite? The proposed project does not involve significantly altering the existing drainage patterns of the site or changing a course of a stream or river. The proposed project would retain all drainage on site and so would not increase the amount of sedimentation either on or off site. The impacts associated with the alteration of drainages are considered to be less than significant. e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The project would cause a slight increase in the quantity of runoff generated in a storm event through the increase in impervious areas associated with the pavement surface. The quantity of additional runoff generated from the project would be negligible, and flows from the roadway pavement would be contained within existing storm drains that are capable of handling the additional runoff. Therefore, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. The operation of the proposed project would include the use of the roadway and shoulder areas by motor vehicles, and other uses associated with local roadways. The uses may result in the deposit of various materials in the roadway and adjacent areas that constitute urban pollution, including engine oil, gasoline, transmission fluid, rubber, etc., that can be transported in surface water runoff Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-55 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist during storm events. However, these additional sources of polluted runoff would be minimal and would occur without implementation of the project, as it is an existing facility. Therefore, this is considered a less -than -significant impact. g. Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No housing structures are planned as part of the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? and i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The entire project is located outside the 100 -year floodplain as depicted by FEMA. Implementation of this project would not place structures in the 100 -year floodplain or impede existing flood flows. There would be no impact. j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Because the project's distance from the ocean or a large lake, and the project is located on relatively flat ground, the risk of exposing people or structures to a tsunami, seiche, and mudflow is very low. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-56 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist IX. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Land Use and Planning Regulatory Setting San Joaquin County and Lodi General Plan and Zoning The City and County General Plan designations for the project site are as follows. Within the city of Lodi, the northwest quadrant of the project site is designated as MDR, Medium -Density Residential and the southwest NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial (City of Lodi 2009a). The east half of the project site is under the San Joaquin County General Plan designations; the northeast quadrant is OS/0, Open Space/Other and the southeast quadrant is A/G, General Agriculture (San Joaquin County 2009). The Lodi General Plan Land Use Element lists the following applicable guiding policy. LU -G1: Create a balanced and sustainable land use pattern that provides for a diversity of uses and satisfies existing and future needs. Zoning in the proposed project area consists of four different designations. The western half of the project site is under City of Lodi jurisdiction and is zoned PD 36 and PD 39, Planned Development (City of Lodi 2009a). The eastern half of the project site is under San Joaquin County jurisdiction with the northeast quadrant zoned as P -F, Public Facilities, and the southeast zoned as AG 40, General Agriculture 40 Acres (San Joaquin County 2009). Existing Conditions The project area consists of approximately 2,200 feet along Harney Lane, crossing State Route 99 in and near the city of Lodi. Land uses in the immediate project vicinity consist of a cemetery, farmland and associated buildings, single family residences, and undeveloped land (Figure 2-5). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-57 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Impact Discussion a. Physically divide an established community? The proposed project would result in improvements to an existing roadway and would not divide an established community. No residents or businesses would be displaced as a result of implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the project would not install any additional barriers to movement between segments of the established community. Therefore, it would not create a physical division within the existing community. There would be no impact. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project is an allowable use and would alter an existing interchange. With the exception of two small areas, all new construction would be within the existing road right-of-way. The City of Lodi General Plan outlines guiding goals and policies that serve to avoid or mitigate environmental effects of projects within the city. The proposed project would comply with all General Plan policies, as they relate to intersection improvements projects. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project would be a covered activity within the plan area of the SJMSCP. The SJMSCP, in accordance with ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(B) provides compensation for conversion of open space to non - open space uses that affect plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the plan (San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000). The City of Lodi would compensate for any impacts on habitat for species covered by the plan through the SJMSCP (See Biology discussion). As such, the proposed project would not conflict with this habitat conservation plan and there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-58 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 M z a 0 v U O 1 ,1 > N M E. CENTURY BLVD Project Location E. HARNEY LN. LN Draft Preferred Plan D Low Density Residential D Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Center Business Park/Office Public/Quasi-Public Industrial Open Space Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area ® Approved Projects ------------ Urban Reserve •K-6 Elementary School (Placeholder) --------• Sphere of Influence (2008) —•— City Limits (2008) Existing Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Office Public/Civic/Institutional Industrial Open Space/Recreation Parking Utilities Agriculture Vacant 10 acres 0 0.25 0.5 MILE Source: City of Lodi 2008. Figure 2-5 1CF Land Use Map INTERNATIONAL 1 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 own E. CENTURY BLVD Project Location E. HARNEY LN. LN Draft Preferred Plan D Low Density Residential D Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Downtown Mixed Use Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use Center Business Park/Office Public/Quasi-Public Industrial Open Space Armstrong Road Agricultural/Cluster Study Area ® Approved Projects ------------ Urban Reserve •K-6 Elementary School (Placeholder) --------• Sphere of Influence (2008) —•— City Limits (2008) Existing Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Commercial Office Public/Civic/Institutional Industrial Open Space/Recreation Parking Utilities Agriculture Vacant 10 acres 0 0.25 0.5 MILE Source: City of Lodi 2008. Figure 2-5 1CF Land Use Map INTERNATIONAL City of Lodi Environmental Checklist X. Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Mineral Resources Existing Conditions Mineral resources in San Joaquin County consist mainly of sand and gravel. The project area is not near the principal areas of mining activity, which are located in the southwestern portion of San Joaquin County. The closest significant aggregate resource is approximately 12 miles east of the project area (County of San Joaquin 1992). Impact Discussion a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? There are no known mineral resources in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The proposed project would be the expansion of an existing land use. Therefore, the proposed modifications to this interchange would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resources of local or statewide importance. There would be no impact. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? There are no known mineral resources in the vicinity of the proposed project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any mineral resource recovery sites delineated on any land use plans. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-59 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist XI. Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Expose persons to or generate excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ® ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip ❑ ❑ ❑ and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise Terminology Noise Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project. Sound is mechanical energy (vibration) transmitted by pressure waves over a medium such as air or water. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the spectrum, so noise Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-60 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive in a process called A -weighting, written as dBA and referred to as A -weighted decibels. Table 2-7 provides definitions of sound measurements and other terminology used in this chapter, and Table 2-8 summarizes typical A -weighted sound levels for different noise sources. Table 2-7. Definition of Sound Measurements Sound Measurements Definition Decibel (dB) A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro -pascals. A -Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency -weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. Maximum Sound Level (L..) The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period. Minimum Sound Level (L ni„) The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The equivalent steady state sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy. Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level (L,.) The sound level exceeded "x" % of a specific time period. L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time. Day -Night Level (L&) The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during (CNEL) a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Peak Particle Velocity (Peak Velocity A measurement of ground vibration defined as the maximum speed or PPV) (measured in inches per second) at which a particle in the ground is moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually expressed in inches/sec. Frequency: Hertz (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-61 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Table 2-8. Typical A -Weighted Sound Levels Environmental Checklist Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawnmower, 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Large business office Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) 20 Broadcast/recording studio 10 0 Source: Caltrans 1998. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 1 dB typically cannot be perceived by the human ear, a change of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time -varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leg), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lm;n and Lmax), percentile -exceeded sound levels (such as L1o, L20), the day -night sound level (Ld„), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Ld„ and CNEL values differ by less than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound attenuates based on geometry at rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source, such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance (Caltrans 1998). Atmospheric conditions, including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-62 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers, such as buildings and topography that block the line of sight between a source and receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance. Vibration Construction activities and operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile driving and impact devices such as pavement breakers, create seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from operation of equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance to people to damage to structures. Varying geology and distance result in different vibration levels containing different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increasing distance. Perceptible groundborne vibration generally is limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten -thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration amplitude, referred to as the peak particle velocity (PPV). Table 2-9 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006a). Table 2-9. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet Pile driver (impact) 0.644 to 1.518 Pile drive (sonic/vibratory) 0.170 to 0.734 Vibratory roller 0.210 Hoe ram 0.089 Large bulldozer 0.089 Caisson drilling 0.089 Loaded trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small bulldozer 0.003 Source: FTA 2006a. Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance and is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil conditions through which the vibration is traveling. The following equation can be used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions (Federal Transit Administration 2006a). PPVref is the reference PPV from Table 2-9: PPV = PPVref x (25/Distance)1.5 Tables 2-10 and 2-11 summarize typical human response to transient and continuous vibration that usually is associated with construction activity. Equipment or activities typical of continuous vibration include: excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, traffic on a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-63 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist highway, vibratory pile drivers, pile -extraction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. Equipment or activities typical of single -impact (transient) or low -rate repeated impact vibration include: impact pile drivers, blasting, drop balls, "pogo stick" compactors, and crack -and -seat equipment (Caltrans 2004). Table 2-10. Human Response to Transient Vibration PPV Human Response 2.0 Severe 0.9 Strongly perceptible 0.24 Distinctly perceptible 0.035 Barely perceptible Source: Caltrans 2004. Table 2-11. Human Response to Continuous Vibration PPV Human Response 3.6 (at 2 Hz) to 0.4 (at 20 Hz) Very disturbing 0.7 (at 2 Hz) to 0.17 (at 20 Hz) Disturbing 0.10 Strongly perceptible 0.035 Distinctly perceptible 0.012 Slightly perceptible Source: Caltrans 2004. Regulatory Setting City of Lodi Draft General Plan Noise Element The General Plan noise standards are shown in Tables 2-12 and 2-13. City of Lodi Noise Ordinance The City of Lodi's Noise Ordinance, found in Chapter 9.24 of the Municipal Code, specifically mandates noise limits on construction noise and ambient noise levels. The ordinance establishes allowable levels of sound that may cross any adjacent property line, as well as prohibiting general nuisance noise and identifying a number of specific prohibitions. The City of Lodi Municipal Code regulations relevant to this project are: 9.24.020 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. 9.24.030 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 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. which exceeds the ambient noise levels at the property line of any residential property as determined at the time of such reading Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-64 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist by more than five decibels. This section shall be applicable whether such noise or sound is of a commercial or noncommercial nature. The City of Lodi Municipal Code exempts any sound -causing equipment that has a valid City license or permit. Construction activities would need to be authorized by City construction permits before any work could begin on site. The municipal code does not establish the time period that this exempted equipment may operate. However, limits on construction hours would be determined in the special provisions for construction activities. Because this is a City project, authorization is not needed before work can begin. Table 2-12. Community Noise Exposure Community Noise Exposure Ld„ or CNEL, dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential—low density single family, duplex, mobile homes 77 Residential—multifamily Transient lodging—motels, hotels Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes Auditorium, concert halls, amphitheaters Sports arena, outdoor spectator sports Playgrounds, neighborhood parks Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries Office buildings, business commercial and professional Industrial, manufacturing utilities, agriculture Interpretation: Normally acceptable — Conditionally acceptable — Normally unacceptable — Clearly unacceptable — Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-65 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Table 2-13. Allowable Outdoor and Interior Noise Exposure Environmental Checklist Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas (CNEL)a Indoor Areas (CNEL) Residential 60 45 Motels/hotels 60 45 Public/semi-public 65 45 Recreational 65 50 Commercial 65 50 Industrial 70 65 Source: City of Lodi 2009. a For non-residential uses, where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the standard does not apply. Existing Conditions Noise Sensitive Land Uses For purposes of noise impact analyses, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, and similar uses sensitive to noise. Sensitive receptors presently located near the project area are described below (Figure 2-2). Northwest Quadrant A residential subdivision is located in the northwest quadrant of the project area, directly north of Harney Lane and east of S. Stockton Street. The closest sensitive receptor to the project area is a single-family residence located approximately 185 feet from the project area on Harney Lane. Residences line Melby Drive and Culbertson Drive, which are 375 feet and 514 feet from the project area, respectively. Sound walls are positioned between Harney Lane and the residences along Culbertson Drive, and between Harney Lane and the residences on Melby Drive. However, there are three single-family residences east of Melby Drive that are not protected by a sound wall. The closest of these residences is approximately 526 feet from the project area. There is also a sound wall between Harney Lane/State Route 99 and the residences of Schafer Drive. In addition, Louis Borchardt Elementary School is located in this quadrant approximately 950 feet northeast of the Harney Lane/State Route 99 interchange. Northeast Quadrant A cemetery is located in the northeast quadrant of the project area. Past the cemetery on Harney Lane, there are two single-family residences on the corner of Beckman Road and Harney Lane that are adjacent to the project area. There is another single-family residence on Harney Lane approximately 205 feet from the project area. There are no sound walls in this quadrant. Southeast Quadrant The southeast quadrant is mainly agricultural use. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-66 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Southwest Quadrant Environmental Checklist In the southwest quadrant, there is a single-family rural residence approximately 185 feet from the project area on Harney Lane. There is also a single-family rural residence approximately 250 feet from the State Route 99 Frontage Road in this quadrant. The previously approved Reynolds Ranch development will be located in this quadrant. Existing Noise Conditions Noise near the proposed project site derives mainly from the Union Pacific Railroad corridor to the west and vehicles on the adjacent freeway and roads in the area. The measured noise levels along the railroad tracks and the freeway substantially exceed City of Lodi standards. The peak noise levels close to the tracks occur late at night when track use is highest. Every train from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is the "noise equivalent" of 10 daytime trains in calculating CNEL. The weighted CNEL therefore is 4 dB higher than even the noisiest hours of the day, which occur around midnight, and from 5 to 6 a.m. As near the railroad, the high percentage of nocturnal traffic, especially heavy trucks, creates a CNEL that is several dB higher than the noisiest hour of the day. However, the area near the freeway has a planned commercial use and does not have any residential receivers. The measured noise levels at the project site are already excessive in terms of City of Lodi standards for existing noise -sensitive land uses. Any usable outdoor space at the nearest homes without noise walls facing Harney Lane, the railroad tracks, or that are adjacent to State Route 99 are already noise -impacted. Interior noise levels likely also are high, unless windows are tightly closed and central air conditioning is used on warmer days. Any modified roadway geometries or increased traffic volumes may further affect these areas. Existing traffic noise levels in the project area are listed in Table 2-14. These noise levels are a result of a 24-hour noise measurement program conducted for the Reynolds Ranch EIR in March 2006. Table 2-14. Existing Traffic Noise Levels Property Line Meter placed between Southwest corner of 2nd and 3rd houses, Reynolds Ranch parcel, Parameter south of Harney Lane near train tracks Houses, northeast corner of Reynolds Ranch parcel (18 yards to State Route 99 fence) 24-hour CNEL 68 76 74 Maximum 1 -Hour Leq 69 72 72 When (?) 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. 11:00 p.m. to midnights 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. 2nd Highest 1 -Hour Leq 63 71 72 When (?) 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m a 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Minimum 1 -Hour Leq 52 45 63 When (?) 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.ma 1 -Second Maximum 93 96 93 1 -Second Minimum 43 39 44 Source: City of Lodi 2006. Measurement occurs at other hours as well. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-67 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Impact Discussion Environmental Checklist a. Expose persons to orgenerate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Typical noise levels (dBA) from construction equipment pieces are shown in Table 2-15 below. In order to evaluate a reasonable worst-case scenario, noise from the three loudest pieces of equipment likely to operate at the same time has been evaluated. The three loudest pieces of equipment that are likely to be used are a paver, a scraper, and a truck. Noise levels for these pieces of equipment were entered into a spreadsheet model based on FTA 2006 guidelines to generate noise levels at nearby receptors. Table 2-15. Construction Equipment Noise Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source Grader 85 Bulldozers 85 Truck 88 Loader 85 Roller 74 Air Compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Scraper 89 Pneumatic Tool 85 Paver 89 Concrete Pump 82 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006b. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise -generating activities, and the distance and shielding between construction noise sources and noise -sensitive areas. Individual types of construction equipment are expected to generate noise levels ranging from 74 to 89 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Combined noise from the three loudest pieces of equipment likely to be used would reach 93 dB Leq at 50 feet. Construction noise levels attenuate at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often results in much lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Table 2-16 shows the calculated maximum (Lmax) and Leq sound levels at nearby residences that would result from project construction. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-68 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Table 2-16. Calculated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Receptors Distance between source and receiver (feet) Geometric Attenuation (dB) Ground Effect Attenuation (dB) Calculated Lmax Sound Level (dBA) Calculated Leq Sound Level (dBA) 50 0 0 92 91 185 -11 -4 78 76 205 -12 -4 76 75 250 -14 -4 74 73 526 -20 -6 66 64 As stated above in the Regulatory Setting, the City of Lodi Municipal Code exempts any sound equipment that has a valid City license or permit. Construction activities would need to be authorized under City construction permits before any work could begin on site. The results in Table 2-16 indicate that project -related construction activities could result in a significant noise impact at residences in the project area if construction activity occurs outside the hours that are exempted by the City of Lodi Noise Ordinance (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 is required to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. If construction occurs within the exempted hours, Mitigation Measure N-2 is required to reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure N-1: Limit Construction Hours Construction, including set up and tear down, will be prohibited from occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mitigation Measure N-2: Employ Noise -Reducing Construction Practices When feasible, the City or its contractor will implement noise -reducing construction practices such that noise that occurs during construction hours does not exceed ambient noise levels at residences in the project area. Measures that can be used to reduce construction noise include, but are not limited to: • locating stationary equipment as far as practical from noise -sensitive uses; • requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound -control devices that are at least as effective as those provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation; • prohibiting the use of gasoline or diesel engines that have unmuffled exhaust; • when practical, placing noise -reducing enclosures around stationary noise -generating equipment; and • when practical, constructing barriers between noise sources and noise -sensitive land uses or taking advantage of existing barrier features (terrain, structures) or material stockpiles to block sound transmission. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-69 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist b. Expose persons to orgenerate excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels? Construction activities associated with the operation of heavy equipment may generate localized groundborne vibration. Vibration from non -impact construction activity typically is below the threshold of perception when the activity is more than about 50 feet from the receptor. Additionally, vibration from these activities would be of limited duration and would end when construction is completed. Because construction activity is not anticipated to involve high -impact activities (e.g., piledriving) and because the nearest residences to construction activities would be well over 50 feet from on-site construction activity, the vibration impact of construction activity is considered less than significant. c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Because the goal of the proposed project is to improve traffic operations, it would not result in population and/or employment growth. In addition, according to the project traffic engineer, Fehr & Peers, the proposed project would not affect traffic distribution, travel patterns, or operations on roadways within the project area (Wallace pers. comm.). Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise. There would be no impact. d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The discussion of construction noise above indicates that construction activity would result in a temporary increase in noise during the construction period. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 this impact is considered to be less than significant. e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project area is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport. The proposed project would not introduce any new noise -sensitive land uses into the project area. Accordingly, it would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact. f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not introduce any new noise sensitive land uses into the project area. Accordingly it would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-70 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist XII. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace a substantial number of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Population and Housing Existing Conditions As an interchange improvement project, the proposed project would not have a direct effect on population and/or housing. The project improvements are proposed as mitigation for the additional traffic that will be created by the previously approved Reynolds Ranch mixed-use development. The proposed project will improve the Harney Lane interchange to maintain the LOS of the interchange at D or better until the ultimate interchange construction is completed in 2016. Impact Discussion a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? As discussed above, the proposed project itself would not induce substantial population growth. However, as mitigation for the previously approved Reynolds Ranch development, it would support population growth in the immediate area. The projected increases in housing and population from the Reynolds Ranch project are already contained in the City's Housing Element (Lodi General Plan 1991). The proposed improvements to Harney Lane would not induce growth, but rather would accommodate existing and planned growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area, and there would be no impact. b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is an interchange improvement project and would not displace existing housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-71 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is an interchange improvement project and would not displace existing housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_72 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No XIII. Public Services Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Public Services Regulatory Setting Lodi General Plan The Lodi General Plan Growth Management and Infrastructure Element addresses public services. GM -G-4: Provide public facilities—including police and fire services, schools, and libraries commensurate with the needs of the existing and future population. Existing Conditions The Lodi Fire Department (LFD) provides fire protection, basic life support, fire prevention, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response services to the city of Lodi. The LFD has four fire stations. The closest to the project area is Station Number 3, located approximately 2 miles northwest at 2141 South Ham Lane. According to the LFD estimates from the past year, the LFD maintains an average response time of 6 minutes (Lodi Fire Department 2007). In San Joaquin County, fire protection services are performed primarily by City and special district fire departments. The project area is within the Mokelumne District. This District's station is located approximately 3 miles northeast of the project area and provides fire protection, basic life support, and rescue services for the unincorporated areas in the County. The Mokelumne District station maintains an average response time of 4-7 minutes (San Joaquin County 1992). Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-73 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The Lodi Police Department (LPD) provides law enforcement and animal services to the city of Lodi. The LPD has 78 sworn officers, 47 non -sworn personnel, and 4 part-time officers (Lodi Police Department 2009). The city is divided into three patrol districts: Sunset, Heritage, and Central. The project area is in the Heritage District, the borders of which are generally west to Hutchins Street, north to the city limits, east to the city limits and south to city limits, excluding the area of the Central District. The LPD maintains an average 1.25 -minute response time and maintains an average of 31 minutes per call at the scene of the incident (City of Lodi 2006). Law enforcement in San Joaquin County is provided by cities in their incorporated areas and by the County Sherriffs Department in the unincorporated areas. There are eight districts in the County served by 96 District Deputies and 16 Community Car Deputies (San Joaquin County 1992). The project site lies in the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD). The closest school is the Louis E. Borchardt Elementary School at 375 Culbertson Drive, approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the project area. (Lodi Unified School District 2009). The City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Department maintains 22 park facilities. The closest parks to the project site are Borchardt Park, an undeveloped 0.75 -acre parcel approximately 0.25 mile west, and Salas Park, located approximately 0.5 mile northwest (Lodi Parks and Recreation 2009). County parks in the area are the Mokelumne River located approximately 1 mile north of the project area, and the Lodi Lake Park. Lodi Lake Park is approximately 10 acres and contains a nature area in the floodplain of the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County 1992). Impact Discussion a, Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? During construction, temporary detours along the roadway may be necessary to accommodate construction activities. As noted in the Traffic/Transportation discussion, emergency service providers would be notified prior to any construction work to ensure impacts are minimized and that construction activities do not disrupt local access routes and emergency services. In addition, the project improvements would increase service/emergency vehicle safety and access. Upon completion, the proposed project would improve response times. This impact is less than significant. Police protection? During construction, temporary detours along the roadway may be necessary to accommodate construction activities. As noted in the Traffic/Transportation discussion, emergency service providers would be notified prior to any construction work to ensure impacts are minimized and that construction activities do not disrupt local access routes and emergency services. In addition, the project improvements would increase service/emergency vehicle safety and access. Upon completion, the proposed project would improve response times. This impact is less than significant. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-74 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Schools? Environmental Checklist This project consists of improvements to an existing interchange. No housing would be built as a result of this project, and therefore there would be no impact on schools. Parks? The proposed project is an interchange improvement project and would not affect parks or park services or recreational services. Therefore, there is no impact. Other public facilities? The proposed project would not require additional public services other than maintenance of the interchange improvements. Maintenance of the proposed project would be the responsibility of the City of Lodi Public Works Department. The proposed improvements are not anticipated to require a significant additional level of effort to maintain, as the interchange and road are existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than -significant impact on public facilities. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-75 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist XIV. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Recreation Regulatory Setting Lodi General Plan The Lodi General Plan Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element addresses recreation issues. It contains the following pertinent policy. P -G1: Provide and maintain park and recreation facilities for the entire community. Existing Conditions No recreational facilities have been identified in the project area, and there are no known plans to develop new recreational facilities. The City of Lodi Parks and Recreation Department maintains 22 park facilities. The closest parks to the project site are Borchardt Park, an undeveloped 0.75 -acre parcel approximately 0.25 mile west of the project area, and the Salas Park, located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the project area (Lodi Parks & Recreation 2009). County recreational opportunities in the area include the Mokelumne River, located approximately 1 mile north of the project area, and the Lodi Lake Park. Lodi Lake Park is approximately 10 acres located about 3.75 miles northwest of the project and contains a nature area in the floodplain of the Mokelumne River (San Joaquin County 1992). Impact Discussion a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed project is an interchange improvement project and does not include any residential or commercial development that might increase the use of an existing park or recreational facility. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-76 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would not involve any residential or commercial development that would result in the need for new park or recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would result from the proposed project. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_77 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No XV. Transportation/Traffic Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Cause, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ ❑ exceedance of a level -of -service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Transportation and Traffic The information provided in this section is taken from traffic studies performed for this project, for a larger interchange project, and for the Reynolds Ranch Project (Fehr & Peers 2009a, 2009b; Willdan 2006). Regulatory Setting LOS is a measure of traffic operating conditions that ranges from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (over -capacity conditions). Criteria for LOS for intersections and ramps are shown in Tables 2-17 and 2-18. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-78 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Table 2-17. Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Environmental Checklist Level of Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Service Control Delay (sec/veh)a Control Delay (sec/veh)a General Description A 0-10.0 0-10.0 Little to no congestion or delays B 10.1-20.0 10.1-15.0 Limited congestion; short delays C 20.1-35.0 15.1-25.0 Some congestion with average delays D 35.1-55.0 25.1-35.0 Significant congestion and delays E 55.1-80.0 35.1-50.0 Severe congestion and delays F > 80.0 > 50.0 Total breakdown with extreme delays Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections) and Chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections), Transportation Research Board 2000. a Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay Table 2-18. Ramp Merge and Ramp Diverge Level of Service Criteria LOS Description Densitya A Free-flow speeds prevail—vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their < 10 ability to maneuver with the traffic stream B Free-flow speeds are maintained—the ability to maneuver with the traffic stream is > 10 to 20 only slightly restricted C Flow with speeds at or near free-flow speeds—freedom to maneuver within the > 20 to 28 traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver D Speeds decline slightly with increasing flows—freedom to maneuver with the traffic > 28 to 35 stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort E Operation at capacity—there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, > 35 to 43 leaving little room to maneuver; any disruption can be expected to produce a breakdown with queuing F Represents a breakdown in flow > 43 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). a Density in passenger cars per mile per lane. Existing Conditions The project site includes Harney Lane crossing State Route 99 and encompassing the intersections with the on -ramps and frontage roads. Cherokee Lane is the frontage road on the west side of State Route 99, north of Harney Lane that provides access to the southbound on- and off -ramps. South of Harney Lane on the west side of State Route 99, the frontage road is West Frontage Road. West Frontage Road will be realigned as part of the Reynolds Ranch project. To the east of State Route 99, the East Frontage Road provides access to the loop on- and off -ramp. Both of these intersections are unsignalized. Harney Lane is a two-lane east -west road with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-79 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist The proposed project is an interim improvement intended to bridge the gap in time between the development of the Reynolds Ranch parcel and the construction of the improved interchange in 2016. The proposed project is a mitigation measure for the Reynolds Ranch project, which was addressed in a separate environmental document (Mitigation Measure 3.10.2 in Willdan 2006). As mitigation, the Harney Lane/Cherokee Lane intersection would be signalized, and it is assumed that West Frontage Road would be closed off, making this a T -intersection as part of the Phase 1 development of the Reynolds Ranch project. As a result of the Phase 1 development, the Harney Lane/East Frontage Road intersection would be operating at LOS D during the peak PM hour. The installation of a traffic signal improves operations to LOS B. In 2030 without the project, the Harney Lane/Cherokee Lane intersection is forecast to operate at unacceptable levels during AM and PM peak hours and the interchange would have to be reconstructed. The remainder of the intersections would still operate acceptably. Improvements associated with Phase 2 development would include widening Harney Lane to four lanes, improving the on- and off -ramp intersections, and reconstructing the Harney Lane/State Route 99 interchange. The bulk of the Phase 2 mitigation is not addressed in this project, but will be in a future interchange improvement project, which is expected to be constructed in 2016. Impact Discussion a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? The project's contribution to increased traffic would be temporary and minor, as it would be associated with construction only. The operation of the project would not result in any measurable additional vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. b. Cause, either individually or cumulatively, exceedance of a level -of -service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The project is a road improvement project intended and designed to relieve congestion and improve LOS at intersections and ramps to City standards until such time as the full interchange improvement is completed. This would be a beneficial impact. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? The proposed project is not located near an airport and does not involve aircraft use. There would be no impact. d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm equipment)? The proposed project would not substantially change existing and planned roadways, and there are no existing hazards affecting the project. Therefore, there would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-80 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Environmental Checklist Construction of the project may result in temporary congestion and reduced response times for emergency providers. This would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR -1 to notify the public of construction and route traffic through the area would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure TR -1: Notify Public and Route Traffic The City or its construction contractor will notify emergency service providers, businesses within 1 mile of the project area, and residences of construction via letter 2 weeks prior to the beginning of construction. The letter will include proposed dates, times, and locations of construction, proposed changes in routes, any street closures, and information pertaining to parking. The letter will also provide contact information where questions and concerns can be directed. During construction signage and flagers will be utilized as necessary to control traffic and avoid congestion. f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? Because it is a road improvement project, the project would not increase the need for parking during operation. During construction there would be a small increase in parking demand for workers. However, it is expected that this demand would be met by the closure of Cherokee Lane north of the project. Therefore this impact is less than significant. g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The project would not affect any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-81 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist XVI. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? Utilities and Service Systems Regulatory Setting Lodi General Plan The Lodi General Plan Growth Management and Infrastructure Element addresses utilities and service systems. It includes the following pertinent policy. GM -G2: Provide infrastructure—including water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste/recycling systems—that is designed and timed to be consistent with projected capacity requirements and development phasing. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-82 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Existing Conditions Environmental Checklist The City of Lodi Public Works Department provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the community. The City also owns and maintains a variety of stormwater facilities, including storm drain lines, inlet catch basins, drainage ditches, and retention and detention facilities. Caltrans also owns storm drain facilities within the project area. The City of Lodi contracts with Waste Management to provide residential and commercial garbage collection, transportation, and disposal and the collection of recyclable materials (City of Lodi Public Works 2009b.) Both underground and aboveground utilities are located in the project area. Underground utilities are located primarily on the western side of State Route 99 and include gas and electric facilities owned by PG&E. PG&E and Lodi Electrical also operate aboveground electrical lines in the project area, while AT&T operates overhead telephone lines. Impact Discussion a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project would not produce wastewater, and therefore there would be no impact. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project would not produce wastewater or increase water demand; therefore, the project would have no impact on water or wastewater treatment facilities. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Increased stormwater runoff resulting from the proposed project would be captured by existing stormwater systems (i.e., drainage ditches). The existing ditches are sufficient to capture increased stormwater from the proposed project, so there would be no impact. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? The proposed project would not generate water demand; therefore, the project would have no impact on water supplies. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The proposed project would not produce wastewater, and therefore, there would be no impact. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Solid waste generated by construction of the project would be limited to construction waste. Disposal of demolition and construction materials, including any hazardous wastes that may be encountered, would occur in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Disposal would Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_83 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist occur at permitted landfills and would be a temporary impact. Operation of the project would not result in additional solid waste disposal needs. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations related to the disposal of solid waste. There would be no impact. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_84 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi Environmental Checklist XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than - Significant No Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Mandatory Findings of Significance As discussed in the previous sections of the Initial Study, the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts in the areas of biological resources and air quality and use of hazardous materials and increase in noise during construction, but mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-85 July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements ICF 00836.09 Chapter 3 References Cited Printed References Basgall, M. E., and W. R. Hildebrandt. 1989. Prehistory of the Sacramento River canyon, Shasta County, California. University of California, Center for Archaeological Research, Davis. Bennyhoff, J., and R. E. Hughes. 1987. Shell bead and ornament exchange networks between California and the western great basin. Volume 64, part 2. Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History. New York. California Air Resources Board. 2008. Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2020 Forecast. Last revised: May 22, 2009. Available at <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm>. Accessed: August 11, 2009 ---. 2009.2006 State Area Designations. Last Revised: February 9, 2009. Available: < http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm> Accessed: August 11, 2009. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Special animals list. March. Last revised: [Date posted or last revised)].Available: <http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf. Accessed: [Date]. California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical noise supplement. October. Sacramento, CA: Environmental Program, Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA. Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf>. ---. 2004. Transportation- and construction -induced vibration guidance manual. Sacramento, CA. California Native Plant Society. 2009. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online edition, v7 - 09d). Last revised: October 7, 2009. Available: <http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi>. Accessed: November 19, 2009. California Natural Diversity Database. 2009. RareFind 3, Version 3.1.0 (August 1, 2009). Records search for the Lodi South, Thornton, Lodi North, Lockeford, Terminous, Waterloo, Holt, Stockton West and Stockton East USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Caltrans. 2009. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. Last revised: November 16, 2007. Available: < http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm >. Accessed: December 14, 2009. City of Lodi. 1991. General Plan. ---. 2006. Reynolds Ranch Project draft environmental impact report. Prepared by Willdan, June 2006. Industry, CA. ---. 2009a. Civic Center MapGuide Room. Available: http://mapguide.lodi.gov/ Accessed: December 11, 2009. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 3-1 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi ---. 2009b. Public Works. Available: References Cited http://www.lodi.gov/public_works/Garbage_collection_recycling_home.html Accessed December 14, 2009. Department of Conservation. 2009. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Division of Land resource Protection. Sacramento, CA. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2009. EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck. Harney Interim Improvements. Lodi, CA. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. (Technical Report Y-87-1.) Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Waterways Experience Station. Federal Transit Administration. 2006a. Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC. 2006b. FHWA roadway construction noise model user's guide. Washington, DC. Fehr & Peers. 2009a. Final existing conditions report, State Route 99/11arney Lane Interchange Improvements Combined PSR/PR. January. Prepared for Mark Thomas & Co, the City of Lodi, and Caltrans District 10. Walnut Creek, CA. --. 2009b. Draft traffic demand forecasts for the Reynolds Ranch Encroachment Permit, technical memorandum. To Ken Doty and Rob Himes, Mark Thomas & Co. from Mike Wallace and Dan Hennessey, Fehr & Peers. May. Walnut Creek, CA. Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Early cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis. Davis, CA. Hart, E. W., and W. A. Bryant. 1997. Fault -rupture hazard zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zone maps. (Special Publication 42) California Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA. Hart, J. D. 1978. A companion to California. Oxford University Press, New York. Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hillman, R. W., and L. A. Covello. 1985. Cities & towns of San Joaquin County since 1847. Fresno, CA: Panorama West Books. Jackson, R., and P. Welch. 2006. Cultural Resources Inventory: Reynolds Ranch/Blue Shield Development Plan, city of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California. On file at Central California Information Center, Turlock, CA. Jones & Stokes. 2001. Cultural resources inventory and evaluation report for the Jack Tone Road Railroad Grade Separation Project, San Joaquin County, California. September. (J&S 01236.01.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the County of San Joaquin, Department of Public Works, Stockton, CA. On file at Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA. Lodi Fire Department. 2007. Annual report. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 3-Z ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi References Cited Lodi Parks and Recreation. 2009. City map. http://www.lodi.gov[parks rec[12df/citymaI2.12df Accessed: December 11, 2009. Lodi Police Department. 2009. Patrol Districts. httl2://www.lodi.gov[12o]ice[patroldistricts.html Accessed: December 11, 2009. Lodi Unified School District. 2009. http://www.lodiusd.net/ Accessed: December 11, 2009. Mayer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. (eds.).1988. Aguide to wildlife habitats of California. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Milliken, R. 1997. Chapter 2, Amador/Calaveras County Prehistory. In The Tayors Bar site (CA -CAL - 11801H): archaeological and ethnohistoric investigations in Calaveras County, California. R. Milliken ed. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis, California. Moratto, M. J. 1984. California archaeology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Peak, A. S. 1978. Cultural resource assessment of the proposed city of Lodi C-2 Basin Project, San Joaquin County, California. On file at Central California Information Center, Turlock, CA. Rensch, H. R., M. B. Hoover, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 1990. Historic spots in California. Revised by D. E. Kyle. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2000. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan. Stockton, CA.. Available at: <http://www.sjcog.org/Programs%20&%2OProjects/Habitat_files/The-Plan.htm>. Accessed: December 15, 2009 San Joaquin County. 1992. San Joaquin County General Plan 2010. Available at: http://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi- bin/cdyn.exe/planning_generalplan?grp=planning&htm=generalplan&sid=&typ=generalplan. Accessed: December 15, 2009. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2002. Guide for assessing and mitigating air quality impacts. Mobile Source/CEQA Pages 22-26. January. Section of the Planning Division of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Fresno, CA. Transportation Research Board 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 16 (Signalized Intersections) and chapter 17 (Unsignalized Intersections). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: and west region (Version 2.0). ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army. 2007. Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. June 5, 2007. ---. 2009. Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last revised: December 7, 2009. Available <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html> Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 3-3 ICF 00836.09 City of Lodi References Cited U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. List of endangered and threatened species that may occur in or be affected by projects on the Lodi South U.S. USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle in San Joaquin County. Last revised: January 29, 2009. Available: <http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp-lists/auto-list.cfm>. Accessed: November 19, 2009. Wallace, W. J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 462-470. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Willdan. 2006. Reynolds Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report. August. Prepared for the City of Lodi. Industry, CA. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1988. California wildlife. Volume I— Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. ---. 1990a. California wildlife. Volume II—Birds. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. ---. 1990b. California wildlife. Volume III—Mammals. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Personal Communications Barber, Daniel. Air quality specialist. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA. March 14, 2007—telephone conversation with Shannon Hatcher regarding Rule 9510. December 30, 2009—telephone conversation with Lindsay Christensen regarding District GHG thresholds. Cadrett, John. CEQA coordinator. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Modesto, CA. June 15, 2005—telephone conversation with Shannon Hatcher regarding, compliance with revised SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Guerra, Hector. Senior air quality planner, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. September 26, 2003—telephone conversation with Shannon Hatcher regarding health risk assessment procedures for diesel exhaust from construction equipment in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Mayo, Steve. Senior habitat planner. San Joaquin Council of Governments. July 28, 2009—phone call with Jennifer Haire of ICF Jones & Stokes to discuss coverage of the proposed project under the SJMSCP and the process for compensating for project impacts. Wallace, David. Senior traffic engineer. Fehr & Peers, Walnut Creek, CA. December 10, 2009—email to Lindsay Christensen regarding lack of traffic impacts from the Harney Lane intersection improvements. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration July 2010 Harney Lane Interim Improvements 3.4 ICF 00836.09 SUBJECT: PUBLISH DATE: Please immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HARNEY LANE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT SATURDAY. AUGUST 7,2010 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: LNS ACCT. #0510052 DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 5,2010 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK N (aAA A J A J IFER MOROBISON, CMC ASSISTANT CITY 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) LNS _ Phoned#o confirm receipt.;gf„all,.pages,at (time), _JMR_CF _MB ,(initials) formAadvins.doc <IFOR DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HARNEY LANE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT On Friday, August 6, 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 Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project (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 declare under penalty of perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 6, 2010, at Lodi, California. I- "AAJ Al NIFER . ROBISON, CMC ASSISTANY CITY CLERK N:Wdministration\CLERK\Fonns\DECPOSTCDD.DOC ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF MAILING 9<�FOR� PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HARNEY LANE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT On Monday, August 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 Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project, 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 perjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 9, 2010, at Lodi, California. JgyNfrEk ROBISON, CMC A SISTANTCITY CLERK Forms/decmail.doc ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK CITY OF ODI Carnegie Forum Date: August 18, 2010 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: =i-- Telephone: Rand!Johl T A I E City Clerk (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, August 18, 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 Harney Lane Interim Improvements Project. 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, 2"a 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 of the public hearing. By, , r of the Lodi City Council: City Clerk Dated: August 4,2010 Approved as to form: D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NOTCDD.DOC 815110 Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list N I BIT 1 M APN OWNER ADDRESS CITY STATE Z I P 05813007 SKINNER RANCH 1420 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 HOLDINGS LP SUITE L 05813008 SKINNER RANCH 1420 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 HOLDINGS LP SUITE L 05813009 SKINNER RANCH 1420 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 HOLDINGS LP SUITE L 05813010 SOUTH RIVER 4920 E HOGAN LN LODI CA 95240 RANCH LLC 05813011 SOUTH RIVER 4920 E HOGAN LN LODI CA 95240 RANCH LLC 05813015 ROBERT & PO BOX 725 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 CAROLYN REYNOLDS ETAL 05813016 ROBERT L & C1 PO BOX 725 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 W REYNOLDS FAM L L 05813017 SKINNER RANCH 1420 S MILLS AVE LODI CA 95242 HOLDINGS LP SUITE L 95240 LODGE 634 06104002 MOULES, 10848 MIGUELITA SAN JOSE CA 95127 ANTONIO & RD MARY 95240 TRI I 95240 PARTNERS LP ST 06104005 REICH, RYAN R 14776 N WELLS LN LODI CA 95240 06104006 MAXEY, ERIC S 4871 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 & CATHERINE A 06104007 CANTON, 1729 LE BEC CT LODI CA 95240 ANTHONY & JOSEPHINE TR 06104008 SANTANA, 13627 HURD RD LODI CA 95240 DAVID CASTELLON ETAL 06104009 MALONE, 13595 N HURD RD LODI CA 95240 MARGERY J ETAL 06104010 MCKEE, ROBERT 13561 N HURD RD LODI CA 95240 R 06104011 ADAMS, ALVIN 4911 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 E & G TRS 06104012 CLARK, 13570 N HURD RD LODI CA 95240 VIRGINIA B TR 06104013 CLARK, PAMELA 4995 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 M & BENJAMIN TR 06104017 MARTIN, 5057 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 ROBERT L & SUSAN E 95203 CATHOLIC ST WELFARE CORP Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list ST 06107002 ROMAN 1105 N LINCOLN STOCKTON CA 95203 CATHOLIC ST WELFARE CORP ST 06107003 ROMAN 1105 N LINCOLN STOCKTON CA 95203 CATHOLIC ST WELFARE CORP ST 06229014 MILLER, 4071 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 DONALD W & NANCY C TR 06229025 LOGAN, 311 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95242 WENDELL & DORATHEA 06229026 THAYER, 325 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 WALTER A & JOANNE M TR 06229037 MILLER, 349 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 DONALD W & NANCY C TR 06229038 MILLER, 349 E HARNEY LN LODI CA 95240 DONALD W & NANCY C TR 06256001 CARRILLO, 2392 LANYARD WAY LODI CA 95240 JUAN & SILVIA 06256002 LOPEZ, 2386 LANYARD WAY LODI CA 95240 VALDEMAR & DELMI P 06256006 FARNSWORTH, 2393 LANYARD WAY LODI CA 95240 PAUL D 06256022 CRYSTAL PO BOX 1259 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 ENTERPRISES L P 06256023 CRYSTAL PO BOX 1259 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 ENTERPRISES L P 06256024 PADILLA, 534 SCHAFFER DR LODI CA 95240 RODOLFO D & CARMEN L 06256025 BLAKELY 530 SCHAFFER DR LODI CA 95240 CAHILL, JOAN TR 06256026 GREY, DOUGLAS 59 WALLACE ST JACKSON CA 95642 C TR 06256027 MACIAS, ABEL 522 SCHAFFER DR LODI CA 9524C & OFELIA 06257001 CHUGHTAI, 12350 DEL AMO LAKEWOOD CA 90715 AFTAB & BLVD APT 1610 FARHAT ETAL 06257002 WARREN, FRANK 308 DRIFTWOOD DR LODI CA 9524C L & MAXINE 06257003 BUSTILLOS, 314 DRIFTWOOD DR LODI CA 9524C ANDREW L & STACEY 06257004 1 LAWLEY BROSI PO BOX 00701 DEL MAR I CAI 9214( Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list LLC ETAL 06257005 LEDBETTER, 309 DRIFTWOOD DR LODI CA 95240 CRAIG J 06257006 ANGERSTEIN, 18409 IRONSTONE ROODBRIDGE CA 95258 DENISE & ST KAREN 06257007 DAVISON, ERIC 2526 MELBY DR LODI CA 95240 A & TERESA D 06257008 CRYSTAL PO BOX 1259 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 ENTERPRISES LTD PTP 06257013 ASMUS, 282 MARINER CT LODI CA 95240 JEDADIAH N & S RAND I L 062570314 KERNICH, 278 MARINERS CT LODI CA 95240 MICHAEL S & KATHLEEN 06257015 MIRANDA, 274 MARINER CT LODI CA 95240 SUSANA 06257016 OHLHAUSER, 843 KRAMER DR LODI CA 95242 STEVEN ETAL 06257017 DURSTON, 12049 N ANGIER LODI CA 95240 DAVID W & RD SHELBA D 06257018 RENSCHLER, 287 MARINER CT LODI CA 95240 BOBBY D & NICHOLE M 06257019 CROSS, MORAY 291 MARINER CT LODI CA 95240 C & AMY I 06257020 SOUSA, ROQUE PO BOX 213 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 P & DORA M TR 06257027 CRYSTAL PO BOX 1259 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 ENTERPRISES LP 06257028 GEORGE, 286 MARINER CT LODI CA 95240 MICHAEL T & LINDA K 06258011 JONES, 2564 KIRSTEN CT LODI CA 95240 RICHARD D & ANNA 06258012 LAWLEY, PO BOX 0070 DEL MAR CA 92140 RODNEY & PENNY ETAL 06258013 FLEMMER, 2031 BERN WAY LODI CA 95242 LOWELL B & VIOLET 06258014 CRYSTAL PO BOX 1259 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 ENTERPRISES L P 06258015 FLEMMER, 2023 BERN WAY LODI CA 95242 BRENT LEE & SHARON A 06258016 LEWIS, GLENN 2534 KIRSTEN DR LODI CA 95240 J 06260020 MINER, 2368 LANYARD WAY LODI CA 95240 VIRGINIA L TR Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list 06264001 HABER, PO BOX 51525 PALO ALTO CA 94303 BONIFACIO A JR & RIZALI 06264002 KUMARI, VIJAY PO BOX 18085 SAN JOSE CA 95158 & SARITA 06264003 SINGH, 2513 MERCATO IN LODI CA 95240 KASHMIR ETAL 06264004 GAWEL, JASON PO BOX 411 SEASIDE CA 93955 & KIMBERLY 06264005 AIELLO, KEN & 2506 MARANO LN LODI CA 95240 JENNIFER 06264006 TROXCLAIR, 2512 MARANO LN LODI CA 95240 CRAIG & ELIZABETH 06264007 LOPEZ, 2511 MARANO LN LODI CA 95240 ROBERTO & GUADALUPE 06264008 MENDOZA, 2505 MARANO LN LODI CA 95240 ELVIS 0 06264009 BARAZON, LITA 2504 VALLINI LN LODI CA 95240 V 06264010 ELECTRONIC 2756 E BIDWELL FOLSOM CA 95630 MORTGAGE ST STE 300 SERVICING 06264011 HERRERA, 2509 VALLINI LN LODI CA 95240 JESUS RAMIREZ & MARIA 06264012 TROXCLAIR, 2512 MARANO LN LODI CA 95240 CRAIG & ELIZABETH 06264013 MEZA, 437 PORTA ROSSA LODI CA 95240 JOSEFINA ETAL WAY 06264014 EIGHT DIGITS 6777 EMBARCADERO STOCKTON CA 95219 LLC DR #3 06264015 LAMA, JOSE 2450 MONTEBELLO LODI CA 95240 WAY 06264016 ABDEL LATIF, 448 SAN PIETRO LODI CA 95240 BASEM IN 06264017 TELLA, LYDIA 442 SAN PIETRO LODI CA 95240 A LN 06264018 BRICE, JOSEPH 436 SAN PIETRO LODI CA 95240 S & TANYA C IN 06264019 BANK OF NEW 1800 TAPO CANYON SIMI CA 93063 YORK MELLON RD sv2-202 VALLEY TR 06264020 BHARWANI, 441 SAN PIETRO LODI CA 95240 HENRY G LN 06264021 SLATER, 2512 MARANO IN LODI CA 95240 ELIZABETH M 06264022 WILSON, 2458 MONTEBELLO LODI CA 95240 GERMAYNE ETAL WAY 06264023 YOUNG, GARVIN 1824 VICTORIA DR LODI CA 95242 & STEPHANIE 06264024 KERLIN, 1808 AUTUMN WAY LODI CA 95242 DELRAY & CYNTHIA J G Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list 06264025 KHAN, JOHER M 1112 RIVERGATE LODI CA 95240 DR 06264026 HERNANDEZ, 2455 SAN MARTINO LODI CA 95240 I RMA C IN 06264027 KOZLOWSKI, 2454 FELINO IN LODI CA 95240 06264028 SWEAT, WENDY 2453 FELINO LN LODI CA 95240 06264029 FRIAS, JOSE 2452 MONTEBELLO LODI CA 95242 ETAL WAY 06264030 BEADLES 1040 W KETTLEMAN LODI CAI 95240 INVESTMENT LN #388 GROUP INC 06264031 RODRIGUEZ, 2447 FELINO IN LODII CAI 95240 ADRIANA ETAL 06264032 SINGH,J 2448 FELINO LN1 LODI CA 95240 KASHMIR KI I 06264033 STEVEN J ETAL IN 06264034 LODI CITY OF 221 W PINE ST LODI CA 95240 062650011 CARRANZA, 2443 SAN MARTINO LODI CA 95242 MARIA WAY 06265002 FARAAZ, 740 NIANTIC AVE DALY CITY CA 94014 MOHAMMAD & JABIDA S 06265003 BHARWANI, 524 PALAZZO LN1 LODI I CAI 95240 JULIE H 06265004 D ANNA, PO BOX 14971 WOODBRIDGEI CAI 95258 06265005 kk LOAN MORTGAGE BLVD I COR 06265006 WINKLER, 3019 OAKHAM DR SAN RAMONI CAI 94583 MELISSA C 06265007 MENDOZA, ERIC 446 MASSAROSA LN LODI CA 95240 A 06265008 LIM, IRENNE L 6306 CAMINO SAN JOSE CA 95119 TIA VERDE DR 06265009 KATIE 1 1 06265010 CHAVEZ, MARIO 433 MASSAROSA IN LODI CA 95240 & ROSA E 06265011 DAVENPORT, 439 MASSAROSA LN LODI CA 95242 KATHERINE C 06265012 SINGH, JORA PO BOX 360874 MILPITAS CA 95036 ETAL 06265013 KUMAR, 2482 BALMORAL ST UNION CITY CA 94587 MANDEEP ETAL 06265014 TROXCLAIR, 2512 MARANO LN LODI CAI 95240 CRAIG & ELIZABETH 06265015 SILVEIRA, 517 MASSAROSA LN LODI CA 95240 LARRY ETAL 06265016 DEUTSCHE BANK 1800 TAPO CANYON SIMI CA 93063 NATL TRUST CO RD VALLEY Harney Ln Interim Improvements Project Mailing list TR 06265017 BARRIOS, 529 PALAZZO LN LODI CA 95240 RICHARD & DEN.1 u 06265018 WILKINSON, 535 PALAZZO LN LODI CA 95240 MARK E & MONA J 06265019 AMTRUST BANK 1111 CHESTER AVEI CLEVELAND OH 44114 06265020 BISHOP, 528 TUSCOLANA1 LODI CA 95240 06265021 FLORES, 522 TUSCOLANA1 LODI CA 95240 BERNARDINO PI WAY 06265022 REDDY, 24538 MARIE DR HAYfrIARD CA 94542 BARBARA 06265023 KHAN, MUBARAK 510 TUSCOLANA1 LODI CA 95240 & RAMIZA WAY 06265024 OCHOA, DANIEL 504 TUSCOLANA1 LODII CA 95240 D WAY _ 06265035 NUNEZ, 527 TUSCOLANA LODI CA 95240 ELEANOR N WAY ETAL 06265036 SANCHEZ, 533 TUSCOLANA LODI CA 95240 PAMELAI WAY 06265037 CAMPBELL,1 601 CORFINO LNi LODII CA 95240 SHERRY C 06265038 GARCIA, LUIS 607 CORFINO IN LODI CA 95240 06265039 TRUONG, VAN 1187 FORMOSA SAN JOSE CA 95127 ETAL RIDGE DR 06265040 AFTIAS, LEO & 1711 PECOS CIR STOCKI'ON CA 95209 LANA N 06265041 ELECTRONIC 2756 E BID4IELL FOLSOM CA 95630 MORTGAGE ST STE 300 SERVICING 06265042 KUMAR, 620 CORFINO LN LODI CA 95240 AVINESH DEO 06265043 RASHID, FAYEQ 12732 N WEST IN LODI CA 95240 T 06265044 HOMER MAX LEE PDX 1690 LODI CA 95241 2001 FAMILY TRUS 06265045 STROOTMAN, 2428 SAN MARTINO LODI CA 95240 GERALD & IN REBEKAH 06265046 ASKLOF, LISA 2434 SAN MARTINO LODI CA 95240 A LN 06265047 SAGRERO, 2440 SAN MARTINO LODI CA 95240 ALEJANDRO IN