Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 15, 2017 G-01 PHTM CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: MEETING DATE: PREPARED BY: AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project March 15, 2017 Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution certifying a mitigated negative declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City - owned White Slough White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014, 2015). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes. The Project is located at the WPCF in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of 1,026.27 acres of land, including the treatment facilities, the existing recycled water storage facilities and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. As mandated by State law, City staff prepared an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (File No. 2017-02 ND) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder. The minimum public review period is 30 days and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day public review period, beginning on Saturday, January 14, 2017 and ending on Wednesday, February 15, 2017. n Schwa Gab it Manager Y 9 On January 14, 2017, the Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft Initial study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and distributed to the State Clearing House, reviewing agencies, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk in which the project is located as well as all persons requesting notice. The Notice of Availability for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on January 14, 2017, and was distributed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project boundary on January 13, 2017. The City received seven comments during the public review period and the comments were responded to and incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Letters were received from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments acting as the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission, California Department of Water Resources, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, San Joaquin County Public Works, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Mr. David Arnaiz of Kingdon Airpark, and Mr. Patrick Costa of C and C Farms. The Community Development Department has determined that all environmental impacts that result from this project can be mitigated to a Tess than significant level, and the Council is being requested to open the public hearing, take comments from any concerned citizens and trustee agencies and then make the required findings to certify the document. Based upon this meeting future contract and design documents will be reviewed by the Council for approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Attachments: Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D - Exhibit E Not applicable. '"7111ft. grab, Ste • - wabauer Community Development Director — Mitigated Negative Declaration — Notice of Completion and Comment Letters — Response to Comment Letters Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — Resolution Exhibit A Mitigated Negative Declaration Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration For the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project TREE CI`' USA. City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion March 2017 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Prepared by the City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 March 2017 3 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE TO OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City of Lodi has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code, Division 13 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. The City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") because the Project construction and operation would not have a significant effect on the environment. This MND and the Initial Study describe the reasons that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA. FILE NUMBER: 2017-02 MND PROJECT TITLE: CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION: The Project is located at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of 1,026.27 acres of land, including the treatment facilities, the existing recycled water storage facilities and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. There were originally two proposed locations for the expansion pond, located within the facility agricultural land (APNs: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). The final preferred location for the expansion pond is located within the facilities agricultural land (APN: 055-150-29), approximately 1,100 feet west of the City's existing storage ponds. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". A regional and project location map are included as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximately 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014, 2015). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes. The Project, as discussed below, meets these criteria as set forth by DWR. 4 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Two alternative Expansion Pond sites were originally considered for the Project: • The Southeastern Expansion Pond site is located in the southeastern portion of the City's 1,026.27 -acre property. The Southeastern Expansion Pond site would be configured within the space currently occupied by the three agricultural fields that are located at this site. These three fields, which are currently irrigated with groundwater supplied from a production well that is also located in this area, would no longer be used for agricultural production. • The 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond Site is located on a portion of the City's existing agricultural fields that are directly west of the existing WPCF treatment and storage facilities. The Western Expansion Pond site would be configured to avoid construction under the power lines that transect the City property and to respect the boundaries of the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement that is located along the western boundary of the City's properties. The agricultural fields and associated irrigation water infrastructure in and around the Western Expansion Pond Site would be reconfigured to accommodate the Project, while also minimizing the overall reduction of agricultural production area on the City's properties. This alternative also includes expansion of the City's irrigation facilities to allow for irrigation of the three fields (approximately 90 acres) located in the southeastern corner of the City's property (i.e. the Southeastern Expansion Pond) with water supplied from the WPCF. This expansion would require an additional site expansion pump station equipped with two new, 7.5 HP, 850 GPM vertical turbine pumps and replacement of the existing concrete -lined conveyance channel located on the south side of Thornton Road with a new conveyance pipeline. These improvements will connect the existing WPCF effluent irrigation system infrastructure to the irrigation system infrastructure that currently serves the 90 -acre expansion area. Of the two alternatives originally considered, the 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond Site is the preferred site location. The entirety of the Western Expansion Pond site will occupy approximately 88 acres, with approximately 70 acres allotted for a total of four storage ponds. The remainder of the 88 acres of the Western Expansion Pond Site will contain a runoff/agricultural tail water ditch that will serve as a buffer between the ponds and the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement. These two alternatives are shown schematically on Figure 3. The Western Expansion Pond Site is the preferred site location due to the following advantages: • The distance between this site and the Kingdon Airport is greater than that between the Southeastern Site and the airport's area of influence. Thus, birds attracted to these ponds are less likely to significantly impact air traffic. • The western location is closer to the WPCF's main irrigation distribution box, which will minimize the cost of conveying tertiary treated wastewater for land applications to agricultural fields. • The western location will be at the end of the irrigation distribution system, therefore, the construction of ponds at this site will have less impact on the City's existing irrigation water delivery system. 5 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The Western Expansion Pond is the preferred alternative. Therefore, further discussion of storage and conveyance improvements associated with the project will be in regard to the western location. This includes the potential expanded wastewater irrigation site, which will deliver recycled water to the 90 acres of City -owned land at the Southeastern Site that is currently irrigated with groundwater from a dedicated well. Discussion of potential environmental or cultural impacts focuses on the Western Expansion Pond Site and adjacent areas, although the original biology and archeology reports, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants and Michael Baker International, respectively, assessed potential impacts at both sites. The WPCF receives and treats municipal wastewater influent from the incorporated area of the City of Lodi and from San Joaquin County's Flag City Service Area Number 31. The WPCF has a design average dry weather flow treatment capacity of 8.5 million gallons a day (MGD) and a peak flow treatment capacity of up to 16.3 MGD. The dry -weather wastewater flows entering the WPCF are approximately 5.5 MGD, and are expected to increase up to 8.5 MGD over the next 30 to 50 -year period. The WPCF treatment process includes secondary treatment with nitrification and denitrification (to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L), tertiary filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Project will not change the design treatment capacity of the WPCF facilities. The WPCF discharges the disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent to Dredger Cut, a dead-end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The location of the existing outfall in Dredger Cut is shown on Figure 3. The WPCF disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent meets all applicable water quality objectives for discharges to the Delta to protect its beneficial uses, which include warm water fisheries habitat, municipal drinking watery supply, and unrestricted recreational activities. The effluent water quality is demonstrated through regular monthly water quality and acute toxicity monitoring, and quarterly three species chronic toxicity monitoring. The WPCF is permitted to discharge flows to the Delta that correspond to the design average dry weather flow condition of 8.5 MGD. Currently, an average flow of 3.5 MGD is discharged to Dredger Cut. The Project will not change the permitted discharge capacity of the WPCF. During the irrigation season (generally mid-April through September), undisinfected secondary - treated municipal effluent that has been nitrified and denitrified to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L is either directed to four on-site unlined storage ponds (totaling a maximum combined storage volume of 388 acre-feet) or to the approximately 790 -acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural land. All of the treated effluent directed to the existing storage ponds is eventually directed to the City -owned agricultural land for irrigation purposes. The existing storage ponds also can be used to store industrial wastewater and stormwater received through the City's industrial collection system. All of the flows entering the WPCF via the industrial collection system are sent directly to the City's agricultural fields during the irrigation season and are directed to the existing unlined storage ponds during the non -irrigation season. Crops grown on the City's agricultural properties include fodder crops such as corn, alfalfa, ryegrass and wheat. The irrigation demand generally exceeds the available WPCF supplies in July and August, and supplemental irrigation water is obtained from groundwater pumping. The City also supplies an average of approximately 1.2 MGD of disinfected tertiary treated municipal effluent to the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) power plant and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (SJCM&VCD) fish -rearing ponds year- round. These two facilities are located on City property, adjacent to the WPCF main process area. The NCPA facility consists of two power generating facilities: a 49.9 Megawatt (MW) 6 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Power Plant and the 296 MW Lodi Energy Center. NCPA relies on the City's treated effluent for steam production and cooling system water in both facilities and for two 250,000 -gallon fire suppression water tanks. The SJCM&VCD fish rearing ponds are used to cultivate mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis). The Project will not affect the recycled water deliveries to these two facilities. During the non -irrigation season (generally October through mid-April), treated effluent that is not used by the NCPA and SJCM&VCD facilities is released to Dredger Cut. Given current dry weather conditions, the Project is estimated to reduce the annual volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 160 and 210 million gallons. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate up to 1,700 gallons per minute over an approximate 75 to 90 -day period between October 1 and May 31 of each year. The Expansion Pond will consist of 4 individual ponds with an overall storage capacity of up to 388 acre-feet (shown in Figure 4). The Expansion Pond levees will be constructed from fill dirt removed from the 70 -acre construction area. The levees will be up to approximately 10 -feet tall, and the Expansion Pond will be designed to operate with a minimum freeboard of 2 feet. The bottom of the Expansion Pond will be graded flat, with a slight slope toward the southwest corner, from where they are drained to a Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station. The ponds will be able to be filled by gravity up to a few feet, but pumping will be required to completely fill the ponds. The Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station will be used to both fill the ponds and to convey stored disinfected tertiary recycled water from the to the City's irrigation water distribution system. The Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station will contain two constant -speed, 71/2 -horsepower, 850 GPM vertical turbine pumps, which can maintain a consistent flow of 1,700 GPM when working together. The Project also includes new facilities that allow for diversion of disinfected tertiary recycled water to the new storage ponds. The disinfected tertiary treated wastewater will be diverted from the effluent control chamber of the WPCF's existing Filter Pump Station structure and conveyed through a new 18 -inch diameter pipeline to the ponds. This pipeline will also allow for conveyance of the recycled water from the new storage ponds to the City's existing irrigation water delivery system via an existing irrigation distribution box. From the irrigation distribution box, the WPCF's existing irrigation distribution system can deliver this water to various City -owned agricultural fields. These improvements are shown in Figure 4. As noted above, the new tertiary storage ponds will remove approximately 88 acres of City - owned agricultural fields. To compensate for the loss, the WPCF's irrigation distribution system could be expanded in order to facilitate the delivery of reclaimed water to the area labelled "expanded wastewater irrigation site" on Figure 5. This area contains three fields (Fields 6E, 6F, and 6G) that occupy approximately 90 acres. These fields are currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a dedicated well located near the southeast corner of these fields. This well currently discharges to an irrigation supply channel on the south side of Thornton Road. Figure 5 shows the current groundwater pumping well and improvements necessary to expand the WPCF's irrigation distribution system and deliver the tertiary treated water to the three southeast fields, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for groundwater pumping. A new site expansion pump station will be equipped with two 750 gallons per minute capacity mixed -flow or vertical turbine pumps, which may operate simultaneously (Figure 5). Each pump will be driven by a 7.5 horsepower electric motor which will withdraw water from an existing supply channel and deliver the water to a new 16 -inch supply pipeline that will replace the existing channel on the south side of Thornton Road. 7 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond (70 acres in size) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. Project construction is expected to begin by June 2017 and take approximately 7 months. Construction of the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated (West Yost, 2016). Construction impacts will be temporary and best management practices will be in place. The Project will include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce construction impacts to water ways and sources. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: As mandated by State law, the minimum public review period for this document is 30 days. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 - day public review period, beginning on Friday, January 13, 2017 and ending on Wednesday, February 15, 2017. Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration were available for review at the following locations: • Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, CA 95240; • Lodi Public Library, 201 West Locust Street, Lodi, CA 95240; and • Online at http://www.lodi.gov/com dev/EIRs.html Any person wishing to comment on the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration must have submitted such comments in writing no later than 5:00 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2017 to the City of Lodi at the following address: Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner City of Lodi P. O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Facsimiles at (209) 333-6842 were also acceptable up to the comment deadline For further information, contact Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner, at (209) 333-6711. A public hearing was scheduled before the City Council to receive comments on the document and to adopt the Negative Declaration. This meeting occurred Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at Carnegie Forum in Lodi. This meeting was separately noticed. Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner Date 8 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Title 11 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 11 3. Contact Persons 11 4. Project Location 11 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address 11 6. Project Description 11 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 15 8. Necessary Public Agency Approvals 15 9. Project Construction 16 10. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 23 11. Environmental Determination 23 12. Environmental Checklist 24 Aesthetics 24 II. Agricultural Resources 25 III. Air Quality 29 IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 36 V. Biological Resources 38 VI. Cultural Resources 48 VII. Geology and Soils 52 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 61 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality 70 X. Land Use and Planning 70 XI. Mineral Resources 88 XII. Noise 89 XIII. Population and Housing 91 XIV. Public Services 92 XV. Recreation 93 XVI. Transportation/Traffic 94 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems 98 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance 100 13. Documents Referenced 103 14. Report Preparation 106 LIST OF EXIBITS Figure 1 - Regional Map 18 Figure 2 - Originally Proposed Pond Locations 19 Figure 3 - Western Expansion Pond and Expanded Wastewater Irrigation 20 Figure 4 — Preferred Western Expansion Pond Details 21 Figure 5 - Expanded Irrigation Conveyance 22 Figure 6 - Important Farmland Map 27 9 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Figure 7 - Williamson Act Map 28 Figure 8 - Federal and State Special Status Plant Species Distribution Map 45 Figure 9 - Federal and State Special Status Wildlife Species Distribution Map 46 Figure 10 - Surface Waterways 47 Figure 11 - Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones 68 Figure 12 - Distance of Proposed Ponds from Air Parks 69 Figure 13 - Locations of Existing Potentially Hazardous Structures 69 Figure 14 - Flood Zone Map 79 Figure 15 - State Aggregate Resource Map 88 APPENDIX A — SJCOG Review Form APPENDIX B — Air Emissions Analysis/Air Quality Permit/Greenhouse Gas Calculations APPENDIX C — Biological Resources Identification Report APPENDIX D — Preliminary Geotechnical Report APPENDIX E — Avian Survey Report/Determination Letters APPENDIX F — Draft Technical Memo Preliminary Design Report APPENDIX G — Preliminary Infiltration Report APPENDIX H — Flood Hazard Analysis APPENDIX I — Comment Letters APPENDIX J — Response to Comments APPENDIX K — CalTrans 020 Inspection APPENDIX L — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion 1. PROJECT TITLE White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 9540 3. CONTACT PERSONS Craig Hoffman: 209-333-6711 4. PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of 1,026.27 acres of land, including the facility and surrounding City - owned agricultural fields. The two proposed locations for the expansion pond are located within the facility agricultural land (APNs: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". A regional and project location map are included as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Lodi, Community Development Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi CA 95240 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014, 2015). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes. The Project, as discussed below, meets these criteria as set forth by DWR. 11 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Two alternative Expansion Pond sites were originally considered for the Project: • The Southeastern Expansion Pond site is located in the southeastern portion of the City's 1,026.27 -acre property. The Southeastern Expansion Pond site would be configured within the space currently occupied by the three agricultural fields that are located at this site. These three fields, which are currently irrigated with groundwater supplied from a production well that is also located in this area, would no longer be used for agricultural production. • The 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond Site is located on a portion of the City's existing agricultural fields that are directly west of the existing WPCF treatment and storage facilities. The Western Expansion Pond site would be configured to avoid construction under the power lines that transect the City property and to respect the boundaries of the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement that is located along the western boundary of the City's properties. The agricultural fields and associated irrigation water infrastructure in and around the Western Expansion Pond Site would be reconfigured to accommodate the Project, while also minimizing the overall reduction of agricultural production area on the City's properties. This alternative also includes expansion of the City's irrigation facilities to allow for irrigation of the three fields (approximately 90 acres) located in the southeastern corner of the City's property (i.e. the Southeastern Expansion Pond) with water supplied from the WPCF. This expansion would require an additional site expansion pump station equipped with two new, 7.5 HP, 850 GPM vertical turbine pumps and replacement of the existing concrete -lined conveyance channel located on the south side of Thornton Road with a new conveyance pipeline. These improvements will connect the existing WPCF effluent irrigation system infrastructure to the irrigation system infrastructure that currently serves the 90 -acre expansion area. Of the two alternatives originally considered, the 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond Site is the preferred site location. The entirety of the Western Expansion Pond site will occupy approximately 88 acres, with approximately 70 acres allotted for a total of four storage ponds. The remainder of the 88 acres of the Western Expansion Pond Site will contain a runoff/agricultural tail water ditch that will serve as a buffer between the ponds and the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement. These two alternatives are shown schematically on Figure 3. The Western Expansion Pond Site is the preferred site location due to the following advantages: • The distance between this site and the Kingdon Airport is greater than that between the Southeastern Site and the airport's area of influence. Thus, birds attracted to these ponds are less likely to significantly impact air traffic. • The western location is closer to the WPCF's main irrigation distribution box, which will minimize the cost of conveying tertiary treated wastewater for land applications to agricultural fields. • The western location will be at the end of the irrigation distribution system, therefore, the construction of ponds at this site will have less impact on the City's existing irrigation water delivery system. 12 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The Western Expansion Pond is the preferred alternative. Therefore, further discussion of storage and conveyance improvements associated with the project will be in regard to the western location. This includes the potential expanded wastewater irrigation site, which will deliver recycled water to the 90 acres of City -owned land at the Southeastern Site that is currently irrigated with groundwater from a dedicated well. Discussion of potential environmental or cultural impacts focuses on the Western Expansion Pond Site and adjacent areas, although the original biology and archeology reports, prepared by Moore Biological Consultants and Michael Baker International, respectively, assessed potential impacts at both sites. The WPCF receives and treats municipal wastewater influent from the incorporated area of the City of Lodi and from San Joaquin County's Flag City Service Area Number 31. The WPCF has a design average dry weather flow treatment capacity of 8.5 million gallons a day (MGD) and a peak flow treatment capacity of up to 16.3 MGD. The dry -weather wastewater flows entering the WPCF are approximately 5.5 MGD, and are expected to increase up to 8.5 MGD over the next 30 to 50 -year period. The WPCF treatment process includes secondary treatment with nitrification and denitrification (to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L), tertiary filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The Project will not change the design treatment capacity of the WPCF facilities. The WPCF discharges the disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent to Dredger Cut, a dead-end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The location of the existing outfall in Dredger Cut is shown on Figure 3. The WPCF disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent meets all applicable water quality objectives for discharges to the Delta to protect its beneficial uses, which include warm water fisheries habitat, municipal drinking watery supply, and unrestricted recreational activities. The effluent water quality is demonstrated through regular monthly water quality and acute toxicity monitoring, and quarterly three species chronic toxicity monitoring. The WPCF is permitted to discharge flows to the Delta that correspond to the design average dry weather flow condition of 8.5 MGD. Currently, an average flow of 3.5 MGD is discharged to Dredger Cut. The Project will not change the permitted discharge capacity of the WPCF. During the irrigation season (generally mid-April through September), undisinfected secondary -treated municipal effluent that has been nitrified and denitrified to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L is either directed to four on-site unlined storage ponds (totaling a maximum combined storage volume of 388 acre-feet) or to the approximately 790 -acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural land. All of the treated effluent directed to the existing storage ponds is eventually directed to the City -owned agricultural land for irrigation purposes. The existing storage ponds also can be used to store industrial wastewater and stormwater received through the City's industrial collection system. All of the flows entering the WPCF via the industrial collection system are sent directly to the City's agricultural fields during the irrigation season and are directed to the existing unlined storage ponds during the non - irrigation season. Crops grown on the City's agricultural properties include fodder crops such as corn, alfalfa, ryegrass and wheat. The irrigation demand generally exceeds the available WPCF supplies in July and August, and supplemental irrigation water is obtained from groundwater pumping. 13 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The City also supplies an average of approximately 1.2 MGD of disinfected tertiary treated municipal effluent to the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) power plant and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (SJCM&VCD) fish -rearing ponds year- round. These two facilities are located on City property, adjacent to the WPCF main process area. The NCPA facility consists of two power generating facilities: a 49.9 Megawatt (MW) Power Plant and the 296 MW Lodi Energy Center. NCPA relies on the City's treated effluent for steam production and cooling system water in both facilities and for two 250,000 -gallon fire suppression water tanks. The SJCM&VCD fish rearing ponds are used to cultivate mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis). The Project will not affect the recycled water deliveries to these two facilities. During the non -irrigation season (generally October through mid-April), treated effluent that is not used by the NCPA and SJCM&VCD facilities is released to Dredger Cut. Given current dry weather conditions, the Project is estimated to reduce the annual volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 160 and 210 million gallons. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate up to 1,700 gallons per minute over an approximate 75 to 90 -day period between October 1 and May 31 of each year. The Expansion Pond will consist of 4 individual ponds with an overall storage capacity of up to 388 acre-feet (shown in Figure 4). The Expansion Pond levees will be constructed from fill dirt removed from the 70 -acre construction area. The levees will be up to approximately 10 - feet tall, and the Expansion Pond will be designed to operate with a minimum freeboard of 2 feet. The bottom of the Expansion Pond will be graded flat, with a slight slope toward the southwest corner, from where they are drained to a Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station. The ponds will be able to be filled by gravity up to a few feet, but pumping will be required to completely fill the ponds. The Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station will be used to both fill the ponds and to convey stored disinfected tertiary recycled water from the to the City's irrigation water distribution system. The Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station will contain two constant -speed, 71/2 - horsepower, 850 GPM vertical turbine pumps, which can maintain a consistent flow of 1,700 GPM when working together. The Project also includes new facilities that allow for diversion of disinfected tertiary recycled water to the new storage ponds. The disinfected tertiary treated wastewater will be diverted from the effluent control chamber of the WPCF's existing Filter Pump Station structure and conveyed through a new 18 -inch diameter pipeline to the ponds. This pipeline will also allow for conveyance of the recycled water from the new storage ponds to the City's existing irrigation water delivery system via an existing irrigation distribution box. From the irrigation distribution box, the WPCF's existing irrigation distribution system can deliver this water to various City -owned agricultural fields. These improvements are shown in Figure 4. As noted above, the new tertiary storage ponds will remove approximately 88 acres of City - owned agricultural fields. To compensate for the loss, the WPCF's irrigation distribution system could be expanded in order to facilitate the delivery of reclaimed water to the area labelled "expanded wastewater irrigation site" on Figure 5. This area contains three fields (Fields 6E, 6F, and 6G) that occupy approximately 90 acres. These fields are currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a dedicated well located near the southeast corner of these fields. This well currently discharges to an irrigation supply channel on the south side of Thornton Road. Figure 5 shows the current groundwater pumping well and improvements necessary to expand the WPCF's irrigation distribution system and deliver the tertiary treated water to the three southeast fields, thereby reducing or eliminating the need for groundwater pumping. A new site expansion pump station will be equipped with two 750 14 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion gallons per minute capacity mixed -flow or vertical turbine pumps, which may operate simultaneously (Figure 5). Each pump will be driven by a 7.5 horsepower electric motor which will withdraw water from an existing supply channel and deliver the water to a new 16 - inch supply pipeline that will replace the existing channel on the south side of Thornton Road. The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond (70 acres in size) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. Project construction is expected to begin by June 2017 and take approximately 7 months. Construction of the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated (West Yost, 2016). Construction impacts will be temporary and best management practices will be in place. The Project will include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce construction impacts to water ways and sources. 7. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The proposed Project is located at the City of Lodi's White Slough WPCF, in a primarily agricultural area. The surrounding area is designated Agricultural (AG -40) within the San Joaquin County General Plan. Bishop Cut, designated as Resource Conservation (OS/RC) is located west of the proposed Project. Wineries, crop fields, grape production, orchards and a dairy farm make up the uses in the surrounding area. 8. NECESSARY PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS It is anticipated that the following "typical" permits and compliance may be needed for this Project: • City of Lodi: Lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed expansion pond. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to City of Lodi standards. Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (Stormwater/Erosion Control) issued by the City of Lodi. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): The owner or operator of any facility that is currently discharging waste to groundwater must follow Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) obtained from the Central Valley RWQCB. If changes in the quantity or quality of a discharge or a change in the treatment process are proposed, amended WDRs are required. • State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW): DDW approval of a Title 22 Engineering Report is required to support an amendment of the WDR incorporating the new storage and discharge facilities. 15 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • United States Fish and Wildlife Service — Compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act: Construction activities would not directly or indirectly adversely affect a federally listed species or its habitat (see Biological Resources section of this document for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not be required to obtain Section 7 clearance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to SRF loan commitment. • State Historic Preservation Office — Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act: There are no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, historic properties, or resources of value to local cultural groups within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State Historic Preservation Office that the project complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see Cultural Resources section of this document for additional information). • Native American Heritage Commission: Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). Lead agencies consult with Native American tribes who have previously contacted the Lead Agency early in the CEQA planning process. Lead Agency was contacted by the Wilton Rancheria and Northern Valley Yokuts and notified them of the proposed Project (see Cultural Resources section of this document for additional information). • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD): Air Quality mitigation permit for grading work. • San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP): Annexation into the Habitat Conservation Plan. • County of San Joaquin: Preparation of a SWPPP to County of San Joaquin (and City of Lodi) standards. Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit issued by the County of San Joaquin (and City of Lodi). • San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission: Subject to a Consistency Determination in accordance with the Airport Land Use Commission Plan, based on the Project location within the Kingdon Airport's area of influence 9. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Project construction is expected to begin by June 2017 and take approximately 7 months. Construction of the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated (West Yost, 2016). Construction activity will first include vegetation clearing and mass site grading of the 70 - acre pond area. The pond will then be excavated, with excavated soil stockpiled for later use. The pond bottom will then be compacted as necessary. The berms and embankments will be constructed using the on-site stockpiled soil, as well as earth fill (i.e. riprap and rock) transported to the site by dump trucks. Any excess on-site soil will be placed within haul trucks and carried off as needed. Roadways will be swept clean as needed. Water will be applied to any potential dust -generating materials during construction. During construction, it is anticipated that the following vehicles will be used: 16 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • 3-4 Excavators • 4 to 6 Graders/Earth Movers • 6 Backhoes • 6 Front Loaders • 6 Boom Trucks • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers The Project has been designed to eliminate environmental impacts by requiring the following measures: • Project design to meet City of Lodi and applicable San Joaquin County design standards. • Air Quality Mitigation through SJVAPCD. • Annexation into San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. • Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi standards. • Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (Stormwater/Erosion Control) issued by the County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on water quality during construction and operations. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment during construction. 17 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Pmposed Pond .Area Figure 1 - Regional Map Image Not to Salle Source: 0ocy le €arth..201 S 18 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion APN: 055-t50-29 225,35 acres Zoning: City Agricultural Fields NORTHWEST PROPOSED POND AREA r LEGEND GENERAL PROPOSED POND ARIA ti reale r titan 70 -acre pond size. Final pond location contingent on public review and comment.) WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY PARCEL BOUNDARIES APN: 05S-150.15 10.30 acres APN: 055-130.16 160.00 acres Zonlny: City Existing Ponds WHITE SLOUGH WPCP APN: 055.130-13 58.88 acres APN: 055- 30 55.65 acres APN: 055.120-11 235.73 acres APN.r 055124-03 1567 as res SOUTHEAST PROPOSED POND AREA Nit APN: 455.190-11.\ 99.15 acres Zoning: City Agricultural Fields APN: 055-12048 12.64 acres KINGDON AIRPORT = 2,100 ft e Earth 2015 Figure 2 - Originally Proposed Pond Locations City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion 19 Pripaseti�s Terti t , ovage Pumil Sit Expander; 4. Wastex+ater Iri ldat1oL3 Site. Figure 3 - Western Expansion Pond and Expanded Wastewater Irrigation City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion + Pond Area Boundary �— Individual Pori Boun arr EkJSTINGDFE"GER CVT DISCH F;GELOC.?iON - - - - DRE6GERCUT Figure 4 — Preferred Western Expansion Pond Details City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • SDL c' r'WOW E69Cild#TFEY.'WT!ESL{IXiidRT2RPCklLIRI>N{:+MI:1Li.4G1rYSTORAGEE .1.64Ct AND alFiV1:A.S.fC. ^JP!I,MIQGkf'INDVrhiR J_E:PLVIMP++.:VEMFNTW14: Y4i 103C4LE Figure 5 - Expanded Irrigation Conveyance City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion 10. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Aesthetics ® Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ® Transportation/Traffic ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Biological Resources ® Air Quality ® Cultural Resources 1=1 ®Hazards & Hazardous ® Hydrology/Water Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Utilities/Services Systems ® None With Mitigation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance 11. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ❑ 1 find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. • 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner Date 23 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion 12. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. Aesthetics Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact 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 within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ 0 ■ 0 or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare 0 0 0 ■ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The view of the area surrounding the WPCF is one of agricultural fields with scattered agricultural and residential buildings. The visual character is rural, with Interstate 5 running north to south, adjacent to the Project site. The WPCF is viewed mainly by motorists traveling south on Interstate 5. As motorists near the facility, the four existing storage ponds and facility structures are visible. A buffer of eucalyptus and conifer trees and grass partially obscures the view of the facility as motorists pass. a) No Impact. The San Joaquin County General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the Project area. b) Less Than Significant Impact. No State "designated scenic highways" or "eligible scenic highways" are located within the vicinity of the project site (California Scenic Highway Program). There are no rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located on the project site. The San Joaquin County General Plan does identify Interstate 5, running north -south adjacent to the Project site, as a Scenic Route of agricultural/rural value. However, the Project site is part of the existing WPCF. The addition of one 70 -acre expansion pond to the existing facility and storage ponds would not have an adverse effect on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its rural agricultural surroundings. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would add one 70 -acre expansion pond to the existing WPCF wastewater ponds and structures. The Project would visually blend in with the surrounding WPCF and agricultural and rural land uses. d) No Impact. Nighttime lighting for the 24-hour operation of the facility is currently present on the site. The proposed Project will not result in the construction of any new lighting or materials that could result in glare. 24 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion II. Agricultural Resources Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 in the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ of forest land (as defined in PRC Sec. 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)? d. Result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest ❑ ❑ ❑• land to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Land use surrounding the White Slough WPCF Project area generally consists of agricultural land zoned as General Agriculture in the San Joaquin County General Plan. Residences in the area are associated with agricultural land use. Interstate 5 is located adjacent to the Project site. The Project site consists of the WPCF and surrounding City -owned agricultural land, consisting of corn crops or alfalfa/fodder grass. a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The San Joaquin County General Plan identifies the Project area as Class III Prime Agricultural Land. According to the San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2014 Map (Figure 6), the WPCF is "Urban and Built -Up Land" and the surrounding agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed are designated as both "Unique Farmland" and "Prime Farmland". However, the City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". According to the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), the proposed projects activities are subject to SJMSCP, as the Expansion Pond will convert 88 acres from Open Space Agricultural Habitat Lands to Urban Use. The City submitted the SJMSCP Review Form (Appendix A), dated December 8, 2016, and will be working with the SJCOG to comply with mitigation to address the loss of Open Space Agricultural Lands. With the implementation of Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1, which 25 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion requires appropriate permitting with the SJCOG, the project impacts to agricultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation. Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 - Add SJCOG 1:1 Acre Easement Conversion of the Agricultural Habitat Lands will comply with the SJMSCP required compensation ratio of one acre of preserve acquired, enhanced and managed in perpetuity for each acre of habitat converted from open space use, along with associated fees, or as instructed by SJMSCP pending final review. b) No Impact. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". The Project does not propose to convert any land zoned for agricultural use to non-agricultural use. According to the San Joaquin County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014 map (Figure 7), the WPCF is "Urban and Built -Up Land". The surrounding agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed are mapped as "Non -Enrolled Land", meaning the land is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract and not mapped by the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program as "Urban and Built -Up Land" or "Water". c -d) No Impact. The Project site consists of the WPCF and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields zoned as "Public/Quasi-Public". The Project area is not comprised of any timber or forested properties. e) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The expansion pond is proposed within City -owned agricultural fields immediately surrounding the WPCF zoned as "Public/Quasi-Public". The proposed pond would convert existing agricultural land, either corn crops or alfalfa/fodder grass, to non-agricultural land. According to the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), the proposed projects activities are subject to SJMSCP, as the Expansion Pond will convert 88 acres from Open Space Agricultural Habitat Lands to Urban Use. The City submitted the SJMSCP Review Form (Appendix A), dated December 8, 2016, and will be working with the SJCOG to comply with mitigation to address the loss of Open Space Agricultural Lands. With the implementation of Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1, which requires appropriate permitting with the SJCOG, the project impacts to agricultural resources will be less than significant with mitigation. Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 - Add SJCOG 1:1 Acre Easement Conversion of the Agricultural Habitat Lands will comply with the SJMSCP required compensation ratio of one acre of preserve acquired, enhanced and managed in perpetuity for each acre of habitat converted from open space use, along with associated fees, or as instructed by SJMSCP pending final review. 26 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion SITE 80{1 DART; Figure 6 - Important Farmland Map 27 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • \ I }PROX#M-ATEW• F WE BOUNDARY caxrry m SON ac na 21.431204 ' t : Figure 7 - Williamson Act Map City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion III. Air Quality Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact 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 non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ • ❑ number of people? The proposed Project site is located west of the City of Lodi in San Joaquin County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The San Joaquin Valley's relatively flat topography surrounded by elevated terrain and its meteorology provide ideal conditions for trapping air pollution and producing harmful levels of air pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter. Elevated temperatures, cloudless days, low precipitation levels, and light winds during the summer in the Valley are favorable to high ozone levels. Inversion layers in the atmosphere during the winter months can also trap emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 (particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter) and PM2.5 precursors (such as NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) within the Valley for several days, accumulating to unhealthy levels. Project construction is expected to begin by June 2017 and take approximately 7 months. Construction of the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated (West Yost, 2016). During construction, it is anticipated that the following vehicles will be used: • 3-4 Excavators • 6 Backhoes • 4 to 6 Graders/Earth Movers • 6 Front Loaders • 6 Boom Trucks • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers 29 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the SJVAPCD. At the federal level, the jurisdictional area of the SJVAPCD is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8 -hour ozone standard, nonattainment for PM2.5, and attainment or unclassified for all other criteria pollutants. At the State level, the area is designated as severe nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, and nonattainment for the 8 -hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The area is designated attainment or unclassified for all other State standards. Due to the nonattainment designations, the SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain the State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The plans include the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1 -Hour Ozone Standard, the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2007 PM,o Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, and the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. The SJVAPCD's recommended thresholds of significant impact are a major component of the SJVAPCD's air quality plans. According to the SJVAPCD, projects with emissions should be compared to the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants in order to determine potential conflict with or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan. As detailed below, in Section III 3(b, c), the proposed Project would produce temporary emissions of criteria pollutants that will not surpass the applicable thresholds of significance listed in Table 1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be considered in conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Table 1. SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Emissions (tons/yr) Operational Emissions (tons/yr) ROG 10 10 NOx 10 10 CO 100 100 SOx 27 27 PK() 15 15 PM2.5 15 15 Source: SJVAPCD, March 2015. b,c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Typically, construction and operation of a project generates emissions of various air pollutants, including criteria pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors such as nitrous oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG) or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), particulate matter 10 (PM10) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), as well as sulfur oxides (SOx). For example, typical emission sources during construction include equipment exhaust, dust from wind erosion, earth moving, excavation and other earthmoving activities, and vehicle movements. 30 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion To assist in evaluating impacts of project -specific air quality emissions, the SJVAPCD has adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, expressed in units of tons per year (tons/yr), as presented in Table 1. Operation -Related Emissions No on-site emissions are anticipated from the completed and operational expansion pond. Any operational service required will be performed by City staff already on-site at the WPCF; there will be no designated service vehicles or vehicle trips to service the proposed expansion pond operations. The proposed Project operations will require two 7.5 -HP electric pumps to fill the pond. These pumps will also be used to remove water from the ponds and divert it into the agricultural water distribution system. There will not be emission of criteria pollutants at the Project site; emissions from electricity use will occur at an off-site power plant and is discussed in the following greenhouse gas section. There is currently one 2,847.5 BHP diesel -fired emergency standby generator at the WPCF to power an electric generator, if needed. The diesel -fired generator is already permitted with the District (Permit N-3404-6-0), dated December 11, 2014, expiration December 31, 2019 (included in Appendix B). Any Project use of the generator will be short-term, as a result of electric power loss, and will be in accordance with permit requirements and restrictions. According to the Early Consultation for an Initial Study response from the SJVAPCD, since the City is currently permitted (N-3404 City of Lodi/White Slough) with the District, any modification that would result in a change in emissions or change in method of operation/equipment requires the submittal of an Authority to Construct Permit Application. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Air 1, which requires appropriate permitting with the SJVAPCD, the project operational impacts to air quality will be less than significant. Project emissions would be short-term, as a result of construction activities, as discussed below. Air Quality Mitigation 1 The City shall not begin construction activities until first securing appropriate permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air Control District. Construction -Related Emissions During construction of the Project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the Project site. Construction exhaust emissions would be generated from construction equipment, earth movement activities, construction workers' commute, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline -powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants. Project construction activities also represent sources of fugitive dust, which includes PM emissions. Since construction of the proposed Project would generate air pollutant emissions intermittently within the site and in the vicinity of the site, until all construction has been completed (estimated to be about a seven-month period), construction is a potential short-term concern because the proposed project is in a nonattainment area for ozone and PM. 31 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion According to SJVAPCD, an acceptable procedure for calculating and assessing impacts of this kind may be analyzed using the 2013 California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod). A CaIEEMod analysis was completed for the proposed Project with the following project characteristics: User Defined Industrial, 70 acres for expansion pond development, Operational start year 2017, Climate Zone 2, Statewide Average (for emission factors), 2.7 m/s Wind Speed, and 45 days Precipitation Frequency. Due to the lack of an Agricultural Land Use category in CaIEEMod, the User Defined Industrial Land Usage characteristic was selected as a best fit, conservative category, for analyzing the expansion pond Projects potential emissions. The analysis provided the maximum daily emissions for unmitigated and mitigated construction. Where project -specific parameters are unknown, the default values in CaIEEMod are used, as they provide a conservative estimate of emissions. Short-term emissions for this project are considered to be related to the construction phase of the project. Of the many emissions generated during this type of construction, however, PM10 is the pollutant of greatest concern. PM10 emitted throughout the duration of a construction project can vary greatly, contingent on the level of activity, the specific operations, the equipment utilized, local soil, weather conditions and other factors, making quantification difficult. The SJVAPCD has adopted a set of PM10 Fugitive Dust Rules, collectively called Regulation VIII. Several components of Regulation VIII specifically address fugitive dust generated by construction related activities. The highest unmitigated PM10 and PM2.5 of this project are estimated levels of 10.24 tons/year or 95.67 Ib/day and 1.21 tons/year or 11.30 Ib/day, respectively. Mitigated PM10 and PM2.5 resulted in somewhat lower estimated levels for PM,o of 10.22 tons/year or 95.48 Ib/day (a 0.2 percent reduction); PM2.5 mitigated levels are estimated to be 1.21 tons/year or 11.28 Ib/day (a 0.18 percent reduction). Both the mitigated and unmitigated values are below the threshold of significance. According to the SJVAPCD, project emissions should be identified and quantified in order to compare with the Thresholds of Significance, as referenced above. In addition to the yearly threshold of significance comparison, the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts document recommends that an ambient air quality analysis be performed in order to determine when the increase in on-site emissions from construction activities exceeds the 100 pounds per day (based on the estimated 7 months of construction) screening level of any criteria pollutant. The following estimated emissions remained unchanged post mitigation analysis. Highest estimated ROG emissions (another ozone precursor emission) during the construction phase of this project are 0.395 tons/year, or 3.69 Ib/day, well below the SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance 10 tons/year or 100 Ib/day. SO2 emissions during the construction phase are low (0.00376 tons/year or 0.035 Ib/day), and are therefore of little concern. A cumulative significant impact for CO does not already exist in this region and CO emissions (2.43 tons/year or 22.73 Ib/day) during construction alone would not result in localized CO concentration above the SJVACD thresholds. The Project's construction NOx emissions were reduced with mitigation (estimated to be 4.12 tons/year or 38.50 Ib/day unmitigated and 2.54 tons/year or 23.77 Ib/day mitigated) and are less than the SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance for Construction Emissions up to 10 tons/year or 100 Ib/day. Based on the highest estimated emissions, evaluated per the SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance; the implementation of Mitigation Measure Air 1, which requires appropriate permitting with the SJVAPCD prior to construction; and the implementation of Mitigation Measure Air 2, which incorporates 32 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Regulation VIII measures, the project Construction impacts to air quality will be less than significant with mitigation. Air Quality Mitigation 2 • Construction of the proposed Project shall comply with all applicable regulations specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules), including, but not limited to, compliance with the following mitigation measures: Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) from construction, demolition, excavation or other earthmoving activities related to the Project shall be limited to 20% opacity or less, as defined in Rule 8011. Pre -water all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and phase earthmoving. Apply water, chemical/organic stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover to all disturbed areas, including unpaved roads. Restrict vehicular access to the disturbance area during periods of inactivity. Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, construct wind barriers and/or cover exposed potentially dust -generating materials. - When materials are transported off-site, stabilize and cover all materials to be transported and maintain six inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) space from the top of the container. Remove carryout and trackout of soil materials on a daily basis unless it extends more than 50 feet from site; carryout and trackout extending more than 50 feet from the site shall be removed immediately. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. If the Project would involve more than 150 construction vehicle trips per day onto the public street, additional restrictions specified in Section 5.8 of Rule 8041 shall apply. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • During construction, all earth moving activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. • Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. • Areas following clearing, grubbing and/or grading shall receive appropriate BMP treatments (e.g., re -vegetation, mulching, covering with tarps, etc.) to prevent fugitive dust generation. • All exposed soil or material stockpiles that will not be used within 3 days shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or shall be stabilized with approved nontoxic chemical soil binders at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • Unpaved access roads shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, temporary paving, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. 33 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard. Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. • Where visible soil material is tracked onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept and debris shall be returned to the construction site or transported off site for disposal. • Wheel washers, dirt knock -off grates/mats, or equivalent measures shall be installed within the construction site where vehicles exit unpaved roads onto paved roads. • Diesel powered construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's requirements, and shall be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters where available and practicable. • Heavy duty diesel trucks and gasoline powered equipment shall be turned off if idling is anticipated to last for more than 5 minutes. • Where feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as electric or natural gas -powered equipment or biofuel. • Heavy construction equipment shall use low NOx diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available at the time of construction. • The construction contractor shall maintain signage along the construction perimeter with the name and telephone number of the individual in charge of implementing the construction emissions mitigation plan, and with the telephone number of the SJVAPCD's complaint line. The contractor's representative shall maintain a log of any public complaints and corrective actions taken to resolve complaints. • During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • During windy days when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional applications of water shall be required at a rate to be determined by the onsite construction supervisor. This mitigation measure shall be a note on construction plans. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are a category of land use that serves a population considered more sensitive to pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, facilities such as hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, and residential areas. The potential for negative air quality impact on sensitive receptors increases as the distance between the sensitive receptors and source of emissions decreases. As stated in the Project location description, the project area is located in an agriculturally zoned land use area and thus not located near any sensitive receptors. With the exception of a short period of time associated with the construction phase, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any substantial increase in traffic on local area roadways. Therefore, the proposed Project's impact associated with mobile - source concentrations of CO are considered less than significant. Another category of environmental concern is Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust particulate matter (DPM) is a 34 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion TAC associated with diesel exhaust. DPM is identified as the most common TAC source for this type of project, which will utilize heavy diesel fueled equipment intermittently for the duration of the construction phase, estimated to last almost seven months. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the duration of exposure and the concentration of emissions. Due to the lack of proximity to sensitive receptors, the short duration of the construction phase utilizing diesel fueled equipment, as well as Air Quality Mitigation 2 requiring diesel powered equipment be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters where available, the Projects impact of TACs is considered less than significant. The Project site is located near a substantial source of TACs, the Interstate 5 freeway; however, there are no sensitive receptors located at the site. In addition, the Proposed Project would not introduce new sensitive receptors to the area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be affected by any existing sources of TACs. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause substantial pollutant concentrations, including TACs or localized CO. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative or formulaic methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. The intensity of an odor source's operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influence the potential significance of odor emissions. Common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, food processing facilities, feed lots, and/or dairies. The proposed Project is an expansion pond for the White Slough WPCF. Facilities such as the WPCF may produce objectionable odors. However, the development of an additional pond to the existing facility will not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area, and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources in the area. In addition, the Project is located in a primarily agricultural area with few rural residences. Lima Ranch is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the eastern facility boundary, and the Kingdon Airport is located 0.60 miles east-northeast of the eastern faculty boundary. Few sensitive receptors are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Diesel fumes from construction equipment are often found to be objectionable; however, as discussed in further detail above, construction is temporary and associated diesel emissions would be regulated. As such, substantial levels of DPM associated with the temporary, intermittent construction activities would not be expected at the nearest sensitive receptor. Thus, odors related to DPM from construction equipment would not be expected to be considerable or affect a substantial number of people. For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors, and a less -than -significant impact related to objectionable odors would result. 35 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion IV. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 0 0 ■ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 0 0 ■ 0 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? California has adopted a wide variety of regulations aimed at reducing the State's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations that reduce statewide GHG emissions. The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) was approved by ARB in December 2008 and outlines the State's plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the primary strategies California will implement to achieve a reduction of 169 MMT CO2e, or approximately 28% from the State's projected 2020 emission levels. In the Scoping Plan, ARB encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHGs. The Scoping Plan recommends that local governments consider adopting a goal of 15% below current emissions levels to assist the State in implementing AB 32. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of the expansion pond will create short term, small impacts on GHG emissions from construction trips and equipment. During construction, it is anticipated that the following vehicles will be used: • 3-4 Excavators • 6 Backhoes • 4 to 6 Graders/Earth Movers • 6 Front Loaders • 6 Boom Trucks • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers 36 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Mitigated GHG emissions during construction include 344.20 Metric Tons (MT)/Year of CO2 and 0.099 MT/Year of CH4. Mitigation Measure 2 in Section III - Air Quality will help to reduce these emissions. This is a less than significant impact. The proposed Project operations will require two electric 71/2 HP pumps located in the expansion pond that will both: (a) lift water into the tertiary water storage ponds; and (b) pump water from the storage ponds into the WPCF's irrigation distribution system. Both pumps may be operated simultaneously. In addition, two more 71,4 HP pumps will be located at a new pump station as part of the conveyance system that will deliver stored wastewater to the three agricultural fields located in the southeastern portion of the site that is currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a dedicated well. The irrigation site expansion will eventually eliminate the need for groundwater pumping and allow for a discontinuation of an older, less efficient 10 HP electric pump. In terms of operational emissions, ARB staff allows small projects to be considered insignificant if a project consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year for operational emission. (Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouse gases in a common and collective unit). Because there are no agricultural land use fields in the CaIEEMod model, and the basin pump stations/conveyance systems did not fit with CaIEEMods detailed program screen inputs, the operational emissions of the four 7% HP were calculated separately, using the same CaIEEMod emission intensity factors that were applied to the construction emissions. The calculations are included in Appendix B. Estimated GHG emissions are for the operation of the new pumps, which will be used to transfer wastewater to the expansion pond, as well as deliver the wastewater to the agricultural fields. Estimated GHG emissions during project operations include 51.96 Metric Tons (MT)/Year of CO2, and 0.0015 MT/Year of CH4. The CO2 equivalent for the project is 52.1 MT/Year. This is well below the proposed threshold of significance of 7,000 MT/Year of CO2E for operations proposed by ARB. This is a less than significant impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. ARB staff allows small projects to be considered insignificant if a project consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year for operational emissions. The CO2 equivalent for the operation of the project with the addition of the four 7'/z HP pumps is 52.10 MT/Year, well below the proposed threshold of significance proposed for a small project to be considered insignificant per ARB staff recommendations. Furthermore, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District adopted a Zero Equivalency Policy for Greenhouse Gases dated March 24, 2010, revised on January 24, 2012, which states Greenhouse gas emissions of 230 metric tons-CO2E/Year or less are considered to be zero for District permitting purposes. Consistent with the goals and policies to reduce GHG emission, the project will remove a 10 HP pump from service, with an estimated reduction of approximately 39 percent compared to the GHG emissions calculated from the anticipated new pumps. This is a less than significant impact. 37 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion V. Biological Resources Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Less - With Than- No Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporate Impact d Would the proposal: 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 0 ❑ ■ 0 habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 ❑ ■ 0 protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any 0 ❑ ■ 0 native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 ■ 0 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 ■ 0 Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Moore Biological Consultants prepared a biological assessment (included in Appendix C) of the two original proposed project sites and how the project could affect the environment within and adjacent to the sites. Their report includes biological information regarding Waters of the U.S. and wetlands, Federal and State special -status species, and other natural resources in the project site, in accordance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Migratory Bird Species Act (MBTA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Fish and Game Code of California, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the California Native Plant Protection Act, and the San Joaquin County Multispecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The results of their assessment are hereby incorporated by reference (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Moore Biological Consultants utilized the California National Diversity Database (CNDDB) to identify wildlife and plant species that have been previously documented in the project vicinity or that have the potential to occur based on suitable habitat and geographical distribution. They 38 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion also conducted field surveys of the proposed project sites, which included an assessment of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S., special -status species, and suitable habitat for special -status species. Under contract to Moore Biological Consultants, ECORP Consulting, Inc. prepared a habitat assessment of the federally threatened giant garter snake, and Fishbio prepared a habitat assessment of special -status fish. The results of these supplemental assessments are hereby incorporated. While Moore Biological Consultants surveyed and assessed both the original proposed project sites at the southeastern and northwestern corners of the WPCF, all references to the Project site will hereby mean the designated western expansion pond site. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would not significantly modify, either directly or indirectly, habitats of any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. Special -status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the CESA, FESA, or other regulations. Special -status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and subsequent amendments provide guidance for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of FESA requires Federal agencies to insure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. The CDFW is required to issue a written finding indicating if a project would jeopardize threatened or endangered species and specifying reasonable and prudent alternatives that would avoid jeopardy. The California Native Plant Protection Act (codified in Fish and Game Code Sections 1900- 1913) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in the state. A species is endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. A species is rare when, although not threatened with immediate extinction, it is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 provides that a species not listed under the FESA or CESA may be considered rare or endangered under specific criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA. The likelihood of occurrence of listed, candidate, and other special -status species in the project site is generally low. This determination is based on an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each of these species in and/or near the site. The evaluation of the potential for occurrence of each species is based on the distribution of regional occurrences (if any), habitat suitability, and field observations (Figures 8 and 9) (Moore Biological 39 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Consultants, 2016). The proposed Project also takes place within existing road rights-of-way and does not disturb any native or undisturbed areas. Within the project site, intensively farmed fields provide foraging habitat for a variety of birds and seasonal habitat for a variety of migratory wildlife, primarily waterfowl. The existing wastewater treatment ponds just east of the intended site do not provide nesting habitat or a food source for birds, but are often used for loafing. The well-developed riparian woodlands and wetlands of White Slough, Dredger Cut, and other Delta waterways (Figure 10) adjacent to or near the WPCF support a more diverse assemblage of plant and wildlife species, including special -status species, though the potential for intensive use of habitats within the project site by special -status wildlife is generally low (Figures 8 and 9) (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Special status plant species recorded along the waterway in the greater project vicinity include Wooly rose mallow, Delta tule pea, Mason's lilaeopsis, Delta mudwort, Side - flowering skullcap, and Suisus marsh aster. However, the leveled fields, maintained irrigation ditches, and patches of highly disturbed ruderal upland grassland habitat within the WPCF do not provide suitable habitat for any special -status plants (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the proposed project site on a more than transitory or very occasional basis include Swainson's Hawk, Tri -colored blackbird, Burrowing owl, and Pacific pond turtle. Special consideration is also given to Giant garter snake. White-tailed kite and song sparrow are also considered to have a moderate potential for occurrence in the site. Generally, special -status mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish are all unlikely to occur within the project site itself, although surrounding riparian and aquatic areas provide habitats for these animals (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). The nearest occurrences of Swainson's Hawk are immediately east and west of the project site, at locations near roads and highways, demonstrating that these birds are accustomed to traffic and noise. The agricultural fields currently at the project site provide suitable foraging habitat for the hawks, but the conversion of these fields to ponds would only result in a minor reduction of suitable foraging habitat, given the surrounding availability of similar habitat (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Tricolored blackbird, a species endemic to California, is a State of California Species of Concern and is protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California. The patches of tules and cattails in White Slough, Dredger Cut, and the peripheral canal west of the WPCF provide suitable nesting habitat for this bird, and the fields currently at the project site are used for foraging. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a minor reduction of suitable tricolored blackbird foraging habitat (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Burrowing owls are not listed under FESA or CESA, but the MBTA and Game Code of California protects them year-round and protects their nests and eggs during nesting season. No burrowing owls or evidence of occupancy were observed in or near the site (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). The Pacific pond turtle is a state species of concern. The agricultural fields currently within the project site are not suitable habitat for this turtle, though White Slough, Dredger Cut, and 40 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion other Delta waterways are suitable habitat, and these turtles were observed in these areas during the 2015 surveys. The lower water temperatures and improvements of water quality resulting from the project's reduction of annual discharge would actually result in minor improvements of Pacific pond turtle habitat (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). ECORP conducted an assessment of the Giant garter snake, a species endemic to the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys that is listed as threatened under both FESA and CESA. Giant garter snake habitats exist at the Coldani Marsh, one mile northwest of WPCF, and at the Lodi White Slough Preserve, located along the western edge of the WPCF (Figure 4). White Slough, Dredger Cut, and the Delta waterways are suitable habitat for this snake, but the agricultural fields of the project site do not provide suitable foraging and aestivation habitat for this species. The irrigation and drainage ditches that serve the fields in the project site do not provide suitable foraging habitat but could be used for movement. ECORP concluded that if giant garter snakes are present in off-site lands just west of Northwest Survey Area, individual snakes may move through the project site on occasion, but movement would be limited. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a minor reduction of potential giant garter snake movement habitat at the site. The ECORP study also concluded that the change in discharge from the WPCF into Dredger Cut and White Slough, a reduction in annual discharge volume from about 160 to 210 million gallons, is not anticipated to affect giant garter snakes, particularly during the hibernation period of January through April (ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2016; Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). According to Fishbio, White Slough, Dredger Cut, the San Joaquin River, and other Delta waterways provide movement and rearing habitat for the special -status fish species fall -run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and Delta smelt (Figure 10). However, it is unlikely that these species occur in Dredger Cut or in immediately adjacent or downstream waterways on more than a very occasional or transitory basis. Fishbio concluded that no appreciable changes in the total volume of the overall San Joaquin River or Delta waterways would be expected to occur from changes in volume discharged from the WPCF. The reduction in temperature and changes in water quality during January through April is expected to result in negligible or even positive effects on the suitability of Dredger Cut, White Slough, and downstream waterways as habitat for special -status fish. These fish species are also not expected to occur in the proposed ponds once completed (Fishbio, 2016; Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). The Department of Water Resources (DWR) stated in their February 13, 2017 comment letter that preconstruction surveys should be conducted prior to vegetation clearing work, and that surveys nesting Swainson's hawks should be conducted within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the project area. As stated in the Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 below, the project is participated in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Plan (SJCMSHP), for which the U.S Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife are signatory. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 2 — Preconstruction Survey will be implemented as prescribed by the SJCMHCP. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above -identified impacts to biological resources to a less -than -significant level. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 The Project shall participate in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. The Project shall coordinate with San Joaquin Council of 41 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202), prior to any construction activities. Inclusion within the plan is required prior to construction. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 - Preconstruction Survey Requirement A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey for special -status species and migratory birds in all potential habitats throughout the project area; thus, any action that disrupts surface soils (e.g., clearing and grubbing, rough grading, excavation, compaction for temporary staging areas or permanent construction sites) shall be subject to a preconstruction survey. Surveys shall be undertaken not more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity to ensure avoidance during construction. As stated in Bilogical Resources Mitigation Measure 1, the project is participating in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Plan (SJCMSHCP). Consistent with the SJCMSHCP, prior to construction (including vegetation removal and ground disturbance) all areas within 250 feet of the project area shall be surveyed where site access and visibility allows (the SJCMSHCP does not require a greater distance for nesting Swainson's hawks). If no special -status species or migratory birds are present, further mitigation is not necessary. If any special - status species and/or migratory birds are found nesting on-site, the biologist shall implement protective measures to ensure that animals are not adversely affected, and construction does not commence until the biologist has determined no harm would result to breeding animals as a result of construction. Written results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Conservation Program. The ECORP Assessment of the Giant garter snake and their habitat also describes key minimization and avoidance measures that would be required pursuant to project compliance with the SJCMSHCP. These measures include construction scheduling, pre - construction surveys, protective fencing, worker training, minimizing vegetation clearing, and other measures (ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2016; Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will have no adverse impacts on sensitive or regulated habitat because the Project site itself is devoid of native riparian vegetation or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. In addition, none of the irrigation channels identified bordering the Project site is vegetated with riparian shrubs or trees. However, White Slough and the natural delta areas west of the WPCF support a wide variety of riparian and woodland vegetation. Dredger cut is completely choked with water hyacinth, and White Slough, the Highland Canal, and other Delta waterways to the west of the WPCF have more open water and support a larger variety of emergent wetland vegetation within them and/or along their banks. The proposed project and increased discharge to Dredger Cut is not expected to have any effect on such riparian and aquatic habitat (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). c) Less Than Significant Impact. Despite the San Joaquin River and other Delta waterways located west and southwest of the site, no waters or wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or CDFW are found on the actual proposed project site (Aspen Environmental, 2013). The San Joaquin River is a navigable Water of the U.S. subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as well as Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act. White Slough, Dredger Cut, Highline Canal, Bishop Cut, and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site are also Waters of the U.S., although some may not be considered navigable. The limit of federal jurisdiction on all of these waterways is high tide, which is a few feet above mean sea level. These waterways also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW 42 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and the RWQCB. The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. include, but are not limited to, navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands; perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Section 404 of the CWA requires that a permit be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any waters of the U.S.; this permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). Implementing regulations by ACOE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320- 330. Guidelines for implementation allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts. Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act requires permits in, above, or below navigable waters of the U.S. for all structures such as docks, bridges, riprap, and activities such as dredging. A CWA Section 404 permit process usually also covers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, where appropriate. Projects that affect Waters of the State may also be required to meet waste discharge requirements (WDRs) of the RWQCBs. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board is expected to develop a program requiring WDRs for the fill of isolated wetlands that are not subject to CWA Section 404. There is no worked proposed in White Slough, Dredger Cut, or any other Delta waterways, and beyond the San Joaquin River and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site, no other potentially jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. were observed in or near the site. Indicators of hydrologic activity (topographical or geological), hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation were not observed on-site. All of the managed and maintained irrigation and drainage ditches that serve the fields were excavated in uplands and are do not meet the technical and regulatory criteria of jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. Further, there are no vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, or other types of wetlands within the leveled fields, paved and dirt roads, and patches of highly disturbed ruderal upland grassland habitat within the WPCF where the project facilities will be constructed (Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Therefore, the impact is less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is surrounded by unobstructed movement habitat and is not located within a linkage area between important habitat areas or resources. Due to availability of movement routes throughout the Project vicinity, Project impacts to sensitive species movement routes would be less than significant under CEQA. Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. conducted a survey of bird visits and movement within the Project site. Generally, regardless of time of day or year, birds move from the Delta into the existing agricultural fields or vice versa. Removing the 70 -acres of agricultural land for pond construction is not expected to negatively impact such bird movements or habitat accessibility. In fact, Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc. expect an approximately 1.35% increase in birds, attracted to the new expansions ponds primarily for the use of loafing. This is a less than significant impact. ECORP concluded that if giant garter snakes are present in off-site lands just west of the Northwest Survey Area, individual snakes may move through the project site on occasion, 43 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion but use of the fields and ditches would be limited. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in only a minor reduction of potential giant garter snake movement habitat in the site (ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2016; Moore Biological Consultants, 2016). Overall, the proposed Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any other 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) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The local authority for the Project area is detailed in the provisions of the San Joaquin County General Plan address the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas that have existing natural watercourses, drainage basins, sloughs, or other natural water features, including maintaining the quality of existing wetland areas. Other than conserving native oaks and native trees associated with rivers, creeks, and streams, no specific tree preservation ordinances exist for the project area. Activities associated with the operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive biological resources protected by local ordinances. f) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project were inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. In an effort to protect sensitive and threatened species throughout San Joaquin County, SJCOG prepared the San Joaquin County Multispecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The purpose of the SJMSCP is to provide for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed or may be listed in the future under the FESA or CESA, and to provide and maintain multiple -use open space that contributes to the quality of life of residents of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi has adopted the SJMSCP and the Project's participation in the plan is required by the City. The proposed Project is consistent with the SJMSCP, as amended, as reflected in the conditions of project approval for this proposal. The plan should involve payment of fees and implementation of standard Take Avoidance measures outline in the HCP for Swainson's Hawks, burrowing owls, Pacific pond turtles, and giant garter snakes (ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2016). Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of the SJMSCP is expected to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed Project to a level of less -than -significant. That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. Thus, the proposed Project would comply with the SJMSCP, and would have a less than significant impact. 44 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion -.e �, , ,� • .�..W!h'ah' J,5% •a•4-.wirr Sa r.r y +rtt+�mit -awn CHUIJ6 Plant Whht Slough WPKF Eriparrian Pagel Peo)rM 5.rn Jbiaan Ca.*. CA Doo chliaio ri•rr q y N 9 63 � mew rzr.F i95 Figure 8 - Federal and State Special Status Plant Species Distribution Map 45 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Figure 9 - Federal and State Special Status Wildlife Species Distribution Map 46 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Figure 10 - Surface Waterways 47 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion VI. Cultural Resources Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 ■ 0 significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 ■ 0 0 significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 ■ 0 0 paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries. e. Would the project cause a substantial adverse 0 • ❑ ❑ change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) completed a Cultural Resources Identification Report (November 2015) in support of environmental review of the proposed Project under CEQA. The investigation included archival research, a field survey, and Native American and historical society consultation. They evaluated both the two original potential pond locations, in the northwest and southeast portions of the facility (see Figure 2). An approximately 135 -acre area was evaluated in the northwest potential pond location and an approximately 185 -acre area was evaluated in the southeast potential pond location, to ensure sufficient evaluation around the 70 -acre proposed pond location. However, since the northwest potential pond location has been chosen for the Project site, any reference to the Project will hereby mean the northwest site, however, information regarding the southeast site is still included in this report. Due to confidentiality provisions, the Michael Baker report is not included as an appendix to this environmental document. The report findings are summarized below. a) Less than Significant. As summarized in the below table, the Cultural Resources Identification Report identified two built environmental resources within the Northwest Preferred Project Area, one built environmental resource adjacent to the Northwest Project Area, one built environmental resource within the now abandoned Southeast Project Area, and one built environmental resource adjacent to both Project Areas. Table 2. Cultural Resources Identified within and Adjacent to Project Areas Resource Name Built Date Resource Type Location Impact by Project Northwest Area Power Administration Transmission Line Circa 1960 Transmission Line Within Northwest Project Area No Direct Impact Pacific Gas & Electrical Company Transmission Line Circa 1960 Transmission Line Within Northwest Project Area No Direct Impact Animal Husbandry Features Unknown Animal Husbandry Adjacent to Northwest No Direct Impact 48 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Resource Name Built Date Resource Type Location Impact by Project Project Area White Slough Canal P-39- 005183 Circa 1930 Water Conveyance Features Within Southeast Project Area No Direct Impact White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 1966 Industrial Facility Adjacent to Northwest and Southeast Project Areas No Direct Impact The Project will not directly impact the above five built environment cultural resources identified, and evaluation of the resources for the California Register is not recommended by Michael Baker, therefore, there is a less than significant impact. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact would occur if the Project causes a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through demolition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, relocation, or alteration. No archaeological resources were identified within the Project Area. However, archaeological resources may exist within the Project Area. In the event that archaeological resources are observed during Project construction -related activities, Mitigation Measure CR -1 is in place to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact on archaeological resources is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 If prehistoric or historic -period archaeological deposits are discovered during Project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the archaeologist should assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to archaeological deposits should be avoided by Project activities, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits should be evaluated for their California Register eligibility. If the deposits are not California Register—eligible, no further protection of the finds is necessary. If the deposits are California Register—eligible, they should be protected from Project -related impacts, or such impacts should be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed Project would disturb paleontological resources or geologic features that exist within the Project site. No paleontological resources or unique geologic features have been noted on the surface of the Project site. The likelihood of paleontological resources or unique geologic features being present subsurface within the boundaries of the proposed Project is unlikely given the rapid rate of deposition in the area. The possibility exists, however, that previously unidentified paleontological resources could be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with the proposed Project and therefore is considered a potentially significant impact if mitigation measures are not implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2 would ensure that any previously unidentified paleontological resources encountered during ground disturbing activities for the proposed project would 49 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion be managed in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, the impact on paleontological resources is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 Should paleontological resources be identified on the Project site during any ground disturbing activities related to the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease and the City of Lodi shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the Project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, specific plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed Project would disturb previously interred human remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -3 would ensure that human remains encountered during Project activities are treated in a manner consistent with state law and reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level as required by CEQA. This would occur through the respectful coordination with descendant communities to ensure that the traditional and cultural values of said community are incorporated in the decision-making process concerning the disposition of human remains that cannot be avoided. The implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 Any human remains encountered during Project ground -disturbing activities should be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Co de Section 7050.5. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated remains) are discovered at a Project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City and the San Joaquin County coroner shall be notified immediately. The lead agency should inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the Direct Area of Potential Effect for human remains and verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents: If human remains are encountered during Project activities, the Project shall comply with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the county coroner has determined the manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel/ construction workers shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will 50 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. On October 15, 2015, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City of Lodi initiated consultation with the Northern Valley Yokut Tribe and the Wilton Rancheria, the two traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that had requested notice of projects where AB 52 applies in Lodi. AB 52 is required because the Project will publish a Notice of Preparation or circulate a (Mitigated) Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report on or after July 1, 2015. Consultation is summarized below. Steve Hutchason, Wilton Rancheria — In an e-mail and letter sent via certified mail, the City requested any information that Mr. Hutchason may have regarding tribal cultural resources within the Project Areas so that this information would be incorporated into the planning phase of the Project. Mr. Hutchason received but did not respond to the email on October 15, 2015, and the letter was received on October 16, 2015. No response to the consultation efforts has been received to date. The City of Lodi sent the Cultural Resources Identification Report completed by Michael Baker to Mr. Hutchason via e-mail and certified mail on November 19, 2015 with a request for any questions or comments. Katherine Erolinda Perez, MLD, Northern Valley Yokut Tribe — In a letter sent via certified mail and e-mail, the City requested any information that Ms. Perez may have regarding tribal cultural resources within the Project Area so that this information would be incorporated into the planning phase of the Project. Ms. Perez responded via e-mail on October 15, 2015, requesting that the City inform her once the environmental and archaeological evaluation is complete so that she can review and comment. The City agreed to forward the documents to Ms. Perez after their completion and added her to the environmental document distribution list. The City of Lodi sent the Cultural Resources Identification Report completed by Michael Baker to Ms. Perez via e-mail on November 19, 2015 with a request for any questions or comments. Ms. Perez responded via e-mail on November 19, 2015 stating that a hard copy of the report is not necessary, and that the report recommendation of implementing precaution for inadvertent discoveries (Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2) is good. The completed environmental document will additionally be sent to Ms. Perez. Any additional comments received from Wilton Rancheria and Northern Valley Yokut Tribe will be considered prior to Project construction. In the event that Native American remnants are observed during Project construction -related activities, Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2 are in place to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact on Native American resources is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 51 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion VII. Geology and Soils Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 ■ 0 delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ■ 0 iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including 0 ■ 0 0 liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ 0 ■ b. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 ■ ❑ ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on -or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 0 ❑ ■ ❑ 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 0 0 ■ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) completed a Geotechnical Engineering Services Report (included in Appendix D) for the proposed White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds project, dated September 16, 2016. The Project proposes the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond within the City of Lodi's WPCF boundary. The Project is in a preliminary design stage. Pond construction will be completed in accordance with County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi design standards. Terracon's report presents the results of subsurface exploration, including findings on faulting and seismic hazard, soil conditions, and slope stability. Their report also provides geotechnical recommendations for earthwork and the design and construction of pond embankments for the proposed project. Carlton Engineering, Inc. (Carlton Engineering) also completed a Geotechnical Feasibility Study, dated July 29, 2008, for the Lodi Energy Center Property, located at 12745 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California. The Lodi Energy Center project site is approximately 2.6 acres, located within San Joaquin County Assessor's Parcel Number 055-130-16, the parcel where the WPCF (12751 N Thornton Road) is located. The Lodi Energy Center Project site is located approximately 0.9 miles northwest of proposed pond location #1 and 800 feet 52 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion southeast of proposed pond location #2 (see Figure 2). Based on the close proximity of the Lodi Energy Center project site, this study is referenced below. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. i. Less than Significant Impact. The subject site is located in the California Central Valley Area, which is a relatively low to moderate seismically active area. The Project area is not listed within a State designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no mapped surface or subsurface faults that traverse the Project area per review of Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. Hence, the type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults and the intensity and magnitude of the seismic event (Terracon, 2016). According to County Wide General Plan (Public Health and Safety Volume 1) of the known fault lines in San Joaquin County, none are classified by the State Geologist as active, however, likely sources of seismic hazards potentially exist from the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Midland, Green Valley -Concord or Tracy - Stockton Faults, amongst others. The following table indicates the distances of key faults and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby seismic events, as calculated using the United States Geologic Survey 2008 Interactive Deaggregations program. The Green Valley Connected Characteristic Fault, which is located about 56 kilometers from the site, is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint (Terracon, 2016). Construction will be required to meet the design standards set forth in the County of San Joaquin and City's Standards, and given the distance of these faults, earthquake hazard is considered to have a less than significant impact. Table 3. Distances of Ke v Faults and Associated Maximum Credible Earthquake Fault Name % Contribution Approximate Distance to Site (km) Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Magnitude Green Valley Connected Characteristic Fault 4.11 56.2 6.89 Mount Diablo Thrust D2.1 & D2.4, C 3.28 47.2 6.61 Greenville Connected Characteristic Fault 3.22 44.6 6.89 ii. Less than Significant Impact. In general, strong ground shaking from an earthquake is the cause of most seismic ground shaking damage. Based on the likely sources of seismic shaking per the aforementioned faults, the probability of a seismic ground - shaking occurrence affecting the proposed Project site is moderately high. The California Building Code Site Classification for the proposed project site is D, corresponding to a stiff soil profile. From this, the USGS Design Maps Detailed Report evaluates the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) to be 0.368g. Based on the 2008 interactive deaggregations, the PGA at the subject site for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 2475 years) is expected to be about 0.439g (Terracon, 2016). These peak ground accelerations are relatively moderate. The proposed project, however, is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and does not involve the construction of buildings. It is therefore not likely to 53 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion subject people to seismic ground shaking, and for this reason, strong seismic ground shaking is considered to have a less than significant impact. iii. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of excess pore -water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity, where groundwater is shallow and soils are loose and granular. Strong seismic shaking can also cause cyclic softening of saturated relatively non -plastic fine-grained soils. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at risk of liquefaction -related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the likely presence of a relatively shallow water table. This site is not mapped within a designated area of potential liquefaction (Terracon, 2016). However, Carlton Engineering concluded in their survey for the nearby Lodi Energy Center Project that the potential for liquefaction is moderate, considering the relatively loose sandy soil and shallow (3-20 feet bgs) groundwater conditions. Liquefiable zones are anticipated to be restricted to pockets of loose, shallow, sandy soils. Likewise, due to the depth to groundwater, at depths of 5 and 8 feet bgs, and the relatively cohesionless soils encountered in exploratory borings, Terracon conducted two liquefaction analyses with data from borings B1 and B2 (Terracon, 2016). Based on the analyses, the liquefaction potential is judged to be relatively low. Potential liquefaction -induced settlement was calculated based on the soil conditions encountered in these borings. Potential settlement from liquefaction is relatively minor and expected to be about 112 inches total settlement with differential settlement expected to be about 12 this value across the site based on the soil conditions at boring B1. Liquefaction induced settlement based on the soil conditions at boring B2 are expected to be less than 12 inch. Estimates of settlement due to liquefaction are generally expected to vary on the order of a factor of 2. In considering potential liquefaction -induced settlement at this site, Terracon also considered that the soils are Pleistocene age deposits, which do not typically undergo liquefaction due to aging effects (Terracon, 2016). Geology and Soils Mitigation 1 A geotechnical investigation has been completed for the Project, prior to construction, to evaluate areas that may be subject to seismically included settlement. Standard design and construction techniques will be used to mitigate the potential for damage due to seismically induced settlement. Based on the planned mitigation, and lack of proposed structures, potential for liquefaction is considered less than significant with mitigation. iv). No Impact. The Project area is located on geographically level terrain (average grade less than five degrees) considered insufficient to produce a landslide. The Project area is not located within an earthquake -induced landslide zone (defined as "an area where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement") per the reviewed Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of Conservation. As a result, no impacts related to landslides are anticipated. 54 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion b) Less than Significant Impact. The Project will involve the removal of the upper 1 to 2 feet of topsoil within the pond construction area. The Project will be subject to the County's Grading Ordinance and the County of San Joaquin and City's Design Standards to reduce erosion impacts. As a normal and standard requirement, the Project would be required to prepare and have approved individual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) that mandate construction and post -construction water quality provisions, including but not limited to erosion control plans during construction, installation of biofilters and/or mechanical cleansing of stormwater run-off, and similar elements. As a result of these standard engineering measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact on substantial soil erosion and issues resulting from the removal of topsoil during and after the construction process. Regarding erosion of the pond structures themselves, Terracon recommends the pond embankment slopes be covered with an erosion control measure immediately after construction. The surface soils at the site primarily consist of silty sands and sandy silts which are typically subject to significant wind/water erosion. The project civil engineer, while developing the plans, should plan to limit wind/water erosion during and after construction. Rip rap or other erosion control measures, such as vegetation or jute netting, should be implemented to reduce the potential for wave damage to the waterside slope of the embankments. Some minor and relatively shallow erosion should be anticipated and planned for. Routine maintenance will be required on all embankment slopes. Any detected problems should be repaired immediately. It is important that the bottom of all embankments be protected from erosion or undercutting that could jeopardize the integrity of the slope. Substantial slope failure could occur if the bottoms of the slopes are not protected. A rigorous program of reducing the amount of animal burrows should be in place to reduce the potential for seepage -related problems (Terracon, 2016). As a result of these standard engineering measures, the ponds should experience a less than significant amount of soil erosion. c) Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Feasibility Study performed by Carlton Engineering for the nearby Lodi Energy Center project identified relatively flat layers of silty sands/sandy silts to depths of 10 feet bgs, underlain by clay to 13 feet bgs, sand to 20 feet bgs, and silty clays/clayey silts to 50 feet bgs. Based on the results of borings, the Terracon study more or less corroborates these findings, summarized in the table below, with some stratigraphic variation given the difference in location between the proposed project site and the Energy Center. Table 4. Results of Soil Borings Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (ft) Material Description Consistency/Density 1 4 to 7.5 Sandy Silt Very Loose to Medium Dense 2 4 to 9 Silty Sand; Sandy Lean Clay Very Loose to Medium Dense; Stiff 3 19 Interbedded layers of Sandy Silt, Silty Sand, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, Clayey Sand, Sandy Lean Clay Very Loose to Dense, Stiff 55 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (ft) Material Description Consistency/Density 4 24 Lean Clay with Sand Very Stiff to Hard 5 51.5 Silty Sand, Clayey Sand, Sandy Silt, Silt with Sand Medium Dense to Dense Average depth to groundwater encountered during the Carlton Engineering survey was 10 feet bgs, with historic groundwater ranging from 3 to 20 feet bgs. However, the Terracon study only encountered groundwater at depths of 5 and 9.5 bgs in only two of their borings. It is not known why groundwater was not encountered in the other borings. During percolation tests performed by Petralogix, groundwater was encountered at depths between 3 and 6.5 feet bgs (Petralogix, 2016). Groundwater conditions in the future could change due to rainfall, construction activities, irrigation, or other factors. However, a groundwater depth of no less than 3 feet bgs should be utilized for design purposes unless a more detailed groundwater study is performed (Terracon, 2016). Based on their observations during subsurface exploration at the Lodi Energy Center Site, Carlton Engineering concluded that the collapse potential of soils beneath the site is anticipated to be low due to the shallow groundwater. They also concluded that future land subsidence due to groundwater pumping is anticipated to be low due to the proximity to the bay, relatively constant historic groundwater depth, and the proposed reuse of water from the WPCF rather than depletion of groundwater resources. The proposed expansion pond will further reduce the need for groundwater pumping, thus reducing the potential for subsidence. The Terracon study likewise concludes that settlement from the new embankments should be relatively minor and occur only as the embankments are being constructed. Like Terracon, Carlton Engineering additionally concluded that the potential for liquefaction is moderate, considering the relatively loose sandy soil and shallow groundwater conditions, and that landslide potential in the area is anticipated to be low due to the flat topography of the site. Terracon conducted a seepage and slope stability analysis of the proposed pond embankments using computer models and utilizing the general criteria from the Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC), even though the pond embankments (levees) do not protect an urban area (Terracon, 2016). This provides a conservative estimate of slope stability. The proposed pond dimensions used in Terracon's preliminary analysis include embankments with waterside and landside slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, a crown width of 12 feet, a maximum internal pond embankments height of 9 feet above the pond bottom, and a maximum external pond embankments height of 6.5 ft above the existing ground surface. It is proposed that the pond embankments be constructed of compacted engineered fill obtained from the upper 2 feet of soil from the bottoms of the ponds. Although the levees are now proposed to be 10 ft above the pond bottom, the slopes are still 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, so this change should not significantly effect the slope stability analysis. A final geotechnical investigation will also be completed prior to construction. Based on Terracon's analysis, seepage through the pond embankments is not likely to result in boils or cause significant stability problems. The exit gradient at the toe of the embankment is lower than the ULDC criteria for the embankment toe. Therefore, from a steady state seepage perspective, the pond embankments can be constructed as planned, in accordance with Terracon's recommendations. Some minor seepage through 56 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion the embankments may occur shortly after construction. However, the amount of seepage should be relatively minor and slow down or stop after a short period of time as silt and other material from the effluent water will tend to seal the inside of the pond embankment. Some seepage may occur through the bottom of the pond but this is not expected to surface in areas adjacent to the ponds. Seepage through the bottoms of the ponds will migrate vertically downward into the ground. The slope stability analysis revealed that the calculated factor of safety against a slope failure for steady state seepage static conditions is greater than the ULDC recommended factor of safety for levees. Therefore, from a slope stability standpoint, the pond embankments can be constructed as planned, in accordance with Terracon's following recommendations (Terracon, 2016). In their report, Terracon presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. Construction should include stripping and removing existing debris, vegetation, and other deleterious materials from the outline of the proposed embankments plus 5 feet beyond the proposed toe of the embankments. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions, which could prevent uniform compaction. The area beneath the proposed embankments should be over -excavated to a depth of 3 feet below the existing ground surface. This may require local dewatering in order to reach the recommended depth and compaction. The exposed subgrade should then be scarified and compacted to the appropriate relative density. The exposed subgrade should then be scarified and compacted, and the over - excavated material should be placed and compacted as engineered fill. On-site soils may be used for pond embankment construction, but may need to be mixed with more clayey soils to meet the minimum Plasticity Index. Imported soils may also be used as engineered fill provided they meet the requirements provided by Terracon prior to construction (Terracon, December 2016). Geology and Soils Mitigation 2 As stated above, the project may require dewatering. If the proposed project includes construction dewatering, the City will apply for a Dewatering Permit under the General Order. It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable. The workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. If the construction schedule does not allow for scarifying and drying by aeration in place, soil stabilization by the addition of chemical agents, such as cement or lime, may be required (Terracon, 2016). If soil stabilization is needed, Terracon should be consulted to evaluate the situation as needed. All final grades must provide effective drainage away from the pond embankments during and after construction. Water permitted to pond next to the embankments can result in slope stability issues at the toes of the embankments. Stormwater runoff should be directed, collected, and discharged away from the embankments. A rigorous maintenance program should be planned to keep vegetation from growing on the sides of the embankment as well as controlling rodents burrowing into the embankments. Care should also be taken to not undercut the toes of the embankments during maintenance operations (Terracon, 2016). Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of 57 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion safety following local and federal regulations, including current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation and trench safety standards (Terracon, 2016). Geology and Soils Mitigation 3 Terracon recommends additional site specific observation and testing services during grading, excavation, embankment construction, and other earth -related construction phases of the project will occur to determine soil suitability for use as embankment material. The completed geotechnical study will be used to incorporate the site-specific observations and testing, and standard design and construction techniques will then be used to mitigate the potential for damage. In addition, the construction will be completed per improvement plans and County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi design standards. The Project will be subject to applicable engineering and County and City code requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that minimizes the possible effects of unstable soil. Therefore, the impact from potentially unstable soil due to pond construction is considered less than significant with mitigation. Regarding the construction of the pump station, Terracon discusses potential unstable soil conditions in their report (Terracon, December 2016; see Appendix D). The excavation for the pump station will extend to about 15 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth 5 feet bgs in boring B1 near the proposed pump station. Groundwater should be lowered to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed pump station foundation. If the bottom of the excavation is still unstable after dewatering, then the excavation should be over -excavated another 12 inches and a geotextile should be placed in the bottom of the excavation, as well as 12 inches of 3/4 - inch crushed gravel in order to stabilize it. The soils encountered in boring B1 consisted of sandy silt soils to a depth of 19 feet bgs. These soils varied in consistency from very soft to stiff. These soils will likely not be stable due to a relatively high moisture content. Since these soils will need to be sloped back to side slopes of between 112 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) and 2 to 1, this will require a fairly large excavation, which will be made with sheet piling to provide stable slopes. Lateral loads on the pump station walls should be designed for the at -rest condition since the walls will not deflect. Sheet pile walls should thus be designed to resist lateral soil pressures of 55 pcf for soils above the water table and 92 pcf for soils below groundwater. This value includes the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. In order to resist uplift/buoyant forces from groundwater, Terracon (December 2016) recommends the base of the pump station's foundation be extended horizontally to provide uplift resistance. The pump station should be designed to withstand buoyant forces assuming a groundwater depth of 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Backfill around the pump station should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on the maximum dry density, and the upper 5 feet of backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on the maximum dry density. Terracon notes that inadequate compaction of the backfill can result in unacceptable settlement of the backfill that could damage pipes coming into or connected to the pump station. The pump station foundation may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live load. This value may be increased by 1/3 to 58 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion account for wind or seismic forces. Buoyant forces may also be resisted by the friction created from the overburden soil weight against the concrete sides of the pump station or the steel sheet piling. Due to the stress relief from excavating 15 feet of soil, the anticipated total settlement of the pump station will be less than 112 inch. This should occur during construction. Given these results and the standard engineering and construction measures recommended by Terracon (December 2016), any unstable soil conditions at the pump station are considered to have a less than significant impact. Terracon also analyzed potential unstable soil conditions regarding the 18 -inch Tertiary pipeline to be constructed (Terracon, December 2016; see Appendix D). An 18 -inch diameter pipeline will extend from the new pump station east/northeast to the existing treatment facility as well as extending northwest beneath the west pond embankment. The pipeline will be 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Since groundwater will likely be encountered at a depth of about 3 to 5 feet bgs, it will be necessary to dewater the excavation to allow construction of the pipeline. Depending on the depth of groundwater, it may be possible to control the seepage with only a sump pump. However, if the excavation extends 1 to 2 feet below groundwater, the groundwater will need to be lowered to allow construction of the pipeline. A single stage well point system, where small diameter wells are installed by jetting, driving or boring methods, may be needed. Once the wells are installed they are connected to a manifold, which feeds to a large pump. Terracon recommends that the groundwater be lowered to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. If the bottom of the excavation is unstable, we recommend over - excavating the trench 6 to 12 inches, and placing 3/4 -inch crushed gravel in the bottom to stabilize the trench bottom. If necessary to further stabilize the bottom of the trench, a geotextile, such as Mirafi RS289i, should be placed in the bottom of the trench prior to placement of the gravel. The pipe should then be placed and backfilled in accordance with City of Lodi standards. Geology and Soils Mitigation 4 Since sandy silt and silty sand soils were encountered within the upper 8 feet throughout the project site, it may be necessary to shore the pipeline trench excavation. The individual contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the trench excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Given these results and the standard engineering and construction measures recommended by Terracon (December 2016), any unstable soil conditions encountered during pipeline excavation are considered to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Carlton Engineering's 2008 Geotechnical Feasibility Study for the adjacent Lodi Energy Center project concluded that expansive soils may be present on-site based upon their subsurface exploration. However, they anticipate that damage potential is low and can be mitigated using standard design and construction techniques. Based on the proximity to the proposed pond locations, the Project likely has the potential for expansive soils. Terracon predicts that subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable. On-site fine-grained soils may pump or become unworkable at high water contents, and excavations of the existing ground may encounter difficulty from the high groundwater levels. The workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. 59 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. If the construction schedule does not allow for these measures, soil stabilization by the addition of chemical agents, such as lime or cement, may be required (Terracon, 2016). If soil stabilization is needed, Terracon should be consulted to evaluate the situation as needed. The construction will be completed per improvement plans and County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi design standards. The Project will be subject to applicable engineering and County and City code requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that minimizes the possible effects of expansive soil. In addition, since no structures are planned, the risk to life and property is minimal. This is a less than significant impact. e) No Impact. The proposed Project will store effluent treated at the WPCF, and will not involve septic systems or the use of alternative wastewater systems. The soils at the project site have a low liquefaction potential, and seepage through the pond embankments is not likely to result in boils or slope stability problems (Terracon, 2016). Based on the completed geotechnical study (Terracon, 2016) these soils are adequate to support pond and pond embankment construction, with the mitigation measures discussed above. Furthermore, the wastewater stored in the ponds is tertiary treated, and regarded as cleaner than applicable irrigation water used on site (see Hydrology and Water Quality section IX a). 60 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 ■ 0 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 ■ 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ 0 0 ■ or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a Project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 ■ 0 airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere 0 0 0 ■ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 ■ loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Project involves the construction of a 70 -acre expansion basin within the White Slough WPCF property boundary. The proposed expansion basin will store Title 22 tertiary treated effluent water in order to increase the agricultural water supply and decrease the need for groundwater pumping for irrigation. a,b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project does not produce hazardous material. The proposed expansion pond would not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous material(s), however, there is the potential accidental release of hazardous material through possible spills associated with the construction equipment, such as oil and/or hydraulic fluid, during the construction phase of 61 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1, which requires standard spill prevention measures and a procedure for spill response if one does occur, the projects potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials, the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation 1 Spill Prevention and Control Measures will be implemented, and include the following: • Any fuel products, lubricating fluids, grease, or other products and/or waste released from the Contractor(s) vehicles, equipment, or operations, shall be collected and disposed of immediately, and in accordance with State, Federal, and local laws. • Spill clean-up materials will be stored near potential spill areas (such as vehicle and equipment staging areas). • Spill kits will include sorbent material (such as pads designed for oil and gas), socks and/or pads to prevent spread of hazardous material, and containers for storing and proper disposal. • Employees and contractor(s) will be trained on proper hazardous spill clean-up practices. c) No Impact. The project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project does not incorporate direct handling of hazardous materials or produce hazardous emissions. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project takes place within the boundary of the WPCF facility grounds. The project is not included in any hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In addition, two records requests were submitted with the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) on October 13, 2015 and October 21, 2015 requesting Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Materials information for all parcels located within the boundary of the WPCF, as well as properties immediately adjacent. The Department of Toxic Substances Control ENVIROSTOR website and the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker website were additionally reviewed for the site and adjacent parcels, in an attempt to identify hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The available EHD and ENVIRSTOR records reviewed indicate the WPCF currently qualifies as a small quantity hazardous waste generator, with a valid operating permit, with no current violations on record. The WPCF reportedly contains enough oil to qualify for a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (1,320 gallons), recorded as complete as of 2010. There is a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in effect (for The San Joaquin County Mosquito & Vector Control) as of 2014, which addresses a registered 85 -gallon diesel storage tank onsite. The records of aboveground and underground storage tanks for the site do not report any significant violations, hazards or potential hazards in connection with the proposed expansion pond. In addition, the hazardous waste records reviewed for the site indicate there are no known hazards located within the footprint of the proposed project area. Therefore, the information reviewed collectively for the parcels within the WPCF are interpreted to have a less than significant impact. In addition, records were reviewed for adjacent parcels. No hazardous materials impact was identified from any surrounding parcels. 62 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The proposed unlined expansion pond would store tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. This wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site Agricultural Fields during irrigation season (April — September). Secondary treated wastewater, treated to lower quality than the tertiary treated wastewater, is already stored in the four existing on-site unlined ponds during the winter months, and applied to the surrounding Agricultural Fields during irrigation season. As discussed in Section VIII — Hydrology and Water Quality, West Yost's 2015 BPTC study concludes that the current on-site storage and application of secondary treated wastewater at the WPCF is not the source of background exceedance of COCs. Therefore, it is not expected that the tertiary treated wastewater stored in the additional proposed expansion pond and applied to surrounding land will violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or present a hazard to the public or environment; the impact is less than significant. e,f) Less than Significant Impact.. The proposed project lies within the Kingdon Executive Airport's Area of Influence (AIA) identified in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (Figure 11) California law defines the area of influence as the "area where airport -related factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission." According to the State Division of Aeronautics, AIA is usually the planning area designated by an airport land use commission for each airport. Moreover, the ALUCP states, "The AIA indicates those areas in which current or future airport -related over -flights, noise, safety, or airspace protection conditions may significantly affect land uses and may require land use restrictions to address those conditions. The airport influence area indicates the area within which the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review of certain land use actions is required" (Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc.). California State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 — 21679.5. Article 3.5 outlines the statutory requirements for ALUCs, including the preparation of an ALUCP. In February 2016, the City of Lodi met with ALUC staff to discuss the proposed expansion pond and to more fully understand the ALUC consistency determination guidance. The ALUC staff deferred any decisions until a full set of environmental and planning documents were available, but inferred that the ultimate land use decision could be made by the City. Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. prepared a report (included in Appendix E) to assess whether construction and operation of the expansion pond is a compatible land use with Kingdon Air Park in accordance with guidelines established in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and whether the expansion pond will act as a wildlife attractant that increases the number of birds within the airport's Area of Influence. The Kingdon Executive Airport is a private airport with public access. The one runway located at the Kingdon Executive Airport, oriented northwest/southeast and measuring 3,705 feet in length and 60 feet in width, is located approximately 3,100 feet east of the closest point on the Southeast Pond and 8,100 feet east of the closest point on the Northwest pond. The Southeast Pond is located within Zone 8 (AIA) of the Kingdon Executive Airport and within the 5,000 ft separation distance for wildlife attractants recommended by federal guidance for airports serving piston powered aircraft (Figures 11 and 12). This Southeastern site was not recommended for an expansion pond based on its proximity to the airport. Since this recommendation was made, the Western Expansion Pond site has been chosen as the site to be developed. The proposed Northwest Pond 63 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion construction site is also located within Zone 8 (AIA) of the Kingdon Executive Airport, but is not within the 5,000 ft separation distance for wildlife attractants, as shown in Figurel l and 12. In 2015, the Kingdon Air Park reported about 8,000 annual operations (takeoffs and landings). The long-range forecast for anticipated annual aircraft operations is 84,500, although no data or analytics are provided to determine when or how these operational numbers are expected to occur (Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc.). None of the tracks created by aircraft when arriving, departing or during pilot training, including touch-and-go tracks, cross over the preferred alternative WPCF expansion pond location, but they do cross over the existing WPCF ponds. Based on normal aircraft operations, most aircraft are probably at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 -feet when they pass over the existing WPCF ponds (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Most federal aviation land use guidelines for development within the vicinity of an airport address impacts caused by aircraft noise or the construction of objects that penetrate federally regulated airspace. In the case of the WPCF expansion ponds, neither of these general conditions is at issue. At the WPCF the central land use issue is the construction of an infill expansion pond and the potential creation of a wildlife attractant — a new body of water. Federal guidance for assessing potential wildlife attractants near an airport is found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports. One purpose of the AC is to provide guidance regarding certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public use airports such as Kingdon Air Park. The ALUCP incorporated the AC into the ALUCP by stating, in part, "Projects having the potential to cause attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations to be increased within the vicinity" should be assessed in "accordance with Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports" (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). According to a letter dated November 10, 2015 from the San Joaquin Council of Governments, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the project is subject to a Consistency Determination (in accordance with the ALUCP) by the San Joaquin County ALUC based on the Project location within the Kingdon Airport's area of influence. The letter additionally states that any environmental document should contain a consistency analysis of the proposed land uses relative to the ALUCP zones for Kingdon Airport, particularly as they relate to the potential for increased attraction of birds. However, Kingdon Air Park is not a federally obligated airport; it is not eligible for federal airport improvement grants and is not part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Therefore, the FAA has no authority to review and comment on land use issues that may be examined for Kingdon Air Park in accordance with AC 150/5200-33B. While the ALUC has used guidance in the AC as part of its review process for wildlife attractants, the FAA is not a statutory or volunteer reviewing agency (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Nevertheless, the City of Lodi submitted FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, via mail to the FAA Western -Pacific Regional Office and the FAA San Francisco Airports Division Office on November 19, 2015, and via an electronic Off Airport case on December 1, 2015, as notification of the proposed project. A hazard determination by the FAA was anticipated within 45 days of the electronic submission. Although the FAA has no authority to review, their determination indicated 64 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion that there was no hazard associated with their review. The letters are included in Appendix E. It is also important to note that even though the entirety of the WPCF lies within the Kingdon Air Park AIA, the ALUC has no authority to command changes to land uses that are existing or vested, regardless of whether they are incompatible with airport activities. The City of Lodi General Plan (as of April 2010) has designated the WPCF as a Public/Quasi-public land use since the mid -1960's. According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the WPCF is considered an existing use and has a vested right to construct treatment facility improvements. Moreover, where development that does not conform with the criteria in the ALUCP already exists, additional infill development of similar land uses, such as the proposed Project, may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are prohibited elsewhere in the zone. However, since the WPCF is located within the ALUCP area of influence for the Kingdon Air Park, the ALUC may initiate a consistency determination review due to the prohibition of land use that may cause an increase in the attraction of birds (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). General hazards to be considered in a consistency analysis include: • Visual hazards, including tall buildings, distracting lights, glare, sources of dust, steam or smoke; • Electronic hazards that may cause interference with aircraft communications and/or navigation; • Hazards to aircraft in flight. The Project involves the construction of a treated effluent storage pond. No tall buildings, sources of light, steam, smoke or electric hazards are associated with the proposed Project. However, it is important to note pre-existing structures that may be viewed as a potential hazard to aircraft in the vicinity of Kingdon Air Park. Regarding electric hazards, an overhead high voltage (230 kV) dual electrical transmission line traverses the WPCF from north to south and is the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion pond (Figure 13). The transmission line is approximately 100 -feet tall and about 8,100 -feet west of Kingdon Air Park, it is at the western limit of flight tracks shown on ALUCP, Exhibit AKA- 1. High voltage power transmission lines pose peculiar hazards to low flying aircraft and the FAA specifies that such structures be marked and lighted. Aircraft operating over or near the transmission lines are typically at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 feet, so there is little threat of electrical interference with communication and navigation devices (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Regarding existing hazards associated with steam or smoke, in 2012 the California Energy Commission and Northern California Power Agency constructed a natural gas- fired 255 -megawatt power generation facility with an evaporative cooling system on about 4.5 -acres of the WPCF. The power plant emits thermal plumes in the form of steam generated by its cooling towers. Although the FAA as found that thermal emission is not likely to pose a threat to aircraft, it is recommended that aircraft maintain a vertical separation of 1,000 feet above such facilities. This is the existing vertical separation distance for aircraft using designated Kingdon Air Park flight tracks, so the power plant has a less than significant impact on aircraft (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Regarding existing wildlife hazards, San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control 65 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion District operates the White Slough Mosquitofish Rearing Facility on the WPCF property. The district operates about 8 acres of rearing ponds for mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), which produce several thousand pounds of fish annually. The ponds attract a variety of bird species including herons and egrets, which feed on the mosquitofish in the shallow rearing ponds (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). These structures and facilities are already in existence and currently do not pose any notable threat to air-traffic safety for any of the reasons in the consistency analysis components listed above. They do not affect the proposed project or any associated future hazards. During Project construction, dust may be generated. However, this will be temporary and mitigated by Air Quality Mitigation 2 (Section III — Air Quality). Therefore, the main hazard of concern is hazard to aircraft in flight due to the potential for increased attraction of birds. According to the AC the first step towards evaluating the potential for wildlife hazards within the vicinity of an airport is to determine the separation distance (in linear feet) from the airport to a potential wildlife attractant. Following federal guidance in the AC, the minimum separation distance for wildlife attractants from Kingdon Air Park is 5,000 feet. The Kingdon Air Park does not service aircraft that would require a greater separation distance from wildlife attractants, and the ALUCP does not establish any more stringent requirements for special land uses (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). The Kingdon Air Park area of influence Zone 8 encompasses the WPCF (Figure 11). Among the land use restrictions in Zone 8 are hazards to flights, most notably land use and development that may cause an increased attraction to birds. The reasoning is that if an increase in the number of birds attracted to a new body of water is greater than the number of birds attracted to an existing body of water, then there may be an increase in hazard to aircraft using the Kingdon Air Park (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi- Public". The Project proposes the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond within the City of Lodi's WPCF boundary for storage of tertiary treated wastewater; this is in accordance with current land use at the Project site. The proposed expansion pond would be located within one mile of four existing on-site treated effluent storage ponds. The proposed project site also does not lie within the 5,000 ft minimum distance separation for wildlife attractants. The addition of the new treated effluent storage ponds is not anticipated to significantly attract hazardous wildlife in the area. Bird observations at the WPCF and the mosquito abatement ponds, conducted by a qualified airport wildlife biologist with Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc., are considered to be representative of a given year, since observations were conducted seasonally over a one year period. These observations were unobstructed because of the open nature of the facility. A total of about 6,445 birds were observed over the course of four observation periods either on or in the vicinity of the existing ponds. These numbers are consistent with regional bird counts, indicating that the California Delta and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys offer wintering habitat to migratory bird species along the Pacific Flyway. Over the course of eight days, about 805 individual birds were observed each day. Extrapolating this to a one-year period, about 294,000 birds visit the ponds annually. Since 66 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion the existing ponds occupy about 50 -acres, there are about 5,875 bird visits per acre of pond surface per year (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). However, since the proposed infill expansion pond will be operated only 10 months of the year and be dry in July and August, the actual number of birds likely to be attracted to the ponds is less than if they were used year-round. Thus, based on 70 -acres of new ponds operating 10 months of the year, the estimated number of annual bird visits is probably about 411,000, which is offset by the number of birds already visiting the 70 -acres of agricultural land. Over the course of the eight days, 460 birds were observed each day in the fields. If extrapolated to a one-year period, about 167,000 birds currently visit the 70 -acres of agricultural land to be replaced by the ponds each year. This equates to about 2,400 bird visits per acre of agricultural fields (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Extrapolating 2,400 bird visits per acre per year over the 7,481 acre Kingdon Air Park AIA yields a total of about 17,954,000 annual bird visits. At the WPCF, the increase in annual bird visits could be around 243,100. From this it is projected that the infill expansion pond acts as a minor bird attractant within the area of influence, representing only about a 1.35% increase in total birds attracted to the AIA. Regardless of the time of day or time of year, most birds move from the Delta into the agricultural fields (west to east) that lie east of the WPCF, or from the fields back into the Delta. Such bird movements indicate that the Kingdon Air Park AIA is an active and attractive habitat for many species of birds. Typically, birds will fly at altitudes between 300 and 500 ft, but birds crossing the Delta without using the WPCF habitat may travel at altitudes as high as 3000 ft. These types of flights are high enough to encounter aircraft from Kingdon Air Park, which are usually at altitudes between 800 and 1000 ft when crossing over the existing WPCF ponds (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). However these flight elevations would not likely be associated with loafer birds. Considering the relatively minimal increase of 1.35% increase in total birds attracted to the area due to the ponds, and also considering the height of bird flights in the pond area (being relatively low — less than 1,000 feet in general), it is concluded that the construction of the proposed expansion ponds will not likely impact that safety of air travel. In addition, the additional hazards associated with existing site use, power plant, and power lines should void any flight patterns from areas where loafer birds would be considered to have this minimal increase, and be present. Therefore, considering the existing use, the historic permitted use for this type of project, overall reduced flight pattern to avoid current power lines and existing structures, and the very minimal overall increase in bird use, this is considered to be less than significant. g) No Impact. The Project involves the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond within the White Slough WPCF property boundary. The Project will not interfere with road access, adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans for safety vehicles or personnel. No impact is expected. h) No Impact. The Project is located within agricultural land use. The Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact is expected. 67 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion . Leek 1 A kn-ra :rs ix K1N DON EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND LODI AIRPARK LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ZONES Figure 11 - Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones 68 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion CItyofLcJI Proposed E_Icpanclan of Wastewater Ire atatere Por any crI pd, Pu ifRkeII Pubtc ll y. Ption bd ya. ALA, 1r.mrront Pd rkNra S=OLE Aker, 1 WaVaIGIP f"...1 row sriar K. Figure 12 - Distance of Proposed Ponds from Air Parks City of Lodi PIOposad Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Pond Otyal Lott 2a -ked Pttadaumis Punic um Figure 13 - Locations of Existing Potentially Hazardous Structures 14:4TO S_{ LE ra. : 69 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion IX. Hydrology and Water Quality Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ 0 discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 0 ■ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 0 0 ■ 0 • 0 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 0 0 • 0 the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would 0 0 • 0 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ■ 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 floodplain structures ❑• ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 ■ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ 0 0 ■ During non -irrigation months (generally October through mid-April), the WPCF discharges an average of approximately 3.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of tertiary treated wastewater to Dredger Cut, a dead-end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta). During the irrigation months (generally mid-April through the end of September), the City discharges a similar amount of recycled water (approximately 3.5 MGD) to existing onsite storage ponds and/or the 790 -acre City -owned agricultural fields that surround the WPCF. Irrigation water 70 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion demands for the City -owned properties are also met by groundwater pumping from a dedicated onsite well (Figure 5) (West Yost, 2016). The City intends to construct improvements necessary to capture and store a portion of the flow that is currently discharged to Dredger Cut in the non -irrigation months and use this water to reduce, or eliminate, the amount of groundwater used for irrigation on City property. The City also intends to expand the existing City -owned recycled water irrigation system to include an additional 90 acres of City -owned land that is currently irrigated solely with groundwater (Figure 2) (West Yost, 2016). According to the Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Technical Memorandum (included in Appendix F), the Project proposes the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond, consisting of four ponds, within the WPCF boundary (Figure 4). The expansion pond would have an approximate storage capacity of 388 acre-feet for tertiary treated wastewater. The proposed expansion pond would be located within approximately 1,100 feet west of four existing on-site ponds that are currently used to store secondary treated wastewater prior to using it for irrigation of the 790 acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. The tertiary treated wastewater would also be used to irrigate the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields, decreasing discharge to the Delta and the need for groundwater pumping for irrigation. Based on a preliminary Surface Pond Percolation Study, the unlined ponds are anticipated to have an annual percolation to groundwater rate of up to 29 to 51 million gallons per year after correction for siltation and bio -buildup (Appendix G) (Petralogix, 2016). The construction will take place on City -owned agricultural land within the boundaries of the WPCF, and not within county road ditches or waterways. Construction impacts will be temporary and best management practices will be in place. The Project will include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce construction impacts to water ways and sources. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Central Valley Water Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2007-0113, dated September 14, 2007, prescribing waste discharge requirements for the White Slough WPCF. Order R5-2007-0113 allows year-round discharge of tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater to Dredger Cut (Delta waters) and allows for irrigation reuse on the City -owned agricultural properties Generally the facility only discharges to the Delta from October through mid-April. During irrigation season (April — September), undisinfected secondary treated municipal and industrial wastewater are pumped to four existing on-site unlined storage ponds and then used to irrigate 790 acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. During the majority of the year, agricultural and storm water runoff comprise the majority of flow to the industrial collection system; only about ten percent is comprised of industrial process water flow. During the canning season (typically mid-June through the end of September), flows to increase to approximately 1.0 MGD, and are comprised primarily of process water from a fruit processing facility. These flow are blended with treated municipal effluent prior to application to direct application to the agricultural fields. During the remainder of the year, the industrial collection system flows are stored in the four unlined storage ponds, where they are blended with agricultural tailwater, storm water runoff, and treated municipal effluent until land application is possible during the following year. 71 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion In February 2012, the City submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) to renew Order R5-2007-0113 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0079243 to regulate discharges to Dredger Cut, discharges to land, and water reclamation. In the RWD, the City requested separate permits to be issued by the Central Valley Water Board for the surface water (Dredger Cut) and land (Agricultural Fields) discharges. The Central Valley Water Board approved the request, and on October 4, 2013, the Central Valley Water Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5- 2013-0125 (NPDES Permit No. CA0079243), which allows year-round discharges of tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater to Dredger Cut, and amended Order R5-2007-0113 with Order R5-2007-0113-001 to remove all NPDES permitting requirements to now only regulate the discharges to land and reclaimed water uses. Order R5-2007-0113-001 includes several updates to land discharge requirements, one of which is updating the antidegradation findings and submittal of a Best Practicable Treatment or Control study for the land discharges to the Agricultural Fields. In accordance with Order R5-2007-0113, groundwater monitoring has historically been performed at the WPCF, with monitoring results submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City has a groundwater monitoring well network at the facility, currently consisting of 21 groundwater monitoring wells. Depth to groundwater ranges from just a few feet bgs in the westernmost monitoring wells to greater than 30 feet bgs in the eastern monitoring wells. Based on historical monitoring results, the Central Valley Water Board concluded in amended Order R5-2007-0113-001 that adequate evidence was not available to determine if the land application activities could be a threat to groundwater quality. To determine compliance with Groundwater Limitations contained in the Order and to evaluate whether the City is meeting Best Practicable Treatment or Control (BPTC) in accordance with the Antidegradation Policy, the amended Order R5- 2007-0113-001 required that the City continue to fully characterize background groundwater and complete a BPTC Evaluation. In January 2015, West Yost Associates (West Yost) prepared a BPTC Evaluation report on behalf of the City for the WPCF, in accordance with Special Provision VI.C.5.a of amended Order R5-2007-0113-001. The purpose of the report is to evaluate existing BPTCs and determine whether additional BPTCs are needed for each of the waste constituents of concern (CDCs). This is accomplished by first presenting an analysis of COCs for which degradation from the WPCF is possible. COCs are defined as the water quality parameters that have been demonstrated in onsite wells to exceed background groundwater quality. Additional BPTCs are necessary if the COC concentrations in the onsite wells exceed both the background levels and the applicable Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) and the existing WPCF practices are expected to be the cause of the background exceedance. However, given the high level of treatment and control at the site, the existing BPTCs are considered adequate for CDCs where either the onsite concentrations are at or below WQOs or there are no applicable WQOs. To identify CDCs at the facility that may require additional BPTCs, West Yost analyzed data from the City's groundwater monitoring well network at the facility. Analyzed onsite concentrations, background concentrations, and applicable WQOs are included in Table 5 below. Constituents that were identified as exceeding both background levels and the water quality objectives, thus potentially requiring additional BPTCs are indicated by bold, italicized text. 72 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Table 5. Groundwater Quality Data Source: West Yost Associates, BPTC (2015 Constituent of Concern Units Background Monitoring i Wells') Onsite Monitoring Wells 1 Water Quality Objective Boron mg/I 0.073-0.15 0.084-0.45 0.7 Chloride mg/I 12-97 38-160 106 Iron (dissolved) mg/I <0.017-0.33 <0.017 0.3 Lead (dissolved) pg/I <1.4 1.4-1.8 15 Mercury ng/I NA(2) NAP) 2,000 Manganese (dissolved) Ng/1 <0.17-275 <0.17-1,150 50 Sodium mg/I 20-175 65-205 69 Sulfate mg/I 11-160 22-205 250 Electrical Conductivity pmhos/cm 665-1,640 765-1,760 700 Total Dissolved Solids mg/I 405-1,100 492-1,255 450 Ammonia as N mg/I 0.11-0.31 0.15-0.27 1.2 Nitrate as N mg/I 1.4-31 5.5-48 10 Nitrite as N mg/I <0.011-<0.042 <0.027-<0.042 1 Nitrate + Nitrate as N mg/I 1.4-31 5.5-48 10 Total Coliform Organisms MPN/100 ml <2.2 <2.2 2.21 Bromoform pg/I <0.085 <0.085 80 Chloroform pg/I <0.060 <0.060-<0.18 80 Chlorodibromomethane pg/I <0.081 <0.081 0.41 Dichlorobromomethane pg/I <0.081 <0.081 0.56 Fixed Dissolved Solids mg/I 330-940 390-950 450 Fluoride mg/I 0.13-0.285 0.047-0.27 1 Alkalinity, Total mg/I 220-620 305-545 N/A pH Std Units 7.2-7.4 6.8-7.3 6.5-8.5 Bromide mg/I <0.071-1.4 <0.080-2.4 NA Calcium mg/I 63-100 80-130 NA Hardness mg/I 285-560 350-590 NA Phosphorous mg/I 0.084-0.76 0.058-0.88 NA Potassium mg/I 0.46-2.7 0.69-13 NA Magnesium mg/I 30-50 36-65 NA Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/I <0.035-0.33 <0.035-0.13 NA Molybdenum mg/I NAP) NAP) NA 73 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion (1) Range of individual median values for background wells (WSM-16, WSM-17, WSM-18, and WSM-19), based on quarterly data for 2013 through 2014. (2) Order R5-2013-0125 (and the preceding permit) does not require groundwater monitoring for mercury and molybdenum. NA — Data Not Available Based on a background groundwater study and identified on-site well exceedances, additional BTPCs were considered for Chloride, Manganese, and Nitrate. A review of on-site and nearby Chloride sources indicated that the WPCF is not the source of on-site Chloride background exceedances. Rather, other regional processes such as regional groundwater pumping and historical intrusion of brackish to saline water are the suspected cause of the exceedances. For Manganese, it was determined that naturally occurring anoxic conditions related to the presence of Guard soils are the cause of current on-site background exceedances. For Nitrate, a nearby dairy farm and other previously impacted activities unrelated to the current WPCF operations are likely the cause of on- site background exceedances. Based on these findings, West Yost concluded that the on- site application of secondary treated water at the WPCF is the not the source of current background exceedances of COCs. Furthermore, the City of Lodi has already implemented and continues to implement numerous BPTCs to manage loading of COCs to groundwater. Therefore, the WPCF is in compliance with the Antidegradation Policy, and additional BPTCs were not recommended. The proposed unlined expansion pond will store tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. This wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site Agricultural Fields during irrigation season (April — September), thereby reducing groundwater pumping for irrigation. The stored wastewater will be treated, stored, and land applied in accordance with amended Order R5-2007-0113-001. Secondary treated wastewater, treated to lower quality than the tertiary treated wastewater, is already stored in four existing on-site unlined ponds during the winter months, and applied to the surrounding Agricultural Fields during irrigation season. A comparison of the WPCF tertiary water quality to the water quality in the onsite wells, the background wells, and the WQOs is provided in Table 6. The average tertiary effluent concentrations shown are based on data collected from 2009 through 2011 under Order R5-2007-0113. More recent tertiary effluent data for most of these constituents is not required to be collected under the renewed permit until 2017 or 2018. Nevertheless, the 2009 through 2011 is considered to be representative of the City's current tertiary effluent. As shown in Table 6, concentrations of COCs in the tertiary effluent are at or below background levels and all applicable WQOs. West Yost's 2015 BPTC study concluded that the current on-site storage and application of secondary treated wastewater at the WPCF is not the source of background exceedance of COCs. Therefore, it is not expected that the tertiary treated wastewater stored in the proposed expansion pond, treated to a higher quality than the already applied secondary treated wastewater, will violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements if applied to surrounding land. 74 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Table 6. Comparison of Tertiary -Treated Effluent Water Quality to Groundwater Quality Data Source: West Yost Associates, BPTC (2015) and West Yost Associates, RWD (2011 Constituent of Concern Units Background Monitoring Wells Onsite Monitoring Wells Tertiary Level Treatment (2009-2011) Water Quality Objective Boron mg/I 0.073-0.15 0.084-0.45 0.18 0.7 Chloride mg/I 12-97 38-160 64 106 Iron (dissolved) mg/I <0.017-0.33 <0.017 0.059 0.3 Lead (dissolved) pg/I 1.4 1.4-1.8 <0.233 15 Mercury ng/I NA NA 1.9 2,000 Manganese (dissolved) pg/I <0.17-275 <0.17-1,150 18 50 Sodium mg/I 20-175 65-205 71 69 Sulfate mg/I 11-160 22-205 26 250 Electrical Conductivity pmhos/cm 665-1,640 765-1,760 673 700 Total Dissolved Solids mg/I 405-1,100 492-1,255 416 450 Ammonia as N mg/I 0.11-0.31 0.15-0.27 0.4 1.5 Nitrate as N mg/I 1.4-31 5.5-48 5.9 10 Nitrite as N mg/I <0.042 <0.027- <0.042 0.20 1 Nitrate + Nitrate as N mg/I 1.4-31 5.5-48 6 10 Total Coliform Organisms MPN/ 100 ml <2.2 <2.2 <2 2.21 Bromoform pg/I <0.085 <0.085 <0.10 80 Chloroform pg/I <0.060 <0.060- <0.18 0.28 80 Chlorodibromometh ane pg/I <0.081 <0.081 <0.16 0.41 Dichlorobromometha ne pg/I <0.081 <0.081 <0.18 0.56 Fixed Dissolved Solids mg/I 330-940 390-950 NA 450 Fluoride mg/I 0.13-0.285 0.047-0.27 0.57 1 Alkalinity, Total mg/I 220-620 305-545 NA N/A pH Std Units 7.2-7.4 6.8-7.3 6.7 6.5-8.5 Bromide mg/I <0.071-1.4 <0.080-2.4 NA NA Calcium mg/I 63-100 80-130 NA NA Hardness mg/I 285-560 350-590 NA NA Phosphorous mg/I 0.084-0.76 0.058-0.88 NA NA Potassium mg/I 0.46-2.7 0.69-13 NA NA Magnesium mg/I 30-50 36-65 NA NA Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/I 0.035-0.33 <0.035-0.13 2.2 NA Molybdenum mg/I NA NA NA NA (1) Range of individual median values for background wells (WSM-16, WSM-17, WSM-18, and WSM-19), based on 75 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion quarterly data for 2013 through 2014. (2) Average concentration based on 2009-2011 data, except as noted (3) Dissolved lead data not available for tertiary effluent. Total lead data presented instead. The existing groundwater monitoring network at the WPCF and surrounding area, and the quarterly groundwater monitoring performed in accordance with the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) established by the Central Valley Water Board in amended Order R5-2007-0113-001 allows for monitoring of COCs at the facility. Quarterly groundwater monitoring will continue in accordance with the MRP. Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2013-0113 allow year-round discharges of tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater to Dredger Cut. The Project will reduce the volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 160 to 210 million gallons per year. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate of approximately 1,500 to 1,700 gallons per minute over an approximate 75 to 90 -day period between October 1 and May 31 of each year. Table 7 provides a summary of the recent volumes of discharge, along with estimates of potential discharge volumes under varying conditions. Actual discharge volumes will depend on when diversion to the new storage facilities occurs. For the analysis presented in Table 7, it is assumed that the majority of diversions occur in the October -November timeframe. Table 7. Potential Flows Discharged to Dredger Cut from the White Slough WPCF Existing and Proposed Conditions Month Current Volume Discharged (2014 -2015 Average), Million Gallons Average Anticipated Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented', Million Gallons Minimum Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented2, Million Gallons January 109 103 95 February 93 91 89 March 56 73 45 April 62 0 0 May 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 September 0 0 0 October 0 8 8 November 129 41 41 December 128 103 85 Total 576 418 363 1. Based on average year rainfall 2. Based on rainfall average from 2014-2015 Source: West Yost, 2016 76 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion According to the State Water Board, if a water re -use project will decrease the amount of water in a stream or other waterway, the owner of the wastewater treatment plant needs to file a Wastewater Change Petition. The City will submit the wastewater change petition and only divert water into the new pond when the Change Petition is approved and the waste discharge requirements are modified. As discussed above, the tertiary treated wastewater stored in the expansion pond is not anticipated to degrade existing groundwater quality. Furthermore, as secondary treated wastewater is already stored in four on-site unlined ponds for land application, the addition of one 70 -acre expansion pond within 1,100 feet of the existing ponds to store tertiary treated effluent of higher quality for similar land application that reduces groundwater pumping is not anticipated to have a significant change on location or volume of discharge. This is a less than significant impact. b) No Impact. The proposed Project proposes the construction of an expansion pond to store facility wastewater that would otherwise be discharged to the Delta during the winter months. In addition, the stored water may be used to irrigate City -owned neighboring agricultural fields, preventing groundwater pumping for agricultural use. A preliminary Surface Pond Percolation Study (Petralogix, 2016) (included in Appendix G) anticipates the unlined ponds to have an annual percolation range of 28,905,601 to 50,584,802 gallons of tertiary treated wastewater per year, after correction for siltation and bio -buildup. Therefore, the project does not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, and may actually increase groundwater storage. Therefore, there is no impact. c -e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project is proposed to occur within an area currently occupied by agricultural fields. The fields are currently surface irrigated by concrete lined irrigation ditches. Storm water runoff and irrigation tailwater flows are collected from the agricultural fields and directed to the four existing on-site storage ponds. In the area of pond construction, the irrigation ditches will be removed, and if necessary, the storm water runoff and tailwater return system will be altered. However, the Project will not significantly alter or change the existing drainage of storm water and irrigation tailwater flows to the four existing storage ponds, and any changes made will still result in the waters being directed to the storage ponds. No streams or other drainage ways are located within the proposed pond location. Although a canal does run through the WPCF property, it is not located in the proposed pond location. The Project will not alter or change drainage ways, create additional runoff or exceed drainage facilities holding runoff. Erosion and/or sedimentation will be avoided or reduced below a level of significance through conformance with applicable elements of the County of San Joaquin Stormwater General Construction Permit and City of Lodi Municipal Stormwater General Construction Permit. Other than potential drainage from new paved areas, the only sources of potential runoff from the Project are construction -related (Terracon, December 2016). Construction impacts will be temporary and best management practices will be in place. Pavements will be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. The pavement subgrade will be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section (Terracon, December 2016). This is a less than significant impact. The Project will also include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce construction impacts to waterways and neighboring sites. 77 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion g) The Project will involve the removal of the upper 6 inches of topsoil within the pond construction area. The Project will be subject to the County's Grading Ordinance and the County of San Joaquin and City's Design Standards to reduce erosion impacts. As a normal and standard requirement, the Project would be required to prepare and have approved individual SWPPPs that mandate construction and post -construction water quality provisions, including but not limited to erosion control plans during construction, installation of biofilters and/or mechanical cleansing of stormwater run-off, and similar elements. Regarding erosion of the pond structures themselves, Terracon recommends the pond embankment slopes be covered with an erosion control measure immediately after construction. As a result of these standard engineering measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact on substantial soil erosion and issues resulting from the removal of topsoil during and after the construction process. f) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed unlined expansion pond will store tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. This wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site Agricultural Fields during irrigation season (April — September). The stored wastewater will be treated, stored, and land applied in accordance with R5-2007-0113. Secondary treated wastewater, treated to lower quality than the tertiary treated wastewater, is already stored in four existing on-site unlined ponds during the winter months, and applied to the surrounding agricultural fields during irrigation season. As discussed in Part (a), West Yost's 2015 BPTC study concluded that the current on-site storage and application of secondary treated wastewater at the WPCF is not the source of background exceedance of COCs. Therefore, it is not expected that the tertiary treated wastewater stored in the proposed expansion pond and applied to the surrounding agricultural fields will degrade groundwater quality. In addition, a SWPPP will be prepared for the Project that will provide detailed descriptions of the various structural and nonstructural water quality management measures employed for pond construction. Compliance with the applicable NPDES requiremes submittal of a Wastewater Change Petition will ensure that the entirety of the Project will avoid any potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and will avoid impacts to downstream water users and/or existing habitat functions. No Impact. The proposed Project involves the construction of a 70+ acre tertiary treated water storage pond and is not a residential project that would change, alter, or encourage housing within a 100 -year floodplain (Figure 14). 78 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Figure 14 - Flood Zone Map Dredger Cut and the Peripheral Canal are the closest levee related water bodies to the Project site and are considered to be legal waters of the Delta. The nearest Targe river or creek capable of causing major flooding during a 100 -year flood event is the Calaveras River to the South and the Mokelumne River to the North. Bear Creek is the nearest smaller waterway and would be a potential cause of flooding during a 100 -year flood event. Petralogix analyzed the potential for flooding at the Project site and shows in their report how the Project will address potential flooding. The study details the existing conditions at the Project Site, the regulatory setting regarding flooding, flood impacts related to the Project development, and recommended mitigation (Appendix H). The results are hereby incorporated by reference. The site has historically been used for quasi -public wastewater treatment, and associated agricultural crops and farming. Surrounding areas include large farming tracts and undeveloped riparian corridors. The nearest residential or commercial development is located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast. Elevations of this development are roughly 4 to 5 feet higher than the site and studied flood plain area. The nearest agricultural development is located approximately 0.60 miles to the east (a dairy farm) and is roughly 8 to 9 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. The onsite existing wastewater treatment facility, associated ponds, mosquito abatement facilities, and energy development plant are all east of the proposed pond. These facilities are roughly 6 to 7 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. 79 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion ! tom Ift•1�� �,y LEGEND 11_, E4 p167b !WIOr.S WW1 IO R.Ati +/•� p p • LO L! rWNO} Oa 151.7.7.0 iw •4 •mw �a.w� nim 11% IM1 R i ACM RAW1A:7, �•�ti N0+'•(cir�lrr 1.11.471.4•. Fri . M ...coli -7:—...Z." +rt J••••••.+W••r A $AM JW"4WUM1 CQU 1,+m ••n YJi+. • • ~ Daman •a •_ n-•... . . I r , .•1 .+..+..m• •r m..F• Norr n•• •..1= OF 44011ear.o fi� .m ea" w I Y ..e JMr , ••w m taa Ir•., I 1•.•r ea,. .L•••r ...r ..,.w ...STY....h. t_ Ib i•• .•••• h v....CITY Ciril etWtt 8•!.1 Baa •® pm m• •1•. A llt of li�di *IMO40141:14 Iwo mow • ar . •. .- IM d MIN TY. do .....••i .13,4 mg .T m r Tait .N. rye ila-` �..••�4 I .•.•., •.•«�,.._ ,4.4 n .1,.I.•.o, 11=••1. , Aran w w n. w .wr i� 4.6h a•Mirmaa Y1F..r.Pi W . YY P.. •44•1 40.m. •r r ! [••• le as • r { -. 4kwtY FIRM .Looe ale AW= WI lar .4k 1.11.1,12 T.Tra rinvirTY, 1...LM�.111,4111. Yr Li Nlrl it ISM ~4, IOW i y f i- - Sa , W .YAM e Ix,rtail lr.•r«. w Figure 14 - Flood Zone Map Dredger Cut and the Peripheral Canal are the closest levee related water bodies to the Project site and are considered to be legal waters of the Delta. The nearest Targe river or creek capable of causing major flooding during a 100 -year flood event is the Calaveras River to the South and the Mokelumne River to the North. Bear Creek is the nearest smaller waterway and would be a potential cause of flooding during a 100 -year flood event. Petralogix analyzed the potential for flooding at the Project site and shows in their report how the Project will address potential flooding. The study details the existing conditions at the Project Site, the regulatory setting regarding flooding, flood impacts related to the Project development, and recommended mitigation (Appendix H). The results are hereby incorporated by reference. The site has historically been used for quasi -public wastewater treatment, and associated agricultural crops and farming. Surrounding areas include large farming tracts and undeveloped riparian corridors. The nearest residential or commercial development is located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast. Elevations of this development are roughly 4 to 5 feet higher than the site and studied flood plain area. The nearest agricultural development is located approximately 0.60 miles to the east (a dairy farm) and is roughly 8 to 9 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. The onsite existing wastewater treatment facility, associated ponds, mosquito abatement facilities, and energy development plant are all east of the proposed pond. These facilities are roughly 6 to 7 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. 79 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion h) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map #06077CO295F the Base Flood Elevation at the pond site is 10 feet (msl) NAVD 88 (San Joaquin County, 2016). Review of the average ground surface elevation (GSE) indicates that the proposed pond area has an approximate average GSE of 7 above feet msl. Based on the review of this information the projected 100 -year flood depth is approximately 3 feet. The height of the levees that would surround the proposed pond are up to 10 feet. The freeboard on the inside walls is 2 feet below the levee top. The relative height of the other delta levees around the site is 9 feet above ground surface (West Yost Associates, 2016). Because the entire Project site is located within the AE Zone (Area subject to 1% annual chance of a 100 -yr flood with flood depths generally greater than 3 ft.), development on the site will have to comply with NFP regulations (see Appendix H for more regulatory framework), including: • Flood Insurance requirements for any structures within the floodplain (unless adjacent grade has been elevated to above the base flood elevation); • Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) applications for any structures within the floodplain that are desired to be removed from the Flood Insurance requirements, and/or for any on-site projects which impact the flood boundary. To confirm and clarify, the project meets these requirements. All associated mechanical and electrical structures are above the 100 -year flood elevation, and all walls and levees are planned to be elevated above the 100 -year flood elevation, with a total of more than 3 feet of freeboard above that specific level. The impact evaluation identifies potentially significant flood -related impacts to and from the proposed project. Impacts would be considered significant if the project would cause a flood hazard or exacerbate an existing flood hazard. Four flood hazards are considered: i) Impact FLOOD -1: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The local drainage pattern will not substantially change as a result of development. Flood flows will continue to move through the site toward the south and west, with flows returning to the Delta via Bear Creek or Dredger Cut. The course of the Mokelumne River or Bear Creek will not be altered. Proposed development does not increase the amount of impervious surface on the site to the point where flows at these drainages would be significantly impacted. Site development would have less than significant impact on existing drainage patterns and no mitigation is required. ii) Impact FLOOD -2 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. Project development would not place housing within a 100 -year special flood hazard area. However, it would place some structures (pumps, SCADA systems, etc.) within estimated flood depths up to 3 feet in depth. Therefore, this would have a significant 80 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion impact, if no additional mitigations were taken. The following mitigation measure would reduce Impact FLOOD -2 to a less -than -significant level: Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 1 Mitigation Measure pertaining to FLOOD -2 The applicant shall place all structural pads so that the lowest adjacent grade to each structure is above the base flood elevation. iii) Impact FLOOD -3 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Placing fill or other structures in such a way as to block existing drainage paths could result in increased onsite or offsite flooding, particularly if there is significant offsite drainage that flows through the site. This potential exists for 100 -year spills resulting from the regulatory levee failure scenario. Upstream spills from Bear Creek flow through the project site and either return to the Bear Creek channel or to Dredger Cut. The project would not change the bank configurations of any of the creeks, rivers, or levees that surround the site. Therefore, impact to flooding conditions are considered to be limited. The effective base flood profile within the project site is based on a review of materials discussed in Appendix G. A detailed analysis of the site was performed to evaluate increased floodwater elevations during the 100 -year event. We reviewed three scenarios. They are detailed below: 1. Full pond failure added to existing flood elevation. 2. Reduced available acreage for existing floodwaters due to ponds presence. 3. Pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage. Scenario 1 was reviewed to determine the overall increase in floodwater elevations if the ponds were at capacity and were to fail. The general pond size was evaluated for the estimated holding capacity for the ponds plus a factor of safety. The general volume analyzed was for a full release of 160,000,000 gallons of water. This would assume an overfull pond volume (above freeboard) and a levee failure of the ponds, allowing for a large release of water to the floodplain. Table 8 below shows our evaluation: Table 8. - Full pond failure added to existing flood elevation. General Area of Influence - Modified Area General Width (feet) General Length (feet) Total Area (ft^2) Total Acreage Average Flood Depth (feet) Acre Feet 100 Year Flood Overall 4,000 12,750 51,000,000 1,171 3.42 4,003 Change (feet) 0.42 Change (inches) 5.03 This scenario provides an assessment for the "overall" area, which we set to be an area of roughly 1,171 acres in size. The area is shown below (Figure 15 — Area of 81 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Influence) for review and was assessed based on aerial photo -review and topographic review or a likely area of influence. Figure 15. — Area of influence and proposed pond layout. This area of influence was picked because it was within the area of 100 -year flooding (as mapped by FEMA) and was bordered by control points of flow to the west by the Peripheral Canal, to the south by Dredger Cut, and to the north by an unnamed slough. Each of these control points were considered viable because of their associated levees, which were 5 to 6 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation. To the east the area is mapped as a 500 -year flood plain and is protected from intrusive flood flows by a quick elevation rise of more than 7 feet just east of Interstate -5. Additional flood zone information is provided below in Figure 16. 82 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Figure 16. — Flood zone designations. Ol rt}•d es :ti v.a.l da -43/;1D1- ^, 1P -i few; n Elm Fm[GR+ele+oea aFa Ar. ali}.au SL .n al dwelt OW ` r ) 'Fmk $mit Feed larrateeF -,./r Foal d.ckear.rdr - Oar.= ,4r us:0as* fV are.al.haiee 0111- ~ifi rtwi' iace*les d1.o-3 ills Rawly ram aF po cle :- Ems rbx` 3re.mn. cmrrrc JA' 01. -ea ai8}.am;I. am..al dhow;JG1` riar) {bpd .,$ iatO'Maes d 1 63 491S ShMfg.m wrarnc'..rigs cup= dlse unit 1 1,L - 511- 1L iF ' .mar d?.Pa ar.a+l th.rw 5 I gcocE a ass' 1% ramal dear 17F. rr� Hood rip. wrarT c.pdjoF cis n.+: Fw.s o -,w: dumpy ama eu : sx.as �MFas 11;LEVEE) x-Ja t...r-a-, 1'a- o eaa r:XM.'i'O? - 1 .mtl draarmd Ta visa. e • i..nr2.44 da i 5114-r 1:XI ' 41C�rF'- .-I cE.•.,c-=4 aY.xx. ▪ wndaeoer Fkbd mEsranea r.gw.caMa.113 apply. As shown in Table 8, the calculated change in elevation of floodwaters from a catastrophic failure of the pond walls could result in a total increase of about 0.42 feet (or 5.03 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 -year flood from 3.00 to 3.42 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points, which are roughly 6.5 to 7.0 feet above this level. In addition, this is a highly unlikely scenario. Not only is pond levee failure unlikely, but the design is that of a 4 -chamber pond, so for all flow to be released each chamber would have to fail. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. Scenario 2 was reviewed as the reduced available acreage for existing flood waters due to the ponds presence. This analysis was considered to address space that would 83 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion otherwise be available for flood storage capacity, which would be taken away by the ponds' presence. See Table 9 for more details below: Table 9. - Reduced available acreage for existing floodwaters due to the ponds presence. General Area of Influence - Modified Area General Width General Length Total Area Total Acreage Average Flood Depth (feet) Acre Feet 100 Year Flood Overall 3,858 12,250 47,260,500 1,085 3.24 3,512 Change (feet) 0.24 Change (inches) 2.84 As shown in Table 9, the calculated change in elevation of floodwaters from the ponds' presence could result in a total increase of about 0.24 feet (or 2.84 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 -year flood from 3.00 to 3.24 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points, which are roughly 6.5 to 7.0 feet above this level. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. Scenario 3 is the combination of Scenarios 1 and 2 (pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage). This analysis was considered to address space that would otherwise be available for flood storage capacity, which would be taken away by the ponds presence, as well as the pond failure event. See Table 10 for more details below: Table 10. - Pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage. Scenario 3- Full ponds failure and reduced acreage analysis combined. General Area of Influence - Modified Change (feet) 0.66 Change (inches) 7.88 As shown in Table 10, the calculated change in elevation of floodwaters from the ponds' presence could result in a total increase of about 0.66 feet (or 7.88 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 -year flood from 3.00 to 3.88 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points, which are roughly 6.5 to 7.0 feet above this level. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. Overall, the potential increase of around 2/3 of a foot in flood elevations within this area are considered to be a less than significant impact. This is especially true since it would be very improbable for the ponds four distinct and separate chambers to all fail at once. Therefore, the real potential to 100 -year floodwater increases is much closer to the Scenario 2 value of 2.84 inches. All structures within the area and around the potential area of impact are well above this level, and all levees and water containment structures are as well. 84 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion i) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the levees at the site are well above the projected 100 -year elevation level. No significant hazard increase is projected which would expose people or structures to significant risk, based on the following impact FLOOD -4 discussed below: j) iv) Impact FLOOD -4 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. As indicated above, the levees at the site (around the entire region) are well above the level of the projected 100 -year flood elevation. No significant hazard increase is projected from our analysis of the ponds that could affect these structures (levees and dams). All of these are built to withstand influence or impact from the 100 -year flood event, along with a factor of safety that is well established. Levees typically do not fail from water on the toe side of the levee, but rather from under flow (boiling) or extreme pressures. The pressure exerted on the backside of the respective levees from the ponded 100 -year floodwaters would not generally be considered a hazard. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. No Impact. The Project will not be impacted by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, because the project is not adjacent to any body of water that has the potential to experience a seiche or tsunami. In addition, the proposed pond is not large enough to result in a seiche or tsunami that would impact adjacent sites. The Project site is not in the path of any potential mudflow. 85 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion X. Land Use and Planning Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, 0 ❑ ❑ ■ or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0 0 ■ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? a) No Impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying area. The proposed Project will not physically divide an established community. No physical restraints to access are a part of this Project. The proposed expansion pond is located within the City - owned WPCF boundary. The general area consists of agricultural land with some rural residences. Current access to existing, nearby residences would not be impeded by construction and operation of the proposed storage pond. b) No Impact. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". The Project involves the proposed construction of an expansion pond at the WPCF. This is consistent with the current site land use. The Project also does not propose to change any existing zoning. Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. prepared a report (included as Appendix E) to assess whether construction and operation of the expansion pond is a compatible land use with Kingdon Air Park in accordance with guidelines established in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, since the proposed project site does lie within the airport's Area of Influence (AIA (Figure 11). Even though the entirety of the WPCF lies within the Kingdon Air Park AIA, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has no authority to command changes to land uses that are existing or vested, regardless of whether they are incompatible with airport activities. The City of Lodi General Plan (as of April 2010) has designated the WPCF as a Public/Quasi-public land use since the mid - 1960's. According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, the WPCF is considered an existing use and has a vested right to construct treatment facility improvements. Moreover, where development that does not conform with the criteria in the ALUCP already exists, additional infill development of similar land uses, such as the proposed Project, may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are prohibited elsewhere in the zone (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). 86 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion The Project proposes the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond within the City of Lodi's WPCF boundary for storage of tertiary treated wastewater; this is in accordance with current land use at the Project site. The proposed expansion pond would be located within one mile of four existing on-site treated effluent storage ponds. Although it lies within the AIA of Kingdon Air Park, the proposed Project site does not lie within the 5,000 ft minimum separation distance for wildlife attractants (Figure 12). The addition of the new treated effluent storage ponds is not anticipated to significantly attract hazardous wildlife in the area nor will if violate any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Thus, there is not impact. c) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project were inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. In an effort to protect sensitive and threatened species throughout San Joaquin County, SJCOG prepared the San Joaquin Multi Species Conservation Plan. The purpose of the SJMSCP is to provide for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed or may be listed in the future under the Federal Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species Act ESA, and to provide and maintain multiple -use open space that contributes to the quality of life of residents of San Joaquin County. The City of Lodi has adopted the SJMSCP and participation by the Project in the plan is required by the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with the SJMSCP, and a less than significant impact would occur. 87 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XI. Mineral Resources Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ■ 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- 0 0 0 ■ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? According to the San Joaquin County General Plan, the primary extractive resources in San Joaquin County are sand, gravel and natural gas. a,b) No Impact. The current use of the proposed Project site consists of the City of Lodi's main wastewater treatment facilities and surrounding agricultural land. According to the State Aggregate Resource Areas Map, Figure 17, and per the Significant Natural Resources of San Joaquin County, within the Resources element of the San Joaquin County General Plan, the proposed Project site is not located within an area of primary extractive resources. Therefore, there is no impact. , _ le- r� as Sacra_mento county' __ d2)670_Million Tons �. �y ;. ti., ' :,::w.:• 10ittli ortFdwer Years —1-s - "-,•' . ••.• 12r 5 y.�` {-.- 4 i ...7,..-..--._ / .i -� -- 'T J 5.„,....,...........r...,.... _ "fie � � cam mmana n MOO endo mann c� .SIetlrtlBIf.BM 6 mIXB N11 8.711 riHIM [GM. Dam demand mr sAnugao tr. ILO rnnm Inns, • re TERE4 reswoee Iota/ 25 mraon bra & Ise : 50 -yea- dmund .•2 1CAiMnnlms rpemmdnsarvcrl My...EI.0MI ,;,_p' s r,reap, odoemtltled rese....rmnk•O •' 50-yoa W m ant rora3;ogam is 514 Minn las. c,mRee rex ryes are areaterinm ar eiwg to mo- ;.ti,ernelham. 721.4 4.4%-rnANI WEeniesr 39 -yea. 6e1,1804, 'now Man I60' ...9 Cl' or pawl.] rewea reminna. Age. MT Short Term A'Y#egate SWY^lY .iC years aEpesmilGM merves rarnarnng n tl�e aWdl arae 40glmry]le Prptly i,m Argas rsnnefam clam mcra aggregate 1111103..14T11142.2reprvsEcts 201F19nnur0 — 65 krill. Tgra per Year — .6.5-1S Milian Iona par Year +5-31M9rrcnsPa War }— L=, .3-5 kljI n Toms per,... A. 5 MIMI Tdna per Y✓3Ar a•:acm iPapl9 o1121)1p GBr15LiS _.uI ' }••'46 . u } 1y t _ !r....4 Ct.', a '_ i' 5 1 } - /- .F :fir . -- `n- • '-±:-',-Darn Sr k - C '-.._,..,„_41°-:::-= OE .' - ,t on Lodi 1��}}q �] ■� Million ALJ i-rr�i.11 f# iH'on Tons r - ---- tea _ �' _. ,- " `Q 'f11 e�rs 1 '( f� �r Lt "�rtFC • '-, .• J{ ._ r0 r. -n E11irCo _ - • - . .. .- J #'�ti�y _ . - -- Oakdale }� ` ..: I Modesto. k, -..Meads T -. r !,' f3c L&-il1Or_' r '4 ---- ._ e'^-- F._.__._. StaIli ., .id — .. ._ r �� .^3..` ti' s- -•' s1au :,Count]r S `t- ti 14fi1!'i i>t''Tkit'--. k,._ ;' �t ti — SO1JRCECALIFORNIAGEOLOGICAL SURUS NLA. MAP SHEET 52.2012. VEY.AGGREGATE STAINABILITY IN CALIFOR 11:11. w3no•rm: Figure 17 - State Aggregate Resource Map 88 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XII. Noise Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e. For a Project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? a -d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the WPCF facility boundary in an agricultural area. Agricultural fields with few rural residences are located in the area. Lima Ranch is located approximately 500 feet northeast of the eastern facility boundary, and the Kingdon Airport is located 0.60 miles east-northeast of the eastern faculty boundary (Figure 1). Few sensitive receptors are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The noise associated with the Project site will be from construction activities. Operational noise will be non-existent from the effluent storage pond. Construction activities are anticipated to last 7 months. Therefore, any noise associated with the Project will be short- term. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and will comply with the San Joaquin County noise ordinance. Construction hours will be limited to 6:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays. Construction is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak, and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated. Construction activity will first include vegetation clearing and mass site grading of the 70 - acre pond area. The pond will then be excavated, with excavated soil stockpiled for later use. The pond bottom will then be compacted as necessary. The berms and embankments will be constructed using the on-site stockpiled soil, as well as earth fill (i.e. riprap and rock) transported to the site by dump trucks. Any excess on-site soil will be placed within haul trucks and carried off as needed. Roadways will be swept clean as 89 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion needed. Water will be applied to any potential dust -generating materials during construction. During construction, it is anticipated that the following vehicles will be used: • 3-4 Excavators • 6 Backhoes • 4 to 6 Graders/Earth Movers • 6 Front Loaders • 6 Boom Trucks • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers The relatively small size of the work crew and associated construction activities are not expected to generate noise that will violate the San Joaquin County noise standard for construction activities. e,f) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within 1 mile of the Kingdon Airpark, a private airport with public access, and falls within the Area of Influence (Figure 11). The nearest runway is approximately 8,220 feet to the east-northeast of the Project. The proposed Project is expected to have a less than significant impact upon the airport because no new residential population is being generated. No new residences or existing residences will be impacted by noise generated from the airport or overflights. 90 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XIII. Population and Housing Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ • either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project proposes the construction of a 70 -acre wastewater expansion pond at the White Slough WPCF. The proposed Project is intended to meet the City's current wastewater storage needs and will not cause any population growth. a -c) No Impact. The Project area is within City -owned agricultural land surrounding the White Slough WPCF. The Project would not include the creation of new housing, nor displace any existing housing or people. It is anticipated that any workers needed for project construction and operation would come from the regional employment base; therefore, the Project would not result in local area population growth or lead to the creation of, or necessity for new housing. Similarly, the Project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth through the extension of major infrastructure; the facility wastewater storage expansion is a result of current increased needs rather than for planned population growth. Consequently, no impacts related to population and housing would occur. 91 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XIV. Public Services Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a -e) No Impact. Construction and long-term operation of the proposed expansion pond would not place any demand on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities because the Project would not involve the construction of facilities that require such services (e.g., residences). Other public facilities include public libraries, public hospitals and medical centers, and community centers. A considerable workforce is available within the Project region and residents within the region are expected to serve the labor requirements of the proposed Project, negating the need for a significant percentage of outside labor. As a result, the proposed Project is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the area either directly or indirectly, and the existing number of other public facilities would continue to adequately serve the regional population. Based on these factors, the proposed project will not result in any long-term impacts to schools, parks, and other public facilities. 92 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XV. Recreation Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Would the Project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the Project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a,b) No Impact. A considerable workforce is available within the Project region and residents within the region are expected to serve the labor requirements of the proposed Project, negating the need for a significant percentage of outside labor. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth in the area either directly or indirectly, and the existing number of recreational facilities would continue to adequately serve the regional population. Therefore, the project would have no impact with regard to causing substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. In addition, because the project would not result in a substantial increase in population during or after construction, the project would not increase the demand for recreational facilities. 93 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XVI. Transportation/Traffic Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., 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)? Project construction is expected to begin by June 2017 and take approximately 7 months. Construction of the proposed Project is estimated to require approximately 40 workers at its peak and an average of about 11 workers per day, including skilled local professionals and labor resources. During construction, single shifts, 5 days per week are anticipated (West Yost, 2016). Construction activity will first include vegetation clearing and mass site grading of the 70 - acre pond area. The pond will then be excavated, with excavated soil stockpiled for later use. The pond bottom will then be compacted as necessary. The berms and embankments will be constructed using the on-site stockpiled soil, as well as earth fill (i.e. riprap and rock) transported to the site by dump trucks. Any excess on-site soil will be placed within haul trucks and carried off as needed. Roadways will be swept clean as needed. Water will be applied to any potential dust -generating materials during construction. During construction, it is anticipated that the following vehicles will be used: • 3-4 Excavators • 6 Backhoes • 4 to 6 Graders/Earth Movers • 6 Front Loaders • 6 Boom Trucks 94 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on water quality during construction and operations. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment during construction. a,b) Less than Significant Impact Traffic generated by this Project will be short-term as a result of construction. The construction of the Project is not expected to generate excessive traffic for the area, but will temporarily increase traffic at the WPCF. At the peak of Project construction, it is estimated that 40 contractor staff and 15-20 vehicles will be on-site. This will not increase traffic substantially in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The Project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within 1 mile of the Kingdon Airpark, a private airport with public access, and falls within the airport's Area of Influence (AIA) (Figure 11). The nearest runway is approximately 0.6 miles to the east- northeast of the Project. The proposed Project is expected to have a less than significant impact upon the airport because the Project involves the construction of a treated effluent storage pond; no tall buildings, sources of light, steam, smoke or electric hazards are associated with the proposed Project. • Glare, distracting lights and reflective materials are not part of the Project or Project design. • Sources of dust, steam or smoke are limited and are not expected to impair pilot visibility. Mitigation measures and standard engineering measures (see Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2 (Section III — Air Quality) and Geology and Soils Section b) will be in place to minimize dust during construction. Regarding steam or smoke, in 2012 the California Energy Commission and Northern California Power Agency constructed a natural gas-fired 255 -megawatt power generation facility with an evaporative cooling system on about 4.5 -acres of the WPCF. The power plant emits thermal plumes in the form of steam generated by its cooling towers. Although the FAA has found that thermal emission is not likely to pose a threat to aircraft, it is recommended that aircraft maintain a vertical separation of 1,000 feet above such facilities. This is the existing vertical separation distance for aircraft using designated Kingdon Air Park flight tracks, so the power plant will not require aircraft to adjust flight patterns. This is a less than significant impact (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). 95 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communication or navigation are not part of Project design features, and no transmissions that would interfere with aircraft radio communications or navigational signals will occur at the Project site. An overhead high voltage (230 kV) dual electrical transmission line already traverses the WPCF from north to south and is at the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion pond. The transmission line is approximately 100 -feet tall and about 8,100 -feet west of Kingdon Air Park; it is at the western limit of flight tracks. High voltage power transmission lines pose peculiar hazards to low flying aircraft, and the FAA specifies that such structures be marked and lighted. Aircraft operating over or near the transmission lines are typically at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 feet, so there is little threat of electrical interference with communication and navigation devices that would require an altered flight path. This is a less than significant impact (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). • The proposed Project site is located within Kingdon Air Park's area of influence, but not within the 5000 ft separation distance for wildlife attractants, most notably of birds, recommended by federal guidance Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B (see Hazards and Hazardous Materials Sections e, f). Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. prepared a report to assess whether construction and operation of the expansion pond is a compatible land use with Kingdon Air Park in accordance with guidelines established in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and whether the expansion pond will act as a wildlife attractant that increases the number of birds within the airport's Area of Influence. The Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. analysis revealed that the proposed expansion ponds would increase annual bird visits by about 243,000 birds, approximately 1.35%. Regardless of the time of day or year, most birds move from the Delta into the agricultural fields (west to east) or from the fields back into the Delta. Such bird movements indicate that the Kingdon Air Park AIA is an active and attractive habitat for many species of birds. Typically, birds will fly at altitudes between 300 and 500 ft, but birds crossing the Delta without using the WPCF habitat may travel at altitudes as high as 3000 ft. This is high enough to encounter aircraft from Kingdon Air Park, which are usually at altitudes between 800 and 1000 ft when crossing over the existing WPCF ponds. However, none of the tracks created by aircraft when arriving, departing, or during pilot training, including touch-and-go tracks, cross over the proposed expansion pond Project site (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Such flight patterns within the AIA, along with the minor 1.35% increase in total birds attracted to the area due to the ponds, suggests that the construction of the proposed expansion ponds will not impact the safety of air travel. The increase in birds is not expected to result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks d) No Impact. The Project does not include design features that would increase hazards or incompatible uses, because the Project would not include the construction of any new streets or roads. The Project is located within the boundaries of the existing White Slough WPCF on City -owned land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase hazards due to a design feature, such as a sharp curve or dangerous intersection, incompatible uses, such as farming equipment, or inadequate emergency access. 96 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion e) No Impact. The proposed Project will not result in inadequate emergency access to the Project area. During on-site construction, vehicles will not block emergency access routes. Therefore, the project would have no impact to emergency access. f) No Impact. The proposed Project will not generate the need for new parking capacity. The Project is located at the existing White Slough WPCF, and the completion of a new expansion pond will not generate the need for new parking capacity. Any construction parking impacts will be short term. g) No Impact. The Project would require no use of alternative transportation, during both construction and operation. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation supporting alternative transportation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. No impacts would result during the construction or operation phase. 97 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 ■ 0 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water 0 0 ■ 0 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 storm 0 0 ■ 0 water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 0 0 ■ 0 the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 0 ■ 0 treatment provider which 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 0 0 ■ 0 capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and 0 0 ■ 0 regulations related to solid waste? The City of Lodi's wastewater treatment facility at White Slough receives and treats municipal and wastewater for the City of Lodi. The White Slough WPCF additionally receives and treats separate industrial process wastewater collection for several industries within the City, as well as storm water from some industrial areas within the City and the agricultural fields surrounding the WPCF. The City of Lodi's WPCF includes primary and secondary treatment and chlorine disinfection. Secondary treated effluent is applied to City -owned agricultural land surrounding the treatment facility during summer months. The irrigation demand generally exceeds the stored effluent in July and August, and supplemental irrigation water is obtained from groundwater pumping. During the non -irrigation season (generally October through mid- April), the wastewater discharge at the facility exceeds the pond storage capacity, and overages of treated municipal effluent are released to Dredger Cut, a tributary to the Delta. The WPCF facility is projected to treat from 5.5 million gallons a day (MGD) to 8.5 MGD of wastewater discharge. The Facility underwent an expansion to handle 5.8 million gallons of wastewater discharge per day in 1976 and again in 1990 to handle the projected 8.5 million gallons per day. The White Slough WPCF proposed expansion basin Project would allow for the tertiary treated municipal wastewater to be stored and utilized for surface water irrigation in -lieu of discharging the treated effluent into the Delta surface waters. 98 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion a,b,e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not result in an increased demand that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements; the proposed WPCF expansion pond would not generate wastewater. The proposed Project itself is a response to the projected need for additional wastewater storage at White Slough WPCF, as indicated above. The impact is considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is for the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond located within the boundary of the City's WPCF. Otherwise, the proposed Project does not include the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on water quality during construction and operations. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment during construction. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project development will not require a new water supply and/or need the expansion of water sources. During Project development water will be used to control dust from the short term construction activities, otherwise, water usage will not be required for operations. The water used to control dust can be obtained from the site. Because some water will be used during the construction process, the impact is less than significant. f,g) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction or long-term operation of the proposed expansion pond Project would not require the development of a new landfill facility. Waste from construction of the Project, anticipated to be minimal, would be disposed of at the North County Recycling Center & Sanitary Landfill located on Harney Lane. Disturbed soil will be stockpiled on-site and utilized for the construction of berms/embankments per the basin design requirements. There is no conflict with federal, state or local regulations. 99 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance Issues Less Than Potentially Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less- Than- No Significant Impact Impact a. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the 0 ■ 0 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the Project have impacts that are individually 0 0 ■ 0 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 which 0 ■ 0 0 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 5, Biological Resources and Section 6, Cultural Resources, the Project does not have the potential to substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project will participate in the San Joaquin County Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan, Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1, Section 5a, this will involve payment of fees and implementation of standard Take Avoidance measures outlined in the Habitat Conservation Plan. The project will not directly impact the built environment cultural resources identified near the proposed project and no archaeological resources were identified within the Project Area. In the event that archaeological resources are observed during Project construction -related activities, Mitigation Measure CR -1 (Section 6b), Mitigation Measure CR -2 (Section 6c), and Mitigation Measure CR -3 (Section 6d), is in place to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project site consists of agricultural fields. The Project does not contain any design feature that would directly reduce habitat, reduce wildlife populations, threaten animal or plant community restrict the range of species, or eliminate examples of history or prehistory. Furthermore, Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 — Preconstruction Survey, Section 4a, will require a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction clearance suvey for special -status species and migratory birds. b) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 100 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. By combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. The short-term construction impacts will be mitigated, and are less than significant. The future operations will consist of four 7% HP pumps needed to fill the storage ponds and deliver the treated wastewater to the various agricultural fields located within City -owned property. An older less efficient 10 HP pump will be essentially out of service as need for groundwater pumping decreases. The project operational emissions are considered to be zero for District permitting purposes. This is a less than significant impact. c) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality; Section 4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 7, Geology and Soils; Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 12, Noise; and Section 16, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project would not create environmental effects that would adversely affect human beings, and would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Project consists of the construction of a 70 -acre pond and associated conveyance infrastructure. The expansion pond will be used to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water. The project has no significant GHG emissions related to the operation of the four 7% HP pumps needed to lift wastewater into the storage ponds and transport wastewater through the irrigation conveyance infrastructure. Considering the historic land use of the site, the relatively minimal increase of 1.35% increase in total birds attracted to the area due to the ponds, and also considering the height of bird flights in the pond area (being relatively low — less than 1,000 feet in general), it is concluded that the construction of the proposed expansion ponds will not likely impact that safety of air travel. In addition, the additional hazards associated with existing site use, power plant, and power lines should void any flight patterns from areas where loafer birds would be considered to have this minimal increase, and be present. However, the City will consult with ALUC before construction activities begin on the project. If the ALUC respond with a hazard determination, the City will work with the ALUC to remedy the hazard prior to construction. The proposed storage pond(s) will be unlined and store up to 388 acre-feet of tertiary treated wastewater. As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the unlined ponds in the northwest portion of the site would allow for the higher quality tertiary treated water to percolate. Thus, with the mitigations measures incorporated, the project would not be expected to result in any new environmental effects, such as significant increases in GHG emissions (Mitigation Measure Air -1, Section 3b and Mitigation Measure Air -2, Section 3c), risks 101 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion related to geological hazards (Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure -1, Section 7a, Mitigation Measure -2, Section 7c, and Mitigation Measure -3, Section 7c), exposure to hazards or hazardous materials (Hazard Mitigation Measure-, Section 8a), or exposure to structures within a 100 -year flood plain (Mitigation Measure Flood -2, Section 9h), which would cause adverse effects on human beings. Because adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, would not occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project, less -than -significant impacts with mitigations incorporated would result. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures will be adopted when the Mitigated Negative Declaration is finalized and a Notice of Determination is filed. 102 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion DOCUMENTS REFERENCED • Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (http: www.consrv.ca.gov/dmg/shezp/maps/mora4.htm). • California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, as amended. • California Air Resources Board (CARB), Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005. • California Air Resources Board (CARB), Ambient Air Quality Standards, last updated February, 2007. • California Air Resources Board, California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit, 2007. • California Department of Conservation (CDC), Division of Mines, California Geological Survey - SMARA Mineral Land Classification Map 2006. • California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program. Updated May 5, 2014. Available Online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/index.htm • California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16 livability/scenic highways/guidelines/scenic hwy guidelines 04-12-2012.pdf • California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) User's Guide, July 2013. Available online at http://www.caleemod.com/ • California Geological Survey (CGS), Aggregate Sustainability Map, Sheet 52, 2012. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cqs/information/publications/ms/Documents/MS 52 2012. pdf, accessed October 19, 2015. • California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page, http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/pshamap.asp, accessed October 2, 2015. • California, State of, Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. 2015. Available online at http://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov • Carlton Engineering, Inc., 2008. Geotechnical Feasibility Study for the Lodi Energy Center Property. • Carlton Engineering, Inc., June 30, 2008, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Lodi Energy Center Property. • CH2M Hill, February 26, 2009, NCPA Lodi Preliminary Phase II ESA Sample Results • City of Lodi, 2010 General Plan • Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/, accessed online October 12, 2015. • Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm, accessed online October 12, 2015. 103 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • Department of Toxic Substances Control ENVIROSTOR Site, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?basic=True, accessed online October 12, 2015 • Michael Baker International. November 2015, Cultural Resource Identification Report, White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Pond Project. • Moore Biological Consultants. December 2016. Biological Assessment, White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond Project. • Petralogix Engineering, Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Surface Pond Percolation Study. November 22, 2016. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), District Air Quality Plans and Related Reports, Particulate Matter, and Ozone, 2003. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status, 2005. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), Zero Equivalency Policy for Greenhouse Gases, March 24, 2010, Revised January 24, 2012. • San Joaquin County, Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 2008. • San Joaquin County, Environmental Health Department Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Materials Record Search, October 2015. • San Joaquin County Council of Governments, Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission, adopted July 25, 2013. • San Joaquin County Aviation System, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update, July 2009. • San Joaquin County, General Plan • San Joaquin County, Municipal / Development Code • San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). • State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2014. Accessed at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/sigl4.pdf • Terracon Consultants, Inc., September 16, 2016, White Slough Tertiary Ponds Preliminary Geotechnical Report. • United States, Environmental Protection Agency, EnviroMapper for Superfund. Available online at http://www2.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The National Scenic Byways Program. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/ 104 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion • West Yost Associates, 2014, Technical Memorandum, Land Application Area Expansion Study for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. • West Yost Associates, 2016. Draft — Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. • West Yost Associates, 2015, Draft -City of Lodi, White Slough, Water Pollution Control Facility, Best Practice Treatment Control (BPTC) Evaluation Report). • City of Lodi, March 2009, Draft -White Slough WPCF Organic Loading Study Technical Report. 105 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion 13. REPORT PREPARATION LEAD AGENCY: City of Lodi, Community Development Department Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner CONSULTANTS: Petralogix Engineering, Inc. (Report Authors) Daniel E. Kramer, President/CEO, Principal Geologist, PG, CEG, PGp Heather R. Shaddox, Project Geologist, GIT Tonya R. Scheftner, Project Geologist, GIT Erin Hightower, Staff Geologist, Geophysicist Michael Baker International (Cultural Resources) Nichole Jordan Davis, Senior Cultural Resources Manager Moore Biological Consultants (Biological Resources) Diane S. Moore, M.S., Principal Biologist Terracon Consultants, Inc (Preliminary Geotech) Pat C. Dell, Geotechnical Engineer West Yost Associates (Environmental Engineering) Kathryn Gies, Engineering Manager 106 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion APPENDIX A rim", s len .IJP L - • • fi%7aTLr !} riplir jam! 1'r Jd! rr r f +.. . . . r _ 3141 27,4•01 s r 1 ..:I .1 j0.5 NI; SABER REVIEW FORM LEAF) - Pogo 2 a 11}'116lar. . E5dn rrrU.Uy hm It i Ith rd1 J11eeYe11145% Appllr.ir4 Mom■ t f+Sa el eEka: X21 4r. PI r1r. 1r9ti 1 d1. nlLf r�Yrt O!?�Lt han1F'4Faa 1201 S7d'Ji [ Z £�Ia1: rlclww q krflaaw Weal JurMdatIan err Limed 024111•111y41RrnnIttse ({hack rine. .. t1=b- Lmyro p ✓ LM: ✓ EiFrilrJl SkccIdgo • raq SSJ0 . SFleYS • ti.10,.r E94uD R} =rum .. TLe•r L: -1u:•SaCKIAJLL 1 wfK��771i FFctl,1 rrrIA]&Lyman Mew Pum sanCOMIF c151S"Lf)ticoas taiswilmirGliztrasamattata G I OLr• mow !uacJ• 4r s+eutrkrr P 1r' di+r rrerr1s'r 'iir°LY T.ak11 Fri.0.13 Nieto kr'. L•- R4 J.•• 1. •. .} . .RI.2.f•1•• • . J • • ..•. • •'•.r1171'..1771107..1 ' •• •:'I • ,I,•, •1' . _. .-mar•_• R 14J1 _ L� �_.1 Vr.' J .1• 1• .. t -� . .' RI • L'i i!1_W .Y.M,1 C. •{ tfso dam ramond rre!i' 1a h.!Ii; 1 =Rr0erl. TT1ti n lk¢ .r.fr �IL'nvlEarGlea *ter mti>,Ladnip�r, ra frJodVr ., ycraJ,r 9D Orin:AS SAN P:0"..1P1 Id_Mf4., 11� htalp a lObIaaa• Tr. erc Parr~ TM '1 JffE,L1, h• 1 ecler. k.iNJ 5ryal& J7 �Ltti>ffa k'�Emr.�S!!flm' R7r P1 �li,rr1F R1 pVp7� i,d iumd .1 CN -0, tiia`i_+iui P�ive ka-a1Fan 127€1 HEi . 17pludem *2 rs-' flYteliv 1111-01 11* T Acres •212.r_ Es a r1Wre Cxx} a',.1 PETIVIeilwd7 Y a I.,.L lPP1•Ci1GT1•9h4Gk afrirtrolW+np' 1. Q1 I.. 9! GU arm 1Os cm i* S1LIG1S k bm. Lr *a alrtrp R•.. L, r{};21.1W.P 114 mous irolminsra r..cirs= wit 11.o LmrsJ.hzYri.:rr ao Scrrrial o hms. bora k I:whip= 1sso-.mo Mu!. ud Impala err Doan . ++rr1 ELF d. .ri vk..4g h K JgYobor a Ina rid Rand ® 1.14 'LT rii(Fh ut L,.rc.+lb 1. SIVE CP. I; no .J1WTIrld Iu SfU crawl may Ea aL tel_- I'yye 7tKG} C�.r4k1! 4.+>• •••.:1 rrss 'r. over." xaaii h SAO= P sni Owl EWEN! - corn 44111.1.41.1.41 +r fr4il'.a 1�Ar 14 }9. '-r Mi4.HIirlrrr, lc m L1•ra.mbNd crcia trlor P wRc of OWES nil loaioi1PkmoIrhy llb144Gmlrwewmrl.. ll.r laTiTCYm mss. �l}L Ll IN rrtrrmsnP inn Ino Aid rJlrlai li r SglaKtul� . - PTT1N 119 r7r �' � � ASTM`��} � � �. � • -.• `tiIE.1=41..0 „ r', r } LS7 7I arMc&Ti wr 1:1 Prnlet! hgne {ham AL Ad_ .41.7JCA15I TM Ms h 6r■ rn1prmyir9 Lag rrnrlmcn mmn:I...lrr mns44 r+r.o 04.174f v.'Adam ❑ •Fa earn ow= L err t j4p. ..1'.1.1(1'..'r�G4e P 1;a1 I I Al R t$P le fl1 I.k ARVIN L!• r.p 4rnracn F rcud.ry Elis 1ladry o.rr 3rad. LAIL{Py ❑ 1111 FYI, ler..1 0 Laurin. Y•KIIate the."' rr S stP9}14: 11111:060:111.1r1 Cc c! I1 l xlmi lemma Amy= olmalyruz amain:Pr r rram .• 11F1 nu row47 Lon rr>i A•J•• ,d14.d 4. r.rar-rr.>tiaarrom _ F... 514.1- torN or ]D} cdpU.% d Doe.+..Kn a c17r3rkn.",,,v rr....rr.u. a> ra Ailill •Nirt 4c Join Hobos Cpow DID•racpmr 1 Lid 1 vaa.r A.` lines L E ec.4 10 9 8 6 E_ Cp t s v. 4 4 P B 3 6 C 2 4 IS 1 e PONDS AND RAMPS (83.3 ACRES) 1 EQUIPMENT/LAY-DOWN YARD i 12.23 ACRES) 1 G 1 H 1 09/06 REVIEW DATE PIPELINE AREA WITHIN AGRICULTURAL FIELDS (.96 ACRES) PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PAVED AREAS (.70 ACRES) /EASEMENT AREA (90± ACRES) 1x6 UNE 16 1 MCH Ai FULL SCALE IF NOT SCALE ACCORDINGLY SCALE • DRAWN DESIGNED BY • PRO.) MGR DJA u. REASONS DA WEST YOST '� Savitee 00 20rc9Pah DAV± Davis,1C0 California 95618 (530)756-5905 ASSOCIATES FAX (530) 7585991 1 M 0 0 400' 800' SCALE IN FEET 1 WHITE SLOUGH WPCF STORAGE EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS OVERALL AREA PLAN JOB NUMBER 68.1.1.01 ORAx1NG NUMBER SHEET 'UMBER X REVISIO APPENDIX B San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District PERMIT UNIT: N-3404-6-0 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2019 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: 2,847.5 BHP CATERPILLAR MODEL 3156B DIESEL -FIRED EMERGENCY STANDBY IC ENGINE POWERING AN ELECTRICAL GENERATOR PERMIT UNIT REQUIREMENTS 1. No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 2. This engine shall be equipped with either a positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system that recirculates crankcase emissions into the air intake system for combustion, or a crankcase emissions control device of at least 90% control efficiency. [District Rule 2201] 3. Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.1 grains/dscf in concentration. [District Rule 4201] 4. No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20% opacity. [District Rule 4101] 5. The exhaust stack shall vent vertically upward. The vertical exhaust flow shall not be impeded by a rain cap (flapper ok), roof overhang, or any other obstruction. [District Rule 4102] 6. Only CARB certified diesel fuel containing not more than 0.0015% sulfur by weight is to be used. [District Rules 2201 and 4801, and 17 CCR 93115] 7. This engine shall be equipped with a non-resettable hour meter with a minimum display capability of 9,999 hours, unless the District determines that a non-resettable hour meter with a different minimum display capability is appropriate in consideration of the historical use of the engine and the owner or operator's compliance history. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115] 8. Emissions from this IC engine shall not exceed any of the following limits: 2.751 g-NOx/bhp-hr, 0.114 g-CO/bhp-hr, or 0.087 g-VOC/bhp-hr. [District Rule 2201 and 13 CCR 2423 and 17 CCR 93115] 9. Emissions from this IC engine shall not exceed 0.043 g-PM10/bhp-hr based on USEPA certification using ISO 8178 test procedure. [District Rules 2201 and 4102 and 13 CCR 2423 and 17 CCR 93115] 10. This engine shall be operated and maintained in proper operating condition as recommended by the engine manufacturer or emissions control system supplier. [District Rule 4702] 11. During periods of operation for maintenance, testing, and required regulatory purposes, the permittee shall monitor the operational characteristics of the engine as recommended by the manufacturer or emission control system supplier (for example: check engine fluid levels, battery, cables and connections; change engine oil and filters; replace engine coolant; and/or other operational characteristics as recommended by the manufacturer or supplier). [District Rule 4702] 12. This engine shall be operated only for testing and maintenance of the engine, required regulatory purposes, and during emergency situations. Operation of the engine for maintenance, testing, and required regulatory purposes shall not exceed 50 hours per calendar year. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115] 13. An emergency situation is an unscheduled electrical power outage caused by sudden and reasonably unforeseen natural disasters or sudden and reasonably unforeseen events beyond the control of the permittee. [District Rule 4702] PERMIT UNIT REQUIREMENTS CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE These terms and conditions are part of the Facility -wide Permit to Operate. Facility Name: CITY OF LODI/WHITE SLOUGH Location: 12751 N THORNTON RD,LODI, CA 95242 N-3404-6-0: Dec 11 2014 1:45PM — MCDONOUD Permit Unit Requirements for N-3404-6-0 (continued) Page 2 of 2 14. This engine shall not be used to produce power for the electrical distribution system, as part of a voluntary utility demand reduction program, or for an interruptible power contract. [District Rule 4702] 15. The permittee shall maintain monthly records of emergency and non -emergency operation. Records shall include the number of hours of emergency operation, the date and number of hours of all testing and maintenance operations, the purpose of the operation (for example: load testing, weekly testing, rolling blackout, general area power outage, etc.) and records of operational characteristics monitoring. For units with automated testing systems, the operator may, as an alternative to keeping records of actual operation for testing purposes, maintain a readily accessible written record of the automated testing schedule. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115] 16. All records shall be maintained and retained on-site for a minimum of five (5) years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon request. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115] These terms and conditions are part of the Facility -wide Permit to Operate. Facility Name: CITY OF LODI/WHITE SLOUGH Location: 12751 N THORNTON RD,LODI, CA 95242 NJ404-6-0 Dec 11 2014 1:45PM — MCDONOUD CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 1.0 Project Characteristics Page 1 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses I Size I Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 0.00 User Defined Unit 70.00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45 Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2018 Utility Company Statewide Average CO2 Intensity 1001.57 CH4 Intensity 0.029 (Ib/MWhr) (Ib/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data N20 Intensity (Ib/MWhr) 0.006 Project Characteristics - Land Use - The expansion pond will be 70 acres. Per phone conversation with Georgia Stewart, Air Quality Specialist with SJVAPCD on October 26, 2015, we were advised to use User Defined Industrial and define fields, based on the lack of agricultural land use subtype. Construction Phase - There is an estimated 7 months for the project; 5 months for the Excavation/Earth Works phase and 2 months for the the Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station Phase. Off-road Equipment - Per West Yost's Preliminary Tech Memo (2016), total equipment hours are estimated at 8,150 for entire project. In the model, we have a conservative estimate of 12,426 total equipment hours, with the Excavation/Earth Works phase consisting of 12,426 hours. Off-road Equipment - The other equipment consists of (1) boom trucks and (2) concrete trucks to supply the boom trucks. Grading - Material exported based on 6 inches of topsoil removed over 70 acres. The riprap imported is estimated at 30 tons. Trips and VMT - Based on the West Yost Tech Memo estimate of 11 workers/day. On -road Fugitive Dust - There is a mix of gravel, paved, and dirt roads at the site. CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O13.2.2 Page 2 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase tblConstructionPhase tblGrading tblGrading tblGrading tblLandUse tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOffRoadEquipment tblOnRoadDust tblOnRoadDust tblOnRoadDust tblOnRoadDust NumDays NumDays 1,110.00 L 110.00 AcresOfGrading F 81.75 MaterialExported F 0.00 Materiallmported F 0.00 LotAcreage 0.00 OffRoadEquipmentType r OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 2.00 4.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 2.00 6.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 3.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 4.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 6.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 6.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 1.00 OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount F 0.00 6.00 PhaseName F Excavation/Earth Works PhaseName F Excavation/Earth Works PhaseName F ? Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station PhaseName F ? Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station PhaseName Excavation/Earth Works PhaseName f Excavation/Earth Works L UsageHours i 8.00 4.00 UsageHours F 8.00 6.00 HaulingPercentPave F 100.00 50.00 HaulingPercentPave F 100.00 50.00 VendorPercentPave i 100.00 80.00 i 44.00 109.00 70.00 45.00 30.00 70.00 Graders VendorPercentPave • 100.00 80.00 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblOnRoadDust • WorkerPercentPave • 100.00 50.00 tblOnRoadDust WorkerPercentPave + 100.00 50.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber F 4.00 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber F 0.00 10.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 6.60 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 6.60 tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT tblTripsAndVMT tblVehicleEF • VendorTripNumber r 0.00 5.00 t • • • VendorTripNumber r 0.00 5.00 WorkerTripLength r 10.80 16.80 WorkerTripLength r 10.80 16.80 • WorkerTripNumber 45.00 11.00 WorkerTripNumber r 0.00 11.00 • HHD 0.03 0.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • HHD 3.11 2.92 tblVehicleEF •HHD 1.25 1.34 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF HHD r 81.00 94.90 HHD r 548.66 566.53 HHD r 1,606.52 1,664.41 HHD r 57.96 68.34 HHD r 0.10 0.10 HHD r 4.14 4.75 HHD r 4.30 5.56 • HHD 4.09 4.33 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • HHD i 0.06 0.06 i tblVehicleEF • HHD • 0.04 0.04 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • HHD • 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • HHD r 3.3050e-003 6.1390e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 8.9160e-003 8.9150e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.07 0.08 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 2.6910e-003 4.8600e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 3.4730e-003 5.1520e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.14 0.25 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.56 0.53 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 1.6440e-003 2.2910e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.23 0.25 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.72 1.11 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 2.79 3.88 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 5.5980e-003 5.6010e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 1.9780e-003 2.3190e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 3.4730e-003 5.1520e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD r0.14 0.25 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.63 0.60 tblVehicleEF • HHD r 1.6440e-003 2.2910e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.26 0.29 tblVehicleEF • HHD r0.72 1.11 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 2.99 4.16 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • HHD r2.26 2.12 i tblVehicleEF • HHD • 1.25 1.35 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • HHD • 60.85 74.92 tblVehicleEF • HHD! 581.26 600.19 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 1,606.52 1,664.41 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 57.96 68.34 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.10 0.10 tblVehicleEF • HHD 4.28 4.90 • tblVehicleEF HHD r 4.09 5.29 tblVehicleEF HHD 3.86 4.08 tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.06 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF HHD 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 3.3050e-003 6.1390e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 9.2050e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 8.9160e-003 8.9150e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.07 0.08 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • HHD 2.6910e-003 4.8600e-003 HHD r 8.8330e-003 0.01 • HHD 0.17 0.29 tblVehicleEF HHD r0.52 0.50 tblVehicleEF HHD 3.8150e-003 5.4780e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.23 0.25 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.74 1.13 • HHD 2.17 3.01 HHD r 5.9310e-003 5.9340e-003 • HHD F 0.02 0.02 • HHD • 1.6420e-003 1.9780e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • HHD • 8.8330e-003 0.01 HHD 0.17 0.29 tblVehicleEF • HHD r 0.60 0.57 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 3.8150e-003 5.4780e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.26 0.29 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF HHD r 0.74 1.13 • HHD 2.33 3.23 • HHD 0.03 0.03 • tblVehicleEF HHD r 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF HHD 4.28 4.03 tblVehicleEF • HHD 1.24 1.34 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 106.75 121.68 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 503.65 520.05 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 1,606.52 1,664.41 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 57.96 68.34 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.10 0.10 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • HHD 3.96 4.53 • HHD 4.38 5.67 HHD r 4.35 4.61 • HHD 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.06 0.06 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.08 0.09 HHD r 3.3050e-003 6.1390e-003 • HHD F 0.01 0.02 t HHD r 0.03 0.03 HHD 8.9160e-003 8.9150e-003 • HHD • 0.07 0.08 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • HHD • 2.6910e-003 4.8600e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD r 9.6600e-004 1.3470e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.17 0.29 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.60 0.57 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 5.7700e-004 7.5600e-004 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.23 0.25 tblVehicleEF • HHD i 0.77 1.19 tblVehicleEF • HHD T 3.59 5.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 5.1390e-003 5.1410e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • HHD i 2.4080e-003 2.7760e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD i 9.6600e-004 1.3470e-003 tblVehicleEF • HHD T 0.17 0.29 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.68 0.65 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 5.7700e-004 7.5600e-004 tblVehicleEF • HHD F 0.26 0.29 tblVehicleEF • HHD 0.77 1.19 tblVehicleEF • HHD i 3.85 5.39 tblVehicleEF • LDA T 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 7.6550e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.87 1.11 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 1.90 2.43 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 255.81 278.69 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 56.36 61.48 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.41 0.41 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.12 0.16 i tblVehicleEF • LDA • 1.6750e-003 1.7260e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDA • 3.2520e-003 3.0720e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDA! 1.5480e-003 1.5810e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 3.0090e-003 2.8170e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.06 0.07 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.11 0.14 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.04 0.05 tblVehicleEF LDA i 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDA r0.25 0.32 • LDA F 0.13 0.19 • LDA F 3.4810e-003 3.4760e-003 • LDA F 7.6900e-004 7.7800e-004 • LDA 0.06 0.07 • LDA F 0.11 0.14 • LDA F 0.04 0.05 tblVehicleEF • LDA r0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.25 0.32 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.14 0.20 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 7.6550e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 1.08 1.36 tblVehicleEF • LDA r1.41 1.83 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 281.57 306.73 tblVehicleEF • LDA 56.36 61.48 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.41 0.41 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 0.08 0.10 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF• • LDA r0.11 0.15 LDA F 1.6750e-003 1.7260e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LDA • 3.2520e-003 3.0720e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDA • 1.5480e-003 4 1- tblVehicleEF LDA + 3.0090e-003 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.18 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.17 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.25 0.31 1.5810e-003 2.8170e-003 tblVehicleEF LDA + 0.11 0.15 tblVehicleEF LDA 3.8370e-003 tblVehicleEF LDA 7.6100e-004 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.13 i 0.18 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.13 3.8310e-003 7.6800e-004 0.17 r t tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.09 0.11 r tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.05 tblVehicleEF LDA + 0.25 0.31 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.12 0.16 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA F 7.6550e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.81 1.05 tblVehicleEF LDA + 2.48 3.16 tblVehicleEF LDA 246.17 268.19 tblVehicleEF LDA 56.36 61.48 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.41 0.41 tblVehicleEF LDA r 0.09 0.12 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.17 tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6750e-003 1.7260e-003 tblVehicleEF LDA 3.2520e-003 3.0720e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LDA • 1.5480e-003 1.5810e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDA • 3.0090e-003 4 1- tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDA + 0.11 0.14 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LDA r0.29 0.37 tblVehicleEF LDA + 0.17 0.23 tblVehicleEF LDA 3.3490e-003 tblVehicleEF LDA 7.7900e-004 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.11 0.14 tblVehicleEF • LDA i 0.01 2.8170e-003 3.3440e-003 7.9100e-004 tblVehicleEF • LDA 0.03 0.02 0.04 tblVehicleEF LDA 0.29 0.37 tblVehicleEF LDA + 0.18 0.25 tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.09 2.71 tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.88 5.97 tblVehicleEF LDT1 304.93 328.66 tblVehicleEF LDT1 + 66.96 72.33 tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.23 0.29 tblVehicleEF LDT1 r 0.27 0.32 tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.2100e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.1280e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.9690e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 4.7430e-003 3.6920e-003 5.5900e-003 3.3840e-003 5.1240e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 0.18 0.21 LDT1 0.27 0.31 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 r 0.11 0.13 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.05 0.08 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.95 1.09 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.36 0.46 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF LDT1 r 4.0410e-003 4.0350e-003 LDT1 r 9.3200e-004 9.5200e-004 LDT1 r 0.18 0.21 • LDT1 0.27 0.31 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.11 0.13 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF• • LDT1 r0.07 0.10 LDT1 F 0.95 1.09 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.39 0.49 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.02 0.02 LDT1 r 0.02 0.03 LDT1 r 2.52 3.23 LDT1 r 3.67 4.52 LDT1 r 333.76 359.50 LDT1 r 66.96 72.33 • LDT1 0.06 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.21 0.27 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.25 0.30 LDT1 r 3.2100e-003 3.6920e-003 LDT1 r 5.1280e-003 5.5900e-003 • LDT1 2.9690e-003 3.3840e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 i 4.7430e-003 5.1240e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 0.45 0.53 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 0.35 4 1- tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.26 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 r 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.92 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.29 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 4.4320e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 9.1100e-004 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.45 0.41 0.30 0.09 1.07 0.37 4.4230e-003 9.2700e-004 0.53 tblVehicleEF LDT1 r 0.35 0.41 tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.26 0.30 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.08 0.12 tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.92 1.07 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.31 0.40 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 i 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDT1 r0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.97 2.60 tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.35 7.74 tblVehicleEF LDT1 294.11 317.09 tblVehicleEF LDT1 66.96 72.33 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 F 0.06 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 i 0.26 0.32 tblVehicleEF LDT1 r0.29 0.36 tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.2100e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.1280e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.9690e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT1 4.7430e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.05 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 0.27 0.32 3.6920e-003 5.5900e-003 3.3840e-003 5.1240e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT1 • 0.04 0.04 • LDT1 0.05 0.08 • • LDT1 1.14 1.32 • LDT1 i 0.45 0.57 • LDT1 F 3.8950e-003 3.8910e-003 • LDT1 F 9.5800e-004 9.8400e-004 • LDT1 F 0.05 0.06 • LDT1 0.27 0.32 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 0.07 0.10 tblVehicleEF • LDT1 1.14 1.32 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT1 r0.48 0.61 • LDT2 F 0.01 0.02 LDT2 0.01 0.02 t LDT2 r 1.25 1.62 • LDT2 F 2.91 3.71 • LDT2 F 376.31 402.72 • LDT2 82.06 87.93 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.15 0.20 • LDT2 r0.25 0.33 • LDT2 F 1.7900e-003 1.8990e-003 • LDT2 F 3.4010e-003 3.3120e-003 • LDT2 F 1.6530e-003 1.7370e-003 • LDT2 F 3.1430e-003 3.0330e-003 • LDT2 F 0.08 0.10 • LDT2 r0.15 0.18 i • LDT2 • 0.06 0.07 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDT2 • 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.49 0.58 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 r 0.21 0.28 • tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 4.7450e-003 4.7400e-003 • tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 1.0550e-003 1.0700e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.08 0.10 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.06 0.07 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 r 0.04 0.06 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 0.49 0.58 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.22 0.30 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 1.53 1.96 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 r 2.17 2.80 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 413.16 442.02 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 82.06 87.93 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.14 0.19 tblVehicleEF •LDT2 0.23 0.30 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 r 1.7900e-003 1.8990e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 3.4010e-003 3.3120e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 1.6530e-003 1.7370e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 3.1430e-003 3.0330e-003 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 0.21 0.25 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.19 0.22 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 r0.14 0.16 i tblVehicleEF • LDT2 • 0.03 0.05 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDT2 • 0.47 0.56 tblVehicleEF LDT2 + 0.17 0.23 tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.2150e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0420e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.21 0.25 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.19 0.22 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.14 5.2090e-003 1.0540e-003 0.16 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.07 tblVehicleEF LDT2 + 0.47 0.56 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.24 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDT2 r0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.17 1.54 tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.80 4.82 tblVehicleEF LDT2 362.49 387.98 tblVehicleEF LDT2 82.06 87.93 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.17 0.22 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.27 0.36 tblVehicleEF LDT2 + 1.7900e-003 1.8990e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.4010e-003 3.3120e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 F 1.6530e-003 1.7370e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.1430e-003 3.0330e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 F 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LDT2 r0.03 i tblVehicleEF • LDT2 • 0.58 0.04 0.69 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LDT2 • 0.26 0.35 tblVehicleEF LDT2 + 4.5690e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0710e-003 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LDT2 i 0.04 4.5650e-003 1.0890e-003 0.06 tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.58 0.69 tblVehicleEF LDT2 + 0.28 0.37 tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1090e-003 1.1180e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.70 2.05 tblVehicleEF LHD1 + 3.94 4.40 tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.52 8.79 tblVehicleEF LHD1 731.30 755.19 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 34.25 35.16 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 i 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.08 0.08 tblVehicleEF LHD1 r1.53 tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.09 tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.4900e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 i 0.05 1.79 1.14 8.6200e-004 0.05 tblVehicleEF LHD1 r 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.8100e-004 1.0550e-003 tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.8100e-004 7.9300e-004 i tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 0.02 0.02 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 0.02 0.02 • LHD1r 8.0900e-004 9.6500e-004 • LHD1 F 2.8250e-003 3.0140e-003 • LHD1 F 0.07 0.07 • LHD1 F 0.03 0.03 • LHD1 F 1.2130e-003 1.2530e-003 • LHD1 i 0.17 0.21 LHD1 0.41 0.42 t LHD1 r 0.33 0.38 LHD1 r 7.7350e-003 7.7460e-003 LHD1 r 4.3800e-004 4.4500e-004 LHD1 r 2.8250e-003 3.0140e-003 LHD1 r 0.07 0.07 LHD1 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 r 1.2130e-003 1.2530e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.20 0.24 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.41 0.42 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.36 0.40 LHD1 r 1.1090e-003 1.1180e-003 LHD1 r 0.02 0.02 • LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 T 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 i 1.75 2.11 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 2.85 3.18 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 T 8.52 8.79 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 731.30 755.19 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 34.25 35.16 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 0.05 0.05 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 0.08 0.08 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 1.44 1.69 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 1.03 1.07 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 8.4900e-004 8.6200e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 8.8100e-004 1.0550e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 7.8100e-004 7.9300e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 8.0900e-004 9.6500e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 6.8830e-003 7.4090e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 T 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 2.6920e-003 2.8500e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.18 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.41 0.42 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.28 0.31 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 7.7360e-003 7.7470e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 4.1900e-004 4.2400e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 6.8830e-003 7.4090e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 2.6920e-003 2.8500e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.20 0.24 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.41 0.42 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 r0.30 0.33 i tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 1.1090e-003 1.1180e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 0.02 0.02 LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 r 0.16 0.16 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 1.67 2.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 5.25 5.87 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 8.52 8.79 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF LHD1 r 731.30 755.19 LHD1 r 34.25 35.16 LHD1 r 0.05 0.05 LHD1 r 0.08 0.08 LHD1 r 1.57 1.84 LHD1 r 1.15 1.21 LHD1 r 8.4900e-004 8.6200e-004 • LHD1 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF •LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF LHD1 r 8.8100e-004 1.0550e-003 • LHD1 F 7.8100e-004 7.9300e-004 • LHD1 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 T 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 8.0900e-004 9.6500e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 8.7900e-004 9.1300e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 F 0.07 0.07 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD1 4.7800e-004 4.7700e-004 • LHD1 0.17 0.20 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.45 0.47 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD1 r0.40 0.45 i • LHD1 • 7.7350e-003 7.7450e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LHD1 • 4.6100e-004 4 1- tblVehicleEF LHD1 + 8.7900e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.07 tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.7800e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 0.20 0.23 tblVehicleEF • LHD1 i 0.45 4.7000e-004 9.1300e-004 4.7700e-004 0.47 tblVehicleEF LHD1 + 0.43 0.48 tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.1500e-004 8.2100e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.3220e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.13 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 1.12 0.13 1.42 tblVehicleEF LHD2 + 1.89 2.23 tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.37 9.67 tblVehicleEF LHD2 623.75 643.94 tblVehicleEF LHD2 19.98 20.77 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 7.8310e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.13 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 2.10 7.8950e-003 0.13 2.46 tblVehicleEF LHD2 r0.60 0.63 tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4230e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.07 0.07 tblVehicleEF LHD2 r 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.9100e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3090e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 0.03 1.4370e-003 5.7400e-004 1.3220e-003 0.03 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 2.6740e-003 2.6750e-003 • LHD2 r 0.03 0.03 • LHD2 F 3.5800e-004 5.1000e-004 • LHD2 F 1.3040e-003 1.5000e-003 • LHD2 F 0.03 0.04 • LHD2 F 0.02 0.02 • LHD2 F 5.8100e-004 6.3600e-004 • LHD2 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF LHD2 r 0.19 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.16 0.20 F tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF LHD2 r 6.5140e-003 6.5200e-003 LHD2 r 2.4800e-004 2.5600e-004 • LHD2 F 1.3040e-003 1.5000e-003 • LHD2 i 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 r0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 5.8100e-004 6.3600e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.17 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.19 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.18 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 8.1500e-004 8.2100e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 9.3220e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.13 0.13 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • LHD2 1.13 1.44 LHD2 1.38 1.66 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 r 9.37 9.67 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 623.75 643.94 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 19.98 20.77 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 7.8310e-003 7.8950e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.13 0.13 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 1.99 2.34 • • tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.56 0.59 • tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 1.4230e-003 1.4370e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.07 0.07 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 r 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 3.9100e-004 5.7400e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 1.3090e-003 1.3220e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 2.6740e-003 2.6750e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 3.5800e-004 5.1000e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 3.1620e-003 3.6920e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.04 0.05 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 1.2820e-003 1.4500e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.19 0.21 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 r 0.14 0.17 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 6.5140e-003 6.5200e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 2.3900e-004 2.4600e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.1620e-003 3.6920e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 F 0.04 0.05 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 r1.2820e-003 1.4500e-003 i tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 0.17 0.21 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 0.19 0.21 tblVehicleEF LHD2 + 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.1500e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.3220e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.13 tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.11 1.42 tblVehicleEF LHD2 + 2.49 2.92 tblVehicleEF LHD2 9.37 9.67 tblVehicleEF LHD2 623.75 643.94 tblVehicleEF LHD2 19.98 20.77 tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.8310e-003 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.13 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 2.14 2.51 tblVehicleEF LHD2 i 0.63 0.67 tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4230e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.07 0.07 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 0.01 8.2100e-004 7.8950e-003 1.4370e-003 0.01 tblVehicleEF LHD2 r 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.9100e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3090e-003 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6740e-003 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.5800e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.1400e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.03 0.04 L tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 0.02 0.02 5.7400e-004 1.3220e-003 2.6750e-003 5.1000e-004 4.5600e-004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • LHD2 • 2.3100e-004 4 1- tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.15 0.18 tblVehicleEF LHD2 + 0.21 0.23 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.20 0.24 tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.5140e-003 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 2.5900e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 i 4.1400e-004 2.4100e-004 6.5200e-003 2.6800e-004 4.5600e-004 tblVehicleEF LHD2 + 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.3100e-004 2.4100e-004 tblVehicleEF • LHD2 0.17 0.20 tblVehicleEF LHD2 r0.21 0.23 tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.21 0.25 tblVehicleEF MCY 30.35 33.12 tblVehicleEF MCY 10.55 10.43 tblVehicleEF MCY 156.67 157.68 tblVehicleEF MCY 40.96 43.68 tblVehicleEF MCY 6.4350e-003 6.4480e-003 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 1.27 1.29 tblVehicleEF • MCY i 0.31 0.31 tblVehicleEF • MCY r0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 4.7000e-004 6.2500e-004 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 1.2460e-003 1.6500e-003 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 3.8800e-004 5.0800e-004 tblVehicleEF • MCY T 1.0130e-003 1.3150e-003 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 1.14 1.16 tblVehicleEF • MCY 0.48 0.51 tblVehicleEF • MCY • 0.59 0.60 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MCY • 2.96 3.07 • MCY 1.44 1.62 • MCY F 2.19 2.23 • MCY F 2.2450e-003 2.2500e-003 • MCY F 6.7300e-004 6.8700e-004 • MCY F 1.14 1.16 MCY 0.48 0.51 t MCY r 0.59 0.60 MCY r 3.23 3.34 MCY r 1.44 1.62 • MCY 2.36 2.40 MCY r 30.70 33.49 • MCY r 8.96 8.96 MCY r 156.67 157.68 MCY r 40.96 43.68 MCY r 6.4350e-003 6.4480e-003 MCY r 1.10 1.12 • MCY 0.29 0.29 tblVehicleEF •MCY r 0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MCY r 4.7000e-004 6.2500e-004 MCY r 1.2460e-003 1.6500e-003 MCY r 3.8800e-004 5.0800e-004 MCY r 1.0130e-003 1.3150e-003 • MCY 2.95 3.01 tblVehicleEF MCY r 0.80 0.83 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.66 1.69 tblVehicleEF • MCY 2.90 2.99 tblVehicleEF • MCY • 1.39 1.57 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • MCY • 1.84 tblVehicleEF MCY + 2.2480e-003 tblVehicleEF MCY 6.3700e-004 tblVehicleEF MCY 2.95 tblVehicleEF MCY 0.80 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.66 tblVehicleEF MCY 3.16 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.39 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.98 tblVehicleEF MCY 32.96 tblVehicleEF MCY 12.73 12.50 tblVehicleEF MCY 156.67 157.68 tblVehicleEF MCY r 40.96 43.68 tblVehicleEF MCY 6.4350e-003 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.38 1.40 tblVehicleEF • MCY F 0.34 0.34 tblVehicleEF MCY r0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF MCY 4.7000e-004 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.2460e-003 tblVehicleEF MCY 3.8800e-004 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.0130e-003 tblVehicleEF MCY 0.28 0.28 tblVehicleEF • MCY 0.47 0.52 tblVehicleEF MCY 0.12 0.13 tblVehicleEF MCY 3.11 3.23 tblVehicleEF MCY 1.74 1.94 tblVehicleEF • MCY 2.64 2.70 tblVehicleEF • MCY • 2.2900e-003 1.87 2.2530e-003 6.5200e-004 3.01 0.83 1.69 3.26 1.57 2.01 36.06 6.4480e-003 6.2500e-004 1.6500e-003 5.0800e-004 1.3150e-003 2.3010e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • MCY • 7.2100e-004 7.3400e-004 tblVehicleEF • MCY 0.28 0.28 • tblVehicleEF • MCY r 0.47 0.52 • tblVehicleEF • MCY F 0.12 0.13 • tblVehicleEF • MCY F 3.38 3.52 tblVehicleEF • MCY 1.74 1.94 tblVehicleEF • MCY 2.84 2.90 tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF • MDV r 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 2.08 2.43 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 5.02 5.82 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 502.37 533.62 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 108.07 114.34 tblVehicleEF • MDV T 0.18 0.18 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 0.30 0.35 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 0.46 0.55 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 2.1120e-003 2.1870e-003 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 3.7450e-003 3.6780e-003 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 1.9460e-003 2.0110e-003 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 3.4590e-003 3.3900e-003 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 0.11 0.11 tblVehicleEF • MDV T 0.21 0.22 tblVehicleEF • MDV i 0.08 0.08 tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.06 0.07 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.67 0.69 tblVehicleEF • MDV r 0.42 0.50 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 6.0540e-003 6.0340e-003 i tblVehicleEF • MDV • 1.3580e-003 1.3670e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • MDV • 0.11 0.11 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.22 tblVehicleEF MDV + 0.08 0.08 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.08 0.10 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.67 0.69 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.45 0.54 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF • MDV r0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF MDV i 2.54 2.95 tblVehicleEF MDV 3.77 4.38 tblVehicleEF MDV 551.11 tblVehicleEF MDV 108.07 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.18 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.27 0.33 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.43 0.50 tblVehicleEF MDV 2.1120e-003 tblVehicleEF MDV 3.7450e-003 tblVehicleEF MDV 1.9460e-003 tblVehicleEF • MDV r3.4590e-003 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.27 0.28 tblVehicleEF MDV + 0.26 0.27 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.18 0.18 tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.06 0.08 tblVehicleEF MDV i 0.65 0.68 tblVehicleEF MDV 0.34 0.41 tblVehicleEF MDV + 6.6490e-003 tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3360e-003 i tblVehicleEF • MDV • 0.27 585.15 114.34 2.1870e-003 3.6780e-003 2.0110e-003 3.3900e-003 6.6240e-003 1.3410e-003 0.28 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MDV • 0.26 0.27 MDV 0.18 0.18 tblVehicleEF • MDV r 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 0.65 0.68 tblVehicleEF • MDV F 0.37 0.43 tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.02 0.03 MDV 1.97 2.30 t MDV r 6.53 7.58 MDV r 484.04 514.23 MDV r 108.07 114.34 • MDV 0.18 0.18 MDV r 0.32 0.39 • MDV 0.51 0.60 tblVehicleEF •MDV 2.1120e-003 2.1870e-003 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MDV r 3.7450e-003 3.6780e-003 MDV r 1.9460e-003 2.0110e-003 MDV r 3.4590e-003 3.3900e-003 • MDV 0.04 0.04 MDV r 0.21 0.22 • MDV 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF •MDV r 0.05 0.07 tblVehicleEF •MDV 0.80 0.83 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MDV r 0.52 0.62 MDV r 5.8310e-003 5.8130e-003 • MDV F 1.3850e-003 1.3980e-003 • MDV i 0.04 0.04 i • MDV • 0.21 0.22 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MDV • 0.03 0.03 MDV 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • MDV r 0.80 0.83 tblVehicleEF • MDV 0.56 0.66 tblVehicleEF • MH F 2.94 4.66 tblVehicleEF • MH F 7.91 9.61 tblVehicleEF • MH F 728.18 752.11 tblVehicleEF • MH F 28.19 29.98 tblVehicleEF • MH F 2.3020e-003 2.3100e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH F 1.83 2.09 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.79 0.89 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MH r 0.05 0.05 MH r 8.7200e-003 8.7270e-003 MH r 0.03 0.04 MH r 9.5600e-004 1.4530e-003 MH r 0.02 0.02 MH r 2.1800e-003 2.1820e-003 MH r 0.03 0.03 MH r 8.6400e-004 1.2790e-003 • MH 1.32 1.55 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.08 0.09 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.36 0.41 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.14 0.19 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MH 1.90 2.11 MH r 0.44 0.56 • MH 7.7270e-003 7.7610e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH i 4.3900e-004 4.7900e-004 i tblVehicleEF • MH • 1.32 1.55 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 31 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MH • 0.08 0.09 MH 0.36 0.41 tblVehicleEF • MH r 0.17 0.23 tblVehicleEF • MH F 1.90 2.11 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.47 0.60 tblVehicleEF • MH F 3.05 4.82 tblVehicleEF • MH F 5.60 6.82 tblVehicleEF • MH F 728.18 752.11 tblVehicleEF • MH F 28.19 29.98 tblVehicleEF • MH F 2.3020e-003 2.3100e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH 1.69 1.93 tblVehicleEF MH 0.75 0.84 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF • MH F 8.7200e-003 8.7270e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF • MH F 9.5600e-004 1.4530e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • MH F 2.1800e-003 2.1820e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • MH F 8.6400e-004 1.2790e-003 tblVehicleEF • MH F 3.21 3.82 tblVehicleEF • MH F 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.76 0.90 tblVehicleEF MH i 0.14 0.20 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MH 1.87 2.09 • MH 0.35 0.44 • MH F 7.7290e-003 7.7640e-003 i tblVehicleEF • MH • 4.0000e-004 4.3100e-004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 32 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • MH • 3.21 3.82 tblVehicleEF MH + 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF MH 0.76 0.90 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.17 0.24 tblVehicleEF • MHr 1.87 2.09 tblVehicleEF MH + 8.6400e-004 tblVehicleEF MH 0.40 0.46 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF MH 0.17 0.19 tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.19 tblVehicleEF • MH F 2.03 2.26 tblVehicleEF MH 0.54 0.70 i tblVehicleEF • MH • 7.7260e-003 tblVehicleEF MH i 0.37 0.47 tblVehicleEF • MH i 2.87 tblVehicleEF MH r10.73 tblVehicleEF MH 728.18 tblVehicleEF MH 28.19 tblVehicleEF MH 2.3020e-003 tblVehicleEF MH 1.90 tblVehicleEF MH 0.84 tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 tblVehicleEF MH 8.7200e-003 tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 tblVehicleEF MH 9.5600e-004 tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 tblVehicleEF MH 2.1800e-003 tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 4.61 13.04 752.11 29.98 2.3100e-003 2.18 0.95 0.05 8.7270e-003 0.04 1.4530e-003 0.02 2.1820e-003 0.03 1.2790e-003 7.7600e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 33 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MH • 4.8600e-004 5.3700e-004 MH 0.40 0.46 tblVehicleEF • MH r 0.09 0.11 tblVehicleEF • MH 0.17 0.19 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF• • MH i 0.16 0.23 MH i 2.03 2.26 tblVehicleEF •MH 0.58 0.75 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MHD r 8.7370e-003 9.6310e-003 MHD r 7.5890e-003 9.3760e-003 MHD r 1.94 2.00 • MHD 1.04 1.46 tblVehicleEF •MHD 19.71 24.58 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MHD r 584.98 597.72 • MHD 1,039.17 1,075.26 MHD r 55.94 63.70 MHD r 0.02 0.02 MHD r 6.07 6.89 MHD r 3.27 4.31 MHD r 1.70 1.95 • MHD 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF MHD 0.12 0.12 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF t MHD r 0.08 0.11 MHD r 3.2560e-003 5.4710e-003 • MHD 0.03 0.04 MHD r 0.05 0.05 • MHD 0.07 0.10 tblVehicleEF • MHD i 2.7580e-003 4.4910e-003 i tblVehicleEF • MHD • 4.1470e-003 5.5870e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 34 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • MHD • 0.14 0.21 tblVehicleEF • MHD r 0.19 0.21 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1.8390e-003 2.3990e-003 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.19 0.25 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.54 0.76 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1.30 1.81 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 5.9690e-003 5.9090e-003 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.01 0.01 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 9.4800e-004 1.1020e-003 • tblVehicleEF • MHD F 4.1470e-003 5.5870e-003 • tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.14 0.21 tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.21 0.24 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1.8390e-003 2.3990e-003 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.22 0.28 tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.54 0.76 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1.39 1.94 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 8.2340e-003 9.0760e-003 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 7.5890e-003 9.3760e-003 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1.41 1.45 tblVehicleEF • MHD i 1.06 1.48 tblVehicleEF • MHD r14.63 18.85 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 619.73 633.23 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 1,039.17 1,075.26 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 55.94 63.70 tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • MHD r 6.26 7.11 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 3.10 4.08 i tblVehicleEF • MHD • 1.60 1.84 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 35 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD • 0.03 0.04 MHD 0.12 0.12 tblVehicleEF • MHD r 0.08 0.11 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 3.2560e-003 5.4710e-003 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.07 0.10 • MHD 2.7580e-003 4.4910e-003 MHD r 0.01 0.01 MHD r 0.17 0.26 • MHD 0.18 0.20 MHD r 4.3340e-003 5.7920e-003 MHD r 0.19 0.25 MHD r 0.54 0.77 MHD r 1.05 1.45 MHD r 6.3240e-003 6.2600e-003 MHD r 0.01 0.01 MHD r 8.6000e-004 1.0010e-003 • MHD F 0.01 0.01 • MHD i 0.17 0.26 tblVehicleEF • MHD r0.20 0.22 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 4.3340e-003 5.7920e-003 tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.22 0.28 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.54 0.77 • MHD 1.12 1.55 MHD r 9.4320e-003 0.01 • MHD F 7.5890e-003 9.3760e-003 • MHD • 2.67 2.75 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 36 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD • 1.04 1.48 • MHD r 26.09 31.96 • MHD F 536.98 548.68 • MHD F 1,039.17 1,075.26 • MHD F 55.94 63.70 • MHD F 0.02 0.02 • MHD F 5.80 6.59 • MHD F 3.33 4.39 • MHD F 1.81 2.08 • MHD F 0.04 0.05 • MHD 0.12 0.12 tblVehicleEF •MHD 0.08 0.11 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MHD r 3.2560e-003 5.4710e-003 • MHD 0.03 0.05 tblVehicleEF •MHD 0.05 0.05 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF MHD r 0.07 0.10 MHD r 2.7580e-003 4.4910e-003 MHD r 1.1680e-003 1.5070e-003 • MHD 0.15 0.25 tblVehicleEF • MHD T 0.20 0.22 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 6.4600e-004 8.0000e-004 tblVehicleEF • MHD F 0.19 0.24 tblVehicleEF • MHD 0.58 0.82 tblVehicleEF • MHD 1.61 2.27 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD 5.4790e-003 5.4250e-003 • MHD 0.01 0.01 • MHD r1.0580e-003 1.2330e-003 i • MHD • 1.1680e-003 1.5070e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 37 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • MHD • 0.15 0.25 • MHD r 0.23 0.25 • MHD F 6.4600e-004 8.0000e-004 • MHD F 0.22 0.28 • MHD F 0.58 0.82 • MHD i 1.73 2.43 tblVehicleEF •OBUS r 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF OBUS r 2.7200e-003 2.9780e-003 OBUS r 2.48 2.36 OBUS r 1.82 2.34 OBUS r 13.26 15.03 OBUS r 554.85 571.35 OBUS r 1,050.92 1,083.72 OBUS r 34.54 36.27 OBUS r 1.7870e-003 1.8030e-003 OBUS r 5.30 5.94 • OBUS 3.19 4.15 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 1.75 1.96 tblVehicleEF •OBUS r 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.09 0.09 tblVehicleEF OBUS i 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.04 0.05 tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.5900e-004 1.2800e-003 tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.4330e-003 0.02 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.04 0.04 tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.5640e-003 2.5570e-003 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 0.03 0.05 tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 8.6000e-004 1.1250e-003 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 38 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 1.2260e-003 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF OBUS + 0.42 0.41 tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.2500e-004 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.18 0.22 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 0.29 0.30 tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.79 0.91 tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.6610e-003 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.0200e-004 tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2260e-003 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.48 0.47 tblVehicleEF OBUS 4.2500e-004 tblVehicleEF • OBUS F 0.21 0.26 tblVehicleEF • OBUS i 0.29 0.30 tblVehicleEF OBUS r0.85 0.97 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF OBUS 2.7200e-003 tblVehicleEF • OBUS F 1.80 1.72 tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.86 2.39 tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.67 11.02 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 587.81 605.30 tblVehicleEF OBUS r1,050.92 tblVehicleEF OBUS 34.54 36.27 tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.7870e-003 tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.47 6.13 i tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 3.00 1.3160e-003 4.4300e-004 5.6490e-003 6.4000e-004 1.3160e-003 4.4300e-004 2.9780e-003 1,083.72 1.8030e-003 3.90 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 39 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 1.66 1.85 • OBUS 8.6440e-003 0.02 • OBUS F 0.09 0.09 • OBUS F 0.01 0.01 • OBUS F 0.04 0.05 • OBUS F 9.5900e-004 1.2800e-003 • OBUS F 7.9520e-003 0.01 • OBUS 0.04 0.04 • OBUS F 2.5640e-003 2.5570e-003 • OBUS F 0.03 0.05 • OBUS F 8.6000e-004 1.1250e-003 • OBUS 2.9670e-003 3.2300e-003 • OBUS r 0.03 0.04 • tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.40 0.39 tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.1200e-004 9.7800e-004 tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.18 0.22 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 0.29 0.30 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.66 0.76 OBUS r 5.9980e-003 5.9840e-003 • OBUS 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 5.4100e-004 5.7200e-004 tblVehicleEF •OBUS 2.9670e-003 3.2300e-003 tblVehicleEF •OBUS 0.03 0.04 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.45 0.44 OBUS r 9.1200e-004 9.7800e-004 OBUS r 0.21 0.26 • OBUS i 0.29 0.30 i • OBUS • 0.71 0.81 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 40 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 0.02 0.02 • OBUS 2.7200e-003 2.9780e-003 • OBUS F 3.41 3.26 • OBUS F 1.78 2.29 • OBUS F 17.64 19.95 • OBUS F 509.32 524.48 • OBUS F 1,050.92 1,083.72 • OBUS F 34.54 36.27 • OBUS F 1.7870e-003 1.8030e-003 • OBUS F 5.06 5.67 • OBUS i 3.27 4.26 tblVehicleEF •OBUS 1.87 2.09 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF OBUS r 0.01 0.02 OBUS r 0.09 0.09 OBUS r 0.01 0.01 OBUS r 0.04 0.05 OBUS r 9.5900e-004 1.2800e-003 OBUS r 0.01 0.02 • OBUS 0.04 0.04 • OBUS F 2.5640e-003 2.5570e-003 tblVehicleEF • OBUS i 0.03 0.05 tblVehicleEF • OBUS F 8.6000e-004 1.1250e-003 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 3.9300e-004 4.0500e-004 tblVehicleEF • OBUS i 0.03 0.03 tblVehicleEF • OBUS F 0.46 0.45 tblVehicleEF • OBUS F 2.0000e-004 2.0100e-004 tblVehicleEF • OBUS 0.18 0.22 tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 0.31 0.33 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 41 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • OBUS • 0.95 1.10 • OBUS 5.1970e-003 5.1850e-003 • OBUS F 6.7600e-004 7.2300e-004 • OBUS F 3.9300e-004 4.0500e-004 • OBUS F 0.03 0.03 • OBUS 0.52 0.51 OBUS r 2.0000e-004 2.0100e-004 • OBUS 0.20 0.25 t OBUS r 0.31 0.33 OBUS r 1.02 1.18 SBUS r 4.3220e-003 5.4360e-003 SBUS r 5.0120e-003 7.2460e-003 SBUS r 0.99 1.06 SBUS r 6.84 8.44 • SBUS 43.56 48.42 SBUS r 563.29 570.82 SBUS r 1,052.56 1,091.27 SBUS r 122.83 129.17 SBUS r 9.2300e-004 9.4600e-004 SBUS r 7.75 8.09 • SBUS 7.29 8.16 tblVehicleEF • SBUS T 2.92 3.17 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.01 0.03 tblVehicleEF •SBUS 0.53 0.53 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF SBUS r 0.01 0.01 • SBUS 0.05 0.08 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 7.6770e-003 9.5990e-003 i tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 0.01 0.02 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 42 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 0.23 0.23 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 2.6950e-003 2.6990e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS r 0.04 0.08 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 6.8320e-003 8.3940e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.06 0.07 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.28 0.33 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.09 0.12 tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • SBUS r 0.60 0.72 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 2.29 2.51 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 2.92 3.35 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 5.7480e-003 5.6430e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 2.0870e-003 2.2020e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.06 0.07 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.28 0.33 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.11 0.13 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.66 0.79 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 2.29 2.51 tblVehicleEF • SBUS r3.12 3.58 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 4.0730e-003 5.1230e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 5.0120e-003 7.2460e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.72 0.77 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 7.03 8.63 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 34.69 38.82 tblVehicleEF • SBUS r596.75 604.73 i tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 1,052.56 1,091.27 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 43 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 122.83 4 1- tblVehicleEF SBUS + 9.2300e-004 tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.00 8.35 tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.86 7.68 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 2.68 2.91 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.01 129.17 9.4600e-004 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.53 0.02 0.53 tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF SBUS + 0.05 0.08 tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.6770e-003 9.5990e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.01 0.02 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.23 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 2.6950e-003 0.23 2.6990e-003 tblVehicleEF SBUS + 0.04 0.08 tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.8320e-003 tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.15 0.17 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.32 0.37 tblVehicleEF • SBUS i 0.09 8.3940e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.04 0.11 0.04 tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.62 0.74 tblVehicleEF SBUS + 2.06 2.26 tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.48 2.83 tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.0890e-003 5.9790e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF SBUS r 1.9340e-003 2.0350e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.15 0.17 tblVehicleEF SBUS i 0.32 0.37 i tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 0.10 0.13 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 44 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 0.04 0.04 • SBUS r 0.68 0.81 • SBUS F 2.06 2.26 nr • SBUS F 2.65 3.03 nr • SBUS F 4.6660e-003 5.8680e-003 nr • SBUS F 5.0120e-003 7.2460e-003 nr • SBUS F 1.37 1.46 nr • SBUS F 6.80 8.51 nr • SBUS F 55.08 60.96 • SBUS F 517.07 523.99 • SBUS F 1,052.56 1,091.27 nr • SBUS F 122.83 129.17 nr • SBUS F 9.2300e-004 9.4600e-004 nr i- • SBUS 7.40 7.73 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS r 7.48 8.37 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 3.15 3.42 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.02 0.03 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.53 0.53 • SBUS 0.01 0.01 SBUS 0.05 0.08 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS r 7.6770e-003 9.5990e-003 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.02 0.03 nr tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.23 0.23 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF SBUS r 2.6950e-003 2.6990e-003 SBUS r 0.04 0.08 SBUS r 6.8320e-003 8.3940e-003 SBUS 0.02 0.02 • SBUS • 0.31 0.37 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 45 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • SBUS • 0.10 0.13 tblVehicleEF • SBUS r 7.4950e-003 8.0200e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.58 0.71 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 2.80 3.07 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 3.45 3.98 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 5.2760e-003 5.1800e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.01 0.01 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 2.2850e-003 2.4190e-003 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • SBUS F 0.31 0.37 tblVehicleEF • SBUS 0.11 0.14 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF SBUS r 7.4950e-003 8.0200e-003 SBUS r 0.64 0.78 SBUS r 2.80 3.07 SBUS r 3.69 4.26 UBUS r 6.81 7.34 UBUS r 19.65 20.76 UBUS r 1,874.93 1,950.56 UBUS r 38.32 39.65 UBUS r 1.5760e-003 1.5980e-003 • UBUS F 10.74 11.42 • UBUS 2.46 2.56 tblVehicleEF •UBUS 0.62 0.62 tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF UBUS r 0.17 0.17 UBUS r 9.2300e-004 1.0210e-003 • UBUS F 0.27 0.27 • UBUS i 0.15 0.16 i • UBUS • 8.1500e-004 8.9500e-004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 46 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • UBUS • 9.6070e-003 tblVehicleEF UBUS + 0.13 0.14 tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.6800e-003 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.85 0.90 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.80 0.80 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 1.41 1.47 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.6200e-004 tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.6070e-003 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.13 0.14 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 3.6800e-003 tblVehicleEF UBUS i 0.94 0.99 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 0.80 0.80 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.51 1.58 tblVehicleEF UBUS + 6.94 7.48 tblVehicleEF UBUS 15.52 16.42 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,874.93 tblVehicleEF UBUS 38.32 39.65 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.5760e-003 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 10.12 10.75 tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.31 2.40 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.62 0.62 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 0.17 0.17 tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.2300e-004 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 tblVehicleEF UBUS r 0.15 tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.1500e-004 i tblVehicleEF • UBUS • 0.02 9.9850e-003 3.8330e-003 7.8300e-004 9.9850e-003 3.8330e-003 1,950.56 1.5980e-003 1.0210e-003 0.27 0.16 8.9500e-004 0.02 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 47 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF • UBUS • 0.17 0.18 tblVehicleEF UBUS + 8.5300e-003 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.86 0.91 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 0.77 0.76 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.22 1.28 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.9100e-004 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 8.9740e-003 7.0800e-004 0.02 tblVehicleEF UBUS + 0.17 0.18 tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.5300e-003 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 0.95 1.01 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.77 0.76 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.31 1.37 tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.76 7.30 tblVehicleEF UBUS 24.59 25.96 tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,874.93 tblVehicleEF UBUS 38.32 39.65 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 1.5760e-003 tblVehicleEF • UBUS i 11.01 8.9740e-003 1,950.56 1.5980e-003 11.71 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 2.63 2.73 tblVehicleEF UBUS r0.62 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.17 tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.2300e-004 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.15 tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.1500e-004 tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.2070e-003 i tblVehicleEF • UBUS • 0.14 0.62 0.17 1.0210e-003 0.27 0.16 8.9500e-004 3.3050e-003 0.15 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 48 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM tblVehicleEF tblVehicleEF • UBUS • 1.6000e-003 1.6350e-003 UBUS 0.83 0.88 tblVehicleEF • UBUS r 0.98 0.96 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 1.63 1.70 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 0.02 0.02 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 8.4700e-004 8.7100e-004 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 3.2070e-003 3.3050e-003 tblVehicleEF • UBUS T 0.14 0.15 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 1.6000e-003 1.6350e-003 tblVehicleEF • UBUS F 0.92 0.98 tblVehicleEF • UBUS 0.98 0.96 tblVehicleEF • UBUS i 1.74 1.82 tblVehicleTrips • CC_TL F 7.30 6.60 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 6.60 tblVehicleTrips • CW_TL • 9.50 14.70 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Page 49 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Mitigated Construction ROG ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2017 •1 0.3941 4.1101 2.4256 3.7500e- 9.8826 0.2256 10.1082 0.9878 0.2078 1.1956 • 0.0000 i 343.2427 343.2427 0.0987 0.0000 345.3160 Total 003 PM2.5 J J J J J J J J • J J J • 2018 • 8.8000e- 9.2700e- 6.8600e- 1.0000e- 0.1285 4.8000e- 0.1290 0.0128 4.4000e- 0.0133 • 0.0000 i 0.9522 0.9522 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.9578 004 003 003 005 004 004 ; 004 Total Total 0.3950 0.3950 4.1194 2.4324 3.7600e- 10.0110 0.2261 10.2371 1.0007 0.2082 1.2089 0.0000 344.1949 344.1949 0.0990 0.0000 346.2738 003 003 Mitigated Construction ROG ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2017 4 0.3941 2.5337 2.4256 3.7500e- 9.8621 0.2256 10.0877 0.9856 0.2078 1.1934 • 0.0000 i 343.2423 343.2423 0.0987 0.0000 345.3156 Total 003 PM2.5 J J J J J J J J • J J J 2018 • 8.8000e- 9.2700e- 6.8600e- 1.0000e- 0.1285 4.8000e- 0.1290 0.0128 4.4000e- 0.0133 • 0.0000 i 0.9522 0.9522 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.9578 004 003 003 005 004 004 • 004 Total 0.00 0.3950 2.5430 2.4324 3.7600e- 9.9906 0.2261 10.2167 0.9985 0.2082 1.2067 0.0000 344.1945 344.1945 0.0990 0.0000 346.2734 003 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 38.27 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Page 50 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 '1 1 1 1 J J J J J J J .1 J J 1. Energy 9i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i Mobile • 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J w J J J 1. Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 J J J J J J J J w J J J 1. Water 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational Page 51 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM ROG ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 PM2.5 '1 i 1 1 J J J J J J J J J .1 Energy 9i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i i i Percent J J J J J J J J w J J .1 Mobile • 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 J J J .1 J J J J w J J .1 Waste • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 J J J J J J J J w J J J Water 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation 3.0 Construction Detail Page 52 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description •Excavation/Earth Works Grading i6/1/2017 10/31/2017 5: 109:Grading, Excavation, Levee Walls i i 1 2 :Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station ;Building Construction :11/1/2017 :1/1/2018 5; 44;Shotcrete, Irrigation, Pump Station Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment CO2e Category MT Vegetation Land • -434.0000 Change Total -434.0000 3.0 Construction Detail Page 52 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description •Excavation/Earth Works Grading i6/1/2017 10/31/2017 5: 109:Grading, Excavation, Levee Walls i i 1 2 :Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station ;Building Construction :11/1/2017 :1/1/2018 5; 44;Shotcrete, Irrigation, Pump Station Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 0; Non -Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating — sqft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2O13.2.2 Page 53 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Phase Name Excavation/Earth Works Excavation/Earth Works Excavation/Earth Works Excavation/Earth Works Excavation/Earth Works Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station Excavation/Earth Works Offroad Equipment Type :Crawler Tractors : Dumpers/Tenders +Excavators :Sweepers/Scrubbers +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes :Other Construction Equipment :Other Construction Equipment r + :Graders • Amount Usage Hours Horse Power I Load Factor 3; 4.00 4i 6.00 4? 1i 6i 6? 6? 1- 6r 4.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 4.00: 208: 16: 162: 64: 97: 171: 171: 174: 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.42 0.41 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Excavation/Earth 18: 11.00: \A/r.rrLc S Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pu • 12' 11.00' 5.00: 10.00: 16.80: 6.60: 20.00: LD_Mix I HDT_Mix 4 I 5.00' 10.00' 16.80' 6.60' 20.00 'LD_Mix ' HDT_Mix HHDT 'HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.2 Excavation/Earth Works - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 54 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 4- 0.0371 0.0000 0.0371 4.0100e- 0.0000 4.0100e- • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 ■ Off -Road •1 0.3455 3.6225 2.0450 3.1400e- 0.2013 0.2013 1 0.1854 0.1854 • 0.0000 i 289.6285 289.6285 0.0870 0.0000 291.4546 003 • Total 0.3455 3.6225 2.0450 3.1400e. 0.0371 0.2013 0.2384 4.0100e- 0.1854 0.1894 0.0000 289.6285 289.6285 0.0870 0.0000 291.4546 003 003 005 005 005 ; • 004 Total 003 5.5300e- 0.0273 0.0768 003 7.0322 4.3000e- 7.0326 0.7027 4.0000e- 0.7031 0.0000 11.9481 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1. •. 1.1000e- 1.1700e- 1.2700e- 0.0000 0.0646 2.0000e- 0.0646 6.4500e- 2.0000e- : 6.4700e- • 0.0000 • 0.3349 0.3349 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3349 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 Vendor • 3.1400e- 0.0223 0.0393 6.0000e- 0.4655 3.6000e- 0.4659 0.0467 3.3000e- 0.0471 • 0.0000 5.2635 5.2635 4.0000e- 0.0000 5.2644 003 005 004 004 ; 005 Worker • 2.2800e- 3.7900e- 1 0.0362 9.0000e- 6.5021 5.0000e- 6.5022 1 0.6495 5.0000e- 0.6496 • 0.0000 6.3497 6.3497 3.2000e- 0.0000 6.3564 003 003 005 005 005 ; • 004 Total 5.5300e- 0.0273 0.0768 1.5000e- 7.0322 4.3000e- 7.0326 0.7027 4.0000e- 0.7031 0.0000 11.9481 11.9481 3.6000e- 0.0000 11.9557 003 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.2 Excavation/Earth Works - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Page 55 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 4- 0.0167 0.0000 0.0167 1.8000e- 0.0000 1.8000e- • 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 ■ Off -Road •1 0.3455 2.0462 2.0450 3.1400e- 0.2013 0.2013 1 0.1854 0.1854 • 0.0000 289.6281 289.6281 0.0870 0.0000 291.4542 003 ■ • Total 0.3455 2.0462 2.0450 3.1400e. 0.0167 0.2013 0.2180 1.8000e. 0.1854 0.1872 0.0000 289.6281 289.6281 0.0870 0.0000 291.4542 003 003 005 005 005 ; • 004 Total 003 5.5300e- 0.0273 0.0768 003 7.0322 4.3000e- 7.0326 0.7027 4.0000e- 0.7031 0.0000 11.9481 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1. •. 1.1000e- 1.1700e- 1.2700e- 0.0000 0.0646 2.0000e- 0.0646 6.4500e- 2.0000e- : 6.4700e- • 0.0000 • 0.3349 0.3349 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3349 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 ■ Vendor • 3.1400e- 0.0223 0.0393 6.0000e- 0.4655 3.6000e- 0.4659 0.0467 3.3000e- 0.0471 • 0.0000 5.2635 5.2635 4.0000e- 0.0000 5.2644 003 005 004 004 ; 005 Worker • 2.2800e- 3.7900e- 1 0.0362 9.0000e- 6.5021 5.0000e- 6.5022 1 0.6495 5.0000e- 0.6496 • 0.0000 6.3497 6.3497 3.2000e- 0.0000 6.3564 003 003 005 005 005 ; • 004 Total 5.5300e- 0.0273 0.0768 1.5000e- 7.0322 4.3000e- 7.0326 0.7027 4.0000e- 0.7031 0.0000 11.9481 11.9481 3.6000e- 0.0000 11.9557 003 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.3 Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 56 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •T-- 0.0409 0.4489 0.2727 4.0000e- 0.0237 0.0237 0.0218 0.0218 •• 0.0000 i 36.7575 36.7575 0.0113 0.0000 36.9941 004 • 0.3273 0.3273 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3273 Total 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 0.0409 0.4489 0.2727 4.0000e- 0.0237 0.0237 Worker 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 36.7575 36.7575 0.0113 0.0000 36.9941 2.2400e- 0.0114 0.0310 6.0000e- 2.8133 004 2.8134 0.2811 1.7000e- 0.2813 0.0000 4.9086 4.9086 1.5000e- 0.0000 4.9117 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1. •. 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 1.2400e- 0.0000 0.0646 2.0000e- 0.0646 6.4500e- 2.0000e- : 6.4700e- • 0.0000 0.3273 0.3273 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3273 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 Vendor • 1.2400e- 8.7900e- 0.0155 2.0000e- 0.1836 1.4000e- 0.1838 0.0184 1.3000e- 0.0186 • 0.0000 2.0764 2.0764 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0768 003 003 005 004 004 ; 005 Worker • 9.0000e- 1.4900e- 0.0143 4.0000e- 1 2.5651 2.0000e- 1 2.5651 0.2562 2.0000e- 0.2563 • 0.0000 2.5049 1 2.5049 1.3000e- 0.0000 2.5076 004 003 005 005 005 • • 004 Total 2.2400e- 0.0114 0.0310 6.0000e- 2.8133 1.8000e- 2.8134 0.2811 1.7000e- 0.2813 0.0000 4.9086 4.9086 1.5000e- 0.0000 4.9117 003 005 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.3 Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station - 2017 Mitigated Construction On -Site Page 57 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •T-- 0.0409 0.4489 0.2727 4.0000e- 0.0237 0.0237 0.0218 0.0218 •• 0.0000 i 36.7575 36.7575 0.0113 0.0000 36.9940 004 • 0.3273 0.3273 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3273 Total 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 0.0409 0.4489 0.2727 4.0000e- 0.0237 0.0237 Worker 0.0218 0.0218 0.0000 36.7575 36.7575 0.0113 0.0000 36.9940 2.2400e- 0.0114 0.0310 6.0000e- 2.8133 004 2.8134 0.2811 1.7000e- 0.2813 0.0000 4.9086 4.9086 1.5000e- 0.0000 4.9117 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1. •. 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 1.2400e- 0.0000 0.0646 2.0000e- 0.0646 6.4500e- 2.0000e- : 6.4700e- • 0.0000 0.3273 0.3273 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.3273 004 003 003 005 003 005 003 Vendor • 1.2400e- 8.7900e- 0.0155 2.0000e- 0.1836 1.4000e- 0.1838 0.0184 1.3000e- 0.0186 • 0.0000 2.0764 2.0764 2.0000e- 0.0000 2.0768 003 003 005 004 004 ; 005 Worker • 9.0000e- 1.4900e- 0.0143 4.0000e- 1 2.5651 2.0000e- 1 2.5651 0.2562 2.0000e- 0.2563 • 0.0000 2.5049 1 2.5049 1.3000e- 0.0000 2.5076 004 003 005 005 005 • • 004 Total 2.2400e- 0.0114 0.0310 6.0000e- 2.8133 1.8000e- 2.8134 0.2811 1.7000e- 0.2813 0.0000 4.9086 4.9086 1.5000e- 0.0000 4.9117 003 005 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.3 Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Page 58 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 8.3000e- 9.0300e- 6.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.4000e- 4.4000e- • 0.0000 i 0.8411 0.8411 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.8466 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 ; 004 Vendor • • Worker • 2.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 1 0.0000 0.0597 0.0000 1 0.0597 5.9600e- 1 0.0000 5.9600e- • 0.0000 i 0.0562 0.0562 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0562 Total 8.3000e- 9.0300e- 6.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 6.5000e- 4.4000e- 4.4000e- 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.8466 0.1111 0.1111 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 2.0000e- 13.0000e- 0.0000 0.0646 I 0.0000 0.0646 6.4500e- 0.0000 6.4500e- • 0.0000 7.4800e- 7.4800e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 7.4800e- 005 005 003 003 • 003 003 1 003 1 Vendor • 3.0000e- 1.8000e- 3.3000e- 0.0000 4.2700e- 0.0000 4.2700e- 4.3000e- 0.0000 4.3000e- • 0.0000 i 0.0474 0.0474 0.0000 0.0000 0.0474 005 004 004 003 003 004 004 Worker • 2.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 1 0.0000 0.0597 0.0000 1 0.0597 5.9600e- 1 0.0000 5.9600e- • 0.0000 i 0.0562 0.0562 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0562 005 005 004 003 003 • Total 5.0000e- 2.3000e- 6.5000e- 0.0000 0.1285 0.0000 0.1285 0.0128 0.0000 0.0128 0.0000 0.1111 0.1111 0.0000 0.0000 0.1111 005 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 3.3 Shotcrete/Irrigation/Pump Station - 2018 Mitigated Construction On -Site Page 59 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road • 8.3000e- 9.0300e- 6.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.4000e- 4.4000e- • 0.0000 i 0.8411 0.8411 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.8466 7.4800e- 7.4800e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 7.4800e- 004 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 ; 004 005 005 003 003 • 1 • Vendor • 0.0474 0.0474 0.0000 0.0000 0.0474 Total 8.3000e- 9.0300e- 6.2000e- 1.0000e- 4.8000e- 4.8000e- 4.4000e- 4.4000e- 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 2.6000e- 0.0000 0.8466 0.1285 0.0128 004 003 003 005 0.1111 004 004 0.1111 004 004 005 004 004 004 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 1 2.0000e- 13.0000e- 0.0000 0.0646 I 0.0000 0.0646 6.4500e- 0.0000 6.4500e- • 0.0000 7.4800e- 7.4800e- 0.0000 I 0.0000 7.4800e- 005 005 003 003 • 1 003 003 1 003 Vendor • 3.0000e- 1.8000e- 3.3000e- 0.0000 4.2700e- 0.0000 4.2700e- 4.3000e- 0.0000 4.3000e- • 0.0000 0.0474 0.0474 0.0000 0.0000 0.0474 005 004 004 003 003 004 004 Worker • 2.0000e- 3.0000e- 2.9000e- 1 0.0000 0.0597 0.0000 1 0.0597 5.9600e- 1 0.0000 5.9600e- • 0.0000 0.0562 0.0562 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0562 005 005 004 003 003 • Total 5.0000e- 2.3000e- 6.5000e- 0.0000 0.1285 0.0000 0.1285 0.0128 0.0000 0.0128 0.0000 0.1111 0.1111 0.0000 0.0000 0.1111 005 004 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Page 60 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 Cote Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 4 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 1 I I I • �1 Unmitigated • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Ave age Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Land Use Mitigated Land Use H -O or C -NW Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Diverted Annual VMT User Defined Industrial ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 • • Total I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 I I 4.3 Trip Type Information LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH 0.413014• 0.062673: 0.156172: 0.176687: 0.051255: 0.007895: 0.018867: 0.100331: 0.001803: 0.001598: 0.006448: 0.000946: 0.002310 §.9.Gp trupetail Historical Energy Use: N Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Primary Diverted Pass -by User Defined Industrial 14.70 6.60 6.60 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0 0 0 LDA I LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV I LHD1 LHD2 I MHD I HHD I OBUS I UBUS I MCY I SBUS I MH 0.413014• 0.062673: 0.156172: 0.176687: 0.051255: 0.007895: 0.018867: 0.100331: 0.001803: 0.001598: 0.006448: 0.000946: 0.002310 §.9.Gp trupetail Historical Energy Use: N CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 61 of 68 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM ROG NOx CO SO2 1Fugitive 10 Exhaust Exhaust Total PM2.5 PM2 5PTotal 5 PMPM10 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity •i 1 1 1 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 Mitigated •▪ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 Electricity •i i i i i 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 Unmitigated •▪ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I 1 I I I 1 NaturalGas •I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 Mitigated .� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 4. 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 t 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 F 0.0000 0.0000 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr User Defined I0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Industrial I I 1 1 1 • . . Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated Page 62 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr User Defined Industrial 10 •i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 . . 00000 ■ i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr User Defined Industrial 1 0 .1 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail Page 63 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr User Defined Industrial 10 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total Total CO2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0 Area Detail Page 63 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i 0.0000 9I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 • 1 9 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I eI- F 4. F 4. 4. F 4. F r v . 4. F 4. r Unmitigated - 0.0000 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 : 0.0000 : . 0.0000 : 0.0000 . : 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 0.0000 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Page 64 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating :, Total J J J J J J J J •• J J J T Consumer • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products . 0.0000 J J J J J J J J •• J J J 1. Landscaping 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr I Architectural 4 Coating e Consumer •i Products e Landscaping •1 0.0000' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 J .1 J J J J .1 J . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 J .1 J J J J .1 J . 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 • i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 .1 J J i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Total CO2 CH4 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 . 0.0000 .1. 1- I Unmitigated •: 0.0000 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 : 0.0000 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Page 65 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr User Defined Industrial i 0 / 0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Page 65 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Page 66 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use Mgal 1 MT/yr User Defined I0 / 0 •i Industrial i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.0 Waste Detail Page 66 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr • Mitigated •i 9 q el• Unmitigated - 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I 1 I 1 1 F F r 0.0000 : 0.0000 . 0.0000 : 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr User Defined Industrial I0 •i i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Page 67 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr User Defined Industrial 1 0 .1 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.0 Operational Offroad Page 67 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor I Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 10.0 Vegetation Page 68 of 68 Date: 12/23/2016 9:03 AM 10.1 Vegetation Land Change Vegetation Type Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT Unmitigated •: -434.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • -434.0000 10.1 Vegetation Land Change Vegetation Type Initial/Fina I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Acres MT Cropland 1 70 / 0 : i i -434.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -434.0000 Total -434.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -434.0000 Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations for Pond Operations Proposed New Pumps Electricity Consumed (kWh/year) CO2 (lbs) CH4 (lbs) N20 (lbs) CO2 (MT) CH4 (MT) N20 (MT) MT CO2e 114382.923 114562.81 3.31710477 0.70574263 51.9645472 0.001505 0.000320118 52.09538039 Decommissioned Pump Electricity Consumed (kWh/year)* CO2 (lbs) CH4 (lbs) N20 (lbs) CO2 (MT) CH4 (MT) N20 (MT) MT CO2e 45000 45070.772 1.305 0.27765 20.4436516 0.000592 0.000125939 20.49512336 *Per West Yost Percent Change with Pump CO2 (MT) CH4 (MT) N20 (MT) MT CO2e 39.34% 39.34% 39.34% 39.34% Conversions: CO2 1 Ib = 0.00045359 MT 1000 kWh = 1 MWh 1 MT = 2204.6 lbs Emission Factors per CaIEEMod, Statewide Average CO2 1 Ib/MWh Ib/KWh CO2 1001.5727 1.00157272 CH4 0.029 0.000029 N20 0.00617 0.00000617 Global Warming Potential (Source: U.S EPA) CO2 1 CH4 21 N20 310 Conversions 1 Ib 1000 kWh 1 MT 0.00045359 MT 1 MWh 2204.6 Ibs Emission Factors per CaIEEMod, Statewide Average Ib/MWh Ib/KWh CO2 1001.573 1.001573 CH4 0.029 0.000029 N20 0.00617 6.17E-06 CO2 1 CH4 21 N20 310 APPENDIX C Biological Assessment White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond Project Lodi, San Joaquin County, California Prepared for: Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 212 Pine Street, Ste. 2 Lodi, CA 95240 Prepared by: Moore Biological Consultants 10330 Twin Cities, Suite 30 Galt, CA 95632 (209) 745-1159 December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. Project Overview 5 Existing Facilities and Operations 5 Project Description 4 III. Regulatory Framework 4 IV. Methods 21 Database Review 21 Field Surveys 21 V. Results 23 Setting 23 Vegetation 24 Wildlife 29 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands 33 Special -Status Species 33 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations 51 VII. References and Literature Consulted 53 APPENDICES APPENDIX A CNDDB Summary Report and Exhibits & USFWS IPaC Trust Resource Report APPENDIX B Photographs APPENDIX C Giant Garter Snake Habitat Assessment APPENDIX D Special -Status Fish Habitat Assessment APPENDIX E Designated Critical Habitat TABLES TABLE 1 Flows Discharged to Dredger Cut from the White Slough 13 WPCF Under Existing and Proposed Conditions TABLE 2 Plant Species Observed in the Site 26 TABLE 3 Plant Species Observed in the Site 30 TABLE 4 Special -Status Plant and Wildlife Species Documented 35 or Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity FIGURES FIGURE 1 Project Vicinity 2 FIGURE 2 Project Location 3 FIGURE 3 Potential Layout of Pond Alternatives 4 FIGURE 4 Pipeline Alignment and Southeastern Pond Alternative 10 FIGURE 5 Pipeline Alignment and Western Pond Alternative 11 FIGURE 6 Alternative Conveyance Alignment for Southeastern Pond 10 Alternative FIGURE 7 Aerial: Northwest Survey Area and Southeast Survey Area 22 I. INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi's White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is approximately 6 miles southwest of Lodi, in San Joaquin County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of a 70+/- acre Expansion Pond (or cluster of ponds) and associated conveyance infrastructure at the WPCF (Figure 3). The Expansion Pond(s) will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. The use of the water for agriculture will reduce the discharge of WPCF effluent to Dredger Cut, an excavated slough that is tributary to the Delta, from January through April. This assessment describes the existing biological environment and how the project would affect that environment. This document provides the pertinent biological information regarding Waters of the U.S. and wetlands, Federal and State special -status species, and other natural resources that may be present in the project site. This assessment also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project to biological resources in the study area resulting from the construction and operation of the project. This assessment addressed two areas of leveled agricultural fields that are intensively cultivated in forage crops for the proposed pond(s), and the point of discharge for WPCF effluent in Dredger Cut, which is tributary to White Slough and eventually the San Joaquin River. The upland areas in the project site provide habitat for a number of common wildlife species and a few special -status species. Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and Pacific pond turtle (Emys marmorata) are the only special -status wildlife species expected to occur in the project site on more than an occasional or transitory basis. Giant garter snake White Slough WPCF: Biology 1 December 2016 Source: Calif. State Automobile Association Moore Biological Consultants 0 �E 18 Miles w_ s FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY h 1, _ \-• - Pumping Station ' ~" Northwest Survey Area (1449+/- acres) 23 24 TREDWAY 1 — 1 Pumping Station E I, IE,I u ,i 5 vironmental Consulting \Pr E Lugo Pumping , Station ; 12 Legend Q Survey Areas ® White Slough WPCF Pipelines ZO West Pond Alternative ® Southeast Pond Alternative _ - ROAD Southeast Survey Area (197+/- acres) Nell R I 0 n 13 L A N G() .:`?'dumping f Station T A C± Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangles TERMINOUS, CA Sections: 24,25,30 Township: 03N Range: 05E,06E Figure 2 Moore Biological Consultants PHO.\'E J 1,000 2,000 1 I I 1 1 1 inch = 2,000 feet CCT P;16, gin, Puri{Cng' — Statipt Map Date:12/30/2015 Well Project Location Well 'Weir r5 White Slough WPCF Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin County, CA .•• Q 4—+ 1 ing 5A edger Cut Discharge Location 1 DigitaIGlobe, @WE [ gf3p ao'p. op"ipB , MI the GIS Ug(arOMMOk AIEX, n'Lrnapr, ny, A' jrid: IGN. IGP, Figure 3 Potential Layout of Pond Alternatives City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Project and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Iv 0 500 1,000 Scale In Feet Symbology ■ Existing Irrigation Water Distribution Box • Existing Standpipe West Alternative Pipeline Proposed Alignments (3) Southeast Altemative Pipeline Proposed Alignment Energy Center Easement Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) —__ Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) t! New Storage Pond Pump Station —,—•— Power Lines West Pond Alternative Southeast Pond Alternative WEST YOST IPA A5SOC1Al ES (Thamnophis gigas) occurs in delta waterways northwest of the site but is unlikely to occur in the agricultural fields or Dredger Cut. Special -status fish including delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irrideus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), fall -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) that occur in delta waterways west of the site, but are unlikely to occur in Dredger Cut or the waterways immediately downstream of Dredger Cut on more than a very occasional or transitory basis The project is participating in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) (SJCOG, 2000). With the implementation of Incidental Take Minimization Measures require by the SJMSCP, the project will have a less than significant impact to special -status plant or wildlife species. There would be no long-term adverse impacts to wetland or aquatic resources as a result of operation proposed project. The project would have minimal and likely beneficial impacts on the aquatic habitats and potentially occurring special -status species in Dredger Cut and downstream waterways. There would be no fill placed in Waters of the U.S. or wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). II. PROJECT OVERVIEW Existing Facilities and Operations The WPCF receives and treats municipal wastewater influent from a service area encompassing the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Flag City Service Area. The WPCF has a design average dry weather flow treatment capacity of 8.5 million gallons a day (MGD). The WPCF treatment process includes secondary treatment with nitrification and denitrification (to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L), tertiary filtration, and UV disinfection. The WPCF disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent meets all applicable water quality objectives White Slough WPCF: Biology 5 December 2016 for the Delta to protect its beneficial uses, which include warm water fisheries habitat, drinking watery supply, and unrestricted recreational activities. The effluent water quality is demonstrated through regular monthly water quality and acute toxicity monitoring, and quarterly three species chronic toxicity monitoring. The WPCF discharges the disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent to Dredger Cut, a dead end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta). Flows up to 16.3 MGD may be treated and discharged year-round. The location of the existing outfall in Dredger Cut is shown on Figure 3. The dry -weather wastewater flows entering the WPCF are approximately 5.5 MGD and are expected to increase up to 8.5 MGD over the next 30 to 50 year period. During the irrigation season (generally mid-April through September), undisinfected secondary -treated municipal effluent that has been nitrified and denitrified to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L is directed to four on-site unlined storage ponds totaling a maximum combined storage volume of 328 acre-feet. These ponds also can be used to store industrial wastewater and storm water received through the City's industrial collection system. The stored flows, along with flows entering the WPCF via the industrial collection system, are used to irrigate 790 acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural land. Crops grown include fodder crops like corn, alfalfa, ryegrass and wheat. The irrigation demand generally exceeds the available WPCF supplies in July and August, and supplemental irrigation water is obtained from groundwater pumping. The City also supplies disinfected tertiary treated municipal effluent to the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) power plant, and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (SJCM&VCD) fish -rearing ponds year-round. These two facilities are located on City property, adjacent to the WPCF main process area. The NCPA facility consists of two power generating facilities: a 49.9 Megawatt (MW) Power Plant and a 296 MW, Lodi Energy Center. NCPA relies on the City's treated effluent for steam production and cooling system water in both facilities, and as make up water for two 250,000 White Slough WPCF: Biology 6 December 2016 gallon fire water tanks. The SJCM&VCD fish rearing ponds are used to cultivate mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis). During the non -irrigation season (generally October through mid-April), treated effluent that is not used by the NCPA and SJCM&VCD facilities are released to Dredger Cut. Project Description The Expansion Ponds(s) will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary - treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond(s) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intakes. The Project, as discussed below, meets these criteria as set forth by DWR. White Slough WPCF: Biology 7 December 2016 Two alternative sites are being considered for Expansion Pond(s): • The Southeast Expansion Pond site is located in the southeastern portion of the City's 1,026.27 -acre property (Figure 3). The Southeast Expansion Pond site would be configured within the space currently occupied by the three agricultural fields that are located at this site. These three fields, which are currently irrigated with groundwater supplied from a production well that is also located in this area, would no longer be used for agricultural production. • The 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond site is located on a portion of the City's existing agricultural fields that are directly west of the existing WPCF treatment and storage facilities (Figure 3). The Western Expansion site would be configured to avoid construction under the power lines that transect the City property and near the existing giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) habitat easement that is located along the western boundary of the City's properties. The agricultural fields and associated irrigation water infrastructure in and around the Western Expansion Pond site would be reconfigured to accommodate the Project, while also minimizing the reduction overall reduction of agricultural production area on the City's properties. This alternative also includes expansion of the City's irrigation facilities to allow for irrigation of the three fields located in the southeastern corner of the City's property (i.e. the Southeastern Expansion Pond site) with water supplied from the WPCF. This expansion would require a new 10 to 15 HP booster pump and new conveyance channels to connect the existing WPCF effluent irrigation system infrastructure to the irrigation system infrastructure that currently serves this area. The levees of the Expansion Pond(s) will be constructed from fill dirt removed from the 70 -acre construction area. The levees will be approximately 8 -feet tall, and the Expansion Pond(s) will be designed to operate with a minimum freeboard of 2 feet. The bottom of the Expansion Pond(s) will be graded flat, with White Slough WPCF: Biology 8 December 2016 a slight slope toward one corner of the pond, which is where a discharge pump station will be located. The conveyance facilities associated with the Project include a new, 15 to 20 HP pump station constructed downstream of the existing WPCF ultraviolet disinfection facility, which will discharge disinfected tertiary -treated effluent into a new conveyance pipeline that will deliver the effluent to the Expansion Pond(s). The potential alignments of the new conveyance pipelines that will deliver effluent from the WPCF ultraviolet disinfection facility to the Southeastern and Western Expansion Pond sites are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. For the Southeastern Expansion Pond site alternative, the City may rely on a portion of the City's existing irrigation water delivery infrastructure to convey treated effluent to the pond(s). This conveyance approach would require less pipeline construction, but would include a 10 to 15 HP pump station located near the end of the existing irrigation water distribution system to lift the effluent into the pond(s). This alternative alignment for the potential conveyance pipelines that will deliver effluent to the Southeastern Pond sites is shown in Figure 6. The Project also includes conveyance infrastructure to provide for delivery of the treated effluent from the Expansion Pond(s) to the City's existing irrigation water delivery system. Under either of the alternatives, a new, 15 to 20 HP pump station will be constructed at the low end of the expansion pond(s). This new pump station will discharge the stored disinfected tertiary -treated effluent into a new conveyance pipeline that will deliver the effluent to a location within the existing irrigation water delivery system that allows for distribution to the City's fields. The alignments of the new pipelines that will deliver effluent from to the Western and Southeastern Expansion Pond sites to the irrigation system are also shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6. White Slough WPCF: Biology 9 December 2016 Pipes will be as Close Together as Possible and Located to Avoid Influent Sewer Pipeline Routed Under Highway Using Existing Tunnel (Assuming This is Viable) Discharge to Existing Standpipe Digtalelebe, C4esE, e, User Figure 4 Pipeline Alignment for Southeastern Pond Alternative City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Project and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement 0 200 400 Scale in Feer Symbology ■ Existing Irrigation Water Distribution Box • Existing Standpipe Southeast Alternative Pipeline Proposed Alignment Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) ? New Storage Pond Pump Station Southeast Pond Alternative WEST YOST AS 5❑C t Al n Discharge to Existing Distribution Boxes 157 Pipeline Will Need to•'f%- Located to Avoid. Influen 'lit. � .� .. �• , �. Pipeline Aligned with Roadway agamig ado DD igital0r lobe, t o0�i7tk; UgiG110MIEINOt swiss opo Earthsta Gr eographics Figure 5 Pipeline Alignment for Western Pond Alternative City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Project and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement 0 125 250 Scale in Feet Symbology ■ Existing Irrigation Water Distribution Box West Alternative Pipeline ~� Proposed Alignments (3) Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) I' New Storage Pond Pump Station Power Lines West Pond Altemative 1 WEST YOST w550C1d1 i N 5 C) Discharge to Existing Distribution. Box Discharge to Existing Standpipe New Pipe will be Located to Avoid Influent Sewer Pipeline Routed Under Highway Using Existing Tunnel (Assuming This is Viable) ceo E.yie iti p -aeo a o, OrnYl 11 -16iomrnun Digital lobe • A V Q ES/DO, &,M, MX, C —i _-;plEci, Avng,f11, Kul I5 P, Figure 6 Alternative Conveyance Alignment for Southeastern Pond Alternative City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Project and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement 0 250 500 Scale® Symbology . Existing Irrigation Water Distribution Box ► Southeast Pipeline • Existing Standpipe Alternative Conveyance for Existing Irrigation Distribution Facilities (Approximate Alignment) Existing Irrigation Distribution --- Facilities (Approximate Alignment) Q New Storage Pond Pump Station Southeast Pond Alternative WEST YOST ASSOC tAl The Project will reduce the volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 180 and 200 million gallons; Table 1 summarizes the anticipated change in the discharge volumes. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate of approximately 1,500 and 1,700 gallons per minute over approximately a 90 -day period between January 1 and April 30 of each year. The Project will not change the design and/or permitted treatment and discharge capacity of the WPCF. The Project will also not affect the recycled water deliveries to the NCPA and SJCM&VCD facilities. Table 1 Flows Discharged to Dredger Cut from the White Slough WPCF Under Existing and Proposed Conditions Month Current Volume Discharged (2012 -2014 Average), Million Gallons Maximum Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented, Million Gallons Minimum Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented, Million Gallons January 105 52 47 February 98 44 39 March 75 34 30 April 74 38 35 May 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 September 0 0 0 October 39 39 39 November 90 90 90 December 139 139 139 Total 620 436 419 White Slough WPCF: Biology 13 December 2016 III. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and subsequent amendments provide guidance for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 7 of FESA requires Federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to insure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibilities for administering the Act. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are found at 50 CFR Part 402. The opinions issued at the conclusion of consultation include statements authorizing take that may occur incidental to an otherwise legal activity. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 of the CWA established a permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands). Implementing regulations by ACOE are found at 33 CFR Parts 320- 330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines and were developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) White Slough WPCF: Biology 14 December 2016 in conjunction with ACOE (40 CFR Parts 230). The Guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less adverse impacts. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are broadly defined under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328 to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ACOE published their Final Rule on the definition of Waters of the U.S. in June 2015 (80 CFR 124: 37054-37127). The Final Rule was intended to replace all prior rules and guidance on the definition as used in implementing the Clean Water Act and became effective on August 28, 2015. However, the Final Rule was stayed nationwide shortly thereafter, with a Sixth Circuit Court ruling on October 9, 2015. State and federal agencies regulate Waters of the U.S. and wetlands, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any waters of the U.S., including wetlands. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) also has jurisdiction over modifications to rivers, lakes, and streams under Section 1600 of Fish and Game Code of California. "Waters of the U.S.", as defined in 33 CFR 328.4, encompasses Territorial Seas, Tidal Waters, and Non -Tidal Waters; Non -Tidal Waters includes interstate and intrastate rivers and streams, as well as their tributaries. The limit of federal jurisdiction of Non -Tidal Waters of the U.S. extends to the "ordinary high water mark". The ordinary high water mark is established by physical characteristics such as a natural water line impressed on the bank, presence of shelves, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris. Jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. include, but are not limited to, perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Wetlands and White Slough WPCF: Biology 15 December 2016 Waters of the U.S. provide critical habitat components, such as nest sites and a reliable source of water, for a wide variety of wildlife species. Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant for a Federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the U.S., to obtain a state certification that the discharge complies with other provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the certification program in California. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is administered by ACOE. This section requires permits in, above, or below navigable waters of the U. S. for all structures such as docks, bridges, riprap, and activities such as dredging. Navigable waters are defined as those subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvements as means to transport interstate or foreign commerce. The ACOE grants or denies permits based on the effects on navigation. Most activities covered under this act are also covered under Section 404 of CWA, so a Section 404 permit process usually also covers Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, where appropriate. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703-711; 40 Stat. 755), as amended, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act applies to whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA does not provide protection for habitat of migratory birds, but does prohibit the destruction or possession of individual birds, eggs, or nest in active use without a permit from USFWS. White Slough WPCF: Biology 16 December 2016 California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA mandates that State agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. CESA requires State lead agencies to consult with the during the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to avoid jeopardy to threatened or endangered species. As an outcome of consultation, CDFW is required to issue a written finding indicating if a project would jeopardize threatened or endangered species and specifying reasonable and prudent alternatives that would avoid jeopardy. The Act provides for joint consultations when species are listed by both the State and Federal governments. California Environmental Quality Act With respect to biological resources, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15206 specifies that a project shall be deemed to be of statewide, regional, or area wide significance if it would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats, including but not limited to riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered species. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 provides that a species not listed under the FESA or CESA may be considered rare or endangered under specific criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and CESA. Section 15380 was included in the CEQA Guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a candidate species that has not yet been listed by either USFWS or CDFW. Thus, Section 15380 provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project's potential impacts until the respective resource White Slough WPCF: Biology 17 December 2016 agencies have had an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted. An example would be the vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), but which may have no designated status or protection under FESA or CESA. The CNPS created five lists: List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California, List 1 B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere, List 3: Plants about which more information is needed; a "review list", and List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a "watch list". In general, plants appearing on CNPS List 1A, 1B, or 2 are considered to meet the criteria of Section 15380. Fish and Game Code of California (Sections 1600 and 3503) Under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, project proponents are required to notify CDFW prior to initiating activities for any project that would divert water from, or obstruct or change the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable project changes to protect the resource. These modifications are formalized in a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds - of -prey in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes ..." (i.e., hawks, owls, eagles, White Slough WPCF: Biology 18 December 2016 and falcons). The loss of an active nest is considered a violation of this code by CDFW. This statute does not provide for the issuance of any type of incidental take permit. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, "Waters of the State" fall under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The RWQCBs are required to prepare and periodically update water quality control basin plans, which set forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater, as well as actions to control non -point and point sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. Projects that affect Waters of the State may also be required to meet waste discharge requirements (WDRs) of the RWQCBs. SWRCB's Resolution 2008- 0026 identified a need to protect Waters of the State that are not subject to CWA Section 404 permitting and associated CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. In 2013, the SWRCB issued a Revised Draft Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Policy (WRAPP) for informational purposes, including authorization procedures for dredge and fill discharges to Waters of the State. Once adopted, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board is expected to develop a program requiring WDRs for the fill of isolated wetlands that not subject to CWA Section 404 that authorize the impacts by issuing WDRs or in some cases, a WDR waiver. California Native Plant Protection Act The California Native Plant Protection Act (codified in Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) is intended to preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants in the state. The act directs CDFW to establish criteria for determining what native plants are rare or endangered. Under Section 1901, a White Slough WPCF: Biology 19 December 2016 species is endangered when its prospects for survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes. A species is rare when, although not threatened with immediate extinction, it is in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. Under the Act, the Fish and Game Commission may adopt regulations governing the taking, possessing, propagation, or sale of any endangered or rare native plant. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan The San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) (SJCOG, 2000) is a comprehensive program adopted by the County for mitigating the biological impacts of land development, mining and other development activities (http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/5). The SJMSCP is voluntary and may be used throughout the approximately 900,000 -acre county and the 50 -year term of the plan; the proposed project is eligible for participation in the SJMSCP. Open space and habitat lands addressed by the SJMSCP are classified into major categories, including Natural Lands, Agricultural Habitat Lands, Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands and Urban Lands. The SJMSCP accounts for potential conversion of open space lands over the life of the plan, and for the potential take associated with open space conversion, which was estimated at 109,300 acres with an overall habitat loss of approximately 71,800 acres. The SJMSCP provides coverage for non-federal projects under FESA, CESA, CEQA and other applicable requirements. Under FESA and CESA, participation in the SJMSCP is considered compensation for Incidental Take for the SJMSCP covered species. SJMSCP species include approximately 100 federal and state special -status species that occur in approximately 50 vegetative communities that are considered "open space" as defined in the plan. White Slough WPCF: Biology 20 December 2016 IV. METHODS Database Review A search of CDFW's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2016) was conducted prior to the field surveys. The CNDDB search included the USGS 7.5 - minute Terminous and Lodi South topographic quadrangles, which encompass approximately 120 square miles surrounding the site. The USFWS IPaC Trust Report of Federally Threatened and Endangered species that may occur in or be affected by projects in the project vicinity was also reviewed (Appendix A). This information was used to identify wildlife and plant species that have been previously documented in the project vicinity or have the potential to occur based on suitable habitat and geographical distribution. The USFWS maps of designated critical habitat were also downloaded. Field Surveys Moore Biological Consultants conducted field surveys on September 29, October 16 and 22, and December 10 and 29, 2015; and January 21 and May 15, 2016. In order to allow for minor shifts in the location and/or configuration of the pond(s), the field surveys covered areas larger than the proposed ponds; the "Northwest Survey Area" and the "Southeast Survey Area" are shown in Figure 7. The field surveys consisted of walking throughout the site observing habitat conditions and noting surrounding land uses, general habitat types, and plant and wildlife species. The surveys included an assessment of the site for potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (a term that includes wetlands) as defined by ACOE (1987; 2008), special -status species, and suitable habitat for special -status species (e.g., blue elderberry shrubs, wetlands). Trees in and near the site were assessed for the potential use by nesting raptors, especially Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The site and surrounding areas were also White Slough WPCF: Biology 21 December 2016 cal\W S W PCF\MXD\wswpcf figure 3_aerial.mxd 1 Consulting \ Projects \Mo u Northwest Survey Area (149+/- acres) Legend OSurvey Areas ® White Slough WPCF Pipelines West Pond Alternative ® Southeast Pond Alternative 1. --IPAMIMIA 40.1b, Southeast Survey Y Area (197+/- acres) Existing\ Dredger Cut ;chargee ration \ Google Figure 7 Moore Biological Consultants 0 750 1,500 1 1 1 1 inch = 1,500 feet w N E Map Date:12/30/2015 Aerial Photo: Google Earth (2015) AERIAL White Slough WPCF Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin County, CA searched for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) or ground squirrel burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls. Under contract to Moore Biological Consultants, Ecorp Consulting, Inc. prepared a Habitat Assessment of the federally threatened giant garter snake, which has been documented just west of the site in the White Slough Wildlife Area. Ecorp's work involved a search of CDFW's CNDDB, a literature review, field surveys, and analysis of effects of the project's potential impacts to giant garter from project construction and operation, including reduced discharge to Dredger Cut. Under contract to Moore Biological Consultants, Fishbio prepared a Habitat Assessment of special -status fish including delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irrideus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), fall -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) winter -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Spring - run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Fishbio's work involved a literature review, field survey, review of data collected at fish monitoring stations in the project vicinity, and analysis of effects of the project's reduced discharge to Dredger Cut on special - status fish. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Setting The project site is approximately 6 miles southwest of Lodi, in San Joaquin County, California (Figure 1). The site is in Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, within Township 3 North, Range 5 East, and Section 30, within Township 3 North, Range 6 East MDBM of the USGS 7.5 -minute Terminous and Lodi South topographic quadrangles (Figure 2). The site is located at elevations of approximately seas level to 15 feet above mean sea level. The WPCF spans White Slough WPCF: Biology 23 December 2016 Interstate 5 (1-5) and is bounded by Thornton Road on the east. The peripheral canal pits associated with the construction of 1-5 are located just west of the WPCF (Figure 3). Surrounding land uses in this portion of San Joaquin County are primarily agricultural, with widely scattered residences and outbuildings. Most of the parcels in the greater project vicinity are farmed in vineyards, orchards, hay, and annual crops. There are vineyards, hay, and annual crops on the north, east, and south sides of the WPCF. More natural areas bound the site to the west, including the White Slough Preserve immediately west of the Northwest Survey Area, which managed by the SJMSCP for giant garter snake and other species. The White Slough Wildlife Area is located just west of the White Slough Preserve. Vegetation Vegetation communities in the project site include annual cropland and riparian corridors. These vegetation communities and wildlife habitat types generally correspond to the SJMSHCP habitat types "C" (cropland) and "W" (drainages and wetlands). During the 2015 field surveys, some of the fields were planted in alfalfa, some were fallow and had been farmed in corn earlier in the year, and some fields appeared to have just been disked and planted in winter wheat. Historically, the California Annual Grassland series (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf, 1995) was the most widespread upland vegetation type occurring in the project site. The ruderal areas along the edges of fields, roads, and irrigation ditches are vegetated with highly disturbed and routinely maintained patches of the California Annual Grassland series. The vegetation in these ruderal habitats is periodically scraped and/or disked, mowed, or treated with herbicides, primarily for fire suppression. Some of the most common grasses include oats (Avena sp.), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (B. diandrus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Other grassland White Slough WPCF: Biology 24 December 2016 species such as yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitalis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis), rancher's fireweed (Amsinckia menziesii), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), fireweed (Epilobium brachycarpum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), common mallow (Malva neglecta), and filaree (Erodium spp.) are intermixed with the grasses. Table 2 is a list of plant species observed in the site. White Slough and relatively undeveloped and natural Delta waterways to the west of the WPCF support a variably wide band of riparian woodland vegetation. The Valley oak series, Fremont cottonwood series, and Arroyo willow series (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf, 1995) best describe the vegetation communities along riparian corridors in the project site. Dominant trees in the riparian habitats include valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), black walnut (Juglans californicus), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), red willow (Salix laevigata), Gooding's black willow (Salix goodingii), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). Narrow -leaved willow (Salix exigua), California button -willow (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), California wild rose (Rosa californica), and California wild grape (Vitis californicus) are dominant shrubs and vines. The understory is comprised of grasses and weeds typical of the nearby annual grasslands (see photographs in Appendix B). Dredger Cut in completely chokes with water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), which forms a thick blanket on top of the water from bank to bank. White Slough, the Highline Canal, and other Delta waterways to the west of the WPCF have lesser amounts of water hyacinth, more open water, and support variably wide fringes of tules (Scirpus acutus), cattails (Typha sp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), water smartweed (Polygonum lapathifolium), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and other emergent wetland vegetation along the banks. No blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs were observed in or adjacent to the site. White Slough WPCF: Biology 25 December 2016 TABLE 2 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE SITE Alnus rhombifolia Amsinckia menziesii Artemisia douglasii Avena sp. Brassica nigra Bromus diandrus Bromus hordeaceus Capsella bursa var. pastoris Carduus pycnocephalus Centaurea solstitialis Cephalanthus occidentalis Cerastium glomeratum Chamomilla suaveolens Cirsium vulgare Conium maculatum Convolvulus arvensis Conyza canadensis Cynodon dactylon Cyperus eragrostis Eichornia crassipes Epilobium brachycarpum Eremocarpus setigerus Erodium botrys Eschscholzia californica Foeniculum vulgare Fraxinus latifolia Geranium molle white alder rancher's fireweed mugwort oat black mustard ripgut brome soft chess brome shepherds purse Italian thistle yellow star -thistle California button -willow mouse -eared chickweed pineapple weed bull thistle poison hemlock morning glory horseweed Bermuda grass umbrella sedge water hyacinth willowherb dove weed filaree California poppy fennel Oregon ash geranium White Slough WPCF: Biology 26 December 2016 TABLE 2 (Continued) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE SITE Ludwigia peploides Geranium dissectum Gnaphalium sp. Heterotheca grandiflora Hordeum marinum Hordeum murinum Juglans californicus Juncus balticus Juncus bufonius Lactuca serriola Lamium amplexicaule Lepidium latifolium Lolium perenne Malva neglecta Medicago polymorpha Mentha pulegium Montia perfoliata Paspalum dilatatum Phytolacca americana Pinus sp. Plantago lanceolata Poa annua Polygonum lapathifolium Polygonum persicaria Polypogon monspeliensis Populus fremontii Quercus lobata water primrose cut -leaf geranium cudweed telegraph weed Mediterranean barley foxtail barley black walnut Baltic rush toad rush prickly lettuce clasping henbit perennial pepperweed perennial ryegrass common mallow California bur clover pennyroyal miner's lettuce dallis grass pokeberry ornamental pine plantain annual bluegrass water smartweed lady's thumb rabbit's foot grass Fremont cottonwood valley oak White Slough WPCF: Biology 27 December 2016 TABLE 2 (Continued) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE SITE Quercus agrifolia Raphanus sativus Rosa californica Rubus discolor Rumex crispus Salix exigua Salix goodingii Salix lasiolepis Salsola iberica Scirpus acutus Senecio vulgaris Sonchus asper Sorghum halepense Taeniatherum caput -medusae Tribulus terrestris Trifolium hirtum Typha sp. Verbena hastata Vicia americana Vicia sativa Vitis californica Xanthium strumarium coastal live oak wild radish California wild rose Himalayan blackberry curly dock narrow -leaved willow Gooding's black willow arroyo willow Russian thistle tule common groundsel prickly sow thistle Johnsongrass medusahead grass puncture vine rose clover cattail common verbena winter vetch common vetch California wild grape cocklebur White Slough WPCF: Biology 28 December 2016 Wildlife Within the project site, the intensively farmed fields primarily provide foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. In contrast, the well-developed riparian wetlands and woodlands associated with White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide high-quality habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species and support numerous special -status plant and wildlife species. In addition to resident wildlife, the project site provides seasonal habitats for a wide variety of migratory wildlife, primarily waterfowl. A variety of bird species were observed during the field surveys; all of these are common species found in agricultural and riparian areas of northwest San Joaquin County (Table 3). Several birds were flying around and over the site and perching in trees and shrubs. Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buten jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) are representative of the avian species observed in the site. The relatively more natural areas along White Slough, Dredger Cut, and the Delta waterways to the west of the WPCF support a more diverse assemblage of birds. Birds including Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great egret (Casmerodias albus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and American coot (Fulica americana) are widespread along the Delta waterways in and near the White Slough Wildlife Area. The existing wastewater treatment ponds just east of the Northwest Survey Area are used by a variety of birds. Black -neck stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), great egret, Canada goose, canvasback (Aythya valisineria), bufflehead (Bucepahala White Slough WPCF: Biology 29 December 2016 TABLE 3 WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE SITE Birds Double -crested cormorant Great blue heron Great egret Black -crowned night -heron Canada goose Mallard Bufflehead Canvasback California gull Turkey vulture Black -shouldered kite Northern harrier Swainson's hawk Red-tailed hawk Red -shouldered hawk American kestrel Sandhill crane American coot Killdeer Black -necked stilt Rock dove Mourning dove Belted kingfisher Northern flicker Black phoebe Western kingbird Phalacrocorax auritis Ardea herodias Casmerodius albus Nycticorax nycticorax Branta canadensis Anas platyrhynchos Bucepahala albeola Aythya valisineria Larus californicus Cathartes aura Elanus caeruleus Circus cyaneus Buteo swainsoni Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lineatus Falco sparverius Grus canadensis Fulica americana Charadrius vociferous Himantopus mexicanus Columba livia Zenaida macroura Ceryle alcyon Colaptes auratus Sayornis nigricans Tyrannus verticalis White Slough WPCF: Biology 30 December 2016 TABLE 3 (Continued) WIDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN THE SITE Western scrub jay Yellow -billed magpie American crow American robin Northern mockingbird White -crowned sparrow Red -winged blackbird Brewer's blackbird House finch Mammals California ground squirrel Raccoon Virginia opossum Black -tailed hare Desert cottontail Reptiles and Amphibians Red -eared slider Pacific pond turtle Pacific chorus frog Western fence lizard Aphelocoma coerulescens Pica nuttalli Corvus brachyrhynchos Turdus migratorius Mimus polyglottos Zonotrichia leucophrys Agelaius phoeniceus Euphagus cyanocephalus Carpodacus mexicanus Spermophilus beecheyi Procyon lotor Didelphis virginiana Lepus californicus Sylvilagus audubonii Trachemys scripta elegans Emmys marmorata Pseudacris regilla Sceloporus occidentalis albeola), California gull (Larus californicus), and American coot were observed in the existing wastewater treatment ponds. The ponds do not provide nesting habitat or a food source and appear to primarily be used for loafing. White Slough WPCF: Biology 31 December 2016 There are several potential nest trees in and near the site that are suitable for nesting raptors and other protected migratory birds, including Swainson's hawk. A few stick nests were observed within some of the trees within and near the site. Given the presence of large trees and raptor foraging habitat (i.e., open fields) in and near the site, it is likely one or more pairs of raptors, plus a variety of songbirds, nest in trees in the site each year. Further, it is considered likely that numerous songbirds nest within trees, shrubs, and grassland habitats in or adjacent to the site each year. A variety of mammals common to agricultural areas likely occur in the project site. However, black -tailed hare (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) were the only mammals observed during the surveys; sign of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) was also observed. Coyote (Canis latrans), beaver (Castor canadensis), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are expected to occur in the area. A number of species of small rodents including mice (Mus musculus, Reithrodontomys megalotis, and Peromyscus maniculatus) and voles (Microtus californicus) also likely occur. Based on habitat types present, a variety of amphibians and reptiles may use habitats in the site. Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), Pacific pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and a red -eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) were observed during the recent surveys. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus) are known from the greater project vicinity and may occur in the site on occasion. Given relatively warm water temperatures and aquatic habitat conditions in Dredger Cut primarily supports fish species such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and catfish (Ictlaurus spp.). Dredger Cut does not provide suitable habitat for special -status fishes such as fall -run Chinook salmon White Slough WPCF: Biology 32 December 2016 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), which are known to occur in the nearby San Joaquin River. Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands The San Joaquin River is a navigable Water of the U.S. subject to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act as well as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. White Slough, Dredger Cut, Highline Canal, Bishop Cut, and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site are also Waters of the U.S., although some may not be considered navigable. The limit of federal jurisdiction on all of these waterways is high tide, which is a few feet above mean sea level. These waterways also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW and the RWQCB. There is no worked proposed in White Slough, Dredger Cut, or any other Delta waterways. Beyond the San Joaquin River and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site, no other potentially jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. were observed in or near the site. All of the managed and maintained irrigation and drainage ditches that serve the fields were excavated in uplands and are do not meet the technical and regulatory criteria of jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. Further, there are no vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, or other types of wetlands within the leveled fields, paved and dirt roads, and patches of highly disturbed ruderal upland grassland habitat within the WPCF where the project facilities will be constructed. Special -Status Species Special -status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the CESA, FESA, or other regulations. Special -status species also include other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of White Slough WPCF: Biology 33 December 2016 isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. The likelihood of occurrence of listed, candidate, and other special -status species in the project site is generally low. Table 4 provides a summary of the listing status and habitat requirements of special -status species that have been documented in the greater project vicinity or for which there is potentially suitable habitat in the greater project vicinity. This table also includes an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each of these species in the site. The evaluation of the potential for occurrence of each species is based on the distribution of regional occurrences (if any), habitat suitability, and field observations. SPECIAL -STATUS PLANTS Eight (8) species of special -status plants were identified in the CNDDB (2016) search or are on the USFWS IPaC Trust Report: large -flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora), succulent owl's clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta), wooly rose mallow (Hibiscus lasiocarpus), Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii), Mason's lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii), delta mudwort (Limosella australis), side -flowering skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora), and Suisun marsh aster (Symphotrichum lentum) (Table 4 and Appendix A). Special -status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas and are largely found within unique vegetation communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, and areas with unique soils. Almost all of the species listed in Table 4 occur in marshes and swamps. Wooly rose mallow, Delta tule pea, Mason's lilaeopsis, delta mudwort, side -flowering skullcap, and Suisun marsh aster are recorded in the CNDDB (2016) growing in or along the waterways in the greater project vicinity. Wooly rose mallow is widespread in delta waterways west and southwest of the site, including a population in the Highline Canal, approximately 0.25 miles west of the Northwest Survey Area CNDDB (2016). Mason's lilaeopsis has been found in Bishop Cut, approximately White Slough WPCF: Biology 34 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Scientific Federal State CNPS Name Name Statusl Status2 List3 Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site PLANTS Large - flowered fiddleneck Succulent owl's clover Wooly rose mallow Amsinckia grandiflora Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Hibiscus lasiocarpus Delta tule pea Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Mason's Lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis masonii E E 1B Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. T E 1B Vernal pools. None None 2 Freshwater marshes and swamps. None None 1B Marshes and swamps. None R 1B Marshes, swamps and riparian scrub. Unlikely: the project site not provide suitable habitat for large - flowered fiddleneck and is below the elevation range of this species (CNPS, 2016). There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) search area. Unlikely: there are no vernal pools in or adjacent to the site and no occurrences of succulent owl's clover in the CNDDB (2016) search area. The site is not in designated critical habitat for this species (USFWS, 2005a). Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for wooly rose mallow. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides marginal habitat. Wooly rose mallow is widespread in delta waterways west and southwest of the site, including a population in Highline Canal, approximately 0.25 miles west of the Northwest Survey Area CNDDB (2016). Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for Delta tule pea. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides marginal habitat for this species. The nearest occurrence of Delta tule pea in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 4 miles southwest of the site. Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for this species. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides marginal habitat for Mason's Lilaeopsis. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is in Bishop Cut, approximately 1 mile west of the Dredger Cut point of discharge. White Slough WPCF: Biology 35 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Scientific Federal State CNPS Name Name Statusl Status2 List3 Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Delta mudwort Limosella None None 2 Marshes and Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and subulata swamps. the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for Delta mudwort. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides only marginal habitat. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 5 miles west of the site. Side -flowering Scutellaria skullcap laterifolia None None 2 Marshes and swamps. Suisun marsh Symphotrichum None None 1B Marshes and aster lentum swamps. WILDLIFE Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor None SC N/A Open water and protected nesting substrate, usually cattails and riparian scrub with surrounding foraging habitat. Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for this species. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides marginal habitat for side -flowering skullcap. The nearest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 6 miles northwest of the site. Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for Suisun marsh aster. White Slough provides potentially suitable habitat for this species, while Dredger Cut is choked with water hyacinth and provides only marginal habitat. Suisun marsh aster is widespread in delta waterways west and southwest of the site; the nearest occurrences of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area are approximately 4 miles west of the site in the Delta, and approximately 4 miles southeast of the site in Bear Creek. Moderate: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area provide suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and White Slough, Dredger Cut, and Delta waterways to the west provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. The nearest occurrence of nesting tricolored blackbirds in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site. White Slough WPCF: Biology 36 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Scientific Federal State CNPS Name Name Statusl Status2 Lista Swainson's Buteo swainsoni None T N/A hawk Burrowing owl Athene None cunicularia White-tailed Elanus leucurus None kite California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus None Habitat Breeds in stands of tall trees in open areas. Requires adjacent suitable foraging habitats such as grasslands or alfalfa fields supporting rodents. SC N/A Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low -growing vegetation. None FP Herbaceous lowlands with variable tree growth and dense population of voles. T N/A Mainly inhabits salt marshes bordering larger bays Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Moderate: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson's hawks and trees in and near the site provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. There are many records of nesting Swainson's hawks in the project vicinity; the nearest occurrences of nesting Swainson's hawks in the CNDDB (2016) search area are immediately east and immediately west of the Northwest Survey Area. Swainson's hawks were observed nesting in May 2016 in a cottonwood on the west side of Interstate 5 approximately 400 feet south of the underpass connecting Thornton Road with the access road in to the WPCF. The tree is between Interstate 5 and the access road to the WPCF and the hawks are accustomed to traffic and noise. The female was incubating eggs while the male perched nearby. Moderate: numerous ground squirrels and their burrows were observed along the edges of the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area. No burrowing owls or evidence of occupancy were observed in or near the site. The nearest occurrence of nesting burrowing owls in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. Moderate: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area provide suitable foraging habitat for white-tailed kites and trees in and near the site provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. White-tailed kites are reported in the CNDDB (2016) along the north side of White Slough, just west of Interstate 5. Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh and swamp habitat for California black rail. White Slough and Dredger Cut provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. The nearest occurrence of California black rail in the CNDDB (2016) search area is just west of the Northwest Survey Area. White Slough WPCF: Biology 37 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Federal State CNPS Statusl Status2 List3 Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Song sparrow Melospiza ("Modesto melodia Population") Mammals Riparian brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Reptiles & Amphibians Giant garter Thamnophis snake gigas California tiger Ambystoma salamander californiense None SC N/A Brackish water marshes. Inhabits cattails, tules, and tangles bordering sloughs. E E N/A Riparian thickets in Stanislaus and southern San Joaquin Counties. T T N/A Freshwater marsh and low gradient streams. Uses drainage canals and irrigation ditches, primarily for dispersal or migration. T T N/A Seasonal water bodies without fish (i.e., vernal pools and stock ponds) and grassland/ woodland habitats with summer refugia (i.e., burrows). Moderate: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable marsh or swamp habitat for song sparrow. White Slough, Dredger Cut, and Delta waterways further west provide suitable habitat for this species. The nearest occurrence of song sparrow in the CNDDB (2016) search area is 1 mile west of the Northwest Survey Area. Unlikely: the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable habitat for riparian brush rabbit. There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. Unlikely: White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide suitable habitat for giant garter snake. In contrast, the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable foraging or aestivation habitat for this species. The nearest documented occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is a 35 -year old record mapped just west of the Northwest Survey Area. The CNDDB describes that the exact location of this occurrence is not known. It is possible that giant garter snakes could and may move through the Northwest Survey Area on occasion. Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for California tiger salamander. This species occurs in the transitional bands between the valley floor and foothills and is not known to occur in the Delta. There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. The project site is not within designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander (USFWS, 2005b). White Slough WPCF: Biology 38 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Name Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Statusl Status2 Lista Habitat California red- Rana aurora legged frog draytonii Pacific pond turtle Emys marmorata Fish Steel head — Oncorhynchus Central Valley mykiss irideus DPS Winter -run Chinook salmon T SC N/A Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. None SC N/A Ponds, marshes, streams, and ditches with emergent aquatic vegetation and basking areas. T None N/A Riffle and pool complexes with adequate spawning substrates within Central Valley drainages. Oncorhynchus E tshawytscha E N/A Deep flowing pools and riffle complexes with adequate spawning substrates; currently known only in the Sacramento River system. Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for California red -legged frog, which is also presumed extinct on the floor of the Central Valley of California. There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. The project site is not within designated critical habitat for California red -legged frog (USFWS, 2006a). Unlikely: White Slough, Dredger Cut, and Delta waterways further west provide suitable habitat for Pacific pond turtle. The nearest documented occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is along the northern edge of the Northwest Survey Area. Unlikely: this species occurs in the San Joaquin River and other Delta waterways a few miles west of the site on a seasonal basis, but has rarely been documented at juvenile fish monitoring stations in the project vicinity. The closest occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 6 miles southwest of the site. Bishop Cut, White Slough, the San Joaquin River, and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site are designated critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead (NOAA, 2005). Dredger Cut and the section of White Slough east of Bishop Cut are not in the habitat designation. Very unlikely: although historically present in the project vicinity, viable populations of winter -run Chinook salmon are currently restricted to the Sacramento River and some of its major tributaries. There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. White Slough WPCF: Biology 39 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Name Scientific Name Federal State CNPS Statusl Status2 Lista Habitat Spring -run Chinook salmon Fall -run Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus T tshawytscha Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostris T N/A Deep flowing pools and riffle complexes with adequate spawning substrates; currently known only from the Sacramento River system. None SC N/A Deep flowing pools and riffle complexes with adequate spawning substrates within Central Valley drainages. T T N/A Shallow lower delta waterways with submersed aquatic plants and other suitable refugia. T SC N/A Freshwater and saltwater habitats; spawn in freshwater rivers. Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Very unlikely: although historically present in the project vicinity, viable populations of spring -run Chinook salmon are currently restricted to the Sacramento River and some of its major tributaries. There are no occurrences of this species recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. Unlikely: fall -run Chinook salmon occur in Delta waterways including the mainstem San Joaquin River on a seasonal basis and may occur in the greater project vicinity on occasion. There are no occurrences of fall -run Chinook salmon recorded in the CNDDB (2016) search area. Unlikely: Delta smelt occur in the mainstem San Joaquin River and other Delta waterways a few miles west of the site on a seasonal basis, but have rarely been documented at juvenile fish monitoring stations in the project vicinity. The closest documented occurrence of delta smelt in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 5 miles northwest of the site, in Little Potato Slough. The entire site is in designated critical habitat for delta smelt (USFWS, 1994). Unlikely: this species occurs in Delta waterways on a seasonal basis and may occur in the greater project vicinity on occasion. However, green sturgeon primarily occur in the Sacramento River and some of its major tributaries, and occur in limited numbers in the San Joaquin River system. There are no occurrences of green sturgeon recorded in the CNDDB (2016) within the search area. White Slough WPCF: Biology 40 December 2016 TABLE 4 SPECIAL -STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR POTENTIALLY -OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Common Scientific Federal State CNPS Name Name Statusl Status2 Lista Longfin smelt Spirinchus None thaleichthsy Invertebrates Vernal pool Branchinecta fairy shrimp lynchi Vernal pool Lepidurus tadpole shrimp packardi Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus San Bruno Callophrys elfin butterfly mossii bayensis Habitat SC N/A Brackish estuarine habitats T None N/A E None N/A Vernal pools Vernal pools T None N/A Elderberry shrubs, usually in Central Valley riparian habitats. Potential for Occurrence in the Project Site Unlikely: this species occurs in Delta waterways on a seasonal basis and may occur in the greater project vicinity on occasion. The nearest occurrence of the longfin smelt in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 5 miles northwest of the site, in Little Potato Slough. Unlikely: there are no vernal pools in or adjacent to the site. There are no occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in the CNDDB (2016) search area. The site is not within designated critical habitat for this species (USFWS, 2005a). Unlikely: there are no vernal pools in or adjacent to the site. The nearest occurrence of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. The site is not within designated critical habitat for vernal pool tadpole shrimp or other listed branchiopods (USFWS, 2005a). Unlikely: there are no blue elderberry shrubs in or adjacent to the site. There are no occurrences of valley elderberry longhorn beetle in the CNDDB (2016) search area. E None N/A Rocky outcrops Unlikely: the site does not provide suitable habitat for this species. and cliffs in coastal There are no occurrences of San Bruno elfin butterfly in the scrub habitats. CNDDB (2016) search area. 1 T= Threatened; E = Endangered. 2 T = Threatened; E = Endangered; R = Rare; SC = State of California Species of Special Concern 3 CNPS List 1B includes species that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 2 includes plants that are rare, threatened or endangered in California but are more common elsewhere. White Slough WPCF: Biology 41 December 2016 1 mile west of the Dredger Cut point of discharge. All of the Special -status plants in Table 4 that occur in marshes or swamps may occur in White Slough, Dredger Cut, Highline Canal, Bishop Cut, the San Joaquin River, and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site at and below the water line. The leveled fields, maintained irrigation ditches, and patches of highly disturbed ruderal upland grassland habitat within the WPCF do not provide suitable habitat for any special -status plants. Succulent owl's clover is a vernal pool species; there are no vernal pools in or near the project site. SPECIAL -STATUS WILDLIFE The potential for intensive use of habitats within the project site by special -status wildlife species is generally low. Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), burrowing owl, white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), the "Modesto population" of song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), giant garter snake, Pacific pond turtle, Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthsy), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) are the twelve (12) special -status wildlife species identified in the CNDDB (2016) query. The USFWS IPaC Trust Report also includes riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius), California red -legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and San Bruno elfin butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis). Finally, fall -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) winter -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), spring -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) were added to Table 4 because they are known to occur in nearby delta waterways on a seasonal basis. While the project vicinity may have provided habitat for several special -status wildlife species at some time in the past, agriculture and development in and White Slough WPCF: Biology 42 December 2016 adjacent to the site have modified the natural habitats and associated potential to support special -status wildlife species. Of the wildlife species identified in the CNDDB and IPaC Trust Report, Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, and Pacific pond turtle are the only species with potential to occur in the site on more than a transitory or very occasional basis. Other special -status birds may fly over or forage in the area on occasion, but are not expected to nest in the project site. SWAINSON's HAWK: The Swainson's hawk is a migratory hawk listed by the State of California as a Threatened species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect Swainson's hawks year-round, as well as their nests during the nesting season (March 1 through September 15). Swainson's hawks are found in the Central Valley primarily during their breeding season, a population is known to winter in the San Joaquin Valley. Swainson's hawks prefer nesting sites that provide sweeping views of nearby foraging grounds consisting of grasslands, irrigated pasture, hay, and wheat crops. Most Swainson's hawks are migratory, wintering in Mexico and breeding in California and elsewhere in the western United States. This raptor generally arrives in the Central Valley in mid-March, and begins courtship and nest construction immediately upon arrival at the breeding sites. The young fledge in early July, and most Swainson's hawks leave their breeding territories by late August. The CNDDB (2016) contains several records of nesting Swainson's hawks in the project vicinity; the nearest occurrences of nesting Swainson's hawks in the CNDDB (2016) search area are immediately east and immediately west of the Northwest Survey Area (Appendix A). The site is along the heart of the nesting range of the species and relatively larger valley oaks, cottonwoods, willows, and other trees in and near the site and in the greater project vicinity provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. White Slough WPCF: Biology 43 December 2016 Swainson's hawks were observed nesting in May 2016 in a cottonwood on the west side of Interstate 5 approximately 400 feet south of the underpass connecting Thornton Road with the access road in to the WPCF (see photograph in Appendix B). The tree is between Interstate 5 and the access road to the WPCF, with freeway traffic passing within approximately 20 feet of the nest. The pair of hawks appear accustomed to traffic and noise. Swainson's hawks will likely nest in the future in this location and in other trees in and near the site. The agricultural fields that make up the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson's hawks. The extent of use of these fields by foraging Swainson's hawks is not known, but is expected to be moderate to high based on the number of nesting pairs in the project vicinity. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a minor reduction of suitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat in the site. BURROWING OwL: Burrowing owls are not listed either under FESA or CESA, but the MBTA and Fish and Game Code of California protect burrowing owls year- round, and their nests and eggs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Burrowing owls are a year-long resident in a variety of grasslands as well as scrub lands with low growing vegetation, but a low density of trees and shrubs (CDFG, 2012). Burrowing owls that nest in the Central Valley may winter elsewhere. The primary habitat requirement of the burrowing owl is small mammal burrows for nesting (CDFG, 2012). The owl usually nests in abandoned ground squirrel burrows, although they have been known to dig their own burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, burrowing owls often utilize artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and piles of concrete pieces. This semi -colonial owl breeds from March through August, and is most active while hunting during dawn and dusk. The nearest occurrence of nesting burrowing owls in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. White Slough WPCF: Biology 44 December 2016 Numerous ground squirrels and their burrows were observed throughout the site, especially along fence lines, roads, and the edges of ditches. Annual croplands and annual grasslands in the site provides suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owls. No burrowing owls or evidence of occupancy were observed in or near the site. TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD: The tricolored blackbird is a State of California Species of Concern and is also protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California. Tricolors are colonial nesters requiring very dense stands of emergent wetland vegetation and/or dense thickets of wild rose or blackberries adjacent to open water for nesting. This species is endemic to California. The nearest occurrence of tricolored blackbird in the CNDDB (2016) search area is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the site. The expansive patches of tules or cattails in White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird. The extent of use of these fields by foraging tricolored blackbirds is not known. The agricultural where the ponds would be located provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a reduction of suitable tricolored blackbird foraging habitat in the site. GIANT GARTER SNAKE: The giant garter snake is listed as threatened both under FESA and CESA. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species; a draft recovery plan for giant garter snake was prepared (USFWS, 1999a), but has not been finalized. Giant garter snake is endemic to the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys where it is found in lowland areas (USFWS, 1999a; 2012). Historically, this species was found throughout the Central Valley from Butte County in the north to Kern County in the south. Currently, giant garter snake is only known to occur in 11 discrete populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys in Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Yolo counties (USFWS, 2012). White Slough WPCF: Biology 45 December 2016 The giant garter snake is one of the most aquatic of garter snakes and is usually found in streams, marshes, and sloughs with mud bottoms. This species prefers slow moving waters with emergent herbaceous wetland vegetation for cover and foraging, and grassy banks and openings for basking (Hansen, 1988). Giant garter snakes feed primarily on small fishes, tadpoles, and frogs. Since they are aquatic hunters, they must have access to permanent, though not necessarily extensive, water. Giant garter snake is apparently absent from large rivers, other water bodies that support introduced populations of large predatory fish, and from wetlands with sand, gravel or rock substrates (Rossman and Stewart, 1987; Brode 1988; G. Hansen, 1988). Historically, oxbows, overflow areas, and backwater sloughs or channels could have provided suitable habitat. Riparian woodlands do not typically provide suitable habitat because of excessive shade, lack of basking sites, and the absence of prey populations. Essential habitat components of giant garter snake consist of: (1) adequate water during the snake's active season (early -spring through mid -fall) to provide food and cover; (2) emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, for escape cover and foraging habitat during the active season; (3) grassy banks and openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and (4) higher elevation uplands for cover and refuge from flood waters during the snake's dormant season in the winter; giant garter snakes inhabit small mammal burrows and other soil crevices for aestivation. A population of giant garter snakes occupies the "Coldani Marsh" core habitat area approximately one mile northwest of the WPCF. White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide potentially suitable habitat for giant garter snake. The Coldani Marsh population of giant garter snakes may extend south as far as the delta waterways and wetland habitats west of the Northwest Survey Area. White Slough WPCF: Biology 46 December 2016 The nearest documented occurrence of giant garter snake in the CNDDB (2016) search area is a series of sightings from 1974 through 1982 west of the Northwest Survey Area. The "Lodi White Slough Preserve", an existing giant garter snake habitat area managed by SJCOG, encompasses a strip of land along the west edge of the WPCF in the vicinity of this old sighting. The location of this habitat area (i.e., the "Energy Center Easement") is depicted in Figure 3. Giant garter snakes were not detected in this area during intensive trapping efforts in the greater vicinity of Coldani Marsh between 2009 and 2011, during which time snakes were only trapped in habitats a mile or more northwest of the site (Hansen, 2011). Given the historical records and presence of suitable habitat, the Energy Center Easement and lands further west would be presumed occupied under the SJCMSHCP. The potential for occurrence of giant garter snakes in the project site and surrounding areas is discussed in detail in the Habitat Assessment for the project prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Appendix C). In summary, the agricultural fields in the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable foraging or aestivation habitat for this species. The fields are tilled at least twice a year and do not contain cracks and burrows required by aestivating giant garter snake. The irrigation and drainage ditches that serve the fields could potentially be used for movement, but are not expected to provide suitable foraging habitat, as the ditches are often dry and do not contain prey items such as fish and frogs. In contrast, Dredger Cut and White Slough provide suitable aquatic habitat for giant garter snake and the banks of these waterways contain burrows and cracks that could be used for aestivation. ECORP concluded that it is unlikely giant garter snakes ever occur in the Southeast Survey Area due to lack of nearby aquatic habitat and lack of suitable foraging or aestivation habitat in the Southeast Survey Area. In contrast, ECORP concluded that if giant garter snakes are present in off-site lands just west of Northwest Survey Area, individual snakes may move through the White Slough WPCF: Biology 47 December 2016 Northwest Survey Area on occasion, but use of the fields and ditches would be limited to occasional movement. The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a minor reduction of potential giant garter snake movement habitat in the site. The ECORP Assessment also describes the key minimization and avoidance measures that would be required pursuant to project compliance with the SJCMSHCP. These measures include construction scheduling, pre -construction surveys, protective fencing, worker training, minimizing vegetation clearing, and other measures. As described above, the Project will reduce the annual volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 180 and 200 million gallons. The proposed project will result in reductions of discharge to Dredger Cut at a rate of approximately 1,500 and 1,700 gallons per minute over approximately a 90 -day period between January 1 and April 30 of each year. This would result in lower water temperatures during January through April, and minor improvements of water quality in Dredger Cut and downstream waterways. The ECORP study concluded this reduction of discharge from the WPCF into Dredger Cut and White Slough during the hibernation period of January through April is not anticipated to have any consequences for giant garter snakes, because snakes would be in torpor, above the water level established at the time they entered hibernation. PACIFIC POND TURTLE: The Pacific pond turtle is a state species of concern, but is not a listed species at the state or federal level. Pacific pond turtles are associated with permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water with adequate basking sites such as logs, rocks or open mud banks. The nearest documented occurrence of this species in the CNDDB (2016) search area is along the northern edge of the Northwest Survey Area. The agricultural fields that make up the Northwest Survey Area and the Southeast Survey Area do not provide suitable habitat for Pacific pond turtle. In White Slough WPCF: Biology 48 December 2016 contrast, White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide suitable habitat for this species and Pacific pond turtles were observed in White Slough and Dredger Cut during the 2015 surveys. The lower water temperatures in Dredger Cut and downstream waterways during January through April and minor improvements of water quality would result in minor improvement of Pacific pond turtle habitat. SPECIAL -STATUS FISH: The potential for occurrence of special -status fish in the project site and surrounding areas is discussed in detail in the Fisheries Assessment for the project prepared by FishBio (Appendix D). White Slough, Dredger Cut, the San Joaquin River, and Delta waterways further west provide movement and/or rearing habitat for two special -status salmonids that occur in the area on a seasonal basis: fall -run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead. While fall -run Chinook salmon are known to occur in the San Joaquin River, populations of federally -listed winter -run and spring -run Chinook salmon only occur in Central Valley drainages located further to the north. White Slough, Dredger Cut, the San Joaquin River, and Delta waterways further west also provide potentially suitable habitat for Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), the southern Distinct Population Segment (sDPS) of green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). The FishBio Assessment provides information on the life history and distribution of special -status and concludes that it is unlikely that Central Valley California Steelhead, fall -run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, or green sturgeon occur in Dredger Cut or the waterways immediately downstream of Dredger Cut on more than a very occasional or transitory basis. The Assessment provides an analysis of how the reduction in discharge may affect the habitat suitability of Dredger's Cut and connecting waterways during January through April. FishBio identified that the project has the potential to modify aquatic habitats in three ways: White Slough WPCF: Biology 49 December 2016 • a reduction in the total volume discharged into the project vicinity may affect current velocities and/or the total volume of water within the San Joaquin River or the total Delta outflow. • a reduction in discharge may affect the area that is currently thermally impacted and overall water temperatures in that affected area; and, • a reduction in discharge may affect water quality via either a reduction or increase in nutrient inputs. The existing discharge is a minor input to overall flows in the San Joaquin River and downstream waterways. From an analysis of the changes in discharge and river flows during wet, normal and dry years, FishBio concluded no appreciable changes in the total volume, or any measures related to the total volume discharged (i.e., current velocities) in the San Joaquin River or Delta would be expected to occur with the change in discharge from the WPCF. The reduction in temperature and changes in water quality during January through April is expected to result in a negligible change or a positive effect on the suitability of Dredger Cut, White Slough, and downstream waterway for special -status fish. OTHER SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES: Special -status bats may fly over the area on occasion, but would not be expected to roost in the site. The site does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for California tiger salamander, giant garter snake, or California red -legged frog. There are no blue elderberry shrubs in the site, precluding the potential occurrence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle. There are no vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the site for vernal pool branchiopods (i.e., fairy and tadpole shrimp). CRITICAL HABITAT: Several Central Valley drainages, including the San Joaquin River and White Slough are Designated Critical Habitat for federally listed anadromous salmonids. The project site is located within designated critical habitat for Central Valley California Steelhead but not within designated critical habitat for winter -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), spring -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (NOAA, 2005). The entire site, White Slough WPCF: Biology 50 December 2016 including the agricultural fields that would be developed in to ponds is designated critical habitat for delta smelt (USFWS, 1994) (Appendix E), as the habitat extends far inland from the waterways where this fish actually occurs, The site is not within designated critical habitat for California red -legged frog (USFWS, 2006a), federally listed vernal pool shrimp or plants (USFWS, 2005a), California tiger salamander (USFWS, 2005b), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (USFWS, 1980), or other federally listed species (Appendix E). VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • The project site consist of intensively farmed fields primarily provide foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. The well-developed riparian wetlands and woodlands associated with White Slough, Dredger Cut, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, and Delta waterways further west provide high-quality habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species and support numerous special -status plant and wildlife species. • White Slough, Dredger Cut, Highline Canal, Bishop Cut, and other Delta waterways west and southwest of the site are jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. No other potentially jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. were observed in or near the site. • Due to a lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special -status plants occur in the site. • Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, and Pacific pond turtle are the only species with potential to occur in the site on more than a transitory or very occasional basis. Giant garter snake may occur in wetland habitat just west of the site, but is unlikely to occur on-site. It is also unlikely that Central Valley California Steelhead, fall -run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, or green White Slough WPCF: Biology 51 December 2016 sturgeon occur in Dredger Cut or the waterways immediately downstream of Dredger Cut on more than a very occasional or transitory basis. • The conversion of agricultural fields to ponds would result in a minor reduction of suitable Swainson's hawk, tricolored blackbird, and burrowing owl foraging habitat in the site. • Reductions of discharge in to Dredger Cut is expected to have no impact or a less than significant impact on giant garter snake, Pacific pond turtle, special -status fish, or the potential habitats for these species in Dredger Cut, White Slough, the peripheral canal cut west of the Northwest Survey Area, or Delta waterways further west. • The project will participate in the San Joaquin County Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan (SJCOG, 2000). This will involve payment of fees and implementation of standard Take Avoidance measures outlined in the HCP for Swainson's hawks, burrowing owls, Pacific pond turtle, and giant garter snake. The SJCOG utilizes fees to secure and manage lands for covered species, providing compensatory habitat to offset the loss of habitat from the proposed project. • Trees, shrubs, and grasslands in the area could be used by other birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Any construction or vegetation removal during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31) should be immediately preceded by survey. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist should mark the nest location(s), and identify an appropriate setback between the nest and construction or vegetation removal activities. Construction or vegetation removal within the setback shall be delayed until the young fledge. White Slough WPCF: Biology 52 December 2016 VII. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CONSULTED ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Technical Report Y87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI. ACOE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. September. Brode. J. 1988. Natural history of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas). Pages 25-28, in Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology, H.F. DeListe, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B. M. McGurty (eds). Southwestern Herpetologists Society, Special Publication No. 4. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo Swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November. CDFG. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. March. CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2016. California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage Program, Sacramento, California. CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Hansen, G.E. 1988. Review of the status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas) and its supporting habitat during 1986-1987. Final report for California Department of Fish and Game Contract C-2060. Unpublished. 31 p. Hansen, E. 2011. Implementation of Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 recovery tasks for giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) — status of distribution of giant White Slough WPCF: Biology 53 December 2016 garter snakes at the eastern Delta's White Slough Wildlife Area, San Joaquin County, CA. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. March 10. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, California. November. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule. Federal Register 70 (170): 52488-52585. September 2, 2005. Rossman, D. and G. Stewart. 1987. Taxonomic reevaluation of Thamnophis couchi (Serpentes:Colubridae). Occasional Papers of the museum of Zoology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. No. 63. 25 pp. SJCOG (San Joaquin Council of Governments). 2000. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Stockton, California. November 15. Available at: http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/5 Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler -Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. California. SHTAC (Swainson's Hawk Technical Advisory Committee). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley. May 31. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1980. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17. Listing the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Federal Register 45 No. 155, pp. 52803-52807, August 8. White Slough WPCF: Biology 54 December 2016 USFWS. 1999a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Ix+ 192pp. USFWS. 1999b. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. July 9. USFWS. 1994. Final Critical Habitat for the Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus). Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 242, December 19, 1994, pp. 65256 — 65279. USFWS. 2005a. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Evaluation and Economic Exclusions from August 2003 Final Designation, Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 154, August 11. USFWS. 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 162, August 23, 2005, pp. 49390 — 49458. USFWS. 2006a. Part II, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red -Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated with Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities, Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 71, April 13. USFWS. 2006b. Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. 46 pp. USFWS. 2012. Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) 5 -Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. June. White Slough WPCF: Biology 55 December 2016 APPENDIX A CNDDB Summary Report and Exhibits & USFWS IPaC Trust Resource Report Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database CALIFORNIA ♦FISH & ray WILDLIFE Query Criteria: Quad = Lodi South (3812113) OR Terminous (3812114) Species Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Emys marmorata western pond turtle Hibiscus lasiocarpos var. occidentalis woolly rose -mallow Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's Lilaeopsis Limosella australis Delta mudwort Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella Melospiza melodia song sparrow ("Modesto" population) Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - Central Valley DPS Scutellaria lateriflora side -flowering skullcap Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster Thamnophis gigas giant gartersnake Valley Oak Woodland Valley Oak Woodland ABPBXB0020 None None G2G3 S1S2 SSC ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3 CTT52410CA None None G3 S2.1 ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC PDMALOHOR3 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 AFCHB01040 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP PDFAB250D2 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3S4 PDAPI19030 None Rare G2 S2 113.1 PDSCR10050 None None G4G5 S2 2B.1 ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3 ABPBXA3010 None None G5 S3? SSC AFCHA0209K Threatened None G5T2Q S2 PDLAM1U0Q0 None None G5 S2 2B.2 AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1 SSC PDASTE8470 None None G2 S2 1B.2 ARADB36150 Threatened Threatened G2 S2 CTT71130CA None None G3 S2.1 Record Count: 21 Commercial Version -- Dated September, 2 2016 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 1 Report Printed on Tuesday, September 06, 2016 Information Expires 3/2/2017 ISLETON side -f o'wering skullcap Delta mudwort Delta rule ped Suisun Marsh aster Suisun Marsh aster 1: Suisun Marsh aster • Suisun Marsh aster watershield -� ' - woolly rose -mallow I •�'.; Suisun Marsh aster side -flowering skullcap Suisun Marsh aster Mason's lilaeopsis THON ON ]LODI NORTH ' Mason's IilaeopsisSuisun Marsh as woolly rose -mall w Delta mudwortwoolly rose -mallow woolly rose-mallowMason's lilaeopsis s • n Marsh aster •CoastaPand` alle-y`F.re�Polv✓ater Marsh woolly yrrase-mad I ow Suisun Marsh aster Suisun Marsh aste 117 oastal avid Vallle, 'Freshwater MarSh SLAND Suisu Suisun Marsh aster Delta mudwort Marsh aster Ek woolly rose -mallow • Project Area 5lilri,nii;..r M FO _ r. _. eafi_-_ Brix ...mr._:iml�= C� —Aim -mill 1qm am, titi110=l et• t..7;, 1 —1 111 Hender-,on Village 111 ;ilia,. -- 8er� r I. go' r1 MING -F! . � ,� ...�� LODI SOUpr.■ Ii11111 lir: q T 7 1"till i\. immt?...rimostail NI •! 501_7_11t elle ed. d I�a■1S rose -mallow L , ECU h �. 1t w l_ LEVEES �� woolly rosNiallowwoolly rose mallow, 4"----M----- -_. �— Coastal and Valley Freshwater -Marsh Mason's lilaeopsis *'—'�?"' .111:11° 4� Dclta tine pear,�. Suisun Mars aster��woolly rose -mallow ITS................Niny t�, :���l woolly rose-mallowII� Z>. iii�� 1 � Mason's lilaeopsis •• ILLTIEctri `4�j�+•L ���`in kr" Mason's lilaeopsis „. j om {{{*rr ■,'• I Marsh aster ftikit � "�1 �� _ lr ��Suisun Marsh aster ' . 4/ 4 FijI Mason'sllaeopss •akt , ��� ltiJIOil � Mason's lilaeopsis' �p;F � ��,•� r �/y',h 11:.�.Oa ry@ �� 7��� *,�yn� �r� Coastal and Valle Freshwater Marsh p w r`��' trflik 'n Suisun Marsh aster woolly rose mallow Mason's lilaeo sis �,• r .�—st ITTT /}•r1����;jce woollyrose-mallow Suisun Marsh aster111 /� yam( Mason's lilaeos } 2n b j - r��xi.1i?'#��t1� ilL1� Suisun Marsh asterMason's lilaeo sis �1 uisun Marsh asterSuisun Marsh aster r r ���•+ Y���5*4�%M1�' N Q Q.rj irimpr HOLTSelsue Marsh aster Suisun Marsh aster ` 1� �6 �L L� ' y j' • - jP�'•� wsun:Marsh .ster A Suisun Marsh aster ` Ili i Miles i'•,7r;.' ./.: d - I'ti�• a� L� �t Source: CDFW, � �Y ,1lf�.{'1 .tf �d1 National Geographic Society woolly rose -Mallow woolly Suisun Marsh aster Delta tule pea Mason's IilaeopsIss woolly rose-mallowSuisun Marsh aster saa Mason's lilaeopsis Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh woolly rose -mallow woolly rose-rMallowMa on's lilaeopsis woolly rose -mallow woolly rose -mallow Mason's lilaeopsis Mason's lilaeopsis Delta mudwort Suisun Marsh acre Suisun Marsh aste Suisun CNDDB Plant White Slough WPCF Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin County, CA Map Date: 09/06/2016 Suisun Marsh aster I SLETON THORNTON "Sw`ai sn on:s/hawk LODI NORTH OR,D ong sparro m dvalley fa i y sh California black rail Swainson's hawk sto par ainsori -hawk o'SpopuIation wainSD0$ h l' Swainson's haw M1 ' Swai0s o n's hawk ice• y.Sw`s hawk Swains d$w stean.pand to,rt Swainse 's hawk • !'t , California black iI ,.Modesto"p��opulatR g' rtersnake , +{ Project Area p� ) int o. l f . Della smeltgia Swainson's haw rstern pond turtle InForg snake iow ("Modesto' population � longfir spelt arA1- S ins. shawk steelh d Central Valley DPS w ins :Ah.owk r/ .-- Sititni UMW Alat lk iniI. � std mr wiE1111:11\ - Ili Mk gni+i... ....illt 1 Sparr,w j'Mod€stn- o ulatidm "+� ?"-`' . _ p4�-- Swadnspn s,�-wkr. 4 1Iit kir' ' 11111Fah r sparro "Mo esto lafion)ifirMitiraW -,,:.... '• elle hite-tiled kite $ h Ar, '410, Cat,• Swain Swainss hawk vernal pool1 dpole shr p ViRage Swainse 's hawk Swainse mp - wainso,';3hawlk :s hawk-Nerlo 1 LODI SOU irgj' song sparrows Modesto' populatio a black rail giant gartersnake song,spairow ("Modes o" population) burro Nang .J✓IVis?/+�wj`�1 �S Swainson's 4TlI=ritri=11 ire .'7laa few. ta Milaiti� 4' �•rY .Sri -1....=24.111! II - _ IN ti --1.-2-Q=0) fir-r►-� rilli �A ir Titliifilli re i-111 � *!i� �..73 ".-yI\� burrow,mg owl NNIVIr=4_,WirS3111,..illpfAroitik-ri TciA___TF-1 -4. illitaM: .,FAMT-TASi:itill -zA iti \Fr p:;:.r Volgt1140.0414.3 ....... \ . wurnk III - - 'steelhead- Central+ .Ile BPS's wk. " n.wyk '41511, tib-." Swainsp 's hawk song sparrow -T odestb" population) Sa'lifernia nderiella .•Swains.�n�i hawk d'! Swainsons hawk - /Jiiivs 'shawk insofi'sfiawk - 00 R L, k 1 Swainsdn's hawk Swa Swainson's hawk Swainson's ha • Swainson's hawk CNDDB Wildlife White Slough WPCF Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin County, CA Map Date: 09/06/2016 Yufca Swainse �4 STOCKTON/E Swainsort's hawk 0.5 Miles Source: CDFW,; National Geographic Society U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Ponds IPaC Trust Resources Report Generated September 06, 2016 11:47 AM MDT, IPaC v3.0.8 This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife Servic- -view or co ence, please return to the IPaC website and request an official spe• t • :�latory Documents page. IPaC - Information for Planning and Conservation (https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/): A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service environmental review process. Table of Contents IPaC Trust Resources Report 1 Project Description 1 Endangered Species 2 Migratory Birds 6 Refuges & Hatcheries 9 Wetlands 10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resources Report White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Ponds LOCATION San Joaquin County, California IPAC LINK https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/ IVSZD-CAEG5-G7VNT-FTSC4-K23A7U U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact Information Trust resources in this location are managed by: San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife 650 Capitol Mall Suite 8-300 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 930-5603 Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 (916) 414-6600 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the Regulatory Documents section in IPaC or from the local field office directly. The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location: Amphibians California Red -legged Frog Rana draytonii MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D02D Threatened California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Threatened MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tens_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D01 T 9/6/2016 11:47 AM IPaC v3.0.8 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Crustaceans Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Threatened MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K03G Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K048 Fishes Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E070 Steelhead Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E08D Endangered Threatened Threatened 9/6/2016 11:47 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 3 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Flowering Plants Fleshy Owl's -clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulents Threatened MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=QOCG Large -flowered Fiddleneck Amsinckia grandiflora MANAGED BY San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1 SU Endangered Insects San Bruno Elfin Butterfly Callophrys mossii bayensis Endangered MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_pu bl is/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=1000 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Threatened MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=101 L Mammals Riparian Brush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Endangered MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=AODN 9/6/2016 11:47 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 4 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Reptiles Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas MANAGED BY Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office San Francisco Bay -delta Fish And Wildlife CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C057 Critical Habitats This location overlaps all or part of the critical habitat for the following species: Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus Final designated critical habitat http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E070#crithab Steelhead Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Final designated critical habitat http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_pu bl is/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E08D#crithab Threatened 9/6/2016 11:47 AM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 5 APPENDIX B Photographs .;•::a F9+ .'-,t.sw •���.�:_. ryR''.�'.ta'�^^'. `_w`-• -4 Ylr:. .;i Disked field in the south part of the Northwest Survey Area, looking east; 10/22/15. Tranmission lines crossing through the Northwest Survey Area, looking southeast; 10/22/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Irrigation ditch along the north edge of Field 2B, looking west; 10/22/15. Concrete lined irrigation ditch along the east side of Field 2B, looking south; 10/22/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL r;-�r�•c:'_: Wit...,: y,�,••. ,�M!'r.if.}� ie 'r +:. �'�cw:"°� •i,�,.,-.�,�.;�'ti " T M�1�'��,'fij�r..Ww� i . r; ;-.a- � 'zd\, - - •t • ',-- mak.-•!+w• -,. rz:r. ,Ay rt z�r��dr;• �S 4' f.Y. • • • • - . "42' Ji�.• .. : •.G'.isr:'.,.. ,T y��.• 'ms's drP ,�a'i•-..'•: '4 7 �..... ,Cry. • . •1:-....r �Y�1 Y`A Alfalfa field in the Southeast Survey Area, looking southwest; 10/22/15. Farm road along the south edge of the Southeast Survey Area, looking east; 10/22/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Concrete lined irrigation ditch along the east side of Field 6E, looking southeast; 09/29/15. Irrigation ditch in between Fields 6E and 6F, looking south; 09/29/15. Note that one field is in alfalfa and the other is bare dirt where corn had been grown earlier in the year. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Tunnel under Interstate 5 through which the Southeast Alternative Pipeline may be constructed, looking west ; 12/29/15. Paved road just east of Interstate 5 where the Southeast Alternative Pipleline may be constructed, looking east; 12/29/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Road just southeast of the WPCF where the Southeast Alternative Pipleline may be constructed, looking northwest; 12/29/15. Dirt road along the north edge of White Slough, south of the WPCF, looking west; 12/29/15. The West Alternative Pipleline may be constructed in this road. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Dirt road along the north edge of White Slough, south of the NCPA Facility, looking west; 12/29/15. The West Alternative Pipleline may be constructed in this road. Road through the WPCF where the West Alternative Pipleline may be constructed, looking west; 12/29/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Point of Discharge in Dreder Cut, looking west; 12/10/15. The discharge pipe is under the cat walk and is not visible. Dredger Cut looking east toward the Point of Discharge from near the Highline Canal; 12/10/15. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Highline Canal, looking northwest from the west end of Dredger Cut; 12/10/15. While this photograph was taken, the tide was coming in and water was flowing "upstream" (i.e., northwest). White Slough, looking west from the west end of Dredger Cut; 12/10/15. Note that White Slough has open water and with fringes of emergent wetland vegetation along the banks. MOORE BIOLOGICAL White Slough along the south edge of the Northwest Survey Area, looking west; 10/22/15. Lodi White Slough Preserve and White Slough Wildlife Area, looking northwest from the northwest Survey Area; 10/22/15. The riparian vegetation in the distance is in the White Slough Wildlife Area. MOORE BIOLOGICAL Swainson's hawk nest along Interstate 5 just north of the WWTP, looking north; 05/10/16. The nest is 400+/- feet south of the underpass connecting Thornton Road and the WWTP access road. Waterfowl in one of the ponds, looking southwest; 01/21/16. A variety of ducks loaf on the ponds. MOORE BIOLOGICAL APPENDIX C Giant Garter Snake Habitat Assessment Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility San Joaquin County, California Prepared for: Moore Biological Consultants 13 January 2016 ADECORP Consulting, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Environmental Setting 6 1.3 Giant Garter Snake 6 1.3.1 Species Biology 7 1.3.2 Habitat Requirements 8 2.0 METHODS 10 3.0 RESULTS 10 3.1 Nearby Occurrences 10 3.2 Site Descriptions 12 3.2.1 Southeastern Survey Area and Southeast Alternative Pipeline 12 3.2.2 Western Survey Area and West Alternative Pipeline 12 3.2.3 Dredger Cut Discharge Location 13 3.3 Effects of the Proposed Project on Giant Garter Snake 13 3.3.1 Potential Impacts to GGS from Project Construction and Operation 13 3.3.2 Potential Effect of Reduced Water Releases to Dredger Cut from January through April 14 3.4 Mitigation and Minimization Measures for Giant Garter Snake 14 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 15 5.0 REFERENCES 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity 2 Figure 2. Survey Areas and Project Components 3 Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Occurrences for Giant Garter Snake 11 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — California Natural Diversity Database Search Results Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Attachment C — Datasheets ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 2 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Moore Biological Consultants, ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) conducted a habitat assessment for the state and federally listed threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) within two alternative locations in the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Project study area. The project site is located approximately 4.5 miles west/southwest of Lodi in San Joaquin County, California (Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity). The project study area corresponds to portions of Sections 24 and 25, Township 03 North, Range 05 East (Mount Diablo Base Meridian [MDBM]) of the"Terminous, California" and Section 30, Township 03 North, Range 06 East (MDBM) of the "Lodi South, California" 7.5 -minute quadrangles (U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS) 1993 and 1976, respectively). The approximate center of the site is located at 38° 05' 17" North and 121° 23' 8" West within the Upper Mokelumne and San Joaquin Delta watersheds (Hydrologic Unit Codes #18040012 and 18040003, USGS 1978). The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 (I-5) and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of ±1,026.27 acres of land, including the WPCF and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public." Two pond alternative sites were evaluated in this habitat assessment, as well as an existing dredger cut discharge location at which water discharge will be reduced in January through April, and two alternative pipeline locations, both in unpaved roadways, one west of Highway 12 and one east of the highway. 1.1 Project Description The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of a 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surround the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intakes. The Project, as discussed below, meets these criteria as set forth by DWR. Two alternative Expansion Pond sites are being considered for the Project: The Southeastern Expansion Pond site is located in the southeastern portion of the City's 1,026.27 -acre property (Figure 2. Survey Areas and Project Components). The Southeastern Expansion Pond site would be configured within the space currently occupied by the three agricultural fields that are located at this site. These three fields, which are currently irrigated with groundwater supplied from a production well that is also located in this area, would no longer be used for agricultural production. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 1 13 January 2016 2015-135 c LJI • 14 ate .'1 f II I. - - JYitropo14 I I I _ - 1 I . r .' I \;Je-�a,�}tW=orf. . 23 13 _, _ 4- _ � J 1,44 I •4, - v • '' J] TR 'WO( y,Ix 24 24,k 1. A '2 ;C San Joaquin County, California §24, T.03N, R.05E, MDBM (Terminous) §25, T.03N, R.05E, MDBM (Terminous) §30, T.03N, R.06E, MDBM (Lodi South) Unsectioned Landgrant: Wetlands (Terminous Latitude (NAD83): 38° 5' 17.3" N Longitude (NAD83): 121° 23' 7.9" W Watershed: Upper Mokelumne (18040012) San Joaquin Delta (18040003) e Scale in Feet 0 1,000 2,000 Terminous (1993, NAD83), Lodi South (1976, NAD27) CA 7.5 -minute Topographic Quadrangle US Geological Survey. • lia tLCkt{Ill 11 Map Date: 1/6/2016 Service Layer Credits: National Geographic ilaDECORP Consulting, Inc. L'.N V [RO N dtl•:NTA L CONSULTANTS Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity 2015-135 White Slough WPCF 9 Survey Area W 1 ESLoUIM • LES.', Survey Area acres) Figure 2. Survey Area and Project Components Map Features SurveyArea West Pond Altemative Southeast Pond Alternative Y//I - Southeast Alternative Pipeline - West Alternative Pipeline ECORP Consulting, Inc. } NVIROti1IFNTAL CONSULTANTS 2015-135 White House Slough WPCF Scale in Feer e oo Photo (or Base) Source: USGS 2012 Map Date: 1/7/2016 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility The 70 -acre Western Expansion Pond Site is located on a portion of the City's existing agricultural fields that are directly west of the existing WPCF treatment and storage facilities (Figure 2). The Western Expansion Pond site would be configured to avoid construction under the power lines that transect the City property and near the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement that is located along the western boundary of the City's properties. The agricultural fields and associated irrigation water infrastructure in and around the Western Expansion Pond Site would be reconfigured to accommodate the Project, while also minimizing the reduction overall reduction of agricultural production area on the City's properties. This alternative also includes expansion of the City's irrigation facilities to allow for irrigation of the three fields located in the southeastern corner of the City's property (i.e. the Southeastern Expansion Pond) with water supplied from the WPCF. This expansion would require a new 10- to 15 -horsepower (HP) booster pump and new conveyance channels to connect the existing WPCF effluent irrigation system infrastructure to the irrigation system infrastructure that currently serves this area (Figure 2). The WPCF receives and treats municipal wastewater influent from a service area encompassing the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Flag City service area. The WPCF has a design average dry weather flow treatment capacity of 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The WPCF treatment process includes secondary treatment with nitrification and denitrification (to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L), tertiary filtration, and UV disinfection. The WPCF disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent meets all applicable water quality objectives for the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to protect its beneficial uses, which include warm water fisheries habitat, drinking watery supply, and unrestricted recreational activities. The effluent water quality is demonstrated through regular monthly water quality and acute toxicity monitoring and quarterly three -species chronic toxicity monitoring. The WPCF discharges the disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent to Dredger Cut, a dead- end slough of the Delta. Flows up to 16.3 MGD may be treated and discharged year-round. The location of the existing outfall in Dredger Cut is shown on Figure 2. The dry -weather wastewater flows entering the WPCF are approximately 5.5 MGD and are expected to increase up to 8.5 MGD over the next 30- to 50 -year period. The Project will not change the design and/or permitted treatment and discharge capacity of the WPCF. During the irrigation season (generally mid-April through September), undisinfected secondary - treated municipal effluent that has been nitrified and denitrified to provide an effluent total nitrogen level less than 10 mg/L is directed to four on-site unlined storage ponds totaling a maximum combined storage volume of 328 acre-feet. These ponds also can be used to store industrial wastewater and stormwater received through the City's industrial collection system. The stored flows, along with flows entering the WPCF via the industrial collection system, are used to irrigate 790 acres of surrounding City -owned agricultural land. Crops grown include fodder crops like corn, alfalfa, ryegrass and wheat. The irrigation demand generally exceeds the available WPCF supplies in July and August; supplemental irrigation water is obtained from groundwater pumping. The City also supplies disinfected tertiary treated municipal effluent to the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) power plant, and the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District (SJCM&VCD) fish -rearing ponds year-round. These two facilities are located on City property, adjacent to the WPCF main process area. The NCPA facility consists of two power generating facilities: a 49.9 Megawatt (MW) Power Plant and a 296 MW, Lodi Energy Center. NCPA relies on the City's treated effluent for steam production and cooling system water in both facilities and as make up water for ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 4 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility two 250,000 -gallon fire water tanks. The SJCM&VCD fish rearing ponds are used to cultivate mosquito fish (Gambusia afnis). The Project will not affect the recycled water deliveries to these two facilities. During the non -irrigation season (generally October through mid-April), treated effluent not used by the NCPA and SJCM&VCD facilities are released to Dredger Cut. The Project will reduce the volume discharged to Dredger Cut by approximately 180 and 200 million gallons. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate of approximately 1,500 and 1,700 GPM over approximately a 90 -day period between 1 January and 30 April each year. The table below summarizes the anticipated change in the discharge volumes: Flows Discharged to Dredger Cut from the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Month Current Volume Discharged (2012 -2014 Average), Million Gallons Maximum Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented, Million Gallons Minimum Volume Discharged After the Project is Implemented, Million Gallons January 105 52 47 February 98 44 39 March 75 34 30 April 74 38 35 May 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 September 0 0 0 October 39 39 39 November 90 90 90 December 139 139 139 Total 620 436 419 The Expansion Pond levees will be constructed from fill dirt removed from the 70 -acre construction area. The levees will be approximately 2.4 m (8 feet) tall and the Expansion Pond will be designed to operate with a minimum freeboard of 0.6 m (2 feet). The bottom of the Expansion Pond will be graded flat with a slight slope toward one corner, which is where a discharge pump station will be located. The conveyance facilities associated with the Project include a new, 15- to 20 -HP pump station constructed downstream of the existing WPCF ultraviolet disinfection facility, which will discharge disinfected tertiary -treated effluent into a new conveyance pipeline that will deliver the effluent to the Expansion Pond. The potential alignments of the new conveyance pipelines that will deliver effluent from the WPCF ultraviolet disinfection facility to the Southeastern and Western Expansion Pond sites are shown in Figure 2. For the Southeastern Expansion Pond site alternative, the City may rely on a portion of the City's existing irrigation water delivery infrastructure to convey treated effluent to the pond. This conveyance approach would require less pipeline construction, but would include a 10- to 15 -HP pump station located near the end of the existing irrigation water distribution system to lift the effluent into the pond. The Project also includes conveyance infrastructure to provide for delivery of the treated effluent from the Expansion Pond to the City's existing irrigation water delivery system. For both alternatives, ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 5 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility a new, 15- to 20 -HP pump station will be constructed at the low end of the expansion pond. This new pump station will discharge the stored disinfected tertiary -treated effluent into a new conveyance pipeline that will deliver the effluent to a location within the existing irrigation water delivery system that allows for distribution to the City's fields. The alignments of the new pipelines that will deliver effluent from to the Western and Southeastern Expansion Pond sites to the irrigation system are also shown in Figure 2. The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond (70 acres in size) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. 1.2 Environmental Setting The White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility is located within the San Joaquin Valley Subregion (SnJV) of the Great Central Valley Region (Baldwin et al. 2012). This is the larger and more xeric subdivision of the Central Valley. Land use throughout this subregion is primarily agricultural, but grasslands, marshes, vernal pool complexes, riparian and oak woodlands, and alkali/saline playas remain (Baldwin et al. 2012). The study area occurs at elevations below 6 m (20 feet) above mean sea level and is split between two watersheds. The Upper Mokelumne drains the Northwestern part of the Survey Area, while the San Joaquin Delta drains the Southeastern Survey Area. Shin Kee Tract occurs west of the White Slough Wildlife Area. Prior to European settlement, the area consisted of natural freshwater sloughs and tule marshes, but systematic water diversion with hand - build canals, dykes, and ditches, began in the early to mid -1800's (Kirk 1994, Gronberg et al. 1998). Federal involvement and rapid widespread changes to hydrology and water conveyance began in the late 1940's (Gronberg et al. 1998 and references therein). Mean annual precipitation in the area averages between 10 to 20 inches, all occurring as rainfall, and the area features a Mediterranean climate with cool wet winters and hot, dry summers (Gronberg et al. 1998). The surrounding marshes, including White Slough and Bishop Cut adjacent to the project site, receive tidal influence and reverse direction four times daily (West Yost unpublished report). 1.3 Giant Garter Snake Giant garter snake was listed as threatened by the State of California in 1971 and by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1993. A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and biology of the snake is presented in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 1999), the Revised Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 2015,) in the final rule (58 FR 54053), and in Halstead et al. (2015a). Five-year reviews of its listing status were conducted in 2006 and 2012 (USFWS 2006, USFWS 2012). To date, there is no designated critical habitat for the giant garter snake. The Draft Recovery Plan divided the range of the giant garter snake into four recovery units and thirteen populations. The 2012 status review ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 6 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility reduced the number of populations to nine based on presumed connectivity between three populations formerly thought to be isolated and the apparent extirpation of two other populations. The WPCF survey area falls within the geographic boundaries of the Delta Basin Recovery Unit. 1.3.1 Species Biology The giant garter snake is a California endemic species, only occurring in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys from Butte County to Kern County (Rossman et al. 1996). It is the largest garter snake species, attaining a maximum length of 165 cm (65 inches) (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). Like most Natricines, these snakes are sexually dimorphic with females being both longer and proportionally heavier than males (Wylie et al. 2010). The species occurs in two general color/pattern variants with much variation among those morphologies. In the Sacramento Valley, the giant garter snake has a dark brown/blackish dorsal coloration with lighter yellow vertebral and lateral stripes reminiscent of many garter snake species (Thamnophis). A pattern variant found in southern parts of its range is more variable and may feature a darkish background color of brown, green, or gray with two rows of alternating dark spots between indistinct vertebral and lateral stripes, more reminiscent of eastern watersnakes (Nerodia sp.) (Rossman et al. 1996). The lateral stripes, when present, are on the second and third lateral scales (Rossman et al. 1996). The snout is longer and narrower than in sympatric garter snake species. Among the eight supralabial scales, the sixth is shorter and narrower than the seventh; another condition not shared with other co- existing garter snakes (Hansen 1980). Until 1987, the taxonomy for this species was in flux (Rossman et al. 1996). It was originally described as a subspecies of the then wide-ranging Thamnophis ordinoides group (northwestern garter snake) (Fitch 1940). The group as it then existed was considered an artekreis, a closely related and ill-defined species group in which three subgroups were recognized based on ecology and morphology (Fitch 1940). Various workers recognized the distinctness of taxa within the group, however, with varying attempts at sorting the taxonomy (Johnson 1947, Fitch 1948, Fox 1948, Lawson and Dessauer 1979). It was not until 1987 that the giant garter snake was determined to be a full species (Rossman and Stewart 1987). Paquin et al. (2006) subsequently confirmed this arrangement and found farther subdivision within the range of the giant garter snake, which they attribute to partial isolation within watersheds. Even more recent studies indicate five genetic clusters, with snakes from White Slough sharing genes with Badger Creek to the north and Volta Wildlife Area (in the San Joaquin Basin population) to the south (Wood et al. 2015). There is an approximately 100 -km (62 -mile) north -south gap in distribution between White Slough and the San Joaquin Basin population, possibly the result of the narrow floodplain of the San Joaquin River (Hansen and Brode 1980). The giant garter snake is semi -aquatic and occurs in sloughs, ponds, low gradient streams, and irrigation/drainage canals (USFWS 1999). Rice agriculture now provides habitat and supports populations when the seasonally flooded fields and associated water conveyance systems are managed for the species (USFWS 1999), and is one reason giant garter snake populations in the Sacramento Valley are more robust than those south (Halstead et al. 2010). Privately -owned duck clubs and advocacy groups (e.g., Ducks Unlimited) have preserved and managed wetland habitats throughout the range of giant garter snakes to the benefit of the species (USFWS 1999). ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 7 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility The giant garter snake is an active, generally diurnal predator, which hunts by sight or olfaction (Ernst and Ernst 2003) and its diet is almost entirely aquatic. Historically, they depended on native prey such as California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), Sacramento blackfish (Orthodon microlepotus), and thick -tailed chub (Gila crassicauda), species that have undergone recent major declines or extirpations (Rossman et al. 1996). Diet is now dominated by introduced species such as mosquitofish, American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Fitch 1941, Brode 1988, Rossman et al. 1996). Seasonally, the giant garter snake becomes active in early spring, emerging from overwintering sites to bask on emergent willows, tules, saltbush, and riprap (Hansen and Tremper in Rossman et al. 1996). Generally by May, all giant garter snakes have emerged from hibernacula and are actively foraging for food. Males immediately start searching for mates (USFWS 1999). Live young are born in late July through early September (Hansen and Hansen 1990) and by October, most snakes begin searching for overwintering sites. Most are in hibernacula by November (Hansen and Hansen 1990). As with most ectothermic vertebrates, the exact timing of activities is dependent on current climatic conditions. Males are sexually mature in approximately three years. Females, which achieve sexual maturity at larger size, mature in five years (G. Hansen pers. comm. in USFWS 1999). Giant garter snakes are known for their wariness. When disturbed, they quickly dive underwater and swim away or hide motionless for several minutes before surfacing (Ernst and Ernst 2003). As befits their mid -trophic level position, numerous animals are predators of this snake. Introduced American bullfrogs and warm -water fish probably prey upon neonate and juvenile giant garter snakes (Rossman et al. 1996, Wylie et al. 2003), while mesopredators such as raccoons (Procyon iotor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), opossums (Didephis virginiana), and great blue herons (Ardea herodias) likely take juveniles and adults (USFWS 2012). Both the distribution and abundance of the giant garter snake have been reduced from historic levels. Flood control activities and the drainage of marshes and other wetlands for agriculture have led to extirpation in the Buena Vista, Tulare, and Kern lakebeds in the southern one-third of its range (Hansen and Brode 1980). Most of the San Joaquin Valley has undergone similar wetland modification together with upstream watershed projects, urban development, and the proliferation of introduced and subsidized aquatic predators (USFWS 2012). As a result, the giant garter snake in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley is extremely rare and population trends appear to be declining (Hansen 2008). At locations in the Sacramento Valley, the garter snake is generally more numerous and habitat quality appears to be better, although trends in abundance are unclear (USFWS 2012). 1.3.2 Habitat Requirements The giant garter snake is one of the most aquatic garter snakes (USFWS 1999). It is rarely found far from water and can be considered ecologically analogous to watersnakes (Rossman et al. 1996), which fill similar niches east of the Rocky Mountains (Gibbons and Dorcas 2004). This species historically inhabited the marshes and sloughs of California's Central Valley at low elevations (less than 122 m [400 feet]) (Stebbins 2003). Essential habitat components required are permanent water to support a sufficient prey base, emergent vegetation for escape cover and foraging habitat, ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 8 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility near -bank upland habitat for basking, and higher -elevation habitats for winter refugia (USFWS 1999 and references therein). Current occupied habitat includes marshes and sloughs, irrigation and drainage canals, small lakes and ponds, rice agricultural fields, and low gradient streams (USFWS 1999). Waters inhabited by this species typically feature substrates of soil, mud, or other fines. Giant garter snakes tend to be absent from larger rivers and wetlands with sand, gravel, cobble, or rock substrates, as well as from areas with extensive shading. Small mammal burrows, crayfish burrows, and soil cracks on south - or west -facing slopes are used as retreats during the active season, as is riprap along drainage ditches and canals (USFWS 1999). Tules (Shoenoplectus spp.) and cattails ( Typha spp.) are usually present and used for cover and as basking sites (Stebbins 2003). Giant garter snakes use grassy bank -side habitats for basking and use higher elevation uplands for cover and retreat from floodwaters during the inactive winter season (USFWS 1999). Use of uplands is highly unpredictable (Halstead et al. 2015b): giant garter snakes may occur as far as 50 m (164 feet) from water in the active period and as far as 250 m (820 feet) from water during the winter (Wylie et al. 1997 in USFWS 1999; Halstead et al. 2015b). A recent study found that giant garter snakes were found in upland habitats more often than not and that almost all winter locations were in terrestrial habitats (Halstead et al. 2015b). However, although snakes in this study modeled movements of up to 174 m (571 feet) from aquatic habitat, 95 percent of summer locations were within 10 m (33 feet) of water, and 90 percent of winter locations were within 20 m (66 feet). Networks of canals near rice agriculture (aquatic agriculture) are positively associated with giant garter snake presence, to the point that some experts believe that without this aquatic crop, few populations would remain (Halstead et al. 2010). However, population density and body condition were lower in rice agriculture than in natural landscapes (Halstead et al. 2010). Presence of streams and other agriculture methods, including row crops, are negatively associated with giant garter snake presence (Halstead et al. 2010, USFWS 2012). In telemetry studies performed to investigate how the removal of water from rice fields affects giant garter snakes, snakes have been found to leave previously occupied fields when fallowing continues for more than one season (USFWS 2012, and references therein). The giant garter snake is an aquatic prey specialist and feeds primarily on small fish, frogs, and tadpoles (USFWS 1999). It is thought that historically, native fish and California red -legged frogs were important prey items. However, nonnative American bullfrogs, carp, mosquitofish, and catfish now make up most of its diet (Rossman et al. 1996). Shallow water is a necessary habitat component because the giant garter snake is an active forager that traps prey in shallow water and pooled areas (Hansen 1980, Hansen and Brode 1993). Numerous factors have led to the decline of giant garter snakes across their range, with perhaps the largest contributors being habitat destruction, modification, and conversion (USFWS 1999). The Delta has the largest watershed in the western United States (Orme 2002a). However, California now has more than 1,200 large reservoirs which move nearly one-fourth of the country's water supply through the world's largest aqueduct system (Cohen 1994). Massive wetlands such as the Buena Vista, Tulare, and Kern lakebeds (an area once called The Valley of Lakes) in the southern third of the snake's range, which once featured large expanses of habitat, have been drained and ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 9 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility converted to agriculture (Hansen and Brode 1980, Brode and Hansen 1992, Dasmann 1994). The historic landscape condition for the Sacramento Valley consisted of broad and shallow basins that filled seasonally (Hinds 1952). Upstream water storage and diversions, the filling of wetlands by sedimentation from hydraulic mining (Orme 2002b), and efforts to accommodate urban growth and agriculture have led to a loss of 97 percent of the Delta's waters (Cohen 1994). 2.0 METHODS ECORP biologist Eric Stitt conducted field-based habitat assessments for the giant garter snake on 13 and 26 October, 2015 and 03 January, 2016. In conducting the assessments, Mr. Stitt walked meandering transects through the Survey Areas while noting current environmental conditions, current and historic land use, presence of favorable or unfavorable habitat conditions relevant to giant garter snake occupancy, wildlife species present, and other factors. Habitat assessments were based primarily on habitat requirements as described by USFWS (1999) as well as personal knowledge of the species. Aquatic features and adjacent uplands were evaluated as to their potential to support breeding, foraging activities, refugia, and as dispersal corridors. Prior to the site visit, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), was queried for giant garter snake occurrences within the "Bouldin Island," Bruceville," Jersey Island," Lodi South," Stockton East," Stockton West," and "Terminous, California" USGS quadrangles (Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Occurrences for Giant Garter Snake). A literature search was performed to gather other information relevant to giant garter snakes in and surrounding the study area. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Nearby Occurrences The WPCF study site borders a known and relatively well -studied population of giant garter snakes, and multiple records are known from the area (Figure 3). CNDDB element occurrence #50 is a record from the White Slough Wildlife Area immediately adjacent to the study area. At this site, two giant garter snakes were collected in 1982 by CDFW as part of a captive breeding study. Additional sightings were recorded for the site in prior years and in 2009 an intensive trapping study of parts of White Slough was initiated. Subsequently, 27 giant garter snakes were captured in 2009 and 2011 (Hansen 2011). Most captures were concentrated in the area of Coldani Marsh, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the study area (CNDDB element occurrence #49 encompasses this area). Despite extensive trapping farther south and east closer to the WPCF, no captures were made (Hansen 2011). Reasons for the apparently localized distribution at Coldani Marsh were unclear but may have to do with differences in substrates at different waters in the area, the higher proportion of open water at sites where snakes were not found, the presence of abundant large predatory fish in those larger waters, and differing degrees of tidal influence (Hansen 2011). ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 10 13 January 2016 2015-135 \3 Nc 247\ _ 1 Walnut,' f ti Grove ) i r fl }' I it T r S I r •l f f r -J `\ -- i r50 i,. ORR RD UR R RD NEW HOPE RD Galt F s, Tracy Lake North Woodbridge Lodi ake Er —Lodi LIBERTY RD Lake 170 ri 359 Bethel Island 'Oakley DEL. R RD LN G IL Morada \a Ga North Ex LN Lake ado Lake Lincoln 1 Lake Quail Lake zla Country Club • PP Stockton y 351' Comm Naval I . y7::If \ W Discovery Bay ,- 55 1 AAgAst DOJ Linden 2015-135 White Slough WPCF Miles e Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Occurrences of Giant Garter Snake Distance From Project O 1 mile O 5 miles O10 miles CNDDB Occurrences r D CNDDB Polygon Extent ■ Giant Garter Snake Boundaries Project Boundary This map may include multiple species' occurrences at each location, some of which may not be visible on this graphic. The CNDDB occurrences shown may not reflect the actual location of the occurrence. 'Project Boundary: West Yost Associates ' CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Oct 2015 Update (GIS Shapefile) CNDDB Occurrences Located on USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Bouldin Island, Bruceville, Jersey Island, Lodi South, Stockon East, Stockton West, Terminous 411ECORP Consulting, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIUI.TANTS Map Date: 1/7/2016 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility There is only one record for giant garter snakes east of I-5 in the vicinity of the Southeast Survey Area. Record #53 describes a 1949 observation of a giant garter snake, subsequently updated with additional sightings in 1976, in an area off Eight Mile Road near Chagall Lane in North Stockton. At least one additional survey effort has been conducted since the 1976 surveys; no additional sightings have been recorded. 3.2 Site Descriptions 3.2.1 Southeastern Survey Area and Southeast Alternative Pipeline The Southeastern Survey Area encompasses 197 acres in fields 6E, 6F, and 6G (Figure 2). The nearest western edge of the triangular site is approximately 0.4 miles east of I-5. Between the site and I-5 are agricultural fields that, at the time of the site visits, were either planted in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) or recently harvested and disced. The proposed Southeast Alternative Pipeline would be routed under Highway 12 and buried within the existing, frequently maintained unpaved access road beside roadside ditches. No perennial water source occurs east of I-5 in the vicinity of the Southeastern Survey Area. Water conveyance is seasonal, apparently via a siphon and pump. Ditches in the survey area ranged from 1.5 m (5 feet) to 4.5 m (15 feet) in width and the soil ditches appeared to be frequently maintained. Minimal vegetation in the ditches consisted of weedy non -hydric species such as asthmaweed (Conyza bonariensis), Russian thistle (Sa/so/a tragus), cheeseweed (Ma/va pary/flora), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). All ditches were dry and appeared not to have conveyed water in some time. California ground squirrels (Otospermophllus beecheyi) were abundant, and burrows lined the ditches in many places. Fields were maintained to the edges of the ditches. Although presence of a giant garter snake in this area cannot be completely ruled out, the potential appears very low. There appears to be no connectivity between occupied habitat west of Highway 5 and the eastern fields. Habitat, when inundated, would be of very poor quality given the degree of disturbance, frequent maintenance of the ditches and adjacent fields, and lack of natural habitat buffering the ditches from agricultural fields. Vegetative emergent cover indicative of quality habitat (e.g., supporting Typha and/or Shoenoplectus) was entirely missing east of I-5 and the lack of natural buffers between ditches and fields would leave garter snakes vulnerable to predation and mortality during routine farming practices as they moved upland. Prey species would be limited in abundance and distribution, consisting only of those prey items carried by irrigation water. No aquatic prey occur east of I-5 when the ditches are not inundated. 3.2.2 Western Survey Area and West Alternative Pipeline The Western Survey Area consists of a 149 -acre polygon over parts of fields 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 3D. These fields are immediately west of the Water Pollution Control Facility and its inundated ponds and immediately east of the Interstate 5 Peripheral Canals and White Slough Preserve (ICF 2010). White Slough Wildlife Area is presumed occupied giant garter snake habitat and occurs immediately south of fields 2C and 3D. The slough, as it approaches its easternmost point just west of I-5 narrows from approximately 21 m (70 feet) to approximately 7.6 m (25 feet) in width. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 12 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Habitat quality for giant garter snakes is high in this eastern extent of White Slough. Not only is it contiguous with a known population, the slough in this section features perennial water, abundant emergent vegetation including bulrush (Schoenop/ectus sp.) and cattails, complex banks with cobble, riprap, and vining bankside vegetation (Himalayan blackberry [Rubus armeniacusJ), and abundant prey including mosquitofish and American bullfrog tadpoles. Numerous turtles were observed throughout this section of the slough, including native Western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), a California species of special concern. A dense infestation of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) covered much of the open water in this slough. Water conveyance onto fields into the Western Site is from the WPCF: no water is conveyed directly from the I-5 Peripheral Canals or White Slough (ICF 2010). At the time of the site visits, all fields had recently been disced; however, ponded water from four cm (1.6 inches) to approximately 50 cm (20 inches) in depth remained in several ditches, and mosquitofish were densely aggregated in places. Treated water will be delivered from the plant to the Western Expansion Pond Site via one of two routes (Figure 2). The proposed West Alternative Pipeline may be installed into an existing unpaved road that parallels White Slough within 10 m (33 feet) of water's edge (Figure 2), then run northeast for approximately 100 m (328 feet) under an existing power line easement to the new pond. Alternately, the West Alternative Pipeline may travel through the plant west to the new pond. The proximity of the Western Site to a known population (1.3 miles northwest of the site), coupled with the near distance to presumed occupied habitat to the south, and a water conveyance system that provides dispersal habitat (irrigation ditches) for giant garter snakes as well as prey species, renders this site as not an ideal location for new project infrastructure. Additionally, giant garter snakes may use the unpaved road along the north side of White Slough for basking or dispersal, given its proximity to presumed occupied habitat. 3.2.3 Dredger Cut Discharge Location The existing Dredger Cut Discharge Location, from which water is discharged from on-site, and then drains into White Slough, is similar to and contiguous with White Slough adjacent to the West Pond Alternative site. Water was slowly moving here, banks were steep (more than 45°), and composed of soil and riprap. Numerous small mammal burrows and interstitial spaces were documented in the banks, which may provide winter or active -season refugia for giant garter snakes. Aquatic prey were abundant here. Water hyacinth provided 100 percent cover of the aquatic surface at the time of the habitat assessment. 3.3 Effects of the Proposed Project on Giant Garter Snake 3.3.1 Potential Impacts to GGS from Project Construction and Operation Construction of the ponds and pipelines could result in direct impacts to giant garter snake if the species is present in the work area(s) during construction. As described above, the potential for giant garter snakes to occur in the Southeastern Survey Area east of I-5 is considered very low. In contrast, snakes may move on occasion into the Northwest Survey Area or along the unpaved road on the north side of White Slough where the West Alternative Pipeline may be constructed. Injury ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 13 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility or mortality may occur during use and staging of construction equipment, or through increased construction activity in the area. Operation of the project will involve filling and emptying of the new pond annually. If the pond is constructed in the Southeastern Survey Area, operation of the project is expected to have no impacts on giant garter snakes. In contrast, giant garter snakes may conceivably move in and use a pond constructed in the Northwest Survey Area if prey species such as bullfrog larvae or mosquitofish are present. Operations such as driving along the perimeter of the pond could lead to injury or mortality of basking or foraging giant garter snakes. These effects can compound if prey species become abundant and easy to procure within the constructed pond (conceivably leading to a sink for the population). Additionally, extended exposure of individual snakes to treated waste water may result in direct mortality or reduced health and vigor of individual snakes, although the body of literature regarding water quality effects on giant garter snakes is sparse and incompletely understood. 3.3.2 Potential Effect of Reduced Water Releases to Dredger Cut from January through April Giant garter snakes hibernate during the winter, generally from October to early April, but timing is dependent upon current weather conditions (USFWS 2015). Hibernacula tend to be within small mammal burrows, riprap, and other heterogeneous microhabitats adjacent to ditches and marshes, but can be as far as 250 m (820 feet) from aquatic foraging habitat. Overwintering snakes appear to avoid areas where flooding occurs (USFWS 2015 and references therein), and snakes would be assumed to choose microsites for hibernacula that would be free from flooding in areas with tidal influence. A reduction of 184 to 201 million gallons of discharge from the WPCF into the tidally influenced Dredger Cut and White Slough during the hibernation period of January through April is not anticipated to have any consequences for giant garter snakes, because snakes would be in torpor, above the water level established at the time they entered hibernation. 3.4 Mitigation and Minimization Measures for Giant Garter Snake Mitigation guidelines required under the San Joaquin County Multi -species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSHCP 2000) specifically acknowledge this area as one of high importance for the giant garter snake, and lists numerous measures required of projects in the area (pages 5-35 to 5-37). Among the required mitigation measures are the following: 1. Construction shall occur during the active period for the snake, between 1 May and 1 October. Between 2 October and 30 April, the Joint Powers Authority, with concurrence of the permitting agencies' representative on the Technical Advisory Committee, shall determine if additional measures are necessary to minimize and avoid take. 2. Limit vegetation clearing within 61 m (200 feet) of the banks of potential giant garter snake aquatic habitat to existing roadways to the minimal area necessary. 3. Confine the movement of heavy equipment within 61 m (200 feet) of the banks of potential giant garter snake aquatic habitat to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 14 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 4. Prior to ground disturbance, all on-site construction personnel shall be given instruction regarding the presence of SJMSHCP Covered Species and the importance of avoiding impacts to these species and their habitats. 5. In areas where wetlands, irrigation ditches, marsh areas, or other potential giant garter snake habitats are being retained on the site: a. install temporary fencing at the edge of the construction area and the adjacent wetland, marsh, or ditch; b. restrict working areas, spoils, and equipment storage and other project activities to areas outside of marshes, wetlands, and ditches; and c. maintain water quality and limit construction runoff into wetland areas through the use of hay bales, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips, or other accepted equivalents. 6. If on-site wetlands, irrigation ditches, marshes, etc., are being relocated in the vicinity: the newly created aquatic habitat shall be created and filled with water prior to dewatering and destroying the pre-existing aquatic habitat. In addition, non -predatory fish species that exist in the aquatic habitat and are to be relocated shall be seined and transported to the new aquatic habitat as the old site is dewatered. 7. If wetlands, irrigation ditches, marshes, etc., will not be relocated in the vicinity, the aquatic habitat shall be dewatered at least two weeks prior to commencing construction. 8. Pre -construction surveys for the giant garter snake (conducted after completion of environmental reviews and prior to ground disturbance) shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbance. 9. Other provisions of the USFWS Standard Avoidance and Minimization Measures during Construction Activities in Giant Garter Snake Habitat shall be implemented (excluding programmatic mitigation ratios which are superseded by the SJMSHCP's mitigation ratios). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ECORP Consulting performed a habitat assessment for the federally threatened giant garter snake at the White Slough Pollution Control Facility near Lodi, California. Two alternative survey areas were evaluated: the Southeastern Survey Area occupies 197 acres approximately 0.4 miles east of I-5, while the Western Survey Area occurs west of I-5 and consists of 149 acres. A well-known population of giant garter snakes occurs west of and adjacent to the Western Survey Area. Irrigation ditches present potential habitat for the garter snake in this northwestern area, and mitigation measures as outlined by the SJMSHCP would be required of the project if sited here. Implementing the recommended 61 m (200 -feet) buffers around ditches in the Western Survey Area may significantly reduce the useable area needed by the project. Conversely, habitat for giant garter snakes is lacking in and near the Southeastern Survey Area, which is better sited with relation to lessening potential impacts to giant garter snakes. Implementation of the required Mitigation and Minimization Measures for Giant Garter Snake pursuant to the SJMSHCP will minimize the potential for construction -related impacts to giant garter snake. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 15 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 5.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual; Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1519 pp. + app. Brode, J. 1988. Natural history of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas). Pages 25 — 28 in Proceedings of the conference on California herpetology, H. F. DeListle, P. R. Brown, B. Haufman, and B. M. McGurty, editors. Southwestern Herpetologists Society, Special Publication No. 4. Brode, J., and G. Hansen. 1992. Status and future management of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) within the southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Cohen, A. N. 1994. The hidden costs of California's water. Pages 288 — 291 and 294 — 301 in C. G. Thelander and M. Crabtree, editors. Life on the Edge: a Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. BioSystems Books. 550 pp. Dasmann, R. 1994. California's biodiversity: the impact of development. Pages 18 — 23 in A. R. Orme, editor. The Physical Geography of North America. Oxford University Press. Ernst, C. H and E. M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 668 pp. Fitch, H. S. 1940. A biogeographical study of the ordinoides artenkreis of garter snakes (genus Thamnophis). Univ. California Publications Zoology 44: 1 — 150. Fitch, H. S. 1941. The feeding habits of California garter snakes. California Fish and Game 27: 2 — 32. Fitch, H. S. 1948. Further remarks concerning Thamnophis ordinoides and its relatives. Copeia 1948: 121 — 126. Fox, W. 1948. The relationships of the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides Copeia 1948: 113- 120. Gibbons, J. W. and M. E. Dorcas. 2004. North American Watersnakes: A Natural History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 438 pp. Gronberg, J. A. M., N. M. Dubrovsky, C. R. Kratzer, J. L. Domagalski, L. R. Brown, and K. R. Burow. 1998. Environmental Setting of the San Joaquin -Tulare Basins, California. U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4205. Halstead, B. 3., G. D. Wylie, and M. L. Casazza. 2010. Habitat Suitability and Conservation of the Giant Garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas) in the Sacramento Valley of California. Copeia 2010: 591-599. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 16 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Halstead, B. J., G. D. Wylie, and M. L. Casazza. 2015a. Literature review of Giant Garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) biology and conservation. USGS Open File Report 2015-1150, U. S. Department of the Interior. 38 pp. Halstead, B. J., S. M. Skalos, G. D. Wylie, and M. L. Casazza. 2015b. Terrestrial ecology of semi - aquatic Giant Garter snakes (Thamnophis gigas). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10: 633 — 644. Hansen, E. C. 2008. Implementation of priority 1, priority 2, and priority 3 recovery tasks for giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) — continuing surveys in Merced County, California, with and expansion to northern Fresno County. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, April 15. Hansen, E. 2011. Implementation of Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 recovery tasks for giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) — status of distribution of giant garter snakes at the eastern Delta's White Slough Wildlife Area, San Joaquin County, CA. Report to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, March 10. Hansen, G. E. and J. M. Brode. 1980. Status of the giant garter snake Thamnophis couchii gigas Fitch. Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program Special Publication 80-5: 1-14. Hansen, G. E. and J. M. Brode. 1993. Results of relocating canal habitat of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) during widening of State Route 99/70 in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California. Final report for Caltrans Interagency Agreement 03E325 (FG7550) (FY 87/88-91-92). Unpublished. 36 pp. Hansen, R. W. 1980. Western aquatic garter snakes in central California: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. Master's thesis, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento. 78 pp. Hansen, R. W. and G. E. Hansen. 1990. Thamnophis gigas Reproduction. Herpetological Review 21: 93 — 94. Hinds, N. E. A. 1952. Evolution of the California landscape. California Division of Mines Bulletin No. 158. 240 pp. ICF International. 2010. Preserve Management Plan for the Lodi White Slough Preserve. Prepared for San Joaquin Council of Governments, Stockton. April. Johnson. J. L. 1947. The status of the e%gaps subspecies of Thamnophis, with description of a new subspecies from Washington State. Herpetologica 3: 159 — 165. Kirk, A. 1994. in the California Netherlands. Pages 346-355 in C. G. Thelander, Editor in Chief. Life on the Edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. Biosystems Analysis Inc. 550 pp. Lawson, R. and H. C. Dessauer. 1979. Biochemical genetics and systematics of garter snakes of the Thamnophis e%gaps-couchii-ordinoides complex. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology; Louisiana State University 56: 1 — 24. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 17 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Orme, A. J. 2002a. The Mediterranean environment of greater California. Pages 402 — 424 in A. R. Orme, editor. The Physical Geography of North America. Oxford University Press. Orme, A. R. 2002b. Human imprints on the primeval landscape. Pages 459 — 481 in A. R. Orme, editor. The Physical Geography of North America. Oxford University Press. Paquin, M. M., G. D. Wylie, and E. J. Routman. 2006. Population structure of the giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Conservation Genetics 7: 25 — 36. Rossman, D. A. and G. R. Stewart. 1987. Taxonomic reevaluation of Thamnophis couchii (Serpentes: Colubridae). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology; Louisiana State University 63: 1 — 25. Rossman, D. A., N. B. Ford, and R. A Seigel. 1996. The Garter Snakes: Evolution and Ecology. University of Oklahoma Press. 332 pp. SJMSHCP (San Joaquin Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan). 2000. San Joaquin Council of Governors. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton -Mifflin Co., Boston, New York. 533 pp. Stebbins, R. C. and S. M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California (revised edition). University of California Press, Berkeley. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft recovery plan for the giant garter snake (Thamnophisgigas). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) 5 -year review: Summary and Evaluation. September. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) 5 -year review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. June. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Revised draft recovery plan for the giant garter snake (Thamnophisgigas). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1976. "Lodi South, California" 7.5 - minute Quadrangle. Denver, Colorado. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1978. Hydrologic Unit Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. "Terminous, California" 7.5 - minute Quadrangle. Denver, Colorado. Wood, D. A., B. J. Halstead, M. L. Casazza, E. C. Hansen, G. D. Wylie, and A. G. Vandergast. 2015. Defining population structure and genetic signatures of decline in the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas): implications for conserving threatened species within highly altered landscapes. Conservation Genetics 16: 1025 — 1039. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 18 13 January 2016 2015-135 Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Habitat Assessment for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Wylie, G. D., M. Casazza, and M. Carpenter. 2003. Diet of bullfrogs in relation to predation on giant garter snakes at Colusa National Wildlife Refuge. California Fish and Game 89: 139 — 145. West Yost Associates. 2014. Technical Memorandum -Land Application Area Expansion Study for City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. February 11. Wylie, M. L. Casazza, C. J. Gregory, and B. J. Halstead. 2010. Abundance and Sexual size dimorphism of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) in the Sacramento Valley of California. Journal of herpetology 44: 94 — 103. ECORP Consulting Inc. White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility 19 13 January 2016 2015-135 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — California Natural Diversity Database Search Results Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Attachment C — Datasheets ATTACHMENT A California Natural Diversity Database Search Results California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Federal: Threatened State: Threatened NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 49 Occ Rank: Good Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 77096 EO Index: 630 — Dates Last Seen — Element: 2010-09-23 Site: 2010-09-23 Record Last Updated: 2014-11-26 Quad Summary: Terminous (3812114/4790) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.11168° / -121.41038° Township: 03N UTM: Zone -10 N4219399 E639356 Range: 05E Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Section: 15 Qtr: XX Symbol Type: POLYGON Meridian: M Area: Elevation: 3 ft Location: COLDANI MARSH, 0.8 MI W OF THORNTON ROAD AT HWY 12, WHITE SLOUGH WILDLIFE AREA, 7.6 MI WSW OF LODI POST OFFICE. Location Detail: MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES & LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "COLDANI'S MARSH" AND "POND 8." COLDANI MARSH NOT LABELED ON USGS TOPO, LOCATED ALONG UPLAND CANAL ON N EDGE OF SHIN KEE TRACT. MAP FROM CA DWF USED TO DETERMINE MARSH BOUNDARIES. Ecological: IRRIGATION/DRAINAGE CANAL RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 5-25 METERS WIDE, CHARACTERIZED BY MUD/SILT. PERMANENT WETLAND WITH DENSE BULRUSH & OTHER EMERGENT VEGETATION. A MIX OF ALFALFA, CORN TO THE EAST AND NORTH, & FALLOW FIELDS TO THE WEST. Threat: FLOOD CONTROL/WETLAND RECLAMATION, URBANIZATION, FLOODING, INTRODUCED PREDATORS, PEST CONTROL, POLLUTION. General: A. SARTAIN DETECTED 6-15 SNAKES IN 1974. 1 SNAKE COLLECTED 21 MAY 1977 (LSU #35176). OBSERVED DURING 1976, 1983, & 1986-1987 STUDIES. DETECTED IN 1995. 14 CAPTURED JUL-SEP 2009. 20 CAPTURED 11 MAY -23 SEP 2010. Owner/Manager: DFG, DWR Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. HAN09D0001 HANSEN, E. THAMNOPHIS GIGAS DATA FOR SURVEY YEAR 2009 - CONAWAY RANCH AND WHITE SLOUGH WILDLIFE AREA/COLDANI MARSH. 2009 -XX -XX. HAN10D0001 HANSEN, E. EXCEL WORKBOOK CONTAINING INFORMATION ON GIANT GARTER SNAKES COLLECTED DURING 2010 [SC -003881]. 2010 -XX -XX. HAN80R0002 HANSON, G.E. & J.M. BRODE. STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS GIGAS (FITCH), DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, INLAND FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS 80-5. 1980 -09 -XX. HAN88R0001 HANSEN, G.E. DRAFT FOR REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS COUCH! GIGAS) AND ITS SUPPORTING HABITAT DURING 1986-1987. 1988 -XX -XX. LSU05S0001 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY. PRINTOUT OF THAMNOPHIS GIGAS RECORDS. 2005-06-21. WAR06R0001 WARNE, B. ET AL. (USFWS). GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS GIGAS) 5 -YEAR REVIEW: SUMMARY AND EVALUATION. 2006 -09 -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 50 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 93506 EO Index: 628 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1982-05-26 Site: 1982-05-26 Record Last Updated: 2014-09-03 Quad Summary: Terminous (3812114/479C) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.09409° / -121.39879° UTM: Zone -10 N4217466 E640405 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 3/5 mile Township: 03N Range: 05E Section: 23 Qtr: XX Meridian: M Elevation: 10 ft Location: Location Detail: Ecological: ABOUT 1.5 MILES S OF HWY 12 & 1-5 JUNCTION, 2 MILES SE OF HWY 12 & GRAND RD JUNCTION, WHITE SLOUGH WILDLIFE AREA. MAPPED TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS OF "1.5 S STATE 12 THORTON RD INTERSECTION" (1974), "WHITE SLOUGH, 1 MI W THORTON RD., 1.5 MIS HWY 12" (1976), AND "WHITE'S SLOUGH WILDLIFE AREA, SAN JOAQUIN CO." (1982). ALL SNAKES COLLECTED BY CA DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE. 1982 COLLECTION WAS USED AS PART OF CAL POLY, POMONA'S CAPTIVE BREEDING STUDY. CAS SPECIMEN COLLECTED AT "WHITE SLOUGH MARSH W. OF POND #12," EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. Threat: General: 1 DETECTED BY A. SARTAIN ON 6 MAY 1974 (FIELD NOTES #4). PRESENT IN 1976; EXACT NUMBER DETECTED UNK. 1 ADULT MALE COLL DURING SUMMER OF 1982; DIED OF NEMATODE INFESTATION AUGUST 1985 AT CAL POLY, POMONA. 1 COLL 26 MAY 1982 (CAS # 178590). Owner/Manager: DWR, PVT Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. HAN80R0002 HANSON, G.E. & J.M. BRODE. STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS GIGAS (FITCH), DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, INLAND FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS 80-5. 1980 -09 -XX. MUT82S0001 MUTH, D. & K. NICOL (CALIF. ACADEMY OF SCIENCES). CAS HERPETOLOGICAL SPECIMEN #178590, COLLECTED AT WHITE SLOUGH MARSH, W. OF POND #12, SAN JOAQUIN CA. 1982-05-26. STE86U0006 STEWART, G. (CAL POLY POMONA). LETTER TO J. BRODE (DFG) WITH UPDATE ON FIELD WORK ON GIANT GARTER SNAKE AND RUBBER BOA PER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (INCLUDES LIST OF STEWART & ROSSMAN GGS SPECIMEN LOCALS). 1986-01-06. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 52 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 11349 EO Index: 27579 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1976-07-07 Site: 1987 -XX -XX Record Last Updated: 2014-12-02 Quad Summary: Bruceville (3812134/496C) County Summary: Sacramento Lat/Long: 38.36740° / -121.45523° UTM: Zone -10 N4247709 E634951 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 1/5 mile Township: 06N Range: 05E Section: 17 Qtr: SW Meridian: M Elevation: 8 ft Location: Location Detail: Ecological: Threat: VICINITY OF FRANKLING BLVD, ABOUT 0.5 MI S OF INTERSECTION WITH HOOD-FRANKLING RD, 3.5 MI E OF HOOD PO, SW OF ELK GROVE. MAPPED GENERALLY TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "FRANKLIN BLVD. –0.5 MI S. OF HOOD -FRANKLIN RD." General: UNKNOWN NUMBER DETECTED ON 7 JUL 1976 BY G. HANSEN (FIELD NOTES # 271). NONE DETECTED DURING 1986-1987 SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY G. HANSEN; LEVEL OF EFFORT UNKNOWN. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. HAN80R0002 HANSON, G.E. & J.M. BRODE. STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS GIGAS (FITCH), DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, INLAND FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS 80-5. 1980 -09 -XX. HAN88R0001 HANSEN, G.E. DRAFT FOR REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS COUCH! GIGAS) AND ITS SUPPORTING HABITAT DURING 1986-1987. 1988 -XX -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 53 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 11589 EO Index: 27576 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1976 -XX -XX Site: 1987 -XX -XX Record Last Updated: 2014-11-26 Quad Summary: Lodi South (3812113/479D) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.05769° / -121.32550° UTM: Zone -10 N4213539 E646906 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 1/5 mile Township: 03N Range: 06E Section: 33 Qtr: NW Meridian: M Elevation: 18 ft Location: EIGHT MILE RD, INTERSECTION WITH WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, ABOUT 0.4 MILES E OF DAVIS RD, N EDGE OF STOCKTON. Location Detail: MAPPED TO PROVIDED 1976 DETECTION LOCATION OF "EIGHT MILE RD. AT W. P. RAILROAD TRACKS, 3.5 MILES W HWY. 99." EXACT LOCATION OF 1949 COLLECTION UNKNOWN; PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION WAS "5 MI N STOCKTON." Ecological: Threat: General: 1 GIANT GARTER SNAKE COLLECTED ON 5 MAY 1949 BY M. LARSON (MVZ #66720). UNKNOWN NUMBER DETECTED ON 14 JUL 1976 BY G. HANSEN (FIELD NOTES #280). NONE DETECTED DURING 1986-1987 SURVEYS BY G. HANSEN; LEVEL OF EFFORT UNKNOWN. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. HAN80R0002 HANSON, G.E. & J.M. BRODE. STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS GIGAS (FITCH), DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, INLAND FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS 80-5. 1980 -09 -XX. HAN88R0001 HANSEN, G.E. DRAFT FOR REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS COUCH! GIGAS) AND ITS SUPPORTING HABITAT DURING 1986-1987. 1988 -XX -XX. LAR49S0001 LARSON, M. (MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY). MVZ HERPETOLOGICAL COLLECTION #66720, COLLECTED 5 MI N STOCKTON. 1949-05-05. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 55 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 11716 EO Index: 27577 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1976-09-12 Site: 1976-09-12 Record Last Updated: 2014-12-03 Quad Summary: Stockton West (3712183/462A), Stockton East (3712182/461B) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 37.98044°/-121.24734° UTM: Zone -10 N4205094 E653924 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POLYGON Area: Township: 02N Range: 07E Section: 31 Qtr: NW Meridian: M Elevation: 25 ft Location: ALONG STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL, JUST SSE OF HWY 88 & HWY 99 STOCKTON POST OFFICE (DOWNTOWN). Location Detail: MAPPED AS BEST GUESS TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS OF "STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL, 0.5 MI E HWY 88 AT HWY 99." Ecological: Threat: INTERCHANGE, 2.7 MI NE OF "STOCKTON DIVERTING CANAL" AND General: UNKNOWN NUMBER OF SNAKES DETECTED ON 27 JUL AND 12 SEP 1976 BY G. HANSEN (FIELD NOTES # 294 & 311). NONE DETECTED DURING 1986-1987 SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY G. HANSEN; LEVEL OF EFFORT UNKNOWN. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. HAN80R0002 HANSON, G.E. & J.M. BRODE. STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS GIGAS (FITCH), DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME, INLAND FISHERIES ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS 80-5. 1980 -09 -XX. HAN88R0001 HANSEN, G.E. DRAFT FOR REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS COUCH! GIGAS) AND ITS SUPPORTING HABITAT DURING 1986-1987. 1988 -XX -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 133 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 32429 EO Index: 2291 Dates Last Seen Element: XXXX-XX-XX Site: XXXX-XX-XX Record Last Updated: 1996-01-18 Quad Summary: Bruceville (3812134/496C) County Summary: Sacramento Lat/Long: 38.36134° / -121.48735° UTM: Zone -10 N4246990 E632155 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 3/5 mile Township: 06N Range: 04E Section: 24 Qtr: NE Meridian: M Elevation: 10 ft Location: STONE LAKE; SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOOD FRANKLIN ROAD &I-5 Location Detail: Ecological: Threat: General: SNAKE OBSERVED PRIOR TO, BUT NOT DURING A 1986-87 STUDY BY G. HANSEN. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources HAN88R0001 HANSEN, G.E. DRAFT FOR REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS COUCH!! GIGAS) AND ITS SUPPORTING HABITAT DURING 1986-1987. 1988 -XX -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 151 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 41320 EO Index: 41320 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1996 -XX -XX Site: 1996 -XX -XX Record Last Updated: 1999-06-30 Quad Summary: Bouldin Island (3812115/480D) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.02464° / -121.51239° UTM: Zone -10 N4209593 E630568 Mapping Precision:SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POLYGON Area: 17.4 acres Township: 02N Range: 04E Section: 14 Qtr: XX Meridian: M Elevation: 5 ft Location: Location Detail: Ecological: Threat: General: Owner/Manager: Sources NORTH SIDE OF COLUMBIA CUT, AT THE WEST END, NEAR THE CONFLENCE WITH MIDDLE RIVER, AT THE SW END OF MEDFORD ISLAND. ISLAND INTERIOR IS MUCH LOWER THAN SURROUNDING TIDAL WATER, PERHAPS 10 FEET LOWER THAN SEA LEVEL. VEGETATED BY WEEDS AND ANNUAL GRASSES ON THE LANDSIDE SLOPE OF THE LEVEE. TOE DRAIN IS OFTEN CHOKED WITH CATTAILS, BUT IS CLEANED WITH A BACKHOW ON A REGULAR, BUT NOT ANNUAL, BASIS. LEVEE SOIL IS MOSTLY CLAY; ISLAND SOIL IS MOSTLY PEAT. THREATENED BY TOE DRAIN MAINTENANCE. SNAKE SKIN FOUND BY EARL COOLEY (MEDFORD ISLAND MANAGER) AND IDENTIFIED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG HERPETOLOGIST). PVT PER96F0001 PERRINE, P. (CA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR THAMNOPHIS GIGAS. 1996 -XX -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 Page 7 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 247 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 64680 EO Index: 64759 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1992 -XX -XX Site: 1992 -XX -XX Record Last Updated: 2006-05-12 Quad Summary: Courtland (3812135/497D), Bruceville (3812134/496C) County Summary: Sacramento Lat/Long: 38.26075° / -121.50076° UTM: Zone -10 N4235810 E631165 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 3/5 mile Township: 05N Range: 04E Section: 24 Qtr: XX Meridian: M Elevation: 10 ft Location: Location Detail: Ecological: Threat: General: UNKNOWN NUMBER OF SNAKES OBSERVED DURING 1992. VICINITY OF SNODGRASS SLOUGH, 0.75 MI NNE OF LOCKE. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources HAN96R0001 HANSEN, G. GPS COORDINATES FOR LOCATIONS OF THE GIANT GARTER SNAKE (THAMNOPHIS GIGAS) IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AT THE TIME OF FEDERAL LISTING. 1996-09-12. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 Page 8 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 307 Occ Rank: Good Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 92491 EO Index: 93635 Dates Last Seen — Element: 2010-04-24 Site: 2010-04-24 Record Last Updated: 2014-08-18 Quad Summary: Terminous (3812114/479C) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.05355° / -121.49883° UTM: Zone -10 N4212820 E631705 Mapping Precision:SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POLYGON Area: 39.0 acres Township: 02N Range: 04E Section: 01 Qtr: NW Meridian: M Elevation: 0 ft Location: ALONG EMPIRE TRACT RD, JUST NE OF LITTLE VENICE ISLAND, ABOUT 0.4 MILES S OF EIGHT MILE RD JUNCTION, NW OF STOCKTON. Location Detail: MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES. LOCATION OF DETECTIONS DESCRIBED AS EMPIRE TRACT RD ADJACENT TO LILTTLE CONNECTION SLOUGH, SOUTH OF THE H & H MARINA. Ecological: OPEN WATER, DENSE PATCHES OF TULE, AND RIP -RAPPED LEVEE BANKS. AGRICULTURAL FARMLAND (CORN & BLUEBERRY) AND DITCHES FOUND TO THE EAST OF LEVEE ROAD. EAST SLOPE OF LEVEE WAS GRASSY WITH POTENTIAL SNAKE FORAGING HABITAT. Threat: TRAFFIC; VEHICLE COLLISIONS. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY & FLOOD CONTROL MAINTENANCE. LOCATION IS ALSO A POPULAR FISHING AREA. General: 3 GIANT GARTER SNAKES FOUND DEAD ON ROAD AND 1 LIVE SNAKE OBSERVED BASKING ON SHOULDER OF THE ROAD ON 24 APR 2010. LIVE INDIVIDUAL RETREATED INTO THE RIP RAP AND WAS NOT OBSERVED SWIMMING. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources HUY10F0001 HUYNH, L. (ESA). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR THAMNOPHIS GIGAS. 2010-04-24. KEL10F0046 KELLY, D. (USFWS). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR THAMNOPHIS GIGAS. 2010-04-24. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 350 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 94528 EO Index: 95644 Dates Last Seen — Element: 1976-07-07 Site: 1976-07-07 Record Last Updated: 2014-11-24 Quad Summary: Bruceville (3812134/496C) County Summary: Sacramento, San Joaquin Lat/Long: 38.25589° / -121.44069° UTM: Zone -10 N4235357 E636429 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 2/5 mile Township: 05N Range: 05E Section: 28 Qtr: XX Meridian: M Elevation: 30 ft Location: Location Detail: VICINITY OF THORTON RD AND MOKELUMNE RIVER INTERSECTION, ABOUT 2.4 MILES NNW OF THORTON POST OFFICE, JUST E OF 1-5. MAPPED ACCORDING TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "THORNTON RD., N. END OF BENSON FERRY BRIDGE." USED HISTORICAL USGS MAPS (1894 & 1941) TO DETERMINE LIKELY LOCATION OF "BENSON BRIDGE" AND "BENSON." Ecological: Threat: General: AT LEAST 1 COLLECTED ON 7 JUL 1976; PART OF G. HANSEN FIELD COLLECTION #275. Owner/Manager: UNKNOWN Sources BRO80U0001 BRODE, J. (CDFW). GEOGRAPHIC REFERENCE CARD CATALOG OF SPECIMENS AND FIELD NOTE RECORDS COMPILED BY JOHN BRODE (DFG). 1980 -XX -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 10 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 351 Occ Rank: Unknown Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 93623 EO Index: 94754 Dates Last Seen Element: 1880 -05 -XX Site: 1880 -05 -XX Record Last Updated: 2014-08-28 Quad Summary: Stockton West (3712183/462A) County Summary: San Joaquin Lat/Long: 37.94930° / -121.33169° UTM: Zone -10 N4201503 E646578 Mapping Precision:NON-SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 1 mile Township: 01N Range: 06E Section: 08 Qtr: XX Meridian: M Elevation: 15 ft Location: Location Detail: Ecological: Threat: General: Owner/Manager: CANALS ABOUT 2.5 MILES TO THE W OF STOCKTON POST OFFICE, E END OF ROUGH AND READY ISLAND, NW END OF MOSS TRACT. MAPPED GENERALLY TO PROVIDED LOCATION DESCRIPTION OF "STOCKTON." EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN. MAPPED USING HISTORIC 1913 USGS TOPO MAP, AND MAPPED TO CANALS JUST WEST OF HISTORIC STOCKTON. MUCH OF THE AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, VISIBLE IN 1993-2013 AERIAL PHOTOS. POTENTIAL GIANT GARTER SNAKE HABITAT (CANALS) TO THE WEST OF STOCKTON. 3 COLLECTED IN MAY 1880 BY AN UNKNOWN COLLECTOR (USNM #10430, 10431, & 564370). UNKNOWN Sources ANO80S0007 ANONYMOUS (NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY). USNM REPTILE SPECIMEN # 10430, 10431, & 564370, COLLECTED AT STOCKTON. 1880 -05 -XX. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 11 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Full Report with Sources for Selected Elements Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake Status Threatened Threatened Federal: State: NDDB Element Ranks Global: G2 State: S2 Element Code: ARADB36150 Other Lists CDFG Status: Habitat Associations General: PREFERS FRESHWATER MARSH AND LOW GRADIENT STREAMS. HAS ADAPTED TO DRAINAGE CANALS & IRRIGATION DITCHES. Micro: THIS IS THE MOST AQUATIC OF THE GARTER SNAKES IN CALIFORNIA. Occurrence No. 359 Occ Rank: Good Origin: Natural/Native occurrence Presence: Presumed Extant Trend: Unknown Map Index: 93953 EO Index: 95080 Dates Last Seen — Element: 2014-04-17 Site: 2014-04-17 Record Last Updated: 2014-09-25 Quad Summary: Bouldin Island (3812115/480D), Jersey Island (3812116/480C) County Summary: Contra Costa Lat/Long: 38.05409° / -121.62659° UTM: Zone -10 N4212707 E620495 Mapping Precision:SPECIFIC Symbol Type: POINT Radius: 80 meters Township: 02N Range: 03E Section: 03 Qtr: NE Meridian: M Elevation: 0 ft Location: ABOUT 0.9 MI NE OF BETHEL ISLAND RD AT WILLOW RD, 7.5 MI S OF ISLETON, S LEVEE OF WEBB TRACT ALONG FALSE RIVER. Location Detail: MAPPED TO PROVIDED COORDINATES. WEBB ISLAND IS PART OF THE DELTA WETLANDS PROJECT AND IS ANTICIPATED TO BE FLOODED IN THE FUTURE. BRADFORD ISLAND IS SUSPECTED TO PROVIDED MORE NATURAL LANDS THAT THE SNAKES MAY BE USING. Ecological: SNAKE FOUND ON NORTH FACING LEVEE SLOPE ALONG THE SOUTHERN LEVEE AT THE BASE OF A FOUR FOOT TALL WEED (MALVA PARVIFLORA OR RAPHANUS RAPHANISTRUM) AND NATIVE BUNCH GRASSES. SEVERAL MICROTUS SP. ALSO OBSERVED ALONG STRETCH OF LEVEE. Threat: VEHICLES ON LEVEE SLOPE, MOWING OF WEEDS, AND HERBICIDE SPRAYING FOR WEED CONTROL. General: 1 FOUND, CAPTURED, AND PHOTOGRAPHED ON 17 APR 2014 DURING WEED REMOVAL ACTIVITIES. NO SNAKES WERE DETECTED IN RECENT YEARS AT WEBB TRACT, 2002 WAS LAST DETECTION (OCC. 170); "2 YEARS WERE SPENT TRYING TO FIND MORE ON WEBB - TO NO AVAIL." Owner/Manager: PVT Sources HOG14F0001 HOGAN, J. (DWR). FIELD SURVEY FORM FOR THAMNOPHIS GIGAS. 2014-04-17. Commercial Version -- Dated May 31, 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 12 Report Printed on Monday, November 23, 2015 Information Expires 11/30/2015 ATTACHMENT B Representative Site Photographs Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Northwestern corner of the Northwestern Study Area, looking southeast. Newly disced agricultural field is to the left (east), and Lodi White Slough Preserve is to the right (west). 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Example of a concrete drainage ditch present in Northwestern Survey Area. During the October site visits, several ditches were wetted and mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.) were present. Ground squirrels and their burrows were exceedingly common along most ditches. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Another view of a wetted concrete ditch in the Northwestern Survey Area. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Wetted soil ditch looking east toward Pollution Control Facility from within Northwestern Survey Area. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs View of White Slough looking west into White Slough Wildlife Area. Note the dense infestation of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in the foreground, and matted duckweed (Lemna sp.) in the background. Banks here were lined with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), mustard (Brassicaceae), cobble, and rip -rap. Emergent vegetation consisted of bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.) and cattail (Typha iatifoiia). This section of the slough is contiguous with known occupied giant garter snake habitat. Numerous turtles were documented here, including native western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata). Prey species for giant garter snake were also documented, including American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) tadpoles, and small fish. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs View of eastern terminus of White Slough at Highway 5. Water level relative to pump intake at site shown above. year. .act Water is below intake for part of the 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Ditch on eastern side of Highway 5. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Typical soil ditch in Southeastern Survey Area. All ditches east of the highway were dry and lacking cover and prey species for giant garter snake. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs 1 Representative photograph of habitat conditions in fields east of Highway 5, in the Southeastern Survey Area. View of dredger cut discharge location. Discharge will be reduced here in January through April. The area receives tidal flows, and the reduction of discharge will probably not affect water level in the slough. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs • • skiAg Unpaved road between WPCF and White Slough (to left). West Alternative Pipeline Proposed Alignment would be placed here. Note the proximity to presumed occupied habitat. 2015-135 White Slough Attachment B — Representative Site Photographs Unpaved road under which Southeast Alternative Pipeline Proposed Alignment would be installed. Note concrete ditch to right (south) which is dry much of the year, and heavily managed agricultural lands surrounding the area. 2015-135 White Slough ATTACHMENT C Datasheets Appendix D. con't. Giant Garter Snake (GIANT GARTER SNAKE) Habitat Evaluation Form 1/ Site Name: �6r Surveyor's Name and Affiliation: G� f .57‘/./71— Factor 7 //7 Factor Present (+) or Absent (-) 1. Still or slow --flowing water over a mud or silt -substrate. (1-) 2. Flowing water over sand, gravel, rock, or cement substrate. (+) 3. Water available: a) April through October only (irrigation). ( ) b) All year. (4) c) During winter only (runoff). ( ) 4. Banks are sunny. (4-)( %) iv 0 5. Banks are shaded by overstory vegetation (large trees, willow thickets) (--)( %) - 6. Aquatic or emergent vegetation present. 7. Terrestrial vegetation present: a) On banks. b) In adjacent uplands. 8. Subterranean retreats (broken concrete or animal burrows) present: a) in banks. b) In adjacent uplands. 9. Small fish present. 10. Introduced gamefish are present. 11. Amphibians present. 12. Site is subject to severe seasonal flooding. 13. Site receives polluted runoff (t) (4) Notes and Comments (attached additional pages if necessary): ]7r 7c /r S ;di LdAl ria/41--1( !lr A f— 0-64,1j fAA„ S to . rtU sv. u '#fk v'c (ro�,a� �, Ci ./f. 4 .. 4 {1 44 p,. s ►,i1i� r qd' AA,rJ 1 11 Complete this form for each site surveyed. If site has been recently disturbed (channel maintenance, bank repair), survey the nearest undisturbed similar site, preferably on the same water course. 157 Appendix D. con't. Giant Garter Snake (GIANT GARTER SNAKE) Habitat Evaluation Form 11 0 ' 1 - ow f-/1 ! Site Name: Surveyor's Name and Affiliation: f PL( /74- — ! e) r Factor Present (+) or Absent (-) 1. Still or slow --flowing water over a mud or silt -substrate. (-) 2. Flowing water over sand, gravel, rock, or cement substrate. 3. Water available: a) April through October only (irrigation). (-r) b) All year. ( ) c) During winter only (runoff). ( ) 4. Banks are sunny. ( )(%)/°° 5. Banks are shaded by overrstory vegetation (large trees, willow thickets) ( )( %) 0- 6. Aquatic or emergent vegetation present 7. Terrestrial vegetation present: a) On banks. (� b) In adjacent uplands. 8. Subterranean retreats (broken concrete or animal burrows) present: a) in banks. b) In adjacent uplands. 9. Small fish present. 10. Introduced gamefish are present. 11. Amphibians present. 12. Site is subject to severe seasonal flooding. 13. Site receives polluted runoff. Notes and Comments (attached additional pages if necessary) 1/ Complete this form for each site surveyed. If site has been recently disturbed (channel maintenance, bank repair), survey the nearest undisturbed similar site, preferably on the same water course. 157 APPENDIX D Special -Status Fish Habitat Assessment r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 TO: Diane Moore FROM: FISHBIO (Gabriel Kopp, Patrick Cuthbert, and Matt Peterson) DATE: January 8, 2016 SUBJECT: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project Fisheries Assessment The City of Lodi has recently proposed the construction of a 70 -acre expansion pond to the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project (hereafter referred to as WPCF or Project). The facility is located roughly 6.5 miles west of Lodi and 4 miles north of Stockton, in an unincorporated portion of northern San Joaquin County. There are currently two locations being proposed for the expansion pond, both within the boundary of the current facility (Figure 1). Funding for the project would be attained from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program. Funds from this program are intended to increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intakes. Upon completion, this project will reduce the current amount of wastewater discharge into the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, and redirect that water to regional irrigators. The WPCF receives and treats municipal wastewater from both the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin Flag City Service Area year round and discharges treated wastewater to the delta from October 1 to April 30. The facility is expected to treat between 5.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and 8.5 MGD over the next 30 to 50 years. This operational change will reduce the amount of groundwater used for agricultural irrigation near the facility. The planned expansion pond would also be unlined so as to allow the percolation of water to deeper soils, resulting in improved groundwater recharge. The reduction of discharge will also incrementally improve water quality in the Delta. FISHBIO was contracted to assist in providing an assessment of impacts (positive or negative) that the White Slough WPCF may have on protected fish species or water quality near the project area. It has been determined that critical habitat designations for Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), the southern Distinct Population Segment (sDPS) of Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) all lie adjacent to the project area. Chinook also pass through the nearby San Joaquin River during their adult and juvenile migrations. This memorandum used key findings from recently prepared technical documents and focused, where appropriate, on how reduced discharge into the Delta may positively or negatively affect protected fish species in relation to criteria set forth in recent regulatory processes. To the extent possible, analyses incorporated key documents that were recently prepared as part of temperature compliance monitoring conducted by the WPCF. For example, temperature effects on Delta smelt in the vicinity of the WPCF and recent Delta smelt occurrence data were thoroughly summarized in Robertson -Bryan (2012). Based on these analyses, changes in operation that reduce discharge into the Delta may affect protected fish species through three primary pathways: 1) reduction in discharge; 1 FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 • San Joaquin River Outflow ID Waite Slough WPCF Points Of Interest White Slough - - - San Joaquin River Miles U 3 6 I I 1 ] o 5 Kilometers 10 A FISHBIO Figure 1. Map of White Slough WPCF, adjacent waterways, and key points of interest. 2 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 2) decrease in localized water temperature; and 3) reduction of nutrient inputs. A detailed project description, a summary of biological resources, and respective analyses for each of the listed pathways are provided below. Project Description and Operations Treated wastewater is discharged from the WPCF by pipeline into Dredger Cut, a man- made channel that terminates to the west of the project area. The channel was originally constructed to allow agricultural irrigation return water to reenter the Delta, and also allows the drainage of numerous irrigation canals and storm water collection drains. Land use in the vicinity of the facility is primarily for agriculture; however, there are additional areas zoned for industrial, business, and residential purposes. Water from White Slough connects with the San Joaquin River through a myriad of other connected waterways that are both natural and man-made. Little Potato Slough, Honker Cut, Little Connection Slough, Potato Slough, Disappointment Slough, and Bishop Cut are all within a five -mile radius of White Slough (Figure 1). The aquatic habitat in White Slough and the other connected regional sloughs is characterized by slow moving, tidally influenced channels typically found in the northern Delta. Both Dredger Cut and Highline Canal are man-made, dead-end canals that only receive upstream flow from either storm water or agricultural runoff. The cross section of the canal is deeply channelized with steep banks. Many of the waterways connected to White Slough are heavily impacted by invasive species, with water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) being of particular concern (see Figure 2). Emergent and riparian vegetation, as well as large woody debris, provide primary cover for the local aquatic species of White Slough, while the channelized cuts and canals offer little to no overhead cover. The streambeds in the cuts and canals are uniform and are dominated by fine sediments (sand and silt) and emergent vegetation, and lack the more diverse substrate that generally comprises preferred fish spawning habitat (RBI 2010 pg. 9). 3 r FISH= 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Figure 2. Recent example of water hyacinth in the project area, December 10, 2015. Due to the increased capacity of the expanded facility, effluent discharge volume is expected to be reduced by approximately half, primarily during the months of January through April (Table 1). The revised flow schedule provided by West Yost & Associates, shows that discharge will remain similar to the volume discharged between 2012 and 2014 during the late spring/early winter months (May -December), but will be reduced in the late winter/spring (January through April; see Table 1). Although originally provided in million gallons per day, the data provided by West Yost & Associates have been converted to acre-feet per day, as this unit is more commonly used by water managers. MG/7.5 = CF/43,560 = AC -FT 4 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Table 1. The current and expected discharge volume, based on the average volume discharged between 2012 and 2014. Data provided by West Yost Associates. Month Current Discharge Volume (MG) Revised Discharge Volume (MG) Current Discharge Volume (AC -FT) Revised Discharge Volume (AC -FT) Percent of Change January 105.3 February 98.0 March 75.1 April 74.3 May 0.0 June 0.0 July 0.0 August 0.0 September 0.0 October 39.0 November 89.5 December 138.8 51.8 43.8 34.1 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 89.5 138.8 323.2 159.0 49.2% 300.8 134.4 44.7% 230.5 104.7 45.4% 228.0 117.5 51.6% 0.0 0.0 No Change 0.0 0.0 No Change 0.0 0.0 No Change 0.0 0.0 No Change 0.0 0.0 No Change 119.7 119.7 No Change 274.7 274.7 No Change 426.0 426.0 No Change Fisheries Resources The project vicinity is a relatively disturbed area that is predominately occupied by non- native species. RBI (2010) provided a list of species that occur or are thought to occur in White Slough and connecting waterways (see RBI 2010, Table 2). Native species listed include: Delta smelt, Sacramento sucker, Pacific staghorn sculpin, prickly sculpin, hardhead, hitch, Sacramento pikeminnow, Sacramento splittail, Tule perch, threespine stickleback, starry flounder, Chinook salmon and steelhead. However, notable exceptions from the RBI (2010) species list include green and white sturgeon, which are known to be present in the mainstem San Joaquin River (Jackson and Van Eenennaam 2013). Non- native species include: inland silverside, black and white crappie, largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill, green and redear sunfish, warmouth, American and threadfin shad, carp, fathead minnow, golden shiner, goldfish, rainwater killifish, Western mosquitofish, bigscale logperch, chameleon and yellowfin goby, white catfish, and striped bass. Based on data collected from nearby monitoring stations, the fish community in the vicinity of the WPCF is numerically dominated by non-native species, with 81.6% of 5,623 fish captured in Honker Cut over a 27 -year period being non-native (RBI 2012). Of the 37 fish species that occur in this region of the Delta, 24 species (or about 65%) are non-native (RBI 2012). The large proportion of non-native species in the project vicinity is likely the result of significant impacts to the nearby aquatic habitats as described above. The list provided by RBI (2010) provided a broad picture of the fish community, but more current data were employed to fine-tune the analyses of potential effects to notable species. Where appropriate, we summarized more recent monitoring data (e.g., data that were 5 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 collected after RBI 2012) by using data from many regional programs and the Interagency Ecological Program, which have been monitoring juvenile fishes and their life history distributions throughout the Delta for decades. Data that were incorporated into analyses were downloaded from the Lodi United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Field Office website (USFWS 2015a; accessed January 4, 2016). We determined the occurrence of critical habitat designations and fish species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) using two readily accessible government websites. The first source examined was the project -planning tool (Information for Planning and Conservation; IPaC) provided by the USFWS (USFWS 2015b; accessed December 4, 2015). The project location used in the planning tool included Lodi WPCF, Dredger's Cut, White Slough, Bishop Cut, Potato Slough, Little Potato Slough, and the San Joaquin River near Mandeville Island. Using the IPaC data viewer and automated reporting system, critical habitat designations for Central Valley steelhead and Delta smelt were located within the defined boundaries. The second website utilized was from the NOAA Fisheries website (NOAA 2015; accessed January 5, 2016). GIS shapefiles were downloaded from the website and viewed with Google Earth Pro software. All shapefiles of critical habitat designations for listed Chinook salmon stocks and the shapefile for the sDPS Green sturgeon were downloaded. Upon examination of the shapefiles, critical habitat for sDPS green sturgeon is located in White Slough and Bishop Cut, as well as connecting waterways to the west and south of the junction between White Slough and Dredger's Cut. No critical habitat designations were found for either Central Valley spring- or winter -run Chinook salmon stocks. Based on this information, we focused this technical memorandum on the following species: • Chinook salmon, • Central Valley steelhead, • Delta smelt, and • sDPS green sturgeon. Chinook salmon Although critical habitat designations were not found for either winter- or spring -run Chinook salmon near the project site (the two federally listed runs), we provide a brief description of each run's potential for occurrence in the project vicinity. Sacramento River ESU winter -run Chinook salmon were listed as endangered under the ESA in January 1994 (59 FR 440). Fall -run Chinook are currently the most abundant run in the San Joaquin River basin, and are not listed under the ESA. They are, however, listed as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Winter -run Chinook salmon are highly unlikely to enter the project vicinity due to their reliance on the Sacramento River system for spawning, rearing, and migration. Previous communication between NOAA staff and RBI (see RBI 2010, Appendix E) indicated that the project area 6 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 has relatively low habitat value for rearing or spawning of anadromous salmonids; therefore, these fish are unlikely to occur in the affected area. Based on low habitat value and distance away from migratory corridors, all the runs of Chinook are either very unlikely or unlikely to seasonally occur in the project vicinity. Steelhead Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is a species of salmonid native to California that is commonly known under two names: steelhead (the anadromous form) and rainbow trout (the resident form). The California Central Valley Steelhead has been listed as threatened under the ESA since January 2006. Anadromous steelhead can be expected to enter freshwater streams between August and November; however, spawning typically takes place between December and April. Juveniles begin to emerge from late winter to summer, and will then spend between one and three years in freshwater before emigrating in the spring (Williams 2006). Recent habitat modeling conducted by Lindley et al. (2006) suggests that waterways on the floor of the Central Valley are unfavorable spawning and rearing locations for steelhead due their excessively high summer temperatures. The study also noted that many of the small tributaries of the San Joaquin are too degraded to support viable populations. Abundance data reveals that populations in the Central Valley are relatively low for naturally occurring steelhead. O. mykiss counts at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam from 1967 to 1993 revealed a precipitous decline in returns to the upper Sacramento River. While more recent data are scarce, an updated report from NOAA Fisheries (Goode et al. 2005) estimated the average number of naturally spawning female steelhead occurring in the Central Valley between 1998-2000 to be 3,628, based on the adipose -fin -clip ratio. Potential to be exposed to project changes At the King's Island location (approximately 5.0 miles west of the WPCF; Figure 1), zero (0) steelhead (either hatchery or natural) have been captured in beach seine surveys since 2011 (USFWS, 2015). A similar pattern was observed at the Medford Island location, which is approximately 7.6 miles southwest of the WPCF (Figure 1). At the Terminous location (approximately 6.4 miles northwest of the WPCF), a total of seven hatchery steelhead (i.e. adipose fin -clipped) have been captured in beach seine surveys since 2011 (USFWS, 2015). Although the hatchery of origin is unknown for these particular hatchery steelhead, they are most likely from the Mokelumne River Hatchery due to the location of capture. All were classified as pre-smolts or smolts based on outward appearance, and ranged from 168 to 260 mm. Zero natural steelhead were observed at this site. No monitoring of adult steelhead on either their upstream migration or downstream migration (i.e., after spawning) is conducted in the immediate vicinity of the project area. 7 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Based on the relatively infrequent catches of steelhead smolts in the project area, the low habitat value for rearing, and the distance away from a migratory corridor, it is unlikely that steelhead smolts or adults regularly migrate through White Slough, Bishop, or Honker Cuts. If steelhead were to occur on a seasonal basis in the area, these fish are active swimmers and could likely avoid any area impacted by the change in discharge operations. Delta Smelt The Delta smelt was listed as a threatened species in March 1993 (USFWS; 58 FR 12854). The State of California listed the Delta smelt as threatened under the CESA in 1993, and designated the fish as endangered in 2008. Based on data collected through standardized surveys conducted by CDFW and USFWS, Delta smelt have been observed throughout the Delta and in the lower portions of the tributaries (i.e., Sacramento, San Joaquin, Mokelumne, and Napa rivers and Cache Slough; Merz et al. 2011). These programs have documented extremely low frequencies of observation for most life stages across the Eastern Delta region, where the WPCF is located (Merz et al. 2011). Aside from the central regions, the Cache Slough and Ship Channel were the only regions that produced higher than average catches of Delta smelt across all life stages (Merz et al. 2011). Several notable non-native species that may impact Delta smelt populations include striped bass, largemouth bass, and inland silversides. Both piscivores (striped bass and largemouth bass) and other non-native predators directly impact Delta smelt. In contrast, inland silversides share many ecological traits with Delta smelt and may serve as a strong competitor (Bennett 2005). Data summarized by RBI (2012) indicate that observations of Delta Smelt at nearby locations (e.g., Honker Cut at King's Island, Little Potato Slough, and stations on the San Joaquin River, all of which are within 5 to 10 miles southwest, west, and northwest of the WPCF) were infrequent with all sampling gear types. As RBI (2012) reported, only 14 Delta smelt were captured from 1979 to 2011 at the King's Island sampling location, with most being classified as adults. Over a 17 -year period, a total of 652 larval and juvenile Delta smelt were captured in 20 -mm townet surveys, with approximately 36 percent captured during the months of March and April (RBI 2012, Table 3). Since 2005, larval surveys for Delta smelt have been conducted at nearby locations with much less success compared to the tow net surveys. Only six larval Delta smelt were captured from 2005 to 2011 (RBI 2012). Infrequent observations of adult Delta smelt have been made on the San Joaquin River at Medford Island, Potato Slough, Hog Island, and in Little Potato Slough, using Kodiak trawls. All were classified as adults based on size (i.e., >56mm) Catches primarily occurred during January, February, and March (RBI 2012). A brief summary of Delta smelt catches since the publications of RBI (2010) and Merz et al. (2011) are summarized in Table 2. Similar to the findings reported in in those documents, catches of Delta smelt from 2012 to 2015 were infrequent in the areas surrounding the WPCF. The life stage composition was also similar. Very few larval or juvenile Delta smelt were observed, and the majority of captures were classified as sub - adults or adults. 8 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Table 2. Delta smelt observations by method, years of collection, location (distance away from WPCF), and life stage since 2011. Method Location(s) Sampling Period Life Stage(s) Total Observed Data Source Kodiak Trawl Beach Seine Beach Seine Beach Seine SJR at Prisoner' s Point (9.3 miles away) Honker Cut at King's Island (5.0 mi) Terminous (6.4 mi) San Joaquin River at Medford Island (7.6 mi) Dec 2014 — Mar 2015 Seasonally 2011 - 2015 Seasonally 2011 - 2015 Seasonally 2011 - 2015 Sub -adults and adults N/A N/A Adult 33 0 0 1 USFWS 2015a USFWS 2015a USFWS 2015a USFWS 2015a Potential to be exposed to project changes Based on findings from long-term monitoring data summarized by RBI (2012) and Merz et al. (2011), in combination with a brief review of more recent occurrence data of Delta smelt (Table 2), there is a low potential for Delta smelt to be in the project vicinity. The most -affected life stages are the larval and juvenile stages, and very few observations of these life stages have been made based on monitoring data (RBI 2012, p. 24). Most observations occur in the mainstem of the San Joaquin River, and not at monitoring stations closer to the project area (e.g., Honker Cut or Little Potato Slough). There is little to no suitable rearing or spawning habitat for Delta smelt (RBI 2012), and the relatively high abundance of piscivores in the project area further limit the potential for Delta smelt occurrence. Green Sturgeon Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) is an iteroparous anadromous species that reproduces from March to July in California, with a peak spawning period from mid-April to mid-June (Emmett et al. 1991, Poytress et al. 2009). Spawning adults prefer deep (>10 ft), cool (46-57°F), and fast -flowing water (Moyle 2002). Eggs usually hatch within two weeks (Moyle 2002) and larvae probably reside near natal sites (Kynard et al. 2005). Freshwater rearing juveniles prefer elevated flows and temperatures between 52-64°F (Cech et al. 2000; Van Eenennaam et al. 2005). Juveniles migrate downstream to the 9 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 estuary during summer and fall after typically spending one year in the freshwater environment. Juveniles rear in estuarine nursery grounds, usually until age 3, before migrating to marine waters (Nakamoto et al. 1995). Subadults require approximately 6-10 years to become sexually mature (Nakamoto et al. 1995). Post -spawned adults likely require a 2-4 year period before their next reproductive effort (NOAA 2005). The southern Distinct Population Segment (sDPS) of North American green sturgeon was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2006 (NOAA 2006). Its designated critical fresh and brackish water habitat in California includes portions of the Sacramento, lower Feather, and lower Yuba rivers; the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta; and the Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco bays (NOAA 2009). The mainstem San Joaquin River above the Stanislaus River confluence is not considered critical freshwater habitat because sturgeon do not appear to occupy the area in a viable manner (NOAA 2009). According to the CDFW Sturgeon Report Card data, only six green sturgeon were reported between 2008 and 2012 upstream of Stockton (Jackson and Van Eenennaam 2013). Furthermore, no green sturgeon eggs were detected using egg mats from March 2012 to May 2012 positioned at four sites between Sturgeon Bend (downstream of confluence with Stanislaus River) and Grayson Road Bridge (upstream of the confluence with Tuolumne River; Jackson and Van Eenennaam 2013). However, very little monitoring data exist in the San Joaquin River for green sturgeon, and Jackson and Eenennaam (2013) state that, "it remains unknown how and to what extent green sturgeon use the San Joaquin River." Potential to be exposed to project changes The proposed change in operations at the WPCF is unlikely to impact green sturgeon for several reasons. As already mentioned, little or no spawning occurs in the San Joaquin River basin. Dredger Cut is a far distance from the main Sacramento River migratory corridor for juveniles and adults. Also, the October 1 to April 30 discharge period is largely outside of the peak spawning period, and likely outside the peak emigration window for juveniles. Furthermore, any green sturgeon occurring near the project location would likely be strays moving upstream from the Sacramento River. Lastly, adults and juveniles are mobile swimmers and consequently would be able to actively leave impacted areas. Assessment of Project Impacts The reduction in effluent discharge from the White Slough WPCF will primarily occur during the months of January through April (Table 1). As stated in the introduction, the reduction in discharge may affect the environmental conditions in the project vicinity (i.e., Dredger's Cut and connecting waterways) in three ways: (1) it would reduce the total volume discharged into the project vicinity, which may affect current velocities and/or the total volume of water within the San Joaquin River or the total Delta outflow; (2) the reduction in discharge may affect the area that is currently thermally impacted and overall water temperatures in that affected area; and, (3) it may affect water quality via either a reduction or increase in nutrient inputs. 10 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Discharge To examine the potential effects of reduced WPCF discharge on the total discharge of the San Joaquin River and the Delta, we compiled data from the DAYFLOW website managed by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR 2015; data accessed January 6, 2016). The dataset provides an estimate of average daily discharge that exits the Delta based on water inflows, evaporation, and diversions, among other factors. This particular analysis was limited to the months of January through April (Table 1). Additionally, to characterize potential effects on hydrologic conditions, we analyzed daily average flow data from the most recent water year types from the San Joaquin River basin, which are based on total basin water production (Table 3). Daily average flow data were converted to acre-feet per day using the previously described conversion method. Data from Table 1 were used to calculate the difference in discharge released from the WPCF on a daily basis. For example, in January, the difference between the current discharge (in million gallons; MG) and revised discharge (MG) was 1.72 MG per day, or 5.3 acre-feet per day. Then we calculated the daily volume of water that was discharged out of the San Joaquin River (using the "SJR" column; CDWR 2015) and Delta (using the "OUT" column; CDWR 2015). On January 1 of the most recent "wet" year (water year 2011; Table 3), the average daily flow (in cubic feet per second; cfs) in the San Joaquin River was 13,000 cfs. We converted 13,000 cfs into acre-feet, which equals 25,785 acre-feet discharged from the location for the entire day. Therefore, the estimated difference in outflow in the San Joaquin River was 0.021%. Similar calculations were used to calculate the effect on the total Delta outflow, which on the same day had a daily average discharge (in cfs) of 79,851 cfs or a total discharge of 157,847 acre-feet for the day. The effect of reducing discharge at the WPCF by 5.3 acre-feet per day on total daily outflow from the Delta was 0.003%. As a comparison between a "Wet" year (2011) and a "Dry" year (2012), we also performed the same series of calculations using data from January 1, 2012. On January 1, 2012 of the most recent "Dry" year (water year 2012; Table 3), the San Joaquin River had a daily average discharge of 1,800 cfs (3,570 acre-feet / day). The estimated difference in outflow in the San Joaquin River for this particular day during a "Dry" year was 0.15%. The difference Delta outflow was 0.04% on the same day. The average, minimum, and maximum percentage daily differences were summarized for each month (January—April), for each most recent water year type, and for both the San Joaquin River and total Delta outflow (see Table 4). 11 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Table 3. Water year types for the San Joaquin River basin (2008-2014) from DAYFLOW website maintained by CDWR (CDWR 2015). Bolded rows indicate which water year data were used. Water Year (beginning October 1) Water Year Type Definition 2008 C Critically Dry 2009 BN Below Normal 2010 AN Above Normal 2011 W Wet 2012 D Dry 2013 C Critically Dry 2014 C Critically Dry The revised flow schedule will affect the operating period between January 1 and April 30, and will reduce the volume of water discharged from the WPCF by nearly half (Table 1). The flow schedule will be left unchanged for the remainder of the year, as the facility does not discharge through the summer period (May 1 to September 30), and the winter schedule will remain similar to previous discharge years (2012 to 2014). The average anticipated change in volume for all types of water years in the Delta, and particularly in the San Joaquin River, would be less than 0.5% across all the months with reduced outflow volume (Table 4). The drier water years (Dry and Critically Dry) show the most response in terms of daily volume in the San Joaquin River. For the overall Delta outflow, the change in discharge volume results in a negligible change in terms of overall outflow to the Delta (does not exceed an average of 0.06% change). The maximum expected change to Delta outflow during critically dry years is anticipated to be no more than 0.08%. The reduction in discharge from the WPCF is anticipated to have even less effect on the total San Joaquin River outflow volume and Delta outflow volume during Above Normal and Wet water year types, with average daily discharge change totaling less than 0.1% and negligible change to Delta outflow volume occurring in the late spring (0.00% average in March and April). 12 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Table 4. The expected change (in percent) in average daily volume (minimum and maximum in parentheses) in both the San Joaquin River and Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta based on the difference between current and revised White Slough WPCF discharge schedules provided by West Yost Associates (see Table 1). Water Year Type Percent Change in San Joaquin River January February March April Wet 0.03% 0.04% 0.02% 0.01% (0.02 - 0.04) (0.02 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.02) (0.01 - 0.01) Above 0.18% 0.13% 0.11% 0.05% Normal (0.07 - 0.24) (0.08 - 0.17) (0.06 - 0.15) (0.03 - 0.10) Below 0.26% 0.21% 0.22% 0.13% Normal (0.21-0.29) (0.17 - 0.26) (0.13 - 0.27) (0.09 - 0.18) Dry 0.16% 0.19% 0.13% 0.08% (0.13 - 0.18) (0.15 - 0.24) (0.10 - 0.17) (0.05 - 0.12) Critically 0.36% 0.38% 0.37% 0.15% Dry (0.31 - 0.46) (0.31 - 0.46) (0.26 - 0.53) (0.06 - 0.26) Water Year Percentage Change in Delta Type January February March April Wet 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% (0.00 - 0.01) (0.01 - 0.02) (0.00 - 0.01) (0.00 - 0.00) Above 0.03% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% Normal (0.00 - 0.05) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.01) Below 0.06% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% Normal (0.02 - 0.10) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.04) (0.01 - 0.03) Dry 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% (0.01 - 0.06) (0.02 - 0.03) (0.00 - 0.03) (0.00 - 0.01) Critically 0.06% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% Dry (0.04 - 0.07) (0.01 - 0.06) (0.01 - 0.08) (0.01 - 0.05) Based on the review of existing outflow volume data for the most recent of each type of water year, the anticipated change in outflow volumes in the San Joaquin River and entire Delta should be negligible. Even in the driest years (Critically Dry), the overall change in outflow volume would be less than 0.5% across all months. Therefore, no appreciable changes in the total volume, or any measures related to the total volume discharged (i.e., current velocities), in the San Joaquin River or Delta would be expected to occur with the change in discharge from the WPCF. Temperature A reduction in relatively warmer discharge water is expected to lead to a decrease in the size and magnitude of warming as a result of the project. Perhaps the most important finding from the RBI (2010) study is that water temperatures of discharged effluent rapidly decrease with increased distance from the discharge location. Temperature effects rapidly 13 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 attenuate to the background temperatures of the receiving waters in Dredger's Cut within about 1,000 feet (i.e., near the confluence of the Highline Canal). This observation is best depicted in Figure 5 from RBI (2012; p. 21), in which monthly average water temperatures were plotted against distance from the discharge outfall. A clear and consistent pattern can be observed with a rapid decline in monthly average water temperatures within the first 1,000 feet away from the discharge location. No decline was observed during the months of May, June, or July; however, changes in operation (i.e., reduced discharge) will not occur during these months. The rapid attenuation during the winter and early spring months is due to the amount (or rate) of discharge relative to the large volume of receiving water, resulting in a relatively small area that is thermally impacted by the discharge. Temperature effects could not be detected based on data collected at the temperature monitoring station at RW1, which is located approximately 1,000 feet from the outfall of the WPCF (RBI 2010). Therefore, the actual area affected by the discharge only includes the small area near the confluence of Dredger's Cut and Highline Canal. For perspective, the linear distance between the discharge outfall and the confluence of Dredger's Cut and White Slough is approximately 5,000 feet (temperature monitoring station RW2; RBI 2010). Based on the relevant findings described in RBI (2010 and 2012) described above, any reductions in discharge during the operational period will likely result in a smaller area that will be impacted by thermal effects from the discharge outfall, not a larger one. Therefore, no increase thermally affected area is expected to occur with the change in project operations. Additionally, due to the substantial distance between the area impacted by the change in project operations and the closest critical habitat designations (for green sturgeon, steelhead, and Delta smelt), no changes in temperature are likely to occur in the designated critical habitat. No increases in water temperature within the currently affected area (i.e., within the first 1,000 feet of Dredger's Cut) are expected to occur, and it is even possible that a slight decrease in water temperatures may occur. Water Quality The WPCF meets all water quality requirements for operation and conducts ongoing monitoring to ensure discharge is compliant. As a result, there are few nutrients of concern; however, water prior to treatment typically has high concentrations of nitrogen. Elevated levels of nitrogen are common for unprocessed wastewater. To be compliant, WPCF is required to treat the water (i.e., nitrify and denitrify effluent) to reach a level of less than 10 mg/L. The compliance concentration for treatment is generally established based on the volume of water circulation and the extent of mixing that dilutes the effluent upon release. For example, San Francisco International Airport (near San Francisco Bay with relatively higher water circulation) averages 57 mg/L of nitrogen at the point of discharge (Baykeeper 2012). Conversely, areas with minimum urban or agricultural inputs can have 14 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 nitrogen levels of less than 1 mg/L (SWRCB 2006). The WPCF is in a relatively low circulation area (i.e., a slough), and thus the upper limit of nitrogen concentration in discharge effluent was set lower than locations with higher circulation. Nitrogen is an important nutrient for plant development (USGS 2015), but at elevated levels can indirectly lead to negative impacts on fish. Elevated levels of nitrogen can cause overproduction (i.e. eutrophication) or algal blooms, which reduce dissolved oxygen levels. Low dissolved oxygen levels can become deadly (even for more tolerant warmwater fish) and can lead to fish kills. Eutrophic water also reduces the value of water for other municipal or agricultural uses. The proposed project modification will lead to less discharge and result in lower proximal levels of nitrogen input. By lowering the amount of nitrogen input, water quality may incrementally improve for fish. The WPCF already releases a low level of nitrogen in its discharge, so the actual change will likely be relatively minor Regardless, the effect of the change will either lead to negligible change or a positive effect. Summary and Conclusions A detailed review was completed that included the current Project operations, the potential for protected fish species to be exposed to the project, and the possible effects of proposed changes to the Project on those fish species. Overall, the Project features characteristics of relatively disturbed areas, including high predator abundance and low amounts of usable habitat for coldwater fishes. A review of monitoring and sampling in the area identified four species for further assessment, which included Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, and green sturgeon. Chinook salmon and steelhead both use the San Joaquin River as a migratory corridor, but are unlikely to venture off -channel to rear or spawn in the Project's slough habitat. Green sturgeon habitat usage and potential presence is similar to that of Chinook salmon and steelhead, as each population lacks of a major source population in the area. This further reduces the potential for being present. Finally, Delta smelt populations are continuing to decline in size and distribution. Recent sampling shows few fish sporadically captured in areas outside of the Project. The lack of usable habitat and extremely low catch outside of the Project suggests possible presence to be unlikely. While the presence for analyzed fish species is likely to be minimal if not absent, the potential effects of the Project also appear to be negligible. Reduction in discharge in the San Joaquin River from the project modifications would lead to no more than a calculated maximum discharge reduction of 0.38% and no more than 0.06% in the Delta overall. The impact of the Project on water temperature was found to be minimal and localized, regardless of proposed operational changes. Implementing the proposed changes would lead to less warm water discharge from the treatment facility and result in a localized reduction or cooling of water temperature. Cooling the water could provide benefits to 15 r FISH= 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 coldwater fish species, given the relatively high water temperatures already occurring in the slough. Finally, aquatic nutrient input is currently regulated to a relatively minimal level through water treatment. Reducing discharge would reduce nutrient input and incrementally improve water quality for fish, leading to another positive change to any nearby aquatic resources. In conclusion, this review identified minimal potential for fish to be present in the Project area, and also found that proposed changes to the Project would likely result in negligible or potentially positive effects on fish and their habitat. 16 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 References Baykeeper 2012. Data available at: https://baykeeper.org/visualization/nitrogen-loading- san-francisco-bay-wastewater-plants-and-refineries, data accessed January 6, 2016 Bennett, W. 2005. Critical assessment of the delta smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary Watershed Science 3(2). Web. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 2015. DAYFLOW data. Data available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/dayflow/output/, data accessed January 6, 2016 Cech, J. J. Jr., S. I. Doroshov, G. P. Moberg, B. P. May, R. G. Schaffter, and D. M. Kohlhorst. 2000. Biological assessment of green sturgeon in the Sacramento -San Joaquin watershed (phase 1). Final Report to the CALFED Bay -Delta Program. Project # 98-C-15, Contract #B-81738. Emmett, R. L., S. A. Hinton, S. L. Stone, and M. E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in West Coast estuaries, volume II. Species life history summaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ELMR Report 8, Rockville, Maryland. Good, T., Waples, R., and P. Adams. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs of West Coast salmon and steelhead. United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. NMFS-WSFSC-66. Jackson Z. J., J. P. Van Eenennaam. 2013. 2012 San Joaquin River sturgeon spawning survey. Lodi (CA): Stockton Fish and Wildlife Office, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kynard, B, Parker, E. and T. Parker. 2005: Behavior of early life intervals of Klamath River green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, with a note on body color. Env. Biol. Fish. 72, 85-97. Lindley, Steven T., R. S. Schick, A. Agrawal, M. Goslin, T. E. Pearson, E. Mora, J. J. Anderson, B. May, S. Greene, C. Hanson, A. Low, D. McEwan, R. Bruce Macfarlane, C. Swanson, and J. G. Williams. 2006. Historical Population Structure of Central Valley Steelhead and Its Alteration by Dams. SFEWS San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 4(1). Web. Merz, J., Hamilton, S., Bergman, P., and B. Cavallo. 2011. Spatial perspective for delta smelt: a summary of contemporary survey data. California Fish and Game 97(4): 164- 189. 17 r FISHBIO 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, GA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 Moyle, P.B., 2002. Inland fishes of California. Univ of California Press. Nakamoto, R. J., Kisanuki, T. T., and G. H. Goldsmith. 1995. Age and growth of Klamath River green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Project # 93 -FP -13, 20 p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon, Proposed Rule." Federal Register 70 (65): 17386-17401. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2006. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon, Final Rule." Federal Register 71 (67): 17757-17766. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking To Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon, Final Rule." Federal Register 74 (195): 52300-52351. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. Endangered species act critical habitat spatial data. Online data at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/endangered species_ act_ critical habitat.html; data accessed January 5, 2016. Poytress, W.R., J.J. Gruber, D.A. Trachtenbarg, and J.P. Van Eenennaam. 2009. 2008 Upper Sacramento River Green Sturgeon Spawning Habitat and Larval Migration Surveys. Annual Report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to US Bureau of Reclamation, Red Bluff, CA. Robertson—Bryan, Incorporated. 2010. Assessment of water temperatures and characterization of aquatic biological resources in Dredger Cut and downstream water bodies to determine appropriate temperature controls for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. Final Report prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Robertson -Bryan, Incorporated. 2012. Assessment of the potential effects of the proposed temperature limits for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility discharge on delta smelt. Final Report prepared for the Regional Water Control Board Central Valley Region and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. State Water Resources Control Board. 2006. "Conceptual Model for nutrients in the Central Valley and Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta." 18 .._i FISHB1= 1617 S. Yosemite Avenue • Oakdale, CA 95361 • Phone: (209) 847-6300 • Fax: (209) 847-1925 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/drinking water policy/fin al nutrient report lowres.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2015. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Delta Juvenile Fishes Monitoring Program data. Online data at: (http://www.fws.gov/lodi/jfmp/, data accessed January 4, 2016. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC); online project -planning tool. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/, accessed December 4, 2015. United States Geological Service Water Science School. "Nitrogen and Water." http://water .usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html. Accessed January 6, 2016. Van Eenennaam, J.P., J. Linares-Casenave, X. Deng, and S.I. Doroshov. 2005. Effect of incubation temperature on green sturgeon embryos, Acipenser medirostris. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:145-154. Williams, J. 2006. Central Valley Salmon: a perspective on Chinook and Steelhead in the Central Valley of California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 4(3). Web. 19 APPENDIX E Designated Critical Habitat Steelhead Delta smelt Critical Habitat White Slough WPCF Expansion Pond Project San Joaquin County, CA Map Date: 01/04/2016 HOLT --z =.:i19 M -..P".."--.-..- 1116:1 ._4_,431017.65*-11ii _ . =UM—Rill 1 .i.a iAMU! r p� ��r» ter_—,.= _ 'Oi %' la IS W �IFlI .i'` i1�ti��ia ' sir' %, al .1414 ^ i�tiO �►a71111177 11.3R10 its tairse,,...rr 74,140\ II6 1 fir, ' t �.�1 T:Pli-e-6111. IP 7t.;:. -liettyliir Orli, #,."f i .J +' •�� 0.5 Miles Source: USFWS; National Geographic Society APPENDIX D Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 Prepared for: Petrologix 26675 Bruella Road Galt, California Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Lodi, California terra con.com Environmental Facilities llierracon Geotechnical Materials December 16, 2016 Petrologix 26675 Bruella Road Galt, CA 95632 Attn: Daniel Kramer, P.G., C.E.G. lrerracon Re: Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Teriary Ponds 12751 N. Thornton Road Lodi, California Terracon Project Number: NA150395 Dear Daniel: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the final geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number PNA150395 dated October 20, 2015 and revised on November 25, 2015 and March 2, 2016. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of tertiary pond embankments for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Patrick C. Dell, Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer 2186 Geotechnical Department Manager Enclosures cc: 1 — Client (PDF) 1 — File Garret Hubbart, Principal Geotechnical Engineer 2588 Office Manager Terracon Consultants, Inc. 902 Industrial Way Lodi, California P [209] 367 3701 F [209] 333 8303 terracon.com Environmental • Facilities • Geotechnical • Materials TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2 2.1 Project Description 2 2.2 Site Location and Description 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Local Geology 2 3.2 Faulting and Seismic Considerations 3 3.2.1 Seismic Site Class and Parameters 3 3.2.2 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions 3 3.3 Soil Conditions 4 3.4 Groundwater 5 3.5 Liquefaction Potential 5 4.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES 6 4.1 Seepage Analysis 7 4.2 Slope Stability Analysis 7 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8 5.1 Earthwork 8 5.1.1 Site Preparation 8 5.2 Material Requirements 8 5.2.1 Compaction Requirements 9 5.3 Grading and Drainage 9 5.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations 9 5.5 Pump Station and Pipeline Design and Construction 11 5.5.1 Pump Station Design and Construction 11 5.5.2 18 -inch Tertiary Pipeline Design and Construction 12 5.6 Pavements 13 5.6.1 Design Considerations 13 5.6.2 Pavement Drainage 14 5.6.3 Pavement Maintenance 14 5.6.4 Construction Considerations 15 6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 15 Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDIX A— FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Exhibit A-2 Exhibit A-3 Exhibit A-4 to A-9 Site Location Map Exploration Plan Field Exploration Description Boring Logs APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Exhibit B-2 Exhibit B-3 Exhibit B-4, B-5 Laboratory Testing Atterberg Limits Summary of Laboratory Tests R -value Test Results APPENDIX C — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Exhibit C-3 Exhibit C-4 Exhibit C-5 Exhibit C-6 Unified Soil Classification System Seepage Analysis Model Slope Stability Analysis Model Seismic Design Parameters 2008 Deaggregation Summary Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY lrerracon A final geotechnical engineering services report has been prepared for new tertiary ponds to be constructed west of the existing White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility on Thornton Road in Lodi, San Joaquin County, California. Terracon previously prepared a preliminary geotechnical engineering report for this project dated September 16, 2016. Terracon's preliminary geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included drilling six (6) borings for subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, preliminary geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of a preliminary geotechnical engineering report. Four (4) of the borings were advanced to 211/2 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and two (2) borings were advanced to 51'/2 feet bgs. Borings were located at the planned embankments for the ponds. Terracon's final geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included additional laboratory testing, final geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. No additional borings were performed as part of this final report. Additional borings are planned to be performed as part of an addendum to this report for the proposed pump station and pipeline associated with the new tertiary ponds. The recommendations for the pump station and pipeline contained in this report are preliminary only and need to be confirmed with data obtained from the planned additional borings. Based on the information obtained from our preliminary geotechnical engineering report and final geotechnical engineering analyses and additional laboratory data, the proposed project can proceed as planned provided the final recommendations contained in this report are properly implemented in the planning, initial design work, and pre -construction planning of the project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: In general, the upper on-site materials encountered in our borings generally consisted of stiff to very stiff sandy silt and very loose to medium dense silty sand. These upper soils extended to depths of between 4 and 9 feet bgs. An exception to these conditions was encountered in boring B4 where the upper 4 feet consisted of sandy lean clay. The upper soils were underlain by interbedded layers of very soft to hard sandy silt, very loose to dense sand with varying amounts of silt, and very stiff to hard lean clay with sand that extended to the maximum depths explored. For a more detailed description of the soil lithology, see the attached Boring Logs in Appendix A. Groundwater was encountered in two of the exploratory borings at depths of approximately 5 and 8 feet bgs at the time of the investigation. The borings were not allowed to stay open for an extended period of time for safety purposes, so the groundwater depth should be considered approximate and may fluctuate in the future. The project site is not mapped for potential liquefaction hazard by the California Geologic Survey (CGS), however saturated cohesionless soils were encountered within the upper 50 Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable i Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon feet. A detailed evaluation of liquefaction potential was performed for this project and is summarized in the following report. A seepage and slope stability analysis of the proposed embankments was performed. The results of these analyses are presented in this report. Based on the soil conditions encountered in our borings, the tertiary pond embankments may be constructed with material from within the upper 2 feet of the proposed pond locations. Some of the material may need to be blended to meet the project specifications. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable ii FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES REPORT WHITE SLOUGH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TERTIARY PONDS LODI, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. NA165098 December 16, 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report present the results of our final geotechnical engineering services performed for the proposed tertiary ponds at the White Slough Wastewater Facility on Thornton Road in Lodi, California. Logs of the borings along with a site location map and exploration plan are included in Appendix A of this report. Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included drilling six (6) borings for subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report. Four (4) of the borings were advanced to 21% feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and two (2) borings were advanced to 51% feet bgs. All of the borings were drilled at the locations of the planned embankments for the ponds. Additional borings are planned to be performed at the location of the proposed pump station and pipeline that will be included in this project. An addendum will be prepared when those borings are completed. The recommendations for the pump station and pipeline contained in this report are preliminary only and need to be confirmed with data obtained from the planned additional borings. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions foundations and below grade walls seepage analysis slope stability analysis earthwork recommendations preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of the pump station and pipeline Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable 1 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description lrerracon Item Description Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2: Exploration Plan. Improvements Four tertiary treatment ponds are planned west of the existing facility. The ponds will be created by excavating about 2 feet of soil from the existing ground surface and utilizing this soil to construct the embankments. The internal pond embankments will be a maximum of 8 feet above the pond bottom. The external pond embankments Grading will be a maximum of 61/2 feet above the existing ground surface on the exterior of the embankment and a maximum of 9 feet above the pond bottom. The embankments will have side slopes of 2:1 (2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical) with an embankment crest width of 12 feet. The ponds will provide 2 feet of freeboard above the maximum water surface of the ponds. 2.2 Site Location and Description Item Description Location 12751 N. Thornton Road, Lodi, San Joaquin County, California. Existing improvements The pond sites are currently active agricultural fields. Current ground cover Existing topography Agricultural crops. Relatively flat. There is approximately 2 feet of vertical relief from the east side to the west side of the project. There is about 12 feet of vertical relief from the north side to the south side of the project. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Local Geology The subject site is located in the center of the middle portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province. A review of the geologic map for this area indicate the soils are composed of Pleistocene age arkosic alluvium of the Modesto formation (Qm). The site is located in the northern middle portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Approximately 30 miles to the east are the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Province, and approximately 20 miles to the west is the Coast Ranges Province. Tectonic processes involved with the western Coast Ranges are a significant source of seismicity, faulting, and folding. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 3.2 Faulting and Seismic Considerations 3.2.1 Seismic Site Class and Parameters lierracon The following table presents the seismic design values and site class as calculated from the USGS U.S. Seismic Design Maps website utilizing ASCE 7-10. DESCRIPTION VALUE 2013 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) 1 D Site Latitude 38.09106° Site Longitude -121.39622° Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 0.881 g Si Spectral Acceleration for a 1 -Second Period 0.333g Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 1.148 FvSite Coefficient for a 1 -Second Period 1.733 SMS Maximum Considered Spectral Response Acceleration for a Short Period 1.011g SM1 Maximum Considered Spectral Response Acceleration for a 1 -Second Period 0.578g SDS Design Spectral Response Acceleration for a Short Period 0.674g SD1 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for a 1 -Second Period 0.385g ' Note: The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 511/2 feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soils continue below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to greater depths could be considered to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. Alternatively, a geophysical exploration by us could be utilized in order to attempt to confirm the seismic site class. 3.2.2 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions The subject site is located in the California Central Valley Area which is a relatively low to moderately seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The following table indicates the distance of the fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be produced by nearby seismic events, as calculated using the United States Geologic Survey 2008 Interactive Deaggregations program. The Green Valley Connected Characteristic Fault, which is located about 56 kilometers from the site, is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. Fault Name % Contribution Approximate Distance to Site (kilometers) Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) Magnitude Green Valley Connected Char 4.11 56.2 6.89 Mount Diablo Thrust D2.1 & D2.4, C 3.28 47.2 6.61 Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Greenville Connected Char 3.22 44.6 6.89 The USGS Design Maps Detailed Report evaluates the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) to be 0.368g. Based on the 2008 interactive deaggregations, the PGA at the subject site for a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 2475 years) is expected to be about 0.439g. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on our review of State Fault Hazard Maps.1 3.3 Soil Conditions Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Description Consistency/ Density 1 4 to 71/21 Sandy Silt Very Loose to Medium Dense 2 4 to 92 Silty Sand; Sandy Lean Clay Very Loose to Medium Dense; Stiff 3 19 Interbedded layers of Sandy Silt, Silty Sand, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, Clayey Sand, Sandy Lean Clay Very loose to Dense, Stiff 4 24 Lean Clay with Sand Very Stiff to Hard 5 511/2 Silty Sand, Clayey Sand, Sandy Silt, Silt with Sand Medium Dense to Dense 1. Encountered in borings B1 and B6. 2. Encountered in borings B2, B3, and B5. Sandy Lean Clay was only encountered in boring B4. Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Laboratory tests consisting of Atterberg limits and No. 200 washes were performed on a number of samples from the borings. In addition, bulk samples collected by Petrologix from within the proposed pond construction area were delivered to our office. The approximate locations of the Petrologix samples are indicated on Plate A-2 of Appendix A. Selected samples from Petrologix were tested for Atterberg limits and No. 200 washes to assist in evaluating the upper 2 feet of 1 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 material for use within the pond embankments. Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon The test results from the samples collected from the borings are included on the boring logs. The results of the testing performed on samples from our borings and Petrologix are summarized in Appendix B. In addition to the bulk samples from Petrologix, we obtained two samples of the near surface soils for Resistance Value (R -value) testing for use in designing pavement sections. The results of the R -value tests are included in Appendix B. 3.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at depths of 5 and 8 feet bgs in two of our borings at the time the borings were drilled. It is unknown why we did not encounter groundwater in our other borings. A groundwater study by others including additional test borings by us may be warranted in an attempt to determine the depth of groundwater throughout the site. These test holes were not allowed to remain open for an extended period of time; therefore, the measured depth of groundwater should be considered approximate. We understand Petrologix performed some percolation tests within the proposed tertiary pond areas. For those tests, groundwater was encountered at depths between 3 and 6% feet bgs. Groundwater conditions in the future could change due to rainfall, construction activities, irrigation, or other factors. The evaluation of these factors is beyond the scope of this study. Due to potential fluctuation of groundwater depths and the historical groundwater data, less than 3 feet bgs should be utilized for design purposes unless a more detailed groundwater study is performed. a groundwater depth of no 3.5 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of excess pore -water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity, where groundwater is shallow, and loose granular soils. Strong seismic shaking can also cause cyclic softening of saturated relatively non -plastic fine-grained soils. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within California as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction -related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the likely presence of a relatively shallow water table. This site is not mapped within a designated area of potential liquefaction. However due to the depth to groundwater and the relatively cohesionless soils encountered in our exploratory borings, two liquefaction analyses were conducted with data from borings B1 and B2 utilizing the SPT correlation procedures set forth by Idriss and Boulanger (2014). We assumed a groundwater depth of 5 feet bgs in our analyses based on recent and historic groundwater Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon elevations. The analysis method uses correlations based on SPT blow counts recorded at uniform intervals throughout the boring. Based on the analyses, the liquefaction potential is judged to be relatively low. Potential liquefaction -induced settlement was calculated based on the soil conditions encountered in borings B1 and B2. In our opinion, potential settlement from liquefaction is relatively minor and expected to be about 11/2 inches total settlement with differential settlement expected to be about 1/2 this value across the site based on the soil conditions at boring B1. Liquefaction induced settlement based on the soil conditions at boring B2 are expected to be less than % inch. Estimates of settlement due to liquefaction are generally expected to vary on the order of a factor of 2. In considering potential liquefaction -induced settlement at this site, we have also considered that the soils are Pleistocene age deposits. Research has indicated that Pleistocene age soils do not typically undergo liquefaction due to aging effects of the deposit. 4.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSES Seepage and slope stability analyses of the proposed pond embankments were performed using computer models. The models were performed utilizing the general criteria from the Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC), even though the pond embankments (levees) do not protect an urban area. The ULDC was developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for application to the design and construction of levees protecting urban environments. However, the ULDC contains some of the most up to date methods and recommendations for the design and construction of levees. Since the ponds will likely have water in them a majority of the time, we considered the embankments to be "frequently loaded" which the ULDC defines as embankments that "experiences a water surface elevation of 1 foot or higher above the elevation of the landside levee toe at least once a day for more than 36 days per year on average." The waterside of the embankment refers to the inside slope of the ponds; the landside refers to the outside slope of the ponds. The proposed pond embankments will have waterside and landside slopes of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, the crown width will be 12 feet, and the maximum height of the embankment will be about 61/2 feet above the existing ground surface and 9 feet above the pond bottoms. It is proposed that the pond embankments be constructed of compacted engineered fill obtained from the upper 2 feet or so of soil from the bottoms of the ponds. The ponds will designed to provide at least 2 feet of freeboard above the design water surface elevation. The maximum amount of head that the ponds will experience will therefore be 4' feet above the landside toe of the embankment. For both the seepage and slope stability analyses, we analyzed the embankment for a steady- state seepage condition with water at the design water surface elevation. We used a soil stratigraphy model based on the most conservative soil profile from our field explorations, which was from boring B2. We used presumptive values for the hydraulic conductivity and strength parameters of the compacted embankment and underlying natural soil deposits. These values Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon were selected based on our experience with similar type soils in the Central Valley and our recent experience with the DWR Urban Levee Evaluation project. We considered a range of values in our analyses. We have also considered potential settlement of the new pond embankments. Based on the soil conditions encountered in our borings and our experience with similar soils, in our opinion settlement from the new embankments is anticipated to be relatively minor and should occur as the embankments are constructed. In addition to the pond embankments, a pump station and associated 18 -inch diameter inlet/outlet pipeline are also planned to be constructed as part of this project. The pump station will be constructed at the southwest corner of the new ponds. The pipeline will extend from the new pump station east/northeast to the existing treatment facility, as well as under the western pond embankment. The pump station will extend approximately 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The pipeline will be approximately 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. 4.1 Seepage Analysis We performed a seepage analysis of the proposed tertiary pond embankments using the computer program SEEP/W by Geo -Slope International. Based on our analysis, seepage through the pond embankments is not likely to result in boils or cause significant stability problems. The exit gradient at the toe of the embankment was calculated to be approximately 0.3. This value is lower than the ULDC criteria at the embankment toe of 0.5. Exit gradients greater than 0.5 indicate a high potential for boils to occur. Therefore, from a steady state seepage perspective, the pond embankments can be constructed as planned, in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The results of our seepage analysis are presented in Appendix C. Some minor seepage through the embankments may occur shortly after construction. However, we anticipate the amount of seepage to be relatively minor and to slow down or stop after a short period of time as silt and other material from the effluent water will tend to seal the inside of the pond embankment. Some seepage may occur through the bottom of the pond but this is not expected to surface in areas adjacent to the ponds. We anticipate seepage through the bottoms of the ponds will migrate vertically downward into the ground. 4.2 Slope Stability Analysis We performed a slope stability analysis of the proposed tertiary pond embankments using the computer program SLOPE/W by Geo -Slope International. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Based on our analysis, the calculated factor of safety against a slope failure for steady state seepage static conditions is 1.8. This factor of safety is greater than the ULDC recommended factor of safety for levees of 1.5 for static conditions. Therefore, from a slope stability standpoint, the pond embankments can be constructed as planned, in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix C. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented are for the design and construction of the pond embankments and are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. All grading for the embankments should incorporate the limits of the proposed embankments plus a lateral distance of at least five feet beyond the outside edges of the slopes. 5.1.1 Site Preparation Strip and remove existing debris, vegetation, and other deleterious materials from the outline of the proposed embankments plus 5 feet beyond the proposed toe of the embankments. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions, which could prevent uniform compaction. The area beneath the proposed embankments should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below the existing ground surface. This may require local dewatering in order to reach the recommended depth and compaction. The exposed subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to the relative density specified in Section 5.2.1. The overexcavated material should be placed and compacted as engineered fill to the density specified in Section 5.2.1. 5.2 Material Requirements All engineered fill materials for the proposed embankments from any source should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than three inches in size. Imported earth materials for use as engineered fill should be pre -approved by Terracon prior to construction. On-site soils may be used for pond embankment construction, although they may not meet the requirements for the minimum Plasticity Index listed below unless they are mixed with the more clayey soils encountered within the proposed pond locations. Imported soils may also be used as fill material provided they meet the requirements in this section. The State Reclamation Board has requirements for engineered fill for new levees. These requirements are presented below. These requirements are for levees providing flood protection Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon and so may be altered somewhat for a project such as this. Imported soils for use as compacted engineered fill material within the proposed embankment areas should conform to materials as indicated as follows: Percent Finer by Weight Gradation (ASTM C 136) 3" 100 No. 4 Sieve 80-100 No. 200 Sieve 20 (min) Liquid Limit 45 (max) Plasticity Index 8 (min) 5.2.1 Compaction Requirements Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed twelve inches loose thickness. All fill placed below and within the pond embankments should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on the maximum dry density obtained in the ASTM D1557 test method at a moisture content at least 1 percent above the optimum moisture content. Since most fill slopes are constructed with a loosely or poorly compacted surface, the fill slopes should be slightly overbuilt and trimmed back to firm, compacted soil. 5.3 Grading and Drainage All final grades must provide effective drainage away from the pond embankments during and after construction. Water permitted to pond next to the embankments can result in slope stability issues at the toes of the embankments. Stormwater runoff should be directed away from the embankments and be collected and discharged away from the embankments. Also, if water is allowed to pond at the toe of the embankments, it will not be possible to detect water that may be seeping from the embankment. A rigorous maintenance program should be planned to keep vegetation from growing on the sides of the embankment as well as controlling rodents burrowing into the embankments. Care should also be taken to not undercut the toes of the embankments during maintenance operations. 5.4 Earthwork Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. Based upon the subsurface conditions determined from the geotechnical exploration, subgrade soils exposed during construction are anticipated to be relatively workable. On-site fine grained soils may pump or become unworkable at high water Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon contents. As previously mentioned, groundwater is relatively close to the existing ground surface and excavations of the existing ground may encounter difficulty from the high groundwater. The workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. If unworkable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. If the construction schedule does not allow for scarifying and drying by aeration in place, soil stabilization by the addition of chemical agents, such as cement or lime may be required. If soil stabilization is needed, Terracon should be consulted to evaluate the situation as needed. The pond embankment slopes should be covered with some type of erosion control measure immediately after construction. Erosion control measures can consist of erosion resistant vegetation, jute netting, or rip rap. These should be installed per the manufacturer's specifications. Some minor, relatively shallow erosion should be anticipated and planned for. Routine maintenance will be required on all embankment slopes. Any detected problems should be repaired immediately. It is important that the bottom of all embankments be protected from erosion or undercutting that could jeopardize the integrity of the slope. Substantial slope failure could occur if the bottoms of the slopes are not protected. A rigorous program of reducing the amount of animal burrows should be in place to reduce the potential for seepage -related problems. The surface soils at the site primarily consist of silty sands and sandy silts which are typically subject to significant wind/water erosion. The project civil engineer, while developing the plans, should plan to limit wind/water erosion during and after construction to a level acceptable to the owner. Rip rap or other erosion control measures should be implemented to reduce the potential for wave damage to the waterside slope of the embankments. As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. The contractor, by his contract, is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Terracon should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary materials tests and observations during subgrade preparation, proof -rolling, placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills, and construction of the embankments to the completed grades. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically October through April) it may be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigation measures beyond that which would be Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water on the site. Once subgrades are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction traffic. 5.5 Pump Station and Pipeline Design and Construction The recommendations for the pump station and pipeline contained in this report are preliminary only and need to be confirmed with data obtained from the planned additional borings. 5.5.1 Pump Station Design and Construction The excavation for the pump station will extend to about 15 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater was encountered at a depth 5 feet bgs in boring B1, the closest boring to the proposed pump station location. Groundwater should be lowered to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed pump station foundation. If the bottom of the excavation is still unstable after dewatering, then the excavation should be overexcavated another 12 inches, then a geotextile, such as Mirafi RS289i, should be placed in the bottom of the excavation and 12 inches of 3/4 -inch crushed gravel be placed to stabilize the bottom of the excavation. The soils encountered in boring B1 consisted of sandy silt soils to a depth of 19 feet bgs. These soils varied in consistency from very soft to stiff. These soils will likely not be stable due to a relatively high moisture content. Since these soils will need to be sloped back to side slopes of between 11/2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) and 2 to 1, this will require a fairly large excavation. In lieu of excavating a "glory hole" to construct the pump station, we anticipate that the excavation will be made with sheet piling to provide stable slopes. The sheet pile should be designed by a contractor familiar with these types of soil and groundwater conditions. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the pump station excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Sheet pile walls should be designed to resist lateral soil pressures of 55 pcf for soils above the water table and 92 pcf for soils below groundwater. This value includes the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater. In order to resist uplift/buoyant forces from groundwater, we recommend the base of the foundation be extended horizontally to provide uplift resistance. A buoyant unit weight of soil of 60 pounds per cubic foot may be used to calculate the uplift resistance of the soil column above the foundation. The pump station should be designed to withstand buoyant forces assuming a groundwater depth of 3 feet below the existing ground surface. Backfill around the pump station should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on the maximum dry density obtained in the ASTM D1557 test method up to Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon within 5 feet of the ground surface. The upper 5 feet of backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction based on the maximum dry density obtained in the ASTM D1557 test method. We caution that inadequate compaction of the backfill can result in unacceptable settlement of the backfill which could damage pipes coming into or connected to the pump station. The pump station foundation may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live load. This value may be increased by 1/3 to account for wind or seismic forces. Buoyant forces may also be resisted by the friction created from the overburden soil weight against the concrete sides of the pump station or the steel sheet piling. An adhesion friction resistance of 0.40 and 0.35 may be used between the soil and concrete or steel sheet piling, respectively. Due to the stress relief from excavating 15 feet of soil, the anticipated total settlement of the pump station will be less than '/2 inch. This should occur during construction. Lateral loads on the pump station walls should be designed for the at -rest condition since the walls will not deflect. The at -rest pressure for the soil conditions encountered in boring B-1 is 55 pcf for soils above the water table and 92 pcf for soils below groundwater. This value includes the hydrostatic pressure of groundwater. 5.5.2 18 -inch Tertiary Pipeline Design and Construction An 18 -inch diameter pipeline will extend from the new pump station east/northeast to the existing treatment facility as well as extending northwest beneath the west pond embankment. The pipeline will be 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Since we anticipate groundwater will be encountered at a depth of about 3 to 5 feet bgs, it will be necessary to dewater the excavation to allow construction of the pipeline. Depending on the depth of groundwater encountered in the excavation, it may be possible to control the seepage with only a sump pump. However, if the excavation extends 1 to 2 feet below groundwater, the groundwater will need to be lowered to allow construction of the pipeline. A single stage well point system may be needed. A single stage well point system is where small diameter wells are installed by jetting, driving or boring methods. Once the wells are installed they are connected to a manifold which feeds to a large pump. An experienced dewatering contractor shall review our boring logs and project plans to determine the most suitable method of dewatering. We recommend that the groundwater be lowered to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. If the bottom of the excavation is unstable, we recommend overexcavating the trench 6 to 12 inches, and placing 3/4 -inch crushed gravel in the bottom to stabilize the trench bottom. If necessary to further stabilize the bottom of the trench, then a geotextile, such as Mirafi RS289i, should be placed in the bottom of the trench prior to placement of the gravel. The pipe should then be placed and backfilled in accordance with City of Lodi standards. According to the City of Lodi standards, the on-site soils classify as Class 3 Pipe Bedding material. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Since sandy silt and silty sand soils were encountered within the upper 8 feet throughout the project site, it may be necessary to shore the pipeline trench excavation. The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the trench excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. 5.6 Pavements 5.6.1 Design Considerations Detailed traffic patterns and anticipated loading conditions were not available at the time that this report was prepared. We have provided pavement sections for traffic indices (TI) of 4.0 and 5.0. Two samples of the near surface soils were tested in our laboratory to determine their Resistance Value (R -value). The tests produced results of 10 and 59. The approximate locations of the R - value samples is shown on Plate A-2. Based on the potential of varying silt content which may alter the R -value, design R -Values of 10 and 50 was used to calculate the Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement thickness sections. The AC pavement sections were calculated using the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, latest edition, and a 20 -year design life. We recommend additional R -value testing of the pavement subgrade soils during the mass grading operations to determine the appropriate pavement section depending on the R -value of the subgrade soil at the finish pavement elevation. Pavement design methods are intended to provide structural sections with adequate thickness over a particular subgrade such that wheel loads are reduced to a level the subgrade can support. Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: Final grade adjacent to paved areas should slope down from the edges at a minimum 2%; The subgrade and pavement surface should have a minimum 2% slope to promote proper surface drainage; Install below pavement drainage systems surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting; Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; Seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to subgrade soils by embedding curbs a minimum of 6 inches into the native soils; Place compacted, low permeability non -expansive backfill against the exterior side of curbs and gutters. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report, the following pavement sections should be considered minimums for this project for the traffic indices assumed in the table below. If more specific traffic information becomes available, we should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement calculations. Minimum AC Pavement Section (inches) Traffic Area R -value Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Total Thickness Automobile 10 4.0 2.5 7.0 11.0 Automobile 50 4.0 2.5 4.0 6.5 Maintenance Vehicles 10 5.0 3.0 9.0 12.0 Maintenance Vehicles 50 5.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 All pavement materials should meet the Caltrans Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition. Rigid PCC pavements will perform better than AC in areas where short -radii turning and braking are expected (i.e. entrance/exit aprons) due to better resistance to rutting and shoving. In addition, PCC pavement will perform better in areas subject to large or sustained loads. We recommend rigid pavement for the dumpster area to include the area where the trucks will pick up the dumpster. An adequate number of longitudinal and transverse control joints should be placed in the rigid pavement in accordance with ACI and/or AASHTO requirements. Expansion (isolation) joints must be full depth and should only be used to isolate fixed objects abutting or within the paved area. Graveled access roads for lightweight maintenance vehicles should consist of 12 inches of compacted aggregate base over compacted native subgrade. 5.6.2 Pavement Drainage Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. 5.6.3 Pavement Maintenance The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 14 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon the pavement investment. Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a pavement maintenance program. 5.6.4 Construction Considerations Additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required. Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of Caltrans Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition. Base course or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. Surface drainage should be provided away from the edge of paved areas to minimize lateral moisture transmission into the subgrade. 6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, embankment construction and other earth -related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this final report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report and should only be used for planning purposes and should not be used to develop construction documents. This final report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 15 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive • Resourceful ■ Reliable 16 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION S. H T N G H o • ilr II: �l Ih, tiI • v°: T R ACT tite.> Wa(er PollulEo. Control Merit: f t R I 0 B L '. N C Pumping Station - Pumping', Station _- -- — it i damping ti T_, L---7-47-7.-- I ( 6tation •4 T• ,ti . 'R .A. G 'i i ! c S' TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: TERMINOUS, CA (1/1/1997) and LODI SOUTH, CA (1/1/1976). DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: PCD Drawn by: elle Checked by: PCD Approved by: PCD Project No. NA165098 Scale: 1"=2,000' File Name: N/A Date: Dec. 2016 -r lrerracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA 95240-3106 .11 • 711`3 FRED WAV • l9. WeII SITE LOCATION White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvement Project 12751 N. Thornton Road Lodi, CA Exhibit A-1 3f +4—p+ WM WI. CI •A3 Bulk 12 A .aa.� yr iiF•I M'L rL—GIF Bulk 11 CULT.r_ t isIh i�' - r• Legend Bulk 10 r rl Bulk Bulk 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project Manager: PCD Drawn by: CBC Checked by: PCD Approved by: PCD Project No. NA165098 Scale: AS SHOWN File Name: N/A Date: Dec. 2016 lrerracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA 95240-3106 • MOW Volk 41. 4 131- Bore Hole Bulk 1 - Bulk Sample FV1 - R -Value 4 EXPLORATION PLAN White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvement Project 12751 N. Thornton Road Lodi, CA Exhibit A-2 Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Field Exploration Description The boring locations were laid out in the field by a Terracon representative using a site plan provided by the client and utilizing hand-held GPS equipment. Ground surface elevations indicated on the boring logs were estimated based on Google earth aerial photos. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The borings were drilled with a track -mounted rotary drill rig and a truck -mounted rotary drill rig using continuous flight solid -stem augers to advance the boreholes. Samples of the soil encountered in the borings were obtained using the split -barrel sampling procedures. In the split -barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2 - inch O.D. split -barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18 -inch penetration by means of a 140 -pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT -N). This value is used to estimate the in situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. A field log of each boring was prepared by the field engineer. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the engineer's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation and tests of the samples. Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable Exhibit A-3 BORING LOG NO. B1 Page 1 of 2 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.08744° Longitude: -121.39494° Approximate Surface Elev: 1 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTE ITSRG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI ,• ,• . SANDY SILT (ML) fine to medium, brown — brown and gray 19.0 -18+/- X 591414 N=23 5 10 _ 15— _ 20— — _ 25- - 3-0-1 N=1 17 4-5-8 N=13 15 66 x 5-10-9 N=19 18 c, / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) fine to medium, brown 24.0 -23+/- x 12-19-19 N=3818 N=38 30-20-10 SILTY SAND (SM) fine to medium, brown fine to coarse, brown 4-4-12 N=16 26 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSBoring 1111 rracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Started: 5/16/2016 Boring Completed: 5/17/2016 = While sampling Drill Rig: CME -75 Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-4 BORING LOG NO. B1 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.08744° Longitude: -121.39494° Approximate Surface Elev: 1 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SILTY SAND (SM) fine to medium, brown (continued) 30- - 35— _ 40- - 45— — 50— 34.0 -33+/- 10-14-13 N=2716 18 SANDY SILT (ML) fine to medium, gray to yellowish -brown 39.0 -38+/- x 3-1-2 N=3 37 51 SILTY SAND (SM) fine to coarse, yellowish -brown fine grained, brown 49.0 -48+/- 12-15-23 N=3838 21 5-6-9 N=15 20 43 ,/f� 0�// J/y CLAYEY SAND (SC) fine grained, brown 51.5 -50.5+/- 10-10-16 N=26 17 Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lierracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/16/2016 Boring Completed: 5/17/2016 - While sampling Drill Rig: CME -75 Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-4 BORING LOG NO. B2 Page 1 of 2 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.09429° Longitude: -121.39682° Approximate Surface Elev: 13 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SILTY SAND (SM) fine to medium, dark brown _X 5 — — _ 10— _ _ — _ 20- — 25— - yellowish -brown 9.0 4+/- 4-4-3 N=7 10 X 7-8-10 N=18 14 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to coarse, brown and orange 14.0 -1+/- x = NN=111 21 3 7j, 0 so, CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to medium, brown, rust mottling 19.0 6+/_ x 57- N=311 16 j, LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) fine grained, brown, rust mottling 24.0 -11+/- 6712 N=19 39 64 SILT WITH SAND (ML) fine grained, yellowish -brown x 6-9-14 N=233 22 45-29-16 Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 1 I?rracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/18/2016 Boring Completed: 5/18/2016 L While drilling Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-5 BORING LOG NO. B2 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.09429° Longitude: -121.39682° Approximate Surface Elev: 13 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTE ITSRG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SILT WITH SAND (ML) fine grained, yellowish -brown (continued) 30- - 35— 40— — _ 45— 50- fine to medium, yellowish -brown, rust mottling fine to medium, brown to light brown, rust mottling yellowish -brown, rust and black mottling 44.0 -31+/- 7-8-12 N=20 34 61 \ 6-6-11 N=17 32 5-6-12 N=18 33 76 SILTY SAND (SMl fine to medium, yellowish -brown, rust mottling 51.5 -38.5+/- X8-9-12 N=21 26 44 14-14-14 N=28 22 Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSBoring 1111 rracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Started: 5/18/2016 Boring Completed: 5/18/2016 = While drilling Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-5 BORING LOG NO. B3 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.09245° Longitude: -121.39881° Approximate Surface Elev: 7 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SILTY SAND (SM) fine grained, dark brown to brown 5 — _ 10— _ 15— _ 20— _ light brown to brown rust mottling 14.0 -7+/- - 1-2-6 14 100 48 N 3-4-6 23 92 11-15-19 27 97 48 ;, SANDY SILT (ML) fine grained, brown, rust and black mottling 21.5 4 5+/- 10-14-16 31 85 36-33-3 H 9-6-7 23 98 Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lierracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/17/2016 Boring Completed: 5/17/2016 Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-6 BORING LOG NO. B4 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.08965° Longitude: -121.39732° Approximate Surface Elev: 4 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI .' SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) fine grained, black _ 5 — 10 _ 15— _ _ 20— _ - 4-6-6 16 98 SILTY SAND (SM) fine grained, light brown fine to medium, dark brown 14.0 -10+/- N 2-3-7 28 90 48 4-6-8 27 91 '. SANDY SILT (ML) fine to medium, brown, black mottling 19.0 -15+/- 6-10-18 30 92 44-32-12 :.' POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) fine to medium, brown with gray 21.5 -17.5+/- 4-10-18 26 96 Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lierracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/18/2016 Boring Completed: 5/18/2016 Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-7 BORING LOG NO. B5 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.09184° Longitude: -121.39713° Approximate Surface Elev: 8 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SILTY SAND (SM) fine grained, dark brown to brown _ _ 5— _ 10— _ 15- 20— _ 4.0 4+/- - A 1-3-9 14 117 29 rCLAYEY % :oo, /J SAND (SC) fine grained, light brown to brown 1+/ 9.0 -1+/- 20-21-29 23 93 �/ %/14.0 SANDY SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) fine grained, brown and orange 6+/ 20-8-3 14 112 SANDY SILT (ML) fine grained, yellowish -brown 21.5 3 5+/- 3-7-10 17 109 51 6-12-19 17 107 Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lierracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/18/2016 Boring Completed: 5/18/2016 Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-8 BORING LOG NO. B6 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California GRAPHIC LOG LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 Latitude: 38.09189° Longitude: -121.39355° Approximate Surface Elev: 7 (Ft.) +/- DEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.) DEPTH (Ft.) WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS SAMPLE TYPE FIELD TEST RESULTS WATER CONTENT (%) DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) ATTERBERG LIMITS PERCENT FINES LL -PL -PI SANDY SILT (ML) fine grained, black to brown _ _ 5 _ 10- 15— _ 20-21.0 _ 4.0 3+/- R 4-5-7 14 117 56 SILTY SAND (SM) fine grained, brown fine to coarse, brown, rust mottling 14+1- v - 2-2-3 23 93 4-6-9 14 112 26 11-15-18 17 109 11-18-26 17 107 :.•;21.5 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) fine to coarse, brown and orange -14.5+/- „,-- Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hamme Type: Automatic SPT Hammer Advancement Method: 8” Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Elevations were estimated using Google Earth. Notes: Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with cement -bentonite grout upon completion. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lierracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA Boring Started: 5/18/2016 Boring Completed: 5/18/2016 Drill Rig: D-50 track Driller: C. Nix Project No.: NA165098 Exhibit: A-9 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Final Geotechnical Engineering Services Report White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds • Lodi, California December 16, 2016 • Terracon Project No. NA165098 lrerracon Laboratory Testing Soil samples were tested in the laboratory to measure their natural water content and unit weights. A calibrated hand penetrometer was used to estimate the approximate unconfined compressive strength of some samples. The calibrated hand penetrometer has been correlated with unconfined compression tests and provides a better estimate of soil consistency than visual examination alone. The test results are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix A. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached to this report. All classification was by visual manual procedures. Selected samples were further classified using the results of Atterberg limits and Wash No. 200 testing. The Atterberg limit test and Wash No. 200 test results are also provided on the boring logs. Bulk samples obtained by Petrologix from within the proposed pond construction area were delivered to our Lodi laboratory. Selected samples were tested for Atterberg limits and Wash No. 200 testing. A summary of laboratory test results of the Petrologix and Terracon samples is included in this appendix. Two Resistance Value (R -value) tests were also performed on near surface samples. The R - value test results are also included in this appendix. Responsive • Resourceful • Reliable Exhibit B-1 LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. ATTERBERG LIMITS NA165098 WHITE SLOUGH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TERTIARY PONDS.GPJ TERRACON2015.GDT 9/16/16 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS ASTM D4318 60 50 P L A s 40 T 30 Y 20 X 10 Os% m MH or OH • //CL -ML' 0 0 Mlk or OL 20 40 60 LIQUID LIMIT 80 100 Boring ID Depth LL PL PI Fines USCS Description • B1 20 - 21.5 30 20 10 X B2 25 - 26.5 45 29 16 A B3 15 - 16.5 36 33 3 * B4 15 -16.5 44 32 12 PROJECT: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds SITE: Thornton Road Lodi, California lrerracon 902 Industrial Way Lodi, CA PROJECT NUMBER: NA165098 CLIENT: Petralogix Engineering, Inc Galt, California EXHIBIT: B-2 Petrologix Samples Test Results Sample ID Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Passing No. 200 Bulk 1 B1 10 38 Bulk 2 25 12 61 Bulk 3 34 16 65 Bulk 4 30 13 66 Bulk 5 35 34 Bulk 10 31 14 60 Bulk 11 30 13 56 Bulk 12 31 12 50 Bulk 13 37 Terracon Samples Test Results Boring No. Depth, ft. Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Passing No. 200 B1 10 66 B1 20 30 10 B1 30 18 B1 35 51 B1 45 43 B2 10 3 B2 20 64 B2 25 45 16 B2 30 61 B2 40 76 B2 45 44 B3 1 48 B3 10 48 B3 15 36 3 B4 5 48 B4 15 44 12 B5 1 29 B5 15 51 B6 1 56 B6 10 26 Exhibit B-3 JOB NAME: White Slough WPCF SAMPLE NUMBER: RV_1 lrerracon JOB #: NA165098 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) R -VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE: 59 i erracon Consultants, Wu. 902 Industrial Way Lodi, California • •_91 367 3701 F [209] 333 $303 terraGan_ccm Exhibit B-4 Environmental ■ Facilities ■ Geotechnical ■ Materials JOB NAME: White Slough WPCF SAMPLE NUMBER: RV2 lrerracon JOB #: NA165098 90 80 70 0 60 LLJ H D 50 0 40 > 30 20 10 R -VALUE GRAPH 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) R -VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE: 10 i erracon Consultants, Wu. 902 Industrial Way Lodi, California • •_91 367 3701 F [209] 333 $303 terraGan_ccm Exhibit B-5 Environmental ■ Facilities ■ Geotechnical ■ Materials APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SAMPIOG Auger lodified Ring {arab ' _ Sampler Sample Spilt Cal Mac°r° Rock -2 No 111 Sp0011 1 I I I Core Recovery WATER LEVEL C Water InktIa11y Encountered Water Level After a Specified Period of Time IF Wilier level After a Specified Period of Time th Water levels indicated on e soil baring logs are the levels rneaslued in the borehole at the times indicated. Groundwaterlevel variations will occur over time. in low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels Is not possible with short teem water level observations. FIELD TEST$ IHl-iPl nd Penelr4r1010r IT1 Torvane (WS Standard Penetration Teat (Glows per foot) IPI Di Photo -ionization ❑ctnckar IOVA( Organic Vapor Analyzer DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION( Soil classification is based an the Unified Soil Classification $ystam- Coarse Grained $oils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a 4#200 sieve; their principal descriptors aria: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand- Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non -plastic. Major constituents may he added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based an grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis Of their in-place relative density and fine-grained sods on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted. Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated vuilh +I- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area, !GM TERMS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRINNED SOILS {More Man 50% retained on No. 204 slave.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Includes grower, sande and siI s CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or mare passing the No. 249 sieve.) Consistency determined by iaboratary shear strength testing, field mrlStral-rnarlual procedures or atandald penetrelion resistance Descriptive Term (density) Standard Penetration or N -Value BlOwSIFL icing Sampler Bkxes,/Ft descriptive Term {Consistency) Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Penetration or N�falue ElowtiFt, Ring Sampler Slows/Ft. Very Loose 0.3 0•fi Very Soft less than 500 0.1 ,3 Loose 4 - 9 7 - 18 Soft 500 to 1,000 2 - 4 3 - 4 Z W Medium tense 10 - 29 19 - 59 Medium -Stiff 1,400 to 2,400 4 - 8 5 - Dense 30 • 50 59 •98 Stiff 2,004 to 4,004 8. 15 JO - 18 Very dense . $0 ' 39 Very Skiff 4,004 to 8,000 15 - 3D 15 •42 Hard >9.0139 > 40 >42 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS. QF SAND AND GRAVEL cripfivr= Termfsl pf other constitute Trace With Mrsdlfler Portant of Dry Weigfrt <15 15-29 >30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Termist of other constituents Trots With A'1ooiier Percent of Dry Weiphit <5 5-12 P.12 GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Major Component of Sample Boulders Gobbles Gravel Saved 5111 or Clay Iso Non-plaslrc Low Mod' ufrl High Particle Size Over 12 m..(300 mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) 3 In. to#d slava(75mm lo 4-75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4,75mm to 4,075mm Passing #200 situs (OE075rtrm PLASTICITY DESCPPTIOI ?Ilasti1Fhtl >E 0 1-10 11 - 30 30 Exhibit: C-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C Cu>_4and 1 <Cc<3E Soil Classification Group Symbol GW Group Name B Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E GP Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines c Fines classify as ML or MH GM Fines classify as CL or CH GC Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D Cu >_6 and 1 <Cc<3E SW Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E SP Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Fines classify as CL or CH SC Fine -Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Inorganic: PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line J CL PI < 4 or plots below "A" line ML Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 OL Well -graded gravel F Poorly graded gravel F Silty gravel F,G,H Clayey gravel F,G,H Well -graded sand I Poorly graded sand' Silty sand G,H,I Clayey sand G'H'I Lean clayK'L'M Silt K,L,M Organic clay K,L,M," Organic silt Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more Highly organic soils: Inorganic: PI plots on or above "A" line CH PI plots below "A" line MH Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried < 0.75 OH Fat clayK'L'M Elastic Silt K,L,M Organic clay K'L'M'P Organic silt K'L'M'° Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3 -inch (75 -mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. ° Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW -GM well -graded gravel with silt, GW -GC well -graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well -graded sand with silt, SW -SC well -graded sand with clay, SP -SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP -SC poorly graded sand with clay (D30)2 E Cu = D60/D10 Cc - D10 X D60 F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. G If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC -SM. " If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. I If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL -ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel," whichever is predominant. L If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. M If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. " PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. ° PI < 4 or plots below "A" line. P PI plots on or above "A" line. ° PI plots below "A" line. PLASTICITY INDEX (P1) 60 50 40 30 20 10 7 4 0 For classification of soils and fine-grained of coarse-grained soils fine-grained fraction ,/' ' e Equation of °A" - line A) , \tee,, P� Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. then P1=0.73 (LL -20) ., / 1 0 Equation of °U" - line ,'� Vertical at LL -16 to P1=7, ,// Cl�°t then P1=0.9 (LL -8),// , //' O\' // �d o '/ MH or OH J, /I CL - ML ML or OL 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 80 90 100 110 Exhibit: C-2 Materials 1 ❑ Silty Sand 2 ❑ Poorly Graded Sand 3 ❑ Lean Clay 4 ❑ Silt 5 ❑ Clayey Sand 6 ❑ Compacted Silty Sand 10 White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds NAI65098 Name: Silty Sand Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 3e-006 ft/sec Name: Poorly Graded Sand Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 0.0003 ft/sec Name: Lean Clay Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 3e-008 ft/sec Name: Silt Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 3e-007 ft/sec Name: Clayey Sand Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 3e-006 ft/sec Name: Compacted Silty Sand Model: Saturated Only Sat Kx: 0.0003 ft/sec -10' 2 co 5 w -20•— 3 • • I I 4 I I I I I I I I I -30 . • -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 1 Distance (ft) 0 0 w Materials 1 ❑ Silty Sand 2 ❑ Poorly Graded Sand 3 ❑ Lean Clay 4 ❑ Silt 5 ❑ Clayey Sand 6 ❑ Compacted Silty Sand 10 0 -10 -20 -30 Slope Stability Analysis Name: Silty Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 25 psf Phi': 32 ° Name: Poorly Graded Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion': 20 psf Phi': 36 ° Name: Lean Clay Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 500 psf Phi': 0 ° Name: Silt Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 115 pcf Cohesion': 250 psf Phi': 0 ° Name: Clayey Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion': 75 psf Phi': 32 ° Name: Compacted Silty Sand Model: Mohr -Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 25 psf Phi': 36 ° 1.803 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Distance (ft) 110 130 150 170 190 210 Exhibit C-4 1 2 5 3 4 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 Distance (ft) 110 130 150 170 190 210 Exhibit C-4 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 1 of 6 usGs Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (38.09106°N, 121.39622°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S5) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 El' From Figure 22-2'2' Section 11.4.2 — Site Class Ss = 0.881 g S1 = 0.333 g The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Site Class Table 20.3-1 Site Classification v- s N or Neh s- . A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w >_ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength s, < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s 11b/ft = 0.0479 kN/m Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F, Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period Ss <_ 0.25 SS=0.50 S5=0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >_ 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 D 1.6 1.4 E 2.5 1.7 F 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.9 See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS For Site Class = D and SS = 0.881 g, Fa = 1.148 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F, Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S1 <_ 0.10 Sl = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 = 0.40 S1>_0.50 A 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 D 2.4 2.0 E 3.5 3.2 F 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 2.8 2.4 See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 2.4 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1 For Site Class = D and S1 = 0.333 g, F. = 1.733 Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 3 of 6 Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.148 x 0.881 = 1.011 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = F,S1 = 1.733 x 0.333 = 0.578 g Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): SDS = 2/3 SMS = 2/3 x 1.011 = 0.674 g Equation (11.4-4): SDI = 2/3 SM1 = 2/3 x 0.578 = 0.385 g Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12E31 T, = 12 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum Sz • 0.674 1 T*Ts-s#srsti,{13.4+0_6T�T¢ 1;,0'‘Ti: S.= rim T5 <TTLA=S0,/T TaT:S`:Sb,Tr1T� To • 0.114 T3. 0.571 1.000 Period. T §:e€1 Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 4 of 6 Section 11.4.6 — Risk -Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. 0.114 0.572 1.000 Period.. T i sect Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7E43 PGA = 0.309 Equation (11.8-1): PGA,, = FPGAPGA = 1.191 x 0.309 = 0.368 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA Site Class Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA PGA 0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = PGA = 0.30 0.40 PGA >_ 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 D 1.6 1.4 E 2.5 F 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.309 g, FPGA = 1.191 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site -Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17E51 From Figure 22-18E61 CRS = 1.082 CR1 = 1.130 Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 6 of 6 Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF SDS RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV SDS < 0.167g A A A 0.167g <_ SDS < 0.33g B B C 0.33g <_ SDS < 0.50g C C D 0.50g <_ SDS D D D For Risk Category = I and SDS = 0.674 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter VALUE OF SD1 RISK CATEGORY I or II III IV SD1 < 0.067g A A A 0.067g <_ SD1 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g <_ SD1 < 0.20g C C D 0.20g <_ SD1 D D D For Risk Category = I and SDI = 0.385 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S1 is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category E "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References 1. Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-1. pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2. pdf 3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12. pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7. pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17. pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18.pdf Exhibit C-5 http://ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=... 5/24/2016 Page 1 of 2 *** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Accel. *** *** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2008 version *** PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: NA165098 long: 121.396 W., lat: 38.091 N. Vs30(m/s)= 230.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30). NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below Return period: 2475 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.4027 g. Weight * Computed_ Rate_ Ex 0.406E-03 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00051 #This deaggregation corresponds to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_ EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1-1<EPS<0-2<EPS<-1 EPS< -2 6.8 5.05 2.733 0.666 1.641 0.425 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.7 5.05 0.812 0.749 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.0 5.20 5.206 1.032 3.014 1.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.9 5.20 1.973 1.614 0.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.6 5.21 0.187 0.187 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.2 5.40 4.726 0.736 2.515 1.453 0.023 0.000 0.000 14.1 5.40 2.373 1.603 0.770 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.2 5.41 0.423 0.423 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.3 5.60 4.057 0.527 2.014 1.419 0.097 0.000 0.000 14.3 5.60 2.532 1.339 1.193 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 23.8 5.60 0.721 0.717 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.9 5.62 0.063 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 5.80 3.310 0.372 1.594 1.228 0.115 0.000 0.000 14.4 5.80 2.445 1.035 1.397 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.2 5.80 0.971 0.906 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.1 5.81 0.177 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5 6.01 3.583 0.337 1.758 1.401 0.088 0.000 0.000 14.6 6.01 2.755 0.906 1.756 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.3 6.00 1.073 0.905 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.0 6.02 0.435 0.435 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.7 6.01 0.132 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.1 6.20 5.100 0.454 2.552 2.027 0.067 0.000 0.000 16.1 6.20 2.517 0.773 1.650 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.2 6.20 1.174 0.877 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.2 6.20 0.616 0.596 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.2 6.22 0.316 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.5 6.21 0.091 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.0 6.40 4.453 0.324 1.882 2.143 0.104 0.000 0.000 15.7 6.40 2.632 0.586 1.832 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.000 25.2 6.40 1.355 0.814 0.541 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.8 6.40 0.750 0.671 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.8 6.47 3.235 2.977 0.258 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.1 6.45 0.482 0.482 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.1 6.43 0.098 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 74.9 6.46 0.129 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.0 6.60 1.340 0.082 0.484 0.692 0.083 0.000 0.000 14.5 6.60 0.757 0.140 0.523 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.9 6.60 0.506 0.277 0.229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.9 6.60 0.181 0.155 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.3 6.60 4.735 4.009 0.726 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.6 6.59 1.701 1.649 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.5 6.60 0.463 0.463 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.5 6.63 0.334 0.334 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 80.8 6.58 0.062 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.2 6.80 1.057 0.060 0.358 0.569 0.070 0.000 0.000 14.5 6.80 0.855 0.133 0.568 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 24.7 6.80 0.408 0.175 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.8 6.80 0.188 0.145 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.4 6.76 4.698 3.190 1.508 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.4 6.76 2.198 1.907 0.291 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.0 6.77 1.197 1.141 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 75.8 6.79 0.964 0.964 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.9 6.79 0.085 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.3 6.95 0.417 0.023 0.136 0.230 0.030 0.000 0.000 14.6 6.95 0.439 0.060 0.279 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/NA165098_ 2016.05.24_ 21.24.04.txt Exhibit C-6 5/24/2016 Page 2 of 2 24.1 6.95 0.169 0.060 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.3 6.95 0.077 0.051 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 43.8 6.95 2.552 1.453 1.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 55.4 6.94 0.637 0.506 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.9 6.98 1.655 1.330 0.325 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.0 6.98 0.671 0.660 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.8 6.98 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.9 7.03 0.353 0.352 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 44.0 7.13 0.510 0.237 0.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.9 7.20 0.174 0.121 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.3 7.16 0.624 0.546 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.3 7.15 0.311 0.299 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 91.0 7.20 0.169 0.168 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 76.2 7.36 0.312 0.235 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 81.9 7.31 0.052 0.045 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.0 7.39 0.151 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.9 7.57 0.322 0.322 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 112.9 7.55 0.058 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 107.5 7.79 0.793 0.789 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.5 8.01 1.629 1.372 0.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 105.0 8.21 0.245 0.189 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 326.3 8.80 0.103 0.103 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 326.3 9.00 0.607 0.607 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 339.2 9.00 0.143 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 351.6 9.00 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 326.3 9.20 0.351 0.262 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 339.2 9.20 0.085 0.075 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%): 100.0 Mean src-site R= 32.4 km; M= 6.25; eps0= 1.39. Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R= 7.0 km; M= 5.20; eps0= 0.85 from peak (R,M) bin MODE R*= 44.5km; M*= 6.60; EPS.INTERVAL:> 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 4.009 Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution) Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon° (mean values). California B -faults Char 16.31 50.0 6.75 1.97 California B -faults GR 5.18 47.9 6.62 2.08 California A -faults 9.62 82.0 7.25 2.20 CA Compr. crustal gridded 67.31 13.4 5.89 1.06 Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%: Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon° Site-to-src azimuth(d) Mount Diablo Thrust D2.1&D2.4, C 2.93 47.4 6.62 2.02 -136.7 Great Valley 7 Char 3.26 41.8 6.74 1.87 -164.2 Greenville Connected Char 2.89 44.7 6.90 1.71 -121.2 Green Valley Connected Char 2.73 56.3 6.72 2.09 -112.4 #*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs *********# ******************** Northern California **************************************** http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cleaggint/2008/out/NA165098_ 2016.05.24_ 21.24.04.txt Exhibit C-6 5/24/2016 APPENDIX E City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond and Kingdon Air Park San Joaquin County, California Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard Prepared By Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 266 Courtland, CA 95615 City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond and Kingdon Air Park', San Joaquin County, California Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi proposes to construct an additional waste water treatment pond at its existing White Slough Pollution Control Facility, west of Kingdon Air Park, a privately owned, public use airport located in northern San Joaquin County (Figure 1). The purpose of this report is to assess whether construction and operation of the expansion pond is a compatible land use with Kingdon Air Park in accordance with guidelines established in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and whether the expansion pond will act as a wildlife attractant that increases the number of birds within the airport's Area of Influence (AIA). California State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 — 21679.5. Article 3.5 outlines the statutory requirements for Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) including the preparation of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). In San Joaquin County, the ALUC was responsible for the preparation of the 2009 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update and the 2013 Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission. In February 2016, the City of Lodi met with ALUC staff to discuss the proposed expansion pond and to more fully understand the ALUC consistency determination guidance. The ALUC staff deferred any decisions until a full set of environmental and planning documents were available, but inferred that the ultimate land use decision could be made by the City. The proposed expansion pond is proposed as an infill project at an existing facility within the Kingdon Air Park area of influence as defined by the San Joaquin Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Figure 22). 1.1 Project Description The City of Lodi proposes to construct a 70 -acre infill expansion pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough Pollution Control Facility (WSPCF). The 1,040 -acre WSPCF is owned by the City and is located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the City of Lodi in northern San Joaquin County. The proposed expansion pond will be used to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WSPCF for use as irrigation water on 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WSPCF. The purpose of the project is to provide additional WSPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation. The pond will serve as a water infiltration 1 Throughout this report, the Kingdon airfield is referred to as "Kingdon Air Park", the name under which it is permitted by the State of California. Generally, an air park is associated with a residential "fly -in" community or industrial park adjacent to an airport. Regardless, for the purposes of this report Kingdon Air Park is considered an airport. 2 Figure 2 is taken directly from San Joaquin Council of Governments, Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission, 2013, Appendix A. 1 gallery to offset groundwater withdrawals caused by pumping and pond will contain treated water for ten months of the year. The City of Lodi considered two alternative infill expansion pond locations within the existing WSPCF property as shown on Figure 3: 1) the southeastern location, east of Interstate 5, and 2) the northwestern location west of the Interstate 5 and the electrical transmission line which bisect the WSPCF property. • An expansion pond location was proposed in the southeastern portion of the City's WSPCF property (Figure 3), approximately 3,100 feet (west) from the closet point on Kingdon Air Park. Since this location is within the 5,000 -foot separation distance for wildlife attractants recommended by federal guidance for airports serving piston powered aircraft, it is not recommended as a site for the expansion pond. • A 70 -acre western infill expansion pond site is located on a portion of the City's agricultural fields directly west of the existing WSPCF treatment and storage facilities (Figure 3). The western infill expansion pond site would be constructed west of the electrical transmission lines that transect the City property and approximately 8,100 -feet from closet point on Kingdon Air Park. 1.2 Central Land Use Issue The following issues need to be addressed to understand the potential effect of the expansion pond as a wildlife attractant and if pond construction is consistent with land use guidelines. The remainder of this report reviews and attempts to clarify these questions. • Does the construction and operation of an infill expansion pond at the City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility represent a compatible land use within the area of influence of the Kingdon Air Park as defined by the San Joaquin County Updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan? • Is the proposed WSPCF expansion subject to a "Consistency Determination" by the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission? • Is the proposed WSPCF expansion subject to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Attractants on or Near Airports? • Will the construction and operation of additional waste water treatment ponds at the City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility act as a wildlife (bird) attractant? 2.0 PROJECT SETTING 2.1 Project Setting Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility is located at the eastern edge of the California Delta near the headwaters of the slough for which it is named (Figure 1). At an elevation of 7 to 15 -feet above mean sea level, the WSPCF is located on reclaimed marsh land near the eastern edge of the northern San Joaquin Valley and is now 2 surrounded by irrigated agricultural fields. The City property which the WSPCF occupies is bisected, northwest to southeast, by an electrical transmission line and Interstate 5. White Slough Pollution Control Facility's proximity to the California Delta, the largest estuary on the west coast of North America, strongly influences its relationship to wildlife movements and habitats. The California Delta provides permanent and seasonal habitat for dozens of species of birds which move back and forth between the Delta and the agricultural fields which form its eastern edge. Within the project vicinity, intensively farmed fields provide foraging habitat for a variety of bird species, while riparian wetlands and woodlands associated with the Delta provide habitat for a wide variety of resident and migratory waterfowl. The existing wastewater ponds on the facility do not provide nesting habitat or a food source and appear to primarily be used for loafing.3 In addition to the aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including agricultural land uses, there are three man-made structures which should be considered when addressing potential hazards to aircraft with the vicinity of Kingdon Air Park. All three are located within the WSPCF: 1) Electrical transmission lines, 2) Power Plant and 3) Mosquito abatement ponds. An overhead high voltage (230 kV) dual electrical transmission line traverses the WSPCF from north to south and is the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion pond. The transmission line is approximately 100 -feet tall and about 8,100 -feet west of Kingdon Air Park, it is at the western limit of flight tracks shown on ALUCP, Exhibit AKA - 1. High voltage power transmission lines pose peculiar hazards to low flying aircraft and the FAA specifies that such structures be marked and lighted. Aircraft operating over or near the transmission lines at typically at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 feet which reduces the threat of electrical interference with communication and navigation devices. In 2012, the California Energy Commission and Northern California Power Agency constructed a natural gas-fired 255 -megawatt power generation facility with an evaporative cooling system on about 4.5 -acres of the WSPCF. The power plant emits thermal plumes in the form of steam generated by its cooling towers. Although the FAA as found that thermal emission is not likely to pose a threat to aircraft, it is recommended that aircraft maintain a vertical separation of 1,000 feet above such facilities and is probably the existing vertical separation distance for aircraft using designated Kingdon Air Park flight tracks. San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District operates the White Slough Mosquitofish Rearing Facility on the WSPCF property. The district operates about 8 - acres of rearing ponds for mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) which produces several thousand pounds of fish annually. The ponds attract a variety of bird species including herons and egrets which feed on the mosquitofish in the shallow rearing ponds. 3 Moore Biological Consultants, White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond Project, September 2016. 3 3.0 KINGDON AIR PARK Kingdon Air Park is a privately owned4 public use airport located east of the WSPCF in San Joaquin County. The airport was originally constructed in the early 1940's as a U.S. Army Air Corps training facility called Kingsbury Auxiliary Airfield, one of five auxiliary airfields associated with Stockton Army Airfield, now Stockton Metropolitan Airport. In 1946, the Stockton Army Airfield and its auxiliary airfield were declared surplus. All of the auxiliary airfields were deeded to municipalities expect for Kingsbury Auxiliary Airfield, which was ultimately renamed Kingdon. In February 1972, the State of California issued an airport permit to Kingdon Properties and Kingdon Air Park, Inc. for the Kingdon Air Parks. Between 1946, when it was decommissioned by the War Department and 1972, Kingdon was probably used as an unregulated agricultural air strip for local crop duster operations. However, most maps published after 1946 and before 1972 show the facility as the "Kingdon Drag Strip"; the National Hot Rod Association lists Kingdon as an official drag strip until 1978. Currently, twenty-seven aircraft are based at the airport which reported in 2015 about 8,000 annual operations (take -offs and landings)6. The airport has one runway (Runway 12-30), which is 60 -feet wide and 3,705 -feet in length with a maximum landing distance of 3,410 feet. When originally constructed, the airport had a full length parallel taxiway; however, the taxiway is closed. In July 2009, San Joaquin County updated its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)7. Based on interviews with the airport management, the ALUCP indicates that in 2008 the airport served 3,812 itinerant aircraft operations (aircraft using the airfield as a transient) which included aircraft classifications represented by the Cessna Citation small business jet, Dash -6 de Havilland Twin Otter, a twin engine turboprop, and twin engine Beechcraft Baron. According to the ALUCP the airport served a total (local and itinerant) of 22,300 single engine aircraft operations in 2008. The long range forecast for anticipated annual aircraft operations is 84,500 although no date or analytics are provided to determine when or how these operational numbers are expected. Important to this report, the ALUCP, Exhibit AKA -1, shows the airport's existing and ultimate arrival, departure and "touch-and-go" tracks. That is, the routes aircraft fly when arriving, departing or during pilot training. None of the tracks cross over the preferred alternative WSPCF expansion pond location, but do cross over the existing WSPCF ponds. Based on normal aircraft operations, most aircraft are probably at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 -feet when they pass over the existing WSPCF. Furthermore, proposed construction of the WSPCF infill expansion pond is within the Kingdon Air Park area of influence, or AIA, as shown in Figure 2. The ALUCP states, "The AIA indicates those areas in which current or future airport -related overflights, noise, safety, or airspace protection conditions may significantly affect land uses and 4 State of California, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Airport Permit lists Kingdon Properties as the owner, January 24, 1984. Other sources list AG Project Management, LLC (FltPlan.com and AirNay.com). 5 Kingdon Air Park, February 9, 1972, permit number SJ -9. 6 AirNay.com, 020 Kingdon Airpark Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update, San Joaquin County, Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California, prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. July 2009. 4 may require land use restrictions to address those conditions. The airport influence area indicates the area within which the ALUC [Airport Land Use Commission] review of certain land use actions is required." (Page 2-2, ALUCP Update, 2009). 4.0 APPLICABLE LAND USE GUIDELINES 4.1 Federal Land Use Guidance — Wildlife Attractants Most federal aviation land use guidelines for development within the vicinity of an airport address impacts caused by aircraft noise or the construction of objects that penetrate federally regulated airspace. In the case of the WSPCF expansion ponds, neither of these general conditions is at issue. At the WSPCF the central land use issue is the construction of an infill expansion pond and the potential creation of a wildlife attractant — a new body of water. Federal guidance for assessing potential wildlife attractants near an airport is found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports8. One purpose of the AC is to provide guidance regarding certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public use airports such as Kingdon Air Park. The ALUCP incorporated the AC into the ALUCP by stating, in part, "Projects having the potential to cause attraction of birds or other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations to be increased within the vicinity" should be assessed in "accordance with Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports." However, Kingdon Air Park is not a federally obligated airport; it is not eligible for federal airport improvement grants and is not part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Therefore, the FAA has no authority to review and comment on land use issues that may be examined for Kingdon Air Park in accordance with AC 150/5200- 33B.9 The ALUC may use guidance in the AC as part of its review process for wildlife attractants but the FAA is not a statutory or `volunteer' reviewing agency. By relying on guidance in the ALUCP even though there is no FAA funding or permit nexus for Kingdon Air Park, except for protection of federal airspace in the immediate vicinity of the airport, AC 150/5200-33B "recommends the guidance in [the] AC for land - use planners, operators of non -certificated airports, and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports." According to the AC the first step towards evaluating the potential for wildlife hazards within the vicinity of an airport is to determine the separation distance (in linear feet) from the airport to a potential wildlife attractant. Following federal guidance in the AC, the minimum separation distance for wildlife attractants from Kingdon Air Park is 5,000 feet: "Airports that do not sell Jet -A fuel normally serve piston -powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 5,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants...or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement."10 According to flightware.com (October 27, 2016) Kingdon Air Park does not sell Jet -A fuel, and therefore does not service aircraft whose use of the airport would require a greater 8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular Number 150/5200- 33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, August 28, 2007. 9 Personal communication, FAA San Francisco Airports District Office, Brisbane, California, November 2016. 1° AC 150/5200-33B, Section 1-2, p. 1. 5 separation distance and the ALUCP does not establish any more stringent requirements for "special land uses". Furthermore, since no turbine powered aircraft are based at Kingdon Air Park11 incidental use of the airport by turbine -powered, fixed -wing aircraft does not affect the 5,000 -foot separation distance.12 According to a letter from the San Joaquin Council of Governments13 which commented on the WSPCF expansion, the "project is...subject to FAA review as outlined in Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. Of particular concern are land uses, including wastewater treatment facilities, within 10,000 feet of airport operations areas." As stated above, this statement is not supported by the AC or by FAA statutory reviewing authority. However, the proposed expansion pond project is located within the Kingdon Air Park area of influence (Figure 2) and, therefore, may be subject to review by the ALUC. 4.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility California law defines the area of influence, or Airport Influence Area (AIA), as "the area where airport -related factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses as determined by an airport land use commission. According to the State Division of Aeronautics, the AIA is usually the planning area designated by an airport land use commission for each airport." The area of influence for Kingdon Air Park, as designated by the ALUC is shown in Figure 2 and includes the entire WSPCF. The Kingdon Air Park area of influence is referred to as "Zone 8 (AIA)" on the Kingdon Executive Airport14 and Lodi Airpark Land Use Compatibility Zones map.15 Among the land use restrictions in Zone 8 are hazards to flights, including "land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited." The adopted ALUCP identifies an area of influence that establishes the area subject to consistency with the policies and criteria in the ALUCP. Land use consistency determinations are limited to general and specific [land use] plans. The primary statutory limitation on the ALUC, stated in PUC Sections 21670(a)(2) and 21674(a), is the lack of authority over existing land uses. An ALUC has no authority to command changes to land uses that are existing or vested, regardless of whether they are incompatible with airport activities. The City of Lodi General Plan (April 2010) designates the WSPCF as a Public/Quasi- Public land use and has since the mid -1960's. This land use classification is applied to properties owned by government entities or quasi -public users and includes government facilities, public and private schools, and libraries. Therefore, according to the California " San Joaquin Council of Governments, Airport Land Use Commission and the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Table AKA -1. 12 Ibid, AC150/5200-33B, Appendix A, line 15. 13 San Joaquin Council of Governments (ALUC), letter to Ms. Heather R. Shaddox, Project Geologist Petralogix Engineering Inc., November 10, 2015, regarding San Joaquin ALUC Comments for White Slough Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project 14 The name "Executive Airport" is a marketing term usually associated with airports that serve as reliever airports; it does not denote any particular characteristics or services. 15 San Joaquin Council of Governments, Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission, 2013, Appendix A. 6 Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, WSPCF is considered an existing use and has a vested right to construct treatment facility improvements.16/17 Existing land uses in vicinity of the Kingdon Air Park for which the ALUC asserts jurisdiction are shown on ALUCP Exhibit 2KA-3; that is, land use planning designations in either the City of Lodi or the San Joaquin County General Plans. According to the ALUCP, ALUC review for land uses identified in the City of Lodi's General Plan terminates east of Interstate 5 and does not include the WSPCF. Furthermore, "where development is not in conformance with the criteria set forth in this ALUCP already exists, additional infill development of similar land uses may be allowed to occur even if such land uses are to be prohibited elsewhere in the zone." (ALUCP Section 3.2, Special Conditions 3.2.1 Infill). However, since the WSPCF is located within the ALUCP area of influence for the Kingdon Air Park, the ALUC may initiate a consistency determination review because, "Land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase is also prohibited." There is some conflict over ALCU jurisdictional reviews. Therefore, to determine if "the attraction of birds" is likely to increase because of the construction and operation of the 70 -acre infill expansion pond, Wallace Environmental Consulting conducted four seasonal bird counts on the WSPCF. The underlying assumption is that if an increase in the number of birds attracted to a new body of water is greater than the number of birds attracted to existing land use, there may be an increase hazard to aircraft using Kingdon Air Park.18 7.0 WILDLIFE HAZARDS 7.1 Existing WSPCF Conditions As shown in Figure 4, the area for the proposed expansion pond is west of the existing 50 -acres of wastewater treatment ponds and northwest of about 8.5 -acres of mosquito abatement ponds all located within the existing WSPCF. The ground where the expansion pond will be located has historically been used to grow alfalfa, wheat and corn, a crop mix consistent with other area agricultural operations. Water contained in the existing ponds is used to irrigate crops on the WSPCF and as infiltration basins for groundwater recharge. The sides if the ponds are composed of rock, the bottoms are unlined. There is very little vegetation on the sides of the ponds or on the areas immediately surrounding the ponds. Some of the ponds hold water year around, while others are dry during months when irrigation is most widely used. 7.2 Wildlife Observations Four two-day seasonal bird observation studies were made in the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2016. The studies, conducted by a qualified airport wildlife biologist, were intended to count and identify the number and types of birds visiting the existing ponds and the proposed location of the infill expansion pond. A supplemental part of the observations was to determine which direction the birds flew at different times of the day. 16 Section 3.5.1, pg. 3-49 17 Section 3.5.1, pg. 3-51 18 Bird counts were conducted by a certified airport wildlife biologist in the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2016. 7 The observations were made at the WSPCF ponds, the mosquito abatement ponds and in the agricultural field west of the existing WSPCF ponds. Bird observations at the WSPCF are considered to be representative of a given year since the observations were conducted seasonally over a one year period. Bird movements between the California Delta and the San Joaquin Valley are affected by seasonal migration patterns along the Pacific Flyway, available habitat and by seasonal crop types. Bird observations on and over the WSPCF were unobstructed because of the open nature of the facility. Bird counts and flight directions were observed over four, two day periods in 2016. Each observation period lasted at least 12 hours and paid particular attention to birds in the morning and evening when they are typically most active. The observations occurred throughout the WSPCF including the mosquito abatement ponds where fish are raised for vector control. All of the open water ponds and the agricultural fields which will become the expansion pond on the WSPCF attracted birds which were identified and counted each day. Most frequently observed birds visiting WSPCF and the mosquito abatement pond areas are shown in Table 1. The frequently observed birds visiting the agricultural fields are shown in Table 2. (Complete bird count data are presented in Appendix A.) Table 1: Most Frequently Observed Birds in Existing Pond Areas Bird Total Observations (2016) Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 413 Mallard (Anas plattrynchos)* 343 Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)* 401 American coot (Fulica Americana)* 904 Killdeer (Charadrius vocferus)* 435 Least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla)* 379 Gull (California and Western gulls; undifferentiated)* 319 Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 140 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 804 House finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 156 Blackbirds (Red -winged and Brewers; undifferentiated) 673 *Observed only in WSPCF ponds A total of about 6,445 birds were observed over the course of four observation periods either on or in the vicinity of the existing ponds. Of that number, 40% were observed in February (winter); 26% in April (spring); 20% in July (summer) and 14% in October (fall). These numbers are consistent with regional bird counts which indicate that the California Delta, and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys offer wintering habitat to migratory bird species along the Pacific Flyway. The resident, or year -around, birds, probably includes Starlings, Song sparrow, House finch and Blackbirds which were also observed in large numbers in the agricultural fields. To break down the observed bird counts further, over the course of eight days, about 805 individual birds were observed each day. If that number is extrapolated for a one- year period, about 294,000 birds visit the ponds annually. Since the existing ponds occupy about 50 -acres, there are about 5,875 bird visits per acre of pond surface per year. 8 However, since the proposed infill expansion pond is operated only 10 months of the year, and is dry in July and August, the actual number of birds likely to be attracted to the pond is less than if the ponds were used year -around. Therefore, based on 70 -acres of new ponds operating 10 months of the year, the estimated number of annual bird visits is probably about 411,000. However, that number is offset by the number of birds already visiting the 70 -acres of agricultural land. A total of about 3,672 birds were observed over the course of four observation periods in the vicinity of the agricultural fields. Of that number, 27% were observed in February (winter); 17% in April (spring); 32% in July (summer) and 25% in October (fall). These numbers are consistent with bird counts which indicate that birds are feeding on crops during the summer growing season. The resident, or year -around, birds probably includes Starlings, Song sparrow, House finch and Blackbirds which were also observed in large numbers around the ponds. Table 2: Most Frequently Observed Birds in Agricultural Fields Bird Total Observations (2016) Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 130 Long -billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 290 Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) 128 Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 510 Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) 201 Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 647 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 134 Blackbirds (Red -winged and Brewers; undifferentiated) 1040 To break down the observed bird counts further, over the course of eight days, about 460 individual birds were observed each day. If that number is extrapolated for a one- year period, about 167,900 birds visit the 70 -acres of agricultural land to be replaced by the proposed infill expansion pond annually. Since the existing agricultural land occupies about 70 -acres; annually there are about 2,400 bird visits per acre. Based on observations at the WSPCF it is estimated that the new ponds will attract about 411,000 birds annually. The increase in annual bird visits is likely about 243,100. Therefore, based on field observations, and extrapolating 2,400 bird visits per acre per year over the 7,481-acre19 Kingdon Air Park area of influence, for a total of about 17,954,000 annual bird visits, it can be projected that infill expansion pond acts as a bird attractants within the area of influence and represents about a 1.35 percent increase in total birds attracted to the area of influence. 7.3 Bird Movements Bird movements over the WSPCF indicate that regardless of the time of day or time of year, most birds move from the Delta into the agricultural fields (west to east) east of WSPCF or from the agricultural fields into the Delta (east to west). The most numerous birds migrating back -and -forth from the Delta were ducks, crows, blackbirds and gulls. Ducks and other aquatic birds move towards other sources of water in the rivers, ponds and sloughs east and west of Interstate 5. The gulls probably move into plowed or fallow 19 ALUCP, Table IX.b 1, pg. F-14 9 fields, while the crows, starlings and blackbirds move into vineyards, orchards, row crops, wheat/alfalfa fields and a cattle feed lot east of Interstate 5. Table 3: Percentage of Birds by Flight Direction, Morning Observations Season/ Flight Direction Winter (%) Spring (%) Summer (%) Fall (%) W—E E—W 14 2 6 3 13 2 12 1 SE—NW NW—SE SW—NE NE—SW 29 8 43 7 51 51 8 51 1 9 1 <_1 51 51 41 10 Total Birds Observed 733* 154* 474* 611* *Other bird movement north to south or south to north, east and west of Interstate 5. Most frequently observed bird species in the morning movements: • Winter: Ducks (31%); Gulls (13%) and Blackbirds (36%) • Spring: Crows (73%) and Ducks (8%) • Summer: Crows (43%) and Blackbirds (30%) • Fall: Crows (45%) and Blackbirds (42%) Table 4: Percentage of Birds by Flight Direction, Evening Observations Season/ Flight Direction Winter (%) Spring (%) Summer (%) Fall (%) W—E E—W SE—>NW NW—SE SW—*NE 65 33 <_1 51 5 65 9 51 9 51 51 58 <_1 51 51 24 51 <_1 51 6 Total NE—*SW Birds Observed <1 110* <_1 26* <1 244** <_ 1 178* *Other bird movement north to south or south to north, east and west of Interstate 5. **Large numbers of birds (37%) were observed flying north/south along the Interstate 5 corridor east of WSPCF Most frequently observed bird species in the morning movements: • Winter: Ducks (32%) and Gulls (64%) • Spring: Ducks (61%) and Canada Geese (23%) • Summer: Blackbirds (82%) and Egrets (5%) • Fall: Egrets (39%) and Canada Geese (49%) Bird movements over the WSPCF demonstrate a relationship between the Delta environment and the agricultural fields east of Interstate 5. During the summer growing season, flocking birds such as crows and blackbirds dominate the movement as they flock to, or return from, the agricultural fields within the Kingdon Air park area of influence. Spring and winter movements are dominated by flocking birds, ducks and geese as they traverse the area of influence to forage in fallow fields and aquatic habitats; migrating herons and egrets also moved over the WSPCF to and from roosting areas in riparian habitat along rivers and sloughs east and west of Interstate 5. Bird movements indicate that the Kingdon Air Park area of influence is an active and attractive habitat from many species of birds. It is clear, that regardless of the time of year, birds move across the boundary between the California Delta and the San Joaquin Valley to forage and roost in the agricultural fields which dominate land use in the area of influence. 10 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 1. Eastern portions of the White Slough Pollution Control Facility are within 5,000 - feet of the Kingdon Air Park, including portions of the existing ponds; the proposed 70 -acre infill expansion pond is approximately 8,000 west of the airport and is the recommended project location. 2. White Slough Pollution Control Facility infill expansion pond construction is not subject to FAA review as a possible wildlife hazard because Kingdon Air Park is not a federally obligated airport. 3. White Slough Pollution Control Facility is located on land owned by the City of Lodi which has designated it Public/Quasi-Public land use. According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, WSPCF is considered an existing use and has a vested right to construct treatment facility improvements. 4. San Joaquin County ALUC does not have jurisdiction over an existing land use when that land use is permitted within a designated land use as shown on an adopted General Plan. 5. San Joaquin County ALUC has included the WSPCF within the Kingdon Air Park area of influence, Zone 8, which prohibits the construction of facilities that increase the number of birds attracted to the area of influence. 6. Bird counts conducted in 2016 indicate that the number of birds will increase by about one percent at the new infill ponds verses the number birds currently attracted to the existing land uses within the 7,481 -acre Kingdon Air Park area of influence. 7. Bird movements indicate that birds move freely between the California Delta and the San Joaquin Valley and are attracted to existing aquatic habitat generally west of Interstate 5 and the agricultural land which dominate land use east of Interstate 5. 8. Bird movements from the WSPCF to the east can be divided into two groups; 1) flocking birds such as blackbirds, starling and crows which generally travel within a few tens -of -feet from the ground under the transmission lines and across Interstate 5, and 2) Larger aquatic birds such as ducks, gulls, geese, egrets and herons move at higher altitudes, but probably less than 300 -feet to 500 -feet when they cross Interstate 5. 9. Birds traversing from the Delta without using WSPCF habitat may be at altitudes between 500 -feet and 3,000 -feet. Typically these birds are moving to locations east of Interstate 5 and include geese, ducks and some raptors. 11 9.0 REFERENCES California, State of, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Airport Permit, Kingdon Air Park, February 9, 1972, Permit No. SJ -9. Corrected January 24, 1984 for ownership/operator change. California, State of, Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011. California, State of, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws, 2011. California, State of, Public Utilities Code, Section 21001 et seq. relating to the State Aeronautics Act. Lodi, City of, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, March 2006. Lodi, City of, Lodi General Plan Update, Working Paper #1, Land Use, Transportation, Environment, and Infrastructure, July 2007 Lodi, City of, Lodi General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, November 2009. Lodi, City of, General Plan, 2010. Lodi, City of, Community Development Department, Development Code, March 25, 2013. Personal Communication, FAA San Francisco Airports District Office, Brisbane, California, November 2016. San Joaquin Council of Governments, San Joaquin County's Aviation System, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2009. San Joaquin Council of Governments, Project Review Guidelines for the Airport Land Use Commission, July 25, 2013. San Joaquin Council of Governments, Letter Dated November 10, 2015, Subject: San Joaquin ALUC Comments for White Slough Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services Directive 2.305, December 11, 2014. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular Number 150/5200-33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, August 28, 2007. West Yost Associates, Technical Memorandum, February 11, 2014, Land Application Area Expansion Study for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. 12 City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond and Kingdon Air Park San Joaquin County, California Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard FIGURES City of Lodi Proposed Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Ponds Figure 1 FIGURE 2 E \ALl1C\PROCESSES AND FEE STRUCTURE\SJCOO Pr000 Kingdon Executive 4 Re;z-Je Al SfianPS Pm*. Airport Runway Zone Zone 1 (RPZ) Zone 2 (IADZ) Zone 3 (ITZ) Zone 4 (OADZ) Zone 5 (SSZ) Zone 7 (TPZ) Zone 8 (AIA) Stockton N hi,rtar Ind - Elkhorn Country Club W L:odl•A DCII st Lodi Airpark 0 0.4 0.8 I I Miles Source: Airport Land Use Compatibiltiy Plan KINGDON EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND LODI AIRPARK LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ZONE Existing Wastewater Treatment Ponds NORTH Alternative Site (Not Recommended) City of Lodi Figure 3 Proposed Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Ponds City of Lodi: Zoned Public/Quasi Public Use Proposed 70 -Acre Treatment Pond November 2016 Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. tir Existing Wastewater Treatment Ponds Mosquito Abatemen Ponds City of Lodi Figure 4 Proposed Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Pond City of Lodi: Zoned Public/Quasi Public Use Proposed 70 -Acre Expansion Pond November 2016 Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond and Kingdon Air Park San Joaquin County, California Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard APPENDIX A BIRD SURVEY RESULTS Trip Ponds 2/13-14 2016 4/28-29 2016 7/20-21 2016 10/8-9 2016 Total Species Eared grebe 5 1 38 44 American white pelican 4 4 Double crested cormorant 2 1 3 Western grebe 2 2 Great blue heron 2 2 6 2 12 Great egret 5 20 26 51 Snowy egret 6 1 50 43 100 Canada goose 20 24 152 12 208 Greater white -fronted goose 6 6 Mallard 108 215 20 343 Northern shovler 34 49 83 American widgeon 75 75 Canvasback 72 21 47 140 Lesser scaup 10 10 Common goldeneye 1 1 Bufflehead 398 2 1 401 Ruddy duck 22 9 31 American coot 568 281 1 54 904 Red-tailed hawk 2 8 2 12 Turkey vulture 1 1 2 California quail 3 3 Black -bellied plover 129 5 134 Killdeer 179 120 70 66 435 Black -necked stilt 66 11 111 51 239 American avocet 11 2 13 Greater yellowlegs 12 42 10 64 Long -billed curlew 2 2 Least sandpiper 75 219 85 379 Long -billed dowitcher 53 53 Gull 316 3 319 Forster's tern 19 4 23 Rock pigeon 37 5 1 43 Black phoebe 2 4 2 8 Cliff swallow 114 114 Barn swallow 10 20 6 36 Crow 21 2 23 American robin 6 6 Starlings 100 3 7 110 Song sparrow 169 357 184 23 733 House finch 51 51 Blackbirds Red -winged and/or Brewers 130 13 35 292 470 Total 2409 1423 1067 743 5642 Trip Ag 2/13-14 2016 4/28-29 2016 7/20-21 2016 10/8-9 2916 Total Species Double crested cormorant 8 8 Western grebe 2 2 Great blue heron 1 4 3 8 Sandhill Crane 4 4 Great egret 12 23 35 Snowy egret 1 1 Canada goose 3 3 Mallard 8 8 Red-tailed hawk 53 47 27 3 130 Coopers hawk 1 1 Northern harrier 17 24 11 1 53 Turkey vulture 4 16 3 5 28 American kestrel 27 1 4 32 Killdeer 3 1 69 73 Long-billed curlew 290 290 Least sandpiper 43 43 Eurasian collered-dove 2 2 Mourning dove 28 43 22 93 Western kingbird 33 95 128 Horned lark 75 75 Barn swallow 37 37 Crow 79 104 229 98 510 American robin 2 2 Northern mockingbird 12 15 2 29 Western meadowlark 129 72 201 Starlings 224 422 1 647 White-crowned sparrow 19 15 34 Song sparrow 55 79 134 House sparrow 4 4 Lincoln sparrow 6 6 House finch 11 11 Blackbirds Red -winged and/or Brewers 278 239 202 321 1040 Total 980 623 1157 912 3672 Trip Mosquito Abatement and Power Plant 2/13-14 2016 4/28-29 2016 7/20-21 2016 10/8-9 2016 Total Species Double crested cormorant 5 3 8 Western grebe 2 2 Great blue heron 4 1 5 2 12 Great egret 4 3 7 Green heron 2 2 Snowy egret 8 6 14 Canada goose 6 12 40 38 96 Swainson's hawk 1 1 Red-tailed hawk 1 4 1 1 7 Coopers hawk 1 Northern harrier 2 3 1 6 Killdeer 23 47 22 92 Black -necked stilt 1 1 Forster's tern 3 3 Rock pigeon 5 7 8 3 20 Eurasian collered-dove 2 8 3 1 14 Mourning dove 10 9 11 8 38 Black phoebe 3 3 6 Western kingbird 2 Northern mockingbird 2 2 Western scrub jay 9 9 Crow 9 8 3 20 American robin 1 1 2 4 Starlings 29 1 30 White crowned sparrow 1 1 Song sparrow 38 39 24 101 House finch 43 35 26 104 Blackbirds Red -winged and/or Brewers 26 90 31 56 203 Total 206 276 186 141 803 City of Lodi's White Slough Pollution Control Facility Expansion Pond and Kingdon Air Park San Joaquin County, California Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard BIRD MOVEMENT RESULTS Morning Movement North-South E of 15 South -)North E of 15 North -)South W of 15 South -North W of 15 West -East East-West SE- NW NW -)SE SW -NE NE -)SW Flights west of ponds Total Species Great egret 1 4 18 2 25 Snowy egret 3 3 Canada goose 40 40 Red-tailed hawk 1 1 2 Sandpiper 4 4 Crow 162 2 6 1 102 7 280 Blackbirds Red-winged/Brewers 46 2 66 6 137 257 Total 1 209 611 72 7 247 61 9 611 Morning Movement North-South E of 15 South -North E of 15 North-South W of 15 South -)North W of 15 West -East East-West SE -)NW NW- SE SW ->NE NE -)SW Flights west of ponds Total Species Great blue heron 1 2 3 Snowy egret 1 1 Canada goose 5 2 1 3 11 Ducks 1 1 3 8 13 Red-tailed hawk 1 2 3 Killdeer 1 1 Gull 1 1 2 2 6 Terns 2 2 Crow 6 4 3 1 1 15 Blackbirds Red-winged/Brewers 37 51 2 9 99 Total 46 56 8 6 9 4 13 12 154 Morning Movement Species American white pelican Double crested cormorant Great blue heron Great egret Snowy egret Canada goose Ducks Red-tailed hawk Sandpiper Mourning dove Crow Blackbirds Red-winged/Brewers Total North4South E of 15 South -North E of 15 North-South W of 15 South4North W of 15 West4East East4West SE4NW NW4SE SW4NE NE4SW Flights west of ponds Total 202 61 263 4 34 1 2 41 5 3 3 11 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 14 7 34 5 5 1 1 10 13 1 2 3 1 5 6 202 57 1 19 143 42 42 64 9 5 42 6 3 30 474 Morning Movement/Winter North-9South E of 15 South -North E of 15 North-South W of 15 South -)North W of 15 West -East East -)West SE -NW NW -)SE SW -NE NE -SW Flights west of ponds Total Species Great blue heron 1 1 Snowy egret 1 1 Ducks 10 12 200 3 6 231 Sandpiper 60 60 Gull 93 1 94 Crow 28 44 72 Sparrows 7 7 Blackbirds Red-winged/Brewers 267 267 Total 28 7 104 12 200 60 315 7 733 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 12/15/2015 Craig Hoffman City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Aeronautical Study No. 2015 -AWP -11595 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Wastewater Storage Pond (NW Location) Location: Lodi, CA Latitude: 38-05-25.64N NAD 83 Longitude: 121-23-39.25W Heights: 10 feet site elevation (SE) 4 feet above ground level (AGL) 14 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L. This determination expires on 06/15/2017 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page 1 of 3 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates , heights, frequency(ies) and power . Any changes in coordinates , heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration , including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (310) 725-6557. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2015 -AWP -11595 -OE. Signature Control No: 273905609-275166526 Karen McDonald Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 3 (DNE) TOPO Map for ASN 2015 -AWP -11595 -OE Page 3 of 3 Steve Dresser CHAIR Anthony Silva VICE CHAIR Andrew T Chesley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Member Agencies CITIES OF ESCALON, LATHROP, LODI, MANTECA, RIPON, STOCKTON, TRACY, AND THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 555 E. Weber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 209.235.0600 • 209.235.0438 (fax) www.sjcog.org November 10, 2015 Ms. Heather R. Shaddox, Project Geologist Petralogix Engineering Inc. 26675 Bruella Road Galt, CA 95632 RE: San Joaquin ALUC Comments for White Slough Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Dear Ms. Shaddox: The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), has reviewed the request for comments on items to be included as part of the initial environmental study. This project includes the construction of a 70 -acre Expansion Pond at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The project proposes two different possibilities for project location. Both locations are located within the area of influence for Kingdon Airport near Lodi. Given proposed project locations, and pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21676), the project is subject to a Consistency Determination by the San Joaquin County ALUC. All projects within Kingdon Airport's area of influence are subject to the policies and criteria within the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The site map included with the letter to our office dated October 1, 2015 was utilized for the attached map of the two proposed project areas relative to the airport safety zones for Lodi's Kingdon Airport. Site 1, the preferred site, spans across two zones of the referenced ALUCP: Zone 7 TPZ (Traffic Pattern Zone), and Zone 8 AIA (Airport Influence Area). Site 2, the secondary option, occupies Zone 8 solely. Among other conditions that will be covered at the time of the consistency Page 12 determination is potential hazards to flight. Potential hazards to flight include "land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase." Therefore, any environmental document should contain a consistency analysis of the proposed land uses relative to the 2009 ALUCP zones for Kingdon Airport, particularly as they relate to the potential for increased attraction of birds. The project is further subject to FAA review as outlined in Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. Of particular concern are land uses, including wastewater treatment facilities, within 10,000 feet of airport operations areas. The FAA encourages early notification of such land -uses (project proponents may use FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office). ALUC staff will review and provide comments on the Initial Study or other environmental document when it is made available for public review, including any hazard determination by the FAA. The 2009 San Joaquin County ALUCP document can be found at this link: http://www.sjcog.org/index.aspx?nid=107. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please contact ALUC staff Kim Anderson if you have any questions or comments at (209) 235- 0565, or by email at anderson@sjcog.org. Sincerely, izattAidnopy Kim Anderson, Senior Regional Planner San Joaquin Council of Governments Attachment Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1 Site Preference ALUC Safety Zones Zone (RP2} Zone 2 (IADZ) Zone 3 (ITZ) Zone 4(OAMZ) Zone 5 (SSZ) Zone 6 (AP) Zone 7 (TP2) ingdon Airport and Lodi Airpark Land Use Compatibility Zones APPENDIX F WEST YOST bbli''4411111°1 ASSOCIATES C PowItaig Engineers TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12, 2016 Project No.: 686-18-16-01.006 SENT VIA: EMAIL TO: Daniel Kramer, President, Petralogix Engineering CC: Charlie Swimley, Public Works Director, City of Lodi Karen Honer, Wastewater Superintendent, City of Lodi FROM: Dave Anderson, PE, RCE #27659 Charles Hardy, PE, RCE #71015 REVIEWED BY: Kathryn Gies, PE, RCE #65022 SUBJECT: Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project This Technical Memorandum (TM) includes descriptions, conceptual drawings, and cost estimates for storage and conveyance improvements associated with the subject project. This information is intended to provide the basis for discussion and refinement of these improvements before detailed design is initiated. PROJECT DESCRIPTION During non -irrigation months (generally October through mid-April), the City of Lodi (City) White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) discharges an average of about 3.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of tertiary treated wastewater to Dredger Cut, a dead end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta). During the irrigation months (generally mid-April through the end of September), the City discharges a similar amount of recycled water (about 3.5 MGD) to existing onsite storage ponds and/or the 790 -acre City -owned agricultural fields that surround the WPCF. Irrigation water demands for the City -owned properties are also met by groundwater pumping from one onsite well. In addition to these discharges, the City provides approximately 1.2 MGD of recycled water year-round to the San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District and two Northern California Power Agency power generation plants. The City of intends to construct improvements necessary to capture and store a portion of the flow that is current discharged in the non -irrigation months and use this water to reduce, or eliminate, the amount of groundwater used for irrigation on City properties. The City also plans to expand the existing City -owned recycled water irrigation system to include an additional 90 acres of City -owned land that is currently irrigated with groundwater from a dedicated well. 2020 Research Park Drive, Suite 100 Davis, CA 95618 Phone 530 756-5905 Fax 530 756-5991 westyost.com Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 2 TERTIARY WATER STORAGE PONDS This Project will enable the City to divert up to 1,700 gallons per minute (GPM) (2.4 MGD) of the tertiary -treated wastewater and to store this water in new storage ponds. The proposed site of the new ponds is shown on Figure 1 (Figures are in Appendix A to this TM). This site currently contains three agricultural fields (Fields 2A, 2B, and 2C) which occupy about 88 acres. The new storage ponds will occupy about 70 acres of this site, the remainder of the site contains a runoff/agricultural tail water ditch that must remain in service and will serve as a buffer between the ponds and an existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement. Advantages of this site include: • It is near the WPCF's main irrigation distribution box; which will minimize the cost of conveying tertiary treated wastewater to agricultural fields; • Fields 2A, 2B and 2C are at the end of an irrigation distribution system, therefore construction of ponds at this site will have negligible impacts on the City's existing irrigation water delivery system; • The distance between this site and the Kingdon Airport is such that it appears unlikely that birds attracted to these ponds will impact air traffic. Figures 2 and 3 show historical groundwater elevations in two groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the new ponds. Monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 1. This historical data indicates that groundwater levels in this area are generally 2 or more feet below the existing ground surface. (Elevations shown on these figures are based on the NAVD88 vertical datum. Plans for the WPCF are based on a plant vertical datum which is 1.9 feet lower than the NAVD88 datum. Elevations shown elsewhere in the TM are based on the plant vertical datum.) This relatively shallow depth to groundwater is a limiting factor for the allowable depth of the storage ponds. Figure 4 is a conceptual grading plan for the new tertiary water storage ponds. The following criteria and assumptions were used to develop this plan: • A 100 -foot wide buffer will be maintained between the pond levees and the Giant Garter Snake habitat easement that is located along the western boundary of the City's properties • Useable excavated material and in-place fill material will balance • To the extent practical the depth of excavation will be less than two feet • The top 6 inches of existing material will be unsuitable for as fill material and will be removed and disposed of outside the pond construction site • Excavated material will decrease 15 percent in volume when it is compacted to create levees • Pond levees will have a 12 -foot top width and 2:1 side slopes • When full, the average depth of water in the ponds will be six feet • Two feet of freeboard will be maintained in the ponds WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 3 • A 12 -inch thick layer of rock rip -rap will be placed on pond interior slopes • A 4 -inch thick layer of fiber -reinforced shotcrete will be placed on pond exterior slopes The conceptual grading plan shown on Figure 4 would provide about 307 acre-feet of storage capacity. This is the approximate storage capacity of the City's existing ponds. Ignoring net precipitation/evaporation/infiltration gains and losses, these ponds could be filled in about 40 days at an inflow rate of 1,700 GPM. Figure 5 shows the approximate depths of excavation required to construct the conceptual grading plan shown on Figure 4. While groundwater should generally be below the depth of the excavations, saturated soils may have low bearing capacities and may not support the weight of the heavy equipment (such as scrapers and dozers) that would typically be used to construct this type of project. This issue should be investigated by a geotechnical engineer prior to final design. Assumptions regarding the practical the depth of excavation, shrinkage of excavated materials, and appropriate pond cross-section should also be verified by a geotechnical engineer prior to final design. Furthermore, the plan shown on Figure 4 is based on publically available Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) topographic data. This accuracy of this data should be verified prior to final design. DIVERSION TO TERTIARY WATER STORAGE The City intends to divert filtered, disinfected recycled water to the new storage ponds. However, the diversion facilities that direct treated effluent to the existing storage ponds convey un - disinfected secondary -treated wastewater. Therefore, the Project also needs to include new facilities that allow for diversion of tertiary flows separately from the existing effluent diversion facilities. WPCF discharges tertiary treated wastewater to Dredger Cut through a 48 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe outfall. Figure 4 shows the approximate alignment of this pipeline. The option of using this pipe to convey wastewater to the new storage ponds was investigated, but rejected because: • The tidal activity of the Delta causes daily fluctuations in water of about three feet, which results in water from the Delta entering the outfall pipeline and mixing with wastewater in the outfall pipe, and; • If water were diverted from the outfall pipe and pumped into the new storage ponds, this water could, at times, include water from the Delta, in addition to wastewater. Instead of using the existing outfall to convey tertiary water to the new storage ponds, tertiary treated wastewater will be diverted from the effluent control chamber of the WPCF's existing Filter Pump Station structure and conveyed to the new storage ponds through a new 18 -inch diameter pipeline. Figure 4 shows the approximate alignment of this pipeline. This pipeline will also be used to convey water from the new storage ponds to the WPCF's irrigation system, as described under the heading Tertiary Water Delivery System. WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 4 Water surface elevations in the effluent flow control chamber are controlled by an existing weir structure that surrounds the overflow to the 48 -inch diameter outfall, and are expected to range between about 5.0 feet (corresponding to no flow over the existing weir) to 6.6 feet (corresponding to a flow of 16.3 MGD over the existing weir.) A modulating V -notch weir slide gate will be used to measure and control the rate at which water is diverted from the Filter Pump Station structure to the new ponds. The location of the V -notch weir slide gate is shown on Figure 6. This slide gate will operate between a water surface elevation of 5.2 feet and 6.6 feet to maintain a consistent flow of 1,700 GPM, where an upstream water level measurement will be used to control the height of the V -notch weir to maintain a relatively constant depth of flow over the weir. A downstream water level measurement will also be used to determine if the weir is flooded. In the event that the weir does flood, the weir gate will raise cutting off the water supply to the new ponds until the source of flooding can be identified and mitigated. Since water surface elevations in the effluent control chamber of the Filter Pump Station structure higher than bottom elevations of the new ponds (shown on Figure 4), the ponds could be partially filled by gravity (i.e. without pumping.) The water surface elevation in the new ponds will determine the rate at which flow could be conveyed to the ponds by gravity. Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the flow rate from the filter pump station to the ponds as a function of the water surface elevation in the ponds. As shown, gravity flow would drop below 1,700 GPM when the water surface elevation of the ponds reaches about 2.2 feet, and would gradually decline to zero at a water surface elevation of about five feet. (Flow rates less than 1,700 GPM could be avoided until the pond water surface elevation reaches about 3.2 feet by installing a 20 -inch diameter conveyance pipeline. This approach could be evaluated further in final design). As shown on Figure 4, full water surface elevations of the new ponds will range from about 7.6 to 9.1 feet, therefore pumping will be required to completely fill the ponds. Finally, it should be noted that the purpose of directing filtered, disinfected recycled water to the storage ponds is to provide the highest quality of water to the new storage ponds (as possible) to help protect groundwater quality. However, the proposed use of the diverted tertiary flows is irrigation of fodder crops (the same use as the existing diverted flows). This type crop does not require irrigation with "Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water" as defined by the State's recycled water regulations. Therefore, the new diversion facilities will not be designed to stop diversion if the formal "Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water" standards are not satisfied. In the event that the City wishes to implement a recycled water project that required "Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water," such improvements can be made to the diversion facilities at that time. TERTIARY WATER PUMP STATION As noted above, pumping will be required to completely fill the ponds. In addition, a pump station will be required to deliver water from the ponds to the City's irrigation water distribution system. Figure 8 shows preliminary plan and section views of a new pump station that will both: (a) lift water into the tertiary water storage ponds; and (b) pump water from the storage ponds into the WPCF's irrigation distribution system. The pump station will contain two constant -speed, 71/2 -horsepower, 850 GPM vertical turbine pumps. WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 5 As shown on Figure 8, the 18 -inch diameter pipeline from the Filter Pump Station will terminate at the Tertiary Water Pump Station. When ponds are being filled, water entering the Tertiary Water Pump Station through this pipeline may: • Flow by gravity directly to Pond D • Flow by gravity through the 16 -inch diameter pond inlet/outlet pipe to Pond A, B, and C • Be pumped directly to Pond D • Be pumped through the 16 -inch diameter pond inlet/outlet pipe to Pond A, B, and C Figure 9 shows preliminary plan and section views of structures that will be used to control flow in and out of ponds A, B, and C. Since Pond D is the lowest pond, water can be pumped into Ponds A and B, then overflow to Pond C, which will then overflow to Pond D. A high water alarm will also be located in Pond D to alert the City when all of the ponds have been filled. If the alarm is triggered, the pumps will be deactivated and the control gate in the tertiary water diversion facility will raise to eliminate flow of water to the tertiary ponds. Because Pond D will be the last pond that is filled by pumping, the gravity inlet from the Tertiary Water Pump Station to this pond should remain open while other ponds are filled. This will allow Pond D to act as a large pump wet -well and thereby maximize pump cycle times. TERTIARY WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM During irrigation months (generally late April through September) the Tertiary Water Pump Station will pump stored water to the WPCF's existing main irrigation distribution box, shown on Figure 4. Figure 10 is a preliminary plan view of the connection to the irrigation distribution box. From this location the WPCF's existing irrigation distribution system can deliver this water to various City -owned agricultural fields. IRRIGATION SITE EXPANSION As noted above, the new tertiary storage ponds will remove approximately 88 acres of existing City -owned fields from the crop irrigation area. To compensate for this loss, the WPCF's irrigation distribution system could be expanded so that it is capable of delivering reclaimed wastewater to the area labelled "expanded wastewater irrigation site" on Figure 1. This area contains three fields (Fields 6EA, 6F, and 6G) that occupy 90 acres. These fields are currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a well near the southeast corner of these fields. This well discharges to a supply channel on the south side of Thornton Road. This channel drains from south to north and distributes water to the individual fields. Figure 11 shows improvements necessary to expand the WPCF's irrigation distribution system and deliver reclaimed wastewater to Fields 6EA, 6F, and 6G. A new pump station will withdraw water from an existing supply channel and deliver water to the existing groundwater supply channel on the south side of Thornton Road. Figure 12 shows preliminary plan and section views of this pump station. WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 6 WATER BALANCE ANALYSIS A water balance analysis has been performed to evaluate the benefits of the new ponds with respect to increasing the City's irrigation water supplies and reducing surface water discharges. The following scenarios were evaluated: 1. Average rainfall conditions, current average dry weather flow (4.6 MGD), without new storage 2. Average rainfall conditions, current average dry weather flow, with new storage and corresponding reduced irrigated acreage 3. Average rainfall conditions, current average dry weather flow, with new storage and addition of 90 acres of alfalfa/grass crop irrigated with recycled water 4. Average rainfall, future average dry weather flow, with new storage and addition of 90 acres of alfalfa/grass crop irrigated with recycled water The first scenario is used to establish the typical volume of supplemental water supply and surface water discharge for the existing facilities. The second scenario is used to evaluate the impact on supplemental water supply needs and surface water discharges associated adding the new ponds, without expanding the irrigation area. The third scenario evaluates the additional impacts of expanding the irrigable acreage to the 90 -acre City -owned parcel that is currently irrigated with groundwater. The fourth scenario is used to determine the future influent flow that would favor expansion of the City's existing irrigation system to the 90 -acre parcel. For all of the scenarios, it is assumed that water would be diverted to the new storage ponds starting on February 1 of each year, and diversions will continue until the ponds are full, and the ponds would be maintained each month near their capacity as long water supplies are available. In addition, it is assumed that the long-term percolation rate from the new ponds will be approximately 4 inches per month, half of the observed percolation rate for the existing ponds. Important results from the water balances include the amount of surface water discharged (in millions of gallons per year (MGY)), as well as the annual amount of supplemental irrigation required (if any), and the additional irrigable area needed to balance the inputs and outputs. The results of these water balances are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Water Balance Results Scenario Surface Water Discharge, MGY Supplemental Irrigation Required, MGY Total Acreage Irrigated, 'acres Additional Alfalfa/Grass Crop Area Needed,10 acres Current Conditions (4.6 MGD) 590 60 790 0 4.6 MGD + New Storage 580 0 702 0 4.6 MGD + New Storage + 90 acres 490 20 792 90 5.0 MGD + New Storage + 90 acres 610 0 792 90 WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 7 These results lead to the following conclusions: • With the addition of the new storage under current average conditions (4.6 MGD average dry weather flow), there is no need for supplemental irrigation water if the irrigation area is not expanded by 90 acres. However, there may be a potential for excess water to remain in the ponds at the end of the irrigation season because all of the stored water may not be used. • If the additional 90 acres were irrigated, some supplemental irrigation would be required, but the supplemental volume is minimal. • When the average dry weather flow reaches 5.0 MGD, the City could irrigate the additional 90 acres without requiring supplemental irrigation water. • The actual volume of surface water discharge would only be marginally reduced if new storage is constructed, but the additional 90 acres is not brought online immediately. Based on the information presented above, the City could postpone expansion of the irrigation area at this time. However, the water balance analysis should be revisited after the new pond facility is online to confirm the results presented herein. For example, if the percolation rate from the new pond is similar to the existing pond, then the results could be significantly different from this analysis. Finally, as noted above, if the City does not bring the additional 90 acres online the total volume of surface water discharge does not change significantly. Therefore, this raises the question as to whether the City will need to file a petition with the State Water Board for a reduction in wastewater flows. The City's current permit states: For publicly owned treatment works, prior to making any change in the point of discharge, place of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater that results in a permanent decrease of flow in any portion of a watercourse, the Discharger must file a petition with the State Water Board, Division of Water Rights, and receive approval for such a change. (Water Code section 1211). Table 2 summarizes the changes in average daily discharge flows predicted by the water balance analysis. As shown, the analysis predicts that the volume of discharge would decrease in February and March, but that the City would need to discharge in April (and possibly September) where discharges do not currently occur in these months. Moreover, because the water balance analysis can only provide a theoretical assessment of the water needs for the City's properties and actual water use could vary from the predicted amounts, it is recommended that the City move forward with the change petition process based on the assumption that flows will be reduced in February and March (as shown). WEST YOST ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM Technical Memorandum July 12, 2016 Page 8 Table 2. Summary of Water Balance Results Month Current 4.6 MGD + 5.0 MGD + Conditions 4.6 MGD + New Storage + New Storage + (4.6 MGD) New Storage 90 acres 90 acres January February March April May June July August September October November December 3.5 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.7 3.4 3.5 1.0 2.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 3.0 3.6 3.4 3.5 1.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.6 3.4 3.9 1.4 3.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 4.0 3.7 OPINION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS The conceptual drawings presented in this TM were the basis for the opinion of construction cost shown in Table 3. A more detailed version of this opinion of cost is contained in Appendix A. The construction cost estimate included in the grant funding application submitted to the California Department of Water Resources is also shown in Table 3. Table 3. Opinion of Construction Cost Project Element Estimated Construction Cost, dollars Contingency Contingency (15%), dollars Estimated Construction Cost with Cost Estimate Contingency, Grant Applicati dollars dollars Tertiary Storage Ponds Shotcrete Lining of Exterior Pond Levee Slopes Irrigation Improvements 3,321,000 549,000 980,000 499,000 83,000 148,000 3,820,000 632,000 1,128,000 3,472,444 0 0 Total $4,850,000 $730,000 $5,580,000 $3,472,444 WEST Y05T ASSOCIATES w\c\686\18-1 6-01 \WP\2016_Prelim Design TM\071 216_Draft TM APPENDIX A Figures B-09-16 0805. AM NOT TO SCALE LEGEND DRAFT - - CITY PROPERTY A QPI PROPOSED TERTIARY STORAGE POND SITE EXPANDED WASTEWATER IRRIGATION SITE GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL WEST YOST ASSOCIATES Consulting &gLnere Figure 1 Proposed Tertiary Storage and Expanded Wastewater Irrigation Pond Sites City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Last Revised: 07-12-16, w\c\686\18-16-01 \ENGR\Prelim Design \Calc\Pond Pump Station Design Criteria.xlsx DRAFT 12 C 10 8 6 4 APPROXI ATE GROUND SURFACE 2 , 0 aa) o ANIMA& ca-2 48 e, V ROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS — - c _4 0 r m -6 LTi -8 -10 -1211 N O O C co fa M O C fa C co Lf) co f-- co O O O O O C C C C C co co co co co O O C co O C co C co N co C co C co Ln (0 C C co co Notes: 1. Elevations shown on this chart are based on the NAVD88 vertical datum, which is about 1.9 feet higher than the WPCF plant vertical datum. WEST YOST '� ASSOCIATES Figure 2 Groundwater Elevations Measured in WSM-15 Groundwater Monitoring Well City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Last Revised: 07-12-16, w\c\686\18-16-01 \ENGR\Prelim Design \Calc\Pond Pump Station Design Criteria.xlsx DRAFT 12 10 8 6 APPRb(IMATE GRCTJN II SURFACE 4 2 w E 0 > 0 cz -2 a a) v t1 -4 g 7. fo GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS -6 m LI -8 -10 1 -12 CA O CV CO d- Lf) CO I,- CO O) O ,— CV CO d- LO CO CO CS) O N— CV CO d- LO CD CO O 0) O 07 O O O 0') CA O O O O O O O O O O O N— L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C co c6 co c6 c6 co c6 co co c6 co c6 c0 co c6 co co c6 ca c6 co co c6 co co c6 co as Notes: 1. Elevations shown on this chart are based on the NAVD88 vertical datum, which is about 1.9 feet higher than the WPCF plant vertical datum.41°A WEST YOST ASSOCIATES Figure 3 Groundwater Evelations Measured in WSM-02 Groundwater Monitoring Well City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project 10 9 7 5 0' 4 2 c G 1 I� ACCESS RAMP, TYP OF 2 6 I I ;_ I A,r POND A- A 1 64. 1�;�°T ---1 (2,800,000 AAX W 9.1 T 1 I ,I POND B I "e 67 AC—FT MAX OWS 00 C9.1 1,> POND INLET/OUTLET STRUCTURE, TYP OF 3, SEE FIGURE __ I6" POND INLET/OUTLET PIPELINE Af A POND C 109 AC -FT (4,700,000 CF) MAX WS EL=8.6 POND OVERFLOW, TYP OF 3-\ 1 A�r EXISTING DREDGER CUT DISCHARGE LOCATION A POND D 67 AC -FT (2,900,000 CF) MAX WS 01=7.6 TERTIARY STORAGE _ POND PUMP STATION, SEE FIGURE __ t4.1) \2T 1\> -*'": `"J EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i \ \ > \ \ \ \ 18" TERTIARY WATER \ STORAGE PU INLET/ OUTLET PIPELINE EXISTING POND 2 EXISTING POND 1 EXISTING WPCF OUTFALL \l\ TO DREDGER CUT \ \ �l \ \ EXISTING POND 3 EXISTING POND 4 EXISTING MAIN WPCF IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION BOX EXISTING FILTER PUMP STATION LEGEND tT EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION TOE OF LEVEE POND TOP OF LEVEE 0(09) EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES EXISTING EASEMENT 16'I 12' I 16' /� POND SECTION A SECTION B 16' 12' . 212' 1n1 "T1 NTS EX. GROUND NTS NOTE: "MAX WS" IS MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION WHILE MAINTAINING 2' OF FREEBOARD. d 0 200' 400' SCALE IN FEET 10 7 6 5 4 3 2 A 08/80 REVIEW B DATE THIS LINE IS 1 INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT SCALE ACCORDINGLY SCALE - AS SHOWN DRAWN BY ALB DESIGNED BY ' ALB PROD MGR • MLY No ZONE REVISIONS BY DATE FIASIS OF FI FVATIONS; LOCAL PLANT DATUM = NAV86 1.9' = NGVD27 + 0.4' (60V1)27 = NAVD88 - 2.3') WEST YOST '� 2020100 Research Park Drive Suite Davis, CalNomia 95618 (530)756-5905 ASSOCIATES FAX(530)756-5991 K WHITE SLOUGH WPCF STORAGE EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS r it 4 TERTIARY STORAGE POND IMPROVEMENTS JOB NUMBER 606-1,16-01 DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER OF REVISION 10 9 8 0 5 r 4 A C G -1.13 -0.95 -0.7I -1.48 -1.24 -0.98 -2.12 -1.92 -1.75 -1.70 -1.89 EXISTING DREDGER CUT DISCHARGE LOCATION -0.27 -0.58 -1.80 -1.50 -1.26 -2.35 -2.13 -1.23 -1.89 -1.40 -0.45 -0.36 -1.11 -0.83 -0.58 -2.57 -1.51 -1.14 -0.92 -0.65 7.87 -0.64 -0.52 -1.11 -0.83 -1.80 -1.58 -1.36 -1.14 -0.93 I'' 2.77 1.35 1.03. 1.59 125_- 2.15 2.37 2.49 2.47 -1.00 -1.92 -1.81 -1.70 -1.60 -1.49 -1.39 -1.28 -1.14 - 1.08 -1.60 -1.87 -1.76 -1.91 -1.54 -1.40 -1.25 - 2.20 -2.14 -2.04 -1.93 -1.81 -1.66 -1.36 -1.36 \ 4.91 -1.31 -2.00 -1.62 -1.92 -1.33 -1.62 -1.47 -1.48 -2.32 -1.99 -1.95 -1.88 -1.73 -1.58 2.84 0.01 ....0.25 0.49 0.74 0.98 0.83 -1.40 -1.23 -0.21 -0.58 -0.40 -0.11 \ -0.79 -1.52 -0.32 -0.06 -0.77 -0.49 1 4: EXISTING POND 2 EXISTING POND 1 EXISTING POND 3 EXISTING POND 4 A 8 TS 06 -0.94 -0.81 -2.04 -1.40 I' 1 v77-, pr_o Nll t. S..I`v.J CUT/FILL LEGEND RANGE MIN. MAX. Color - 6.0 - 5.0 • 2 - 5.0 - 4.0 • 3 - 4.0 - 3.0 • 4 - 3.0 - 2.0 • 5 - 2.0 - 1.0 • 6 - 1.0 0.0 7 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 • 2.0 3.0 • 10 3.0 4.0 • 4.0 5.0 • 12 5.0 6.0 • 13 6.0 7.0 • 14 7.0 8.0 • EARTHWORK SUMMARY TOTAL EARTH TO BE 57,500 CY STRIPPED AND DISPOSED OF TOTAL EARTH TO BE MOVED 80,000 CY AFTER STRIPPING NOTES: 1. CONTOURS REPRESENT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE LIDAR TOPOGRAPHIC DATA. A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOULD BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO FINAL DESIGN. 2. IT 15 ASSUMED THAT THE TOP 6" OF EXISTING GRADE WILL BE STRIPPED AND DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE REMAINING EARTHWORK IS ESTIMATED TO BE BALANCED. 3. AN ASSUMED SHRINKAGE VALUE OF 150 HAS BEEN APPLIED TO ALL FILL VOLUMES. ACTUAL EXPECTED SHRINKAGE SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL DESIGN. 4. POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE DUE TO EQUIPMENT LOADING AND MOBILIZATION HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS EARTHWORK ESTIMATE. 5. DEPTHS OF CUT EXCEEDING 2.5' BELOW EXISTING GRADE APPEAR TO ONLY OCCUR AT FEW LOCATIONS ALONG EXISTING LEVEES. LEGEND -1.22 0.65 CUT DEPTH (FEET) FILL DEPTH (FEET) DRAFT D 200• 400' SCALE IN FEET 10 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 A 00/80 REVIEW DATE THIS LINE IS 1 INCH AT FULL SCALE IF NOT SCALE ACCORDINGLY SCALE - A5 SHOWN DRAWN BY ALB DESIGNED BY ' ALB PROJ MGR • MLY ZONE REVISIONS Bf DATE BASIS OF FI FVATIONS; LOCAL PLANT DATUM = NAV88 1.9 = NGVD27 + 0.4' (NGVD27 = NAVD88 - 2.3') WEST YOST '� Suite 1Research00 Park Drive Davis,DaviCaMom ia 95618 (530)756-5905 ASSOCIATES FAX (530) 7565991 K WHITE SLOUGH WPCF STORAGE EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 5 TERTIARY STORAGE POND EARTHWORK ESTIMATE I I I I JOB NUMBER 686 18 16 01 DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER OF REVISION g \ 18-16-01 Lodi Pond \ CAD \ Figures \ 68618-1601-Fig6 Filter PS.dwg 611012016339 PM abarber WAClients \ 686 Petrel DRAFT 1:.216 r - SWUM SICCI. v -1.011}i Mgt SAC GCE W/ IKROINZIED AMATO. - ,,vtiTy721E1 ,TIT fi -L- .-. 7,4=) --b- • -'-'-' 17171, - !,.'L 71- rr=e0— F • • EC CC • 'CPA OT;s722 VIBRARON ISOLATOR, TYP BUTIEPRIT VALVE. TYP 1111, Pri Illt F ' r R>41,ER,!!! \ 49 ,,-„,,D MISC. PUMps 1 AIR RELEASE VALVE ON TOP OF PIPE NOT SHOWN. SEE NOTS'ElEll',PoRTEESS,URE RELIEF ASSEMBLY. FURNISH & INSTALL 1" GATE VALVE ON RISER FOR ISOLATION •.,• POND PuPAP SWIM EFF UENT FLOW CONTROL CHAMBER J 1=X4 SUPPLY C.E61111.1. TA MD PUMP (F000 UV) TOP OF PUMP HOUSE PLAN r_ IDTTP FILTER INFLUENT PUMPS FID X rrr MIE 1 SECTION SCALE: 3/32'..1'-0" 3.5 EL 0.0 EL -6.50 EL -6.00 LEGEND Existing Proposed WEST YOST 60.-.411111111111111 ASSOCIATES Figure 6 Tertiary Diversion At Filter Pump Station Plan and Section City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements Last Revised: 07-12-16, w\c\686\18-16-01 \ENGR\Prelim Design \Calc\Pond Pump Station Design Criteria.xlsx DRAFT 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5 Water Surface Elevation in Tertiary Ponds, Feet 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 00 Gravity Flow From Filter Pump Station to Tertiary Ponds, Gallons per Minute Notes: 1. This chart is based on the assumption that flow to tertiary ponds will be controlled so that maximum flow rate does not exceed 1,700 gpm. 2. The Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station will be capable of filling storage ponds at a rate of 1,700 gpm, regardless of pond water depth. WEST YOST 161/'..1111111111111 ASSOCIATES Figure 7 Estimated Flow from Filter Pump Station to Tertiary Ponds by Gravity (i.e. without pumping). City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project TSP Pump Station.dwg 6/13/2 0 DRAFT GUARD RAIL PIPE SUPPORT, TYP 2:1 SLOPE 12" MAG METER 12" 3 -WAY PLUG VALVE 12"616" REDUCING BEND, TYP OF 2 12"x12"x10"TEE, TYP OF 2 ARV 0 oo PONDD D00000Oc oio?io �a. 3.13507: :04; 12" BEV )O 00 • OOC ooO oO �o I o- ii=II M=11110. ob' 'I rI 1• II4rI li 9Q�III - '� �A TVP OF2�141 _- 1611011, NN r I4- AFL - 16. 16" SLIDE GATES TO / FROM PONDS A,B,C II RIP RAP 6 x10" SPOOL PIECE, TYP OF 2 10"FCA, TYP OF 10" CHECK VALVE, TYP OF 2 80x10" REDUCER, TYP OF 2 8" FCA, TYP OF 2 2:1 SLOPE 12" RIP RAP 4• p0 � rS9 00 JJk�a2.. -. O 0 O O O 0: ����I-705 ocf, FROM FILTER PUMP STATION MAIN IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION BOX PLAN SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" 12" MAG METER OPERATING STEM FLOOR STAND 12" 3 -WAY PLUG VALVE CONC STAIRS SHOWN IN OUTLINE ONLY FOR CLARITY 129016" REDUCING BEND 6" A.C./ 3" A.B. EL: 9.6 SII ir VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP rENIE1111-m GUARD RAIL EL: 11.16 SLIDE GATE N 11 MAX WATER LEVELS EL:9.1 PONDS Ma �v ABEL: 8.6 POND C y EL: 7.6 POND D y EL5.0 ER STATION LWT TOPUMP OUTFALL RIP RAP vWEL : 1.6± Oo O O O INV. EL: -3.5± 16"0 FROM PONDS INV. EL: -5.56 18" FROM FILTER PUMP STATION SECTION SCALE: 3/16"=1-0 FLOOR EL: -9.56 WEST YOST ASSOCIATES Figure 8 Tertiary Storage Pond Pump Station Plan and Section City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements DRAFT CLEANOUT II II ri boo �.•oo •oo •oo.•�o•oo� �c .o°to°�o..• o0 I -o 0 OD ?o��sgao�80��� )°•.'-0° °0Q0�° o� ��. INC(�7, �1 12. RIP -RAP ) O •p,00 _ 000 0;-- SLIDE GATE 16.0 POND FILL/DRAIN PIPE. SLOPE =*0.0016 PLAN SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" 16"0 POND FILL/DRAIN PIPE \7 C+� SLIDE GATE MAXIMUM WATER LEVEL rRIP -RAP j0 jr etgla61 r* ion i��a� 4 <:E;- Vti.� z;-KE':fi . �iri�.3•=�:-� SECTION SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" WEST VOST ASSOCIATES Figure 9 Pond Inlet/Outlet Structure Plan City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility DRAFT MIDDLE EQUALIZATION POND NEW 18" GATE VALVE EXISTING 24"0 J _J L EXISTING 30" FROM POND INLET STRUCTURE L L_ NEW 18"0, INV: ±7.0 SLIDE GATE, TYP OF 3 1 I INV: 7.75 WEST EQUALIZATION POND EXISTING 24"0 • 7 1- INV: 7.75 / / / / / / / // I�� NEW 18"0, INV:*4.0 exJ INV:3.5 4 LL 0 STOP PLANKS TOP EL: 13.50 x/ (E)30"TO / 1 IRRIGATION STOP PLANKS GROUT ALL AROUND EXISTING DITCH INV: 8.50 LEGEND Existing Proposed SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" WEST Y05T '� ASSOCIATES Figure 10 Irrigation Distribution Box City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements DRAFT 1 APPROXIMATE PUMP STATION LOCATION EXISTING SUPPLY CHANNEL— 16" IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINE 12" OUTLET W/ KNIFE GATE VALVE, OR STANDPIPE W/ SLIDE GATE, TYP OF 3 1 EXISTING ' GROUNDWATER WELL N 0 200 .0 SCALE IN FEET WEST VOST '� ASSOCIATES Figure 11 Expanded Wastewater Irrigation site City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements DRAFT TO FIELDS 6E, 6F & 6G 10" 45° BEND Inn III,"' BAR SCREEN (1" OPENINGS) PIPE SUPPORT, TYP 16"45°WYE 16'510" REDUCER -\ JNH L 7NY fgalmati 16" 90° BEND DOWN 10"BFV,TYP OF 10"FCA, TYP OF 10" CHECK VALVE, TYP OF 2 10"x8" REDUCER, TYP OF 2 8" FCA, TYP OF 2 PLAN SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" PERFORATED CHECKER PLATE VERTICAL TURBINE PUMP 8" FCA 10"x8" REDUCER 10" CHECK VALVE 10" FCA 10" BEV PIPE SUPPORT EXISTING DISTRIBUTION DITCH SECTION SCAT F. \16"=1'-0 LEGEND Line 1 Notes: 1. XXXXXXX WEST YOST ASSOCIATES Figure 12 Irrigation Pump Station Plan and Section City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements APPENDIX B City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Irrigation Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Irrigation Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission June 2016 PROJECT ELEMENTS ELEMENT COST ELEMENT COST CONTINGENCY % ELEMENT COST WITH CONTINGENCY 1 Tertiary Storage Ponds $3,321,419 15% $3,819,632 1 a Shotcrete at Tertiary Storage Ponds $549,303 15% $631,699 2 Irrigation Improvements $980,477 15% $1,127,549 OVERALL 11CONTINGENCY1 TOTAL WWTP CONSTRUCTION COSI- $4,851,200 15.00% $5,578,880 Disclaimer: This estimate is an opinion of the cost of construction based on the Preliminary Design Submittal which includes estimates by third parties and from typical subbidders for a project such as this. Obviously, with the limited amount of time allowed this estimate and the lack of control over third party estimates, West Yost Associates cannot guarantee that bids or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of the construction cost at this time. West Yost Associates also does not have control over labor costs, material costs, equipment costs, award timing, competitive bidding, or market conditions at the time of bid or during construction. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Irrigation Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission Jun -16 # WWTP PROJECT ELEMENTS MANHOURS LABOR EQUIPMENT EXPENDABLE MATERIALS PERMANENT MATERIALS SUBS SUBTOTAL SUPERVISION JOB OVERHEAD SUBTOTAL MARKUP BONDS/ INSURANCE GRAND TOTAL (w/standby equip) 1 Tertiary Storage Ponds 8,940 176,790 176,790 29,250 501,179 1,917,332 2,801,341 99,003 94,715 2,995,059 260,469 65,891 3,321,419 la Shotcrete at Tertiary Strorage Ponds 328 24,375 5,234 2,940 0 465,724 498,273 8,290 506,563 31,596 11,144 549,303 2 Irrigation Improvements 3,357 248,424 65,933 8,406 284,930 90,571 698,265 88,020 23,609 809,893 152,766 17,818 980,477 TOTAL WWTP PROJECT ELEMENTS ESTIMATE 12,625 $449,589 $247,957 $40,596 $786,109 $2,473,627 $3,997,878 $195,313 9118,324 $4,311,515 $444,831 $94,853 $4,851,200 Math Check 4,851,200 Average # Workers Each Day 10.9 Disclaimer: This estimate is an opinion of the cost of construction based on the Preliminary Design Submittal which includes estimates by third parties and from typical subbidders for a project such as this. Obviously, with the limited amount of time allowed for this estimate and the lack of control over third party estimates, West Yost Associates cannot guarantee that bids or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of the construction cost at this time. West Yost Associates also does not have control over labor costs, material costs, equipment costs, award timing, competitive bidding, or market conditions at the time of bid or during construction. BASE PROJECT ELEMENTS KEY PERCENTAGES: MARK-UP / BID AMOUNT MARK-UP / LABOR & EQUIPMENT SUPERVISION / LABOR & EQUIPMENT SUBS & SUPPLIERS / TOTAL PRIME L&E COST/TOTAL SUPERVISION/TOTAL JOB OVERHEAD/TOTAL GC Self -Performance 9.17% 63.77% 28.00% 67.19% 14.38% 4.03% 2.44% 49.01% QTY City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission COM- TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL POSITE UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL L&E EXPEND EXPEND PERM PERM UNIT UNIT TOTAL MH LABOR LABOR EQUIP. EQUIP UNIT MATLS MATLS MATL MATERIAL COSTS TOTAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION UNIT MHRS MHRS COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST SUBS SUBS COST DIVISION 1- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWWP plan and BMP's 120 MH 1.00 120.0 75.10 75.10 $9,012 21.33 $2,560 $96.43 $1,500 $0 $3,500 $16,572 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 1 $1,500 $3,500 Math Check $16,572 DIVISION 2- SITE WORK & DEMOLITION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pothole 24 MH 1.00 24.0 75.10 75.10 $1,802 21.33 $512 $96.43 $0 $0 $0 $2,314 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Survey 32 MH 1.00 32.0 75.10 75.10 $2,403 21.33 $683 $96.43 $0 $0 $9,120 $12,206 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Ponds Earthwork 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $123,400 $123,400 Clear top 6" and stockpile strippings adjacent to Site 57,500 CY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 2.15 $123,625 $123,625 Cut/Fill to Construct New Ponds A thru D 76,500 CY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 4.10 $313,650 $313,650 Import Borrow from Local Source 12,130 CY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 11.10 $134,643 $134,643 Install 12" thick Rip -Rap on interior Slopes 233,800 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 2.40 $561,120 $561,120 Construct Roads on New Levees- 3"AC over 6" AB 139,170 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 3.20 $445,344 $445,344 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mlsc Structures Excavation/Band!! 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lower Groundwater (allowance) 1 SUB 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 Structure Excavaton 1462 CY 0.15 219.3 75.10 1126 $16,469 3.20 $4,678 $14.46 $0 $0 $0 $21,147 Structure Backfill 1237 CY 0.30 371.1 71.19 21.36 $26,420 6.30 $7,793 $27.66 $0 $0 $0 $34,213 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pipelines Excavation/Backfill 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Excavate Pipe >5f1 13,088 CY 0.12 1,570.6 75.18 9.02 $118,085 2.56 $33,506 $11.58 $0 $0 $0 $151,591 Backfill Pipe 13,088 CY 025 3,272.1 71.26 17.81 $233,161 5.56 $72,804 $23.38 $0 $0 $0 $305,965 Furnish Pipe Zone Import Material 3,096 TN 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 21.00 $65,007 $0 $65,007 Restore Pavement 500 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 15.00 $7,500 $7,500 Restore Gravel Surfaces 1,620 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 1.75 $2,835 $2,835 Restore Concrete Sidewalk 32 MH 1.00 32.0 74.93 74.93 $2,398 14.67 $469 $89.60 $125 $500 $0 $3,492 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Concrete Demolition 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Isolate Filter Feed Pump Station for Concrete Demo and New Work 32 MH 1 32.0 73.61 73.61 $2,355 16.80 $538 $90.41 $1,000 $0 $0 $3,893 Saw -Cut New Opening at Filter Pump Station 24 MH 1 24.0 73.61 73.61 $1,767 16.80 $403 $90.41 $0 $0 $1,500 $3,670 Core New Hole at Existing Irrigation Distribution Box 12 MH 1 12.0 73.61 73.61 $883 16.80 $202 $90.41 $0 $0 $550 $1,635 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 2 81,743,287 trra30 Math Check $2,337,250 DIVISION 3- CONCRETE 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pump Station 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Layout 8 MH 1.00 8.0 74.93 74.93 $599 14.67 $117 $89.60 $0 $0 $0 $717 Install Underslab Gravel 79 TN 025 19.8 71.19 17.80 $1,406 5.25 $415 $23.05 $0 21.00 $1,659 $0 $3,480 Fine Grade 916 SF 0.02 18.3 96.9 74.93 1.50 $1,373 029 $269 $1.79 $0 $0 $0 $1,641 Form Footing 510 SF 0.19 74.93 14.24 $7,261 2.79 $1,421 $17.02 $0 $0 $0 $8,682 COM- 1 TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL POSITE UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL L&E EXPEND EXPEND PERM PERM UNIT UNIT TOTAL MH LABOR LABOR EQUIP. EQUIP UNIT MATLS MAT'LS MATL MATERIAL COSTS TOTAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT MHRS MHRS COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST SUBS SUBS COST Form Wall 5,048 SF 0.09 454.3 73.61 6.62 $33,443 1.51 $7,633 $8.14 $0 $0 $0 $41,076 Form Deck 282 SF 025 70.5 73.61 18.40 $5,189 4.20 $1,184 $22.60 8.00 $2,256 $0 $0 $8,630 Install PVC Waterstop 88 LF 0.06 5.3 74.93 4.50 $396 0.88 $77 $5.38 $0 5.00 $440 $0 $913 Sandblast Joints 254 SF 0.04 10.2 74.93 3.00 $762 0.59 $149 $3.58 $0 $0 $0 $912 Install Expanison Joint 44 LF 0.04 1.8 74.93 3.00 $132 0.59 $26 $3.58 $0 2.75 $121 $0 $279 Pour Concrete 146 CY 0.80 117.1 73.61 58.89 $8,616 13.44 $1,967 $72.33 $0 115.00 $16,828 25.00 $3,658 $31,069 Washout 24 LD 1.00 24.4 74.93 74.93 $1,827 14.67 $358 $89.60 $0 $0 $0 $2,185 Strip/Patch 5,840 SF 0.04 233.6 73.61 2.94 $17,195 0.67 $3,925 $3.62 $0 $0 $0 $21,120 Sacking 2,672 SF 0.04 106.9 73.61 2.94 $7,867 0.67 51,796 $3.62 $0 $0 $0 $9,663 JFM/CFM Materials 5,840 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 3.00 $17,521 $0 $0 $17,521 Rebar 8 MH 1.00 8.0 74.93 74.93 $599 14.67 $117 $89.60 $0 $0 $34,387 $35,103 Drill and Set Rebar Dowels at Filter Feed Pump Station 30 EA 0.35 10.5 74.93 2623 $787 5.13 $154 $31.36 5.00 $150 18.00 $540 $0 $1,631 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 MANHOURSICY 7.79 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 COST/CY 1,222 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 WatertestStructures 40 MH 1.00 40.0 74.93 74.93 $2,997 14.67 $587 $89.60 $0 $750 $0 $4,334 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 1,225 $188,954 Math Check 0188,954 DIVISION 4- MASONRY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Divis' Math Check $0 DIVISION 5- METALS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive Misc. Metals 9 MH 1.00 9.0 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Grating Embeds 57 LF 0.08 4.6 74.93 5.99 $342 1.17 $67 $7.17 $0 22.00 $1,254 $0 $1,663 Install Grating and Supports 42 SF 0.35 14.7 74.93 2623 $1,101 5.13 $216 $31.36 $0 85.00 $3,570 $0 $4,887 Install Grating 42 SF 0.15 6.3 74.93 1124 $472 220 $92 $13.44 $0 35.00 $1,470 $0 $2,034 Install Handrail 44 LF 0.15 6.6 74.93 1124 $495 220 $97 $13.44 $0 85.00 $3,740 $0 $4,331 Install SS V -Notch Weir at Filter Feed Pump Station 1 EA 12.00 12.0 74.93 899.16 $899 176.00 $176 $1,075.16 $0 1750.00 $1,750 $0 $2,825 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division Math Check $15,741 DIVISION 6- WOOD & PLASTICS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 6 Math Check 00 DIVISION 7- THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 7 Math Check 00 DIVISION 8- DOORS & WINDOWS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 COM- 1 TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL POSITE UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL L&E EXPEND EXPEND PERM PERM UNIT UNIT TOTAL MH LABOR LABOR EQUIP. EQUIP UNIT MATLS MATLS MATL MATERIAL COSTS TOTAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT MHRS MHRS COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST SUBS SUBS COST Subtotal Division 8 $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 9- FINISHES 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Painting SUB 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 87,500 Math Check $0 $7,500 $7,500 DIVISION 10- SPECIALTIES 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Warning Signs 4 MH 1.00 4.0 78.67 78.67 $315 10.00 $40 $88.67 $0 $350 $0 $705 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 10 $705 Math Check $705 DIVISION 11- EQUIPMENT 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive and Store Equipment 6 MH 1.00 6.0 77.57 77.57 $465 15.51 $93 $93.08 $0 $0 $0 $558 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Vertical Turbine Pumps 2 EA 38.00 76.0 77.57 2,947.58 $5,895 589.52 $1,179 $3,537.10 $0 $0 $0 $7,074 Furnish Vertical Turbine Pumps 2 EA 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 21,879 $43,758 $0 $43,758 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install 16" and 18" Slide Gates 7 EA 12.00 84.0 77.17 925.99 $6,482 231.50 $1,620 $1,157.49 $0 3,750 $26,250 $0 $34,352 Install Motorized Slide Gate at Filter Pump Station 1 EA 20.00 20.0 77.17 1,543.32 $1,543 385.83 $386 $1,929.14 $0 13,500 $13,500 $0 $15,429 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Start-up & Test New Facility 40 MH 1.00 40.0 77.17 77.17 $3,087 1929 $772 $96.46 $0 $0 $0 $3,858 Subtotal Divi 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 Math Check $0 $105,031 DIVISION 13- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 14- CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Divisi $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 15- MECHANICAL 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive Pipe Materials 134 MH 1.00 134.0 77.57 77.57 $10,391 15.51 $2,078 $93.08 $0 $0 $0 $12,469 Layout 24 MH 1.00 24.0 80.64 80.64 $1,935 14.00 $336 $94.64 $0 $0 $0 $2,271 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install MJ/FL 1,780 IDS 0.35 623.0 77.57 27.15 $48,325 5.43 $9,665 $32.58 $0 $0 $0 $57,990 Install C905 PVC pipe 4,918 IDS 0.12 590.2 77.57 9.31 $45,777 1.86 $9,155 $11.17 $0 $0 $0 $54,933 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Test Pipe 6,698 IDS 0.03 200.9 77.17 2.31 $15,506 0.58 $3,876 $2.89 1.00 $6,698 $0 $0 $26,080 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 COM- 1 TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL POSITE UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL L&E EXPEND EXPEND PERM PERM UNIT UNIT TOTAL MH LABOR LABOR EQUIP. EQUIP UNIT MATLS MATLS MATL MATERIAL COSTS TOTAL TOTAL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT MHRS MHRS COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST COST SUBS SUBS COST Install Butterfly Valves 2 EA 6.00 12.0 77.57 465.41 $931 93.08 $186 $558.49 $0 $0 $0 $1,117 Install Check Valves 2 EA 4.00 8.0 77.57 310.27 $621 62.05 $124 $372.33 $0 $0 $0 $745 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Wall Sleeves 8 Link Seals 9 EA 6.00 54.0 77.57 465.41 $4,189 93.08 $838 $558.49 $0 $0 $0 $5,026 Install Medium Pipe Supports 8 EA 4.00 32.0 77.17 306.66 $2,469 77.17 $617 $385.83 $0 275.00 $2,200 $0 $5,287 Install Clean-out and Valve boxes 2 EA 2.00 4.0 77.57 155.14 $310 31.03 $62 $186.16 $0 $0 $0 $372 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Assist Electrician with Instruments 40 MH 1.00 40.0 77.17 77.17 $3,087 1929 $772 $96.46 $0 $750 $0 $4,608 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Furnish Pipe, Ftgs, Valves 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $316,742 $0 $316,742 Subtotal Divisi 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 Math Check $0 $487,641 DIVISION 16- ELECTRICAL 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pond Pump Station 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $95,000 $95,000 Tertiary Diversion Box 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $12,500 $12,500 Filter Feed Pump Station 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $17,500 $17,500 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 16 $111.1$0 $0 50 $125,0 Math Check $125,000 E Element Grand Total $659,842 $176,790 $29,250 11111501,179 $1,917,332 $3,284,393 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MHRS City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission TOTAL MHRS COM- POSITE MH COST UNIT LABOR COST TOTAL LABOR COST UNIT EQUIP. COST TOTAL EQUIP COST TOTAL L&E UNIT COST UNIT EXPEND MAT'LS COST TOTAL EXPEND MAT'LS COST UNIT PERM MATL COST TOTAL PERM MATERIAL COST UNIT COSTS SUBS TOTAL SUBS TOTAL COST DIVISION 1 -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWWP plan and BMP's 16 MH 1.00 16.0 75.10 75.10 $1,202 21.33 $341 $96.43 5750 50 51,000 $3,293 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 1 $1,202 $0 $1,000 Math Check $3,293 DIVISION 2- SITE WORK & DEMOLITION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Ponds Earthwork 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fine Grade for4" thick Sholcrete (+/- 0.05 ft.) 99,300 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 0.18 $17,874 $17,874 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 ubtotal Division 2 80 $0 MIL $17,874 Math Check $17,874 DIVISION 3- CONCRETE 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shotcrete 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Layout 24 MH 1.00 24.0 74.93 74.93 $1,798 14.67 $352 $89.60 $0 $0 $0 $2,150 Form Footing 730 SF 0.19 138.7 74.93 14.24 $10,393 2.79 52,034 $17.02 $0 50 $0 $12,427 Clean Up Shotcrete Rebound 120 MH 1.00 120.0 73.61 73.61 $8,833 16.80 $2,016 $90.41 $0 $0 $0 510,849 Strip/Patch 730 SF 0.04 29.2 73.61 2.94 $2,149 0.67 $491 $3.62 $0 $0 $0 $2,640 JFM/CFM Materials 730 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 3.00 $2,190 $0 $0 $2,190 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Synthetic Fiber Shotcrete Outer Slopes of Ponds A thru D-99,300 SF- 4" thick 99,300 SF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 4.50 $446,850 $446,850 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 50 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 3 $4,893 $446,850 $477,106 Math Check $477,106 DIVISION 4- MASONRY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 4 $ $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 5- METALS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 50 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 5 $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 6- WOOD & PLASTICS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 6 $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 7- THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 7 $0 $0 $0 80 Math Check $0 DIVISION 8- DOORS & WINDOWS 0.0 0.00 $0 80 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 8 DIVISION 9- FINISHES Subtotal Division 9 DIVISION 10- SPECIALTIES Subtotal Division 10 DIVISION 11- EQUIPMENT Subtotal Division 11 DIVISION 13- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Subtotal Division 13 DIVISION 14- CONVEYING SYSTEMS Subtotal Division 14 DIVISION 15- MECHANICAL Subtotal Division 15 DIVISION 16- ELECTRICAL Subtotal Division 16 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $o $o = $0 ' $o Math Check 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Math Check 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 90 80 Math Check 0.0 0.00 50 50 $0.00 50 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 50 $0 $0 $o Math Check 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 80 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 80 $0 $0 $0 Math Check 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 90 $0 Math Check 0.0 0.00 50 50 $0.00 $0 90 $0 0.0 0.00 90 90 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $o $o AL $o Math Check 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 90 $0 0.0 0.00 90 50 50.00 $0 90 $0 0 50 $W- 80 80 80 Math Check $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 50 90 Illso 00 $0 $0 00 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $0 90 50 $0 Element Grand Total 328 $24,375 $5,234 $2,940 $0 $465,724 $498,273 Math Check $498,273 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MHRS City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission TOTAL MHRS COM- POSITE MH COST UNIT LABOR COST TOTAL LABOR COST UNIT EQUIP. COST TOTAL EQUIP COST TOTAL L&E UNIT COST UNIT EXPEND MAT'LS COST TOTAL EXPEND MAT'LS COST UNIT PERM MATL COST TOTAL PERM MATERIAL COST UNIT COSTS SUBS TOTAL SUBS TOTAL COST DIVISION 1 -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 90.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 SWWP plan and BMP's 40 MH 1.00 40.0 75.10 75.10 $3,004 21.33 $853 $96.43 $750 $0 $2,000 $6,607 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 1 93,004 $0 $2,000 Math Check $6,607 DIVISION 2- SITE WORK & DEMOLITION 0.0 0.00 SO $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pothole 12 MH 1.00 12.0 75.10 75.10 S901 21.33 $256 $96.43 $0 $0 $0 $1,157 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Survey 12 MH 1.00 12.0 75.10 75.10 $901 21.33 $256 $96.43 $0 $0 $2,280 $3,437 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miss Structures Excavation/Backfill 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Lower Groundwater (allowance) 1 SUB 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 Structure Excavaton 308 CY 0.15 46.2 75.10 11.26 $3,470 3.20 $986 $14.46 $0 $0 $0 $4,455 Structure Backfill 249 CY 0.30 74.7 71.19 21.36 $5,318 6.30 $1,569 $27.66 $0 $0 $0 $6,887 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pipelines Excavation/Backfill 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Excavate Pipe>5ft 5,079 CY 0.12 609.5 75.18 9.02 $45,828 2.56 $13,003 $11.58 $0 $0 $0 $58,831 Backfill Pipe 5,079 CY 0.25 1,269.9 71.26 17.81 $90,487 5.56 $28,254 $23.38 $0 $0 $0 $118,742 Fumish Pipe Zone Import Material 2,347 TN 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 21.00 $49,289 $0 $49,289 0.0 0.0 80 80.00 80 0 0 2,024 -6,905 849,28912,280 8252,798 Math Check $252,798 DIVISION 3- CONCRETE 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pump Station 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Layout 8 MH 1.00 8.0 74.93 74.93 $599 14.67 $117 $89.60 $0 $0 $0 $717 Install Underslab Gravel 40 TN 0.25 9.9 71.19 17.80 $708 5.25 $209 $23.05 $0 21.00 $835 $0 $1,752 Fine Grade 416 SF 0.02 8.3 74.93 1.50 $623 0.29 $122 $1.79 $0 $0 $0 $745 Form Footing 228 SF 0.19 43.3 74.93 14.24 $3,246 2.79 $635 $17.02 $0 $0 $0 $3,881 Form Wall 990 SF 0.09 89.1 73.61 6.62 $6,558 1.51 $1,497 $8.14 $0 $0 $0 $8,055 Install PVC Waterstop 44 LF 0.06 2.6 74.93 4.50 $198 0.88 $39 $5.38 $0 5.00 $220 $0 $457 Sandblast Joints 44 SF 0.04 1.8 74.93 3.00 $132 0.59 $26 $3.58 $0 $0 $0 $158 Install Expanison Joint 6 LF 0.04 0.2 74.93 3.00 $18 0.59 $4 $3.58 $0 2.75 $17 $0 $38 Pour Concrete 45 CY 0.80 35.6 73.61 58.89 $2,621 13.44 $598 $72.33 $0 115.00 $5,119 25.00 $1,113 $9,450 Washout 7 LD 1.00 7.4 74.93 74.93 $556 14.67 $109 $89.60 $0 $0 $0 $665 Strip/Patch 1,218 SF 0.04 48.7 73.61 2.94 $3,586 0.67 $818 $3.62 $0 $0 $0 $4,405 Sacking 575 SF 0.04 23.0 73.61 2.94 $1,693 0.67 $386 $3.62 $0 $0 $0 $2,079 JFM/CFM Materials 1,218 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 3.00 $3,654 $0 $0 $3,654 Rebar 8 MH 1.00 8.0 74.93 74.93 $599 14.67 $117 $89.60 $0 $0 $10,460 $11,176 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 MAN HOU RS/CY 5.84 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 COSTICY 1,006 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Watertest Structures 16 MH 1.00 16.0 74.93 74.93 $1,199 14.67 $235 $89.60 $0 $450 $0 $1,884 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 3 $11,572 Math Check $49,116 DIVISION 4- MASONRY 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MHRS TOTAL MHRS COM- POSITE MH COST UNIT LABOR COST TOTAL LABOR COST UNIT EQUIP. COST TOTAL EQUIP COST TOTAL L&E UNIT COST UNIT EXPEND MAT'LS COST TOTAL EXPEND MAT'LS COST UNIT PERM MATL COST TOTAL PERM MATERIAL COST UNIT COSTS SUBS TOTAL SUBS TOTAL COST 0.0 0 0.00 50 0 $0 an. tilffi. $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Math Check $0 80 $0 DIVISION 5- METALS 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive Misc. Metals 6 MH 1.00 6.0 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Bar Screen 1 EA 12.00 12.0 74.93 899.16 $899 176.00 $176 $1,075.16 $0 4,500.00 $4,500 $0 $5,575 Install Checkered Plate 1 EA 12.00 12.0 74.93 899.16 $899 176.00 $176 $1,075.16 $0 3,000.00 53,000 $0 $4,075 Install Handrail 46 LF 0.15 6.9 74.93 11.24 $517 2.20 $101 $13.44 $0 85.00 $3,910 $0 $4,528 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 5 37 0453 $0 $14,179 Mafh Check $14,179 DIVISION 6- WOOD & PLASTICS 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 EIM Subtotal Division 6 0 $0 r IIIIr $0 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 7- THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 50.00 $0 $0 $0 50 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 50 $0 50 Subtotal Division 7 0 i 80 $0 $0 $01 , $00 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 8- DOORS & WINDOWS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 50.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 8 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 9- FINISHES 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Painting SUB 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 btotal Divis' 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mafh Check $7,500 DIVISION 10- SPECIALTIES 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Waming Signs 2 MH 1.00 2.0 0.00 0.00 $0 10.00 $20 $10.00 $0 $225 $0 $245 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 10 225 Math Check $245 DIVISION 11- EQUIPMENT 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive and Store Equipment 4 MH 1.00 4.0 77.57 77.57 $310 15.51 $62 $93.08 $0 $0 $0 $372 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Vertical Turbine Pumps 2 EA 38.00 76.0 77.57 2,947.58 $5,895 589.52 $1,179 $3,537.10 $0 $0 $0 $7,074 Fumish Vertical Turbine Pumps 2 EA 0.0 0.00 $0 50 $0.00 $0 21,879 $43,758 $0 $43,758 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Start-up & Test New Facility 16 MH 1.00 16.0 77.17 77.17 $1,235 19.29 $309 $96.46 $0 $0 $0 $1,543 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 11 $0 $52,748 Mafh Check $52,748 DIVISION 13- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MHRS TOTAL MHRS COM- POSITE MH COST UNIT LABOR COST TOTAL LABOR COST UNIT EQUIP. COST TOTAL EQUIP COST TOTAL L&E UNIT COST UNIT EXPEND MAT'LS COST TOTAL EXPEND MAT'LS COST UNIT PERM MATL COST TOTAL PERM MATERIAL COST UNIT COSTS SUBS TOTAL SUBS TOTAL COST 0.0 0.00 00 1 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 13 0 $0 00 $0 $0 80 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 14- CONVEYING SYSTEMS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 14 80 $0 Math Check $0 DIVISION 15- MECHANICAL 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Receive Pipe Materials 80 MH 1.00 80.0 77.57 77.57 $6,209 15.51 $1,242 $93.08 $0 $0 $0 $7,450 Layout 24 MH 1.00 24.0 80.64 80.64 $1,935 14.00 $336 $94.64 $0 $0 $0 $2,271 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install MJ/FL 434 IDS 0.35 151.9 77.57 27.15 $11,783 5.43 $2,357 $32.58 $0 $0 $0 $14,139 Install C905 PVC pipe 3,568 IDS 0.12 428.2 77.57 9.31 $33,211 1.86 $6,642 $11.17 $0 $0 $0 $39,854 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Test Pipe 4,002 IDS 0.03 120.1 77.17 2.31 $9,265 0.58 $2,316 $2.89 1.00 $4,002 $0 $0 $15,583 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Butterfly Valves 2 EA 6.00 12.0 77.57 465.41 $931 93.08 $186 $558.49 $0 $0 $0 $1,117 Install Check Valves 2 EA 4.00 8.0 77.57 310.27 $621 62.05 $124 $372.33 $0 $0 $0 $745 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Install Medium Pipe Supports 4 EA 4.00 16.0 77.17 308.66 $1,235 77.17 $309 $385.83 $0 275.00 $1,100 $0 $2,643 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Assist Electrician with Instruments 16 MH 1.00 16.0 77.17 77.17 $1,235 19.29 $309 $96.46 $0 $0 $0 $1,543 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fumish Pipe, Ftgs, Valves 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $172,507 $0 $172,507 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 15 Math Check $257,853 DIVISION 16- ELECTRICAL 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 lniga9on Pump Station 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $57,219 $57,219 0.0 0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 50 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 16 $0 = $0 $0 _ $57,219 Math Check $57,219 Element Grand Total 3,357 $248,424 $65,933 $8,406 $284,930 $90,571 $698,265 Math Check $698,265 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT MHRS City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion Improvements Opinion of Construction Cost at Preliminary Design Submission TOTAL MHRS COM- POSITE MH COST UNIT LABOR COST TOTAL LABOR COST UNIT EQUIP. COST TOTAL EQUIP COST TOTAL L&E UNIT COST UNIT EXPEND MAT'LS COST TOTAL EXPEND MAT'LS COST UNIT PERM MATL COST TOTAL PERM MATERIAL COST UNIT COSTS SUBS TOTAL SUBS TOTAL COST DIVISION 1- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS License & Permits 1 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $500 $0 $0 $500 Set-Up/Remove Yard 80 MH 1.00 80.0 75.10 75.10 $6,008 21.33 $1,707 $96.43 $0 $0 $0 $7,715 Fence Protection of Yard and Trailers 500 LF 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 7.50 $3,750 $0 $0 $3,750 Move On/Off Materials 4.0 MV 4.00 16.0 75.10 300.39 $1,202 85.33 $341 $385.73 $0 $0 175 $700 $2,243 Move On/Off Trailers 2.0 MV 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 450 $900 $900 Move On/Off Vans 2.0 MV 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 125 $250 $250 Office Trailer- 1 each 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 350.00 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 Trailer Furnishings and Office Equipment 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $500 $0 $0 $500 Vans 1.0 VANS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 150.00 $150 $0 $0 $150 Chemical Toilets 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 150.00 $1,200 $0 $0 $1,200 Dumpsters 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 750.00 $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000 Construction Water 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 125.00 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 Establish Power 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $7,500 $7,500 Monthly Power Cost 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 225.00 $1,800 $0 $0 $1,800 Establish Telephone 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $250 $250 Monthly Phone Cost 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 125.00 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 Establish Internet 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $250 $250 Monthly ISP Service 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 75.00 $600 $0 $0 $600 Project Signage 8.0 MH 1.00 8.0 74.93 74.93 $599 14.67 $117 $89.60 $500 $0 $0 $1,217 Construction Photos 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 75.00 $600 $0 $0 $600 Small Tools 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Safety 1.0 LS 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Misc. Job Overhead 8.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 350.00 $2,800 $0 $0 $2,800 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Backhoe/Loader 6.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 7,200.00 $43,200 $7,200.00 $0 $0 $0 $43,200 Boomtruck 6.0 MO 0.0 0.00 $0 4,750.00 $28,500 $4,750.00 $0 $0 $0 $28,500 Delviery/Pick Up Charges -Rental Equipment 9 MV 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 400 $3,600 $3,600 0.0 0.00 $0 $0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Division 1 $118,324 APPENDIX G • fikpetra log x geophysics - environmental - geology CITY OF LODI SURFACE POND PERCOLATION REPORT WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY LODI, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER: 2016-00001 SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 This document and its use is intended for the recipient and specific identified users contained within. Any unauthorized use of this report without prior consent is strictly prohibited. City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 CITY OF LODI SURFACE POND PERCOLATION REPORT Page 1 of 33 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 ABSTRACT 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.1 Proposed Tertiary Water Storage Ponds 4 2.2 Percolation Factors 5 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6 3.1 Topography 7 3.2 Climate 7 3.3 Geological Setting 7 3.4 Soils 8 3.4.1 General Soil Conditions 8 3.4.2 Site -Specific Soil Conditions 9 3.5 Surface Water 11 3.5.1 Site -Specific Surface Water Temperature 11 3.6 Groundwater 12 3.6.1 Regional Groundwater Conditions 12 3.6.2 Site -Specific Groundwater Conditions 12 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 15 4.1 Test Procedures 16 4.2 Test Results 16 5.0 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 19 6.0 FUTURE IMPACTS AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IMPLICATIONS 26 7.0 REFERENCES 31 8.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE 33 APPENDIX A - Figures Facility Map Plate 1 Site Plan Plate 2 Topography Map Plate 3 Geologic Map Plate 4 Soil Map Plate 5 Spring 2013 Groundwater Map Plate 6 Spring 2014 Groundwater Map Plate 7 Monitoring Wells Map Plate 8 Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations, September 2003 Plate 9 Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations, March 2004 Plate 10 Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Sruell a Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-4QO-5729 www.petralogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 2 of 33 Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations, July 2014 Plate 11 Expansion Pond Groundwater Elevations, Spring 2016 Plate 12 APPENDIX B Soil Logs APPENDIX C Percolation Field Test Data APPENDIX D Percolation Calculations Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Gait, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petra1ogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 1.0 ABSTRACT Page 3 of 33 In 2015, the City of Lodi was awarded a grant from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in the amount of $4,600,000. The grant was intended to facilitate projects which would improve drinking water and agricultural water intakes. The City of Lodi had a stated need which included an enlarged tertiary treated surface water holding ponds. The current onsite practice is to allow tertiary treated waters to exit the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and enter into Dredger Cut (a small slough which connects to the Delta). Benefits of keeping this water onsite rather than continuing to discharge it to Dredger Cut include decreased risk of impacts from tertiary treated waters released to this natural slough. Water quality improvements within the slough directly improve downstream drinking water intakes, while also increasing habitat conditions to various aquatic life -forms. A secondary benefit to this project would include in -lieu groundwater recharge. By using the stored water for irrigation, long-term pumping of the groundwater for agriculture could be significantly reduced. This report is part of the overall analysis for the proposed ponds. In part, it is intended to aid in the geological and geotechnical investigation of subsurface conditions and facilitate engineering design considerations. It is also intended to be used to address hydrological impacts of the proposed ponds for environmental process review via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Lastly, this report acts as a preliminary recharge assessment for percolation and infiltration the proposed ponds may have the potential to create over the long-term. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Proposed Tertiary Water Storage Ponds Page 4 of 33 The White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) is located in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi at 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California (Facility Map, Plate 1, Appendix A). The City of Lodi (City) proposes the construction of four unlined storage ponds at the WPCF totaling 70 -acres, along with the necessary conveyance infrastructure, to store disinfected, Title 22 tertiary treated effluent produced by the facility. The City currently discharges un -disinfected secondary treated municipal and untreated industrial effluent to four existing onsite storage ponds for application to the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields (790 acres) during irrigation months (mid-April through September). During non -irrigation months, the wastewater discharge at the facility exceeds the existing ponds storage capacity and overages of tertiary treated effluent are released to Dredger Cut, a dead end slough of the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta), at a rate of approximately 3.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The proposed unlined storage ponds will store the higher quality tertiary treated, UV disinfected wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. This tertiary treated wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site agricultural fields during the irrigation season. The preferred location for these ponds is currently the site of three agricultural fields, totaling approximately 80 acres, approximately 1,100 feet west of the existing onsite storage ponds. The agricultural fields and associated irrigation infrastructure in and around the ponds would be reconfigured to accommodate the project, while also minimizing the overall reduction of the agricultural production area. The ponds will occupy approximately 70 acres, with the remaining acreage containing a tail water ditch to serve as a buffer between the proposed ponds and the existing Giant Garter Snake habitat easement directly west of the ponds. The locations and layout of the ponds, labeled as Pond A, B, C and D, are provided in the Site Plan (Plate 2, Appendix A). Based on the conceptual plan provided in the West Yost Associates (WYA) Draft Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project, dated July 12, 2016 (WYA Technical Memorandum), the approximate storage capacity of all four ponds is 307 acre-feet. Pond A will have a storage capacity of approximately 64 acre-feet, Ponds B and D will have approximate storage capacities of 67 acre-feet each, and Pond C will have an approximate storage capacity of 109 acre-feet. At full capacity, the ponds will have an approximate water depth of 6 feet, including two feet of freeboard. Each of the four ponds will have perimeter levees, with a 12 -foot top width and 2:1 slopes. A 12 -inch thick layer of rock rip -rap will be placed on pond interior slopes and a 4 -inch thick layer of fiber -reinforced shotcrete will be placed on pond exterior slopes. The ponds will be excavated at depths less than 2 feet to the extent practical, based on the shallow groundwater depth in the area. According to WYA's Tertiary Storage Pond Earthwork Estimate (Figure 5, WYA's Technical Memorandum), the average excavation depth for Pond A is 0.88 feet, Pond B is 1.59 feet, Pond C is 1.65 feet, and Pond D is 0.85 feet. The top 6 inches of existing soil onsite will be unsuitable for fill material, and will therefore be discarded offsite. The remaining useable excavated material will be used as in-place fill for the pond levees; balance of useable excavated material and in-place fill is anticipated. Excavated material will be compacted by 90 percent to create the levees. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 2.2 Percolation Factors Page 5 of 33 Percolation and infiltration are often used interchangeably to describe water entering the subsurface. However, infiltration refers to water moving through the ground surface while percolation more specifically refers to water that moves downwards through the soil column and ultimately reaches groundwater. This distinction is significant in locations where water that penetrates the soil surface is then removed by numerous processes, such as in arid regions, rather than moving downward through the soil profile. Percolation can therefore be much less than infiltration. The complex and dynamic process of water moving through the surface and subsurface are discussed below in relation to the proposed storage ponds. Initial Infiltration Water at the ground surface will generally either evaporate, run off, or percolate to groundwater. If water is located on a warm ground surface, a fraction of the water will rapidly evaporate until the surface cools (generally within minutes). If the water is stored in an arid environment, a fraction of the water will also evaporate into the environment over time. If water flows laterally over the ground surface and reaches the surrounding environment before infiltrating, it becomes runoff. If the ground surface is initially dry, water moving over or located on the surface can be retained within coarse-grained surface soils in a process of adhesion (Aubertin et al., 2003) or be pulled into soil pores by capillary forces. If the volume of water is sufficient, water will begin to fill larger soil pores and infiltrate the soil surface. If the rate at which water occurs (i.e., filling of a storage pond) exceeds the initial infiltration capacity of the soil, "surface ponding" may develop. The ponding increases pressure of the infiltrating water and thus the chance of the water finding its way to macropores (e.g. Nichol, 2002). Water Retention and Initial Flow Once water infiltrates the ground surface migration to groundwater is complex. Capillary forces and adhesion effects create matric suction that retain water in the soil, with the strength increasing as a function of the initial dryness of the soil. The initial infiltration (i.e., filling of storage pond) is therefore tightly captured within the soil; percolation increases as the soil moisture increases. Matric suction is also dependent on soil characteristics such as grain size, where fine-grained soils retain more water than coarse-grained soils. In addition, the ability of soil to allow flow varies depending on water content. Soils with higher water content exhibit greater hydraulic conductivity and allow for greater flow. In a storage pond, as the water level increases, flow is increased vertically as well as induced horizontally into the pond sides. Lateral flow takes place in addition to the infiltration that occurs along the pond bottom (Massman, 2003). Percolation The behavior of water that passes deeper into the soil column is also complex. In general, percolation down to groundwater is positively related to applied water volume. Therefore, the greater the volume of water applied, the bigger percentage that reaches groundwater. Increases in shallow groundwater levels are associated with percolation; percolation can therefore be a significant source of groundwater recharge (Ochoa et al., 2007). PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Long -Term Correction Factors Page 6 of 33 Over time, siltation and biofouling occur on the sides of a storage pond. Correction factors should therefore be applied to account for loss of vertical and horizontal permeability/percolation resulting from the accumulation of fines and bio -buildup, as well as to account for uncertainties in testing and variations in depth to groundwater (Massman, 2003). Summary Water loss in the ponds due to evaporation is anticipated to be minor with occurrences limited to the summer months, and runoff is not anticipated to be a concern within the storage ponds. Based on these and the remaining above factors, it is anticipated that infiltration will be the chief form of water transport from the storage ponds. As part of this percolation to groundwater will occur, but will be lower than that of the general infiltration rate. Because groundwater is near the surface in the area of the ponds, the action of groundwater percolation will be similar to already existing flood irrigation practices which are currently used onsite. As the ponds are filled, the volume will be sufficient to fill larger soil pores and infiltrate the soil surface. The soil moisture will increase, resulting in an increase in percolation both vertically and horizontally, as well as an increase in hydraulic conductivity and greater flow in the subsurface. As percolation increases, the percent of water that reaches groundwater will likewise increase. Groundwater levels are thus anticipated to rise, particularly beneath the pond bottom. Based on existing shallow groundwater elevations in the pond region, groundwater will likely rise to the pond bottom. This has already been observed with the existing treatment ponds located just east of the proposed project. At the point when groundwater rises to the pond bottom, percolation will continue laterally through the pond sides. It is anticipated that the rate at which the ponds are filled will exceed the initial infiltration capacity of the immediate soil and result in standing water within the new pond(s). In addition, bio -buildup and siltation will decrease percolation rates over time. Thus, percolation will occur, but standing water in the ponds is expected. This report will estimate vertical and horizontal percolation in the storage ponds and resulting changes to local hydrologic conditions, considering the above percolation factors, site-specific testing, and geological environment. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project is located at the WPCF in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of approximately 1,026.27 acres of land, including the WPCF and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields (APNs: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). The City PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 7 of 33 of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion ponds are proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". 3.1 Topography The general site elevation ranges from approximately 0 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the northwestern boundary to approximately 10 feet above MSL near the southeastern boundary. The site has a general topography that slopes gently to the southwest. (Plate 3, Appendix A); 3.2 Climate The facility is located in a Mediterranean climate, classified as having relatively mild winters and dry, hot summers. According to data provided by a weather station near the facility (NCDC station #04- 5032, Lodi), the average rainfall from 1893 to 2015 is 17.24 inches, and the average maximum and minimum temperature are 73.6° F and 46.0° F, respectively. Winds are predominantly from the west, with average wind speeds of 4 miles per hour (WYA, 2006). 3.3 Geological Setting The site is located within the Central Valley of California, a large, asymmetric northwest -trending structural trough, approximately 400 miles long, on average 50 miles wide, and 20,000 square miles in area. The site is located within the southern two-thirds of the Central Valley, an area known as the San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley has been filled with as much as 6 miles of sediment, ranging in age from Jurassic to Holocene and include both marine and continental deposits. According to the "Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle" (California Geological Survey [CGS], 1987) (Plate 4, Appendix A), the WPCF is located on a westward dipping and thickening series of unconsolidated sediment and sedimentary rock underlying the eastern portion of the Central Valley. The sequence is underlain by Jurassic -Cretaceous metamorphic and igneous basement rock. The site area is underlain by sediments associated with the tectonic uplift of the Sierra Nevada and that were subsequently deposited into the subsiding structural trough of the Central Valley. The sedimentary sequence consists of marine and continental sedimentary rock deposits (Late Cretaceous to Eocene) overlain by unconsolidated fluvial and alluvial sediments (Late Tertiary to Quaternary) (Page, 1986). The Late Tertiary to Quaternary unconsolidated alluvial and fluvial sediments form the potable groundwater aquifer (West Yost, 2006). Surficial geology consists of the Upper Member of the Pleistocene Modesto Formation (CGS, 1987) (Plate 4, Appendix A). The Modesto Formation is further divided into the upper and lower members, with both present at the site (West Yost, 2006). Lithology includes arkosic alluvium forming the Mokelumne River fan and terraces, chiefly sand with some silt and gravel of Sierran origin, and arkosic sand forming low dunes on the Mokelumne River fan, likely poorly sorted eolian sand (Page, 1987). Underlying the Modesto Formation, Quaternary alluvium consists of approximately 100-200 feet of the Pleistocene age Turlock Lake Formation, consisting of a mixture of poorly consolidated and sorted sand, silt, clay and gravel of Sierran origin. At approximately 250 feet below ground surface (bgs) is a river channel deposit within the Turlock Lake Formation, which forms a significant aquifer in the area. Beneath the Turlock Lake Formation is approximately 400 feet of the Pliocene age Laguna Formation, consisting of poorly sorted clay, silt, sand and gravel, with more coarse-grained beds. The Pliocene Mehrten Formation, approximately 750 feet thick, underlies the Laguna Formation, PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 8 of 33 consisting of volcanic sand and conglomerate, andesitic gravel, sand and silt, and soft clay, silt, sand and minor gravel (Page, 1986). 3.4 Soils 3.4.1 General Soil Conditions Soil conditions vary across the site (Plate 5, Appendix A); the mapped soil types within the WPCF are the Guard and Devries soil series (USDA-NRCS 2003). The Guard soil series are in two soil phases (Guard clay loam and Guard clay loam, drained); both are taxonomically classified as fine -loamy, mixed superactive, calcareous, thermic Duric Endoaquolls, which consist of very deep poorly drained soils formed in alluvium from mixed sources (USDA Soil Series, Guard, 2016). One main discernible difference between the Guard clay loam and Guard clay loam, drained, is the Guard clay loam includes small areas that have a perched water table below a depth of 5 feet (San Joaquin County, 1992). The Devries soil series is taxonomically classified as a coarse -loamy, mixed, superactive thermic Typic Duraquolls, which consists of moderately deep hardpan, somewhat poorly drained soils formed in alluvium from mixed sources (USDA Soil Series, Devries, 2016). Both soils are on basin rims of the San Joaquin Delta and have slopes of 0 to 2 percent, with the approximate mean elevation ranging from -5 to 25 feet and 5 to 15 feet for Guard and Devries, respectively. As noted in a soil and groundwater investigation report for the facility by West Yost Associates (WYA, 2006), major physical property differences between the two soil series include 1) texture, 2) permeability, and 3) subsoil. The water permeability class for the Devries soil series is moderately rapid, with a sandy loam texture recorded at a depth of 0 to 28 inches, and a cemented, massive duripan recorded at 28 to 80 inches. The water permeability for the Guard soil series is slow, with a clay loam recorded from 0 to 72 inches bgs. Tables 1 and 2 provide some key characteristics of the Guard and Devries soil series. Table 3-1. Soil Characterization of Guard Soil Series Source USDA - NRCS Soil Survey) Horizon Depth (in) Texture Structure gm Water Permeability Class Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) Ap 0-5 clay loam sub- angular blocky Slow 0.2-0.6 A 5-15 clay loam sub - angular blocky 0.2-0.6 Bkg1 15-27 clay loam massive 0.06-0.2 Bkq2 27-72 clay loam massive, weakly cemented 0.06-0.2 Reference: USDA-NRCS (2003) PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Horizon Al Page 9 of 33 Table 3-2. Soil Characterization of Devries Soil Series (Source USDA - NRCS Soil Survey) Water Saturated Hydraulic Depth (in) Texture Structure Permeability Conductivity (in/hr) Class A2 0-4 sandy loam angular blocky 4-13 sandy loam Bt 13-28 sandy loam angular blocky Moderately angular rapid blocky Bkqm 28-80 Reference: USDA-NRCS (2003) cemented massive dur pan 2.0-6.0 2.0-6.0 2.0-6.0 The proposed expansion ponds are located on a portion of the City's agricultural fields that are directly west of the existing WPCF treatment and storage facilities, in the northwest portion of the property. The ponds are located within the Guard clay loam and Guard clay loam, drained, soil series. Onsite soil investigations within the preferred Expansion Ponds location were performed in conjunction with the Ponds percolation tests. Details of the onsite investigation methods are provided in Section 4.0. Results are discussed below. Plate 1, Appendix A, Facility Map shows the facility, preferred location of Ponds and southeastern fields. 3.4.2 Site -Specific Soil Conditions This section presents a discussion of the information related to the site-specific soil conditions encountered during the hand auguring phase of percolation testing located within/near the anticipated Expansion Ponds location (see Section 4.0). The Ponds are comprised of four individual ponds: Pond A, Pond B, Pond C and Pond D (see Plate 2, Appendix A). The soils encountered during hand auguring are predominantly fine-grained, ranging from clays (CL) to silty sands (SM) and sandy silts (ML). Three test locations (P3, P5 and P6) have clean, medium grained sands (SP) observed at 60 to 72 inches, 72 inches, and 60 inches, respectively. Four test locations have clay observed at 0 to 24 inches (P2), 84 inches (P3), and 24 inches (P7). Observations indicate that cemented and hardpan zones are present within soils for three test locations (P10, P11, and P12) at depths of 30 inches (P10), 17 inches (P11), 38 inches (P11) and 48 inches (P12). These observations are of interest since P10, P11 and P12 are within the anticipated boundaries of Ponds A and B, Pond C, and Pond D, respectively. Hardpan and cemented zones are of significance, as they tend to lower the hydraulic conductivity of soils and can hinder the vertical flow of groundwater within these ponds. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 10 of 33 The table below shows the soil type at the surface, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and greater than 84 inches depth for each test location, as observed over the entire site investigation area. The soil logs are included in Appendix B. Table 3-3. Soil Classification, Site Investigation Area Unified Soil Classification System Depth Borehole Locations (Inches)1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 0 SM CL ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML 12 SM CL ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML ML 24 ML ML SM ML SM SM CL SM ML ML ML ML 36 ML ML SM ML SM SM ML ML — ML SM ML 48 ML ML SM ML SM SM ML ML — SM SM SM 60 SM ML SP/SM ML SM SP ML — — SM SM — 72 — — SP/SM — SP/SM — — — — — — — 84 — — CL — — — — — — — — — >84 — — ML — — — — — — — — — Below ground surface (bgs) The site investigation encompasses the six current agricultural fields and one facility yard storage area west of the existing ponds, with the entire twelve location results reported in Table 3 above, however, the current design for the facilities expansion ponds are constrained to the most western portion of the site investigation (see Plate 1, Appendix A). Therefore, a table for each pond area with correlating soil results per pond is included below. Table 3-4. Soil Classification Expansion Pond: Individual Ponds Depth (Inches)1 POND A 64 Acre -Feet POND B 67 Acre -Feet POND C 109 Acre -Feet POND D 67 Acre -Feet P4 P10* P3 P10* P2 P8 P11** P7 P12*** P1 0 ML ML ML ML CL ML ML ML ML SM 12 ML ML ML ML CL ML ML ML ML SM 24 ML ML SM ML ML SM ML CL ML ML 36 ML ML SM ML ML ML SM ML ML ML 48 ML SM SM SM ML ML SM ML SM ML 60 ML SM SP/SM SM ML — SM ML — SM 72 — — SP/SM — — — — — — — 84 — — CL — — — — — — — >84 — — ML — — — — — — — lBelow ground surface (bgs); * P10 has hardpan/gravel at 30 inches bgs: ** P11 has hardpan at 17 inches and cemented chunks at 38 inches; ***312 has hardpan at 48 inches. The 4 separate Ponds occupy approximately 70 acres. Pond A will be approximately 64 acre feet, located in the northwest portion of the Expansion Pond. Based on the two soil logs (P4 and P10) for Pond A, the proposed pond is located on sandy silt from the surface to 62 inches bgs at the northwest perimeter and sandy silt/silty sand to 60 inches bgs along the central eastern perimeter. P10 has hardpan/rocks recorded at 30 inches bgs. Based on the two soil logs (P3 and P10), Pond B, approximately 67 acre feet, is located in the northeast portion of the main Expansion Pond. Pond B is located on sandy silt/silty sand to 60 inches bgs near the western perimeter. The northeastern PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 11 of 33 perimeter of Pond B is located on a sandy silt/silty sand to 48 inches bgs, underlain by a cleaner, medium grained sand to 79 inches bgs, underlain by clay to 89 inches bgs, and underlain by a silt with sand at 89 inches bgs. The anticipated eastern perimeter of Pond A (P10) and western perimeter of Pond B (P10) has hardpan/rocks recorded at 30 inches bgs. The third pond, Pond C, will be approximately 109 acre feet and located directly south of Ponds A and B. Pond C has a clay layer with very fine sand up to 20 inches bgs, underlain by silty sand/sandy silt to 60 inches bgs as recorded from P2, located in the anticipated northeast perimeter. The approximate center of Pond C has sandy silt/silty sand to 67 inches bgs, as recorded in P11; the soil of Pond C in the approximate center has a hardpan layer at 17 inches bgs, and cemented chunks were observed mixed with the silty sand at 38 inches bgs. The northwest perimeter of Pond C is represented by P8, where sandy silt was observed from the surface to the final depth of 57 inches bgs, with the exception of a silty sand observed at 24 to 31 inches bgs. The fourth pond, Pond D, will be approximately 67 acre feet, and will be the southernmost pond within the 70 -acre Expansion Pond. The southwestern perimeter of Pond D is represented by P7, where there is a silt with sand from the surface to 14 inches bgs, underlain by a clay layer recorded from 14 to 24 inches bgs, underlain by a sandy silt to 63 inches bgs. The approximate center of Pond D is represented by P12 where the soil is logged as a sandy silt with clay to 20 inches bgs, underlain by a sandy silt to 44 inches bgs, which is underlain by a silty sand to 54 inches bgs; there is hardpan at P12 observed at 48 inches bgs. The test location P1 is outside the anticipated southeastern perimeter boundary for Pond D. With approximately 50 to 100 feet of separation to the southeast, it is considered in close enough proximity to be included in the soil descriptions for Pond D. P1 is a silty sand from the surface to 14 inches bgs, underlain by a sandy silt from 14 to 54 inches bgs, which is underlain by a silty sand from 54 to 60 inches bgs. The Expansion Pond area is comprised of alternating layers of sandy silt, silty sand, some thin layers of clay observed in Ponds B, D, and C, as well as a thin coarser grained, cleaner sand layer recorded at Pond B. The Expansion Pond area has hardpan observed within Ponds A and B at 30 inches, Pond C at 17 inches and Pond D at 48 inches, bgs. 3.5 Surface Water Surface water features in the region of the WPCF include the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), Lower Mokelumne River, Calaveras River, and a peripheral canal. The facility is located within the legal boundary of the Delta, as well as within the 1 -in -100 -year flood zone. The variation in surface water in the adjacent Delta is associated with the daily tidal fluctuations up to approximately 3 feet (WYA, 2006). 3.5.1 Site -Specific Surface Water Temperature The WPCF currently discharges effluent into the Delta during the non -irrigation season (October through mid-April). A study to characterize the seasonal temperature regimes of the facilities effluent discharge as compared to the receiving waters of the Delta was performed from July 28, 2009 to March 31, 2010 (Robertson -Bryan, 2010). The study was conducted in order to assess the effect of effluent discharge on receiving water temperatures, with particular concern focused on the suitability of water temperatures for the delta smelt, an endangered fish species native to the Delta, which migrates upstream to fresh water during spawning season. The study concluded, based on the data, that the Delta receiving waters are naturally "unsuitable thermally" for delta smelt spawning. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 12 of 33 The temperature as recorded for the facilities effluent discharge is of interest in terms of infiltration assessment, due to the relationship of temperature and viscosity of water; the higher temperature water will have a lower viscosity and increase in infiltration rate (Horton, 2016). The average monthly temperature at the WPCF facility effluent discharge location, as measured at the filter pump station effluent box which is considered representative of the disinfected tertiary recycled water supplied to the Delta, was reported for the months January through April, 2010. The average temperatures recorded for this period (based on data acquired hourly) ranged from approximately 66° F in January 2009, to 71° F in April, 2009 and 67° F in January 2010 to 69° F in March, 2010. The temperature was only collected for the effluent during the periods when effluent was discharged to surface waters. 3.6 Groundwater This section provides information pertaining to the regional groundwater conditions relative to the facility, followed by site-specific groundwater conditions. The regional information is obtained from groundwater elevation contour maps prepared by San Joaquin County (2014), and site-specific groundwater condition information is obtained from multiple sources, including previous technical reports and onsite investigations. 3.6.1 Regional Groundwater Conditions According to the groundwater elevation maps obtained from the San Joaquin County Groundwater Report, the regional groundwater flow is to the east-southeast, with a cone of depression located approximately 6 miles to the east-southeast of the WPCF (San Joaquin County, 2014) (Plate 6 and Plate 7, Appendix A). A review of regional groundwater elevation data from the DWR Data Library and from the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District semi-annual reports by WYA indicates the regional flow direction in the WPCF vicinity has been east -southeasterly to southeasterly during spring and fall measurement periods, which span both wet and dry year conditions (including multi-year droughts) since at least 1971 (WYA, 2006). According to the Soil and Groundwater Investigation Existing Conditions Report (2006) by WYA, a review of the DWR Water Data Library hydrograph of wells close to the WPCF reveals groundwater fluctuates seasonally, with fluctuations greatest to the east of the WPCF. This is likely due to the fact that the western portion's proximity to the Delta makes it less susceptible to pumping, allowing it to receive a greater uniform recharge throughout the year, unlike the eastern portion. Groundwater elevations in the immediate vicinity of the WPCF treatment facilities fluctuate little throughout the year, ranging from approximately -1 to -2 feet mean sea level (msl) in the spring and approximately -2 to -4 feet msl in the fall. In contrast, groundwater elevations seasonally fluctuate by about 10 feet at the eastern portion of the site (WYA, 2006). These site-specific fluctuations are considered at greater length below. 3.6.2 Site -Specific Groundwater Conditions This section considers site-specific groundwater conditions at the WPCF. Much of the information detailed below is based on information and analyses provided by previous reports prepared on the City of Lodi's behalf (WYA, 2006, 2015 and 2016) in conjunction with fieldwork performed by Petralogix pertaining to the Expansion Pond site (see Section 4.0). Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Groundwater Gradient Page 13 of 33 The City has several groundwater monitoring wells historically used for monitoring gradient, elevations, and water quality of groundwater underlying the WPCF, the agricultural fields, and nearby parcels. The City's monitoring well network currently includes 21 monitoring wells (WSM-1, WSM-2, WSM-4 through WSM-19 and RMW-1 through RMW-3) (Plate 8, Appendix A), located both within and beyond the facility boundary. Based on the monitoring depths to groundwater in the City's monitoring well network, groundwater generally flows easterly across the WPCF site, with an area of apparent recharge along the western boundary. However, site-specific groundwater elevation contour mapping (Plates 9 and 10, Appendix A) by WYA of the site for September, 2003 and March, 2004 shows there are localized deflections in groundwater flow away from the regional drawdown cone, with deflection to the north, likely due to groundwater pumping; the northerly deflection is most apparent in the fall (WYA, 2006). Southwesterly groundwater flow underlies the southwestern corner of the agricultural reuse area as well, however, "volumetrically, and in terms of the potential for transport, the flow is probably minor" (WYA, 2006). Groundwater Elevation The median groundwater elevations range from just below 0 feet above msl near the western boundary of the site, to greater than 20 feet above msl near the eastern boundary of the City's well network. The depth to groundwater, therefore, ranges from just a few feet below the ground surface in the City's westernmost monitoring wells to greater than 30 feet below ground surface in the eastern -most monitoring wells (WYA, 2015). Most of the decrease in groundwater occurs east of Thornton Road, and is at least partially attributable to the agricultural areas east being irrigated by groundwater pumping. Groundwater elevations are the highest along a northwesterly -southeasterly trending axis located just west of the primary WPCF storage facility, which is considered an axis of recharge. Potential recharge sources include the WPCF land application areas, Delta waterways and irrigated land to the west of the WPCF, surface water irrigated lands to the north and east of the WPCF, and the WPCF storage ponds (WYA, 2006). The WPCF groundwater levels fluctuate yearly in response to varying levels of precipitation during non -irrigation season, as well as due to pumping during the irrigation season. The groundwater elevations at the WPCF for September 2003 and March 2004 are included as Plates 9 and 10, Appendix A. Groundwater elevations in the western portion of the site only fluctuate a few feet seasonally (indicating the western portion as an area of recharge) compared to the eastern portion of the site, which fluctuates up to approximately 10 feet annually. The lowest groundwater elevations generally occur near the end of the irrigation season; the highest elevations generally occur near the end of the non -irrigation season (WYA, 2015). A groundwater elevation contour map for the site, as measured from the WPCF's monitoring well network on July 23, 2014 for the City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Best Practicable Treatment or Control (BPTC) Evaluation Report (WAY, 2015) is included as Plate 11, Appendix A. A summary of the depth to groundwater in the groundwater monitoring well WSM-02, a monitoring well located approximately 1000 feet east of the southeast corner of proposed Pond D, as measured between September 2001 and November 2005, is provided in the WYA Soil and Groundwater PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 14 of 33 Investigation Existing Conditions Report (WYA, 2006). The depth to groundwater data is also converted to groundwater elevation and recorded in the Table 3-4 below, using the NAVD88 vertical datum and a ground surface elevation for WSM-02 of 5.0 feet (msl). Table 3-4. Death to Groundwater and Groundwater Elevations for Well WSM-021 Well WSM-02 Median Maximum Minimum Depth to Groundwater Feet (bgs) 6.7 8.4 4.2 Groundwater Elevation2 Feet (msl) -1.7 - 3.4 0.8 'As measured between September 2001 and November 2005, (WAY, 2006) 2Well ground surface elevation based on NAVD88 datum, plant elevation is 1.9 feet below NAVD88. Depth to groundwater was measured at each of 12 locations during the onsite percolation test investigations performed by Petralogix in April and May 2016 (see Section 4.0) in the proposed pond locations (Plate 12, Appendix A). The table below shows depth to groundwater measured at the time of bore hole completion, with both depth below ground surface and approximate groundwater elevation. Table 3-5. Depth to Groundwater & Groundwater Elevation Pond Study Area SDrin2016 Date Test Location Feet Below Ground Surface Groundwater Elevation) (feet)(msl) April 1, 2016 P1 4.70 1.3 April 1, 2016 P2 4.70 2.2 April 2, 2016 P3 6.46 1.54 April 2, 2016 P4 4.00 2.6 April 2, 2016 P5 5.00 0 April 2, 2016 P6 4.80 -0.8 April 12, 2016 P7 3.50 0.5 April 12, 2016 P8 3.80 1.3 April 12, 2016 P9 2.67 2.33 May 10, 2016 P10 5.10 -0.5 May 12, 2016 P11 4.50 0.1 May 12, 2016 P12 4.20 0.4 'Groundwater elevation is based on the vertical datum NAVD88. Plant elevation is 1.9 feet below NAVD88. In order to better define information regarding depth to groundwater in the proposed pond locations, the depth to groundwater was measured at least an hour past the time of bore hole completion. Based on the measurements, depth to groundwater is variable in the Pond Study Area, ranging from approximately 2.67 feet bgs to 6.46 feet bgs or -0.8 feet msl to 2.6 feet msl. The shallowest depth to groundwater was 2.67 feet bgs, as measured at P9, located adjacent east and near the center of the WPCF existing ponds, which may be a source for the elevated groundwater (bulging). Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (2091-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 15 of 33 The Expansion Pond area is comprised of 4 separate Ponds (A, B, C and D), with a total of 9 out of the 12 locations studied within or near the anticipated Ponds. Based on these 9 test locations (P1 through P4, P7 through P8, and P10 through P12) and the Spring 2016 measurements, the Pond Area had a range of 6.46 feet bgs to 3.80 feet bgs or -0.5 feet msl to 2.6 feet msl. The table below represents the average depth to groundwater and groundwater elevations for each Pond: Table 3-6. Depth to Groundwater and Groundwater Elevations, Per Pond Pond Average Feet Below Ground Surface Average Groundwater Elevation Feet (msl) Pond A 4.55 1.05 Pond B 5.78 0.52 Pond C 4.33 1.2 Pond D 4.13 0.73 The average depth to groundwater for the ponds ranges from 4.13 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 5.78 feet bgs. The average groundwater elevation in feet (msl), found using the NAVD88 vertical datum, has a range of 0.52 feet (msl) to 1.2 feet (msl). A groundwater elevation map for the Proposed Ponds using the data collected from the percolation test hole locations for Spring 2016 is included as Plate 11, Appendix A. Groundwater is shallower near the existing ponds, with the overall gradient generally east-southeast. This indicates that the existing unlined ponds are producing a water bulge in the immediately surrounding area, and slightly disrupting the general hydraulic gradient to the east-southeast. 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION This report acts as a preliminary assessment for percolation from the proposed ponds. To assess the percolation rate of the proposed Expansion Pond area, 12 percolation test locations, with 3 test holes per location, were evaluated at depths of 1.5 feet, 3 feet, and at groundwater level. Groundwater encountered at the site was measured between 3.5 to 7.1 feet below ground surface (bgs) (or 0.52 to 1.2 feet (msl)). There are a total of twelve percolation testing locations; 6 located around the perimeter and 3 located within the northern, mid- and southern portions of the approximate center of the anticipated location of the preferred proposed ponds. In addition to the 9 test holes located within or on the perimeter of the anticipated pond area, there are 3 percolation test hole locations near the perimeter of the facility's existing ponds, with one location each on the northern, mid- and southern portions of the eastern edge of the eastern fields adjacent to the existing ponds (Plate 1, Appendix A). A total of 36 percolation tests (3 at each of the 12 locations) were performed at the site. For each of the 3 percolation test holes within each test location, the depth to groundwater test hole was chosen for soil borehole logging, with any perceived change in soil variation described and logged. Therefore, a total of 12 soil logs are recorded for the Expansion Ponds study area. The soil is categorized according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), with color described and approximated from the Munsell soil color chart. Results from percolation testing are provided below. Soil results are discussed above in section 3.4.2. Soil logs are provided in Appendix B. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 4.1 Test Procedures Page 16 of 33 • For each test hole, a 4 -inch diameter hand auger was used to drive a hole to the desired depth. The side walls of each test hole were scraped with a breaker bar to reduce any smearing of sidewall created by the hand auger. Any loose material was removed from the test hole. A perforated 2" PVC pipe was placed within each of the holes and approximately Y2 of an inch of pea gravel was placed at the bottom and around the annular space of the pipe. A total of twelve percolation test areas with three tests at different depths in each location (thirty-six test holes total) were set for subsequent testing. Pre -saturation was performed by adding 6 inches of water (head) to the test hole the day prior to testing to ensure that any clay fines were fully saturated and representative of wet condition testing. • Approximately twenty-four hours after initial installation and pre -saturation, a representative from Petralogix performed the onsite percolation testing (April 2, April 5, May 13 and May 15, 2016). Tests were run using a water meter/sounder with 1/10 of an inch measurement increments. The tests continued for the time required, which is defined as the time needed for each test hole to reach a stable water level drop rate. The interval reading varied per hole, with most holes requiring a 10 or 20 -minute interval. 4.2 Test Results The test results for each test hole (percolation test locations P1 through P12) are considered, as well as the percolation test location results constrained to each of the four ponds (Ponds A, B, C and D). Final percolation rates are considered in the analysis, as these are the stabilized and thus most representative rates. The field rates are converted to gallons per square foot per day (GPD/FT2) for each location and depth. The conversions to gallons per square foot per day consider the diameter, surface area, and head maintained in each test hole. Percolation field test data is available in Appendix C; data is summarized in the tables below. Table 4-1. Percolation Rate Test Results: All Locations and Depths Expansion Pond Stud v Area 1Depth to groundwater Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com Depth 1.5 Feet Depth 3.0 Feet Variable Depthl Test Date Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Location & Depth (feet) Final Rate: GPD/FT2 4/2/2016 P1 1.1 P1 1.4 P1 @ 6.0' 0.7 4/2/2016 P2 4.5 P2 4.1 P2 @ 5.0' 4.1 4/5/2016 P3 2.9 P3 2.9 P3 @ 7.41' 33.2 4/5/2016 P4 9.9 P4 5.0 P4 @ 5.0' 4.1 4/5/2016 P5 5.0 P5 5.8 P5 @ 6.0' 0.7 4/5/2016 P6 12.4 P6 3.3 P6 @ 5.3' 25.7 4/5/2016 P7 3.3 P7 0.8 P7 @ 5.25' 10.4 4/5/2016 P8 16.6 P8 4.1 P8 @ 4.75 0.7 4/5/2016 P9 1.2 P9 1.7 P9 @Q 3.28' 20.7 5/11/2016 P10 22.3 P10 1.7 P10 @ 5.5' 16.6 5/11/2016 P11 25.7 P11 3.3 P11 @ 5.8' 27.3 5/11/2016 P12 33.2 P12 5.0 P12 @ 4.5' 0.7 1Depth to groundwater Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 17 of 33 The percolation rates varied throughout the Site Investigation Area, with the range of stable percolation rates varying from 1.1 to 33.2 GPD/FT2 at a depth of 1.5 feet bgs, 0.8 to 5.8 GPD/FT2 at a depth of 3.0 feet bgs, and 0.7 to 33.2 GPD/FT2 at the variable depth to groundwater. The investigation area encompasses locations beyond the proposed ponds. Therefore, it is of interest to consider only the percolation test locations located near/within each pond area. The results of the percolation tests per each pond are listed in the following tables and discussed below. Table 4-2. Percolation Rate Test Results, Pond A POND A Depth 1.5 Feet Depth 3.0 Feet Variable Depth' Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Rate: GPD/FT2 Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Rate: GPD/FT2 Location & Depth (feet) Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Rate: GPD/FT2 P4 9.9 16.1 P4 5.0 3.35 P4 @ 5.0' 4.1 10.35 P10 22.3 P10 1.7 P10 @ 5.5' 16.6 'Depth to groundwater Pond A, located in the northwest section of the Expansion Pond, will be approximately 64 acre feet of storage capacity. Pond A percolation test rate data is comprised of two locations relative to the anticipated design of Pond A: P4, located in the northwestern perimeter, and P10, located in the middle -eastern perimeter of Pond A. Although P10 is located near the anticipated perimeter of Pond A, the location is currently near the center of the existing agricultural field and is assumed to be representative of the percolation rate and soil conditions that will be within Pond A. Pond A percolation rates vary, with the final rate value range for each depth as follows: 9.9 to 22.3 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 5.0 to 1.7 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet and 4.1 to 16.6 GPD/FT2 at the variable depth to groundwater locations. For Pond A, the average final rates by depth are calculated, with an average final rate of 16.1 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 3.35 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet, and 10.35 GPD/FT2 at groundwater. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Table4-3. Percolation Rate Test Results, Pond B Page 18 of 33 POND B Depth 1.5 Feet Depth 3.0 Feet Variable Depths Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2GPD/FT2 Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: Location & Depth (feet) Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2 P3 2.9 12.6 P3 2.9 2.3 P3 @7.41' 33.2 24.9 P10 22.3 P10 1.7 P10 @ 5.5' 16.6 1Depth to groundwater Pond B, located in the northeast section of the Expansion Pond, will be approximately 67 acre feet of storage capacity. Pond B percolation test rate data is comprised of two locations relative to the anticipated design of Pond B: P3, located at the northeastern perimeter, and P10, located on the middle -western perimeter of Pond B. Although P10 is located near the anticipated perimeter of Pond B, the location is currently near the center of the existing agricultural field, and is assumed to be representative of the percolation rate and soil conditions that will be within Pond B. Pond B percolation rates vary, with the final rate value range for each depth as follows: 2.9 to 22.3 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 1.7 to 2.9 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet and 16.6 to 33.2 GPD/FT2 at the variable depth to groundwater locations. The percolation test final rate average is 12.6 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 2.3 GPD/FT2at 3.0 feet and 24.9 GPD/FT2 at groundwater. Table 4-4. Percolation Rate Test Results, Pond C POND C Depth 1.5 Feet Depth 3.0 Feet Variable Depths Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Location & Depth (feet) 1 Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2 P2 4.5 15.6 P2 4.1 3.83 P2 @ 5.0' 4.1 10.7 P8 16.6 P8 4.1 P8 @ 4.75 0.7 P11 25.7 P11 3.3 P11 @ 5.8' 27.3 1Depth to groundwater Pond C is located in the center section of the Expansion Pond, south of Ponds A and B, north of Pond D, and will be the largest Pond, at approximately 109 acre feet of storage capacity. Pond C percolation test rate data is comprised of three locations and described relative to the anticipated design of Pond C: P2, located at the northeastern perimeter; P8, located near the northwestern perimeter; and P11, located near the anticipated center of Pond C. Pond C percolation rates vary, with the final rate value range for each depth as follows: 4.5 to 25.7 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 3.3 to 4.1 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet and 0.7 to 27.3 GPD/FT2 at the variable depth to groundwater locations. The percolation test rate final average for each depth is 15.6 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 3.83 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet, and 10.7 GPD/FT2 at groundwater. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Table 4-5. Percolation Rate Test Results, Pond D Page 19 of 33 POND D Depth 1.5 Feet Depth 3.0 Feet Variable Depths Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2GPD/FT2 Location Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: Location & Depth (feet) Final Rate: GPD/FT2 Average Final Rate: GPD/FT2 P1 1.1 12.5 P1 1.4 2.4 P1 @ 6.0' 0.7 3.93 P7 3.3 P7 0.8 P7 @ 5.25' 10.4 P12 33.2 P12 5.0 P12 @ 4.5' 0.7 1Depth to groundwater Pond D is located in the southern section of the Expansion Pond, south of Pond C, and will have approximately 67 acre feet of storage capacity. Pond D percolation test rate data is comprised of three locations and described relative to the anticipated design of Pond D: P7, located at the southwestern perimeter corner; P1, located near the southeastern perimeter (approximately 100 feet southeast of the anticipated pond perimeter); and P12, located near the anticipated center of Pond D. Pond D percolation rates vary, with the final rate value range for each depth as follows: 1.1 to 33.2 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 0.8 to 5.0 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet and 0.7 to 10.4 GPD/FT2 at the variable Depth to Groundwater locations. Average final percolation rates for Pond D is 12.5 GPD/FT2 at 1.5 feet, 2.4 GPD/FT2 at 3.0 feet, and 3.93 GPD/FT2 at groundwater. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS According to WYA's Technical Draft (2016), depth of pond excavation will be a maximum of 2 feet, to the extent practical. Based on WYA's Tertiary Storage Pond Earthwork Estimate (Figure 5, WYA's Technical Memorandum), average excavation depths for the ponds range from 0.85 feet (Pond D) to 1.65 feet bgs (Pond C). In each pond, percolation rates were divided into three calculations as follows: 1) Lateral percolation from top of water to the ground surface elevation, 2) Lateral percolation from the ground surface elevation to pond bottom, and 3) Vertical percolation from the pond bottom to lowest anticipated groundwater elevation. An average percolation rate was calculated for each percolation direction and proposed storage pond. Percolation rates were based on 1) nearby percolation test holes (see Section 4.2) and 2) average percolation rates within the selected test locations at 1.5 feet bgs. Percolation rates at 1.5 feet bgs were chosen based on the anticipated excavation depths at a maximum of 2.0 feet. These calculations are discussed below, following diagram 5-1. The calculations are provided in Appendix D. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 20 of 33 Diagram 5-1. Percolation Rates Divided into Three Calculations EXPANSION POND NET INFILTRATION STUDY Diagram of Percolation Rates as Divided into Three Calculations FILL NAIVE b'.IL Grg1FEEI W FEP w caaNOSUnFAct NATNESCI �D Lateral percolation from top of surface water to the g round surface elevai kan. [i) Lateral percolation From the ground surface elevation to pond bottom. Q Vertical percolation from the pond bottom to lowest anticipated groundwater. 1. Lateral Percolation: Top of Water to Ground Surface Elevation It is anticipated that water will flow laterally through the pond interior walls (see Section 2.0). According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for the tertiary ponds, all fill placed within the pond embankments should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (Terracon, 2016). Soil compaction will decrease the infiltration rate and saturated hydraulic conductivity, as well as increase water penetration resistance, as compaction increases bulk density soil properties. Further percolation testing, performed onsite post embankment construction, would be necessary to determine the magnitude of the embankments hydraulic conductivity decrease as a function of the site specific level of compaction. According to the technical paper Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction (Burt et al., 2010), earthen canals had a seepage reduction of about 90 percent when sides and bottoms were compacted via commercial equipment utilizing vibratory compaction of long sections within five irrigation districts. A study printed in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, the "Effect of Urban Soil Compaction on Infiltration Rate (Gregory, J.H. et al., 2006), concludes construction activity or compaction treatments reduced infiltration rates of sandy soils 70 to 90 percent. An estimated percolation rate was calculated by averaging the percolation rates at 1.5 feet bgs in all of the test holes within the excavation area, decreased by 80 percent to account for compaction. Based on the compaction studies, an infiltration rate reduction of 70 to 90 percent is considered reasonable, with 70 percent representing the lowest expected decrease in percolation. Based on site specific soil (sandy silt and silty sand), and the recommended 90 percent relative compaction, an 80 percent seepage reduction is considered a reasonable preliminary percolation rate reduction. Percolation rates at 1.5 feet bgs were chosen based on the anticipated excavation depths (see Section 2.1). Water will flow laterally from the ponds to the exterior levees, and then vertically down to groundwater. The lateral flow rate out of the pond Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 21 of 33 is of interest as this rate is anticipated to be lower than the vertical flow rate once the water enters the levees. The surface area of the pond interior slopes were considered in calculating the area over which lateral percolation will occur. Calculations of lateral percolation from the top of pond water to the ground surface elevation are summarized for each pond in the table below. Table 5-1. Lateral Percolation: To of Water to Ground Surface Elevation Parameter Surface Area (ft^2)1 Average Water Above Ground Surface (ft) z Average Percolation of Excavated Soil @ 1.5 ft bgs w/ 80% Rate Decrease (gal/ft^2*day) 3 Daily Percolation (gal/day) Annual Percolation (gal/year) Pond A 20,918 5.12 2.66 55,587 20,289,078 Pond B 15,957 4.41 2.66 42,404 15,477,379 Pond C 16,507 4.35 2.66 43,865 16,010,767 Pond D 27,966 5.15 2.66 74,318 27,125,899 TOTAL -- -- -- 216,174 78,903,123 1. Surface area of perimeter levee walls. Considers sloped interior walls from top of water to ground surface elevation and 2:1 slope. 2. Considers top of water to ground surface elevation. Dependent on average excavation depth and total water depth of 6 feet. 3. Considers the following Percolation Test Holes: P1, P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P10, P11, P12. Based on these preliminary calculations, it is anticipated that 216,174 gallons/day and 78,903,123 gallons/year of water will percolate laterally through the levee walls, but below the ground surface elevation. It should be noted that these estimates do not consider correction factors to account for long-term siltation and bio-buidup on the pound walls. In addition, further percolation testing, performed onsite post embankment construction, would be necessary to determine the magnitude of the embankments hydraulic conductivity decrease as a function of the site-specific level of compaction. 2. Lateral Percolation: Ground Surface Elevation to Pond Bottom It is anticipated that water will flow laterally through the pond interior walls (see Section 2.0). An average percolation rate was calculated for each proposed storage pond. Percolation rates were based on 1) nearby percolation test holes and 2) average percolation rates within the selected test locations at 1.5 feet bgs. Percolation rates at 1.5 feet bgs were chosen based on the anticipated excavation depths (see Section 2.0). Water will flow laterally through the interior pond walls, where water will either flow downward, or to the east-southeast in accordance with the regional hydraulic gradient (Section 3.6). It is not anticipated that groundwater beneath the pond will impact the flow of water laterally out of the pond. The surface area of the pond interior slopes were considered in calculating the area over which lateral percolation will occur. Calculations of lateral percolation from the ground surface elevation to the pond bottom are summarized for each pond in the table below. Table 5-2. Lateral Percolation: Ground Surface Elevation to Pond Bottom Parameter(R^2) Surface Area 1 Pond Bottom Average bgs (ft) 2 Average Percolation Rate @ 1.5 ft bgs (gal/ft^2*day) 3 Daily Percolation (gal/day) Annual Percolation (gal/year) Pond A 3,604 0.88 16.1 58,031 21,181,472 Pond B 5,751 1.59 12.6 72,598 26,498,189 Pond C 6,273 1.65 15.6 97,797 35,695,738 Pond D 4,596 0.85 12.5 57,631 21,035,328 TOTAL -- -- -- 286,057 104,410,726 1. Surface area of outer/perimeter evee walls. Considers sloped interior walls from ground surface elevation to pond bottom and 2:1 slope. 2. Dependent on average excavation depth. 3. See Section 4.3 for nearby Percolation Test Holes. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 22 of 33 Based on these calculations, it is anticipated that 286,057 gallons/day and 104,410,276 gallons/year of water will percolate laterally through the levee walls above the ground surface elevation. It should be noted that these estimates do not consider correction factors to account for long-term siltation and bio-buidup. 3. Vertical Percolation: Pond Bottom to Groundwater It is anticipated that as the ponds are initially filled, water will flow vertically through the pond bottom, recharging shallow groundwater until the groundwater elevation is at the pond bottom (see Section 2.0). Once groundwater is at the pond bottom, vertical percolation is no longer anticipated to occur. The ponds may be emptied and refilled each year; therefore, this vertical percolation process is anticipated to occur one time per year, at which point lateral percolation will dominate. Depth to groundwater may vary each year. To account for annual variations in groundwater depth, a maximum depth to groundwater is considered in the calculation of vertical percolation volume. This is done to ensure a conservative/maximum estimate of vertical percolation. The volume of water that will percolate vertically through the pond bottom is calculated based on 1) Pond bottom surface area, 2) Depth to deepest anticipated groundwater, and 3) Estimated specific yield of the underlying soil. The specific yield value used is 0.18, based on silty soil (see Section 3.4.2 for site-specific soil types). Deepest anticipated groundwater depth is based on each pond bottom's average elevation and anticipated deepest groundwater elevation according to historical records at a nearby onsite well (see Section 3.6.2). The rate at which the volume of percolating water will fill the underlying pores and raise groundwater is based on average percolation rates at 1.5 feet bgs within nearby percolation test holes. Nearby percolation test holes for each pond and associated rates are detailed in Section 4.2. It should be noted that the percolation rate is preliminary, as soil may be compacted during pond construction, which may increase water penetration resistance. Further percolation testing, performed onsite post construction would be necessary to determine hydraulic conductivity decrease, if any. Calculations of vertical percolation from the pond bottom to deepest anticipated groundwater are summarized for each pond in the table below. Table 5-3. Vertical Percolation: Pond Bottom to Groundwater Parameter Surface Area (ft"2)1 Depth to Groundwater (R) 2 Specific Yield (OM Average Percolation Rate @ 1.5 ft bgs s (gal/ft 2 day) Material Volume - Pond to Groundwater (ftA3) 4 Annual Percolation (gal/year) Pond A 506,300 4.97 0.18 16.1 3,195,715 4,302,711 Pond B 655,700 5.49 0.18 12.6 3,600,055 4,847,114 Pond C 861,000 3.98 0.18 15.6 3,966,296 5,340,221 Pond D 598,600 4.59 0.18 12.5 3,368,472 4,535,311 TOTAL -- -- -- -- 14,130,539 19,025,358 1. Surface area of pond bottom. 2. Based on average excavation depth and lowest anticipated groundwater elevation. 3. See Section 4.3 for nearby Percolation Test Holes. 4. Based on depth from pond bottom to groundwater and pond surface area. Based on these calculations, it is anticipated that a maximum of 19,025,358 gallons/year of water will percolate vertically through the pond bottom to groundwater, raising groundwater (causing bulging) to the elevation of the pond bottoms. Vertical percolation is not considered in a gallons/day rate, as the rate of percolation will vary depending on the rate that the pond is filled and is anticipated Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 23 of 33 to occur rapidly. It should be noted that these estimates do not consider correction factors to account for long-term siltation and bio-buidup. Correction Factors As discussed in Section 2.0, percolation rates in a storage pond need to be corrected to account for long-term siltation and bio -buildup that result in slower percolation rates. Correction Factors (CFs) are used to account for decreased percolation in ponds over time. There are multiple methods available for consideration (Massmann, 2003) when determining CFs for infiltration basins. Ultimately, two different methods were chosen based on the site-specific characteristics as well as plant operations/maintenance schedules. Method 1, the USDA method, and Method 2, the In -Situ Infiltration method, are detailed below. The USDA Method The USDA method is based on soil textural classifications and represents rates associated with homogenous soils. The USDA method for assigning suitable CF's assumes a high degree of long-term maintenance, reliable pretreatment for influent, and reduced Total Suspended Solids (TSS) entering the pond. The table below represents the range of soils and recommended CF's. Table 5-4. USDA Correction Factors Soil Texture Correction Factor Clean sandy gravels, and gravelly sands 2 Sand 4 Loamy Sand 4 Sandy Loam 4 Loam 4 According to the USDA standard, no case should use a correction factor less than 2. Based on the sandy silt and silty sands underlying the ponds (see Section 3.4), the correction factor of 4 should be applied to the percolation rates. In -Situ Infiltration Rate Method The second method considered is the In-situ Infiltration Rate Method (Massmann, 2003). The in-situ infiltration method considers three variables and their correlating partial correction factors, added to gain the final CF, with a higher level of uncertainty for each resulting in a higher total CF. The table below outlines the considerations and corresponding partial correction factors. Table 5-5. In -Situ Correction Factors Variables Partial Correction Factor Site variability and number of locations tested (CFS) CF„= 1.5 to 6 Degree of long-term maintenance to prevent siltation and bio -buildup. (CFm) CFm = 2 to 6 Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio -buildup. (CF;) CF;=2to6 PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 24 of 33 Variables Partial Correction Factor TOTAL (CFO CFt = CFv+ CFm + CF; Based on the variable percolation rates during the field investigation and general homogeneity of the soil, the site variability correction factor (CFV) for the pond is 3 (moderate). Since long-term maintenance from the City is anticipated to be reliable and on schedule, the maintenance correction factor (CFm) for the pond is 2 (lowest). Influent will consist of tertiary treated water with multiple treatments, including influent screens, grit removal, primary sedimentation tanks, activated sludge with biological nutrient removal, secondary clarification, tertiary treatment through cloth media filtration, and UV light disinfection. Therefore, the influent control correction factor (CF;) for the pond is 2 (lowest). Based on these assumptions, the final CF is calculated as follows: CFv= 3 CFm= 2 CF; = 2 CFt=3+2+2=7 Therefore, the total CF is 7 based on the in-situ infiltration rate method. Both methods used to calculate a CF for a storage basin are reasonable. For final percolation rate calculations from the site storage ponds, both CFs will be used as a range (4-7) to consider both maximum and minimum anticipated percolation. Percolation Totals The three above calculations are summed to get both approximate percolation per day and percolation per year. As discussed above, these rates need to be corrected to account for siltation and bio -buildup. For the site, correction factors between 4 and 7 are appropriate (Massman, 2003). Therefore, a range of anticipated percolation rates are given below, considering both correction factors. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Table 5-6. Percolation Totals Page 25 of 33 Parameter Dail y Percolation (gallons/day) Daily Percolation with CF 7 (gallons/day) Daily Percolation with CF 4 (gallons/day) Annual Percolation (gallons/year) Annual Percolation with CF 7 (gallons/year) Annual Percolation with CF 4 (gallons/year) Pond A 113,618 16,231 28,404 45,773,261 6,539,037 11,443,315 Pond B 115,002 16,429 28,750 46,822,682 6,688,955 11,705,670 Pond C 141,662 20,237 35,415 57,046,726 8,149,532 14,261,681 Pond D 131,949 18,850 32,987 52,696,539 7,528,077 13,174,135 TOTAL 502,230 71,747 125,557 202,339,207 28,905,601 50,584,802 *Vertical percolation is not considered in the gal on/day percolation rate Based on the above table, for the entire combined pond area the daily percolation is estimated to range from 71,747 gallons/day to 125,557 gallons/day and the annual percolation is estimated to range from 28,905,601 gallons/year to 50,584,802 gallons/year. Groundwater Build -Up - Positive Effects In 2015, the City of Lodi was awarded a grant from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in the amount of $4,600,000. The grant was intended to facilitate projects that would improve drinking water and agricultural water intakes. The City of Lodi had a stated need which included enlarged tertiary treated surface water holding ponds. These proposed unlined storage ponds will store higher quality tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. This higher quality, tertiary treated wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site agricultural fields in the northwest portion of the facility during irrigation season, with further plans of potentially expanding wastewater irrigation to the southeastern fields (90 acres), which are currently irrigated via groundwater pumping. As discussed above, the unlined ponds in the northwest portion of the site would allow for the higher quality tertiary treated water to percolate. The percolation of the high-quality tertiary -treated water may potentially improve long-term groundwater quality and quantity, and passively recharge groundwater. This is of particular interest as the water here is very near to the Delta, and has higher TDS. Since salt water intrusion is of great concern in areas of groundwater over -draft, this is a mechanism to combat that negative effect. The groundwater contour map included as Plate 9, Appendix A, shows shallow groundwater directly west of the existing unlined storage ponds, then groundwater decreasing in elevation to the east-southeast. The shallow groundwater adjacent to the existing ponds is due to local groundwater bulging in the immediate area of the unlined ponds. It is anticipated that groundwater will act similarly, likely rising at pond bottom (directly beneath the ponds), and then decreasing to the east- southeast. The shallow groundwater elevations beneath and surrounding the ponds may partially disrupt the existing hydraulic gradient in the area, which would assist in acting as a localized saltwater intrusion barrier. Intrusion of brackish to saline water into the Delta prior to the implementation of Delta water projects has led to high groundwater salinity in the region. Continued groundwater over -pumping may also be contributing to elevated salinity levels (WYA, 2006). Due to the Delta water projects, there are upstream surface waters/reservoirs assisting in restricting the extent of saline intrusion. Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 26 of 33 Recharge of freshwater occurs on a year-round basis west and northwest of the WPCF, where these recharge zones have been reported to have lower salinity levels compared to the properties located further east (WYA, 2015). The area west of the WPCF facility relies on surface water, opposed to the area east, which generally relies on groundwater. As discussed in section 3.5.1, there is a cone of depression that persists throughout the year east-southeast of the site; this cone is a result of groundwater pumping and is responsible for the groundwater flow direction in the vicinity. The transition on-site between surface water and groundwater use is also expected to create a gradient of water quality across the site, particularly with regards to salinity (WYA, 2015). There are three agricultural fields that occupy 90 acres in the most southeast portion of the site which are currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a well near the southeast corner of these fields. The WPCF's irrigation distribution could be expanded in order to deliver the reclaimed tertiary wastewater and reduce (or eventually eliminate) the need for groundwater pumping/depletion in the southeast portion of the site (WYA, 2016). This could have the benefit of decreasing groundwater pumping while increasing groundwater recharge with higher quality tertiary treated water in the eastern portion of the site. 6.0 FUTURE IMPACTS AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IMPLICATIONS The purpose of the proposed storage ponds is to store Title 22 tertiary treated effluent that has historically been discharged to the Delta. The tertiary treated effluent would be stored during the non -irrigation season (October through mid-April), and then be used for irrigation from mid-April through September. This will reduce long-term pumping of groundwater for irrigation in the region. This is considered a passive form of groundwater recharge (in -lieu). However, more active/increased groundwater recharge methods and their impacts should be considered in the future. As previously discussed, the proposed pond location is on a portion (88 acres) of the City's existing agricultural fields, located due west of the existing onsite storage ponds. The location is near the WPCF's main irrigation distribution box, which is anticipated to reduce the cost needed to convey the tertiary treated water. The location is also situated at the end of the City's irrigation distribution system currently in place, and serves as a further cost benefit since the construction of the ponds will have minor impacts on the City's current irrigation water delivery systems (West Yost Technical Memo, Figure 4). The Project will divert Title 22 tertiary treated water to the new storage ponds. As outlined in WYA's Technical Memorandum, the current diversion facilities transport both tertiary treated water and un -disinfected secondary treated water. Therefore, the Project will require new facilities that will accommodate the diversion of tertiary treated flow separately. The tertiary treated wastewater will be diverted from the WPCF's current Filter Pump Station and transported to the new ponds via a new 18 -inch diameter pipeline; the 18 -inch pipeline will also serve to transport water from the new ponds to the WPCF's irrigation system. The 18 -inch diameter pipeline will terminate at the Tertiary Water Pump Station, which will be used to pump water directly into the ponds, as necessary. The Tertiary Water Pump Station will pump the stored water to the WPCF's existing irrigation distribution system in order to deliver water to the City -owned agricultural fields. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 27 of 33 The proposed ponds will remove approximately 88 acres of agricultural land located west of the facility. The irrigation water previously used to irrigate these 88 acres could be delivered to the three agricultural fields, consisting of 90 acres, in the very southeast portion of the WPCF that are currently irrigated with groundwater pumped from a well located near these fields (see Plate 1, Appendix A). Improvements needed to expand the irrigation system and deliver reclaimed wastewater to the southeastern fields would require a new pump station to withdraw water from an existing supply channel and deliver the water to the existing groundwater supply channel that trends parallel to Thornton Road (WYA, 2016). A water balance analysis performed by WYA (WYA, 2016) demonstrates that with the addition of the new ponds under current conditions, there may be a potential for excess water to remain in the storage ponds at the end of the irrigation season. If the water delivery system is expanded to transport the potential excess water to the southeastern fields that are currently drawing on groundwater pumping, the need for groundwater pumping in that area will be reduced, with some minimal groundwater pumping still required. The WPCF anticipates the average dry weather flow to reach 5.0 MGD in the future, of which the City could then irrigate the additional 90 acres in the southeastern fields without the need for supplemental irrigation, further decreasing local groundwater pumping (WYA, 2016). As discussed Section 3.4, there are two distinct soil types located at the WPCF: the Guard (located northwest in the anticipated pond location), a clay loam with a low permeability, and the Devries, (located southeast), a sandy loam with a moderately rapid permeability. Although additional monitoring wells are needed to further characterize the site-specific groundwater flows at the facility (WYA, 2006), the regional groundwater flow is to the southeast, toward a cone of depression. The tertiary treated water proposed to be stored in the expansion ponds, located northwest on the Guard soil series, will percolate at a relatively slow rate and migrate primarily to the southeast, into the Devries sandy loam. The infrastructure proposed to convey the tertiary treated water to the southeastern fields would drastically reduce groundwater pumping up to the point of the anticipated future increase of 5.0 MGD (WYA, 2016) future dry weather flow, at which time there would be no need for groundwater pumping from the dedicated well located near the southeastern agricultural fields. Furthermore, the treated water will percolate moderately fast through the Devries sandy loam located in the southeastern fields, which would be irrigated, potentially increasing groundwater storage/reducing aquifer level drawdown in an area with recorded elevated salinity levels. The proposed ponds, while primarily serving as unlined storage ponds with natural percolation, could be utilized in the future for other groundwater recharge projects. Groundwater recharge can be accomplished via in -lieu methods such as an injection well intended to introduce the treated waters and blend them with the existing aquifer, or via sand aquifer treatment (SAT), which would apply the treated waters to the southeastern agricultural fields that have moderately fast anticipated percolation rates and greater depth to groundwater. However, such possibilities need to be more thoroughly explored, and studied in greater detail. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 28 of 33 If the tertiary treated pond water is used as a formal groundwater recharge source, extensive monitoring, testing, and research will need to be continually performed to ensure the recycled water remains safe for groundwater replenishment. Beneficial uses of the groundwater underlying the facility include agricultural water supply, industrial process water supply, and municipal and domestic water supply. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) - Division of Drinking and Environmental Management sets the state standards for groundwater reuse projects, and has set forth engineering objectives for their review prior to the permitting process with the facilities Regional Water Quality Control Board. The requirements for a recycled groundwater recharge project are beyond the scope of this report; however, a brief discussion is given below. In order to be considered by the CDPH for permitting, an engineering report needs to be submitted. The report needs to include a general description of the hydrogeological and geologic setting of the groundwater basin potentially impacted and a detailed description of the stratigraphy beneath the site, which includes the composition; the extent and physical properties of the potentially affected aquifer, with at least four rounds of consecutive monitoring to capture seasonal impacts; and the existing and anticipated hydrogeology (CDPH, 2014). In conjunction with source water monitoring to ensure recycled water quality meets standards, at least two monitoring wells need to be located downgradient: at least one monitoring well should be located where recycled water has been retained in the saturated zone for at least two weeks, but no longer than six months, and at least one monitoring well should be located no less than thirty days up -gradient of the nearest drinking well(s) (CDPH, 2014). Retention times can vary, based on the model used to determine groundwater flow/residence time; models using Darcy's Law require a maximum retention time of 24 months prior to reaching a domestic water supply well. Ultimately, a tracer test is required to ensure recycled water is retained underground for a minimum of 6 months prior to extraction for drinking water (CDPH, 2014). These studies can also apply to the application of Soil Aquifer Treatment to ensure soil is effectively removing contaminants. At least one year after the blended recharge water has reached a minimum of one groundwater monitoring well, the facility shall submit a report demonstrating buffer zone/travel time compliance, groundwater testing, and a mass balance to ensure that blending is occurring, with recharge water flow paths determined and compared to models. In accordance with Order R5-2007-0113, groundwater monitoring has historically been performed at the WPCF, with monitoring results submitted to the Water Board. The City has a groundwater monitoring well network at the WPCF, currently consisting of 21 groundwater monitoring wells. Depth to groundwater ranges from just a few feet bgs in the westernmost monitoring wells to greater than 30 feet bgs in the eastern monitoring wells. Based on historical monitoring results, the Central Valley Water Board concluded in amended Order R5-2013-0126 that the land application activities, consisting of the discharge of wastewater to agricultural fields, could be a threat to groundwater quality. To determine compliance with Groundwater Limitations contained in the Order and to evaluate whether the City is meeting Best Practicable Treatment or Control (BPTC) in accordance with the Antidegradation Policy, the City must continue to fully characterize background groundwater and complete a BPTC Evaluation. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 29 of 33 In January 2015, WYA prepared a BPTC Evaluation report on behalf of the City of Lodi for the WPCF, in accordance with Special Provision VI.C.5.a of amended Order R5-2007-0113. The purpose of the report was to determine BPTCs for each of the waste constituents of concern (COCs). This is accomplished by an analysis of COCs for which degradation from the WPCF is possible. WYA determined that additional BPTCs may be necessary for COCs if the concentrations exceed the applicable Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) in any on-site well and if the existing WPCF practices are the cause of the background exceedance. However, BPTCs are considered adequate for COCs where either the onsite concentrations are at or below WQOs or there are no applicable WQOs. To identify COCs at the facility that may require additional BPTCs, WYA analyzed data from the City's groundwater monitoring well network at the WPCF. The analyzed potential COCs, background concentrations, and applicable WQOs are included in Table 6-1 below. Table 6-1. Groundwater Quality Data Source: West Yost Associates, BPTC (2015) Constituent of Concern _ Units Background Tertiary -Level Treatment (2009-2011) Water Quality Objective Boron mg/1 0.073-0.15 NA 0.7 Chloride 12-97 645 106 mg/1 Iron mg/1 <0.017-0.33 0.1405 0.3 Lead mg/1 1.4 0.00035 15 Mercury ng/1 NA 0.045 2 Manganese Rg/1 <0.17-275 294 50 Sodium mg/1 20-175 NA 69 Sulfate mg/1 11-160 285 250 Electrical Conductivity Rhmos/cm 665-1,640 6735 700 Total Dissolved Solids mg/1 405-1,100 4165 450 Ammonia as N mg/1 0.11-0.31 2.72 1.5 Nitrate as N mg/1 1.4-31 NA 10 Nitrite as N mg/1 <0.042 0.485 1 Nitrate + Nitrate as N mg/1 1.4-31 115 10 Total Coliform Organisms MPN/100 ml <2.2 12.53 2.21 Bromoform Rg/1 <0.085 NA 80 Chloroform Rg/1 <0.060 NA 80 Chlorodibromomethane Rg/1 <0.081 <0.312 0.41 Dichlorobromomethane Rg/1 <0.081 <0.252 0.56 Fixed Dissolved Solids mg/1 330-940 NA 450 Fluoride mg/1 0.13-0.285 NA 1 Alkalinity, Total mg/1 220-620 NA N/A pH Std Units 7.2-7.4 6.3-7.65 6.5-8.5 PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 30 of 33 Constituent of Concern Units Background Tertiary -Level Treatment (2009-2011) Water Quality Objective Bromide mg/1 <0.071-1.4 NA NA Calcium mg/1 63-100 NA NA Hardness mg/1 285-560 NA NA Phosphorous mg/1 0.084-0.76 NA NA Potassium mg/1 0.46-2.7 NA NA Magnesium mg/1 30-50 NA NA Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/1 0.035-0.33 NA NA Molybdenum mg/1 NA NA NA (1) Average Weekly Effluent Limit (2) Highest Average Monthly Concentration (3) Highest Average Weekly Concentration (4) Highest Daily Concentration (5) Annual Average Concentration NA - Data Not Available Based on a background groundwater study and identified on-site well exceedances, additional BTPCs were considered for Chloride, Manganese, and Nitrate. A review of on-site and nearby chloride sources indicated that the WPCF is not the source of on-site chloride background exceedances. Rather, other regional processes such as regional groundwater pumping and historical intrusion of brackish to saline water are the suspected cause of the exceedances. For manganese, it was determined that naturally occurring anoxic conditions related to the presence of Guard soils are the cause of current on-site background exceedances. For nitrate, a nearby dairy farm and other previously impacted activities unrelated to the WPCF are likely the cause of on-site background exceedances. Based on these findings, West Yost concluded that the on-site application of secondary treated water at the WPCF is not the source of current background exceedances for COCs. Furthermore, the City of Lodi has already implemented and continues to implement numerous BPTCs to manage loading of COCs to groundwater. Therefore, the WPCF is in compliance with the Antidegradation Policy. The proposed pond will store tertiary treated, UV disinfected municipal wastewater that was previously discharged to the Delta during the winter months. The stored wastewater will be treated, stored, and land applied in accordance with amended Order R5-2013-0126. Secondary treated wastewater, treated to lower quality than the tertiary treated wastewater, is already stored in the four existing onsite unlined ponds during the winter months, and applied to the surrounding agricultural fields during irrigation season. As discussed above, WYA's 2015 BPTC study concluded that the current onsite storage and application of secondary treated wastewater at the WPCF is not the source of background exceedance of COCs. Therefore, it is not expected that the tertiary treated wastewater stored in the proposed ponds, treated to higher quality than the already applied secondary treated wastewater, will violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements if applied to surrounding land. Furthermore, the treated wastewater may be a good candidate for groundwater recharge as a future positive benefit of the project at some point in the future. PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (2091-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 7.0 REFERENCES ASTM D2487: Standard Practice for Classification of Soils. Page 31 of 33 Aubertin, M., M. Mbonimpa, B. Bussiere, and R.P. Chapuis, 2003. "A model to predict the water retention curve from basic geotechnical properties". Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 1104-1122. Burt, C., Orvis, S., and Alexander, N. (2010). "Canal Seepage Reduction by Soil Compaction". Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering., 10.1061/(ASCE)IR. 1943-4774.0000205, 479-485. California Department of Public Health. Regulations Related to Recycled Water. June 18, 2014. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, Wagner, et al, California. Scale: 1:62,500. Gregory, J.H., Dikes, M.D., Jones, P.H., and Miller, G.L., (2006). "Effect of Urban Soil Compaction on Infiltration Rate". Journal of soil and Water Conservation, Volume 61, Number 3. Horton, Robert, E., An Approach Toward a Physical Interpretation of Infiltration -Capacity. American Soil Science, accessed online September 13, 2016. Available online at https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/5/C/SS00500C0399 Massman, W. Joel, (2003). A Design Manual for Sizing Infiltration Ponds: Research Project Agreement Y8265 Nichol C., 2002. Transient Flow and Transport in Unsaturated Heterogeneous Media: Field Experiments in Mine Waste Rock. PhD. Thesis, University of British Columbia. Ochoa, C.G, Fernarld, A. G. Fernald, Guldan, S. J., Shukla, M. K., 2007. Deep Percolation and its Effects on Shallow Groundwater Level Rise Following Flood Irrigation. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Vol. 50(1, pp. 73-81) Page, R.W., 1986, Geology of the Fresh Ground -Water Basin of the Central Valley: US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401. San Joaquin County Groundwater Report (2015) Soil Survey of San Joaquin County (1992) Terracon Consultants, Inc., 2016. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Report: White Slough Wastewater Treatment Facility Tertiary Ponds, Lodi, California. US Geological Survey, 2015, 7.5' Topographic Map, Lodi South Quadrangle. US Geological Survey, 2015, 7.5' Topographic Map, Terminous Quadrangle. USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (2003), Accessed online July 26, 2016. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-40O-5729 www.petraiogix.com • City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 Page 32 of 33 USDA Soil Series, Guard Series. Accessed online July 26, 2016. Available online at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/G/GUARD.html USDA Soil Series, Devries Series. Accessed July 26, 2016. Available online at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD Docs/D/DEVRIES.html West Yost Associates, 2006. City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Soil and Groundwater Investigation Existing Conditions Report (Existing Conditions Report). West Yost Associates, 2015. City of Lodi, White Slough, Water Pollution Control Facility, Best Practicable Treatment and Control Evaluation Work Plan (BPTC Work Plan) West Yost Associates, 2016. DRAFT- Technical Memorandum PetraIogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com City of Lodi Project No. 2016-00001 November 23, 2016 8.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE Tonya R. Scheftner, Project Geologist B.Sc. Geology, GIT No. 685 Petralogix Engineering, Inc 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petraiogix.com Page 33 of 33 Daniel Edward Kramer No. 8657 Daniel E. Kramer, President Professional Geologist No. 8657 • petralogix geophysics -environmental -geology APPENDIX A Facility Map •petralog ix geophysics -environmental - geology �logiz.com ' f . . _P i2 A' 15E1 TERTLIMY $TOR4GrE •13,211Atl i A WAS 1 EorAT R IRf�I3iiTloN- Sl clrr nrorcriK MAPC"., It•{' WRY 9"iivOt h3•ia 9II. •. fl: �wtir :. w.+,i Fa voYlrlppit ..vel 1 Reference: Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supplylmprovement Project, West Yost 2016 Project Name: CityofLodi 11/11 Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate•1 Scale: Not to Scale Site Map •petralog ix geophysics-ernironmen[al -geology ,iogiz.rom L � PO P `4 POND A 64 AC -FT P10 On POND B 67 AC -FT 1 P3 0P5 EXISTING OVERHEAD \ ` `LIQ EXISTING DREDGER 1 DISCHARGE LOCATION ` ` P9 O \ \ 1111E P6 `a\ ` SPOILS AREA LEGEND Pond Area Boundary Individual Pond Boundary 0 Percolation Test Location OF Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate#2 Scale : Not to Scale Topography Map -1.0.ar rt Opetralogix geophysics -environmental - geology '10.0x:corn Source: US Geological Survey, 2015, 7.5' Topographic Map, Terminous Quadrangle Legend WPCF Boundary OF Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate #3 Scale : Not to Scale Geologic Map •petralog ix geophysics -environmental - geology ,logit-com 0 u r). n E1 LEGEND Mine and drudge lsallags Lcwc and ciaaermi dcpira Bain deo ti (AAhrmtahl Intertidal derma' (1 I) ruafl Duce trod Laky deposits ULder alluvium Glrraal dxpvu[. Mudesso Formai.= mite+++®) Riverbank Farrtulxm rAik.rra ii Approximate Site Boundary Upper rod lower members M idc+to.Rlrerbanr F{mnatiarn r+lriuru aou.nuri Mamesuma Farmatum rR+arb rarwranduas .1191., MN* iurleek Like Forswear' r.rrwx .rAt .md prime, Red Bluff Farmalian roard,o.aitch &rani North Monod Gravel d7 .pwaw•nr.cooed Reference: California Geological Survey, 1981 Map of Sacramento Quadrangle Compiled by D.L. Wagner, C.W Jennings, T.L. Bedrossian and E.J. Bortungno 1:250,000, second printing 1987 Tehama Formalins rsawt +ve And +.Jaand++r., Laguna Formn[mn rrwsnadiad..1141.i.rwdFi Sao Pablo Ciroup rAlarme ....mace aad shale! Mohnen Formannn (4MA un.' 4'.. h,.xn,rr. wd.n- r. rnr fw„ %Wiry Springs Formarron rRhp,hm- 44!" and rdraxmrap mtV Markley Saadaane rabrravi NarrOnrille Shale au I [lrsmenp»]C Sarrds[orne 'Amor) atp►} Forma[borr 1%41.nr.aerdhwreP "Anxiferous" Gra+.th lone Fnrau[ion (Ouvrnar.+adr ne anti iachnNi,- .ire+ Marrinel Fornlatlon :Mame cusis.rr ..ti.hruaea OF Project Name: city of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate#4 Scale : Not to Scale Soil Map •petralog ix geophysics -environmental - geology ,iogiz.com Reference: City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Soil and Groundwater Investigation Existing Conditions Report. West Yost Associates, 2006 SOIL CATEGORY GUAR D RIO BLANCHO Existing City -Owned Land ACAMPO C KINGDON 410 1 Yaf DE'JR.ES C3 ¥INGILE 4.0 TOKA' FLUVAQUEN S fat RINDGE TLIJUNGA hide SM.= ba6Ed CO WI Surrey GeDeyraaho S5UPG4} aae. Q°vecoed by the Naibr I Resoviaxa COelEer i 3n SePFZE OF Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate05 Scale : Not to Scale Spring 2013 Groundwater Map Lines of Equal Elevation •petralogix geophy5ia -environ men [a l - geology ,iogiz.com Source: Groundwater Report, Spring 2014 - San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Consrevation District, Lines of Equal Elevation of Groundwater Spring 2013 Contour Interval 10 feet. —• White Slough WPCF Boundary Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction i'llk Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate #6 Scale : Not to Scale f Spring 2014 Groundwater Map Lines of Equal Elevation Tf / ._L°a; - / ,—,F. L I •petralog ix geophysics -environmental - geology ,iogiz.com bpi r�rf � IJ f v • r. pkv* {.r .y ay Source: Groundwater Report, Spring 2014 - San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Consrevation District, Lines of Equal Elevation of Groundwater Spring 2014 Contour Interval 10 feet. — • White Slough WPCF Boundary Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction • Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate#7 Scale : Not to Scale LEGEND - City of LodiWhite SIough WPCF •petralogixgeophysics-environmental -geology ,Iogizrom Monitoring Well Locations Source: The City of Lodi - WPCF BPTC Report, West Yost, 2015. EGur .j :• :L: c' ] Lend VAFD. Yon?am7 W el W Mi .7tIrvixdFWr.La-g Vitt MU Note: The City's monitoring wells previously included well WSM-3, which was destroyed in August 17, 2010. i'llk Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate #8 Scale : Not to Scale Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations September, 2003 dpetralogix geophysics -environmental - geology '105ix:corn Reference: City of Lodi White Slough WPCF Soil and Groundwater Existing Conditions Report. West Yost Associates, 2006 LE.;EN TW'"ELL = = E 4.4.1160 FEET ••• • Approximate Expansion Pond Boundary OE Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate #9 Scale: Not to Scale Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations March, 2004 -46,§1016e.713 — - :Tan %Slat .1 -7. • ,• 416W15 . . • . . .."1" ..:. • ..6;F• • •Pumping • • • •==. - 'I IiM —4 • ; r. • 71 -8 -9 12 48 Opetra log ix geophysics -environmental - geology PC, • : • • 114hilr...Tctigh INN1 Dr ppin-iikitr. &word Sam. 7 r - • EN r „ Eirritiori R i0 B L AC • '10.0x:corn ..vo —15 — , #99 ir 14. \‘'4; 4: amp ." S1,11154,11 I Reference:City Qf Lodi White Slouah WPCF Soil and Groundwater Investigation Existing Conditions Report. West Yost, 2006. LE;Er, D a5u, === 51CFM.P.G KU_ P14:45131T1 LIRE 8:14.1•8 ELEw41, C.124•VA.A. FT • Approximate Expansion Pond Boundary WcII i'llk Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate #10 Scale : Not to Scale Site -Specific Groundwater Elevations July 23, 2014 petralogix geophysics -environmental -geology ,iogiz.rom LEGEND Reference: City of Lodi WPCF Best Practicable Treatment or Control Evaluation Report. West Yost, 2015. Etarstryarat5.0enedrx.1 -3_41P WPCF MwulonW Joel wqh Cfour.]raErotica iFeet M54 td . W5,6 3 lannrcieeterEr aDm Crareour tFerc M547 ,,.anl ar,+atria! , Per. Approximate Expansion Pond Boundary Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: Plate#11 Scale : Not to Scale GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS Spring, 2016 •petralog ix geophysics -e nvironmenta f -geology ww w.p at r.: O Well 15 )3 1 1 OND C AC -FT EXISTING PONDS POND D 67 AC -FT 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 r -4 -4.5 -5 -5.5 -6 -6.5 -7 Groundwater Elevation Scale LEGEND • Pond Area Boundary Individual Pond Boundary Percolation Test Location \•.,_,,,1 Groundwater Elevation Contour. Contour Interval = 0.5 feet Groundwater Elevation in feet above mean sea level NADV88 Groundwater Flow Direction i'llk Project Name: City of Lodi Project No.: Date: November 2016 Plate No.: 12 Scale : Not to Scale petralogix geophysics -environmental -geology APPENDIX B •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/1/2016, Percolation Test: 4/2/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4.7 feet Location: 38.08739 N, 121.39339 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com • PI -6'/ GW -I Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -1-I 0-14 Silty Sand, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (SM) GW -1 -II 14-20 Sandy Silt, brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -1 -III 20-32 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, fine sand, dry, subrounded (ML) GW -1 -IV 32-54 Sandy Silt with Clay, olive brown, fine sand, dry (ML) GW -1-V 54-57 Silty Sand, yellowish brown, fine sand, wet (SM) Groundwater @ 4.7 feet / 56.4 inches GW -1 -VI 57-60 Silty Sand, olive brown, fine sand, wet (SM) GW -1 -VII 60- Silty Sand, yellowish brown, medium sand, wet (SM) Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com • •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/1/2016, Percolation Test: 4/2/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4.7 feet Location: 38.09147 N. 121.39349 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P2-5'/ GW -2 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -2-I 0-6 Clay, black, with very fine sand, dry (CL) GW -2 -II 6-20 Clay, brown, with very fine sand, dry (CL) GW -2 -III 20-52 Silt with Sand, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -2 -IV 52-60 Sandy Silt, olive yellow, very fine, wet (ML) Groundwater @ 4.7 feet / 56.4 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/2/2016, Percolation Test: 4/5/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 6.46' - 6.52' Location: 38.09410 N, 121.39361 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P3-7.4'/ GW -3 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -3-I 0-23 Sandy Silt, olive brown, fine sand, dry (ML) GW -3 -II 23-44 Silty Sand, brown, fine sand, dry (SM) GW -3 -III 44-67 Silty Sand, yellowish brown, fine sand, dry (SM) GW -3 -IV & GW -3-V 67-79 Clean Sand with some silt, yellowish brown, medium sand, well sorted, moist -wet (SP)/(SM) Groundwater @ 6.46 feet / 77.5 inches GW -3 -VI 79-89 Clay, olive, dry (CL) GW -3 -VII 89- Silt with Sand, olive, wet (ML) Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/2/2016, Percolation Test: 4/5/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4-4.22' Location: 38.094159 N. 121.400091 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P4-5'/ GW -4 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -4-I 0-30 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -4 -II 30-53 Sandy Silt, brown, fine sand, drive (ML) GW -4 -III 53-60 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, fine sand, wet (ML) Groundwater @ 4.22 feet / 50.6 inches GW -4 -IV 60-62 Sandy Silt olive, fine sand, wet (ML) Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/2/2016, Percolation Test: 4/5/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 5-5.23' Location: 38.09410 N, 121.39067 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P5-6'/ GW -5 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -5-I 0-23 1 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -5 -II 23-60 Silty Sand, brown, fine sand, dry (SM) GW -5 -III 60-72 Clean Sand with some fines, yellowish brown, medium sand, well sorted, subrounded, wet (SP)/(SM) Groundwater @ 5 feet / 60 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/2/2016, Percolation Test: 4/5/2016 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4.8-5' Location: 38.08802 N, 121.39025 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P6-5.3'/ GW -6 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -6-I 0-20 1 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -6 -II 20-60 Silty Sand, yellowish brown, fine sand, dry (SM) GW -6 -III 60- Clean sand with minor fines, yellowish brown, medium sand, well sorted, subrounded, wet (SP) Groundwater @ 5 feet / 60 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/12/16, Percolation Test: 4/15/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 3.5-4.1' Location: 38.08812 N, 121.39633 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P7-5.25'/ GW -7 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -7-I 0-14 1 Silt with Sand, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -7 -II 14-24 Clay, brown, with fine sand, dry (CL) GW -7 -III & GW -7 -IV 24-63 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, fine sand, dry -wet (ML) Groundwater @ 4.1 feet / 49.2 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/12/16, Percolation Test: 4/15/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 3.8-4' Location: 38.09108 N, 121.39878 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P8-4.75'/ GW -8 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -8-I 0-14 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -8 -II 14-24 Sandy Silt, light brownish gray, fine sand, dry (ML) GW -8 -III 24-31 Silty Sand, yellowish brown, fine sand, dry (SM) GW -8 -IV 31-47 Silt with Sand, yellowish brown, fine sand, moist (ML) GW -8-V 47-57 Sandy Silt, olive, fine sand, moist -wet (ML) Groundwater @ 4 ft / 48 inches GW -8 -VI 57- Sandy Silt, olive, fine sand, wet (ML) Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 4/12/16, Percolation Test: 4/15/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 2.67-3.1' Location: 38.09139 N, 121.38995 W Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com • P9-3.58'/ GW -9 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -9-I & GW -9 -II 0-43 Silt with Sand, olive brown, very fine sand, moist -wet (ML) Groundwater @ 3.1 feet / 37 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com • •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 5/10/16, Percolation Test: 5/11/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 5.10-5.0' Location: 38.093181 N, 121.396144 W Note: Hardpan/rocks at 30 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P10-5.5'/ GW -10 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -10-I 0-16 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -10 -II 16-20 Silty Sand, brown, fine, dry (SM) GW -10 -III 20-39 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, fine, dry (ML) GW -10 -IV 39-45 Silty Sand, olive brown, fine, dry (SM) GW -10-V 45-60 Silty Sand, brown, very fine, dry (SM) GW -10 -VI 60 Silty Sand, brown, fine, dry (SM) Note: Hardpan/rocks at 30 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 5/12/16, Percolation Test: 5/13/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4.50-4.43' Location: 38.09065 N, -121.39602 W Note: Cemented at 17 inches Cemented chunks at —38 inches More clay at 60 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P11-5.8'/ GW -11 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -11-I 0-17 Sandy Silt, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -11 -II 17-23 Silt w/ Sand, olive brown, very fine sand, dry (ML) GW -11 -III 23-35 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, fine, dry (ML) GW -11 -IV 35-67 Silty Sand, some clay, olive, fine (SM) Note: Cemented at 17 inches Cemented chunks at —38 inches More clay at 60 inches Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com •petralogix FIELD LOG Project Name: City of Lodi White Slough Date: Auger: 5/12/16, Percolation Test: 5/13/16 Address: 12751 Thornton Rd, Lodi, CA 95242 Performed By: HS/TS Groundwater: Groundwater @ 4.2-4.05' Location: 38.08849 N, -121.39567 W Note: Cemented at 4 feet Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com P12-4.5'/ GW -12 Sample ID Depth (inches) Description GW -12-I 0-20 Sandy silt w/clay, black, dry (ML) GW -12 -II 20-44 Sandy Silt, yellowish brown, very fine, dry (ML) GW -12 -III 44-54 Silty Sand, brown, medium, moist (SM) Note: Cemented at 4 feet Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com petralogix geophysics -environmental -geology APPENDIX C Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P1-1.5' Date: 4/2/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) I ncre. Perc. Rate min/in 10:25 3.55 10:45 20 3.60 3.55 0.05 33.33 10:55 10 3.55 3.55 0.00 20.83 11:15 20 3.60 3.50 0.05 33.33 11:48 33 3.54 3.50 0.04 68.75 12:18 30 3.54 0.04 62.50 P1-3.0' MAX MIN Average 68.750 33.333 49.48 Min/In 0.101053 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 9:34 4.4 9:44 10 4.46 4.46 0.06 13.89 9:54 10 4.50 4.50 0.04 20.83 10:31 37 4.55 4.50 0.05 61.67 11:01 30 4.55 4.50 0.05 50.00 11:31 30 4.55 0.05 50.00 P1-6.0'/GW-1 Groundwater @4.7' MAX MIN Average Min/In 61.667 13.889 39.28 0.127298 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. 1 Perc. Rate min/in 10:52 4.5 11:02 10 4.50 4.50 0.00 #DIV/0! 11:32 30 4.50 4.50 0.00 #DIV/0! 11:42 10 4.50 4.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 12:12 30 4.00 4.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 12:52 40 4.00 0.00 #DIV/0! MAX MIN Average #DIV/0! Min/In #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P2-1.5' Date: 4/2/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 13:10 6.06 3.8 13:30 20 3.95 3.81 0.15 11.11 13:50 20 3.95 3.79 0.14 11.90 14:10 20 3.90 4.50 0.11 15.15 P2-3.4' MAX 15.152 MIN 11.111 AVE 12.72246272 Min/In 0.4 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 13:00 6.06 4.53 13:15 15 4.61 4.50 0.08 15.63 13:35 20 4.61 4.55 0.11 15.15 13:55 20 4.60 4.50 0.05 33.33 14:15 20 4.60 0.10 16.67 P2-5.0'/GW-2 Groundwater @ 4.7' MAX 33.333 MIN AVE 15.152 20.19 Min/In 0.247596717 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 12:45 6.06 5.57 13:03 18 5.65 5.55 0.08 18.75 13:23 20 5.65 5.65 0.10 16.67 13:45 22 5.75 5.55 0.10 18.33 14:05 20 5.65 0.10 16.67 MAX MIN AVE 18.750 16.667 17.60 Min/In 0.284023669 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P3-1.5' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 10:47 1.45 10:57 10 1.51 1.45 0.06 13.89 11:07 10 1.49 1.49 0.04 20.83 11:17 10 1.50 1.50 0.01 83.33 11:27 10 1.55 1.40 0.05 16.67 11:37 10 1.40 1.40 0.00 15.91 11:57 20 1.45 1.45 0.05 33.33 12:17 20 1.52 1.40 0.07 23.81 12:37 20 1.47 0.07 23.81 P3-3.0' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 33.333 23.810 26.984 0.185 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 10:43 2.91 10:53 10 2.91 2.91 0.00 11:03 10 2.97 2.97 0.06 13.89 11:14 11 3.04 2.85 0.07 13.10 11:24 10 2.85 2.75 0.00 11:45 21 2.86 2.86 0.11 15.91 12:05 20 2.93 2.93 0.07 23.81 12:25 20 3.00 0.07 23.81 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 23.810 15.909 21.176 0.236 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P3-7.41'/GW-3 Groundwater @6.46-6.52' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 10:40 7.56 6.99 10:50 10 7.40 7.05 0.41 2.03 11:00 10 7.43 7.03 0.38 2.19 11:10 10 7.39 7.05 0.36 2.31 11:20 10 7.45 7.02 0.40 2.08 11:30 10 7.40 7.05 0.38 2.19 11:40 10 7.38 7.00 0.33 2.53 11:50 10 7.40 7.05 0.40 2.08 12:00 10 7.45 7.10 0.40 2.08 12:10 10 7.50 0.40 2.08 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 2.525 2.083 2.231 2.242 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P4-1.75' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 10:37 1.3 10:47 10 1.49 1.30 0.19 4.39 10:57 10 1.45 1.30 0.15 5.56 11:07 10 1.44 1.31 0.14 5.95 11:17 10 1.44 1.31 0.13 6.41 11:27 10 1.44 1.32 0.13 6.41 11:37 10 1.44 1.29 0.12 6.94 11:47 10 1.41 1.32 0.12 6.94 11:57 10 1.44 0.12 6.94 P4-3.0' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 6.944 6.944 6.944 0.720 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 10:35 3.21 10:45 10 3.30 3.20 0.09 9.26 10:55 10 3.27 3.20 0.07 11.90 11:05 10 3.26 3.20 0.06 13.89 11:15 10 3.27 3.22 0.07 11.90 11:25 10 3.28 3.20 0.06 13.89 11:35 10 3.26 3.21 0.06 13.89 11:45 10 3.28 3.22 0.07 11.90 11:55 10 3.28 0.06 13.89 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 13.889 11.905 13.228 0.378 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P4-5.0'/GW-4 Groundwater @4-4.22' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min /in 10:30 5.52 5.25 10:40 10 5.31 5.26 0.06 13.89 10:50 10 5.31 5.25 0.05 16.67 11:00 10 5.30 5.24 0.05 16.67 11:10 10 5.29 5.23 0.05 16.67 11:20 10 5.29 5.20 0.06 13.89 11:30 10 5.25 5.25 0.05 16.67 11:40 10 5.30 5.26 0.05 16.67 11:50 10 5.31 0.05 16.67 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 16.667 16.667 16.667 0.300 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P5-1.5' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 12:36 1.1 12:46 10 1.15 1.04 0.05 16.67 12:56 10 1.12 1.05 0.08 10.42 13:06 10 1.11 1.02 0.06 13.89 13:16 10 1.10 1.00 0.08 10.42 13:26 10 1.07 1.00 0.07 11.90 13:36 10 1.06 1.00 0.06 13.89 13:46 10 1.06 1.00 0.06 13.89 13:56 10 1.06 0.06 13.89 P5-3.0' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 13.889 13.889 13.889 0.360 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 12:34 2.3 12:44 10 2.43 2.40 0.13 6.41 12:54 10 2.50 2.36 0.10 8.33 13:04 10 2.45 2.33 0.09 9.26 13:14 10 2.42 2.37 0.09 9.26 13:24 10 2.45 2.41 0.08 10.42 13:34 10 2.48 2.43 0.07 11.90 13:44 10 2.50 2.39 0.07 11.90 13:54 10 2.46 0.07 11.90 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 11.905 11.905 11.905 0.420 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P5 -6.0' -GW -5 Groundwater @4-5.23' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 12:30 5.5 5.38 12:40 10 5.42 5.42 0.04 20.83 12:50 10 5.45 5.45 0.03 27.78 13:00 10 5.47 5.47 0.02 41.67 13:10 10 5.47 5.47 0.00 #DIV/0! 13:30 20 5.47 5.47 0.00 #DIV/0! 13:50 20 5.47 5.47 0.00 #DIV/0! 14:10 20 5.47 0.00 #DIV/0! MAX MIN AVE Min/In #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P6-1.5' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 7:59 3.49 8:09 10 3.80 3.65 0.31 2.69 8:19 10 3.82 3.65 0.17 4.90 8:29 10 3.80 3.60 0.15 5.56 8:39 10 3.75 3.60 0.15 5.56 8:49 10 3.75 3.60 0.15 5.56 8:59 10 3.75 4.51 0.15 5.56 MAX MIN AVE Min/In P6-3.0' 5.556 5.556 5.556 0.900 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 8:00 4.55 8:10 10 4.60 4.60 0.05 16.67 8:20 10 4.65 4.65 0.05 16.67 8:30 10 4.70 4.41 0.05 16.67 8:40 10 4.45 4.45 0.04 20.83 8:50 10 4.49 4.49 0.04 20.83 9:00 10 4.51 4.51 0.02 41.67 9:10 10 4.55 0.04 20.83 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 41.667 20.833 27.778 0.180 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P6-5.3'/GW-6 Groundwater @4.8-5' Date: 4/5/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min /in 7:54 5.84 8:04 10 6.27 5.77 0.43 1.94 8:14 10 6.25 5.67 0.48 1.74 8:24 10 6.05 5.65 0.38 2.19 8:34 10 6.11 5.75 0.46 1.81 8:44 10 6.15 5.80 0.40 2.08 8:54 10 6.17 5.81 0.37 2.25 9:04 10 6.17 5.80 0.36 2.31 9:14 10 6.20 5.80 0.40 2.08 9:24 10 6.11 0.31 2.69 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 2.315 2.083 2.217 2.256 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P7-1.5' Date: 4/15/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 14:25 4.3 1.26 14:45 20 1.45 1.26 0.19 8.77 15:05 20 1.40 1.27 0.14 11.90 15:25 20 1.35 1.23 0.08 20.83 15:45 20 1.31 1.23 0.08 20.83 16:05 20 1.31 0.08 20.83 P7-3.0' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 20.833 20.833 20.833 0.240 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate min/in 14:23 4.3 3.56 14:43 20 3.61 3.61 0.05 33.33 15:03 20 3.62 3.62 0.01 166.67 15:23 20 3.64 3.64 0.02 83.33 15:43 20 3.66 3.66 0.02 83.33 16:03 20 3.68 0.02 83.33 P7-5.25'/GW-7 MAX MIN AVE Min/In Groundwater @3.5-4.1' 83.333 83.333 83.333 0.060 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 14:20 4.3 3.8 14:40 20 4.00 3.80 0.20 8.33 15:00 20 4.05 3.80 0.25 6.67 15:20 20 4.00 3.75 0.20 8.33 15:40 20 4.00 3.77 0.25 6.67 16:00 20 4.02 0.25 6.67 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 8.333 6.667 7.222 0.692 Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P8-1.5' Date: 4/15/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 12:00 5.53 1.20 12:10 10 1.45 1.22 0.25 3.33 12:20 10 1.42 1.25 0.20 4.17 12:30 10 1.45 1.25 0.20 4.17 12:40 10 1.45 3.20 0.20 4.17 P8-3.42' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 4.167 4.167 4.167 1.200 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 11:37 5.53 3.25 11:57 20 3.40 3.25 0.15 11.11 12:17 20 3.40 3.15 0.15 11.11 12:37 20 3.25 3.20 0.10 16.67 12:57 20 3.30 3.20 0.10 16.67 13:17 20 3.30 0.10 16.67 P8-4.751/GW-8 Groundwater @3.8-4' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 16.667 16.667 16.667 0.300 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft)min/in Incre. Perc. Rate 11:35 5.53 5.1 11:55 20 5.10 5.10 0.00 #DIV/0! 12:15 20 5.10 5.10 0.00 #DIV/0! 12:35 20 5.10 5.10 0.00 #DIV/01 12:55 20 5.10 0.00 #DIV/0! MAX MIN AVE Min/In #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Percolation Data - The City of Lodi WPCF P9-1.58' Date: 4/15/2016 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 16:50 4.07 1.00 17:10 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 83.33 17:30 20 1.03 1.03 0.03 55.56 17:50 20 1.06 1.06 0.03 55.56 18:10 20 1.09 2.74 0.03 55.56 P9-3' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 55.556 55.556 55.556 0.090 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 16:49 4.07 2.73 17:09 20 2.75 2.75 0.02 83.33 17:29 20 2.77 2.66 0.02 83.33 17:49 20 2.70 2.70 0.04 41.67 18:09 20 2.74 2.74 0.04 41.67 18:29 20 2.78 0.04 41.67 P9-3.28"/GW-9 Groundwater @2.67-3.1' MAX MIN AVE Min/In 41.667 41.667 41.667 0.120 Time Elapsed Time (min) Reading (ft) Refill (ft) Water Drop (ft) Incre. Perc. Rate (min/in) 16:45 4.07 3.55 17:05 20 4.05 3.55 0.50 3.33 17:25 20 4.05 3.55 0.50 3.33 17:45 20 4.05 0.50 3.33 MAX MIN AVE Min/In 3.333 3.333 3.333 1.500 petralogix APPENDIX D 71 PERCOLATION CALCULATIONS TOP OF POND WATER TO GROUND SURFACE POND A POND B POND C POND D PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS Perimeter Length (k) Average water ags (ft)* Slope Length (ft) Slope Surface Area (002) Perimeter Length (ft) Average water ags (Ft)` Slope Length (k) Slope Surface Area (Ft^2) perimeter Length (ft) Average water ago (ft)` Slope Length (ft) Slope Surface Area (0t"2) Perimeter Length (ft) Average water ags (ft)* Slope Length (ft) Slope Surface Area (002) 1830 5.12 11.43 20918 1620 4.41 9.85 15957 1700 4.35 9.71 16507 2430 5.15 11.51 27966 PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION Averag Percolation of Excavated Soil (gpd/ft02) Average Perco adon of Exacated Soil after SO% Reduction Average Percolation o Excavated Soil (gpd/ft^2) Average Perco ation of Exacated Soil after 80% Reduction Average Percolation of Excavated Soil (gpd/ft02) Average Percolation of Exacated Soil after 80% Reduction (gpd/ft^2) Average Percolation of Excavated Soil (gpd/ft^2) Average Percolation of Exacated Soil after 80% Reduction 13.3 2.66 13.32.66 P2 13.3 2.66 13.3 2.66 GPD 55,587 GALLONS PER YEAR $ 20,289,078.21 GPD 4 42,404 GALLONS PER YEAR 15,477,379 GPD 43,865 GALLONS PER YEARGALLONS 1 16,010,767 74,318 PER YEAR 27,125,899 `Average ground surface elevation at perimeter wall after excavation subtracted by water depth of 6 feet. ags = above ground surface Perimeter = Outer Perimeter of Pond GROUND SURFACE TO POND BOTTOM POND A POND B POND C POND D PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS PERIMETER DIMENSIONS Perimeter Length (ft) Pond Bottom Average bgs (ft) Slope Length (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) Perimeter Length (ft) Pond Bottom Average bgs (ft) Slope Length (ft) Surface Area (ft^2) Perimeter Length (ft) Pond Bottom Average bgs (ft) Slope Length (k) Surface Area (ft"2) Perimeter Length (ft) Pond Bottom Average bgs Slope Length (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) 1830 0.88 1.97 3604 1620 1.59 3.55 5751 1700 1.65 3.69 6273 2430 0.85 1.89 4596 PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft (gpd/ft"2) Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft (gpd/ft^2) Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft (gpd/ft"2) Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft (gpd/ft^2) P4 9.9 P3 2.9 P2 4.5 P1 1.1 P10 22.3 P10 22.3 P8 16.6 P7 3.3 P11 25.7 P12 33.2 Average 16.1 Average 12.6 Average 15.6 Average 12.5 GPD GALLONS PER YEAR GPD GALLONS PER YEAR GPD GALLONS PER YEAR GPD GALLONS PER YEAR 58,031 21,181,472 72,598 26,498,189 97,797 35,695,738 57,631 21,035,328 POND BASE TO GROUNDWATER Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft^2) GSE (ft msl) Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) GSE (ft nisi) Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft^2) GSE (ft msl) Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) GSE (ft msl) 830 610 506,300 5.6 830 790 655,700 6.3 820 1050 861,000 5.5 820 730 598,600 4.9 POND DIMENIONS (2) POND DIMENIONS (2) POND DIMENIONS (2) POND DIMENIONS (2) Length (ft) 830 Width (ft) 330 Surface Area (ft"2) 136950 N/A Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) Length (ft) Width (ft) Surface Area (ft"2) 820 330 135,300 820 330 135,300 PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION PERCOLATION Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft Percolation Test Hole Percolation Rate at 1.5 ft P4 9.9 P3 2.9 P2 4.5 P1 1.1 P10 22.3 P10 22.3 P8 16.6 P7 3.3 -0.78 5.49 1.65 3.88 P11 25.7 P12 33.2 Average 16.1 Average 12.6 Average 15.6 Average 12.5 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Average bgs (ft) Average Base Elevation (ft) Lowest Anticipated GW Elevation (ft) Depth to GW (ft) Average bgs (ft) CF4 Average Base Elevation (ft) Lowest Anticipated GW Elevation (ft) Depth to GW (ft) Average bgs (ft) Average Base Elevation (ft) Lowest Anticipated GW Elevation (ft) Depth to GW (ft) Average bgs (ft) Average Base Elevation (ft) Lowest Anticipated GW Elevation (ft) Depth to GW (ft) 0.88 4.72 -0.25 4.97 Pond C 1.59 4.71 -0.78 5.49 1.65 3.88 -0.1 3.98 0.85 4.02 -0.57 4.59 SPECIFIC YIELD SPECIFIC YIELD SPECIFIC YIELD SPECIFIC YIELD Specific yield for silt Material Volume (ft^3) Volume Water Drained (ft^3) Volume Water Drained (gal) Specific yield for silt Material Volume (ft"3) Volume Water Drained (ft"3) Volume Water Drained (gal) Specific yield for silt Material Volume (ft"3) Volume Water Drained (ft"3) Volume Water Drained (gal) Specific yield for silt Material Volume (ft^3) Volume Water Drained (ft"3) Volume Water Drained (gal) 0.18 3,195,715 575,229 4,302,711 0.18 3,600,055 648,010 4,847,114 0.18 3,966,296 713,933 5,340,221 0.18 3,368,472 606,325 4,535,311 GALLONS PER YEAR TIME (days) GALLONS PER YEAR TIME (days) GALLONS PER YEAR TIME (days) GALLONS PER YEAR TIME (days) 4,302,711 0.42 4,847,114 0.59 5,340,221 0.34 4,535,311 0.49 Groundwater depth recorded in April 2016 FS Range 1 41 TOTALS TOTAL GPD 502,230 TOTAL GPD W/ FS RANGE 71,747.10 1 12 5,557.43 TOTAL GAL/YEAR 202,339,207 TOTAL GAL/YEAR W/ FS RANGE 28,905,601 50,584,802 GAL/DAY GAL/YEAR TOTAL CF4 CF7 TOTAL CF4 CF7 PondA 113,618 28,404 16,231 45,773,261 11,443,315 6,539,037 Pond B 115,002 28,750 16,429 46,822,682 11,705,670 6,688,955 Pond C 141,662 35,415 20,237 57,046,726 14,261,681 8,149,532 Pond D 131,949 32,987 18,850 52,696,539 13,174,135 7,528,077 TOTALS 502,229.72 125,557 71,747.10 202,339,207 50,584,802 28,905,601 Pond A Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft^2) Area (acres) West Wall (feet) North Wall (feet) Outside Perimter (feet) Excavation Average bgs (ft) 830 610 506300 11.62 890 940 1830 0.88 830 330 136950 3.14 135300 Total Area 643,250.00 14.77 Pond B Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft^2) Area (acres) East Wall (feet) North Wall (feet) Outside Perimter (feet) Excavation Average bgs (ft) 830 790 655700 15.05 830 790 1620 1.59 Total Area 655,700.00 15.05 Pond C Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft^2) Area (acres) West Wall (feet) East Wall (feet) Outside Perimter (feet) Excavation Average bgs (ft) 820 1050 861000 19.77 880 820 1700 1.65 820 330 135300 3.11 135300 Total Area 996,300.00 22.87 Pond D Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (ft^2) Area (acres) West Wall (feet) East Wall (feet) South Wall (feet) Outside Perimter (feet) Excavation Average bgs (ft) 820 730 598600 13.74 880 820 730 2430 0.85 820 330 135300 3.11 Total Area 733,900.00 16.85 Area (acres) Pond A 14.77 Pond B 15.05 Pond C 22.87 Pond D 16.85 TOTAL LOWEST GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS Pond A Estimated Lowest GW Elevation (msl) Plant Datum -2.15 NADV88 -0.25 Pond B Estimated Lowest GW Elevation (msl) Plant Datum -2.68 NADV88 -0.78 Pond C Estimated Lowest GW Elevation (msl) Plant Datum -2 NADV88 -0.1 Pond D Estimated Lowest GW Elevation (msl) Plant Datum -2.47 NADV88 -0.57 -GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS BASED ON PERCOLATION I nCATi GW Elevation Feet GW Elevation Feet GSE Feet (msl) GSE Feet (msl)* Plant (msl) Plant (msl) NADV88 Percolation Locations Depth to GW (ft) NADV88 Datum Datum Datum P1 4.7 6 4.1 -0.6 1.3 P2 4.7 6.9 5 0.3 2.2 P3 6.46 8 6.1 -0.36 1.54 P4 4 6.6 4.7 0.7 2.6 P5 5 5 3.1 -1.9 0 P6 4.8 4 2.1 -2.7 -0.8 P7 3.5 4 2.1 -1.4 0.5 P8 3.8 5.1 3.2 -0.6 1.3 P9 2.67 5 3.1 0.43 2.33 P10 5.1 4.6 2.7 -2.4 -0.5 P11 4.5 4.6 2.7 -1.8 0.1 P12 4.2 4.6 2.7 -1.5 0.4 NW Well WSM 15 5.27 4.6 2.7 -2.57 -0.67 SE Well WSM 02 7.1 5 3.1 -4 -2.1 *Ground Surface Elevation Estimated based on WYA Draft Pond Plans, using the Plant Datum **Draft Pond Plans have existing spot elevations based on Plant Datum ***Plant datum is NADV88 - 1.9 feet ****Well data has been altered from NADV88 to Plant Datum APPENDIX H Petralogix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (T) 209-400-5729 dkramer@petralogix.com www.petralogix.com December 12, 2016 Mr. Charles Swimley Director of Public Works City of Lodi Subject: Flood Hazard Analysis Proposition 84 — Pond Expansion project White Slough, Lodi, California Dear Mr. Swimley: •petralogix geophysics - environmental - geology Please find below our flood impact analysis for the Proposition 84 Pond Expansion project for your review, and inclusion in our ongoing CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. INTRODUCTION The City of Lodi Proposition 84 Expansion Pond Project involves the construction of a 70+ acre tertiary treated waters storage pond in Lodi, California. Dredger Cut and the Peripheral Canal are the closest levee related water bodies and are considered to be legal waters of the San Joaquin Delta. The nearest large river or creek capable of causing major flooding during a 100 year flood event is the Calaveras River to the South and the Mokelumne River to the North. Bear Creek is the nearest smaller waterway and would be a potential cause of flooding during a 100 year flood event. This document represents an update to technical studies prepared in 2014 and 2015 as input to a Draft Initial Study for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, this study analyzes the potential for flooding at the Project site and indicates how the Project will address potential flooding. In particular, with respect to potential flooding, this study details the following: • Existing conditions of the project site; • The regulatory setting affecting flooding at the project site; • Flood impacts related to currently proposed project development; and • Recommended mitigation for estimated impacts. Flood impact assessments of the proposed project contained in this study are based upon (a) published floodplain information in the immediate area; (b) technical information previously developed by West Yost Associates, Baumbach and Piazza Engineering, and Petralogix Engineering; (c) site observations, and (d) the conceptual site plan prepared by West Yost Engineering. www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 EXISTING CONDITIONS Page 1 2 The site has historically been used for quasi -public wastewater treatment, and associated agricultural crops and farming. Surrounding areas include large farming tracts and undeveloped riparian corridors. The nearest residential or commercial development is located approximately 1.4 miles to the northeast. Elevations of this residential/commercial development here are roughly 4 to 5 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. The nearest agricultural development is located approximately 0.60 miles to the east (a dairy farm) and is roughly 8 to 9 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. The onsite existing wastewater treatment facility, associated ponds, mosquito abatement facilities, and energy development plant are all to the east of the proposed pond. These facilities are roughly 6 to 7 feet higher in elevation than the site and studied flood plain area. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map #' 06077CO295F the Base Flood Elevation at the pond site is 10 feet (msl) NAVD 88. Review of the average ground surface elevation (GSE) on Google Earth, local survey maps, and pond detailed topographic surveys all indicate that the proposed pond area has an approximate average GSE of 7 above feet msl. Based on the review of this information the projected 100 - year flood depth is approximately 3 feet. The height of the levees that would surround the proposed pond are 8 feet'. The freeboard on the inside walls is 2 feet below the levee top. The relative height of the other delta levees around the site is 9 feet above ground surface'. REGULATORY SETTING Applicable federal laws that regulate development that affects flooding include the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), established by Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and administered through FEMA. One other local agency, the City of Lodi, has jurisdiction over development on the project site. National Flood Insurance Program FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify special flood hazards. A study has been developed that was based on the City of Lodi and County of San Joaquin FIRMs (published October 16, 2009). That FIRM established a Zone AE which describes the area of the project site. All areas to the east of the site are established as a Zone X. Zone AE and X are described as follows: • Zone AE = Area subject to 1% annual chance (100 -year) flood; Base Flood Elevations determined; flood depths generally greater than 3 feet. • Zone X = Areas of 0.2% annual chance (500 -year) flood; or areas of 1% annual chance (100 -year) flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. ' San Joaquin County Community Development Geographic Information Systems, San Joaquin County Flood Zone Viewer, Accessed December 2016. 2 West Yost Associates, 2016, Draft - Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Design of the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Design Height PL -84-99. 4 GoogleEarth, 2015 Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Page 1 3 Because the site sits within the Zone AE floodplain designation this assessment has carefully reviewed site specific flood elevation details to determine 100 -year flood depths and elevations. As currently shown on the FIRM map, the entire project site is located within the AE Zone. As such, development on the site will have to comply with NFIP regulations, including: • Flood Insurance requirements for any structures within the floodplain (unless adjacent grade has been elevated to above the base flood elevation); • Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) applications for any structures within the floodplain that are desired to be removed from the Flood Insurance requirements, and/or for any on-site projects which impact the flood boundary. To confirm and clarify, the project meets these requirements. All associated mechanical structures are above the 100 -year flood elevation, and all walls and levees are planned to be elevated above the 100 - year flood elevation, with a total of more than 3 feet of freeboard above that level specific level. Local Agencies/Entities The City of Lodi is the locally responsible floodplain manager and administers all ordinances related to development within identified floodplains. Development on the project site must consider impacts to potential flooding that may occur on this and adjacent properties. FLOODING IMPACTS Approach to Analysis The impact evaluation identifies potentially significant flood -related impacts to and from the proposed project. The project site plan was evaluated with respect to anticipated flooding using technical analyses previously developed by Petralogix Engineering, including generally accepted principles for geological flood -hazard evaluation. The analysis has been modified to reflect the impact of proposed construction at the project site as previously described and as shown in detail in West Yost Associates Technical Memo. Thresholds of Significance Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the Regulatory Setting requirements considers the proposed project to have a significant environmental impact with regard to flooding if it would: 1. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 2. 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; or 3. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; 4. 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. Impacts would be considered significant if the project would cause a flood hazard or exacerbate an existing flood hazard. Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Proposed Project Conditions Page 14 The current project design proposes the construction of a 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping56 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact FLOOD -1 - Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The local drainage pattern will not substantially change as a result of development. Flood flows will continue to move through the site toward the south and west, with flows returning to the Delta via Bear Creek or Dredger Cut. The course of the Mokelumne River or Bear Creek will not be altered. Proposed development does not increase the amount of impervious surface on the site to the point where flows at these drainages would be significantly impacted. Site development would have less than significant impact on existing drainage patterns and no mitigation is required. Impact FLOOD -2 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. Project development would not place housing within a 100 -year special flood hazard area. However, it would place some structures (pumps, SCADA systems, etc.) within estimated flood depths up to 3 feet in depth. Therefore, this would have a significant impact, if no additional mitigations were taken. The following mitigation measure would reduce Impact FLOOD -2 to a less -than -significant level: Mitigation Measure FLOOD -2 The applicant shall place all structural pads so that the lowest adjacent grade to each structure is above the base flood elevation. Impact FLOOD -3 Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Placing fill or other structures in such a way as to block existing drainage paths could result in increased onsite or offsite flooding, particularly if there is significant offsite drainage that flows through the site. This potential exists for 100 -year spills resulting from the regulatory levee failure scenario. Upstream spills 5 West Yost Associates, 2014, Technical Memorandum, Land Application Area Expansion Study for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. 6 West Yost Associates, 2015, Draft -City of Lodi, White Slough, Water Pollution Control Facility, Best Practice Treatment Control (BPTC) Evaluation Report). Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Page 1 5 from Bear Creek flow through the project site and either return to the Bear Creek channel or to Dredger Cut. The project would not change the bank configurations of any of the creeks, rivers, or levees that surround the site. Therefore, impact to flooding conditions are considered to be limited. The effective base flood profile within the project site is based on an our review of FEMA elevations, the engineering design sheets for the project, aerial and topographic site review, and detailed topographic surveying provided by Baumbach and Piazza Engineering. From this data, a detailed analysis of the site was performed to evaluate increased flood water elevations during the 100 -year event. We reviewed three scenarios. They are detailed below: 1. Full pond failure added to existing flood elevation. 2. Reduced available acreage for existing flood waters due to ponds presence. 3. Pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage. Scenario 1 was reviewed to determine the overall increase in flood water elevations if the ponds where at capacity and were to fail. The general pond size was evaluated for the estimated holding capacity for the ponds plus a factor of safety. The general volume analyzed was for a full release of 160,000,000 gallons of water. This would assume an overfull pond volume (above freeboard), and a levee failure of the ponds, allowing for a large release of water to the floodplain. Table 1. Below shows our evaluation: Table 1. - Full pond failure added to existing flood elevation. General Area of Influence - Modified Area General Width (feet) General Length (feet) Total Area (ft^2) Total Acreage Average Flood Depth (feet) Acre Feet 100 Year Flood Overall 4,000 12,750 51, 000, 000 1,171 3.42 4,003 Change (feet) 0.42 Change (inches) 5.03 This scenario provides an assessment for the "overall" area, which we included to be an area of roughly 1,171 acres in size. The area is shown below (Figure 1— Area of Influence) for review and was assessed based on aerial photo -review and topographic review or a likely area of influence. Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Figure 1. — Area of influence and proposed pond layout. Page 1 6 This area of influence was picked because it was the area of 100 -year flooding (as mapped by FEMA), and was bordered by control points of flow to the west by the Peripheral Canal, to the south by Dredger Cut, and to the north by an unnamed slough. Each of these control points were considered viable because of their associated levees which were 5 to 6 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation. To the east the area is mapped as a 500 -year flood plain and is protected from intrusive flood flows by a quick elevation rise of more than 7 feet just east of Interstate -5. Additional flood zone information is provided below for review in Figure 2. Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Figure 2. — Flood zone designations. Page 1 7 )1/ A. Ares *Alec as Antal &MAI MG- y•ar) 'Nod] no Fane Mod (*tutors &ennead ,n. Ana sAlacc m la WW1 dww (100. rear) Ronda arse fond 9 rsocrs &tenni Mad dwtM pen rah quarter dun 3feet- And abject m lY aMNI dunce (100 - rear} Road sari Rood depdd Of tin 3 het (uncial areas of pordirq): assn Fiscal anoteixis dwsmraud AO• Alaid: m lA aMYI drnn (100. rear} flood waft Rand duds of t as 3 hat (oink shot Mw on danrd writ,: arena cippchs ds0.ernmad X (50O) Areas d 0.2% arrwalalienee (500-..•; Mad: or areae of ler anrwl dunce (100 yead Bled wan average deeds d less dan i rage ar,.de Muga areas leu num i sense mien X(LEVEE) Afls =POW by isms km tin "rival duns* (I0O.ysad Rsod x A yeas deter iced of We -nide de 0.2% arrael alarm (303onar) 510 -Etna Flood BWmx 4 rc : r e eisravon n cm Mandator flood insurance require mints applri ;LL4E As shown in Table 1, the calculated change in elevation of flood waters from a catastrophic failure of the pond walls could result in a total increase of about 0.42 feet (or 5.03 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 -year flood from 3.00 to 3.42 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points which are roughly 4.5 to 5.0 feet above this level. In addition, this is a highly unlikely scenario. Not only is pond levee failure unlikely, but the design is that of a 4 -chamber pond, so for all flow to be released each chamber would have to fail. Therefore, this is considered to be a Tess than significant impact. Scenario 2 was reviewed as the reduced available acreage for existing flood waters due to the ponds presence. This analysis was considered to address space that would otherwise be available for flood storage capacity, which would be taken away by the ponds' presence. See Table 2 for more details below: Petra€lgix Engineering, Inc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209]-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Page 1 8 Table 2. - Reduced available acreage for existing flood waters due to the ponds presence. General Area of Influence - Modified Area General Width General Length Total Area Total Acreage Average Flood Depth (feet) Acre Feet 100 Year Flood Overall 3,858 12,250 47,260,500 1,085 3.24 3,512 Change (feet) 0.24 Change (inches) 2.84 As shown in Table 2, the calculated change in elevation of floodwaters from the ponds' presence could result in a total increase of about 0.24 feet (or 2.84 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 - year flood from 3.00 to 3.24 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points which are roughly 4.5 to 5.0 feet above this level. Therefore, this is considered to be a less than significant impact. Scenario 3 was the combination of Scenarios 1 and 2 (pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage). This analysis was considered to address space that would otherwise be available for flood storage capacity, which would be taken away by the ponds presence, as well as the pond failure event. See Table 3 for more details below: Table 3. - Pond failure waters combined with reduced acreage. Scenario 3 - Full ponds failure and reduced acreage analysis combined. General Area of Influence - Modified Change (feet) 0.66 Change (inches) 7.88 As shown in Table 3, the calculated change in elevation of flood waters from the ponds' presence could result in a total increase of about 0.66 feet (or 7.88 inches). This would raise the elevation of the 100 - year flood from 3.00 to 3.88 feet. This is considered to be minimal when compared to the control levee points which are roughly 4.5 to 5.0 feet above this level. Therefore, this is considered to be a Tess than significant impact. Overall, the potential increase of less than 2/3 of a foot in flood elevations within this area are considered to be a less than significant impact. This is especially true since it would be very improbable for the ponds four distinct and separate chambers to all fail at once. Therefore, the real potential to 100 -year flood water increases is much closer to the Scenario 2 value of 2.84 inches. All structures within the area and around the potential area of impact are well above this level, and all levees and water containment structures are as well. Impact FLOOD -4 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. Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com Flood Hazard Analysis Prop 84 Pond Expansion Project December 12, 2016 Page 1 9 As indicated above, the levees at the site (around the entire region) are well above the level of the projected 100 -year flood elevation. No significant hazard increase is projected from our analysis of the ponds that could affect these structures (levees and dams). All of these are built to withstand influence or impact from the 100 -year flood event, along with a factor of safety that is well established. Levees typically do not fail from water on the toe side of the levee, but rather from under flow (boiling) or extreme pressures. The pressure exerted on the backside of the respective levees from the ponded 100 - year flood waters would not generally be considered a hazard. Therefore, this is considered to be a Tess than significant impact. Conclusions Based on our overall analysis of flood hazards at the site, we conclude that no perceivable impact is observed in regards to the construction and placement of the proposed pond project at the site, and as designed. Daniel E. Kramer, President Professional Geologist 8657 Certified Engineering Geologist 2588 Professional Geophysicist 1078 Petralogix Engineering, Enc. 26675 Bruella Road, Galt, Ca 95632 (209)-400-5729 www.petralogix.com APPENDIX I C&CFarms,LP 4484 Tredway Road, Lodi, CA 95242 Phone (209) 321-1217 Email: pjcostainc@aol.com February 14, 2017 Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Re: File Number: 2017-02 MND Dear Craig: :r )MM, rn,: After reviewing the proposed Notice for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project, I have many concerns. The value of my property is a main concern. I started growing wine grapes 25 years ago. As a member of the Lodi Winegrape Commission, I have built brand recognition for the Lodi area, District 11. Due to the hard work, passion and commitment of our local farmers, Lodi was named 2015 Wine Region of the year. Lodi is becoming one of the world's most recognized regions and people travel from all over the world to tour our vineyards and wineries. A lot of dedication goes into our farming programs in order to maintain sustainability and farmscaping aesthetics. I understand the growth of Lodi and the need for expansion, in fact, I'm all for it, just not the proposed location. I believe the new ponds would be a better fit for all, in the site you refer to as the West side of the facility. Nobody wants to travel down Thornton Road looking at a 10 foot levy in the middle of our permanent crops. There are other concerns: Noise and dust during construction Ground water contamination on my property from seepage or levy failure Odors from the water in the ponds, as I am located directly west of the proposed Southeast pond area Ponds would attract birds which would be detrimental to my vineyards Everything considered, the Western pond makes more sense for all surrounding farmers, as it would have Tess of an impact on our farming community. It is also closer to your main distribution center and would be more cost effective to build it there. Sincerely, Patrick Costa General Partner FEB/13/2017/EN I1:01 AM State of California FAX No. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FAX COVER SHEET P, 001/Oi4 The Resources Agency To You ff ra G r h I ro�rz � C:rern�v i eve --Irtvade v Organizatior3O cit o -F L t janlzatfan Vert • o¢ work► Pe7.0kA T's Location (Building/ Room Number) Location (Building/ Room Number) FAX NumberFAX (2,09 ) 333_tog� Number Telephone Number Telephone Number (CV (0) V53- 2_Ite Total Number of Pages Sent (including this sheet)2413/11 Detr! COMMENTS: Discard copy Original letter to follow If you do not receive all pages, or have any problems with receiving this fax, please cell! DWR 4210 (Rev. 01/00) (Ito) ('53 —?—H STATE OF CALIFORNIA -CALIFORNIA NATURAL' RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 NINTH STREET, P.O. BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO, CA 94236-0001 (916) 653-5791 February 13, 2017 Mr. Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner City of Lodi Post Office Box 30.06 Lodi, California 95241 EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Governor Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Dear Mr. Hoffman: Thank you for the opportunity to review the White Slough Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have attached our comments prepared by Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist with the Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services. In addition, DWR is providing the following comment as noted below: Reference Page 4, Paragraph 3, (also repeated on Page 11): "The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWI) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intakes," Comment: The Bay -Delta Office's Delta Water Quality Proposition 84 funding does not include specific provisions for groundwater pumping. While this is a desirable benefit, it should not be mentioned as tho basis for Proposition 84 funding. Please revise this sentence to' The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes." If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 653-2118 or Genevieve. Schrader(p water, ca. qov, Sincerely, Genevieve Schrader, Senior Engineer Bay -Delta Office Attachment City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project IS/MND Comments from Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist, DWR Division of Environmental Services �^y=�::Y-i� r ��y 'ate, x -1, ?y <.s, � ��r':Tc"fir - w' `�� • r f �:� !z� a. -!.-4..k'',''-'''''';-- �a ,• Y;;,,.., �' •fir • T . � - y Y,.�' � :. .••,,'rf_... , �. S �2 . %7=• . V .2w < Y . _ . r i a' b 1 � �. � `�`��•_ � `7r.`. -r;_'.': , _ : �:`as �4fA �..A�,,�. �•�= x�++�. • '�=a'�,i�« Please provide information on work hours.This information is included in the Environmental Checklist impact discussion 16 Project Construction but should be included in the Project Description I - I he analysis states that the projeet emissions will not exceed S,1VAPCD thresholds, but no estimates of project emissions are reported. Please explain and give an estimate of why the project does not exceed the thresholds (or refer to section 30 Air Quality lila 111b-c's discussion of project emissions estimates). - Mitigation measure "Air Quality Mitigation 2" is listed as a measure that would make the impact less than significant. The 34 Air Quality Illd impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated' rather than 'less than significant' This impact should be 'less than significant with mitigation incorporated", since mitigation measures are listed to reduce 39 Biological Resources V.a impacts to a less than significant level and the appropriate check box marked Since -e in son s Hawk rs known to nest nearby, a leu Toot survey buffer is not considerea to be adequate. swainson's Hawk surveys should be conducted within 1/4 to 112 mile of the project area, following the `Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley'. This measure should be added, as even short-term construction activity may cause nest disturbance. Additionally, preoonstruction surveys should be conducted prior to vegetation clearing work, not just ground disturbance, since it will take place in June, which is during 41 Biological Resources mitigation measure 2 nesting bird season. 43 Etiological Resources V.c. last sentence of section c: This statement should read: "Therefore, the impact is less than significant' 44 Biological Resources V.e last sentence of section e: states "no impact', but should be "less than significant impact" Because the project may have impacts, and will be following the take avoidance measures in the SJMSCP, this section 44 Biological Resources V.t should be "less than significant" rather than "no impact' The maps of special status plants and wildlife are illegible in the PDF version on the City website. The species names are • 45-46 Figure8 and Figure 9 not readable. Please provide maps that can be read. This section discusses the measures recommended by the Cultural Resources consultant in the event that the project plans change to directly impact resources. Suggest removing This discussion altogether, as a new evaluation would have to take place if the project changes_ Or, if this discussion is warranted, the project should commit to conducting the 49 Cultural Resources VI.a. suggested measures. This section discusses "planned mitigation' in the form of design and construction technique Modifications based on geotechnical investigations that 'should" happen. This impact should be 'less than significant with mitigation' and a mitigation measure added to implement design and construction modifications that are necessary aftergeotechnical work 54 Geology and Soils VII.aiii. is complete. Technically, unless 'standard measures" are included in the project description, the measures discussed here should be considered mitigation. Consider either having Ihe'standard measures" included in the project description or adding a 59 Geol. 6 and Soils Vll.o. mitigation measure to implement the measures to reduce the impact to less -than -significant Geotechnical investigations have not been oompletedior This project, but it seems lhat the information gathered from these investigations would inform the project design, construction, and potential to store treated wastewater (which is a primary purpose of the project). It seems that this information is necessary to conduct the impact analysis in the Geology and Soils section and that without it, it is difficult to adequately address impacts or develop mitigation measures_ If this 60 Geology and Soils Vile. information is now available,-itshould be incorporated in this analysis. These sections.should include possibre spills (oil, hydraulic fluid) during construction and include standard spill prevention 61 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII a, b measures and a procedure for spill response if one does occur City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project IS/MND Comments from Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist, DWR Division of Environmental Services 62-64 Hazards and Hazardo us Materials VI El d Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII d There Is extensive discussion of several hazardous waste records for sites that are not in the project footprint or affected by the project. This ancillary information is unnecessary and confuses the reader as to what the actual impacts of the profit are. It seems that a simple statement that references these reports and the fact that they are not affected by the 1 project or will affect the project would be adequate and less confusing. it seems relevant to discuss that the geotechnical information would address whether the soils in the proposed project area can contain treated wastewater. 65 79 Hydrology & Water Quay The measures toprevent stomiwater runoff should be included in the project description B2 Impact FLOOD -2 This oorrespomds to item h on the Environmental Checkl;st and should be labeled as such to reduce uoniusion. Additionally, this impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated", as a mitigation measure is listed here. 83 Impact ROOD -3 This =responds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. 86 Impact FLOOD -4 This corresponds to item inn the Environmental Checklist and should be tabeled as such to reduce oontuslorr. 89 Land Use and Planning X. c Because the project rnay have impacts, and will be participating in the SJMSCP, Gs section should be "fess than significant' rather than "no impact' 101 Utilities and Service Systems XVII d Please describe where water for dust control will be obtained from, Because some water will be used during construction, the i; npaat should be "less than signiEcant" ratherthan 'no impact'. 102 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII a Suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. 103 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII c Suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. nla MMRP A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining at mitigation measures should be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. Feb. 15. 2017 2 24 PM MICHAEL SELLING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FRITZ BUCHMAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR JIM STONE DEPUTY DIRECTOR KRIS BALAJI DIRECTOR NAJEE ZARIF INTERIM BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR Craig Hoffman, Senior Planner City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Working for YOU February 15, 2017 No. 3443 P. 2 P. 0. BOX 1810.1810 E. HAZELTON AVENUE STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95201 (209) 408-3000 FAX (209) 489.2908 www,519ov.Drg/pubworks SUBJECT: WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Dear Mr. Hoffman, The San Joaquin County Department of Public Works has reviewed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above referenced project and has no comments at this time. However, the County does request to be included on the circulation list for any additional project documents. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Should you have questions please contact me at atmcoinnis�3sigov_oi q or (209) 468-3085. Sincerely, ASHLEN MCGINNIS Environmental Coordinator AM:as c: Firoz Vohra, Senior Engineer From: David Arnaiz <darnaiz@renuecorp.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 8:48 AM To: Tonya Scheftner Cc: agproject@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: Kingdon Airport Comments Re: Potential New Pond I have reviewed the Compatible Land Use and Wildlife Hazard study and have the following comments and concerns: 1. The study confirms that the proposed project will increase the bird attraction but I didn't see any information or where the study addresses how this increase bird activity will continue to grow, i.e. how will this increased activity look in 5-years,10-years etc into the future. 2. The statement that we do not have any turbine aircraft "based" at the airport nor that we sell Jet -A fuel, thus the study does not address nor need to address a minimum separation distance greater the 5000 feet is a muddy interpretation of the facts. a) We do have turbine aircraft operations on a regular basis. b) We are currently working with a tenant who would base his turbine driven aircraft at the airport which will not only provide our ability to, but also our need to offer Jet -A fuel. By the proposed land use not considering this information in its initial study not only leaves it incomplete, but provides for this land use to adversely impact our ability to conduct current and future business. Please advise us as to how the proposed land use will address and mitigate the impacts of their project from occurring on and against our property, airport and operations. Kingdon Airport David Arnaiz 209-595-1982 Steve DeBrum CHAIR Katherine Miller VICE CHAIR Andrew T. Chesley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Member Agencies CITIES OF ESCALON, LATHROP, LODI, MANTECA, RIPON, STOCKTON, TRACY, AND THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 555 E. Weber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 • P 209.235.0600 • F 209.235.0438 • www.sjcog.org San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission/Congestion Management Agency February 15, 2017 Craig Hoffman Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 Re: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project (Deadline: 2/15/17) Dear Craig Hoffman, The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Congestion Management Agency (CMA), has reviewed the mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project (including a 70 -acre expansion pond and associated conveyance infrastructure) at 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi (APN: 055-190-01, 055-150,29, 055-130-16)). CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REVIEW SJCOG has determined this project will not meet the Tier 2 threshold of the adopted the 2016 Update to the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) (http://www.sicog- rcmp.org/ literature 231152/2016 RCMP Update Adopted Report); thus, no comment is provided at this time. AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISION'S REVIEW SJCOG previously submitted comments (ATTACHMENT B) to Petralogix Engineering, Inc. on 11/10/15. This letter expressed interest in this project potentially attracting additional birds, which is a "hazard to flight." "Hazard of flight" is a prohibited use per the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/17). SJCOG encourage the project applicant to contact the appropriate FAA Regional Airport Division office. After review of the WPCF's MND, SJCOG respectively has the following comments. • Page 97 — Less than Significant Impact — The proposed project is located within 1 mile of the Kingdon Airpark, a private airport with public access, and falls within the airport's Area of Influence. • SJCOG COMMENT - APN: 055-150-29 and 055-130-16 are located within the Kingdon's AIA. APN: 055-190-01 is split evenly between Kingdon's AIA and Traffic Pattern Zone (Zone 7). • Page 98 - The proposed Project site is located within Kingdon Air Park's area of influence, but not within the 5,000 ft separation distance for wildlife attracts, most notably of birds, recommended by federal guidance Advisory circular (AC) 150/520-338 (See hazards and 11Page Hazardous Materials Sections e, f). • SJCOG COMMENT- APN: 055-190-01 was measured within 5,000 ft of the Kingdon Air Park, which is against the FAA recommendation. Under New Wastewater Treatment Facilities (2.3d of Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B (ATTACHMENT C)), "the FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facility or associated settling ponds within the 5,000 ft of an airport." In addition, the document states "During site -location analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, developers should consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and the airport operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the airport." • SJCOG COMMENT— Has the FAA Regional Airport Division office been contacted, as per our recommendation in our comment letter dated 11/10/2015? If so please provide the FAA response, if any. • SJCOG COMMENT — SJCOG recommends that the City include the FAA Recommendation, listed under Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (2.3c of Advisory Circular 150/520- 33B), as a mitigation measure, in the MND. ■ "Airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable." Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please contact CMA and ALUC staff Travis Yokoyama (209- 235-0451 or yokoyama@sjcog.org) if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Travis Yokoyama ATTACHMENT A — Exhibit of Project Site Location in relation to ALUC ATTACHMENT B — SJCOG Response Letter 11/10/15 ATTACHMENT C — FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B ATTACHMENT D — White Slough Project Pages SJCOG Commented On 2IPage ATTACHMENT A - Exhibit of Project Site Location in relation to ALUC White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Project Lodi, CA 95242 APN: 055-190-01, 055-150,29, 055-130-16 raProject Location Kingdon Executive Airport Zone 1 (RPZ) Zone 2 (IADZ) Zone 3 (ITZ) Zone 4 (OADZ) Zone 5 (SSZ) Zone 7 (TPZ) V_/ A Zone 8 (AIA) &// 4//:<///:, a az as .041/./ /../////////////7 N 114 Steve Dresser CHAIR Anthony Silva VICE CHAIR Andrew T Chesley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Member Agencies CITIES OF ESCALON, LATHROP, LODI, MANTECA, RIPON, STOCKTON, TRACY, AND THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 555 E. Weber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 209.235.0600 • 209.235.0438 (fax) www.sjcog.org November 10, 2015 ATTACHMENT B — SJCOG Response Letter 11/10/15 Ms. Heather R. Shaddox, Project Geologist Petralogix Engineering Inc. 26675 Bruella Road Galt, CA 95632 RE: San Joaquin ALUC Comments for White Slough Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Dear Ms. Shaddox: The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), has reviewed the request for comments on items to be included as part of the initial environmental study. This project includes the construction of a 70 -acre Expansion Pond at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF). The project proposes two different possibilities for project location. Both locations are located within the area of influence for Kingdon Airport near Lodi. Given proposed project locations, and pursuant to the State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21676), the project is subject to a Consistency Determination by the San Joaquin County ALUC. All projects within Kingdon Airport's area of influence are subject to the policies and criteria within the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The site map included with the letter to our office dated October 1, 2015 was utilized for the attached map of the two proposed project areas relative to the airport safety zones for Lodi's Kingdon Airport. Site 1, the preferred site, spans across two zones of the referenced ALUCP: Zone 7 TPZ (Traffic Pattern Zone), and Zone 8 AIA (Airport Influence Area). Site 2, the secondary option, occupies Zone 8 solely. Among other conditions that will be covered at the time of the consistency Page 12 determination is potential hazards to flight. Potential hazards to flight include "land use development that may cause the attraction of birds to increase." Therefore, any environmental document should contain a consistency analysis of the proposed land uses relative to the 2009 ALUCP zones for Kingdon Airport, particularly as they relate to the potential for increased attraction of birds. The project is further subject to FAA review as outlined in Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. Of particular concern are land uses, including wastewater treatment facilities, within 10,000 feet of airport operations areas. The FAA encourages early notification of such land -uses (project proponents may use FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office). ALUC staff will review and provide comments on the Initial Study or other environmental document when it is made available for public review, including any hazard determination by the FAA. The 2009 San Joaquin County ALUCP document can be found at this link: http://www.sjcog.org/index.aspx?nid=107. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Please contact ALUC staff Kim Anderson if you have any questions or comments at (209) 235- 0565, or by email at anderson@sjcog.org. Sincerely, /ua tI?d ?'b, .1 Kim Anderson, Senior Regional Planner San Joaquin Council of Governments Attachment Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1 111 Art, Desired Site Placements Site Preference ,2 ALUC Safety Zones Zone 1 (RPZ) Zone 2 ()ADZ) Zone 3 (ITZ) Zone 4 (OADZ) Zone 5 (SSZ) Zone 6 (AP) Zone 7 (TPZ) L.9 Zone 8 (AIA) n Land Parcels 111 Kingdon Airport and Lodi Airpark Land Use Compatibility Zones Moe ATTACHMENT C — FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B to/ Advisory U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Circular Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS Date: 8/28/2007 AC No: 150/5200-33B Initiated by: AAS -300 Change: 1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public -use airports. It also discusses airport development projects (including airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC. 2. APPLICABILITY. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recommends that public -use airport operators implement the standards and practices contained in this AC. The holders of Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D (Part 139), may use the standards, practices, and recommendations contained in this AC to comply with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these standards. The FAA also recommends the guidance in this AC for land -use planners, operators of non - certificated airports, and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports. 3. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, dated July 27, 2004. 4. PRINCIPAL CHANGES. This AC contains the following major changes, which are marked with vertical bars in the margin: a. Technical changes to paragraph references. b. Wording on storm water detention ponds. c. Deleted paragraph 4-3.b, Additional Coordination. 5. BACKGROUND. Information about the risks posed to aircraft by certain wildlife species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved reporting, studies, documentation, and statistics clearly show that aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife are a serious economic and public safety problem. While many species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft safety, they are not equally hazardous. Table 1 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B ranks the wildlife groups commonly involved in damaging strikes in the United States according to their relative hazard to aircraft. The ranking is based on the 47,212 records in the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database for the years 1990 through 2003. These hazard rankings, in conjunction with site-specific Wildlife Hazards Assessments (WHA), will help airport operators determine the relative abundance and use patterns of wildlife species and help focus hazardous wildlife management efforts on those species most likely to cause problems at an airport. Most public -use airports have large tracts of open, undeveloped land that provide added margins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas can also present potential hazards to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). Constructed or natural areas—such as poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odor - causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands—can provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even small facilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities, aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, can produce substantial attractions for hazardous wildlife. During the past century, wildlife -aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives worldwide, as well as billions of dollars in aircraft damage. Hazardous wildlife attractants on and near airports can jeopardize future airport expansion, making proper community land -use planning essential. This AC provides airport operators and those parties with whom they cooperate with the guidance they need to assess and address potentially hazardous wildlife attractants when locating new facilities and implementing certain land -use practices on or near public -use airports. 6. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL RESOURCE AGENCIES. The FAA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in July 2003 to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contributing to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation's valuable environmental resources. DAVID L. BENNETT Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B Table 1. Ranking of 25 species groups as to relative hazard to aircraft (1=most hazardous) based on three criteria (damage, major damage, and effect -on -flight), a composite ranking based on all three rankings, and a relative hazard score. Data were derived from the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, January 1990—April 2003.' Species group Ranking by criteria Major Damage" damages Effect on flight6 Composite Relative ranking2 hazard score3 Deer 1 1 1 1 100 Vultures 2 2 2 2 64 Geese 3 3 6 3 55 Cormorants/pelicans 4 5 3 4 54 Cranes 7 6 4 5 47 Eagles 6 9 7 6 41 Ducks 5 8 10 7 39 Osprey 8 4 8 8 39 Turkey/pheasants 9 7 11 9 33 Herons 11 14 9 10 27 Hawks (buteos) 10 12 12 11 25 Gulls 12 11 13 12 24 Rock pigeon 13 10 14 13 23 Owls 14 13 20 14 23 H. lark/s. bunting 18 15 15 15 17 Crows/ravens 15 16 16 16 16 Coyote 16 19 5 17 14 Mourning dove 17 17 17 18 14 Shorebirds 19 21 18 19 10 Blackbirds/starling 20 22 19 20 10 American kestrel 21 18 21 21 9 Meadowlarks 22 20 22 22 7 Swallows 24 23 24 23 4 Sparrows 25 24 23 24 4 Nighthawks 23 25 25 25 1 Excerpted from the Special Report for the FAA, "Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2, 2003". Refer to this report for additional explanations of criteria and method of ranking. 2 Relative rank of each species group was compared with every other group for the three variables, placing the species group with the greatest hazard rank for > 2 of the 3 variables above the next highest ranked group, then proceeding down the list. 3 Percentage values, from Tables 3 and 4 in Footnote 1 of the Special Report, for the three criteria were summed and scaled down from 100, with 100 as the score for the species group with the maximum summed values and the greatest potential hazard to aircraft. 4 Aircraft incurred at least some damage (destroyed, substantial, minor, or unknown) from strike. 5 Aircraft incurred damage or structural failure, which adversely affected the structure strength, performance, or flight characteristics, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, or the damage sustained makes it inadvisable to restore aircraft to airworthy condition. 6 Aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other. III 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B This page intentionally left blank. w 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B Table of Contents SECTION 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS. 1 1-1. INTRODUCTION 1 1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON -POWERED AIRCRAFT 1 1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE -POWERED AIRCRAFT 1 1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE :1 SECTION 2. LAND -USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE 3 2-1. GENERAL 3 2-2. WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 3 2-3. WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 5 2-4. WETLANDS 8 2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS 9 2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 9 2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND -USE CONSIDERATIONS 10 2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES 11 SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS 13 3.1. INTRODUCTION 13 3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS 13 3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL 13 3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 139 13 3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP) 14 3-6. LOCAL COORDINATION 14 3-7. COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS 14 SECTION 4. FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS 15 4-1. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS 15 4-2. WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES 15 4-3. OTHER LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES 16 APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR 19 v 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B This page intentionally left blank. vi 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B SECTION 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS. 1-1. INTRODUCTION. When considering proposed land uses, airport operators, local planners, and developers must take into account whether the proposed land uses, including new development projects, will increase wildlife hazards. Land -use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife strikes. The FAA recommends the minimum separation criteria outlined below for land -use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. Please note that FAA criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or across the airport's approach or departure airspace or air operations area (AOA). (See the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Section 2-8 of this AC.) The basis for the separation criteria contained in this section can be found in existing FAA regulations. The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns of piston - powered aircraft and turbine -powered aircraft, (2) the altitude at which most strikes happen (78 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 90 percent occur under 3,000 feet above ground level), and (3) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. 1-2. AIRPORTS SERVING PISTON -POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports that do not sell Jet -A fuel normally serve piston -powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 5,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport's AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance measured from the nearest aircraft operations areas. 1-3. AIRPORTS SERVING TURBINE -POWERED AIRCRAFT. Airports selling Jet -A fuel normally serve turbine -powered aircraft. Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 10,000 feet at these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants mentioned in Section 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be maintained between an airport's AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts this separation distance from the nearest aircraft movement areas. 1-4. PROTECTION OF APPROACH, DEPARTURE, AND CIRCLING AIRSPACE. For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 statute miles between the farthest edge of the airport's AOA and the hazardous wildlife attractant if the attractant could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. 1 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B Figure 1. Separation distances within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated. Apron PERIMETER A PERIMETER B PERIMETER C PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston -powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 5,000 feet from the nearest air operations area. PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine -powered aircraft, hazardous wildlife attractants must be 10,000 feet from the nearest air operations area. PERIMETER C: 5 -mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace. 2 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B SECTION 2. LAND -USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE. 2-1. GENERAL. The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment vary considerably, depending on several factors, including land -use practices on or near the airport. This section discusses land -use practices having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety. In addition to the specific considerations outlined below, airport operators should refer to Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports, prepared by FAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff. (This manual is available in English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA's wildlife hazard mitigation web site: http://wildlife-mitigation.tc.FAA.gggv.). And, Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, compiled by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Division. (This manual is available online in a periodically updated version at: ianrwww.unl_edu/wildlife/solutions/handbook/. 2-2. WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS. Municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) are known to attract Targe numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. Because of this, these operations, when located within the separations identified in the siting criteria in Sections 1-2 through 1-4, are considered incompatible with safe airport operations. a. Siting for new municipal solid waste landfills subject to AIR 21. Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) (AIR 21) prohibits the construction or establishment of a new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certain public -use airports. Before these prohibitions apply, both the airport and the landfill must meet the very specific conditions described below. These restrictions do not apply to airports or landfills located within the state of Alaska. The airport must (1) have received a Federal grant(s) under 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et. seq.; (2) be under control of a public agency; (3) serve some scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and (4) have total annual enplanements consisting of at least 51 percent of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats. The proposed MSWLF must (1) be within 6 miles of the airport, as measured from airport property line to MSWLF property line, and (2) have started construction or establishment on or after April 5, 2001. Public Law 106-181 only limits the construction or establishment of some new MSWLF. It does not limit the expansion, either vertical or horizontal, of existing landfills. NOTE: Consult the most recent version of AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions. 3 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B b. Siting for new MSWLF not subject to AIR 21. If an airport and MSWLF do not meet the restrictions of Public Law 106-181, the FAA recommends against locating MSWLF within the separation distances identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. The separation distances should be measured from the closest point of the airport's AOA to the closest planned MSWLF cell. c. Considerations for existing waste disposal facilities within the limits of separation criteria. The FAA recommends against airport development projects that would increase the number of aircraft operations or accommodate larger or faster aircraft near MSWLF operations located within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR 258.10, owners or operators of existing MSWLF units that are located within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (See Section 4-2(b) of this AC for a discussion of this demonstration requirement.) d. Enclosed trash transfer stations. Enclosed waste -handling facilities that receive garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided they are not located on airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). These facilities should not handle or store putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. Trash transfer facilities that are open on one or more sides; that store uncovered quantities of municipal solid waste outside, even if only for a short time; that use semi -trailers that leak or have trash clinging to the outside; or that do not control odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable) do not meet the FAA's definition of fully enclosed trash transfer stations. The FAA considers these facilities incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located closer than the separation distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. e. Composting operations on or near airport property. Composting operations that accept only yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, or branches) generally do not attract hazardous wildlife. Sewage sludge, woodchips, and similar material are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. The compost, however, must never include food or other municipal solid waste. Composting operations should not be located on airport property. Off -airport property composting operations should be located no closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any AOA or the distance called for by airport design requirements (see AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design). This spacing should prevent material, personnel, or equipment from penetrating any Object Free Area (OFA), Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Threshold Siting Surface (TSS), or Clearway. Airport operators should monitor composting operations located in proximity to the airport to ensure that steam or thermal rise does not adversely affect air traffic. On -airport disposal of compost by-products should not be conducted for the reasons stated in 2-3f. 4 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B f. Underwater waste discharges. The FAA recommends against the underwater discharge of any food waste (e.g., fish processing offal) within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 because it could attract scavenging hazardous wildlife. g. Recycling centers. Recycling centers that accept previously sorted non-food items, such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, or aluminum, are, in most cases, not attractive to hazardous wildlife and are acceptable. h. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris facilities. C&D landfills do not generally attract hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste, and are not co -located with other waste disposal operations. However, C&D landfills have similar visual and operational characteristics to putrescible waste disposal sites. When co -located with putrescible waste disposal operations, C&D landfills are more likely to attract hazardous wildlife because of the similarities between these disposal facilities. Therefore, a C&D landfill co -located with another waste disposal operation should be located outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. i. Fly ash disposal. The incinerated residue from resource recovery power/heat- generating facilities that are fired by municipal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally not a wildlife attractant because it no longer contains putrescible matter. Landfills accepting only fly ash are generally not considered to be wildlife attractants and are acceptable as long as they are maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste of any kind, and are not co -located with other disposal operations that attract hazardous wildlife. Since varying degrees of waste consumption are associated with general incineration (not resource recovery power/heat-generating facilities), the FAA considers the ash from general incinerators a regular waste disposal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife attractant if disposed of within the separation criteria outlined in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. 2-3. WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. Drinking water intake and treatment facilities, storm water and wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use, and ponds that result from mining activities often attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife. To prevent wildlife hazards, land -use developers and airport operators may need to develop management plans, in compliance with local and state regulations, to support the operation of storm water management facilities on or near all public -use airports to ensure a safe airport environment. a. Existing storm water management facilities. On -airport storm water management facilities allow the quick removal of surface water, including discharges related to aircraft deicing, from impervious surfaces, such as pavement and terminal/hangar building roofs. Existing on -airport detention ponds collect storm water, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they slowly release water 5 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B after storms, they create standing bodies of water that can attract hazardous wildlife. Where the airport has developed a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) in accordance with Part 139, the FAA requires immediate correction of any wildlife hazards arising from existing storm water facilities located on or near airports, using appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist. Where possible, airport operators should modify storm water detention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm. The FAA recommends that airport operators avoid or remove retention ponds and detention ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate standing water. Detention basins should remain totally dry between rainfalls. Where constant flow of water is anticipated through the basin, or where any portion of the basin bottom may remain wet, the detention facility should include a concrete or paved pad and/or ditch/swale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide nesting habitat. When it is not possible to drain a large detention pond completely, airport operators may use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to deter birds and other hazardous wildlife. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. The FAA recommends that airport operators encourage off -airport storm water treatment facility operators to incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into storm water treatment facility operating practices when their facility is located within the separation criteria specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. b. New storm water management facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that off - airport storm water management systems located within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 be designed and operated so as not to create above- ground standing water. Stormwater detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48—hour detention period after the design storm and remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA recommends the use of steep -sided, rip -rap lined, narrow, linearly shaped water detention basins. When it is not possible to place these ponds away from an airport's AOA, airport operators should use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wires grids, pillows, or netting, to prevent access of hazardous wildlife to open water and minimize aircraft -wildlife interactions. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. All vegetation in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife should be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the FAA encourages 6 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French drains or buried rock fields, because they are less attractive to wildlife. c. Existing wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends that airport operators immediately correct any wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport. Where required, a WHMP developed in accordance with Part 139 will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable. d. New wastewater treatment facilities. The FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Appendix 1 defines wastewater treatment facility as "any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes." The definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants or the elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (wastewater treatment facility). During the site -location analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, developers should consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and airport operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the airport. e. Artificial marshes. In warmer climates, wastewater treatment facilities sometimes employ artificial marshes and use submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation as natural filters. These artificial marshes may be used by some species of flocking birds, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for breeding or roosting activities. The FAA strongly recommends against establishing artificial marshes within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. f. Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal. The FAA recommends against the discharge of wastewater or sludge on airport property because it may improve soil moisture and quality on unpaved areas and lead to improved turf growth that can be an attractive food source for many species of animals. Also, the turf requires more frequent mowing, which in turn may mutilate or flush insects or small animals and produce straw, both of which can attract hazardous wildlife. In addition, the improved turf may attract grazing wildlife, such as deer and geese. Problems may also occur when discharges saturate unpaved airport areas. The resultant soft, muddy conditions can severely restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in a timely manner. 7 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B 2-4. WETLANDS. Wetlands provide a variety of functions and can be regulated by local, state, and Federal laws. Normally, wetlands are attractive to many types of wildlife, including many which rank high on the list of hazardous wildlife species (Table 1). NOTE: If questions exist as to whether an area qualifies as a wetland, contact the local division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or a wetland consultant qualified to delineate wetlands. a. Existing wetlands on or near airport property. If wetlands are located on or near airport property, airport operators should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public -use airports, the FAA recommends immediately correcting, in cooperation with local, state, and Federal regulatory agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing wetlands located on or near airports. Where required, a WHMP will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist. b. New airport development. Whenever possible, the FAA recommends locating new airports using the separations from wetlands identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Where alternative sites are not practicable, or when airport operators are expanding an existing airport into or near wetlands, a wildlife damage management biologist, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the state wildlife management agency should evaluate the wildlife hazards and prepare a WHMP that indicates methods of minimizing the hazards. c. Mitigation for wetland impacts from airport projects. Wetland mitigation may be necessary when unavoidable wetland disturbances result from new airport development projects or projects required to correct wildlife hazards from wetlands. Wetland mitigation must be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. (1) Onsite mitigation of wetland functions. The FAA may consider exceptions to locating mitigation activities outside the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the affected wetlands provide unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or ground water recharge, which cannot be replicated when moved to a different location. Using existing airport property is sometimes the only feasible way to achieve the mitigation ratios mandated in regulatory orders and/or settlement agreements with the resource agencies. Conservation easements are an additional means of providing mitigation for project impacts. Typically the airport operator continues to own the property, and an easement is created stipulating that the property will be maintained as habitat for state or Federally listed species. 8 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B Mitigation must not inhibit the airport operator's ability to effectively control hazardous wildlife on or near the mitigation site or effectively maintain other aspects of safe airport operations. Enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife must be avoided. The FAA will review any onsite mitigation proposals to determine compatibility with safe airport operations. A wildlife damage management biologist should evaluate any wetland mitigation projects that are needed to protect unique wetland functions and that must be located in the separation criteria in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 before the mitigation is implemented. A WHMP should be developed to reduce the wildlife hazards. (2) Offsite mitigation of wetland functions. The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 unless they provide unique functions that must remain onsite (see 2-4c(1)). Agencies that regulate impacts to or around wetlands recognize that it may be necessary to split wetland functions in mitigation schemes. Therefore, regulatory agencies may, under certain circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations. (3) Mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is the creation or restoration of wetlands in order to provide mitigation credits that can be used to offset permitted wetland losses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance replacement for permitted wetland losses; consolidating small projects into larger, better -designed and managed units; and encouraging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigated outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 can still be located within the same watershed. Wetland mitigation banks meeting the separation criteria offer an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. Airport operators should work with local watershed management agencies or organizations to develop mitigation banking for wetland impacts on airport property. 2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT AREAS. The FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilities) within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 if the containment area or the spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife. 2-6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. Because most, if not all, agricultural crops can attract hazardous wildlife during some phase of production, the FAA recommends against the used of airport property for agricultural production, including hay crops, within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. . If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce income necessary to maintain the viability of the airport, then the airport shall follow the crop distance guidelines listed in the table titled "Minimum Distances between Certain Airport Features and Any On - Airport Agricultural Crops" found in AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Appendix 17. The cost of wildlife control and potential accidents should be weighed against the income produced by the on -airport crops when deciding whether to allow crops on the airport. 9 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B a. Livestock production. Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy operations, hog or chicken production facilities, or egg laying operations) often attract flocking birds, such as starlings, that pose a hazard to aviation. Therefore, The FAA recommends against such facilities within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Any livestock operation within these separations should have a program developed to reduce the attractiveness of the site to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Free -ranging livestock must not be grazed on airport property because the animals may wander onto the AOA. Furthermore, livestock feed, water, and manure may attract birds. b. Aquaculture. Aquaculture activities (i.e. catfish or trout production) conducted outside of fully enclosed buildings are inherently attractive to a wide variety of birds. Existing aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 must have a program developed to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should also oppose the establishment of new aquaculture facilities/activities within the separations listed in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. c. Alternative uses of agricultural land. Some airports are surrounded by vast areas of farmed land within the distances specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Seasonal uses of agricultural land for activities such as hunting can create a hazardous wildlife situation. In some areas, farmers will rent their land for hunting purposes. Rice farmers, for example, flood their land during waterfowl hunting season and obtain additional revenue by renting out duck blinds. The duck hunters then use decoys and call in hundreds, if not thousands, of birds, creating a tremendous threat to aircraft safety. A wildlife damage management biologist should review, in coordination with local farmers and producers, these types of seasonal land uses and incorporate them into the WHMP. 2-7. GOLF COURSES, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER LAND -USE CONSIDERATIONS. a. Golf courses. The Targe grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses are attractive to hazardous wildlife, particularly Canada geese and some species of gulls. These species can pose a threat to aviation safety. The FAA recommends against construction of new golf courses within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Existing golf courses located within these separations must develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. Airport operators should ensure these golf courses are monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented. b. Landscaping and landscape maintenance. Depending on its geographic location, landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements. A wildlife damage management biologist should review all landscaping plans. Airport operators should also monitor all landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If 10 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented. Turf grass areas can be highly attractive to a variety of hazardous wildlife species. Research conducted by the USDA Wildlife Services' National Wildlife Research Center has shown that no one grass management regime will deter all species of hazardous wildlife in all situations. In cooperation with wildlife damage management biologist, airport operators should develop airport turf grass management plans on a prescription basis, depending on the airport's geographic locations and the type of hazardous wildlife likely to frequent the airport Airport operators should ensure that plant varieties attractive to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. Disturbed areas or areas in need of re -vegetating should not be planted with seed mixtures containing millet or any other Targe -seed producing grass. For airport property already planted with seed mixtures containing millet, rye grass, or other large -seed producing grasses, the FAA recommends disking, plowing, or another suitable agricultural practice to prevent plant maturation and seed head production. Plantings should follow the specific recommendations for grass management and seed and plant selection made by the State University Cooperative Extension Service, the local office of Wildlife Services, or a qualified wildlife damage management biologist. Airport operators should also consider developing and implementing a preferred/prohibited plant species list, reviewed by a wildlife damage management biologist, which has been designed for the geographic location to reduce the attractiveness to hazardous wildlife for landscaping airport property. c. Airports surrounded by wildlife habitat. The FAA recommends that operators of airports surrounded by woodlands, water, or wetlands refer to Section 2.4 of this AC. Operators of such airports should provide for a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) conducted by a wildlife damage management biologist. This WHA is the first step in preparing a WHMP, where required. d. Other hazardous wildlife attractants. Other specific land uses or activities (e.g., sport or commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, etc.), perhaps unique to certain regions of the country, have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. Regardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public -use airport, airport operators must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety. 2-8. SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS OF SURROUNDING LAND USES. There may be circumstances where two (or more) different land uses that would not, by themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants or that are located outside of the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that are in such an alignment with the airport as to create a wildlife corridor directly through the airport and/or surrounding airspace. An example of this situation may involve a lake located outside of the separation criteria on the east side of an airport and a Targe hayfield on the west side of an airport, land uses that together could create a flyway for Canada geese directly across the airspace of the airport. There are numerous examples of such situations; 11 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B therefore, airport operators and the wildlife damage management biologist must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the WHMP. 12 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B SECTION 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS. 3.1. INTRODUCTION. In recognition of the increased risk of serious aircraft damage or the loss of human life that can result from a wildlife strike, the FAA may require the development of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) when specific triggering events occur on or near the airport. Part 139.337 discusses the specific events that trigger a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and the specific issues that a WHMP must address for FAA approval and inclusion in an Airport Certification Manual. 3.2. COORDINATION WITH USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES OR OTHER QUALIFIED WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGISTS. The FAA will use the Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) conducted in accordance with Part 139 to determine if the airport needs a WHMP. Therefore, persons having the education, training, and expertise necessary to assess wildlife hazards must conduct the WHA. The airport operator may look to Wildlife Services or to qualified private consultants to conduct the WHA. When the services of a wildlife damage management biologist are required, the FAA recommends that land -use developers or airport operators contact a consultant specializing in wildlife damage management or the appropriate state director of Wildlife Services. NOTE: Telephone numbers for the respective USDA Wildlife Services state offices can be obtained by contacting USDA Wildlife Services Operational Support Staff, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, Riverdale, MD, 20737-1234, Telephone (301) 734-7921, Fax (301) 734-5157 Mttp:/Iwww.aphis.asda.gov/ws/]. 3-3. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS: A MANUAL FOR AIRPORT PERSONNEL. This manual, prepared by FAA and USDA Wildlife Services staff, contains a compilation of information to assist airport personnel in the development, implementation, and evaluation of WHMPs at airports. The manual includes specific information on the nature of wildlife strikes, legal authority, regulations, wildlife management techniques, WHAs, WHMPs, and sources of help and information. The manual is available in three languages: English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA's wildlife hazard mitigation web site: http://wildlife-rnitigation.tc.FAA.gov/. This manual only provides a starting point for addressing wildlife hazard issues at airports. Hazardous wildlife management is a complex discipline and conditions vary widely across the United States. Therefore, qualified wildlife damage management biologists must direct the development of a WHMP and the implementation of management actions by airport personnel. There are many other resources complementary to this manual for use in developing and implementing WHMPs. Several are listed in the manual's bibliography. 3-4. WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS, TITLE 14, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 139. Part 139.337(b) requires airport operators to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) when certain events occur on or near the airport. 13 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-338 Part 139.337 (c) provides specific guidance as to what facts must be addressed in a WHA. 3-5. WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN (WHMP). The FAA will consider the results of the WHA, along with the aeronautical activity at the airport and the views of the airport operator and airport users, in determining whether a formal WHMP is needed, in accordance with Part 139.337. If the FAA determines that a WHMP is needed, the airport operator must formulate and implement a WHMP, using the WHA as the basis for the plan. The goal of an airport's Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport. The WHMP must identify hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport and the appropriate wildlife damage management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard. It must also prioritize the management measures. 3-6. LOCAL COORDINATION. The establishment of a Wildlife Hazards Working Group (WHWG) will facilitate the communication, cooperation, and coordination of the airport and its surrounding community necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the WHMP. The cooperation of the airport community is also necessary when new projects are considered. Whether on or off the airport, the input from all involved parties must be considered when a potentially hazardous wildlife attractant is being proposed. Airport operators should also incorporate public education activities with the local coordination efforts because some activities in the vicinity of your airport, while harmless under normal leisure conditions, can attract wildlife and present a danger to aircraft. For example, if public trails are planned near wetlands or in parks adjoining airport property, the public should know that feeding birds and other wildlife in the area may pose a risk to aircraft. Airport operators should work with local and regional planning and zoning boards so as to be aware of proposed land -use changes, or modification of existing land uses, that could create hazardous wildlife attractants within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. Pay particular attention to proposed land uses involving creation or expansion of waste water treatment facilities, development of wetland mitigation sites, or development or expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. At the very least, airport operators must ensure they are on the notification list of the local planning board or equivalent review entity for all communities located within 5 miles of the airport, so they will receive notification of any proposed project and have the opportunity to review it for attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. 3-7 COORDINATION/NOTIFICATION OF AIRMEN OF WILDLIFE HAZARDS. If an existing land -use practice creates a wildlife hazard and the land -use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immediately eliminated, airport operators must issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and encourage the land—owner or manager to take steps to control the wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction. 14 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B SECTION 4. FAA NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS 4-1. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES IN THE VICINITY OF PUBLIC -USE AIRPORTS. a. The FAA discourages the development of waste disposal and other facilities, discussed in Section 2, located within the 5,000/10,000 -foot criteria specified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. b. For projects that are located outside the 5,000/10,000 -foot criteria but within 5 statute miles of the airport's AOA, the FAA may review development plans, proposed land -use changes, operational changes, or wetland mitigation plans to determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The FAA considers sensitive airport areas as those that lie under or next to approach or departure airspace. This brief examination should indicate if further investigation is warranted. c. Where a wildlife damage management biologist has conducted a further study to evaluate a site's compatibility with airport operations, the FAA may use the study results to make a determination. 4-2. WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. a. Notification of new/expanded project proposal. Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 106-181) limits the construction or establishment of new MSWLF within 6 statute miles of certain public -use airports, when both the airport and the landfill meet very specific conditions. See Section 2-2 of this AC and AC 150/5200-34 for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires any MSWLF operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 statute miles of a runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the airport operator of the proposal (40 CFR 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 258.10, Airport Safety). The EPA also requires owners or operators of new MSWLF units, or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF units, that are located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used only by piston -type aircraft, to demonstrate successfully that such units are not hazards to aircraft. (See 4-2.b below.) When new or expanded MSWLF are being proposed near airports, MSWLF operators must notify the airport operator and the FAA of the proposal as early as possible pursuant to 40 CFR 258. 15 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B b. Waste handling facilities within separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. To claim successfully that a waste -handling facility sited within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 does not attract hazardous wildlife and does not threaten aviation, the developer must establish convincingly that the facility will not handle putrescible material other than that as outlined in 2-2.d. The FAA strongly recommends against any facility other than that as outlined in 2-2.d (enclosed transfer stations). The FAA will use this information to determine if the facility will be a hazard to aviation. c. Putrescible-Waste Facilities. to their effort to satisfy the EPA requirement, some putrescible-waste facility proponents may offer to undertake experimental measures to demonstrate that their proposed facility will not be a hazard to aircraft. To date, no such facility has been able to demonstrate an ability to reduce and sustain hazardous wildlife to levels that existed before the putrescible-waste landfill began operating. For this reason, demonstrations of experimental wildlife control measures may not be conducted within the separation identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4. 4-3. OTHER LAND -USE PRACTICE CHANGES. As a matter of policy, the FAA encourages operators of public -use airports who become aware of proposed land use practice changes that may attract hazardous wildlife within 5 statute miles of their airports to promptly notify the FAA. The FAA also encourages proponents of such land use changes to notify the FAA as early in the planning process as possible. Advanced notice affords the FAA an opportunity (1) to evaluate the effect of a particular land -use change on aviation safety and (2) to support efforts by the airport sponsor to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with the airport. The airport operator, project proponent, or land -use operator may use FAA Form 7460- 1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, or other suitable documents similar to FAA Form 7460-1 to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. Project proponents can contact the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office for assistance with the notification process. It is helpful if the notification includes a 15 -minute quadrangle map of the area identifying the location of the proposed activity. The land -use operator or project proponent should also forward specific details of the proposed land -use change or operational change or expansion. In the case of solid waste landfills, the information should include the type of waste to be handled, how the waste will be processed, and final disposal methods. a. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance. Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance are required by their grant assurances to take appropriate actions to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations. The FAA recommends that airport operators to the extent practicable oppose off -airport land -use changes or practices within the separations identified in Sections 1-2 through 1-4 that may attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so may lead to noncompliance with applicable grant assurances. The FAA will not approve the placement of airport 16 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants without appropriate mitigating measures. Increasing the intensity of wildlife control efforts is not a substitute for eliminating or reducing a proposed wildlife hazard. Airport operators should identify hazardous wildlife attractants and any associated wildlife hazards during any planning process for new airport development projects. 17 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B This page intentionally left blank. 18 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR. 1. GENERAL. This appendix provides definitions of terms used throughout this AC. 1. Air operations area. Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or apron. 2_ Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public -use airport. 3. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff. 4. Bird balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites. 5. Certificate holder. The holder of an Airport Operating Certificate issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139. 6. Construct a new MSWLF. To begin to excavate, grade land, or raise structures to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting agency. 7. Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for short periods of time, a few hours to a few days. 8. Establish a new MSWLF. When the first Toad of putrescible waste is received on-site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill. 9. Fly ash. The fine, sand -like residue resulting from the complete incineration of an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from the combustion of coal or waste used to operate a power generating plant. 10. General aviation aircraft. Any civil aviation aircraft not operating under 14 CFR Part 119, Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators. 11. Hazardous wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles), including feral animals and domesticated animals not under control, that are associated with aircraft strike problems, are capable of causing structural damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard 12. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF). A publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. An MSWLF may receive 19 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B other types wastes, such as commercial solid waste, non -hazardous sludge, small -quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2. An MSWLF can consist of either a stand alone unit or several cells that receive household waste. 13. New MSWLF. A municipal solid waste landfill that was established or constructed after April 5, 2001. 14. Piston -powered aircraft. Fixed -wing aircraft powered by piston engines. 15. Piston -use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet -A fuel for fixed -wing turbine -powered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed -wing, piston -powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by turbine -powered, fixed -wing aircraft would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based at the airport. 16. Public agency. A State or political subdivision of a State, a tax -supported organization, or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(19)). 17. Public airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(20)). 18. Public -use airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes, and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft may be under the control of a public agency or privately owned and used for public purposes (49 U.S.C. § 47102(21)). 19. Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR §257.3-8). 20. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste discharges, or similar facilities where activities include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of putrescible material, trash, and refuse. 21. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for several months. 22. Runway protection zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground (see AC 150/5300-13). The dimensions of this zone vary with the airport design, aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum. 23. Scheduled air carrier operation. Any common carriage passenger -carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial 20 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B operator for which the air carrier, commercial operator, or their representative offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CFR Part 119 or as a public charter operation under 14 CFR Part 380 (14 CFR § 119.3). 24. Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and a material derived from sewage sludge. Sewage does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. (40 CFR 257.2) 25. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated form a municipal, commercial or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect. (40 CFR 257.2) 26. Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including, solid liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (86 Stat. 880), or source, special nuclear, or by product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, (68 Stat. 923). (40 CFR 257.2) 27. Turbine -powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbojets and turboprops but excluding turbo -shaft rotary -wing aircraft. 28. Turbine -use airport. Any airport that sells Jet -A fuel for fixed -wing turbine - powered aircraft. 29. Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes, including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), as defined by Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. (See 40 CFR Section 403.3 (q), (r), & (s)). 21 8/28/2007 AC 150/5200-33B 30. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants). As used in this AC, wildlife includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their owners (14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports). 31. Wildlife attractants. Any human -made structure, land -use practice, or human - made or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace or the airport's AOA. These attractants can include architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands. 32. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport. 33. Wildlife strike. A wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when: a. A pilot reports striking 1 or more birds or other wildlife; b. Aircraft maintenance personnel identify aircraft damage as having been caused by a wildlife strike; c. Personnel on the ground report seeing an aircraft strike 1 or more birds or other wildlife; d. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are found within 200 feet of a runway centerline, unless another reason for the animal's death is identified; e. The animal's presence on the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with animal) (Transport Canada, Airports Group, Wildlife Control Procedures Manual, Technical Publication 11500E, 1994). 2. RESERVED. 22 ATTACHMENT D — White Slough Project Pages SJCOG Commented On • 6 Concrete Trucks • 2-3 Dozers • 4 Passenger Trucks • 3 Vans • 2-3 Dump Trucks • 8 Dumpsters • 1 Water Truck • 1 Street Sweeper • 2 Move on/off Trailers A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be prepared and implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on water quality during construction and operations. Best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment during construction. a,b) Less than Significant Impact Traffic generated by this Project will be short-term as a result of construction. The construction of the Project is not expected to generate excessive traffic for the area, but will temporarily increase traffic at the WPCF. At the peak of Project construction, it is estimated that 40 contractor staff and 15-20 vehicles will be on-site. This will not increase traffic substantially in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system. The Project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within 1 mile of the Kingdon Airpark, a private airport with public access, and falls within the airport's Area of Influence (AIA) (Figure 11). The nearest runway is approximately 0.6 miles to the east- northeast of the Project. The proposed Project is expected to have a Tess than significant impact upon the airport because the Project involves the construction of a treated effluent storage pond; no tall buildings, sources of light, steam, smoke or electric hazards are associated with the proposed Project. • Glare, distracting lights and reflective materials are not part of the Project or Project design. • Sources of dust, steam or smoke are limited and are not expected to impair pilot visibility. Mitigation measures and standard engineering measures (see Air Quality Mitigation Measure 2 (Section III — Air Quality) and Geology and Soils Section b) will be in place to minimize dust during construction. Regarding steam or smoke, in 2012 the California Energy Commission and Northern California Power Agency constructed a natural gas-fired 255 -megawatt power generation facility with an evaporative cooling system on about 4.5 -acres of the WPCF. The power plant emits thermal plumes in the form of steam generated by its cooling towers. Although the FAA has found that thermal emission is not likely to pose a threat to aircraft, it is recommended that aircraft maintain a vertical separation of 1,000 feet above such facilities. This is the existing vertical separation distance for aircraft using designated Kingdon Air Park flight tracks, so the power plant will not require aircraft to adjust flight patterns. This is a less than significant impact (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). 97 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communication or navigation are not part of Project design features, and no transmissions that would interfere with aircraft radio communications or navigational signals will occur at the Project site. An overhead high voltage (230 kV) dual electrical transmission line already traverses the WPCF from north to south and is at the eastern boundary of the proposed expansion pond. The transmission line is approximately 100 -feet tall and about 8,100 -feet west of Kingdon Air Park; it is at the western limit of flight tracks. High voltage power transmission lines pose peculiar hazards to low flying aircraft, and the FAA specifies that such structures be marked and lighted. Aircraft operating over or near the transmission lines are typically at an altitude of 800 to 1,000 feet, so there is little threat of electrical interference with communication and navigation devices that would require an altered flight path. This is a less than significant impact (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). • The proposed Project site is located within Kingdon Air Park's area of influence, but not within the 5000 ft separation distance for wildlife attractants, most notably of birds, recommended by federal guidance Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B (see Hazards and Hazardous Materials Sections e, f). Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. prepared a report to assess whether construction and operation of the expansion pond is a compatible land use with Kingdon Air Park in accordance with guidelines established in the San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and whether the expansion pond will act as a wildlife attractant that increases the number of birds within the airport's Area of Influence. The Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. analysis revealed that the proposed expansion ponds would increase annual bird visits by about 243,000 birds, approximately 1.35%. Regardless of the time of day or year, most birds move from the Delta into the agricultural fields (west to east) or from the fields back into the Delta. Such bird movements indicate that the Kingdon Air Park AIA is an active and attractive habitat for many species of birds. Typically, birds will fly at altitudes between 300 and 500 ft, but birds crossing the Delta without using the WPCF habitat may travel at altitudes as high as 3000 ft. This is high enough to encounter aircraft from Kingdon Air Park, which are usually at altitudes between 800 and 1000 ft when crossing over the existing WPCF ponds. However, none of the tracks created by aircraft when arriving, departing, or during pilot training, including touch-and-go tracks, cross over the proposed expansion pond Project site (Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Such flight patterns within the AIA, along with the minor 1.35% increase in total birds attracted to the area due to the ponds, suggests that the construction of the proposed expansion ponds will not impact the safety of air travel. The increase in birds is not expected to result in a change to air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks d) No Impact. The Project does not include design features that would increase hazards or incompatible uses, because the Project would not include the construction of any new streets or roads. The Project is located within the boundaries of the existing White Slough WPCF on City -owned land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase hazards due to a design feature, such as a sharp curve or dangerous intersection, incompatible uses, such as farming equipment, or inadequate emergency access. 98 City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion a RLII•ANIA Water Boards Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 10 February 2017 City of Lodi Craig Hoffman P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 (4.1) EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR a MARKIN RODRIQUEZ Ep141,41v FOR ENTIWONLIP NTAL PROTECTION COMMENTS ON CEQA DOCUMENT TYPE (SCH PROJECT NO. 201012035), CITY OF LODI, WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY(WPCF), SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY Pursuant to San Joaquin County Community Development Department's 17 January 2017 request, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) staff has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. The Central Valley Water Board is responsible for protecting the quality of surface and ground waters of the state; therefore, our comments will address water quality matters only. The applicant proposes to construct a 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the existing City -owned White Slough WPCF. The Expansion Pond will consist of four individual ponds with an overall storage capacity of up to 388 acre-feet. The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on the agricultural land and to offset groundwater pumping. The City intends to divert filtered, disinfected recycled water to the new storage ponds. The diversion facilities that direct treated effluent to the existing storage ponds convey undisinfected secondary -treated water. Therefore, the project will include new facilities that allow for diversion of tertiary flows separately from the existing effluent diversion facilities. The project will also include conveyance infrastructure to provide for delivery of the treated effluent from the new storage ponds to the City's existing irrigation water delivery system. From this location, the WPCF's existing irrigation distribution system can deliver this water to various City -owned agricultural fields. Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) The discharge of recycled water means water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. The discharge is subject to regulation under Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs) for Recycled Water Use (2016-0068-DDW) (General Order), adopted on 7 June 2016. The discharge under the General Order is limited to treated municipal wastewater for uses consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, and other uses approved by the State Water Board on a case-by-case basis, other than direct or indirect potable uses. KARL E, LONOLEY SCD, P.E., CHAIR I PAMELA C. CREEDON P.E„ BCEE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 11020 Sun Center Drive 6200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 1 www.waterboards ca,gov/centralvelley 45 RECYCLED PAPER Craig Hoffman -2- 10 February 2017 City of Lodi In accordance with California Water Code Section 13260, the project proponent is required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) to apply for the General Order. We recommend that the RWD be submitted 3 to 6 months before the expected startup date. For more information on the Recycled Water General Order (Order No. 2014-0090-DWQ), visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at: http://www, waterboards. ca. gov/board decisions/adapted orders/water quality12014/wgo2014_ 0090 dwq_revised.pdf For more information on waste discharges to land, visit the Central Valley Water Board's website at: httpl/www.waterboards.ca.govIcentralvalley/water issues/waste to Land/index. shtml Antidegradation Considerations All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Policy is available on page IV -15.01 at: http://www.waterboards. ca.govlboard decisions/adopted orders/resolutions/1968Irs66 016.pdf In part it states Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State. This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives. The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the NPDES and land discharge WDRs permitting process. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. Construction Storm Water General Permit Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb Tess than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at: Craig Hoffman -3- 10 February 2017 City of Lodi http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml Phase land II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits' The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittee to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process. For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.govIcentralvalley/water issues!storm_water/municipal_perrnits/ For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at: http./Iwww.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/phase ii municipal.shtml Industrial Storm Water General Permit Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order 2014-0057-DWQ. For more information on the Industrial Storm Water General Permit, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.govicentralvalley/water issues/storm_water/iridustriat general perm its/index.shtml. Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACOE at (916) 557-5250. Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit — Water Quality Certification If an USACOE permit (e.g., Non -Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this 1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals. Craig Hoffman -4- 10 February 2017 City of Lodi project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. Regulatory Compliance for Commercially Irrigated Agriculture If the property will be used for commercial irrigated agricultural, the discharger will be required to obtain regulatory coverage under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. There are two options to comply: 1. Obtain Coverage Under a Coalition Group. Join the local Coalition Group that supports land owners with the implementation of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. The Coalition Group conducts water quality monitoring and reporting to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of its growers. The Coalition Groups charge an annual membership fee, which varies by Coalition Group. To find the Coalition Group in your area, visit the Central Valley Water Board's website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.govIcentralvalley/water issues/irrigated lands/app approval/ index. shtml or contact water board staff at (916) 464-4611 or via email at lrrLands@waterboards.ca.gov. 2. Obtain Coverage Under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Individual Growers, General Order R5-2013-0100. Dischargers not participating in a third -party group (Coalition) are regulated individually. Depending on the specific site conditions, growers may be required to monitor runoff from their property, install monitoring wells, and submit a notice of intent, farm plan, and other action plans regarding their actions to comply with their General Order. Yearly costs would include State administrative fees (for example, annual fees for farm sizes from 10-100 acres are currently $1,084 + $6.70/Acre); the cost to prepare annual monitoring reports; and water quality monitoring costs. To enroll as an Individual Discharger under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, call the Central Valley Water Board phone line at (916) 464-4611 or e-mail board staff at IrrLands@waterboards.ca.gov. Dewatering Permit If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and groundwater will be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Risk General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Risk Waiver) R5-2013-0145. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge. For more information regarding the Low Risk General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http://wwwwaterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adopted orders/water quality/2003/wgo/wgo20 03-0003.pdf For more information regarding the Low Risk Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: Craig Hoffman -5- 10 February 2017 City of Lodi http://www.waterboards.ca.govicentralvalley/board decisions/adopted orders/waivers/r5-2013- 0145 res. pdf If groundwater will be discharged to waters of the United States or storm drains, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (Low Threat General Order) or the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges of Treated/Untreated Groundwater from Cleanup Sites, Wastewater from Superchlorination Projects, and Other Limited Threat Wastewaters to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete application must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under these General NPDES permits. For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http:/Iwww. waterboards. ca.gov/centralvalley/board decisions/adopted orders/general orders/r5 - 2013-0074.pdf For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.govIcentralvalley/board decisionsladopted orders/general orders/r5 - 2013-0073.pdf If you have any questions about the storm water program, please call Steve Rosenbaum at (916) 464-4631. Additional information is available via the Internet at the Regional Board's Storm Water website http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/storm water/. For more information on Section 404 Permits contact the Sacramento District of the Corps of Engineers at (916) 557-5250 or Elizabeth Lee with the Regional Board at (916) 464-4787. If you have any questions about the discharge to land permitting process, including dewatering discharges to land, I can be reached at (916) 464-4740 or by email at dcalanchini a©wa terboards. ca. gov. INA CALANCHINI Engineering Geologist Non -15 Waste Discharge to Land Permitting Unit cc: Rodney Estrada, County Environmental Health Department, Stockton EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of .PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT February 14, 2017 • KEN ALEX DIRECTOR Craig Hoffman r_ City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 Subject: White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH#: 2017012035 Dear Craig Hoffman: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on February 13, 2017, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, eott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca,gov SCH# Project Title Lead Agency Type Description Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base 2017012035 White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Lodi, City of MND Mitigated Negative Declaration The city of Lodi is proposing the construction of a 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF. The Expansion Pond will consist of 4 individual ponds with an overall storage capacity of up to 388 acre-feet. The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on the 886.67 acres of agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. The project would be funded by the DWR proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping or assist in preserving water quality at source intakes. Lead Agency Contact Name Craig Hoffman Agency City of Lodi Phone (209) 333-6800 x 2649 email Address P.O. Box 3006 City Lodi Project Location County City Region Let/ Long Cross Streets Parcel No. Township San Joaquin Lodi 38° 05' 20" N / 121° 23' 04" W Thornton Rd and Hwy 12 055-190-01, -150-29, -130-16 3N Range 5E Fax State CA Zip 95241 Section 24 Base 1851 Proximity to: Highways HWY 12 Airports Kingdon Air Park Railways Waterways Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta Schools Land Use Industrial, Public/Quasi Public Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; RecreationlParks; Schools/Universities; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Landuse Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 2; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 10; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, District 10; State Water Resources Control Board, Divison of Financial Assistance; Regional Water Quality Control Bd., Region 5 (Sacramento); Native American Heritage Commission Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base Date Received 01/13/2017 Start of Review 01/13/2017 End of Review 02/13/2017 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency APPENDIX J RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. File number 2017-02 ND. The City received seven written comments during the public review period and the comments were responded to and incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding number, and comments within each comment letter have been separated to respond to the specific issues raised, as well as being additionally numbered. The original comment letters are provided in Appendix I of this Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Written comments may include opinions or preferences pertaining to project approval or disapproval. Additionally, the comments may provide information regarding a subject that does not directly challenge information presented in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, introduce new environmental information or directly challenge information presented in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. In such cases, the response "This comment is acknowledged" has been used. White Stough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No. 20/7012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments Table 1 Written Comments Summary Letter No. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES W CA C. O O L14 C7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HYDROLOGY NOISE TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION LAND USE AND PLANNING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES POPULATION UTILITIES OTHER STATE AGENCIES 1 Scott Morgan, Director Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3O44Sacramento, California 95812 • 2 Genevieve Schrader Senior Engineer Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street P.O Box 3006 Sacramento, CA 94236 • • • • • • • • • 3 Dina Calanchini Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 • White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments Table 1 (Continued) Written Comments Summary Letter No. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AGRICULTURE AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES Hazards and Hazardous Materials HYDROLOGY LAND USE w O Z TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1 w w 0 PUBLIC SERVICES POPULATION UTILITIES OTHER REGIONAL AGENCIES 4 Ashlen McGinnis Environmental Coordinator San Joaquin County Public Works 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue, P.O. Box 1810 Stockton, California 95201 • 5 Travis Yokoyama San Joaquin Airport Land Use Commission 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 • • BUSINESS OWNERS/RESIDENTS 6 David Arnaiz Kingdon Airpark 4100 E. Freemont Street Stockton, California 95215 • • • 7 Patrick Costa General Partner, C and C Farms 4484 Tredway Road Lodi, California 95242 • • • • • White Slough WPCE Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 1 Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 COMMENT 1-1 The review period closed on February 13, 2017, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2017012035) when contacting this office. RESPONSE 1-1 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 2 Genevieve Schrader Senior Engineer Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street, P.O Box 3006 Sacramento, CA 94236 COMMENT 2-1 Thank you for the opportunity to review the White Slough Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have attached our comments prepared by Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist with the Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services. RESPONSE 2-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft MND and reiterates a brief description of the project. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project. COMMENT 2-2 Reference Page 4, Paragraph 3 (also repeated on Page 11): "The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (WDR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intake". The Bay -Delta Office's Delta Water Quality Proposition 84 Funding does not include specific provisions for groundwater pumping. While this is a desirable effect, it should not be mentioned as the basis for Proposition 84 funding. Please revise this sentence to: "The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (WDR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes." SPONSE 2-2 The sentence was revised as indicated. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March20l 7 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-3 Project Description, Page 16. Please provided information on work hours. This information is included in the Environmental Checklist impact discussion but should be included in the Project Description. RESPONSE 2-3 The work hours have been included in the Project Description. COMMENT 2-4 Air Quality, III a. The analysis states that the project emissions will not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds, but no estimates of project emissions are reported. Please explain and give an estimate of why the project does not exceed the thresholds (or refer to section III b-c's discussion of project emissions). RESPONSE 2-4 The document was modified to refer to section III b-c's discussion of project emissions. COMMENT 2-5 Air Quality, III d. Mitigation measure "Air Quality Mitigation 2" is listed as a measure that would make the impact less than significant. The impact should be "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated". RESPONSE 2-5 Air Quality, III d was modified to "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated". COMMENT 2-6 Biological Resources V. a. This impact should be "less than significant with mitigation incorporated", since mitigation measures are listed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and appropriate box marked. RESPONSE 2-6 Biological Resources V. a was modified to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-7 Regarding mitigation measure 2, Biological Resources; since Swainson's hawk is known to nest nearby, a 250 -foot survey buffer is not considered adequate. Swainson's hawk surveys should be conducted within 'A to '/2 mile of the projet area, following the "Recommended timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley". This measure should be added, as even short-term construction activity may cause nest disturbance. Additionally, preconstruction surveys should be conducted prior to vegetation clearing work, not just ground disturbance, since it will take place in June, which is during nesting bird season. RESPONSE 2-7 As stated in the Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1, the project is participating in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Plan (SJCMSHP), for which the U.S Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife are signatory. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 2 — Preconstruction Survey will be implemented as prescribed by the SJCMHCP. All areas within 250 feet of the project area shall be surveyed where site access and visibility allows (the SJCMSHP does not require a greater distance for nesting Swainson's hawks). Furthermore, the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG) has done a buffer reduction review per the HCP and has confirmed that these setbacks are applicable per the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). COMMENT 2-8 Biological Resources V. c. The last sentence of section c, this statement should read: "Therefore, the impact is less than significant". RESPONSE 2-8 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-9 Biological Resources V. e. The last sentence of section e states "no impact", this statement should be "less than significant". RESPONSE 2-2 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-10 Biological Resources V. f. Because the project may have impacts, and will be following the take avoidance measures in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant" rather than no impact. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-10 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-11 Figures 8 and Figures 9 maps of special plants and wildlife are illegible in the PDF version. The species names are not readable. Please provide maps that may be read. RESPONSE 2-11 Maps have been replaced in final MND. COMMENT 2-12 Cultural Resources VI.a. This section discusses the measures recommended by the Cultural Resources consultant in the event that the project plans change to directly impact resources. Suggest removing this section all together, as a new evaluation would take place if the project changes. Or, if this discussion is warranted, the project should commit to conducting the suggested measures. RESPONSE 2-12 The discussion was removed per suggestion. COMMENT 2-13 Geology and Soils VII.a..iii. This section discusses "planned mitigation" in the form of design and construction technique modifications based on geotechnical investigations that "should" happen. This impact should be "less than significant with mitigation" and a mitigation measure added to implement design and construction modifications that are necessary after geotechnical work is complete. RESPONSE 2-13 The discussion is edited and mitigation added as per suggestion. COMMENT 2-14 Geology and Soils VII.c. Technically, unless standard measures are included in the project description, the measures discussed here should be considered mitigation. Consider either having the "standard measures" included in the project description or adding a mitigation measure to implement the measures to reduce the impact to less -than -significance. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-14 The section was edited to add a mitigation measure. COMMENT 2-15 Geology and Soils VII.e. Geotechnical investigations have not been completed for this project, but is seems that the information gathered from these investigations would inform the project design, construction, and potential to store treated wastewater (which is a primary purpose of the project). It seems that this information is necessary to conduct the impact analysis in the Geology and Soils section and that, without it, it is difficult to adequately address impacts of develop mitigation measures. If this information is now available, it should be incorporated into the analysis. RESPONSE 211 This section includes the final geotechnical report. COMMENT 2-16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.a,b. these sections should include possible spills (oil, hydraulic fluid) during construction and include standard spill prevention measures and a procedure for spill response if one does occur. RESPONSE 2-16 Spill prevention measures have been included to VIII.a.b. COMMENT 2-17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.d., there is extensive discussion of several hazardous waste records for sites that are not in the project footprint or affected by the project. This ancillary information is unnecessary and confuses the reader as to what the actual impacts of the project are. It seems that a simple statement that references these reports and the fact that they are not affected by the project or will affect the project would be adequate and less confusing. RESPONSE 2-17 The ancillary information is removed. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.d., it seems relevant to discuss that the geotechnical information would address whether the soils in the proposed project area can contain treated wastewater. RESPONSE 2-18 The water used on site meets requirements that more stringent than standard effluent from either a septic or secondary treated effluent, which is currently allowed as irrigation. Therefore, due to the high quality of the tertiary treated waters held in the proposed pond, a less than significant to no impact is anticipated. COMMENT 2-19 The measures to prevent stormwater runoff should be included in the project description. ,RESPONSE 2-19 The stormwater runoff measures have been included in the project description. COMMENT 2-20 Impact FLOOD -2. This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. Additionally, this impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated", as a mitigation measure is listed here. RESPONSE 2-20 The final MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-21 Impact FLOOD -3. This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. RESPONSE 2-21 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-22 Impact FLOOD -4. This corresponds to item i on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-22 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-23 Land Use and Planning X.c., Because the project may have impacts, and will be participating in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant" rather than "no impact". RESPONSE 2-23 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-24 Utilities and Service Systems XVII. d., Please describe where water for dust control will be obtained from. Because some water will be used during construction, the impact should be "less than significant" rather than "no impact". RESPONSE 2-24 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-25 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII. a.c., suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. RESPONSE 2-25 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-25 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII. a.c., suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. RESPONSE 2-25 The MND has been edited per recommendation. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-26 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures should be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. RESPONSE 2-26 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures will be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. White Slough WPC1: Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 3 Dina Calanchini Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 COMMENT 3-1 Pursuant to San Juaquin County Community Development Department's 17 January 2017 request, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) staff has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. The Central Valley Water Board is Responsible for protecting the quality of surface and ground waters of the state; therefore, our comments will address water quality matters only. RESPONSE 3-1. This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 3-1 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs): the discharge is subject to regulation under Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs) for recycled Water Use (2016-0068-DDW) (General Order), adopted on 7 June 2016. In accordance with California Water Code Section 13260, the project proponent is required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) to apply for the General Order. We recommend that the RWD be submitted 3 to 6 months before the expected startup date. RESPONSE 3-1 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 3-2 Antidegradation Considerations: All wastewater discharge must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the NPDES and land discharge WDRs permitting process. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement City of Lodi SCH No. 2017012035 March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE -2 This impact is already being addressed per the requirements of the WPCF general permit with the RWQCB. COMMENT 3-3 Construction Storm Water General Permit: Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acre, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). RESPONSE 3-3 A SWPPP will be implemented per state regulations for the duration of the construction project. COJ IMENT 3-4 Phase I and 11 Mimic ipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits: The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittee to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process. RESPONSE 3-4 The City will oversee the SWPPP, and fulfill the requirements per the state standard. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 COMMENT 3-5 Responses to Written Comments Industrial Storm Water General Permit: Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order 2014-0057-DWQ RESPONSE 3-5 This is currently implemented and will continue to be performed per the WPCF ongoing permit with the RWQCB. COMMENT 3-6 Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit: If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. RESPONSE 3-6 No streambed alteration is required for this project, and no discharge/dredging is anticipated. COMMENT 3-7 Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit — Water Quality Certification: If an USACOE permit (e.g., Non -Reporting Nationwide Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. RESPONSE 3-7 No waters of the state were identified as part of this proposed project which will be influenced. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 3-8 Regulatory Compliance for Commercially Irrigated Agriculture: If the property will be used for commercial irrigated agricultural, the discharger will be required to obtain regulatory coverage under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. There are two options to comply: 1. Obtain Coverage Under a Coalition Group. Join the local Coalition Group that supports land owners with the implementation of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. The Coalition Group conducts water quality monitoring and reporting to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of its growers. The Coalition Groups charge an annual membership fee, which varies by Coalition Group. 2. Obtain Coverage Under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Individual Growers, General Order R5-2013-0100. Dischargers not participating in a third -party group (Coalition) are regulated individually. Depending on the specific site conditions, growers may be required to monitor runoff from their property, install monitoring wells, and submit a notice of intent, farm plan, and other action plans regarding their actions to comply with the General Order. Yearly costs would include State administration fees (for example, annual fees for farm sizes from 10-100 acres are currently $1,084 + $6.70/Acre); the cost to prepare annual monitoring reports; and water quality monitoring costs. RESPONSE 3-8 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 3-9 Dewaterin Perm it: If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and groundwater will be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Risk General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Risk Waiver) R5- 2013-0145. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge. RESPONSE 3-9 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 3-10 If groundwater will be discharged to waters of the United States or storm drains, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (Low Threat General Order) or the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges of Treated/Untreated Groundwater from Cleanup Sites, Wastewater from Superchlorination Projects, and Other Limited Threat Wastewaters to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete application must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under these General NPDES permits. RESPONSE 3-10 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March20l 7 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 4 Ashlen McGinnis Environmental Coordinator San Joaquin County Public Works 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue, P.O. Box 1810 Stockton, California 95201 COMMENT 4-1 The San Joaquin County Department of Public Works has reviewed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the referenced project and has no comments at this time. However, the County does request to be included on the circulation list for any additional project documents. RESPONSE 4-1 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 5 Travis Yokoyama San Joaquin Airport Land Use Commission 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 COMMENT 5-1 The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Congestion Management Agency (CMA), has reviewed the mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project (including a 70 -acre expansion pond and associated conveyance infrastructure) at 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi (APN: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). RE.SPONSE 5-1 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 5-2 SJCOG has determined this project will not meet the Tier 2 threshold adopted the 2016 Update to the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP); thus, no comment is provided at this time. RESPONSE 5-2 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 5-3 APN: 055-150-29 and 055-130-16 are located within the Kingdon's AIA. APN: 055-190-01 is split evenly between Kingdon's AIA and Traffic Pattern Zone (Zone 7). RESPONSE 5-3 The proposed expansion pond is shown on various maps and exhibits as being located 8,000 feet from the nearest point of the Kingdon Airpark, and therefore, conforms to separation distance recommendations in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 5-4 APN: 055-190-01 was measured within 5,000 ft of the Kingdon Air Park, which is against the FAA recommendation. Under New Wastewater Treatment Facilities (2.3d of Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B (ATTACHMENT C)), "the FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facility or associated settling ponds within the 5,000 ft of an airport." In addition, the document states "During site -location analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, developers should consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and the airport operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the airport." REPONSE 5-4 The proposed expansion pond is shown on various maps and exhibits as being located 8,000 feet from the nearest point of the Kingdon Airpark, and therefore, conforms to separation distance recommendations in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. COMMENT 5-5 Has the FAA Regional Airport Division office been contacted, as per our recommendation in our comment letter dated 11/10/2015? If so please provide the FAA response, if any. RESPONSE 5-5 Wallace Environmental Consulting contacted environmental specialists at the Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airport District Office (SFO ADO) in Brisbane, California.1 The SFO ADO staff confirmed that the FAA does not have jurisdiction or review authority for land use issues surrounding Kingdon Airpark for the following reasons: 1. Kingdon Airpark is not a federally obligated airport. That is, it does not receive grants from the FAA, or any other kind of federal funding; 2. Kingdon Airpark is not a Part 139 airport, that is, it does not serve commercial airlines; 1 Personal communication, November 2016, Douglas Pomeroy, Environmental Specialist, FAA San Francisco Airports District Office, Brisbane, California. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments 3. Kingdon Airpark is not part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and 4. The ALUC may use guidance in the AC as part of its review process for wildlife attractants, however, that does not obligate the FAA to act as a statutory or `volunteer' reviewing agency. Therefore, for the purposes of land issues concerning the Kingdon Airpark, the FAA will not review or comment on land use issues that the ALUC has cited in FAA AC 150/5200-33B. Never the less, the City of Lodi submitted FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, via mail to the FAA Western -Pacific Regional Office and the FAA San Francisco Airports Division Office on November 19, 2015, and via electronic Off Airport case on December 1, 2015, as notification of the proposed project. Although the FAA has no authority to review, their determination indicated that there was no hazard associated with their review. The letter was included in the Appendix E, Draft MND. COMMENT 571 SJCOG recommends that the City include the FAA Recommendation, listed under Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (2.3c of Advisory Circular 150/520-33B), as a mitigation measure, in the MND. "Airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable." RESPONSE 5-6 Paragraph 2-3 c. in the FAA advisory circular refers to "existing wastewater treatment facilities" and "wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport." The project for which the CEQA document and supporting land use compatibility report is written are for proposed wastewater treatment facilities 3,000 feet beyond the recommended separation distance from an airport. Even though the commenter has taken the reference to the advisory circular out of context, the City of Lodi mitigated for potential wildlife hazards by moving the proposed pond expansion from its preferred location in the southeastern portion of the WSWPCF which would have been within 5,000 feet of the airpark to a location 8,000 feet from the nearest point to the Kingdon Airpark. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO.6 David Arnaiz, Owner Kingdon Airpark 4100 E. Freemont Street Stockton, California 95215 COMMENT 6-1 The study confirms that the proposed project will increase the bird attraction but I didn't see any information or where the study addresses how this increase bird activity will continue to grow, i.e. how will this increased activity look in 5 -years, 10 -years etc. into the future. RESPONSE 6-J Estimating future bird populations is not considered part of a compatible land use study under any federal guidance or state airport land use guidance.The study was specifically targeted at potential increases or decreases for bird visits to the proposed White Slough Pollution Control Facility expansion ponds and whether the proposed project was a compatible land use. This study was based on a one-year observation period and concluded that the proposed expansion would increase the total number of birds attracted to the facility but that pond expansion is a compatible land use. The commenter assumed that bird populations are increasing. There is no evidence in the public record that total bird populations are increasing in the Delta or San Joaquin Valley. Annual bird population studies conducted in the Delta and San Joaquin Valley by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife since 1998 indicate a long-term decline in total bird populations. Other studies by the US Geological Survey and NGO's, such as the Audubon Society, reach the same conclusion. Furthermore, changes in bird populations are species specific and are influenced by urbanization, loss of habitat, rain fall amounts and climate change. Speculating, it is possible that some bird populations will increase in the vicinity of Kingdon Airport because of agricultural practices. Starlings and blackbirds (flocking birds) are attracted to vineyards, open ground farming, orchards and animal facilities such as the horse farm and dairy facility; all exist within 5,000 feet or less of the airport. COMMENT 6-Z The statement that we do not have any turbine aircraft "based" at the airport nor that we sell Jet -A fuel, thus the study does not address nor need to address a minimum separation distance greater the 5000 feet is a muddy interpretation of the facts. a) We do have turbine aircraft operations on a regular basis. b) We are currently working with a tenant who would base his turbine driven aircraft at the airport which will not only provide our ability to, but also our need to offer Jet -A fuel. By the proposed land use not considering this information in its initial study not only leaves it incomplete, but provides for this land use to adversely impact our ability to conduct current and future business. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE y- , State airport land use planning guidelines and FAA compatible land use guidance are very clear: If an airport sells Jet -A fuel, and if turbine powered aircraft are based at the airport, then a compatible land use study must include a 10,000 -foot radius around the airport. If there are no turbine powered aircraft and/or the airport does not provide Jet -A fuel, a 5,000 -foot radius around the airport will be used to guide a compatible land use assessment. It is common practice in California land use planning to establish an existing environmental or land use baseline against which environmental and land use impacts are measured. The only baseline condition which applies to our compatible land use evaluation is the current Kingdon Airpark condition: No turbine powered aircraft are based at the airport; no Jet -A fuel is available at the airport. Therefore, the compatible land use determination is based on a 5,000 -foot radius from the existing airport. Our land use compatible study findings do not preclude the airport from basing turbine powered aircraft or selling Jet -A fuel in the future. Our discussions with pilots and aircraft owners indicate that they are generally more concerned with the physical condition of the airport, runway and taxiway. We have attached the most recent CalTrans inspection report in Appendix K, which sheds light on the current airport conditions. COMMENT 6-3 Please advise us as to how the proposed land use will address and mitigate the impacts of their project from occurring on and against our property, airport and operations. RESPONSE 6-3 The compatible land use study took into account a significant mitigation measure which the commenter ignored. The City had proposed alternative locations for the expansion pond, including one in the southeast corner of the White Slough facility within the 5,000- foot radius of the airport. From the outset, we recommended against that location as an incompatible land use and recommended a location over 8,000 -feet away from the closest point to the airport. The second location, which was evaluated in our land use compatibility study represents a mitigation measure and is compatible with airport land use guidelines. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 7 Patrick Costa General Partner, C and C Farms 4484 Tredway Road Lodi, California 95242 COMMENT 7-1 After reviewing the proposed Notice for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project, I have many concerns. The value of my property is a main concern. I started growing wine grapes 25 years ago. As a member of the Lodi Winegrape Commission, I have built brand recognition for the Lodi area, District 11. Due to the hard work, passion and commitment of our local farmer, Lodi was named 2015 Wine Region of the year. Lodi is becoming one of the worlds most recognized regions and people travel from all over the world to tour our vineyards and wineries. A lot of dedication goes into our farming programs in order to maintain sustainability and farm scaping aesthetics. SPONSE 7-1 The San Joaquin County General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project area. Furthermore, the project's final location will be the Western Pond site, which would add an expansion pond in the proximity of the existing ponds and facility structures. The project would therefore visually blend with the surrounding White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. CQMMENT 7-2 I understand the growth of Lodi and the need for expansion, in fact, I'm all for it, just not the proposed location. I believe the new ponds would be a better fit for all, in the site you refer to as the West side of the facility. Nobody wants to travel down Thornton Road looking at a 10 -foot levy in the middle of our permanent crops. RESPONSE 7-Z Refer to response 7-1. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 7-a There are other concerns: - Noise and dust during construction - Groundwater contamination on my property from seepage or levy failure. - Odors from the water in ponds, as I am located directly west of the proposed Southeast pond area. Ponds would attract birds which would be detrimental to my vineyards. RESPONSE 7-3 Noise associated with the project site will be from construction activities. Operational noise will be non-existent from the effluent storage pond. Construction activities are anticipated to last 7 months. Therefore, any noise associated with the project will be short term. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and will comply with the San Joaquin County noise ordinance. The tertiary treated wastewater stored in the expansion pond will not degrade existing ground water quality. - The proposed Project is an expansion pond for the White Slough WPCF. Facilities such as the WPCF may produce objectionable odors. However, the development of an additional pond to the existing facility will not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area, and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources in the area. - Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. conducted a survey of bird visits and movement within the Project site. Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc. expect an approximately 1.35% increase in birds, attracted to the new expansions ponds primarily for the use of loafing. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 APPENDIX K STALE OF CAAFQRNIA--C+U.IFORNIASTATE r ' NSPORTATION AWEW.CY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR'1 ATION DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS — M.S. #40 1 120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 654-4959 FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www, dot.ca.gov EDMUND G, BROWN JR.. Governor Kingdon Airpark �I San Joaquin County Suspense: October 13, 2015 July 13, 2015 Sent by Certified Mail: 7099 3400 0002 4311 1273 Mr. Amrit Grewal, Airport Manager Kingdon Airpark 9120 Thornton Road, Suite 337 Stockton, CA 95209-1821 Dear Mr. Grewal: Serious drought! Help Save Water! The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics, conducted a State permit compliance inspection and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Master Record (5010) update at the Kingdon Airpark in San Joaquin County (FAA Site No. 01783.*A) on June 24, 2015. The updated information will be entered into our records. Our inspection revealed that there are still significant permit compliance issues at the Kingdon Airpark. These items are listed below and were detailed in prior inspections dated October 4, 2011, and February 11, 2014, along with a request to respond with a plan to address and correct these safety issues. We have failed to receive a response, and to date, numerous safety discrepancies continue to exist. Caltrans understands the significant resource burdens associated with the requirement for privately owned public -use airports, like Kingdon Airpark, to meet the minimum State airport design standards required by the California Code of Regulations (CCR). However, it is becoming increasingly imperative that steps be taken to bring Kingdon Airpark into compliance with the State's airport permit requirements to ensure a safe operating environment for aircraft. At a minimum, Caltrans must receive a definitive plan within 90 days to address the safety discrepancies listed below, to preserve the public use of the airport and continue to operate at night. The plan must be submitted and approved by this office no later than October 13, 2015. Failure to comply may lead to initiation of action to suspend night operations. Our inspection revealed the following repeat items, which we bring to your attention: 1. We observed two sets of bleacher stands located 80 feet west of the runway (please see enclosed Photograph 1), that penetrate the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, defined Primary Surface (PS) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA). These bleachers must be removed immediately in accordance with (IAW) FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Airport Design. The bleachers must be no closer than 170 feet from the runway centerline to remain clear of the ROFA, PS, and the FAR Part 77 defined 7:1 Transitional Surface. 2. Numerous runway light fixtures were observed missing, damaged, or inoperable at the time of inspection and need to be repaired as soon as possible. CCR, Title 21, section 3543 requires a functional and usable runway lighting system for night operations. Until the lights are repaired, and in the interest of safety of aircraft operations at night, we recommend the airport file a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) with Oakland Flight Service Station at (877) 487-6867 advising the flying public that numerous runway edge lights are out of service. DAS•06M•125 I NiTIATDATE 1(f "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system euhmicer-Caliifi�rnia-s_ecauomyand.liiBGiIE Mr. Amrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 2 3. Two white lines, one located near the approach end of Runway 12 and another located near the approach end of Runway 30, resembling Runway Thresholds Bar Marking (please see enclosed Photographs 2 and 3), must be removed or obliterated. These markings may confuse a transient pilot from the air from identifying the actual beginning point of the runway threshold used for landing. 4. We observed weeds growing through numerous lateral and longitudinal pavement cracks throughout the runway surface (please see enclosed Photograph 4). This should be an ongoing project, and we encourage a regular preventative maintenance program to preserve and extend the life of the pavement by repairing and/or filling the cracks to prevent water, weeds, and debris from entering the pavement structure. 5. The asphalt pavement on the Displaced Threshold for Runway 30 is failing (please see enclosed Photograph 5), suffering from old age and a maintenance program that cannot keep pace with its deterioration. This section of pavement is in poor condition producing pea gravel, small potholes, cracking in places, thin spots, and rocks. Damage to aircraft propellers and engines could result if the runway surface continues to deteriorate which could expose the airport to unnecessary liability. This area needs to be swept as soon as possible and an overlay of new surface material is strongly recommended. 6. There are no markings installed at the approach ends of Runwayl2 and Runway 30 to distinguish between critical safety areas associated with the runway environment and the ramp/apron area. As a Public -Use Airport, Caltrans requires Runway Holding Position (RHP) markings to be installed to identify the boundary of the protected runway environment. This marking is necessary to delineate aircraft, vehicle, and equipment parking limits, and to ensure that unfamiliar pilots and vehicle drivers stop prior to the markings to remain clear of the FAR Part 77 defined PS. The placement of the RHP marking at your airport must be located not less than 125 feet from the aligned taxiway centerline and must be applied IAW FAA AC 150/5340-1L, Standards for Airport Markings. We have enclosed two depictions (shown on enclosed Photographs 6 and 7) to assist you in the layout and placement of the RHP markings at both ends of Runway 12/30. We have also enclosed an excerpt, from AC 150/5340-1L that depicts the dimensions and color of these markings. 7. The pavement markings located prior to Runway 12 and 30 threshold bars must be marked to indicate lead-in taxiways at both ends of the runway (shown on enclosed Photographs 6 and 7). This marking scheme, identified as an aligned taxiway preceding a runway threshold, was recommended by Caltrans due to your airport's geographic constraints, in order to establish a minimum of 240 feet of Runway Safety Area (RSA) prior to both ends of the runway. By marking the pavement preceding the runway threshold as an aligned taxiway, the portion of the pavement between the Runway 12 and Runway 30 threshold bars is the boundary of the usable runway surface, therefore the portion of the pavement preceding the Runway 12 and Runway 30 threshold bars can no longer be used for landing or takeoff. In order to establish and mark the aligned taxiway at the approach end of Runway 30, we have shown in Photograph 7, the recommended taxiway centerline marking location and the two arrowheads and arrow shaft that must be removed. The three yellow arrowheads located adjacent to Runway 12 and Runway 30 threshold bar marking should remain. Additionally, due to the number of possible taxiway route destinations onto the ramp (hanger, tie -down, and transient tie -down locations) at the approach end of Runway 30, we recommend the straight lead-in taxiway marking depicted in Photograph 7. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Amrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 3 8. Since the physical length of the runway was modified to create RSAs at both ends of the runway, this change must be reported to the FAA via FAA Form 7480-1 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal," and your State Airport Permit must be updated via a Corrected State Airport Permit (enclosed). We are enclosing an FAA Form 7480-1, Notice of Landing Area Proposal, that you must complete (as noted on the instructions), sign, and return to our office. We will review and forward the Form 7480-1 to the FAA. The form must indicate the existing and proposed runway length, width, and elevation. Also, a U.S. Geological Survey map or equivalent must be attached to delineate the location of the runway, with surveyed runway ends plotted and coordinates listed to the nearest ten -thousandth of a second and elevations to the nearest foot. When the runway markings have been updated and we have received the completed Corrected Airport Permit - Application along with the results of the associated aeronautical study from the FAA "Notice of Landing Area Proposal," our office will prepare a Corrected Airport Permit and return it to you along with a certificate suitable for display 9. The light pole adjacent to the self -serve island (please see enclosed Photograph 8) penetrates the FAR Part 77, 7:1 defined Transitional Surface by approximately five feet. Although we observed that you have installed a red obstruction light atop the light pole, FAR Part 77 provides the requirement to submit an FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction." This action triggers the aeronautical study of obstructions that makes the determination as to whether the obstruction is a hazard and if it requires marking and lighting. Please provide a copy of the FAA Airspace Determination and compliance with (if any) FAA directives, and evidence that this obstruction has been removed, lighted for night time operations, or lowered to a height not to exceed approximately 15 feet so that it remains below the FAR Part 77, 7:1 Transitional Surface. It is Caltrans' objective to ensure that airports meet all current applicable FAA minimum design safety standards and AC criteria, FAR, California Public Utilities Code, section 21001 et seq., the CCR Title 21, sections 3525-3560, and all required conditions depicted in your State Airport Permit issued by Caltrans. All referenced publications in this letter, including many FAA ACs, may be found on our website at www.dot.ca.gov/aeronautics. We are pleased to support and assist you in enhancing safety and utility at your airport and look forward to having a cooperative relationship with the Kingdon Airpark. If you have questions or require assistance, please contact me at (916) 654-5174 or via email at don.haug@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Original Signed By DONALD E. HAUG Aviation Safety Officer Enclosures c: Phillip Logan, FAA, SFO ADO bc: Ken Baxter, District 10 Don Haug:do s:\\z\Aero Inspections\dh-01783_A_Kingon Airpark "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Amrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 4 Photo•rah 1 ` • ' Two sets of bleachers located in the PS and the ROFA Nonstandard white lines across the runway "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Amrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 5 Two nonstandard white lines on Runway 12/30 Photograph 4 .41111►,J-. • • Weeds growing through runway pavement cracks "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Arnrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 6 Photograph 5 Asphalt pavement on the Displaced Threshold for Runway 30 is failing Photograph 6 Yellow arrowheads to remain Yellow "X" for closed taxiway RHP is 125 feet from twy centerline RIIP marking, yellow "X," and aligned taxiway at approach end of Runway 12 (Not to scale) "Provide a safe, sws(ainab/e, integrated, owl efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Amrit Grewal July 13, 2015 Page 7 0111111dMip ., 611101,1 r•• Aligned lead- in Taxiway Two arrowheads must be removed X- marking for closed Taxiway RHP marking is 125 feet from twy centerline Photo ra.h 7 -i Yellow arrowheads to remain RHP marking is 125 feet from twv centerline - 1 - RHP marking, yellow "X," and aligned taxiway at approach end of Runway 30 (Not to scale) Light pole penetrates the FAR Part 77 Transitional Surface. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" APPENDIX L Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration For the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage, Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Project • Prepared by the City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 March 2017 PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project FILE NUMBER: 2017-02 ND LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 9540 CONTACT PERSONS: Environmental document: Craig Hoffman: 209-333-6711 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of 1,026.27 acres of land, including the treatment facilities, the existing recycled water storage facilities and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. There were originally two proposed locations for the expansion pond, located within the facility agricultural land (APNs: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). The final preferred location for the expansion pond is located within the facilities agricultural land (APN: 055- 150-29), approximately 1,100 feet west of the City's existing storage ponds. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". A regional and project location map are included as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014, 2015). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes. The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond (70 acres in size) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Lodi, Community Development Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi CA 95240 Figure 1 - Regional Mapl Figure 2: Project Site All mitigation measures shall be noted on improvement plans and with construction documents for review and implementation processes. Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 The City shall not begin construction activities until first securing appropriate permits from the San Joaquin Council of Governments. The Project will be required to comply with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) compensation ratio of one acre or preserve acquired, enhanced, and managed in perpetuity for each acre of habitat converted from open space use, along with associated fees, or as instructed by SJMSCP pending final review. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Air Quality Mitigation 1 The City shall not begin construction activities until first securing appropriate permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air Control District. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Air Quality Mitigation 2 • Construction of the proposed Project shall comply with all applicable regulations specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules), including, but not limited to, compliance with the following mitigation measures: — Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) from construction, demolition, excavation or other earthmoving activities related to the Project shall be limited to 20% opacity or less, as defined in Rule 8011, Appendix A. — Pre-water all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and phase earthmoving. — Apply water, chemical/organic stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover to all disturbed areas, including unpaved roads. — Restrict vehicular access to the disturbance area during periods of inactivity. — Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, construct wind barriers and/or cover exposed potentially dust- generating materials. — When materials are transported off-site, stabilize and cover all materials to be transported and maintain six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container. — Remove carryout and trackout of soil materials on a daily basis unless it extends more than 50 feet from site; carryout and trackout extending more than 50 feet from the site shall be removed immediately. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. If the Project would involve more than 150 construction vehicle trips per day onto the public street, additional restrictions specified in Section 5.8 of Rule 8041 shall apply. — Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • During construction, all grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. • Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. • Areas following clearing, grubbing and/or grading shall receive appropriate BMP treatments (e.g., re-vegetation, mulching, covering with tarps, etc.) to prevent fugitive dust generation. • All exposed soil or material stockpiles that will not be used within 3 days shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or shall be stabilized with approved nontoxic chemical soil binders at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • Unpaved access roads shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, temporary paving, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the Toad and the top of the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. • Where visible soil material is tracked onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept and debris shall be returned to the construction site or transported off site for disposal. • Wheel washers, dirt knock -off grates/mats, or equivalent measures shall be installed within the construction site where vehicles exit unpaved roads onto paved roads. • Diesel powered construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's requirements, and shall be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters where available and practicable. • Heavy duty diesel trucks and gasoline powered equipment shall be turned off if idling is anticipated to last for more than 5 minutes. • Where feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as electric or natural gas - powered equipment or biofuel. • Heavy construction equipment shall use low NOx diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available at the time of construction. • The construction contractor shall maintain signage along the construction perimeter with the name and telephone number of the individual in charge of implementing the construction emissions mitigation plan, and with the telephone number of the SJVAPCD's complaint line. The contractor's representative shall maintain a log of any public complaints and corrective actions taken to resolve complaints. • During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • During windy days when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional applications of water shall be required at a rate to be determined by the onsite construction supervisor. This mitigation measure shall be a note on improvement and building plans. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 The Project shall participate in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. The Project shall coordinate with San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202), prior to any construction activities. Inclusion within the plan is required prior to construction. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date i Remarks Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 - Preconstruction Survey Requirement A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey for special -status species and migratory birds in all potential habitats throughout the project area; thus, any action that disrupts surface soils (e.g., clearing and grubbing, rough grading, excavation, compaction for temporary staging areas or permanent construction sites) shall be subject to a preconstruction survey. Surveys shall be undertaken not more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity to ensure avoidance during construction. All areas within 250 feet of the project area shall be surveyed where site access and visibility allows. If no special -status species or migratory birds are present, further mitigation is not necessary. If any special -status species and/or migratory birds are found nesting on-site, the biologist shall implement protective measures to ensure that animals are not adversely affected, and construction does not commence until the biologist has determined no harm would result to breeding animals as a result of construction. Written results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Conservation Program. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 If prehistoric or historic -period archaeological deposits are discovered during Project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the archaeologist should assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to archaeological deposits should be avoided by Project activities, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits should be evaluated for their California Register eligibility. If the deposits are not California Register—eligible, no further protection of the finds is necessary. If the deposits are California Register— eligible, they should be protected from Project -related impacts, or such impacts should be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 Should paleontological resources be identified on the Project site during any ground disturbing activities related to the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease and the City of Lodi shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than- significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the Project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in Tight of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, specific plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 During Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated remains) are discovered at any Project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Project applicant shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The Project applicant will be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The Project applicant shall implement approved mitigation before the resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 During Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 A geotechnical investigation has been completed for the Project prior to construction, to evaluate areas that may be subject to seismically included settlement. Standard design and construction techniques will then be used to mitigate the potential for damage due to seismically induced settlement. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 2 As stated above, the project may require dewatering. If the proposed project includes construction dewatering, the City will apply for a Dewatering Permit under the General Order. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 3 Additional site specific observation and testing services during grading, excavation, embankment construction, and other earth - related construction phases of the project will occur to determine soil suitability for use as embankment material. The completed geotechnical study will be used to incorporate the site-specific observations and testing; standard design and construction techniques will then be used to mitigate the potential for damage. In addition, the construction will be completed per improvement plans and County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi design standards. The Project will be subject to applicable engineering and County and City code requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that minimizes the possible effects of unstable soil. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 3 During Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation. Measure 4 Since sandy silt and silty sand soils were encountered within the upper 8 feet throughout the project site, it may be necessary to shore the pipeline trench excavation. The individual contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the trench excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 4 During Construction City of Lodi Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 1 Spill Prevention and Control Measures will be implemented, and include the following: Any fuel products, lubricating fluids, grease, or other products and/or waste released from the Contractor(s) vehicles, equipment, or operations, shall be collected and disposed of immediately, and in accordance with State, Federal, and local laws. • Spill clean-up materials will be stored near potential spill areas (such as vehicle and equipment staging areas). ■ Spill kits will include sorbent material (such as pads designed for oil and gas), socks and/or pads to prevent spread of hazardous material, and containers for storing and proper disposal. • Employees and contractor(s) will be trained on proper hazardous spill clean-up practices. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hazards and Hazardous Materials Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 1 Project development would not place housing within a 100 -year special flood hazard area. However, it would place some structures (pumps, SCADA systems, etc.) within estimated flood depths up to 3 feet in depth. The project shall place all structural pads so that the lowest adjacent grade to each structure is above the base flood elevation. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project IS/MND Comments from Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist, DWR Division of Environmental Services .- `�?11kC686-N 16 0 ft ' �£;..���i 10�:45 -xrt � •is3.Re,0.0111'tlr ".`ire .`.ta.Mar n.. .: Project Construction _ Please provide information on work hours.This information is included in the Environmental Checklist impact discussion but should be included in the Project Description 30 Air Quality I l la The analysis states that the project emissions will not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds, but no estimates of project emissions are reported. Please explain and give an estimate of why the project does not exceed the thresholds (or refer to section I llb-c's discussion of project emissions estimates). 34 Air Quality Illd Mitigation measure "Air Quality Mitigation 2" is listed as a measure that would make the impact less than significant. The impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated' rather than 'less than significant" 39 Biological Resources V.a This impact should be 'less than significant with mitigation incorporated", since mitigation measures are listed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and the appropriate check box marked 41 Biological Resources mitigation measure 2 Biological Resources V.c. Since Swainson's Hawk is known to nest nearby, a 250 foot survey butter is not considered to be adequate. Swainson's Hawk surveys should be conducted within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the project area, following the *Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley'. This measure should be added, as even short-teml construction activity may cause nest disturbance. Additionally, preconstruction surveys should be conducted prior to vegetation clearing work, not just ground disturbance, since it will take place in June, which is during nesting bird season. last sentenoe of section c: This statement should read: "Therefore, the impact is less than significant' 43 44 Biological Resources V.e. last sentence of section e: states "no impact', but should be "less than significant impact' 44 Biological Resources V.F. Because the project may have impacts, and will be following the take avoidance measures in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant' rather than "no impact' 45-46 Figure 8 and Figure 9 The maps of special status plants and wildlife are illegible in the PDF version on the City website. The species names are not readable. Please provide maps that can be read. 49 Culturat Resources VI.a. This section discusses the measures recommended by the Culturat Resources consultant in the event that the project plans change to directly impact resources. Suggest removing This discussion altogether, as a new evaluation would have to take place if the project manges. Or, if this discussion is warranted, the project should commit to conducting the suggested measures. 54 Geology and Soils VIl.a.iii. This section discusses "planned mitigation' in the form of design and construction technique Modifications based on geotechnical investigations that 'should" happen. This impact should be 'less than significant with mitigation" and a mitigation measure added to implement design and construction modifications that are neoessary after geotechnical work is complete. 59 Geology and Soils VII.c. Technically, unless 'standard measures" are included in the project description, the measures discussed here should be considered mitigation. Consider either having the 'standard measures" included in the project description or adding a mitigation measure to implement the measures to reduce the impact to less -than -significant 60 Geology and Soils Vile. Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII a, b Geotechnicai investigations have not been completed for this project, but it seems that the information gauiered trom these investigations would inform the project design, construction, and potential to store treated wastewater (which is a primary purpose of the project). It seems that this information is necessary to conduct the impact analysis in the Geology and Soils section and that without it, it is difficult to adequately address impacts or develop mitigation measures. If this information is now available,.itshould be incorporated in this analysis. 61 These sectiorrs.should include possible spills (oil, hydraulic fluid) during construction and include standard spill prevention measures and a procedure for spill response if one does occur City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Project IS/MND Comments from Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist, DWR Division of Environmental Services 62-64 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII d There is extensive discussion of several hazardous waste records for sites that are not in the project footprint or affected by the project. This ancillary information is unnecessary and confuses the reader as to what the actual impacts of the project are. It seems that a simple statement that references these reports and the fact that they are not affected by the project or will affect the project would be adequate and less confusing. 65 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII d It seems relevant to discuss that the geotechnical information woutd address whether the soils in the proposed project area can contain treated wastewater, 79 Hydrology & Water Quality The measures to prevent storwater runoff should be included in the project description B2 Impact FLOOD -2 This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. Additionally, this impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated", as a mitigation measure is fisted here. 83 Impact FLOOD -3 This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. 86 Impact FLOOD -4 _ This corresponds to item ion the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce oonfusion. 89 Land Use and Planning X. c Because the project may have impacts, and will be participating in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant' rather than "no impact' 101 Utilities and Service Systems XVII d Please describe where water for dust control will be obtained from. Because some water will be used during construction, the impact should be "less than significant" rather than 'no impact'. 102 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII a Suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. 103 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII c MMRP Suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures should be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. ria ICJ ZO:II NOIAVLIOZ/C1/ d Exhibit C Response to Comment Letters RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. File number 2017-02 ND. The City received seven written comments during the public review period and the comments were responded to and incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Each comment letter has been assigned a corresponding number, and comments within each comment letter have been separated to respond to the specific issues raised, as well as being additionally numbered. The original comment letters are provided in Appendix I of this Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Written comments may include opinions or preferences pertaining to project approval or disapproval. Additionally, the comments may provide information regarding a subject that does not directly challenge information presented in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, introduce new environmental information or directly challenge information presented in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. In such cases, the response "This comment is acknowledged" has been used. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments Table 1 Written Comments Summary z SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES GEOLOGY/SEISMIC HAZARDS Hazards and Hazardous Materials HYDROLOGY Z TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION LAND USE AND PLANNING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PUBLIC SERVICES POPULATION UTILITIES OTHER STATE AGENCIES 1 Scott Morgan, Director Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3044Sacramento, California 95812 • 2 Genevieve Schrader Senior Engineer Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street P.0 Box 3006 Sacramento, CA 94236 • • • • • • • • • 3 Dina Calanchini Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 • White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments Table 1 (Continued) Written Comments Summary Letter No. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AGRICULTURE AESTHETICS AIR QUALITY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES Hazards and Hazardous Materials HYDROLOGY LAND USE wC z TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PUBLIC SERVICES POPULATION UTILITIES w 0 REGIONAL AGENCIES 4 Ashlen McGinnis Environmental Coordinator San Joaquin County Public Works 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue, P.O. Box 1810 Stockton, California 95201 • 5 Travis Yokoyama San Joaquin Airport Land Use Commission 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 • • BUSINESS OWNERS/RESIDENTS 6 David Arnaiz Kingdon Airpark 4100 E. Freemont Street Stockton, California 95215 • • • 7 Patrick Costa General Partner, C and C Farms 4484 Tredway Road Lodi, California 95242 • • • • • White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project SCH No. 2017012035 C'ty of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. . Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 COMMENT 1-1 The review period closed on February 13, 2017, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2017012035) when contacting this office. RESPONSE 1-1 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 2 Genevieve Schrader Senior Engineer Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street, P.O Box 3006 Sacramento, CA 94236 COMMENT 24 Thank you for the opportunity to review the White Slough Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have attached our comments prepared by Danika Tsao, Senior Environmental Scientist with the Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services. RESPONSE 2-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft MND and reiterates a brief description of the project. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project. COMMENT 2-2 Reference Page 4, Paragraph 3 (also repeated on Page 11): "The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (WDR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects which increase agricultural and drinking water supplies, decrease groundwater pumping, or assist in preserving water quality at source intake". The Bay -Delta Office's Delta Water Quality Proposition 84 Funding does not include specific provisions for groundwater pumping. While this is a desirable effect, it should not be mentioned as the basis for Proposition 84 funding. Please revise this sentence to: "The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (WDR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to assist in the development of projects that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes." RESPONSE 2-2 The sentence was revised as indicated. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-3 Project Description, Page 16. Please provided information on work hours. This information is included in the Environmental Checklist impact discussion but should be included in the Project Description. RESPONSE 2-3 The work hours have been included in the Project Description. COMMENT 2-4 Air Quality, III a. The analysis states that the project emissions will not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds, but no estimates of project emissions are reported. Please explain and give an estimate of why the project does not exceed the thresholds (or refer to section III b-c's discussion of project emissions). RESPONSE 2-4 The document was modified to refer to section III b-c's discussion of project emissions. COMMENT 2-5 Air Quality, III d. Mitigation measure "Air Quality Mitigation 2" is listed as a measure that would make the impact less than significant. The impact should be "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated". RESPONSE 2-5 Air Quality, III d was modified to "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporatcd". COMMENT 2-6 Biological Resources V. a. This impact should be "less than significant with mitigation incorporated", since mitigation measures are listed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and appropriate box marked. RESPONSE 2-6 Biological Resources V. a was modified to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-7 Regarding mitigation measure 2, Biological Resources; since Swainson's hawk is known to nest nearby, a 250 -foot survey buffer is not considered adequate. Swainson's hawk surveys should be conducted within '/4 to '/2 mile of the projet area, following the "Recommended timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley". This measure should be added, as even short-term construction activity may cause nest disturbance. Additionally, preconstruction surveys should be conducted prior to vegetation clearing work, not just ground disturbance, since it will take place in June, which is during nesting bird season. RESPONSE 2-7 As stated in the Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1, the project is participating in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Plan (SJCMSHP), for which the U.S Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife are signatory. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 2 — Preconstruction Survey will be implemented as prescribed by the SJCMHCP. All areas within 250 feet of the project area shall be surveyed where site access and visibility allows (the SJCMSHP does not require a greater distance for nesting Swainson's hawks). Furthermore, the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG) has done a buffer reduction review per the HCP and has confirmed that these setbacks are applicable per the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). COMMENT 2-8 Biological Resources V. c. The last sentence of section c, this statement should read: "Therefore, the impact is less than significant". RESPONSE 2-8 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-9 Biological Resources V. e. The last sentence of section e states "no impact", this statement should be "less than significant". RESPONSE 2-9 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-10 Biological Resources V. f. Because the project may have impacts, and will be following the take avoidance measures in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant" rather than no impact. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-10 The sentence has been modified in the final MND. COMMENT 2-11 Figures 8 and Figures 9 maps of special plants and wildlife are illegible in the PDF version. The species names are not readable. Please provide maps that may be read. RESPONSE 2-11 Maps have been replaced in final MND. COMMENT 2-12 Cultural Resources VI.a. This section discusses the measures recommended by the Cultural Resources consultant in the event that the project plans change to directly impact resources. Suggest removing this section all together, as a new evaluation would take place if the project changes. Or, if this discussion is warranted, the project should commit to conducting the suggested measures. RESPONSE 2-12 The discussion was removed per suggestion. OMMENT 2-13 Geology and Soils VII.a..iii. This section discusses "planned mitigation" in the form of design and construction technique modifications based on geotechnical investigations that "should" happen. This impact should be "less than significant with mitigation" and a mitigation measure added to implement design and construction modifications that are necessary after geotechnical work is complete. RESPONSE 2-13 The discussion is edited and mitigation added as per suggestion. COMMENT 2-14 Geology and Soils VII.c. Technically, unless standard measures are included in the project description, the measures discussed here should be considered mitigation. Consider either having the "standard measures" included in the project description or adding a mitigation measure to implement the measures to reduce the impact to less -than -significance. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-14 The section was edited to add a mitigation measure. COMMENT 2-15 Geology and Soils VII.e. Geotechnical investigations have not been completed for this project, but is seems that the information gathered from these investigations would inform the project design, construction, and potential to store treated wastewater (which is a primary purpose of the project). It seems that this information is necessary to conduct the impact analysis in the Geology and Soils section and that, without it, it is difficult to adequately address impacts of develop mitigation measures. If this information is now available, it should be incorporated into the analysis. RESPONSE 2-15 This section includes the final geotechnical report. COMMENT 2-16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.a,b. these sections should include possible spills (oil, hydraulic fluid) during construction and include standard spill prevention measures and a procedure for spill response if one does occur. RESPONSE 2-16 Spill prevention measures have been included to VIII.a.b. COMMENT 2-17 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.d., there is extensive discussion of several hazardous waste records for sites that are not in the project footprint or affected by the project. This ancillary information is unnecessary and confuses the reader as to what the actual impacts of the project are. It seems that a simple statement that references these reports and the fact that they are not affected by the project or will affect the project would be adequate and less confusing. RESPONSE 2-17 The ancillary information is removed. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-18 Hazards and Hazardous Materials VIII.d., it seems relevant to discuss that the geotechnical information would address whether the soils in the proposed project area can contain treated wastewater. RESPONSE 2-18 The water used on site meets requirements that more stringent than standard effluent from either a septic or secondary treated effluent, which is currently allowed as irrigation. Therefore, due to the high quality of the tertiary treated waters held in the proposed pond, a less than significant to no impact is anticipated. COMMENT 2-19 The measures to prevent stormwater runoff should be included in the project description. RESPONSE 2-19 The stormwater runoff measures have been included in the project description. OMMENT 2-20 Impact FLOOD -2. This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. Additionally, this impact should be "Less than significant with mitigation incorporated", as a mitigation measure is listed here. RESPONSE 2-20 The final MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-21 Impact FLOOD -3. This corresponds to item h on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. RESPONSE 2-21 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-22 Impact FLOOD -4. This corresponds to item i on the Environmental Checklist and should be labeled as such to reduce confusion. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 2-22 The MND has been edited per recommendation. SOMMENT 2-23 Land Use and Planning X.c., Because the project may have impacts, and will be participating in the SJMSCP, this section should be "less than significant" rather than "no impact". RESPONSE 2-23 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-24 Utilities and Service Systems XVII. d., Please describe where water for dust control will be obtained from. Because some water will be used during construction, the impact should be "less than significant" rather than "no impact". RESPONSE 2-24 The MND has been edited per recommendation. OMMENT 2-25 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII. a.c., suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. RESPONSE 2-25 The MND has been edited per recommendation. COMMENT 2-25 Mandatory Findings of Significance XVIII. a.c., suggest referencing relevant mitigation measures specifically to direct the reader to those sections. RESPONSE 2-25 The MND has been edited per recommendation. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 2-26 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures should be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. RESPONSE 2-26 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan outlining all mitigation measures will be adopted when the MND is finalized and NOD filed. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO.3 Dina Calanchini Engineering Geologist Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11020 Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 COMMENT 3-1 Pursuant to San Juaquin County Community Development Department's 17 January 2017 request, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) staff has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. The Central Valley Water Board is Responsible for protecting the quality of surface and ground waters of the state; therefore, our comments will address water quality matters only. RESPONSE 3-1 This comment is noted for the record. S;OMMENT 34 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs): the discharge is subject to regulation under Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs) for recycled Water Use (2016-0068-DDW) (General Order), adopted on 7 June 2016. In accordance with California Water Code Section 13260, the project proponent is required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) to apply for the General Order. We recommend that the RWD be submitted 3 to 6 months before the expected startup date. RESPONSE 3-1 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 3-2 Antidegradation Considerations: All wastewater discharge must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the NPDES and land discharge WDRs permitting process. The environmental review White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. RESPONSE 3-2 This impact is already being addressed per the requirements of the WPCF general permit with the RWQCB. COMMENT 3-3 Construction Storm Water General Permit: Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acre, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). RESPONSE 3-3 A SWPPP will be implemented per state regulations for the duration of the construction project. COMMENT 3-4 Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits: The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittee to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process. RESPONSE 3-4 The City will oversee the SWPPP, and fulfill the requirements per the state standard. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 3-5 Industrial Storm Water General Permit: Storm water discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order 2014-0057-DWQ RESPONSE 3-5 This is currently implemented and will continue to be performed per the WPCF ongoing permit with the RWQCB. COMMENT 3-6 Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit: If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). If a Section 404 permit is required by USACOE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. RESPONSE 3-6 No streambed alteration is required for this project, and no discharge/dredging is anticipated. COMMENT 3-7 Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit — Water Quality Certification: If an USACOE permit (e.g., Non -Reporting Nationwide Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. RESPONSE 3-7 No waters of the state were identified as part of this proposed project which will be influenced. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 3-8 Regulatory Compliance for Commercially Irrigated Agriculture: If the property will be used for commercial irrigated agricultural, the discharger will be required to obtain regulatory coverage under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. There are two options to comply: 1. Obtain Coverage Under a Coalition Group. Join the local Coalition Group that supports land owners with the implementation of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. The Coalition Group conducts water quality monitoring and reporting to the Central Valley Water Board on behalf of its growers. The Coalition Groups charge an annual membership fee, which varies by Coalition Group. 2. Obtain Coverage Under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Individual Growers, General Order R5-2013-0100. Dischargers not participating in a third -party group (Coalition) are regulated individually. Depending on the specific site conditions, growers may be required to monitor runoff from their property, install monitoring wells, and submit a notice of intent, farm plan, and other action plans regarding their actions to comply with the General Order. Yearly costs would include State administration fees (for example, annual fees for farm sizes from 10-100 acres are currently $1,084 + $6.70/Acre); the cost to prepare annual monitoring reports; and water quality monitoring costs. RESPONSE 3-8 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 3-9 Dewatering Permit: If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and groundwater will be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Risk General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board's Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Risk Waiver) R5-2013-0145. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge. RESPONSE 3-9 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments OMMENT 3-10 If groundwater will be discharged to waters of the United States or storm drains, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (Low Threat General Order) or the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges of Treated/Untreated Groundwater from Cleanup Sites, Wastewater from Superchlorination Projects, and Other Limited Threat Wastewaters to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete application must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under these General NPDES permits. RESPONSE 3-10 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments J,ETTER NO. 4 Ashlen McGinnis Environmental Coordinator San Joaquin County Public Works 1810 E. Hazelton Avenue, P.O. Box 1810 Stockton, California 95201 COMMENT 4-1 The San Joaquin County Department of Public Works has reviewed the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the referenced project and has no comments at this time. However, the County does request to be included on the circulation list for any additional project documents. RESPONSE 4-1 This comment is noted for the record. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments J,ETTER NO. 5 Travis Yokoyama San Joaquin Airport Land Use Commission 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, California 95202 COMMENT 54 The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Congestion Management Agency (CMA), has reviewed the mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project (including a 70 -acre expansion pond and associated conveyance infrastructure) at 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi (APN: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). RESPONSE 5-1 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 5-Z SJCOG has determined this project will not meet the Tier 2 threshold adopted the 2016 Update to the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP); thus, no comment is provided at this time. RESPONSE 5-2 This comment is noted for the record. COMMENT 5-3 APN: 055-150-29 and 055-130-16 are located within the Kingdon's AIA. APN: 055-190-01 is split evenly between Kingdon's AIA and Traffic Pattern Zone (Zone 7). RESPONSE 5,3 The proposed expansion pond is shown on various maps and exhibits as being located 8,000 feet from the nearest point of the Kingdon Airpark, and therefore, conforms to separation distance recommendations in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 5-4 APN: 055 - 190 - 01 was measured within 5,000 ft of the Kingdon Air Park, which is against the FAA recommendation. Under New Wastewater Treatment Facilities (2.3d of Advisory Circular 150/5200 - 33B (ATTACHMENT C)), "the FAA strongly recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facility or associated settling ponds within the 5,000 ft of an airport." In addition, the document states "During site - location analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, developers should consider the potential to attract hazardous wildlife if an airport is in the vicinity of the proposed site, and the airport operators should voice their opposition to such facilities if they are in proximity to the airport." RESPONSE 5-4 The proposed expansion pond is shown on various maps and exhibits as being located 8,000 feet from the nearest point of the Kingdon Airpark, and therefore, conforms to separation distance recommendations in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B. COMMENT 5-5 Has the FAA Regional Airport Division office been contacted, as per our recommendation in our comment letter dated 11/10/2015? If so please provide the FAA response, if any. RESPONSE 5-5 Wallace Environmental Consulting contacted environmental specialists at the Federal Aviation Administration, San Francisco Airport District Office (SFO ADO) in Brisbane, California.1 The SFO ADO staff confirmed that the FAA does not have jurisdiction or review authority for land use issues surrounding Kingdon Airpark for the following reasons: 1. Kingdon Airpark is not a federally obligated airport. That is, it does not receive grants from the FAA, or any other kind of federal funding; 2. Kingdon Airpark is not a Part 139 airport, that is, it does not serve commercial airlines; 1 Personal communication, November 2016, Douglas Pomeroy, Environmental Specialist, FAA San Francisco Airports District Office, Brisbane, California. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March2017 Responses to Written Comments 3. Kingdon Airpark is not part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, and 4. The ALUC may use guidance in the AC as part of its review process for wildlife attractants, however, that does not obligate the FAA to act as a statutory or `volunteer' reviewing agency. Therefore, for the purposes of land issues concerning the Kingdon Airpark, the FAA will not review or comment on land use issues that the ALUC has cited in FAA AC 150/5200-33B. 'lever the less, the City of Lodi submitted FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, via mail to the FAA Western -Pacific Regional Office and the FAA San Francisco Airports Division Office on November 19, 2015, and via electronic Off Airport case on December 1, 2015, as notification of the proposed project. Although the FAA has no authority to review, their determination indicated that there was no hazard associated with their review. The letter was included in the Appendix E, Draft MND. COMMENT 5-6 SJCOG recommends that the City include the FAA Recommendation, listed under Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (2.3c of Advisory Circular 150/520 - 33B), as a mitigation measure, in the MND. "Airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable." RESPONSE 5-6 Paragraph 2-3 c. in the FAA advisory circular refers to "existing wastewater treatment facilities" and "wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport." The project for which the CEQA document and supporting land use compatibility report is written are for proposed wastewater treatment facilities 3,000 feet beyond the recommended separation distance from an airport. Even though the commenter has taken the reference to the advisory circular out of context, the City of Lodi mitigated for potential wildlife hazards by moving the proposed pond expansion from its preferred location in the southeastern portion of the WSWPCF which would have been within 5,000 feet of the airpark to a location 8,000 feet from the nearest point to the Kingdon Airpark. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Comment [tl]: Added from our CEQA. Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 6 David Arnaiz, Owner Kingdon Airpark 4100 E. Freemont Street Stockton, California 95215 COMMENT 6-1 The study confirms that the proposed project will increase the bird attraction but I didn't see any information or where the study addresses how this increase bird activity will continue to grow, i.e. how will this increased activity look in 5 -years, 10 -years etc. into the future. RESPONSE 6-1 Estimating future bird populations is not considered part of a compatible land use study under any federal guidance or state airport land use guidance.The study was specifically targeted at potential increases or decreases for bird visits to the proposed White Slough Pollution Control Facility expansion ponds and whether the proposed project was a compatible land use. This study was based on a one-year observation period and concluded that the proposed expansion would increase the total number of birds attracted to the facility but that pond expansion is a compatible land use. The commenter assumed that bird populations are increasing. There is no evidence in the public record that total bird populations are increasing in the Delta or San Joaquin Valley. Annual bird population studies conducted in the Delta and San Joaquin Valley by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife since 1998 indicate a long-term decline in total bird populations. Other studies by the US Geological Survey and NGO's, such as the Audubon Society, reach the same conclusion. Furthermore, changes in bird populations are species specific and are influenced by urbanization, loss of habitat, rain fall amounts and climate change. Speculating, it is possible that some bird populations will increase in the vicinity of Kingdon Airport because of agricultural practices. Starlings and blackbirds (flocking birds) are attracted to vineyards, open ground farming, orchards and animal facilities such as the horse farm and dairy facility; all exist within 5,000 feet or less of the airport. COMMENT 6-2 The statement that we do not have any turbine aircraft "based" at the airport nor that we sell Jet -A fuel, thus the study does not address nor need to address a minimum separation distance greater the 5000 feet is a muddy interpretation of the facts. a) We do have turbine aircraft operations on a regular basis. b) We are currently working with a tenant who would base his turbine driven aircraft at the airport which will not only provide our ability to, but also our need to offer Jet -A fuel. By the proposed land use not considering this information in its initial study not only leaves it incomplete, but provides for this land use to adversely impact our ability to conduct current and future business. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments RESPONSE 6-2 State airport land use planning guidelines and FAA compatible land use guidance are very clear: If an airport sells Jet -A fuel, and if turbine powered aircraft are based at the airport, then a compatible land use study must include a 10,000 -foot radius around the airport. If there are no turbine powered aircraft and/or the airport does not provide Jet -A fuel, a 5,000 -foot radius around the airport will be used to guide a compatible land use assessment. It is common practice in California land use planning to establish an existing environmental or land use baseline against which environmental and land use impacts are measured. The only baseline condition which applies to our compatible land use evaluation is the current Kingdon Airpark condition: No turbine powered aircraft are based at the airport; no Jet -A fuel is available at the airport. Therefore, the compatible land use determination is based on a 5,000 -foot radius from the existing airport. Our land use compatible study findings do not preclude the airport from basing turbine powered aircraft or selling Jet -A fuel in the future. Our discussions with pilots and aircraft owners indicate that they are generally more concerned with the physical condition of the airport, runway and taxiway. We have attached the most recent CalTrans inspection report in Appendix K, which sheds light on the current airport conditions. COMMENT 6-3 Please advise us as to how the proposed land use will address and mitigate the impacts of their project from occurring on and against our property, airport and operations. RESPONSE 6-3 The compatible land use study took into account a significant mitigation measure which the commenter ignored. The City had proposed alternative locations for the expansion pond, including one in the southeast corner of the White Slough facility within the 5,000- foot radius of the airport. From the outset, we recommended against that location as an incompatible land use and recommended a location over 8,000 -feet away from the closest point to the airport. The second location, which was evaluated in our land use compatibility study represents a mitigation measure and is compatible with airport land use guidelines. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments LETTER NO. 7 Patrick Costa General Partner, C and C Farms 4484 Tredway Road Lodi, California 95242 COMMENT 7-1 After reviewing the proposed Notice for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project, I have many concerns. The value of my property is a main concern. I started growing wine grapes 25 years ago. As a member of the Lodi Winegrape Commission, I have built brand recognition for the Lodi area, District 11. Due to the hard work, passion and commitment of our local farmer, Lodi was named 2015 Wine Region of the year. Lodi is becoming one of the worlds most recognized regions and people travel from all over the world to tour our vineyards and wineries. A lot of dedication goes into our farming programs in order to maintain sustainability and farm scaping aesthetics. RESPONSE 7-1 The San Joaquin County General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas within the project area. Furthermore, the project's final location will be the Western Pond site, which would add an expansion pond in the proximity of the existing ponds and facility structures. The project would therefore visually blend with the surrounding White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility. COMMENT 7-2 I understand the growth of Lodi and the need for expansion, in fact, I'm all for it, just not the proposed location. I believe the new ponds would be a better fit for all, in the site you refer to as the West side of the facility. Nobody wants to travel down Thornton Road looking at a 10 -foot levy in the middle of our permanent crops. RESPONSE 7-2 Refer to response 7-1. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Responses to Written Comments COMMENT 7-3 There are other concerns: Noise and dust during construction Groundwater contamination on my property from seepage or levy failure. Odors from the water in ponds, as I am located directly west of the proposed Southeast pond area. - Ponds would attract birds which would be detrimental to my vineyards. RESPONSE 7-3 - Noise associated with the project site will be from construction activities. Operational noise will be non-existent from the effluent storage pond. Construction activities are anticipated to last 7 months. Therefore, any noise associated with the project will be short term. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant and will comply with the San Joaquin County noise ordinance. - The tertiary treated wastewater stored in the expansion pond will not degrade existing ground water quality. The proposed Project is an expansion pond for the White Slough WPCF. Facilities such as the WPCF may produce objectionable odors. However, the development of an additional pond to the existing facility will not substantially increase objectionable odors in the area, and would not introduce any new sensitive receptors to the area that could be affected by any existing objectionable odor sources in the area. - Wallace Environmental Consulting, Inc. conducted a survey of bird visits and movement within the Project site. Wallace Environmental Consultants, Inc. expect an approximately 1.35% increase in birds, attracted to the new expansions ponds primarily for the use of loafing. White Slough WPCF Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement SCH No. 2017012035 City of Lodi March 2017 Exhibit D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration For the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage, Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Project Prepared by the City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 95240 March 2017 PROJECT TITLE: City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project FILE NUMBER: 2017-02 ND LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Lodi Community Development Department 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 9540 CONTACT PERSONS: Environmental document: Craig Hoffman: 209-333-6711 PROJECT LOCATION The Project is located at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County, approximately 6.5 miles west of the City of Lodi. The WPCF is located in a primarily agricultural area, adjacent to Interstate 5 and 1.2 miles south of Highway 12. The WPCF address is 12751 North Thornton Road, Lodi, California, and consists of 1,026.27 acres of land, including the treatment facilities, the existing recycled water storage facilities and surrounding City -owned agricultural fields. There were originally two proposed locations for the expansion pond, located within the facility agricultural land (APNs: 055-190-01, 055-150-29, 055-130-16). The final preferred location for the expansion pond is located within the facilities agricultural land (APN: 055- 150-29), approximately 1,100 feet west of the City's existing storage ponds. The City of Lodi General Plan designates the WPCF as "Industrial" and the surrounding City -owned agricultural fields where the expansion pond is proposed as "Public/Quasi-Public". A regional and project location map are included as Figures 1 and 2, respectively. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Lodi is proposing the construction of an approximate 70 -acre Expansion Pond and associated conveyance infrastructure at the City -owned White Slough WPCF (Project). The Expansion Pond will be used exclusively to store disinfected, tertiary -treated effluent produced by the WPCF for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the WPCF. The purpose of the Project is to provide additional WPCF effluent supplies for agricultural irrigation on these properties and to offset groundwater pumping. Studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping (West Yost Associates, 2014, 2015). The Project would be funded by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program, which is intended to that reduce salinity or other pollutants at agricultural and drinking water intakes. The White Slough WPCF requires expansion and additional measures to prevent excess surface water discharge to the Delta and decrease groundwater pumping for irrigation. The proposed expansion pond (70 acres in size) would allow for Title 22 tertiary treated waters to be stored and used for additional on-site irrigation, rather than discharged to the Delta. Overall, by combining the need to increase on-site wastewater storage with the need to reduce surface water discharge and groundwater pumping, the proposed Project is anticipated to have a multitude of benefits that are both local and regional in scope. Some of the major benefits include increased irrigation water supply, improved surface water quality in the Delta, and the potential to increase groundwater storage. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Lodi, Community Development Department 221 W. Pine Street Lodi CA 95240 ,Woodbridge Proposed Pond A/ea Figure 1 - Regional Mapl ProI oseri Tertian Sporage Pored ;fit '416,4 E‘punded ' %%astern axes' 4rrl�tlo�r Ite Figure 2: Project Site All mitigation measures shall be noted on improvement plans and with construction documents for review and implementation processes. Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 The City shall not begin construction activities until first securing appropriate permits from the San Joaquin Council of Governments. The Project will be required to comply with the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) compensation ratio of one acre or preserve acquired, enhanced, and managed in perpetuity for each acre of habitat converted from open space use, along with associated fees, or as instructed by SJMSCP pending final review. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Agricultural Resources Mitigation 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Air Quality Mitigation 1 The City shall not begin construction activities until first securing appropriate permits from the San Joaquin Valley Air Control District. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Air Quality Mitigation 2 • Construction of the proposed Project shall comply with all applicable regulations specified in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust Rules), including, but not limited to, compliance with the following mitigation measures: Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) from construction, demolition, excavation or other earthmoving activities related to the Project shall be limited to 20% opacity or less, as defined in Rule 8011, Appendix A. Pre-water all land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and phase earthmoving. Apply water, chemical/organic stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover to all disturbed areas, including unpaved roads. Restrict vehicular access to the disturbance area during periods of inactivity. Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, construct wind barriers and/or cover exposed potentially dust- generating materials. - When materials are transported off-site, stabilize and cover all materials to be transported and maintain six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container. Remove carryout and trackout of soil materials on a daily basis unless it extends more than 50 feet from site; carryout and trackout extending more than 50 feet from the site shall be removed immediately. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. If the Project would involve more than 150 construction vehicle trips per day onto the public street, additional restrictions specified in Section 5.8 of Rule 8041 shall apply. - Traffic speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • During construction, all grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph). To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. • Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. • Areas following clearing, grubbing and/or grading shall receive appropriate BMP treatments (e.g., re-vegetation, mulching, covering with tarps, etc.) to prevent fugitive dust generation. • All exposed soil or material stockpiles that will not be used within 3 days shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or shall be stabilized with approved nontoxic chemical soil binders at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • Unpaved access roads shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, temporary paving, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the Toad and the top of the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered. • Where visible soil material is tracked onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved roads shall be swept and debris shall be returned to the construction site or transported off site for disposal. • Wheel washers, dirt knock -off grates/mats, or equivalent measures shall be installed within the construction site where vehicles exit unpaved roads onto paved roads. • Diesel powered construction equipment shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's requirements, and shall be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters where available and practicable. • Heavy duty diesel trucks and gasoline powered equipment shall be turned off if idling is anticipated to last for more than 5 minutes. • Where feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as electric or natural gas - powered equipment or biofuel. • Heavy construction equipment shall use low NOx diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available at the time of construction. • The construction contractor shall maintain signage along the construction perimeter with the name and telephone number of the individual in charge of implementing the construction emissions mitigation plan, and with the telephone number of the SJVAPCD's complaint line. The contractor's representative shall maintain a log of any public complaints and corrective actions taken to resolve complaints. • During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be stabilized via frequent watering, non-toxic chemical stabilization, or equivalent measures at a rate to be determined by the on-site construction supervisor. • During windy days when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the construction site, additional applications of water shall be required at a rate to be determined by the onsite construction supervisor. This mitigation measure shall be a note on improvement and building plans. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality Mitigation 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 The Project shall participate in the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. The Project shall coordinate with San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202), prior to any construction activities. Inclusion within the plan is required prior to construction. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 - Preconstruction Survey Requirement A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey for special -status species and migratory birds in all potential habitats throughout the project area; thus, any action that disrupts surface soils (e.g., clearing and grubbing, rough grading, excavation, compaction for temporary staging areas or permanent construction sites) shall be subject to a preconstruction survey. Surveys shall be undertaken not more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity to ensure avoidance during construction. All areas within 250 feet of the project area shall be surveyed where site access and visibility allows. If no special -status species or migratory birds are present, further mitigation is not necessary. If any special -status species and/or migratory birds are found nesting on-site, the biologist shall implement protective measures to ensure that animals are not adversely affected, and construction does not commence until the biologist has determined no harm would result to breeding animals as a result of construction. Written results of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Conservation Program. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 If prehistoric or historic -period archaeological deposits are discovered during Project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected and the archaeologist should assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Impacts to archaeological deposits should be avoided by Project activities, but if such impacts cannot be avoided, the deposits should be evaluated for their California Register eligibility. If the deposits are not California Register—eligible, no further protection of the finds is necessary. If the deposits are California Register— eligible, they should be protected from Project -related impacts, or such impacts should be mitigated. Mitigation may consist of, but is not necessarily limited to, systematic recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits, recording the resource, preparation of a report of findings, and accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curation facility. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 Should paleontological resources be identified on the Project site during any ground disturbing activities related to the Project, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease and the City of Lodi shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than- significant level. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the Project applicant shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, Project design, costs, specific plan policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 2 During Construction City of Lodi Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated remains) are discovered at any Project construction sites during any phase of construction, all ground -disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Lodi and the San Joaquin County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Project applicant shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The Project applicant will be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of state law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The Project applicant shall implement approved mitigation before the resumption of ground -disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 3 During Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 A geotechnical investigation has been completed for the Project prior to construction, to evaluate areas that may be subject to seismically included settlement. Standard design and construction techniques will then be used to mitigate the potential for damage due to seismically induced settlement. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 2 As stated above, the project may require dewatering. If the proposed project includes construction dewatering, the City will apply for a Dewatering Permit under the General Order. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 2 Pre -Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 3 Additional site specific observation and testing services during grading, excavation, embankment construction, and other earth - related construction phases of the project will occur to determine soil suitability for use as embankment material. The completed geotechnical study will be used to incorporate the site-specific observations and testing; standard design and construction techniques will then be used to mitigate the potential for damage. In addition, the construction will be completed per improvement plans and County of San Joaquin and City of Lodi design standards. The Project will be subject to applicable engineering and County and City code requirements, which would ensure that they are developed in a way that minimizes the possible effects of unstable soil. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 3 During Construction City of Lodi Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 4 Since sandy silt and silty sand soils were encountered within the upper 8 feet throughout the project site, it may be necessary to shore the pipeline trench excavation. The individual contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the trench excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 4 During Construction City of Lodi Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 1 Spill Prevention and Control Measures will be implemented, and include the following: • Any fuel products, lubricating fluids, grease, or other products and/or waste released from the Contractor(s) vehicles, equipment, or operations, shall be collected and disposed of immediately, and in accordance with State, Federal, and local laws. • Spill clean-up materials will be stored near potential spill areas (such as vehicle and equipment staging areas). • Spill kits will include sorbent material (such as pads designed for oil and gas), socks and/or pads to prevent spread of hazardous material, and containers for storing and proper disposal. • Employees and contractor(s) will be trained on proper hazardous spill clean-up practices. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hazards and Hazardous Materials Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 1 Project development would not place housing within a 100 -year special flood hazard area. However, it would place some structures (pumps, SCADA systems, etc.) within estimated flood depths up to 3 feet in depth. The project shall place all structural pads so that the lowest adjacent grade to each structure is above the base flood elevation. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation & Monitoring Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Hydrology and Water Mitigation Measure 1 During Construction City of Lodi RESOLUTION NO. 2017-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; STATE CLEARING HOUSE NO. 2017012035 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi has held a noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested project environmental document in accordance with Government Code sections 65090, 65091, and 65094; and WHEREAS, the project proponent is the City of Lodi; and WHEREAS, the project is located at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility in unincorporated northern San Joaquin County and to the west of the City of Lodi; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (File No. 2017-02 ND) was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines provided thereunder. The Community Development Department has determined that all environmental impacts that result from this project can be mitigated to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2017, the Notice of Completion of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and distributed to the State Clearing House, reviewing agencies, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk in which the project is located, as well as all persons requesting notice; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Lodi News Sentinel on January 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, the Notice of Availability of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project boundary; and WHEREAS, the required 30 -day review period for this project commenced on Saturday, January 14, 2017, and ended on Wednesday, February 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City received seven comments during the public review period and the comments were responded to and incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, the City Council of the City of Lodi held a noticed public hearing to consider certification of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (2017-02 ND) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as adequate environmental documentation for the project pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, the City Council of the City of Lodi considered all oral and written comments received at or prior to the public hearing on the matter and has determined that the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (2017-02 ND) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are adequate environmental documentation for the project; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Community Development Director as adequate environmental documentation for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council has reviewed all documentation and hereby adopts the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as adequate environmental documentation for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. Dated: March 15, 2017 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2017-41 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held March 15, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Chandler, Johnson, Nakanishi, and Mayor Kuehne NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mounce ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None NIFER ERRAIOLO Ci y Clerk 2017-41 G-1 Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution certifying a mitigated negative declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project. Imag e Not to Scale SCU rce: 3oog le Earth,.201 S VICINITY MAP City Council Pr*1Mcks d PROJECT DETAIL City Council Please immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 2017 LEGAL AD TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: LNS ACCT. #0510052 DATED: THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2017 JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CITY CLERK PAMELA M. FARRIS DEPUTY CITY CLERK ELIZABETH BURGOS ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper — Copy to File Emailed to the Sentinel at dianer@lodinews.com at (time) on (date) (pages) LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time) EB PMF (initials) forms\advins.doc DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT On Thursday, March 2, 2017, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of Public Hearing to consider adopting a resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at the following locations: Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum WorkNet Office I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 2, 2017, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CITY CLERK PAMELA M. FARRIS ELIZABETH BURGOS DEPUTY CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK N:\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings\AFFADAVITS\DECPOSTCDD.DOC DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF LODI WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY STORAGE EXPANSION AND SURFACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT On Thursday, March 2, 2017, 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 adopting a resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement 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 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 2, 2017, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI 71 -2 -P -L49 -eel . V -27k j-1/2A;G, PAMELA M. FARRIS ELIZABETH BURGOS DEPUTY CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Forms/decmail.doc f CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 West Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: March 15, 2017 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 E X 'I- : ri -ti-i i 1 A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, 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) Adopting a resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Lodi White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement 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"d 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 Order of the Lodi City Council: 4%, nifer M. ity Clerk �7Y\ rraiolo Dated: March 1, 2017 Approved as to form: J Janice D. Magdich City Attorney AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor (lame a la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702. CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\notcdd2 doc 2/24/17 Radius Mailing list for NOI for MND for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project PARCEL OWNER ATTN ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 5514012 COLDANI, STEVEN M 1806 W KETTLEMAN LN STE J LODI CA 95242 5509001 MAGGIO, RUDOLPH W TR ETAL 21343 N DEVRIES RD LODI CA 95242 5509002 MAGGIO, RUDOLPH W TR ETAL 21343 N DEVRIES RD LODI CA 95242 5518006 CASTELANELLI BROS 401 W ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA 95242 5519003 REGO RANCH PARTNERSHIP LP PO BOX 2569 LODI CA 95241 5519005 C&C FARMS PTP PATRICK COSTA 4484 W TREDWAY RD LODI CA 95242 5519007 REGO RANCH PARTNERSHIP LP PO BOX 2569 LODI CA 95241 5519002 CASTELANELLI BROS 401 W ARMSTRONG RD LODI CA 95242 5512012 SANGUINETTI, KEVIN LTR ETAL PO BOX 659 LINDEN CA 95236 5512013 SANGUINETTI, KEVIN LTR ETAL POBOX 659 LINDEN CA 95236 5519006 SANGUINETTI, KEVIN L TR ETAL PO BOX 659 LINDEN CA 95236 5508003 SHIN KEE WETLANDS & HABITAT RE 10100 TRINITY PKWY 5TH FL STOCKTON CA 95219 5514010 LIMA, HELEN M TR ETAL JACK A & PATRICIA A HAMM JR TR 13438 N THORNTON RD LODI CA 95242 5515020 COLDANI, BARBARA J TR 1806 W KETTLEMAN LN #J LODI CA 95242 5513003 HAMM, JACK A JR & PATRICIA A T 13438 N THORNTON RD LODI CA 95242 5513007 HAMM, JACK A JR & PATRICIA A T 13438 N THORNTON RD LODI CA 95242 5513001 BALCAO, HELEN LIMA TR ETAL 13436 N THORNTON RD LODI CA 95242 5512006 CALIFORNIA, STATE 0 5515009 CALIFORNIA, STATE 0 5515010 CALIFORNIA, STATE 0 5515029 LODI, CITY OF CITY HALL LODI CA 95240 5513016 LODI, CITY OF 0 5512008 LODI, CITY OF CITY CLERK CALL BOX 3006 LODI CA 95241 5512003 LODI, CITY OF CITY CLERK PO BOX 3006 LODI CA 95241 5519001 LODI, CITY OF CITY CLERK CALL BOX 3006 LODI CA 95241 5513013 LODI, CITY OF 221 W PINE ST LODI CA 95240 5513004 LODI, CITY OF CO CITY HALL LODI CA 95240 5512011 LODI, CITY OF CITY HALL LODI CA 95240 Radius Mailing list for NOI for MND for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project PARCEL OWNER ATTN ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 5515015 LODI, CITY OF 221 W PINE ST LODI CA 95240 5515017 LODI, CITY OF 221 W PINE ST LODI CA 95240 5515014 LODI, CITY OF 221 W PINE ST LODI CA 95240 Agencies Mailing List for MND for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project PARCEL TRIBE ATTN ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PO BOX 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95812 SWRCB REGION 5 11020 SUN CENTER DR. STE 200 RANCHO CORDOVA CA 95670 CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE REGION 2 1701 NIMBUS ROAD RANCHO CORDOVA CA 95670 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 4800 ENTERPRISE WAY MODESTO CA 95356 PRECISSI FLYING SERVICE 11919 N. LOWER SACRAMENTO RD LODI CA 95242 CALTRANS DISTRICT 10 1976 E. CHARTER WAY/EAST DR. MARTIN KING BLVD STOCKTON CA 95205 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 44 N. SAN JOAQUIN ST. SIXTH FLOOR STE 679 STOCKTON CA 95202 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 1810 EAST HAZELTON AVE. STOCKTON CA 95205 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1810 EAST HAZELTON AVE. STOCKTON CA 95205 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 44 N. SAN JOAQUIN ST. SIXTH FLOOR STE 640 STOCKTON CA 95202 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 509 WEST WEBER AVE. STE 420 STOCKTON CA 95203 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 4 44 N. SAN JOAQUIN ST. SIXTH FLOOR STE 627 STOCKTON CA 95202 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 2101 E. EARHART AVE. STE 100 STOCKTON CA 95206 Agencies Mailing List for MND for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project PARCEL TRIBE ATTN ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS HABITAT CONSERVATION 555 E. WEBER AVE. STOCKTON CA 95202 KINGDON AIRPARK DAVE ARNAIZ 2339 HAMMER ROAD, STE C258 STOCKTON CA 95209 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 555 E. WEBER AVE. STOCKTON CA 95202 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY EHD 1868 E. HAZELTON AVE. STOCKTON CA 95205 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 HARBOR BLVD. STE 100 SACRAMENTO CA 95691 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES BAY -DELTA OFFICE PO BOX 942836 SACRAMENTO CA 94236 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS PO BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO CA 94274 Tribe Mailing List for MND for White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Storage Expansion and Surface, Agricultural, and Groundwater Supply Improvement Project PARCEL TRIBE ATTN ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY 10720 INDIAN HILL RD AUBURN CA 95603 TORRES MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA INDIANS PO BOX 1160 THERMAL CA 92274 IONE BAND OF MIWOK RANDY YONEMURA PO BOX 699 PLYMOUTH CA 95669 BUENA VISTA RANCHERIA ROSELYNN LWENYA 1418 20TH ST. STE 200 SACRAMENTO CA 95811 NORTHERN VALLEY YOKUT KATHERINE EROLINDA PEREZ 990 NORTH FINE RD LINDEN CA 95236 WILTON RANCHERIA STEVE HUTCHINSON 9728 KENT STREET ELK GROVE CA 95624