public draft is mnd full document

In association withDennis Bowker Consulting Services

DECEMBER 2013

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment/Finding ofNo Signicant Impact

Recycled Water Pipeline Project

LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICT

PUBLIC DRAFT

Los Carneros Water District Recycled Water Pipeline Project

Public Draft

Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

and Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact

Prepared by:

SMB Environmental, Inc. and

Dennis Bowker Consulting Services

December 2013

Los Carneros Recycled Water Pipeline Project Public Draft IS/MND and EA/FONSI

December 2013 i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Location and Background ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Goal and Objective and Purpose and Needs .................................................................... 1-3 1.3 Document Organization and Review Process .................................................................. 1-4 Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................ 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description ................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Construction Considerations ............................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy ....................... 2-4 2.4 Operational and Maintenance Plans ................................................................................. 2-5 2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals ................................................................ 2-6 2.6 No Project/Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 2-6 Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-9 3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 3-20 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3-22 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 3-25 3.9 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 3-30 3.10 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-31 3.11 Noise ............................................................................................................................. 3-32 3.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 3-35 3.13 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 3-36 3.14 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 3-37 3.15 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................ 3-38 3.16 Traffic and Transportation ............................................................................................. 3-40 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 3-42 3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 3-44 Chapter 4 Determination: ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 5-1

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Segments by Roadway ................................... 2-1 Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities ... 2-6 Table 3: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions ................................................ 3-6

List of Figures Figure 1: General Location Map ............................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Aligments ........................................................ 2-2


December 2013 ii

Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Potential for Special Status Species to Occur in Project/Action Area..B-1 Appendix C: Federally-Listed Biological Resources Analysis Report ............................. C-1 Appendix D: Section 106 Cultural Resources Investigation Report ................................. D-1


December 2013 iii

List of Abbreviations

AFY Acre-Feet Per year

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Basin Bay Area Air Basin

C.C.R California Code of Regulations

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Cal/OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administrations

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CAP Clean Air Plan

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CGS California Geological Survey

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS California Native Plant Societys

CWA Federal Clean Water Act

DPM Diesel particulate matter

DTSC Department of Toxics Substances Control

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

gpd gallons per day

gpm gallons per minute

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

Leq Equivalent Sound Level

mgd million gallons per day


December 2013 iv

Mg/L Milligrams per Liter

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone 4

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBWRP North Bay Water Recycling Program

NEPA National Environmental Quality Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOx Nitrus Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NSD Napa Sanitation District

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark

PWWF Peak wet weather flow

ROG reactive organic gases

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SR State Route

SRF State Revolving Funds

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zones

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant


December 2013 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) that addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Los Carneros Water Districts (District) proposed Recycled Water Pipeline Project (Proposed Project/Action). The purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to augment the existing surface and groundwater supplies within the District for the irrigation of landscape, vineyards and other agricultural lands within the District. This water will not be used for domestic or direct potable uses. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The District is the lead agency under CEQA. It is presumed that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) will be the lead agency under NEPA as the District may be pursuing federal funding under the U.S. Department of the Interiors Bureau of Reclamation Public Law 102-575, Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (Title XVI Program). In addition, the District is also seeking funds from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). The purpose of this document is to provide project-level CEQA and NEPA environmental analysis of the Districts Proposed Project/Action to deliver recycled water in the Los Carneros area. Additionally, this work is being prepared in order to facilitate inclusion into the North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBWRP) and receive federal funding under USBRs Title XVI Program and/or from the State Boards SRF Loan Program.

1.1 Project Location and Background As shown in Figure 1, the District is located in southwest Napa County within a renowned winegrowing region. The District was formed in 1978 to provide recycled water service to parts of the unincorporated area of Los Carneros. The District is organized as an independent special district under Division 13 of the California Water Code (Section 34,000 et seq.) and is governed by a volunteer seven-member board of directors that serve staggered four-year terms. Elections are based on the landowner-voter system, which allows each landowner one vote for each dollar that his or her property is assessed. There are currently 263 assessor parcels totaling approximately 5,700 acres in the District with an estimated residential population of 535. The Districts formation was engendered by local property owners for the purpose of facilitating an agreement with the Napa Sanitation District (NSD) to plan, construct, and operate projects necessary to deliver reclaimed water for agricultural use. Underlying plans included constructing a pipeline system to convey recycled water across the Napa River from NSDs wastewater treatment facilities into the Los Carneros area, and initially serve 106 of the 262 parcels within the District. The land area served is approximately 3,800 acres. However, while an agreement is in place and various recycling projects have been considered over the past 30 years, none have been implemented to date due to cost considerations. As a result, the District has yet to begin a project, and local property owners continue to depend on surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals to satisfy water demands in the area. In May 2010, the City of Napa certified the St. Regis Napa Valley Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the St. Regis Napa Valley Project that consists of a 93-acre destination resort development on Stanly Ranch adjacent to the southeast side of the Districts service boundary. That EIR and its findings are incorporated by reference into this document. The resort will consist of a winery, resort units, recreation and event space, restaurants, a spa, outdoor venues, public space, offices, and maintenance and staff support facilities. Approximately 50 acres of the site would be maintained as either open space or

Figure 1GENERAL LOCATION MAP

LOS CARNEROS WATER DISTRICTRECYCLED WATER PIPELINE PROJECT

IS/MND AND EA/FONSILos CarnerosWater District

lcwd-ceqa511f1-8430.ai


December 2013 1-3

vineyards. The proposed development will also include the construction of a 20-inch recycled water pipeline from the NSDs Soscol Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and under the Napa River to serve the development with unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation. This pipeline has been designed and approved by NSD, and is presently under construction, with completion by late fall of 2013. The Districts Proposed Project/Action will not need to construct the pipeline segment that crosses under the Napa River, and was previously evaluated and disclosed in the St Regis EIR. Once constructed, the Districts proposed pipeline network will connect to the end of the St. Regis recycled water pipeline system to serve lands within the Los Carneros Water District. This document focuses on the potential impacts of the Districts proposed pipeline system and operations to disclose their potential environmental effects. This will include a connecting 800 foot pipeline on the east side of the Napa River, as well as the approximately 46,000 foot distribution pipeline system on the west side of the River. In addition, the District is contemplating being included in the North Bay Water Reuse Authoritys (NBWRA) North Bay Water Recycling Program (NBWRP). NBWRA is a cooperative program established in the San Pablo Bay region under a Memorandum of Understanding in August 2005 that supports sustainability and environmental enhancement by expanding the use of recycled water. NBWRA is comprised of wastewater utilities and water agencies: Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD), Novato Sanitary District (Novato SD), Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD), Napa Sanitation District (Napa SD), North Marin Water District (NMWD), and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). NBWRA developed the NBWRP in conformance with the requirements of the Reclamations Public Law 102-575, Title XVI, which provides a mechanism for federal participation and cost-sharing in approved water reuse projects. In November 2009, the NBWRA and USBR completed and approved the North Bay Water Recycling Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. The NBWRA and member agencies are eligible to receive Title XVI funds from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). While the District was not an original, nor an active participant in the development of the NBWRP and the EIR/EIS, the NBWRP EIR/EIS included alternatives for a recycled water system to serve the Los Carneros area in Napa County. Napa County is a member of the NBWRA, and the District would fall under their membership for inclusion to the NBWRP. The District has also incorporated by reference and summarized the findings of the NBWRP EIR/EIS into this document as appropriate to disclose their potential environmental effects of the specific Proposed Project/Action. In April 2011, the District prepared the Los Carneros Recycled Water Feasibility Study under a planning grant from the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) that analyzed numerous alternatives to bring recycled water to the District. The recommended alternative identified in the study was selected from various sizing and alignment alternatives to serve lands within the district and went forward for additional analysis. Since the Feasibility Study was completed, the District made modifications to the recommended alterative because some of the potential irrigators opted out of the project to connect with a recent extension from Sonoma County to the west. This resulted in some pipe diameters being reduced and the pipelines along Duhig Road (south of Las Amigas) being removed. The recommended alternative in the feasibility study along with the subsequent modifications is the basis of this adjusted Proposed Project/Action.

1.2 Goal and Objective and Purpose and Needs The goal, objective, and purpose of the Proposed Project/Action is to construct an approximately 9.2-mile pipeline system to serve portions of the 3,800 acres of residential landscape and agricultural land within the District with tertiary treated recycled water from NSDs existing Soscol WWTP. Water produced at that facility meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water unrestricted use as defined in Chapter 3 of Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. The issues and needs within the District can be summarized as follows:


December 2013 1-4

The agricultural economy, which is dominated by high-value vineyard culture, requires a highly reliable water supply to maintain and to expand its crop base;

Surface water supplies are already diverted by multiple users, have low flows in the summer (which coincides with the irrigation season), and can have low flows in dry years; and

Groundwater supplies are typically heavily used and in some localities have marginal quality and

highly unreliable quantity from year to year.

Groundwater availability is irregular. In some areas, especially during the dry months, pumping of the scattered groundwater aquifers often results in some residential users' well production to markedly diminish and in some cases stop altogether. This results in those homeowners having to truck in water.

Rising seal levels, combined with groundwater and surface water extraction, have increased the

risk of saltwater intrusion from San Pablo Bay in many parts of the area.

1.3 Document Organization and Review Process This IS/MND and EA/FONSI has been prepared in accordance with both CEQA and NEPA and is to provide a preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed Project/Action to determine if it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This document is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the background, goals and objectives of the Proposed Project/Action, and document contents.

Chapter 2, Project Description and Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes the major components of the Proposed Project/Action and describes the No Project/Action Alternative.

Chapter 3, CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Chapter 3 discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project/Action. Each resource section of the checklist is followed by a discussion of each potential impact listed in that section. It also presents corresponding mitigation measures proposed as part of the Proposed Project/Action, to avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This checklist has been modified to include additional topics to meet the requirements of NEPA.

Chapter 4, Determination. Chapter 4 provides the proposed action as a result of this Initial Study and Environmental Assessment.

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

This document will be available for a 30-day public review period, during which written comments may be submitted to the following address:

Mr. John Stewart, President Los Carneros Water District

2111 Las Amigas Road Napa, CA 94559

[email protected]


December 2013 1-5

Responses to written comments received by the end of the 30-day public review period will be prepared and included in the final document to be considered by the District, USBR and/or the State Board prior to taking any discretionary action/decision on the Proposed Project/Action.


December 2013 2-1

Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project/Action including a discussion of the construction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section describes the No Project/Action Alternative as required by NEPA.

2.1 Proposed Project/Action Description As shown in Figure 2, the Proposed Project/Action would primarily consist of approximately 9.2-miles of 20- to 6-inch recycled water pipeline to serve portions of the 3,800 acres of residential landscape and agricultural land within the District. The proposed pipeline network would be located within existing roadways and would not require any new pump stations or storage facilities. Any pumping and storage would be done with and from NSDs existing facilities. The Proposed Project/Action would serve approximately 106 parcels or 3,800 acres of irrigable land within the District with a recycled water supply of approximately 1,300 acre-feet per year that meets Title 22 unrestricted use requirements.

Recycled water users within the District will connect their own pipeline/irrigation systems and facilities to various turnouts to provide the recycled water to their private lands and fields, consistent with Title 22 and the State Boards policy on the use of recycled water. Recycled water users will only apply recycled water at agronomic rates1to avoid runoff and/or saturation and to avoid loading of salts and nutrients to the soil, and/or surface and groundwater resources. Table 1 lists the major pipeline segments to be installed.

Table 1: Proposed Project/Action Pipeline Segments by Roadway

Location/Description Diameter

(in.) Length (ft.) Connection to Existing River Crossing 20 810

Ranch Road/Home Hill Road 20 4,770 Stanly Cross Road 18 2,455

Cuttings Wharf Road 10 2,960 Milton Road 8 2,340

Las Amigas Road 16-18 14,470 Duhig Road 12-16 7,640

South Avenue 8 1,260 Los Carneros Avenue 8 3,790

Withers Road 6 3,120 Neuenschwander Road 6 1,220

Private Road (north of Stanly Crossroad) 8 2,000 Total 46,835

1 Agronomic rate is the additional amount of water and/or nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) required to meet the expected crop requirements after considering the water/moisture and nutrients currently available in the soil.

LegendWater Body

Los Carneros RW Pipeline

Under Construction/Completed by Others

Potential Future Connections (not part of project)

Potential Staging Areas

0 1,500 3,000750Feet

FIGURE 2Proposed Project Pipeline AlignmentLos Carneros Water District

NSD WWTP


December 2013 2-3

2.2 Construction Considerations Construction of the Proposed Project/Action facilities is expected to begin in the summer of 2014 and will likely continue into the summer of 2015. Construction work will typically be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Project/Action would be constructed primarily within existing roadways and any damages occurring during construction will be returned to the pre-construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the construction techniques and activities.

The majority of the pipelines would be installed in existing roadways using conventional cut and cover construction techniques, and installing pipe in open trenches. In some instances up to a 50-foot wide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction. However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 6 feet deep.

The Proposed Project/Action would connect to the east end of the planned St. Regis/NSD pipeline that will cross under the Napa River and connect from a 36 inch line near the NSD pump station. Those environmental impacts were previously disclosed in the St. Regis EIR. This Proposed Project/Action would involve one (1) local creek crossing (e.g. Carneros Creek at Las Amigas Road) which will require using trenchless construction techniques. The District will install the pipeline on the side of the existing bridge, and will not cut through or disturb the creek. Final design of the bridge crossing (e.g., pipe material and placement) would be determined during the design phase, once the engineers consult with the County Public Works Department and review the design of the bridge.

The Proposed Project/Action would also require crossing numerous culverts and drainage

facilities. Each of the existing culverts and drainage facilities crossing the roads will be done using conventional cut and cover construction techniques, but will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy weather, nor in the October 15 and April 1 timespan.

Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction, as well as any

dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities will be discharged to land and not into any creeks, drainages, vernal pools or waterways and will obtain prior approval from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Construction activities for this project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the District has assumed that the project would be constructed by three (3) crews of 10-15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500-1,000 feet per day. The proposed staging area for construction materials and equipment for the Proposed Project/Action would be located within NSDs existing facilities and throughout the District as shown on Figure 2.

Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or disposed of at a fill area authorized by the Napa County Department of Public Works. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for this project. If necessary, imported materials would include backfill material required by the Napa County Public Works Department. This could include Class II Aggregate Base or concrete slurry. Both of these materials would likely come from the Syar Quarry approximately five miles away. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project/Action could


December 2013 2-4

generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include, but not be limited to:

Track-mounted excavator

Backhoe

Grader

Crane

Dozer

Compactor

Trencher/boring machine

End and bottom dump truck

Front-end loader

Water truck

Flat-bed delivery truck

Forklift

Compressor/jack hammer

Asphalt paver & roller

Street sweeper

It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor(s). However, this description provides sufficient information on which to base the conclusions regarding potential environmental impacts associated with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the Districts design standards or established ordinances, and not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not described within this document, then no additional environmental analyses will be required for any minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.

2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Boards Recycled Water Policy

The Proposed Project/Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation. The State Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that process, the State Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use of recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by reference for this document and Proposed Project/Action. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco


December 2013 2-5

RWQCB) is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and including Napa County. The Proposed Project/Action will provide high quality, unrestricted use, tertiary treated recycled water from NSD and be made available to users within the District. All irrigation systems will be operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any reclamation permits issued by the San Francisco RWQCB. Prior to implementation of the Proposed Project/Action, the District shall apply for and receive a reclamation permit from the San Francisco RWQCB. Reclamation permits typically require the following:

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

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

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

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

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

2.4 Operational and Maintenance Plans The District does not currently have, nor do they plan to have operations, maintenance and support staff. The District will need to complete an operations and maintenance agreement with NSD to operate and maintain its recycled water system. This document is currently in process and therefore the exact details are not known at this time. As it is currently envisioned, NSD would operate and maintain the Districts recycled water system and the District would enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. This arrangement is referred to as a water master. The water master strategy will vary irrigation schedules in a way that optimizes use of the distribution system. The water master schedule may be modified in the future, but the initial assumptions are outlined below.

Vineyard Demand Factor - 0.33 AFY/acre Landscaping Demand Factor - 2.5 AFY/acre Storage Off-stream only, filled in winter over 1 month2 Vineyard Irrigation hours (Summer) 6am 6pm Landscape Irrigation hours (Summer) 6pm 6am Summer storage filling 6pm 6am Winter storage filling 24 hours per day

By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized. For more detailed information about the water master concept refer to the 2011 LCWD Recycled Water Feasibility Report. Maintenance procedures will include 1 or 2 existing NSD workers who will routinely inspect the pipeline alignment and connections for leaks and repair facilities on an as needed basis as well as conduct scheduled preventative maintenance procedures to keep the facilities in good working order.

2 Winter storage reservoirs will be filled in March because the cost of recycled water is expected to be less expensive at that time.


December 2013 2-6

2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals Table 2 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to construction of the Proposed Project/Action. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.

Table 2: Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities

Agency Type of Approval

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #12 for Construction Activities (or) Section 404 (Wetlands) Permit

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities Recycled Water Use Permit

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health

Construction activities in compliance with CAL/OSHA safety requirements

California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreements

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Authority to Construct Permit to Operate

Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water Service Agreement Connection to its recycled water system

County of Napa Encroachment Permit County Roads and Bridges Construction/Grading Permit

2.6 No Project/Action Alternative Under the No Project/Action Alternative, the Districts Proposed Project/Action would not be constructed. For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition (i.e. No Project/Action) and the future No Project/Action condition are the same. This No Project/Action Alternative assumes that none of the Proposed Project/Action facilities would be constructed. As a result, the impact description and summary compares the Proposed Project/Action to the No Project/Action.


December 2013 3-1

Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences This chapter evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project/Action to have a significant effect on the environment. Using a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential impacts of the Proposed Project/Action pursuant to both CEQA and NEPA. This document compares the Proposed Project/Action against the No Project/Action Alternative as is required by CEQA and NEPA.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigation strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared to meet CEQA requirements, respectively.

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the application of identified mitigation strategies that are not already been incorporated into the Proposed Project/Action description.

Less-than-Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have been identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for that resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the resource or the consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

Environmental Resources Evaluated The following are the key environmental resources that were evaluated in this document.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Population and Housing

Agriculture Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation

Air Quality Land Use / Planning Socioeconomics

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Transportation/Traffic

Cultural Resources Noise Utilities and Service Systems

Geology / Soils Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance


December 2013 3-2

3.1 Aesthetics Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project/Action:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,

but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character

or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would occur underground and is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas and therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. No impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not located near or within a designated state scenic highway and therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. State Route 29 is designated as eligible, but is not officially designated. Nevertheless, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not affect State Route 29 or its designation. Furthermore, since the majority of the construction would occur within existing roadways, no rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or trees would be impacted. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be visible and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as the presence of construction equipment, fencing and materials. These impacts would be temporary and considered less-than-significant. Once built, the pipeline facilities would be buried underground and not visible. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not affect any visual resources, except for the maintenance activities involving routine inspections and as needed repair/maintenance activities on segments of the pipeline. These impacts are considered to be less than significant..

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


December 2013 3-3

3.2 Agricultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project/Action:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,

which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,

or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Proposed Project/Action would be primarily constructed within existing roadways within the District. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action will not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not convert any farmland to non-agricultural usage. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would be primarily constructed within existing roadways within the District. In addition, the Proposed Project/Action will not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. The Proposed Action is intended to support agriculture by providing an additional source of water for irrigation. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with agricultural practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the Proposed Project/Action would be primarily constructed within existing roadways within the District. Recycled water users within the District will be required to connect their irrigation systems to the Proposed Project/Action. However, this is not expected to adversely affect agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non-agricultural usage because securing a supplemental water resource within the District will help preserve agriculture within the District.

Application of tertiary treated recycled water has the ability to increase salts and nutrient loadings on the soils. The TDS levels in NSDs recycled water supplies are, on average, approximately 400 to 600 milligrams per liter (mg/L). This level is generally equivalent to or below groundwater


December 2013 3-4

TDS levels within the proposed irrigation areas. Therefore, irrigation with recycled water is not anticipated to significantly affect TDS levels in the soil and in the local Carneros Groundwater Basin. Also, recycled water has higher amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium than groundwater supplies. Thus, recycled water would help alleviate the need to use fertilizers that are more readily applied when groundwater supplies are used for irrigation. In addition, the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy also requires every region in California to develop a salt/nutrient management plan by 2014 that is sustainable on a long-term basis and that provides California with clean, abundant water. These plans shall be consistent with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 160, as appropriate, and shall be locally developed, locally controlled and recognize the variability of Californias water supplies and the diversity of its waterways. The District and NSD will have to comply with SWRCB policies prior to implementing the Proposed Project/Action. As a result, the Proposed Project/Action would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of farmland or agricultural practices to non-agricultural use. No mitigation is required or necessary.


December 2013 3-5

3.3 Air Quality Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project/Action:

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?

f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

g) Conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is located within the jurisdiction of

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Bay Area. BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This Basin is currently designated non-attainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard. To meet planning requirements related to this standard, the BAAQMD developed a regional air quality plan, the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Program (CAP), the BAAQMDs most recent triennial update of the 1991 Clean Air Plan. A significant impact would occur if a project conflicted with the plan by not mirroring assumptions of the plan regarding population growth and vehicle-miles-traveled. The Proposed Project/Action could accommodate population growth because the Project would provide recycled water, making potable supplies more available, and thus increasing the overall supply of water. However, the addition of approximately 1,300 acre-feet of recycled water for


December 2013 3-6

irrigation within the District would not significantly result in increased growth or development. Once constructed, the Proposed Project/Action would not generate any new significant operational vehicle trips. Any impacts are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required or necessary.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is currently designated non-attainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the state 1-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is in attainment or unclassified with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. As part of the effort to reach attainment of these standards, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for several criteria air pollutants associated with both the construction and operation of projects. Specifically, under current established thresholds, a project is considered to have a significant regional air quality impact if it would result in an increase in emissions of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). ROG and NOX are both ozone precursors.

Construction activities at the project site would begin in the summer of 2014 and continue into the summer of 2015 and would include excavation and grading activities. Overall construction work would require the use of various types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks.

Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather. Estimated construction emissions for the pipeline construction were generated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Districts Road Construction model (i.e. URBEMIS Model). (Note that this model was used because no comparable model has been issued by BAAQMD). The Roadway Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft Excel worksheet available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated construction equipment fleet-mix and the acreage and soil volume were put into the URBEMIS model in order to determine potential emissions. Table 3 provides the emissions output from URBEMIS in maximum pounds per day as well as in estimated tons for the entire construction duration. As shown in the table, emissions do not exceed BAAQMDs daily and/or annual significance thresholds. Table 3: Proposed Project/Action Construction Emissions

Construction Phase

Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5*

Grubbing/Land Clearing 9.9 47.0 12.8 4.6 Grading/Excavation 11.5 58.4 13.5 5.2 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 9.9 44.7 13.0 4.8 Paving 8.6 31.7 2.7 2.4 Maximum (lbs/day)** 11.7 58.4 13.5 5.2 Total Tons/Project/Year 1.4 6.3 1.5 0.6

BAAQMD Thresholds Pounds per Day 80 80 80 80 Tons per Project/Year 15 15 15 15 Significant Impact? No No No No

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


December 2013 3-7

Nevertheless, BAAQMDs approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of these dust control measures (Mitigation Measures AIR-1 below), the Proposed Project/Actions construction-related dust impacts would be even further reduced and would remain less-than-significant.

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

Water all active construction sites as necessary.

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

Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep if visible soil material is carried into adjacent streets.

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

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph.

Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work which would likely result in 1-3 regular inspection vehicle trips along the proposed pipeline alignment a month. Operational impacts would be considered less-than-significant. With respect to project conformity with the federal Clean Air Act, the Proposed Project/Actions potential emissions are well below minimum thresholds established by the BAAQMD and are below the areas inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or maintenance for the Bay Area. As such, further general conformity analysis is not required.

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is currently designated non-attainment for the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards, the state 1-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area is in attainment or unclassified with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standards and to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins and nuisance odors. Air emissions would be generated during construction of the Proposed Project/Action, which could increase criteria air pollutants, including PM10. However, construction activities would be temporary and would, with incorporation of the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above, would be less than significant.

As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities emission sources resulting from Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work. Given the limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these emissions would be expected to be well below BAAQMD guidelines. See Table 3 above. Cumulative thresholds are the same as project thresholds, which are provided in Table 3. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines take into account past, present, and future emissions of criteria pollutants; therefore, since operation of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds, the cumulative impacts due to operations would be less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project/Action would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants. With implementation of these dust control measures (Mitigation Measures AIR-1


December 2013 3-8

below), the Proposed Project/Actions cumulative impacts would be even further reduced and would remain less-than-significant.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from diesel-powered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number of diesel trucks would be associated with construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action, localized exposure to DPM would be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a 70-year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-than-significant. Likewise, as noted above, the project would not result in substantial emissions of any criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1; therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors, including residents in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.

(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project/Action, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the Proposed Project/Action would not include development of any uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.

(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the Proposed Project/Action would generate emissions, but those temporary emissions would not have a significant effect or impact on the environment. Also, the Proposed Project/Action would not include any new pumping station or facilities that would generate emissions. Operation of the Proposed Project/Action would require the use of NSDs existing pumping station to move the recycled water to the District. However, these indirect emissions would not be considered to have a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is necessary or required.

(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation is necessary or required.


December 2013 3-9

3.4 Biological Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Would the Proposed Project/Action: Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any

native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

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

constructed within existing roadways within the District and within NSDs existing Soscol WWTP. However, and as discussed below, the Proposed Project/Action could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.


December 2013 3-10

A record search of CDFWs California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and USFWS Species List was conducted for the area within a five-mile radius of the Project area to identify previously reported occurrences of state and federal special-status plants and animals. Also, a review of the findings from the St. Regis Project EIR and the NBWRP EIR/EIS provided recent relevant information as to regards for the potential effects to special-status species within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. In addition, several field visits of the pipeline alignment were conducted in April, May and June 2011 as well as in September 2013 to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the general vicinity of the Proposed Project/Action Study Area (i.e. Construction Area) as described in Chapter 2 Project Description. These field visits were not intended to be protocol-level surveys to determine the actual absence or presence of special-status species, but were conducted to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Area. Appendix B provides a summary of the potential for state and federal special status species to occur within the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. Appendix C provides an analysis of the potential for the Proposed Project/Action to adversely effect federal special status species in order to satisfy the requirements for NEPA and federal resource agencies. No special-status species were observed during the field visits. Detailed below is a summary of those findings and proposed mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Based on the record search of CDFWs CNDDB and USFWSs Species List, 59 special status plant species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Project/Action Study Area, ten (10) special-status plant species, were determined to have moderate to high potential to occur in the Proposed Project/Action Study Area. These include Congdons tarplant, pappose tarplant, Contra Costa goldfields, legenere, saline clover, delta tule pea, Mason's lilaeopsis, Suisun Marsh aster, dwarf downingia, and Marin knotweed. The construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action has the potential to affect these species in various ways ranging from removal and/or disturbance.[ The mitigation below would reduce any impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Conduct Pre-construction Protocol Level Plant

Surveys. Prior to construction, the District shall conduct two protocol-level rare plant surveys during the blooming period for these species that are during the months of May and June. These surveys shall follow the protocol for plant surveys as described in Nelson (1987), which are in compliance with CNPS, CDFW, and USFWS guidelines. Should any of these species be present within the construction footprint, CDFW and/or USFWS shall be consulted to develop appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures.

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Of the sixty (60) special status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Project/Action Study Area, sixteen (16) were determined to have a high or moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. These include six (6) bird species including the Northern Harrier, White-tailed Kite, Golden Eagle, Swainsons hawk, , Loggerhead Shrike, and Black Rail,. Two (2) mammal species, Pallid Bat and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, have a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. Additionally one (1) special status reptile, Western Pond Turtle, six (6) fish species, Green Sturgeon, Delta Smelt, Steelhead, Chinook Salmon, Hardhead and Sacramento Splittail and one (1) invertebrate, California Freshwater Shrimp, have a moderate or high potential to occur with the Study Area. Potential impacts to these species could include noise,


December 2013 3-11

vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take (i.e. kill) these special status species if they should come within contact with construction activities. Recommendations for reducing impacts to these special status species are provided below.

Birds Potential impacts to special status birds could include noise and vibration during the breeding season that could cause them to abandon their nests and result in harming, harassing and/or taking of the species. These potential impacts would be minimized to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Conduct Breeding Surveys. For any construction activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 10 days of any initial ground-disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-status passerine nests identified at that time shall be protected by a 50-foot radius minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-status species nests shall be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of 200 feet. A minimum 500-foot exclusion buffer shall be established around active white-tailed kite and golden eagle nests. Per CDFW and USFWS recommendations, the following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:

Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance

commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys shall be repeated. If no breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.

Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone shall remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

The non-breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this period,

breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are encountered during work activities in the non-breeding season, disturbance activities within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest shall be postponed until the nest is abandoned or young birds have fledged.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Conduct Nesting Surveys. For any construction activities initiated between March 15 and September 1, surveys for nesting Swainsons hawk are required with 0.25 mile of areas of disturbance. If an active nest is found, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest during construction activities within 0.25 mile of the nest to determine whether project construction may result in abandonment. The monitor shall continue monitoring the nest until construction within 0.25 mile of the nest is completed, or until all chicks have completely fledged. If the monitor determines that construction may result in abandonment of the nest, all construction activities within 0.25 mile shall be halted until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

Mammals

Potential impacts to special status mammals could include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take these special status species if they should come within contact with construction activities. would be minimized to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures and procedures:


December 2013 3-12

Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Potential impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take this special status specie if they should come within contact with construction activities. Because of the status of the salt marsh harvest mouse (Federal and State Endangered, California Fully Protected), CDFW and USFWS are conservative when establishing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Since suitable habitat is present within the project site along the east side of the Napa River and because there are documented occurrences in the CNDDB, minimization and avoidance measures are set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to address potential impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse. This measure would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Protect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: The following measures to mitigate impacts to the salt marsh harvest mouse shall be implemented: Prior to the commencement of earthmoving activity for the pipeline segment on the east side of the Napa River, the footprint of the work area shall be flagged. The work area shall be the minimum necessary to complete the drilling work. Pickleweed within the flagged footprint area shall be removed using hand tools at least 7 days prior to start of any work. A biologist shall first survey the flagged work area for the salt marsh harvest mouse prior to vegetation removal and shall be present during the removal. If a salt marsh harvest mouse is observed, the biologist shall have authority to stop work until the species has left the flagged work area, at which time vegetation removal can continue. The vegetation removal will allow any salt marsh harvest mouse potentially present to disperse away from the work area into more dense cover. Once the vegetation has been removed, a temporary barrier fence shall be constructed along the flagged boundaries of the cleared work area to prevent salt marsh harvest mice from re-entering the work area. No equipment, storage of materials, or work shall be allowed within any identified salt marsh harvest mouse habitat outside of the cleared work area. A biologist shall conduct weekly inspections of the barrier fence to identify maintenance needs. Following completion of all work and removal of equipment, the barrier fence shall be removed and the disturbed area shall be re-seeded. If this potential impact from the project falls within the jurisdiction of the CDFW or the USFWS through a federal action, such measures shall be applied as required by those agencies to avoid or minimize impacts prior to any construction that would significantly impact the species.

Pallid Bat Bat roosts are protected by CDFW and CEQA. The study areas contains suitable foraging habitat for pallid bats. Potential impacts can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take this sensitive specie if they should come within contact with construction activities. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is proposed requiring a preconstruction survey to determine the presence or absence of this


December 2013 3-13

species and measures to safely exclude them from any nearby buildings, trees, or snags if they are present. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Bats. Preconstruction surveys for bats should take place during the maternity roosting season (defined as April 1 through August 31). Surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to removal of any trees, snags, or buildings within the project area. Ultrasonic acoustic surveys and/or other site-appropriate survey method should be performed to determine the presence or absence of bats utilizing the project site as roosting or foraging habitat. If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, then appropriate species- and roost-specific mitigation measures will be developed. Such measures may include postponing the removal of trees, snags, or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species-appropriate roosting habitat within or adjacent to the project site. Trees, snags, and buildings may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season without performing preconstruction bat surveys.

Western Pond Turtle Western pond turtle is documented to occur within the Napa River system in the vicinity of the project site. Suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat is present within and adjacent to the study areas. Potential impacts can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and take this sensitive specie if they should come within contact with construction activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-6 below would reduce impacts to a less than significant level for Western pond turtle adults, nests, and young.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Provide Exclusion Fencing. Prior to construction activities associated with the pipeline segment on the east side of the Napa River, the District shall install exclusion fencing around upland areas slated for ground disturbance to prevent pond turtles from excavating nests. This measure shall apply between March 1 and April 30. The exclusion fence shall be constructed from silt fencing to avoid turtle injury and entrapment and shall be maintained until ground disturbance in the upland habitat is complete. Construction activities involving land equipment shall be minimized to the extent feasible from February to November within 100 feet of aquatic habitat where turtles are found. A qualified biologist shall be present during the construction activities to relocate any turtles that are found in proximity to or within the construction areas. Fish Species Green Sturgeon, Delta Smelt, Central California Coast and Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley fall/late fall-run and spring run Chinook salmon, hardhead, and Sacramento splittail are known to occur in the Napa River. In addition, salmon and steelhead are known to be in the Huichica and Carneros Creeks. Suitable foraging and rearing habitat is present within and adjacent to the study areas. Additionally, the Napa River is Critical Habitat for Central California Coast steelhead, a species listed as threatened under the FESA, and have been documented in the Napa River in the vicinity of the study area. Steelhead and Chinook salmon adults likely move upstream past the study areas between December and March. After spawning, Chinook salmon die; however, steelhead can spawn more than once and move downstream toward San Francisco Bay after spawning. Chinook salmon juveniles move downstream within a few months to rear in the lower reaches of the river and its


December 2013 3-14

estuary. Juvenile steelhead generally remain in fresh water for one or more years before heading to the sea. According to dredging work windows designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, steelhead and Chinook salmon adults and juveniles near the mouth of the Napa River are at their lowest densities between June and November. Hardhead are sedentary fish that are generally associated with clear pools and runs with sand-gravelboulder substrates. The Napa River in the vicinity of the study areas is turbid and does not represent preferred habitat. According to dredging work windows designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Sacramento splittail adults and juveniles are likely present in the lower Napa River throughout the year. Potential impacts to these fish species are discussed below. Erosion associated with project construction activities resulting in the introduction of sediments into the Napa River could negatively affect water quality in rearing and foraging habitat. Introduction of sediments could lead to increased embedding of river substrate, which could negatively affect invertebrate communities used as a food source by juvenile fish. Impacts to steelhead and steelhead critical habitat that constitute harm or harassment could be considered a take by the FESA. This is considered a potentially significant impact if the project would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8 below are proposed to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is proposed requiring Best Management Practices be installed to eliminate construction-related runoff and sedimentation into the Napa River as well as in Huichica and Carneros Creeks. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Implement Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the District and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the San Francisco RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-construction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels or disturbing their banks during construction. This mitigation measure shall be coordinated with Mitigation Measure HWQ-1.

California Freshwater Shrimp The Proposed Project/Action also includes a local creek crossing of Carneros Creek as well as numerous drainage crossings. The California Freshwater Shrimp has a medium to low potential to occur within Carneros Creek. As described in Chapter 2, the Project Description, the creek crossing will involve installing the pipelines on the side of the existing bridges and will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creek. In addition, the staging areas will be 100 feet from the creek. As a result, no significant impacts would occur to the creek or any sensitive species or habitats contained there within, including the California Freshwater Shrimp. The


December 2013 3-15

numerous drainage crossings of existing culverts through the roads will be done during the dry season and will not occur during the rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. As a result, no significant impacts would occur. Non-Sensitive Species The construction activities of the Proposed Project/Action could result in disturbance and/or removal of plant and wildlife species that are not considered sensitive by the resource agencies. These temporary impacts can include noise, vibration, and construction equipment/activities that can harm, harass, and kill plant and wildlife species if they should come within contact with construction activities. However, these temporary impacts are considered less than significant and the Proposed Project/Action would not result in adverse effects to special-status species. As a result and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed above, the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project/Action would not 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 CDFW and/or USFWS.

(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would cross the Napa River through an existing/planned pipeline and therefore would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Proposed Project/Action would also include a local creek crossing as well as numerous drainage crossings. As described in Chapter 2, the Project Description, the creek crossings will involve installing the pipelines on the side of the existing bridges and will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creek. As a result, no significant impacts would occur to the creeks and/or any sensitive species or habitats contained there within. The numerous drainage crossings of existing culverts through the roads will be done during the dry season and will not occur during the rainy weather months between October 15 and through April 1. As a result, no significant impacts would occur to the drainage crossings and creeks. While no significant impacts to riparian habitat along the river or to the river itself are expected, Mitigation Measure BIO-8 is proposed requiring the project applicant to obtain all necessary authorization from regulatory agencies and implement any necessary restoration or mitigation. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the Proposed Project/Action to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Obtain all Required Authorizations. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for the Proposed Project/Action, the District, as necessary, shall conduct a wetlands delineation study in sensitive areas of the Proposed Project/Action and obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction riparian habitats and jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted habitat shall be offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at a CDFW and USFWS-approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio. The requirements of this mitigation measure do not apply if pipeline installation activities completely avoid work within the bed, bank, or channel of the Napa River


December 2013 3-16

(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action could have an adverse effect on federally 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. The local creek crossing may meet the USACE criteria for Waters of the U.S. and any fill or degradation to these channels could significantly impact water quality or habitat for protected species. Specifically, any activity that results in the deposit of dredge or fill material within the Ordinary High Water mark of Waters of the U.S. typically requires a permit from the (Corps). In addition, the bed and banks of the creeks and drainage channels could also fall under the regulatory authority of the CDFW. However, as stated in Chapter 2, Project Description, the creek crossing will involve installing the pipelines on the downstream side of the existing bridges and will not involve cutting through or disturbing the creek or the bed or banks.

Excavation, grading, and other general construction activities associated with the Proposed Project/Action would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in the Project area. Construction during inclement weather could result in increases in erosion, siltation, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially significant impact to wetlands and waters of the U.S. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7and BIO-8 above, any potential impacts are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project/Action would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As stated above, the Proposed Project/Action would be constructed within existing roadways within the District and would not involve any permanent fencing or other impediment to wildlife movement. In addition, the creek crossing would involve installing the pipeline on the downstream side of the existing bridge and avoid cutting into or through the creeks. However, construction activities could adversely affect non-listed special-status nesting raptors. Many raptors are sensitive to loud construction noise such as that associated with grading. Such activities could cause nest abandonment or destruction of individual active raptor nests. Because all raptors and their nests are protected under 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, this could result in a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant levels.

(e) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action is not expected to conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.

(f) No Impact. The Proposed Project/Action would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The construction of the Proposed Project/Action would be located within existing roadways within the District. Therefore, there is no impact.


December 2013 3-17

3.5 Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the Proposed Project/Action: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion (a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. A cultural study along the pipeline alignment

inclu

public draft is mnd full document

Documents