Mitigated Negative Declaration

Transcription

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Turlock Irrigation District
Fairground-Industrial 69kV Line Project
TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
333 East Canal Drive
P.O. Box 949
Turlock, CA 95381-0949
Date: May 8, 2014
Prepared by:
1508 Eureka Road, Suite 170
Roseville, California 95661
(916)782-5818
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Fairground-Industrial 69kV Line Project
Lead Agency:
TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
P.O. Box 949
INTRODUCTION
(209) 883-8222
This document evaluates the Turlock Irrigation District's (TID) proposed project for compliance under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). TID is the lead agency responsible for complying
with the provisions of CEQA. TID proposes the construction of an additional 69,000-volt (69kV)
transmission line, the subsequent replacement and retrofit of existing electrical transmission poles and
insulators, and performing necessary improvements to their Fairground and Industrial Substations to
accommodate the additional line (hereinafter referred to as "the proposed project").
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located within the City of Turlock, which is situated in central Stanislaus
County, California. The proposed project would consist of several steps to reach completion:
•
TID substation construction and retrofitting to accommodate the additional 69kV line
TID proposes to add an additional bay and replace the existing 69kV infrastructure within TID's
Industrial Substation which is located at the intersection of South Walnut Road and West
Linwood Avenue in the City of Turlock. Work items would include minor grading, foundation
excavation and pouring, construction and installation of electrical infrastructure (switchyard,
conduit, ground grid, and wiring), and testing of the new electrical infrastructure.
TID also proposes to replace a 69kV breaker found within Fairground Substation, located at
along West Canal Drive in the City of Turlock. Work items at this location would include
breaker delivery, removal and installation.
•
Pole replacement and electrical transmission infrastructure retrofitting
TID proposes the replacement of poles for the addition of a new 69kV transmission line to
service TID's Industrial Substation, and to retrofit existing electrical transmission poles along
the line that runs south of TID's Fairground Substation prior to the line being energized.
Replacement of poles for additional 69kV transmission line would occur along the west side of
South Walnut Road just north of TID's Industrial Substation. During the replacement of the
poles a temporary 12, 000-volt (12kV) distribution line would also need to be constructed along
the east side of South Walnut Road to provide power to TID's customers. The retrofitting of
existing transmission infrastructure (select pole and insulator replacement) would occur along
Fairground-Industrial 69kV Line
IS/MND
[I]
May 2014
TID's transmission line that runs south of the Fairground Substation until it reaches Highway 99
approximately 4,700 feet to the south of the substation.
The proposed project is a result of TID's 2012 and 2013 Transmission Assessments which found a
Category C N-2 (the failure of two elements of an electrical transmission system) outage of the WalnutCommons and Walnut-Fairground 69 kV lines had the potential to produce thermal overloads of the
Industrial-South Turlock, South Turlock-F Street, and F Street-Montpelier Tap 69 kV lines. At present,
TID plans to manage this concern through interim mitigation measures such as the re-dispatch of
internal generation, however these interim measures can only be temporary and the need for
permanent measures is imminent. TID's board approved long term solution for the issue is the
proposed project, which is now a part of TID's 10-Year Transmission Plan.
Construction is anticipated to start in the Summer of 2014, and would continue for approximately 9
months. Work would occur first on the Fairground Substation in August of 2014 and the Industrial
Substation in October 2014. The temporary 12kV line would then be installed in November of 2014, and
would give way for work to being on the new 69kV line along South Walnut Road in December 2014
and the retrofitting of the existing 69kV line in January 2015. The project would conclude with the
removal of the temporary distribution line in May of 2015.
FINDINGS
As lead agency for compliance with CEQA requirements, TID finds that the proposed project would be
implemented without causing a significant adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation measures
for potential impacts associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and
soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use and planning
would be implemented as a part of TID's proposed project description.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA requires that TID assess whether its proposed project's incremental effects are significant when
viewed in connection with the effects of other projects. Based on the analysis presented in this Initial
Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the proposed project would not contribute
incrementally to considerable environmental changes when considered in combination with other
projects in the area. TID had determined that the proposed project will not significantly contribute
incrementally to considerable environmental change, as the potential environmental effects were
determined to be less than significant, and all identified potentially significant impacts would be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
TID exists as a public agency to supply water and electricity. The proposed project is needed to ensure
the stability of electrical transmission grid within the City of Turlock and surrounding areas.
TID has an obligation to serve its customers and new development approved by Stanislaus County.
TID does not designate where and what new developments may occur. The presence of the new 69kV
line and the retrofitting of the existing line would not induce population growth; it would
accommodate the current electrical service needs of TID's existing customers. Therefore, TID projects
IS/MND
[II]
May 2014
are not considered to be "growth inducing" as defined by CEQA. Furthermore the proposed project
would not cause increased demand on public infrastructure, public services, housing, circulation, or
other resources.
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this evaluation, TID concludes the following:
a.
The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered species, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b.
The proposed project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals.
c.
The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable.
d.
The proposed project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
e.
No substantial evidence exists to demonstrate that the proposed project would have a
substantive negative effect on the environment.
This IS/MND has been prepared to provide the opportunity for interested agencies and the public to
provide comment. Pending public review and TID Board approval, this MND will be filed pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines. Written comments should be submitted to TID at the address previously identified
by 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2014.
_______________________________
(Signature)
IS/MND
_______________
(Date)
[III]
May 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................................................................................. I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.1
PROJECT OBJECTIVE........................................................................................................................ 2
2.2
PROJECT LOCATION & CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 3
2.3
SURROUNDING LAND USE ............................................................................................................. 3
2.4
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................... 4
2.5
PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected................................................................................ 6
4.0 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................. 8
4.1
AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 8
4.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES................................................................................ 11
4.3
AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 19
4.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 27
4.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................... 32
4.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................................... 37
4.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................................. 39
4.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY........................................................................................... 44
IS/MND
[i]
May 2014
4.10
LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................................... 50
4.11
MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................. 54
4.12
NOISE ............................................................................................................................................ 55
4.13
POPULATION AND HOUSING ....................................................................................................... 60
4.14
PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 62
4.15
RECREATION ................................................................................................................................. 64
4.16
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................................................ 65
4.17
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 69
4.18
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................ 73
5.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 75
6.0 Tables ................................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 4.3.1 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards and Potential Sources ........... 78
Table 4.3.2 Air Quality Monitoring Data for the Proposed Project Area, 2010–2012 ................ 79
Table 4.3.3 Proposed Project Area Attainment Status .................................................................... 80
Table 4.4.2 Database Query Results of Special-Status Plants ........................................................ 81
Table 4.6.1 Soils Present in the Project Area .................................................................................... 82
Table 4.12.1 Stanislaus County Noise Limits................................................................................... 83
Table 4.12.2 City of Turlock Noise Limits for Construction .......................................................... 84
Table 4.12.3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ............................................... 85
7.0 Figures ............................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 2.2.1 - Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 87
Figure 2.2.2 - Project Location............................................................................................................ 88
Figure 2.2.3 - Project Overview ......................................................................................................... 89
Figure 4.1.1 - Land Use Map .............................................................................................................. 90
IS/MND
[ii]
May 2014
Figure 4.2.1 - Agricultural Resources Map ...................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.4.1 - CNDDB/USFWS Critical Habitat Occurrences ....................................................... 92
Figure 4.6.1 - Soils Map....................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 4.9.1 - Hydrology Map ........................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4.9.2 - FEMA Floodplain Classification Map ...................................................................... 95
8.0 Appendices....................................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix A - Notice of Intent ........................................................................................................... 97
IS/MND
[iii]
May 2014
1.0
Introduction
1.1
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for Turlock Irrigation
District's (TID's) proposed Fairground/Industrial Substation Project (hereinafter referred to as "the
proposed project") located in the City of Turlock, California. The proposed project would entail the
replacement of electrical poles to accommodate an additional 69,000-volt (69kV) transmission line to
service TID's Industrial Substation, a temporary 12,000 volt (12kV) distribution line to service TID
customers during construction, the retrofitting of existing transmission infrastructure prior to the new
line being energized just south of TID's Fairground Substation, and minor improvements at TID's
Industrial and Fairground Substations to accommodate the addition of the 69kV line.
This document is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 - Introduction
Provides an introduction, and a description of the proposed project's CEQA considerations.
Section 2 - Project Description
Details the proposed project’s setting and characteristics.
Section 3 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Includes an environmental evaluation/checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed project and a discussion of evaluation terminology.
Section 4 - Environmental Analysis (Checklist)
Contains the Environmental Checklist for CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with a discussion of potential
environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are
noted following each impact discussion.
Section 5 - References
Alphabetically sorted list of sources consulted for the preparation of this IS/MND.
Section 6 - Tables
Contains tables referenced in the IS/MND
Section 7 - Figures
Contains figures referenced in the IS/MND
Section 8 - Appendices
Contains technical reports and other information to supplement Section 3.
IS/MND
[1]
May 2014
1.2
CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1.2.1
Regulatory Guidance
This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Public Resources Code (PRC) §21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations
(CCR) §15000 et seq. A lead agency prepares an IS to determine if a project may have a significant effect
on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a), an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared if the lead agency determines that
the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of
mitigation measures, (i.e., there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that such
an effect may occur), and therefore, that the project will not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA
Guidelines §15070).
1.2.2
Public Review Process
This draft IS/MND is being circulated for a 20-day public review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073)
period to all individuals who have requested a copy, local libraries (Turlock and Modesto Public
Library), and the County of Stanislaus. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is being distributed to all property
owners and occupants of record identified by the Stanislaus County Assessor’s office adjacent to the
proposed project boundaries. The NOI will also be posted in a local newspaper of general circulation
(Turlock Journal and the Modesto Bee). The NOI identifies where the document is available for public
review and invites interested parties to provide written comments. A copy of the NOI is included in
this document in Appendix A.
Prior to the MND being adopted by the TID Board, all comments received from the public during the
review process will be addressed at the TID Board meeting on June 10, 2014 at 9:00 A.M. After which a
Notice of Determination will be sent to all previous recipients of the NOI.
1.2.3
Lead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over the proposed project. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “the Lead Agency will normally be the agency
with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or
limited purpose….” The lead agency for the proposed project is TID.
2.0
Project Description
2.1
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
The objective of TID's proposed project is to provide an additional 69kV line to service TID's Industrial
Substation, and upgrade existing electrical transmission infrastructure to accommodate the 69kV line.
The proposed project is a result of TID's 2012 and 2013 Transmission Assessments which found a
Category C N-2 (the failure of two elements of an electrical transmission system) outage of the WalnutTurlock Irrigation District
IS/MND
[2]
May 2014
Commons and Walnut-Fairground 69 kV lines had the potential to produce thermal overloads of the
Industrial-South Turlock, South Turlock-F Street, and F Street-Montpelier Tap 69 kV lines. At present,
TID plans to manage this concern through interim mitigation measures such as the re-dispatch of
internal generation, however these interim measures can only be temporary and the need for
permanent measures is imminent. TID's board approved long term solution for the issue is the
proposed project, which is now a part of TID's 10-Year Transmission Plan.
2.2
PROJECT LOCATION & CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project is located in the City of Turlock in Stanislaus County, California, which is
approximately 12 miles southeast from the City of Modesto (See Figures 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 TID
proposes an additional 69kV line to service their Industrial Substation, a temporary 12kV distribution
line to provide service to TID customers during construction, the upgrade/retrofit of existing electrical
transmission infrastructure from the tie-in point with the new 69kV line to TID's Fairground
Substation, and minor improvements to their Industrial and Fairground Substations to accommodate
the 69kV line.
As mentioned above the proposed project would add an additional 69kV line to service the Industrial
Substation located at the intersection of South Walnut Road and West Linwood Avenue in the City of
Turlock. The proposed 69kV line will follow the existing lines located on the west side of South Walnut
Road and will run north of the substation for approximately 3,000 feet until it reaches the already
existing, but not currently in service 69kV line. The 69kV line from that point will tie-in to the existing
electrical transmission line which extends approximately 1 mile to the north until it terminates at the
Fairground Substation, located roughly 0.25 mile east of North Tully Road/ West Canal Drive
intersection in the City of Turlock. This existing 69kV line will require select poles and insulator
replacement from the tie-in point (where the new 69kV line ties into the existing line) to the Fairground
Substation (approximately 1 mile) prior to the line being energized due to age. TID has also proposed
that a temporary 12,000-volt (12kV) distribution line be constructed along the east side of South Walnut
Road to provide power to customers in the area during construction.
The addition of the 69kV line and re-energizing the portions of the exiting line will require minor
construction improvements in the form of an additional bay and replacement of the existing 69kV
infrastructure within TID's Industrial Substation and the replacement of a 69 kV breaker found within
Fairground Substation. Anticipated construction activities within the Industrial Substation include
minor grading, foundation excavation and pouring, construction and installation of electrical
infrastructure (switchyard, conduit, ground grid, and wiring), and testing of the new electrical
infrastructure. Construction at the Fairground Substation would consist of breaker delivery, removal
and installation
2.3
SURROUNDING LAND USE
Land use surrounding the proposed project consists of single and multi-family residential units,
commercial, industrial, and public/semi-public facilities (Turlock 2012). The proposed project runs
adjacent to several residential developments classified as low to medium residential use under the
IS/MND
[3]
May 2014
Turlock General Plan. These residential units include recently built subdivisions and mobile home
parks such as the Westfork Estates. Gas stations adjacent to the project route exist as the source of
commercial land use for the proposed project. Industrial facilities are scattered about the project
alignment, and include manufacturing and heavy machine shops. Finally, several notable public/semipublic facilities exist along and adjacent to the proposed project: the City of Turlock waste water
treatment plant is located on the east side of South Walnut Road and the plants settling ponds are
directly across the street from the Industrial Substation; the City of Turlock Animal Shelter and the City
of Turlock Fire Station #2 also are along South Walnut Road just north of the waste water treatment
plant; and lastly the Turlock Memorial Park and Funeral Home exists along the existing 69kV line
transmission corridor between West Main Street and West Canal Drive.
2.4
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Pole replacement and installation of the new 69kV line along South Walnut Road would consist of site
preparation, equipment and personnel mobilization, delivery of materials, building of the temporary
12kV distribution line along the east side of South Walnut Road, dismantling of current transmission
poles, installation of poles and wiring, testing, and dismantling of the temporary distribution lines.
Existing surface streets (i.e. South Walnut Road) will be used for construction access. Construction
equipment staging and crew parking for this portion of the project will occur at the Industrial
Substation. TID expects the need to temporarily close one lane during certain periods of construction
along South Walnut Road through the implementation of traffic control.
The retrofitting of existing electrical infrastructure (poles along the project alignment north of Highway
99) will include select pole and insulator replacement of the existing 69kV line. Retrofitting will require
site preparation, equipment and personnel mobilization, delivery of materials, dismantling and
demolition of current poles, and the installation of new poles and wiring. Surface streets South Walnut
Road, North/South Tully Road, and West Canal Drive will primarily be used for construction access.
However, there is a 0.5 mile section that runs between West Canal Drive and West Main Street that will
require overland crew, equipment, and materials ingress/egress. This 0.5 mile section lies between a
residential development and the Turlock Memorial Park and Funeral Home grounds, and several
fallow fields, although there is a well established utility maintenance corridor that will be utilized for
construction access. Construction equipment staging and crew parking for this portion of the project
will occur either within the TID maintenance corridor or at the Fairground Substation.
Work within TID's substations would include minor grading, foundation excavation and pouring,
construction and installation of electrical infrastructure (switchyard, conduit, ground grid, and wiring),
and testing of the new electrical infrastructure at Industrial Substation; and breaker delivery, removal
and installation within Fairground Substation. It should be noted that all project activities related to the
substations will occur within the current substation boundaries. Ingress/egress routes will be provided
via surface streets and TID maintained substation access roads. Construction equipment staging and
construction personnel parking will occur within the substation boundaries.
Construction on the 69kV line portion of the project would typically require 2-4 person crew, with
potentially as many as 15 of workers during peak activities. Crews working on the substations are
expected to range from 4-8 with a maximum of 10 at a given time. Generally construction related
IS/MND
[4]
May 2014
activities will occur Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with the exception of where
the project is located near residences and the Turlock Funeral Home and Memorial Park. In such cases
work hours will be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Expected construction
equipment will include:
•
Removal and installation poles for the additional 69kV line: cement truck (1), line bucket trucks
(4), pick-up trucks (3), digger/ derricks (2), pressure digger (1), and truck-mounted reel trailer
(1).
•
Retrofitting the existing 69kV infrastructure: line bucket trucks (4), pick-up trucks (3), digger/
derricks (2), pressure digger (1), and truck-mounted reel trailer (1).
•
Substation construction: cement truck (1) grader (1), digger (1), backhoe (1), crane (2), and two
man lift (1).
Construction materials would be delivered to the site and stored at either Industrial Substation,
Fairground Substation, or adjacent to the current transmission right of way. Deliveries would be made
by flatbed trucks, and tractor-trailer rigs. Hazardous materials, including paints, greases, epoxies, and
oil, would be delivered to the site, and stored in either storage lockers or covered containers, in
accordance with local, state, and federal requirements.
2.5
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Construction is anticipated to start in the Summer of 2014, and would continue for approximately 9
months. Work would occur first on the Fairground Substation in August of 2014 and the Industrial
Substation in October 2014. The temporary 12kV line would then be installed in November of 2014, and
would give way for work to being on the new 69kV line along South Walnut Road in December 2014
and the retrofitting of the existing 69kV line in January 2015. The project would conclude with the
removal of the temporary distribution line in May of 2015.
IS/MND
[5]
May 2014
3.0
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below will be potentially affected by the proposed project,
involving at least one impact requiring mitigation to bring it to a less than significant level. The
proposed project was determined to have a less than significant impact or no impact on unchecked
resource areas as indicated by the checklist included in Section 4.0.
3.1
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
EVALUATION TERMINOLOGY
The following terminology is used to describe the levels of significance for impacts identified for each
resource area discussed in Section 3.0.
3.2
•
A conclusion of no impact is used when it is determined that the proposed project would have
no impact on the resource area under evaluation.
•
A conclusion of less than significant impact is used when it is determined that the proposed
project’s adverse impacts to a resource area would not exceed established thresholds of
significance.
•
A conclusion of less than significant impact with mitigation is used when it is determined that
mitigation measures would be required to reduce the proposed project’s adverse impacts below
established thresholds of significance.
•
A conclusion of potentially significant impact is used when it is determined that the proposed
project’s adverse impacts to a resource area potentially cannot be mitigated to a level that is less
than significant.
DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made
IS/MND
[6]
May 2014
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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR 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.
Signature
IS/MND
Date
[7]
May 2014
4.0
Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, an initial study
(IS) should provide the lead agency with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration (ND) for a proposed project. The CEQA
Guidelines state that an IS may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other
method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence. If it is
determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the checklist must
indicate whether the impact is Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation, or Less
Than Significant. Findings of No Impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed
project do not require further discussion.
4.1
AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
SETTING
Proposed project is located in industrial setting in the project's southern extent and progresses to a
suburban setting with single and multi-family units as the project alignment crosses Highway99 near
South Tully Road. Vegetation consists of mature landscape and native trees, ornamental shrubs and
plants associated with residential structures and commercial landscaping. The corridor is generally flat
with occasional retaining walls and/ or minor relief. All roads adjacent to the proposed project are
undivided two-lane collector streets; the alignment will cross Highway99 which is a divided six-lane
highway and West Main Street which is an undivided four-lane arterial street.
The proposed project alignment can be described as being predominantly developed and lacking in
compositional harmony between the roadway and adjacent developments. This relatively nondescript
visual character is due to the lack of a single unifying theme that has resulted from lack of consistent
design taking place over the years. Individual property owners have made modifications to their
IS/MND
[8]
May 2014
properties ranging from gravel lot interfaces, to well landscaped store fronts, to stark masonry walls, to
typical residential driveways and lawns.
DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
No Impact
There are no designated scenic vistas in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact will
occur as a result of the proposed project.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
No Impact
No designated scenic vistas appear in the proposed project vicinity. The proposed project will not
substantially alter the local area’s scenic resources. The proposed project site is not adjacent to a State
scenic highway and will have no effect on the visual resources adjacent to scenic highways. Therefore
the proposed project will have no impact on scenic resources or vistas, and no mitigation is required.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings
Less than Significant
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the placement of 30 new overhead utility poles
that are 70-feet high (100 feet for the crossing of Highway99), set at 250 foot intervals, that support the
double 69kV circuit line along the west side of South Walnut Road. A temporary 12kV distribution line
will be constructed along the east side of South Walnut Road to provide power to TID customers
during construction, but will be promptly removed upon project completion. In addition the proposed
project would result in the retrofitting of existing electrical infrastructure in the form of select pole and
insulator replacement prior to the new line being energized. The installation of replacement poles
would be of similar height, design and color as currently exists, and replacement insulators would
remain the same dull gray color and cylindrical shape. Finally, the minor construction improvements to
the Fairground and Industrial Substations would only include the construction of additional structures
at the Industrial Substation. As with the replacement poles the new structures located within the
substation would be of similar height and color (dull gray) as what currently exists and will not alter
the current existing visual character or quality of the area.
No residential units exist within the vicinity of the of the proposed project alignment or near the
Industrial Substation along South Walnut Road. As Figure 4.1.1 illustrates, only commercial, industrial,
and public facilities exist along the South Walnut Road alignment. Residential units do exist along the
portion of the project where the existing 69kV line will be retrofitted, and along the western boundary
of the Fairground Substation. However, no additional pole locations will be added as a result of this
project and no additional structures will be installed at the Fairground Substation. Therefore, given the
temporary nature of the construction activities, and that added structures along the project alignment
will not diverge significantly from what currently exists, the proposed project would be considered to
have a less than significant impact.
IS/MND
[9]
May 2014
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area
No Impact
The proposed project will introduce no new sources of light and glare. No nighttime project
construction would occur and routine operation and maintenance work would be performed during
the day. No new lights are proposed as a component of the project and therefore, the proposed project
will have no impact.
IS/MND
[10]
May 2014
4.2
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in PRC §12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by PRC §4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code §51104(g))?
d) Result in the 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 or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
SETTING
The proposed project is in an area characterized by residential, commercial, and industrial
developments within the City Turlock in Stanislaus County, California. No agricultural or forestry
resources occur in the proposed project area (Figure 4.2.1).
DISCUSSION
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
No Impact
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program data does not show Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the proposed project area.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract
No Impact
IS/MND
[11]
May 2014
No impact will occur, as agricultural resources do not exist within the proposed project area.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC §12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by PRC §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code §51104(g))
No Impact
No impact will occur, as no forestry resources exist within the vicinity of the proposed project.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use
No Impact
No impact will occur, as forestry resources do not exist within the vicinity of the proposed project.
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 or conversion of forest land to nonforest use
No Impact
The proposed project will not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the
conversion of agricultural or forest resources. As such, no impact will occur due to the proposed project
implementation.
IS/MND
[12]
May 2014
4.3
AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
SETTING
The proposed project is located within Stanislaus County and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is the regional government agency charged with improving
the health and quality of life for all valley residents through efficient, effective and entrepreneurial air
quality-management strategies.
Climate, Topography, and Meteorology
Air pollution is directly related to a region’s topography, climate, and meteorology. These attributes for
the proposed project are described below.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is about 35 miles wide and 250 miles long, is
surrounded by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east, the Coast Ranges on the west, and the
Tehachapi Mountains to the south, leaving an opening only to the north. Airflow in the SJVAB is
primarily influenced by marine air that flows through the Carquinez Straits where the San JoaquinSacramento Delta empties into the San Francisco Bay.
Predominant winds are from the north during the summer and from the south during the winter with
average wind speeds of seven miles per hour. The climate of the central San Joaquin Valley varies
between wet, foggy conditions in winter and extreme heat in the summer. The average annual
precipitation is approximately 13 inches. Summer temperatures can range from the high 50’s to the low
IS/MND
[13]
May 2014
90’s, while winter temperatures can range from the high 30’s to the low 60’s (Weather Channel 2014).
Due to the topography, air movement through and out of the basin is restricted, resulting in pollutant
accumulation over time. Frequent transport of pollutants into the SJVAB from upwind sources also
contributes to poor air quality, primarily during the summer months.
Local Air Quality
The SJVAB includes all of Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties,
and the Valley portion of Kern County. Current ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants are
regulated by both national and state air quality standards, or the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (federal air quality standards) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (state air
quality standards). The monitored air quality data for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), as the relate to
the current state and federal air quality standards are outlined in Table 4.3.1.
The nearest air monitoring stations are the Modesto-14th Street and Turlock-S Minaret Street stations,
which are located about 12 miles north and 2 miles east, respectively, of the proposed project. The data
is taken from the three most recent years (2010-2012) of available data, and as illustrated in Table 4.3.2,
both stations have experienced frequent violations for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.
Attainment Status
Areas are classified as either "attainment", "nonattainment", "unclassified", or "maintenance areas" with
respect to state and federal air quality standards. These classifications are made by comparing actual
monitored air pollutant concentrations to the state and federal standards (Table 4.3.3). If a pollutant
concentration is lower that the state or federal standard, the area is classified as being in attainment of
the standard for that pollutant. If a pollutant violates the standard, the area is considered a
nonattainment area. If data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard,
the area is designated unclassified. Areas that were previously designated as nonattainment areas, but
have recently met the standard are called maintenance areas.
Currently, the SJVAB is designated as severe nonattainment for state ozone one-hour, serious
nonattainment for federal and nonattainment for state ozone eight-hour, nonattainment for state
particulate matter (PM10), and nonattainment for federal and state fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
standards. Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 violations within the SJVAB are primarily due to motor vehicles
and agricultural activities, combined with the area’s geography, weather, and temperatures. The
surrounding mountains, stagnant weather patterns, hot summers, and foggy winters create optimal
conditions for creating and trapping air pollution.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. SJVAPCD defines sensitive
receptors as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are
especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include convalescent
facilities, hospitals, schools, residential areas, and places of worship (SJVAPCD 2002). Only residences
are located near the proposed project location, the nearest residential units occur within 25 feet of poles
and insulators that will need to be retrofitted.
IS/MND
[14]
May 2014
Significance Criteria
The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for construction impacts, project operations
and cumulative impacts. For construction impacts the SJVAPCD has identified PM10 as the pollutant of
greatest concern, as the entire SJVAB is a nonattainment area for PM10 state standards and any addition
to the current PM10 problem could be considered significant. However, rather than require
quantification of construction-related emissions, the SJVAPCD has adopted a set of PM10 Fugitive Dust
Rules collectively called Regulation VIII. The SJVAPCD determines compliance with Regulation VIII
for all sites and implements other control measures as appropriate, depending on the size and location
of the project site that would reduce PM10 impacts to a level considered less-than-significant (SJVAPCD
2002).
The SJVAPCD recognizes that construction equipment also emits carbon monoxide and ozone
precursor emissions. However, the SJVAPCD has determined that these emissions may cause a
significant air quality impact only in the cases of very large or very intense construction projects.
The SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) also includes
significance criteria for evaluating operational-phase emissions from direct and indirect sources
associated with a project. Indirect sources include motor vehicle traffic associated with the proposed
project and do not include stationary sources covered under permit with the SJVAPCD. SJVAPCD has
defined a project will have a significant effect on air quality if operation-related emissions from projects
within the SJVAB exceed:
•
10 tons/year of reactive organic gas (ROG)
•
10 tons/year of Nitrogen Oxide (NOX)
•
15 tons/year of PM10
•
15 tons/year of PM2.5
DISCUSSION
The proposed project entails pole replacement along South West Walnut Road to accommodate the
additional 69kV line, the retrofitting of existing transmission infrastructure to accommodate the new
line south of Fairground Substation, and minor construction to the Fairground and Industrial
Substations. The proposed project will not generate new permanent roads or lanes, nor would the
proposed project cause the need to add additional roads or lanes as an indirect result. Therefore, it is
unlikely that the proposed project would affect vehicle miles traveled or traffic speeds in the project
area. Air quality impacts were therefore evaluated for construction and operation of the proposed
project. Construction would produce dust and emissions from diesel and gasoline-powered equipment.
Vehicle trips associated with the operation and maintenance of the transmission line would also
produce dust and emissions, but at a minimal level.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan
IS/MND
[15]
May 2014
A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in either the population or
employment growth that exceeds growth estimated included in the applicable air quality plan. Such
growth would generate emissions not accounted for in the applicable air quality plan emission budget.
Therefore, proposed projects need to be evaluated to determine whether they would generate
population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates
included in the relevant air plans.
The goal of the proposed project is to ensure the reliability of TID's electrical transmission system in the
event of a failure at the Walnut-Commons and Walnut-Fairground 69 kV lines. The proposed project
would not generate population growth or employment growth as a result of implementation.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan and is less than significant.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Short-term construction emissions are typically generated by clearing, grading, excavating, and using
heavy equipment or trucks. Emissions are also generated from commute vehicles for construction
workers, trucks hauling equipment and materials, and stationary construction equipment used on-site.
Construction-related emissions consist primarily of ROGs, NOX, and PM10. Emissions of ROGs and
NOX are generated primarily by the operation of gasoline- and diesel-powered motor vehicles.
Emissions of PM10 are generated primarily by wind erosion of exposed graded surfaces. Constructiongenerated emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the specific activities being conducted
and meteorological conditions.
Per the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI, the SJVAPCD’s approach to CEQA analyses of construction PM10
impacts is to require implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than to
require detailed quantification of emissions. From the perspective of the SJVAPCD, compliance with
Regulation VIII for all sites and implementation of other control measures, depending on the size and
location of the project, would constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impacts to a level
considered less than significant. Without proper mitigation of construction activities, the proposed
project could generate a significant fugitive dust impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 will be
implemented to reduce PM10 and comply with SJVAPCD's Regulation VIII.
 MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1: SJVAPCD'S REGULATION VIII CONTROL MEASURES
The following controls are required to be implemented at all construction sites (SJVAPCD 2002):
•
All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for
construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical
stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
•
All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of
dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
IS/MND
[16]
May 2014
•
All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and
demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing
application of water or by presoaking.
•
When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to
limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the
container shall be maintained.
•
All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from
adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly
prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust
emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
•
Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor
storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing
sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
•
Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet
from the site and at the end of each workday.
The SJVAPCD will recommend these enhanced and additional measures when project conditions
warrant; e.g. potential for impacting sensitive receptors, construction sites of significant size, or any
other conditions that may justify additional emission reductions.
•
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).
•
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways
from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
•
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph.
•
Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.
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)
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (described previously) the project would not
create a significant air quality impact of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment. As a result the proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative net increase of
criteria pollutants, and therefore the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
IS/MND
[17]
May 2014
The proposed project is anticipated to involve the operation of diesel powered equipment, near
residences during the course of construction. In 1998 the CARB identified PM10 and gases of diesel
exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant (CARB 1998), and as a source of a number of adverse short-term
and long-term health effects as the result of chronic prolonged/occupational exposure. Exposure time
of diesel exhaust to residences will also be limited as construction work requiring the operation of
diesel equipment will occur temporally and will be well under the chronic prolonged/occupational
exposure time threshold which CARB report expressed concern. To further ensure the safety and wellbeing of sensitive receptors in the area, the use of mitigation measures should be implemented to
control diesel exhaust as a precaution. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 outlines strategies for minimizing
construction impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of diesel exhaust. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
 MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-2: CONTROL CONSTRUCTION RELATED DIESEL EXHAUST EMISSIONS
TID or the contractor shall implement the following measures:
•
Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.
•
Develop a plan demonstrating the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in
construction (i.e. owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet
average of 20% NOX reduction and a 45% PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB
fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions included the use of late model engines,
low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and or/other options as they become
available.
•
Require that all diesel powered construction equipment be equipped with Best Available
Control Technology for emission reduction of NOX and PM.
•
Require all contractors to use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standards
for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
In general, the types of land uses that pose potential odor problems include refineries, chemical plants,
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, and transfer stations. No such uses are
proposed.
Diesel engines would be used for some construction equipment. Odors generated by construction
equipment would be variable, depending on the location and duration of use. Diesel odors may be
noticeable to some individuals at certain times, but would not affect a substantial number of people.
This is a less than significant impact.
IS/MND
[18]
May 2014
4.4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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 Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)?
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 CDFW or USFWS?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by §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 species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
SETTING
Pre-Field Research
The biological resources impact analysis is based on pre-field investigations, on-site biological surveys,
and sources of information listed as follows:
•
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Critical Habitat Database (USFWS 2014);
IS/MND
[19]
May 2014
•
California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (CDFW 2014);
•
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) record search (CNPS 2014); and,
•
Calflora's What Grows Here Database v. 2.18 (Calfora 2014)
The above information sources were used to develop lists of special-status species and to identify other
sensitive biological resources that could be present in the project region. Special-status species were
listed if they were found to occur within the vicinity of the proposed project (5-mile radius of the
project area), or if suitable habitat was known to be present in the area.
Field Surveys
A reconnaissance-level field survey was performed by biologist Nick Eide from Parus Consulting Inc.
on January 29, 2014. Weather conditions at the time of survey were partially cloudy skies. Temperature
at the time of survey was approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
All areas with the potential to be affected by proposed project construction were either surveyed by
foot or visually inspected with Binoculars (10x42) during the field visit. Sensitive environmental and
biological resources were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GeoXH 2008 GPS unit. All observed
fauna and flora were recorded, and identified to the lowest possible taxon. Survey efforts emphasized
special-status species and their associated habitat with documented occurrences within 5-miles of
proposed project. The locations of any special-status species or their respective habitats were
georeferenced with the GPS receiver.
The topography around the proposed project is generally flat, with a gentle slope to the southwest. The
elevation ranges from approximately 95 feet to 110 feet above mean sea level.
Natural Communities and Wildlife Habitats
The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley geographic subregion, which is
contained within the Great Central Valley geographic subdivision of the larger California Floristic
Province. This region has a Mediterranean-type climate, characterized by distinct seasons of hot, dry
summers and wet, moderately cold winters. The proposed project is in climate Zone 14, with marine
layers moderating high and low temperatures, but lacking the thermal belts that protect completely
from frosts (Hickman 1993).
The proposed project is located within the City of Turlock, and is primarily composed of an
developed/highly disturbed landscape. Developed locations consist of residential, commercial and
industrial lots which have been modified with non-native landscaping plants. Several vacant lots with
ruderal vegetation do exist along the proposed project alignment. These lots exist as the only natural
habitat, and are extremely modified or disturbed, with extensive evidence of grading, tilling, and/or
areas of hardscape (i.e. compacted gravel, asphalt, cement, etc.).
Developed
Developed areas are generally composed of ornamental vegetation and common weedy species of
grasses and forbs. Common ornamental species include redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens), oleander
IS/MND
[20]
May 2014
(Nerium oleander), sycamore trees (Platanus occidentalis), and lawns composed of such species as fescue
(Festuca sp.) and Kentucky blue grass (Poa pratensis). Common weedy species of vegetation associated
with such areas may also include species of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne).
Ruderal
Ruderal landscape consists of non-native grasses and weedy plant species that occur in areas where
agricultural and/or development activities have previously occurred. Ruderal landscapes generally
exhibit conditions that suggest a lack of maintenance or use of the existing land. Non-native grasses
and weeds are generally low-growing but can include some tall species (up to about 6 feet). Dominant
species found within this area include mediterranean barley (Hordeum murinum), common dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), and filaree (Erodium cicutarium).
Both the developed and ruderal areas provides habitat for common wildlife species. Common wildlife
species observed on, or in the vicinity of, the proposed project include raven (Corvus corax), crow (C.
brachyrhynchus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), , mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), common sparrow species
(Spezella sp., Zonotrichia sp.), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) and European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris).
Special-Status Species
Special-status species are those animal and plant species that, in the judgment of the resource agencies 1,
trustee agencies 2, and certain non-governmental organizations, warrant special consideration in the
CEQA process. This species include:
1
•
Officially designated threatened, endangered, or candidate species federally listed by the
USFWS and protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
•
Officially designated rare, threatened, endangered, or candidate species state listed by the
CDFW and protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CDFW also
maintains a list of “Fully Protected” species as well as “California Special Concern” species that
are also generally included as special status species under CEQA.
•
Species considered rare, threatened, or endangered under the conditions of Section 15380 of the
CEQA Guidelines, such as plant taxa identified on lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
•
Other species considered sensitive, such as nests of birds listed in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA), and plants included in Lists 3 and 4 in the CNPS Inventory. Species may also be
designated as special concern at the local level, due to limited data regarding distribution,
which precludes listing them as threatened or endangered at the state and federal level.
Public agencies that regulate public or private activities to avoid or minimize environmental damage.
A "trustee agency" is a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in
trust for the people of the State of California.
2
IS/MND
[21]
May 2014
Special-status species known to occur within five miles of the project area are presented in Figure 4.4.1.
Special-Status Plants
The special-status plant species considered for review were compiled from the query results from the
USFWS, CNDDB, CNPS, and Calflora database queries. Seven special-status plant species (Table 4.4.2)
were identified within the project vicinity through this search. All special-status species were listed by
CNPS as List 1B, plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere (CNPS
2014).
The CNDDB search did not return any previous sighting of special-status plants within 5-miles of the
project area. As shown in Figure 4.4.1 the CNDDB search did identify previous sighting of heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), and subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis), however both species are not
listed as special-status under state or federal law (CDFW 2014).
The suitability of the proposed project area for supporting the identified special-status species was
determined through the field survey conducted by Parus Consulting, Inc. on January 29, 2014; no
protocol-level surveys were conducted during the survey. No special-status plant species, or conditions
favoring these species, were observed along the proposed project alignment. Special-status species
were determined not to have the potential to occur within the proposed project vicinity, either because
the distribution of the species does not extend into the project footprint, or because the habitat and/or
micro-site conditions (e.g., vernal pools, wetlands) required by the species are not present, due to the
highly disturbed/developed habitat surrounding the proposed project location.
Special-Status Wildlife
Both the CNDDB and USFWS Critical Habitat database queries (Figure 4.4.1) were used to identify
potential special-status wildlife species that may occur within the vicinity of the proposed project. The
USFWS Critical Habitat database listed the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers as Critical Habitat for
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). However the rivers are over 5-miles away and were therefore
excluded from the proposed project 5-mile radius database query. The CNDDB query listed Swainson's
hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) as having occurred within 5-miles of the
proposed project area.
Swainson's hawk is currently listed as State Threatened. Typical habitat includes: grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural areas. Swainson's hawk
also requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or agricultural fields (i.e. alfalfa or
grain fields) that support prey populations; although the species has been documented to fly up to 10miles away from its nesting location to forage. The potential for Swainson's hawk to occur within the
proposed project area is high, as CNDDB lists two recently documented occurrences of Swainson's
hawk within 5-miles of the proposed project. Additionally, the field survey performed by Parus
Consulting, Inc. on January 29, 2014 found a large number of trees suitable for nesting and several
adjacent fields for the species to find prey.
Hoary bats are listed as a California Species of Concern. These bats roost in dense arboreal foliage,
preferably with an open area underneath to allow the bats to drop into flight, and will hunt for insects
over open areas or lakes. While the CNDDB does show a documented occurrence of hoary bats within
IS/MND
[22]
May 2014
5-miles of the project location, the data obtained from the CNDDB (CDFW 2014) indicates the
occurrence is from a specimen collected in April of 1925. Moreover, the field survey found no
adequately forested areas for the bats to roost within proposed project area. Therefore, there is no
potential for the species to occur within the proposed project area.
The field survey found both suitable nesting and foraging habitat for both passerine (songbirds) and
raptors (birds of prey) covered under the MBTA. As a result both avian types have a high potential be
present within the proposed project area.
DISCUSSION
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 Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
Special-Status Plant Species
As mentioned above no special-status plant species have been identified within 5-miles of the proposed
project. The biological survey supported this fact as the proposed project area consists of
developed/highly disturbed landscape, and therefore affords a very small chance of harboring a special
status-plant species. As such, the proposed project is not expected to adversely impact any specialstatus plant species.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Swainson's hawk and birds protected under the MBTA were found to have the potential to occur
within the proposed project area. Mitigation Measures Bio-1 and Bio-2 have been proposed to avoid
or reduce potential impacts to these species, and reduce the level of impact to less than significant.
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: NESTING BIRD SURVEYS
TID shall ensure that either (1) the proposed construction activities be conducted outside of the nestingbird season, which extends from February 1 to September 1; or (2) a qualified biologist conduct a
nesting bird survey to identify any potential nesting activity within five days of proposed construction
activities if activities are to occur in the nesting season. Should construction activities occur during the
nesting season for Swainson’s hawk (March 1 through October 31), a field survey shall be conducted by
a qualified biologist within a 250-foot buffer for all proposed project components. The survey shall
follow the guidance of the Recommended Timing and Methodology For Swainson’s Hawk Nesting
Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFW 2000). If an active nest is identified, a 0.5-mile buffer
shall be established around the nesting location. Construction activities may commence within the
buffer area at the discretion of, and in the presence of, a qualified biological monitor, along with
consultation and coordination the CDFW.
If passerine birds are found to be nesting, or there is evidence of nesting behavior within 250 feet of the
impact area, a 250-foot buffer shall be required around the nests. For raptor species, this buffer should
IS/MND
[23]
May 2014
be 500 feet. A qualified biologist shall monitor the nests, and construction activities may commence
within the buffer area at the discretion and presence of the biological monitor.
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: IMPLEMENTATION OF TID'S AVIAN PROTECTION PLAN
TID’s Engineering and Operations Administration is proactively working towards elimination of
powerline risks to birds through implementation of its Avian Protection Plan (TID 2004). This plan
involves mapping the TID service area in order to identify high bird use areas and identify focus areas
for field surveys; performing field surveys to document high-risk structures, relative bird use,
preferred perches, and historic bird mortality; habitat classification relative to bird use and movement;
a relative risk ranking system of poles surveyed; and retrofitting measures prioritized by the risk
ranking system to either discourage bird use or to mitigate electrocution hazards.
This Avian Protection Plan includes BMPs for new construction to discourage bird use and to minimize
electrocution hazards, including the following: install covers for bushings and jumpers; retire the use of
gap arresters; provide at least 60 inches of separation between phase-to-phase in eagle habitat; gap or
eliminate pole-top grounds; crossarm braces made of non-conducting wood; deadends with insulating
links at center phase; and insulation of primary jumpers with less than adequate separation. With
implementation of this Avian Protection Plan and the use of BMPs for new construction, the risk of bird
mortalities from collision and electrocution will be reduced to a less than significant level.
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 CDFW or USFWS?
No Impact
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists within the proposed project area, and
therefore no impact will occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by §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?
No Impact
The proposed project construction would not occur within, nor impact, any water feature. Since the
lines would span all TID canals crossed, there would be no cumulative or incremental impacts on the
biology of these features. No wetlands, potential wetlands, or other water features are within the
proposed project area, and therefore no placement of fill in potential wetlands or other water features,
and in-channel construction would occur. Consequently, the proposed project would likely result in no
impact to potentially-jurisdictional wetlands or other water features.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
IS/MND
[24]
May 2014
Wildlife movement corridors link areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by
rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by
urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat, separating different populations of a single
species. Corridors effectively act as links between these populations. The proposed project is in an
urban developed environment and is surrounded by canals, major roadways, and developments that
impede wildlife movement. As such, the project area does not function uniquely or effectively as a
wildlife movement corridor.
Birds may perish from contact with transmission lines and other power equipment. Raptors and other
large aerial-perching birds are most susceptible to electrocution because of their size and behavior.
Because raptors and other large aerial-perching birds often perch on tall structures that offer optimal
views of potential prey, the design characteristics of transmission poles appear to be a major factor in
raptor electrocutions. Electrocution occurs when a bird simultaneously contacts two energized phase
conductors or an energized conductor and grounded hardware. This happens most frequently when a
bird attempts to perch on a transmission distribution pole with insufficient clearance between these
elements. Bird mortality may also occur by collision with transmission lines. Thus, power equipment
and facilities represent a potentially significant adverse impact upon birds, especially raptors.
Therefore the implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-2 as described above will be utilized to
reduce impact to avian species to a less than significant level.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Turlock has two tree ordinance policies that apply to the proposed project, and would
present a significant impact as a result of the project without the implementation of Mitigation
Measure Bio-3. The City of Turlock municipal code §10-2-03 in summary states that it is unlawful to
modify (i.e. trim, cut, mutilate, or injure any tree, or the roots or branches thereof), impair, and/or
injure the vitality of trees located in public places without first obtaining a permit from the City of
Turlock's Recreation Director. Municipal Code §10-2-04 states that permission from the City of
Turlock's Recreation Director must first be obtained and is required by law, for any utility pole that is
to be placed within 10 feet of the trunk of any tree located upon any street within the City (City of
Turlock 2014a).
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: COMPREHENSIVE TREE INVENTORY/SURVEY
During the planning of project construction if it is found that trees will be impacted as defined under
municipal codes §10-2-03 and §10-2-04, a comprehensive inventory/survey of all trees that will be
impacted by the proposed project shall be conducted by a certified arborist prior to the start of
construction. The information gathered will include tree species, location, size, tree health, distance to
the proposed utility pole, proposed impact to the tree as a result of project construction, and any other
pertinent information. A technical memo detailing the results shall be written and supplied to TID to
support the acquisition of necessary permits and permissions from the City of Turlock's Recreation
Director as described under §10-2-03 and §10-2-04. Only after the necessary permit and permission is
IS/MND
[25]
May 2014
granted by Turlock's Recreation Director may work begin in and around those trees' identified as being
impacted.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact
There are no applicable HCPs or NCCPs in the proposed project area. Therefore, there would be no
impact from the proposed project to the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local,
regional or state HCP.
IS/MND
[26]
May 2014
4.5
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 an 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?
SETTING
History
The Project area 3 is situated on nearly flat developed lands within an area of the central San Joaquin
Valley that was occupied by various prehistoric cultures dating to at 8,000 years ago. Due to episodes
of alluvial deposition and the development of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, cultural deposits
from this early period are rare in the valley. The number of known sites increases within the past 2,000
years, particularly along the western and southern edges of the Delta in San Joaquin and Merced
counties.
The proposed project is within the central territory historically occupied by the Northern Valley
Yokuts, an indigenous Penutian-speaking central California group whose traditional lands extended
north–south between the Mokelumne and upper San Joaquin Rivers (south of Madera) and east–west
between the Diablo Range and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Ethnographic Northern Valley Yokuts
established villages on low, natural rises along major watercourses. Like the majority of Native
Californians, they relied on acorns as a staple food, collected in the fall and then stored before
processing with bedrock or portable mortars and pestles. Northern Valley Yokuts also relied on fish,
with salmon a dietary mainstay in the spring and fall. They employed a variety of tools, implements,
and enclosures, including rafts made from a giant species of sedge known as tule, to fish, hunt land
mammals, and capture waterfowl and other birds.
3
The project area, or area of potential effect, is the area within which the direct and indirect impacts of project construction may have an effect
on cultural resources
IS/MND
[27]
May 2014
Early historic land use in the Project area focused on agriculture and rail transport. Beginning in 1895,
the San Francisco & San Joaquin Valley Railroad carried passengers and freight between Stockton and
Bakersfield. Purchased by the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad in 1898, which merged with the
Burlington Northern Railroad in 1995, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) continues to carry
freight over the original line. With the introduction of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union
Pacific) into the region in 1871, a stopping point became the town of Turlock, and the town of Ceres
was established about nine miles northwest. Wheat was the major crop transported, with hundreds of
thousands of acres planted between Stockton and Merced.
Turlock was founded on December 22, 1871 by John William Mitchell. He was a prominent grain
farmer who owned 100,000 acres of land from Keyes to Atwater, which encompassing what is now
the City of Turlock (Turlock Historical Society 2014). It appears Turlock was to be named 'Sierra,'
but because of the potential for confusion of the city with the Sierra Nevada Mountains or Sierra
County the original name of the city was abandoned.
TID provides irrigation water to more than 5,800 growers in a 307 square-mile service area that
includes 149,500 acres of Central Valley farmland. TID’s current electric service area encompasses 662
square-miles in portions of Stanislaus, Merced, Tuolumne, and Mariposa counties. TID was established
in 1887, and was the first publicly owned irrigation district in the state. Today, it is one of only four
irrigation districts in California that in addition to providing water for irrigation also provides electric
retail energy directly to homes, farms and businesses. TID was organized under the Wright Act and
operates under the provisions of the California Water Code as a special district.
Cultural Resources within the Project Area
Pedestrian Survey
A pedestrian surface survey in January of 2014 and consultation with TID determined that components
of the existing 69kV electrical transmission infrastructure and the Industrial and Fairground
substations may be more than 50 years old; however, none of these facilities are unique in terms of
design or construction. As a result the transmission line and existing substations were not recorded for
the proposed project. The survey also identified the existing private residences, a cemetery (i.e.,
Turlock Memorial Park), an irrigation canal (TID Lateral Number 4), and commercial/industrial
properties (e.g., warehouses and wastewater treatment facilities), located within the Project area. These
structures were determined not significant cultural resources, and in addition will not be impacted as a
result of project implementation. Therefore, the residences, cemetery, canal, and businesses were not
recorded for the proposed project.
Record Search Results
The records search identified five previous surveys that covered parts of the proposed project; and four
additional previous surveys within 0.25 miles of the Project area. The record search returned four sites
P-50-002049 and P-50-002050 that are residences, P-50-002048 a warehouse, and P-50-000083 that is an
unrecorded segment of the Tidewater Southern Railroad. In addition, California Historic Landmark
No. 934, a temporary World War II detention camp for Japanese-Americans is located approximately
0.25 mile northeast of the Project area. Sites P-50-002049, P-50-002050, and P-50-002048 were
IS/MND
[28]
May 2014
determined ineligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).
California Historic Landmark No. 934 is located well beyond the Project area. The unrecorded segment
of the Tidewater Southern Railroad is spanned by the existing transmission line that will be upgraded.
Native American Consultation
Parus cultural resources staff requested a sacred lands search and a list of Native American contacts
from the Native American Heritage Commission. The sacred lands search was received on January,
2014 and did not identify any sensitive Native American cultural resources either within or near the
Project study area. Parus contacted all groups and/or individuals on the list provided by the NAHC
regarding the proposed project. Parus, to date, has not received any comments regarding the proposed
project from any interested parties.
DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
No historical archaeological resources were identified during archival research conducted or during the
pedestrian survey conducted in January, 2014. The construction and the retrofitting of the 69kV
transmission line will result in a little to no change to the visual setting (as described in Section 4.1
previously) of the proposed project area. As a result, no potential built environment resources are
anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project. Vegetation removal, soil excavation and grading,
however, has potential to result in the identification of previously unknown or unrecorded
archaeological or historical resources. Potential impacts to these resources will be less-than-significant
with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
 MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: INADVERTENT DISCOVERY OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Applicant shall require that, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all
such finds shall be subject to PRC 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. Procedures for inadvertent
discovery include the following:
•
If cultural resources, such as structure features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, or
architectural remains are encountered during construction grading, trenching, augering, and/or
excavation for the transmission lines, work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted and a
qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately to evaluate the resource(s) encountered
and recommend the development of mitigation measures for potentially significant resources
consistent with PRC Section 21083.2(i).
•
When Native American archaeological, ethnographic, or spiritual resources are discovered, all
identification and treatment shall be conducted by qualified archaeologists who meet the
federal standards as stated in the CFR (36 CFR 61), and Native American representatives who
are approved by the local Native American community as keepers of their cultural traditions. In
IS/MND
[29]
May 2014
the event that no such Native American is available, persons who represent tribal governments
and/or organizations in the locale in which resources could be affected shall be consulted.
•
If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as appropriate,
then representatives of TID shall meet with the archaeologist, or paleontologist, to determine
the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the Applicant shall provide a Treatment Plan,
prepared by an archeologist (or paleontologist), outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and
reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to TID for review and approval
prior to resuming construction.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No archaeological resources were identified as a result of the cultural resources assessment. However,
previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources have potential to occur or be affected
during ground disturbance. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will reduce this impact to less than significant
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Although unlikely, considering the Project area is underlain by alluvial, riverine, and basin deposits,
the discovery of paleontological resources or sites is a possibility. Paleontological resources might
include the fossilized remains of extinct plants and animals, including bones, teeth, petrified wood, and
plant casts. Encountering these materials during Project construction would result in a potentially
significant impact. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 will reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
 MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-2: DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
If paleontological resources are discovered during construction grading, trenching, augering, and/or
excavation for the transmission lines and substation, TID would halt all activities within 25 feet of the
find until a qualified professional paleontologist could perform an evaluation. The paleontologist will
examine the findings, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to either
further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts on the resources encountered.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The discovery of human remains while unlikely is always a possibility. State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 covers these findings. This code section states that no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to
PRC Section 5097.98. Encountering remains during project construction would result in a potentially
IS/MND
[30]
May 2014
significant impact. To reduce the level to less than significant Mitigation Measure CUL-3 shall be
implemented.
 MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-3: DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
If human remains are encountered during Project construction grading, trenching, augering, and/or
excavation for the transmission lines and proposed substation, the County Coroner shall be notified of
the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will
notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD
would complete the inspection of the site within 24 hours of notification, and may recommend
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials.
IS/MND
[31]
May 2014
4.6
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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
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?
iii.
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv.
Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 181-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
SETTING
The proposed project would traverse relatively flat, alluvial deposits associated with the San Joaquin
Valley. The valley is flanked on the east and west by the Sierra Nevada foothills and the Coastal Range,
respectively. Alluvial deposits, consisting of unconsolidated and semi-consolidated lake, terrace, and
playa deposits from the Pleistocene epoch, have eroded from the surrounding seismically active
IS/MND
[32]
May 2014
regions and form the central plain of the valley. Elevations within the proposed project area are about
100 feet above mean sea level.
Topography
The San Joaquin Valley, overall, has a slight slope that causes drainage to the north, into the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The topography of the Stanislaus County region is generally flat, with a
gentle slope towards the Merced River south of the proposed project.
Soils
Soils in the vicinity of the proposed project area are primarily Pliocene to Holocene alluvium terrace.
The proposed project alignment would pass over two types of sandy loam and one type of loamy sand.
These soils are described in Table 4.6.1, and illustrated in Figure 4.6.1. Loamy sands are loose and
single-grained, with silt and clay contents that are slightly cohesive when moist. Sandy loams are
composed of less sand and a greater amount of silt and clay than loamy sands, and are more cohesive.
In general, these soils possess only a slight erosion potential when exposed.
Geologic Hazards
The California Geological Society has mapped the potential relative intensity of ground shaking as a
result of anticipated future earthquakes. The shaking potential is calculated as the level of ground
motion that has a two percent chance of being exceeded in 50 years, and is largely determined by
surface geology. According to this map, the region that encompasses the proposed project is “distant
from known, active faults and will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently” (Parish 2008).
Seismic ground shaking associated with major earthquakes can cause the collapse of, or structural
damage to, man-made structures.
There are several known faults within and near Stanislaus County. In the western portion of the
county, in the Diablo Range, the most recent fault movements have been along the Ortigalita Fault,
which the State of California Division of Mines and Geology has designated as an Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zone. The 1,000-foot wide zone along the Ortigalita Fault extends into Stanislaus
County approximately seven miles and is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the proposed
project. Approximately 25 miles northeast of the proposed project, in the eastern portion of the county,
the Bear Mountain and Melones Faults are believed to have been inactive for the past 150 million years.
Soil liquefaction occurs either as a result of an increase in pore-water pressures due to an earthquake or
a human induced event, or in low lying areas that are comprised of unconsolidated, saturated, clay-free
sands and silts. The phenomenon of liquefaction causes granular materials to behave in a liquid state.
The liquefaction potential of soil is dependent upon the level and duration of seismic ground motions,
the type and consistency of the soils, and the depth of groundwater. Soil conditions conducive to
liquefaction are those with loose-packed grain structures capable of progressive rearrangement during
repeated cycles of seismic loading.
Extreme ground shaking can cause saturated sediments to liquefy and lose supporting capacity as
water from voids within the sediment is forced towards the ground surface. Although no specific
liquefaction hazards have been identified in Stanislaus County, the potential exists in areas where
unconsolidated sediments are very wet and where a high water table underlies these sediments. ManTurlock Irrigation District
IS/MND
[33]
May 2014
made levees along canals in Stanislaus County are susceptible to liquefaction due to the use of artificial
fill and the presence of nearby water.
Landslides
Review of data available from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA 2014) indicates that
the soils present in the area potentially affected by the proposed project are characterized by very
shallow slopes and generally high clay content. The area has a low potential of landslide, liquefaction,
and lateral spreading. The proposed project would not alter the overall topography of the area, nor
place a heavy load on unstable soils.
DISCUSSION
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i.
ii.
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv.
Landslides?
The proposed project is located in a flat location, with low potential for seismic ground shaking and/or
liquefaction. The proposed project will involve the construction and installation of electrical
infrastructure including: utility lines, power poles, and other structures which are potentially subject to
damage from earthquakes. These hazards are unavoidable, but would be rendered less than significant,
as all structures would be constructed in accordance with applicable the California Building Code,
California Health and Safety Code 19100 et seq., General Order (GO 95), and IEEE standards and
regulations.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The potential for erosion is directly related to the amount of ground disturbance, soil type, vegetation
removal, steepness of slope, and amount of surface water runoff.
Soil Disturbance
Excavation of soil will be performed during construction for the placement of poles to support the new
69kV line. For each tangent pole location, a 36 inch diameter hole would be augured up to 10 feet deep;
the resultant soil spoils of approximately 2.62 cubic yards per pole. For each dead-end pole location, a 6
foot diameter hole would be augured up to 25 feet deep for foundations; equating to approximately
26.18 cubic yards per dead-end pole. The proposed project estimates approximately 30 tangent poles
IS/MND
[34]
May 2014
(one pole every 250 feet over a length of 8,000 feet) would be placed, and 5-6 foundation structures to
support the dead-end structures would be installed. Therefore the soil excavated for the proposed
project would result in a total of approximately 235 cubic yards of excavated soil being produced for
the installation of the poles to support the additional 69kV line.
Substation related construction will only involve ground disturbing activities within the Industrial
Substation. Those activities include: demolition and removal of portions of the existing concrete slab
estimated to total 19 cubic yards; excavation of 10 new cylindrical caisson-type foundations
approximately totaling 9 cubic yards; and excavation of 6 new rectangular pad-type foundations
approximately 12 cubic yards in total volume. Thus, the total estimated excavated materials for
substation related construction is estimated at 30 cubic yards.
In total, the proposed project is anticipated to cumulatively produce approximately 265 cubic yards of
excavated material. TID plans to spread excavated soil around the excavated pole locations. In areas
where the spreading of the resultant soil spoils is not possible or infeasible it would be given to the
landowner, other interested parties (such as TID for nearby canal repairs), or stockpiled at a TID yard
for future use.
Erosion
Construction will occur on relatively level ground and consequently, erosion is most likely to occur via
wind action during the excavation and hauling of soil. The potential for water driven erosion and the
opportunity for off-site discharge of sediment during moderate to heavy rain events is also possible as
the urban environment surrounding the proposed project area has an abundance of impervious/semiimpervious surfaces (i.e. concrete, asphalt, compacted soil, etc.). The proposed project would not result
in a substantial net increase in impervious surfaces over the length of the transmission line and would
be limited to the footings associated with the transmission line poles. Therefore, the proposed project
activities could lead to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil as a result and as such a significant impact
without the implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1.
 MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)
IMPLEMENTATION
To ensure proposed project activities do not directly or indirectly discharge sediments into surface
waters, TID shall develop a SWPPP. The SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
would be used to protect stormwater runoff and minimize erosion during construction. TID shall
prepare plans to control erosion and sediment, preliminary and final grading plans, and plans to
control urban runoff from the Project site during construction. The SWPPP’s BMPs shall include, but
shall not be limited to, the following components:
•
Sediment control measures, including silt fencing, fiber rolls, water dust suppression, and street
sweeping and vacuuming, shall be put into place to prevent off-site discharge of sediment
generated by erosion of disturbed areas during construction.
•
Concrete waste management shall include designing a wash area for concrete mixers intended
to eliminate the discharge of concrete or rinse slurries into stormwater or watercourses.
IS/MND
[35]
May 2014
•
The adequacy of BMP execution shall be evaluated by the contractor during site inspections,
which shall be conducted prior to a forecasted storm, after a rain event that causes runoff from
the construction site, at 24-hour periods during extended rain events, weekly during the rainy
season, and every two weeks during the non-rainy season. These reports shall be documented
on a standard inspection checklist developed by the contractor to be kept on file at the project
site.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Review of data available from the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service indicates that the
soils present in the area potentially affected by the proposed project are characterized by very shallow
slopes and generally high clay content (USDA 2014). The area has a low potential of landslide,
liquefaction, and lateral spreading. The proposed project would not alter the overall topography of the
area, nor place a heavy load on unstable soils.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Expansive soils in this area are found in the upper five feet of soil. Foundations, are typically affected
by expansive soils, and are not proposed as part of construction of the poles. As a result any potential
expansion and contraction would not exert enough pressures on the poles to cause structural damage
or failure, and would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The proposed project will not involve use installation a septic tank(s) or alternative waste water
disposal system. Therefore no impact will occur.
IS/MND
[36]
May 2014
4.7
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
B) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
SETTING
Scientists have concluded that climate change (“global warming”) is a regional as well as global
concern that is very likely caused primarily by human activity. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel combustion and vegetation removal, are increasing
atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and are believed to be the primary cause of contemporary global
warming. GHGs from human activities are shown to trap more of the sun’s heat in the earth’s
atmosphere, resulting in warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) also contribute to global
warming.
Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a goal to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by
2010; (2) 1990 levels by 2020; and (3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was further
reinforced with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 [AB 32]). AB 32 sets the
same overall GHG emissions reduction goals, while further mandating that CARB create a plan
(including market mechanisms), and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective
reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 directs state agencies to begin implementing
AB 32.
Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG
reduction limits (CARB 2008). To meet these goals, California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30
percent below projected 2020 business-as-usual emissions or about 15 percent from today’s levels. The
Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from
the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high global warming potential sections. CARB has
identified an implementation timeline for the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan. Some
measures may require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already
been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify.
Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) provides greater certainty to lead agencies that GHG emissions and the effects of
GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Pursuant to SB 97, the state’s Natural
Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to address analysis and
mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents and processes.
IS/MND
[37]
May 2014
DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
The proposed project will generate GHGs emissions during construction of the proposed project.
Specifically, GHGs will be generated by on- and off-road construction vehicles and equipment, and by
worker commute trips to the site over 9 months. Currently SJVAPCD has only established significance
criteria for GHG emissions for stationary source projects and development (residential, commercial,
and industrial) projects (SJAPCD 2009b; CCAP PDF). In addition, at this time, no statewide
government has adopted anything beyond a case-by-case quantitative significance criterion for
evaluating a Project’s contribution to climate change. As a result because the proposed project will only
produce GHGs temporally during project construction, and will not increase operational GHG
emissions, it is anticipated the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
The California Office of Public Resources (OPR) has amended Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines to address impacts of GHG emissions. Although the amendments provide criteria to
evaluate a Project’s GHG emissions, they do not establish quantitative significance thresholds.
According to the revised Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to global climate
change is considered significant if the proposed project will: generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
As mentioned previously the SJVAPCD does not have construction-related thresholds for GHG
emissions. Furthermore, as is described in response to question a), the proposed project will not
increase operational GHG emissions.
The proposed project is consistent with SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan (SJVAPCD 2009a).
Therefore, the proposed project will be consistent with applicable local plans, policies, and regulations
and will not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other State or
regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, this impact is less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
IS/MND
[38]
May 2014
4.8
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 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 §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 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 with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
IS/MND
[39]
May 2014
SETTING
A hazardous material is a substance with physical or chemical properties that could pose a current or
future risk to human health or ecological receptors when improperly handled, disposed of, or
otherwise released into the environment. Hazardous materials are grouped into the following four
categories based on their properties: toxic (causes adverse effects to human or wildlife health); ignitable
(has the ability to burn); corrosive (causes severe skin burns or material degradation); and reactive
(causes explosions or can generate toxic gases). A hazardous waste is any hazardous material that is
discarded, abandoned, or will be recycled or disposed in accordance with regulatory guidance. With
improper handling or by unforeseen accidents, hazardous materials and wastes may be released into
the environment, resulting in health hazards to workers, the public, or the environment. The releases
may occur directly to soil (which may then percolate to groundwater) or into the air in the form of
vapors, fumes or fugitive dust.
Electrical and Magnetic Fields
Homeowners in neighborhoods adjacent to overhead power lines frequently express concerns
regarding the potential for health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs).
Available medical and scientific research has not demonstrated that EMF creates a health risk.
However, research has not dismissed the possibility of such a risk.
Natural and human created EMFs occur everywhere. Electric fields are created between two objects
that have a different voltage potential. Magnetic fields are created only when there is current flowing
through a conductor or device. For example, when a lamp is plugged into a wall, an electric field is
created around the cord to the lamp. A magnetic field is present when the lamp is turned on and
current flows through the light bulb.
Typically, the main sources for electric and magnetic fields associated with a substation are the power
lines that enter and exit TID's Industrial and Fairground Substations. Power frequency (60 hertz (Hz)
[cycles per second]) EMF are invisible fields of force created by electric voltage (electric fields) and by
electric current (magnetic fields). These fields are associated with power lines, electric appliances, and
the wiring in buildings of homes, schools, and work structures. Voltage on wire produces an electric
field in the area surrounding the wire. Magnetic fields are produced from the flow of electricity
(current) in a conductor (circuit) and can be calculated and measured.
Widespread misunderstanding exists regarding EMF levels from different types of facilities and the
rate at which these levels decline with distance from the source. There are four basic factors that affect
the strength of EMF: distance, conductor spacing, load, and phase configuration. An alternating current
power line typically consists of three energized phase wires. The nature of three-phase alternating
power systems results in a partial cancellation effect of the magnetic fields if the conductors are
adjacent to each other.
Magnetic fields are very difficult to shield; placing the line underground does not shield the magnetic
field. Overhead electric power lines also produce electric fields; however, a structure of a house will
shield most of the electric field from outside sources. Other objects, such as trees, shrubs, walls, and
fences, also provide electric field shielding.
IS/MND
[40]
May 2014
DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. During construction activities,
the use of equipment and vehicles containing petroleum products will occur on the site. However,
refueling will occur offsite at a TID maintenance facility or a commercial fueling facility. Therefore
these operations would not increase the risk of a release within the construction area.
As proposed, all new transformers would contain mineral oil that is free from PCBs. PCBs are a class of
chemicals that are both toxic and carcinogenic and may cause human and ecological hazards when
released into the environment. PCBs are regulated at the federal level under the Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1977. The USEPA has banned the manufacture of PCBs for use in new electrical products
(such as transformers) and prohibited the installation of any equipment containing PCBs after 1985.
Prior to that time, most electrical transformers were filled with PCB-containing oil. Since that time,
various utilities have instituted programs to renovate or replace equipment with a mineral oil that does
not contain PCBs. The transformers associated with the existing 69-kV poles proposed for removal may
contain PCBs. Releases of hazardous materials associated with construction of the substation site and
transmission line routes would result in a potentially significant impact, unless Mitigation Measure
Haz-1 is implemented
The medical and scientific communities generally agree that the available research evidence has not
demonstrated that EMF creates a health risk. However, they also agree that the evidence has not
dismissed the possibility of such a risk. Finally, they agree that while this is an important issue that
needs resolution, it is uncertain when such a resolution will occur. The present scientific uncertainty
means that public health officials cannot establish any standard or level of exposure that is known to be
either safe or harmful. No CEQA standards or health-based standards exist that indicate that EMF
emissions are a potentially significant impact. Therefore, potential impacts relating to EMFs are
considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required.
 MITIGATION MEASURE HAZ-1: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRAINING AND SPILL PREVENTION PLAN
Prior to initiating construction, the construction contractor shall be trained regarding the identification
and handling of hazardous materials (including PCB-containing transformers) and spill containment
and agency notification procedures. Should any known or suspected release of PCB-containing oil
occur during proposed project construction or operation, the spills would be immediately addressed
and the affected soils would be containerized and tested to determine the appropriate disposal options.
TID shall notify agencies and perform the required remediation if there is a release of reportable (or
otherwise significant) quantities of hazardous materials. In the event of a fuel spill, the Stanislaus
County Department of Environmental Resources would be notified and clean-up would be
accomplished under the guidance of regulatory oversight, as required.
IS/MND
[41]
May 2014
The construction contractor shall prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan that describes the methods for working with hazardous materials during construction. The SPCC
Plan shall describe methods for avoiding spills as well as the required response if a spill occurs.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
During construction, minor spills of fuel or oils/lubricants from ruptured fuel and/or hydraulic lines on
the construction equipment may occur. However, the risk hazardous material spill is low due to the
small size of the proposed project and the short construction period. With the application of Mitigation
Measure Haz-1 the potential of accidental spills or releases causing a significant hazard is less than
significant.
The proposed transmission line would involve some risk of electrocution and other hazards associated
with high voltage electrical facilities. These risks of electrical hazards from transmission lines are wellknown and are effectively reduced to insignificance by following the standard utility design and
operational practices contained in GO 95. This construction order, which is periodically reviewed and
updated, provides safety rules that have been followed by California utilities for more than 50 years.
Despite design precautions, severe storms and accidents can result in downed power lines that are
potentially hazardous. In nearly all cases, protective devices would de-energize any faulted lines. TID
local maintenance crews are able to arrive to the proposed project area within minutes of notification.
No significant electrical hazards would occur from the installation of the proposed lines.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Osborn Elementary School is located at 201 North Soderquist Rd. in the City of Turlock, and is onequarter mile east of the proposed project location. While there is potential for the proposed project to
handle mineral oil that contains PCBs as a result of retrofitting transformers on select poles, the
implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 will ensure the potential for release is less than
significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
No Impact
The proposed project is not on a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. As a
result the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and therefore
no impact will occur.
IS/MND
[42]
May 2014
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?
No Impact
The nearest publicly owned airport is the Turlock Municipal Airport, which is located at the
intersection of East Avenue and Newport Road (City of Turlock GP), approximately 9-miles east from
the proposed project. As a result the proposed project would not result in a safety or hazard for people
residing or working in the project area. Therefore, due to the distance from the airport to the proposed
project no impact is anticipated to occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
The Turlock Airpark is located approximately 1.25-miles southeast of the proposed project, within the
Turlock City limits just south of Highway 99. The City of Turlock's general plan list the Turlock
Airpark as private airstrip owned by Turlock Airpark Inc. The General Plan also states that air traffic in
and out of the airpark is light and that 60% of the traffic is from local aviators and the remaining 40% is
itinerant, presumably from crop dusting operations, etc.
The proposed project is located near structures similar in height (i.e. electrical transmission lines,
electrical substations, industrial facilities.), and is located within an urban area within the City of
Turlock's City limits. Pilots are trained to avoid flying low in urban areas due to the inherent risks
involved. Therefore, the risk of an airplane striking an electrical line or pole from the proposed project,
and creating a hazard for people residing and/or working within the proposed project area poses little
to no risk. As such, the impact would be less than significant.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact
The proposed project is not in an area that will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with,
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there are no impacts
related to emergency response or evacuation plans, and no mitigation would be required.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
No Impact
The proposed project is in a developed, urbanized area, and not in an area with wildland fuels. The
proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires. Therefore, there are no impacts relative to wildland fires, and no mitigation
would be required.
IS/MND
[43]
May 2014
4.9
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
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 (e.g., 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 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 offsite?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IS/MND
[44]
May 2014
SETTING
Regional Hydrology
The region is an alluvial plain that dips gently to the west from the Sierra Nevada mountains toward
the San Joaquin River channel. Surface water flow is generally to the northwest (Stanislaus County
2012). The main sources of water are the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and San Joaquin River watersheds, all of
which originate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Tuolumne River, located approximately10-miles
north of the proposed project area, originates in Yosemite National Park and flows east to west;
eventually draining into the San Joaquin River, which flows north to the San Francisco Bay and the
Pacific Ocean.
TID provides irrigation water to the project area. TID’s canal system begins at La Grange Dam on the
Tuolumne River, where water is diverted into TID’s Upper Main Canal for conveyance to Turlock
Lake. Turlock Lake acts as a canal-regulating reservoir. From Turlock Lake, water is released into the
Main Canal for distribution to downstream growers. TID owns and operates approximately 230 miles
of canals and laterals, most of which have been concrete-lined. Water that is not utilized for irrigation
purposes flows to the river system (TGBA 2008). Groundwater is often used to supplement irrigation
supplies, and is the major source of domestic and industrial water in the vicinity (Stanislaus County
2012).
Project Hydrology
The elevation of the proposed project area ranges from a high of 107 feet in the northern section of the
project area to a low of 95 feet in the southern section, indicating that drainage via gravity flow along
the proposed project route is generally north to south.
The majority of the proposed project is located along paved streets with drop inlets leading to a sewer
system, which collects stormwater runoff and then drains to the Turlock Regional Water Quality
Control Facility. The unpaved portion of the proposed alignment between West Main Street and West
Canal Road lacks a stormwater system, and therefore the surface water leaves the site primarily
through the processes of evaporation, evapotranspiration, and infiltration.
Project Water Features
The only water feature located in the proposed project area is TID Lateral No. 4. The proposed project
alignment will cross TID Lateral No. 4, just prior to the 69kV line entering the Fairground substation
(Figure 4.9.1). TID Lateral No. 4, is an agricultural canal that is about 15 feet wide, cement lined, and
regularly cleared of vegetation and sediment.
The portion of the canal within the proposed project area was surveyed on January 29, 2014, while
conducting a reconnaissance level biological survey of the proposed project. The survey returned no
findings of leaks that could support adjacent wetlands. According to the USGS hydrography dataset,
these canals are reduced to intermittent (impermanent) flows by the time they terminate in canal drains
that flow to the San Joaquin River; note as shown on Figure 4.9.1, that these canals are symbolized on
7.5 degree minute quadrangles by dashed blue lines, indicating that they are not permanent flowing
channels. It also must be noted that irrigation district water resources such as these canals would fail in
their primary objective of wise use of the water resource if canals continuously transported water back
IS/MND
[45]
May 2014
to traditional navigable waters. Thus, it is debatable as to whether or not these canals are subject to the
Clean Water Act, as currently interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rapanos and Carabell Decision
(USACE and USEPA 2008). These canals apparently fail the hydrology criterion (Scalia Test): nonnavigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent waters. These canals
may also fail the significant nexus (Kennedy) test, as water quality in these canals appears to be
excellent. The water consists of diversions of the Tuolumne River that are not conjoined with any
industrial discharges or construction stormwater runoff; thus, discharges from these canals is unlikely
to impair the receiving waterbody—the San Joaquin River. The USACE and USEPA guidance
document states that the following water features will not be pursued as jurisdictional: “Ditches
(including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only in uplands and that do not carry a
relatively permanent flow of water”. Thus, these canals are determined to not be waters of the U.S.
These canals do appear to be subject to state regulation under the Porter-Cologne Act; this Act does not
require that a water feature have hydrologic connectivity or significant nexus to navigable waters to be
considered a water of the State. All water features in California, including isolated wetland features
and impermanent drainages that are not claimed as waters of the U.S., are considered waters of the
State.
Precipitation
The proposed project area is characterized by a Mediterranean-type climate with hot, dry summers and
cool, wet winters. The majority of precipitation falls between November and March (TGBA 2008).
Stanislaus County receives just over 12 inches of rain annually (Stanislaus County 2012).
Erosion Potential
The United States Department of Agriculture, through its National Cooperative Soil Survey, has
identified three basic soil types in the Project area; Dinuba sandy loam, Hanford sandy loam, and
Tujunga loamy sand. The terrain is level to moderately sloping. Soil and topographic attributes indicate
that runoff is slow and water-related erosion potential is low to moderate (See Section 4.6, Geology and
Soils).
Flood Potential
Flooding in Stanislaus County occurs along the San Joaquin River and isolated stretches of the
Tuolumne River (Stanislaus County 2012). The Federal Emergency Management Agency has
determined the proposed project area to have a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any given year (Zone
X).
DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
The proposed project alignment will cross TID Lateral No. 4, just before the 69kV line enters the
Fairground substation. Any impacts to the canal will be minimal as the transmission line will span the
canal and retrofitting and replacement of select poles will not occur in the area.
IS/MND
[46]
May 2014
Construction would in total, disturb under an acre of land and would not require the TID to obtain an
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for construction activities.
As discussed in the Section 4.6 however the proposed project will implement a SWPPP to ensure no
impacts to water quality occur. Therefore with the implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-1 the
impacts to water quality will be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 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 (e.g., 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)?
No Impact
The proposed project would not use or affect goundwater supplies. Additionally, none of the project
features would interfere with groundwater recharge. As such, there would be no impact as a result of
the proposed project implementation.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Implementation of the proposed project would not create additional impervious surfaces along the
transmission line route, and as a result would be not increase runoff from impervious surfaces to add
to the potential for erosion. In Addition, soils present along the proposed route are not readily erodible
through hydraulic forces; and the relatively small footprint of the proposed project, combined with
their dispersal over the area of effect, indicate that the potential increased sediment in runoff as a result
of the proposed project is small to negligible.
Soil stockpiles during construction of the proposed project may cause erosion or siltation to occur onor-off site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure Geo-1 should be implemented, to ensure the prevention of
erosion during project construction.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Much of the proposed project site is located within an urban environment characterized by hardscape
features (i.e. driveways, sidewalks, and compacted soil and gravel), which subsequently drain
stormwater runoff to the City of Turlock's sewer system and facilities. As mentioned above in c) the
proposed project would not increase the impervious surfaces, and would not temporally increase
impervious surfaces during the course of project construction. As a result the implementation of the
proposed project would not alter drainage patters which could result in flooding. Thus, the proposed
IS/MND
[47]
May 2014
project is not expected to alter existing drainage patterns, or otherwise increase the rate or amount of
site runoff.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No Impact
As stated previously the proposed project will not increase impervious surfaces or add to the overall
hardscape of the area, and therefore will not contribute to runoff water. The proposed project will not
create runoff water as a result of construction or after the implementation. As such no impact is
anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No Impact
No impacts to water quality, beyond the construction-related impacts identified under disucssion item
a) in this section, are anticipated as a result of the proposed project implementation. Therefore, the
BMPs and post-construction erosion and sediment control measures identified in Mitigation Measure
Geo-1, are determined to be sufficient to protect area water quality.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact
The proposed project does not include any housing and would, therefore, not place any housing within
a 100-year flood hazard area.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No Impact
No portion of the proposed project is located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency
designated floodplain. In addition the proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain
(Figure 4.9.2), as a result no impact will occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact
The Project site is not located in an area subject to dam or levee failure. Therefore, no impacts related to
flooding or dam failure would be anticipated with the proposed project implementation.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact
IS/MND
[48]
May 2014
The proposed project site is not located in an area subject to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflow. There are
no large waterbodies in the area. No impacts related to these events would be anticipated with the
implementation of the proposed project.
IS/MND
[49]
May 2014
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
SETTING
As mentioned in sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this document. The proposed project is located within the City
of Turlock city limits. The land use surrounding the proposed project alignment is developed with
residential, commercial, industrial, and semi-public/public buildings located within the immediate
vicinity.
The proposed 69kV alignment's southern most extent is TID's Industrial substation located at the
intersection of South Walnut Road and West Linwood Avenue in the City of Turlock. The proposed
additional 69kV line will parallel South Walnut Road on the west side (near where the current
transmission line is located)and will run north of the substation for approximately 3,000 feet until it
reaches the already existing, but not currently in service 69kV line on the west side of Highway 99.
Land use from the Industrial Substation to the tie-in with the 69kV line is composed of industrial/
heavy commercial units, with scattered public facilities in the vicinity. The proposed alignment from
the tie-in point extends over Highway 99, and runs approximately 1 mile to the north until it terminates
at the Fairground Substation, roughly 0.25 mile east of the North Tully Road/ West Canal Drive
intersection in the City of Turlock. Land use through this section is composed of light to medium
residential units, several commercial facilities, and one semi-public facility. Finally, the land use
surrounding the Fairground Substation is composed of single family residential housing to the west, a
vacant/unused lot surrounding the north and east, and West Canal Drive to the south.
Land Use Policies
Section 5.6 of the City of Turlock's General Plan has several Guiding and Implementing Policies that
directly relate to the construction of transmission lines (City of Turlock 2012):
Guiding Policies
IS/MND
[50]
May 2014
•
5.6-a: Provide safe, reliable, and efficient service.
Ensure the provision or safe, reliable, efficient and economical electricity, gas,
telecommunication, and similar services while minimizing potential land use conflicts, and
health, safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts of transmission facilities.
•
5.6-b Minimize impacts and hazards.
Plan and design electricity, gas, oil, and telecommunication transmission facilities to minimize
visual impacts, preserve existing land uses, avoid natural and cultural resources, and minimize
safety risks.
Implementing Policies
•
5.6-c Coordination with providers and regulatory agencies.
Continue to coordinate with electric utilities and utility regulatory agencies on transmission line
routing and electromagnetic field buffers.
•
5.6-d Consolidation of transmission facilities.
Encourage consolidation of multiple transmission lines into common transmission corridors
wherever possible. Secondary preferred locations are adjacent to freeway and railroad
corridors, when feasible. In reviewing proposals for new transmission lines and/or capacity, the
City should express a preference for upgrade of existing lines and use of existing corridors
where feasible.
•
5.6-e Identify corridors in master plans.
New transmission corridors should be identified to the extent feasible in all master plans
created for new growth areas.
•
5.6-h Minimize effects on resources.
Locate and design public utility transmission, distribution, and maintenance facilities to
minimize adverse effects on natural and scenic resources. Siting of new above-ground
transmission lines in visually sensitive areas, or in areas that would disturb wildlife habitat,
vegetation, or significant cultural or historic resources is discouraged.
•
5.6-j Bisecting parcels.
Transmission rights-of-way should avoid bisecting parcels wherever possible.
•
5.6-m Bird populations and transmission towers.
Protect native and non-native bird populations by incorporating electrocution prevention
measures into the design of new transmission towers.
DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
IS/MND
[51]
May 2014
No Impact
The proposed project alignment will run adjacent to several residential communities residing between
West Main Street and West Canal Drive. However, between West Main Street and West Canal Drive
the proposed project will utilize existing infrastructure and will only require select pole and insulator
replacements to accommodate the new 69kV line. Both the Industrial and Fairground Substations will
not require work or acquisition of land outside the current boundaries, and as such will not encroach
upon nor divide an established community. Therefore the project will not physically divide an
established community and no impact will occur.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, 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 an
environmental effect?
Several of the City of Turlock’s General Plan “Guiding Policies” and “Implementing Policies” as
mentioned previously apply to the proposed project. As a result a significant impact may occur
without addressing each applicable policy.
5.6-a: Provide safe, reliable, and efficient service.
The proposed project will help the City of Turlock realize Guiding Policy 5.6-a, through TID providing
a more reliable transmission infrastructure in the event of failure at the Walnut-Commons and WalnutFairground 69 kV lines. As a result, a positive impact as a result of the proposed project is anticipated
to occur.
5.6-b Minimize impacts and hazards.
The proposed project does not plan on routing a new transmission line, rather the proposed project
plans to remove and install new poles along South Walnut Road and utilize existing electrical
infrastructure (with select locations requiring retrofitting). Minor construction work at the Fairground
Substation will only entail breaker replacement and will not require the construction of additional
structures. New structures to accommodate the 69kV line will be placed within the Industrial
Substation. However, the new structures will be placed within the existing substation boundary and
will be insignificant in comparison to the already existing structures located at the substation. As such,
no additional visual impacts will occur to these areas.
5.6-c Coordination with providers and regulatory agencies.
While the proposed project does not intend to route a new transmission line, it does entail adding an
additional 69kV line along South Walnut Road, re-energizing the existing 69kV line, and performing
minor construction at the Industrial and Fairground Substations. Therefore, to ensure compliance with
policy 5.6-c, Mitigation Measure LUP-1 shall be implemented to avoid a significant impact.
 MITIGATION MEASURE LUP-1: AGENCY COORDINATION WITH THE CITY OF TURLOCK
IS/MND
[52]
May 2014
TID shall notify the City of Turlock of the proposed project, the proposed project route, and other
pertinent project information.
5.6-d Consolidation of transmission facilities.
The proposed project will utilize and consolidate existing transmission infrastructure in areas where
the greatest amount of visual impact may occur. A temporary 12kV distribution line will be placed
along the east side of South Walnut Road to provide electrical service to TID's customers during
construction, however this will only be in place while the project construction occurs along South
Walnut Road and will be taken down shortly thereafter. The minor construction work at the
Fairground and Industrial Substations will not require the expansion of their existing footprints. As a
result the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to policy 5.6-d.
5.6-e Identify corridors in master plans.
The proposed project will not create or establish a new transmission corridor. The proposed project
intends to utilize roads where existing infrastructure is already present, and will retrofit existing
infrastructure to accommodate the addition of a new transmission line. Therefore, no impact will occur.
5.6-h Minimize effects on resources.
No natural or scenic resources, exist in the vicinity of where the proposed project will install new
transmission poles. Therefore, no impact will occur.
5.6-j Bisecting parcels.
The proposed project will not establish a transmission corridor or right-of-way where it will bisect a
parcel. As such no impact will occur.
5.6-m Bird populations and transmission towers.
As noted in Section 4.4, TID has an avian protection plan in place and is designed to limit the number
of avian mortalities related to electrical transmission infrastructure.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact
No HCP or NCCP, exist within the proposed project area. Thus, no impact will occur.
IS/MND
[53]
May 2014
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SETTING
developments within the City of Turlock, in Stanislaus County, California. Construction and operation
will occur within an urban environment. No mineral resources exist in the proposed project area.
DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact
The proposed project is located within an urban/built-up area of within the City of Turlock’s City
Limits. Therefore, no mineral resources exist within the project area, and no impact will occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact
The proposed project is not located in an area delineated as a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site.
IS/MND
[54]
May 2014
4.12 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project result in:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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?
SETTING
Noise levels in California are typically measured in dBA, which is the A-weighted sound level of
decibels (dB). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is
most sensitive. Decibels are a unit of measurement indicating the relative amplitude or intensity of a
sound. Sounds in the environment can vary over a short period of time, so environmental sounds are
typically described in terms of Leq, which is an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the
summation of all the time-varying events. Another measurement is the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL), which is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB
penalty added to evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.), and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise
levels.
The intensity of a sound and the subjective noisiness or loudness are related, as is the intensity of a
sound and a sensitive receptor’s distance to that sound. A 10 dB increase in sound is an approximate
doubling of the perceived loudness. Noise from construction activities and stationary sources is
IS/MND
[55]
May 2014
considered a “point source” of noise. Sound from this type of source radiates uniformly outward in a
spherical pattern. The rate at which noise dissipates from a point source is 6 to 7.5 dBA for each
doubling of the distance, depending on the ground absorption, atmospheric conditions, and other
shielding factors. Traffic noise appears to be from a line rather than a point, because the vehicles are
moving and the noise spreads cylindrically rather than spherically. The rate at which traffic noise
dissipates is 3 to 4.5 dBA for each doubling of the distance, depending on other shielding factors.
Stanislaus County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
Goals, policies, and implementation measures in the Stanislaus County Noise Element (Stanislaus
County 2014) focus on:
•
Preventing the encroachment of incompatible land uses near known noise producing industries,
railroads, airports and other sources to protect the economic base of the County; and
•
Protecting the citizens of Stanislaus County from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive
noise.
Specifically, new development of industrial, commercial or other noise generating land uses will not be
permitted if resulting noise levels will exceed 60 Ldn (or CNEL) in noise-sensitive areas. Additionally,
the development of new noise-generating land uses which are not preempted from local noise
regulation will not be permitted if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards
contained within Table 4.12.1 in areas containing residential or other noise sensitive land uses.
The Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 10.46 Regulation of Nuisance Noise, was developed to protect
citizens from loud and raucous noises from any and all sources. Exemptions are provided for activities
on or in publicly owned property and facilities, or by public employees while in the authorized
discharge of their responsibilities, provided that such activities have been authorized by the owner of
such property or facilities or its agent or by the employing authority (Stanislaus County 2014). The
Stanislaus County Code also provides noise exemptions to public utilities for construction and
maintenance activities under Chapter 10.46.080 (J), which the proposed project would fall under.
The City of Turlock
The City of Turlock Municipal code section 9-2-309 (g)(1) prohibits the following in relation to
construction and demolition activities:
Hours of Operation. Operation or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in
construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between weekday hours of 7:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or (8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends or holidays) such that the sound
therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line,
except for emergency work or public service utilities or by variance issued by the Noise Control
Officer;
As such, because the proposed project is for public utilities it is exempted from the prohibited hours of
operation.
IS/MND
[56]
May 2014
Section 9-2-309 (g)(2)(i) provides maximum sound levels for mobile (operated less than 10 days per
month) and stationary equipment (operated 10 or more days per month) over the typical ambient noise
level for three receiving land use categories: One and Two Family Residential, Multiple Family
Residential and Commercial and Industrial. Table 4.12.2 provides the dBA Lmax for each land use
category, as stated under section 9-2-309 (g)(2)(i).
DISCUSSION
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?
The greatest levels of noise will be generated during construction of the proposed project and will be
temporary. Noise activities through intermittent maintenance activities will occur as a result of the
proposed project, but will have a nominal impact on ambient noise levels in the vicinity. As shown in
Table 4.12.3, construction noise may reach up to 85 dBA LMax at 50 feet while the grader is being used,
and up to reach up to 80.6 dBA LMax at 50 feet while the crane is being used to erect the utility poles
along the project alignment.
The proposed project will only utilize the grader within the Industrial Substation, for the addition of
the 69kV bay. The noise produced by the grader will exceed the maximum allowable for mobile
equipment (grader is expected to be used for less than 10 days within a month) within a
commercial/industrial area while working on Saturdays. However, the nearest sensitive receptor (a
residence) is located 450 feet south of the Industrial Substation, and noise levels inside a standard
constructed building tend to be 20 dB less than the noise levels outside. Therefore, the noise produced
by the grader will be below the 70 dBA LMax threshold specified by the City of Turlock for sensitive
receptors in the area.
Like the grader, the crane will exceed the 70 dBA LMax noise limit while performing work within the
industrial/commercial area on Saturdays. As discussed above with the grader, the impact will be less
than significant as the nearest sensitive receptor is over 450 feet away and a standard building reduces
noise levels by 20 dBA. The crane will also exceed the maximum allowable level of 75 dBA LMax while
construction is being performed near the residential units located along the project alignment north of
Highway 99. The nearest residences are those located between West Main Street and West Canal Drive,
some of which are located within 25 feet the proposed project alignment. The proposed project in this
area as already has an established transmission line corridor with a CMU block retaining wall next to
the adjacent residential properties to provide a buffer from noises associated with
maintenance/construction activities of TID's transmission infrastructure. As a result, the noise levels
within this area will be diminished below the 75 dBA LMax threshold, and a less than significant impact
will occur as a result. The proposed project will not perform work on Saturdays along the project
alignment north of Highway 99, and therefore will not exceed the 60 dBA LMax noise limit for
residential areas during the weekend/holiday hours.
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
IS/MND
[57]
May 2014
Operational activities associated with the proposed project would not generate groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise. Construction may generate temporary groundborne vibration. Construction
equipment that will be used includes a digger/ derick (drill rig), and various support trucks. Any
groundborne vibration generated from construction activities utilizing this equipment is expected to be
below a detectable level. Therefore, the project is expected to have no impact to groundborne vibration
or noise, and no mitigation would be required.
b) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project?
The 69kV transmission lines may generate noise through corona discharge. Because these are less than
230kV, they are not considered high-voltage and the potential corona discharge noise is expected to be
inaudible under most conditions. Even under poor conditions (e.g., inclement weather) and at locations
directly under the transmission line, corona discharge from the transmission lines is expected to be
below daytime and nighttime County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than
significant and no mitigation would be required.
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project?
As mentioned above in a) construction would result in a short-term temporary increase in the ambient
noise levels near construction activities due to the operation of construction equipment and the
presence of construction-related vehicular traffic. This increase in ambient noise levels is in compliance
with the City of Turlock Municipal Code specifications and has been determined to be a less than
significant impact. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be
required.
d) 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?
No Impact
No public airport or airport land use plan exists within 2 miles of the proposed project. As such, no
impact will occur as result of the implementation of the proposed project.
e) 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?
No Impact
The Turlock Airpark is located approximately 1.25-miles southeast of the proposed project, within the
Turlock City limits just south of Highway 99. The City of Turlock's general plan list the Turlock
Airpark as private airstrip owned by Turlock Airpark Inc. The General Plan also states that air traffic in
IS/MND
[58]
May 2014
and out of the airpark is light and that 60% of the traffic is from local aviators and the remaining 40% is
itinerant, presumably from crop dusting operations, etc. The proposed project would not expose people
residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels associated with the airstrip. Therefore, the
proposed project will have no impact and no mitigation would be required.
IS/MND
[59]
May 2014
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
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?
SETTING
The proposed project site is located in an area characterized by an urban environment with residential,
commercial, and industrial developments, located within the City of Turlock, in Stanislaus County,
California. The proposed project will utilize existing electrical transmission corridors and infrastructure
near residential units, near residential housing and parcels and will not require construction within
those parcels. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or require the
construction of any replacement housing.
The proposed alignment of the electrical transmission line would result in short-term construction
employment. However, a sufficient labor pool exists within the region to meet the proposed project’s
construction worker requirements and no change in the local population base would be anticipated.
The limited maintenance required for the substations during operations will also have no effect on local
population growth rates. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population
growth and will have no new impact on population and housing
DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Impact
The proposed project will employ the most people during the construction phase, this increase in
population is anticipated to last no more than 9 months, and a sufficient labor pool exists in the area to
meet the proposed project’s need. Maintenance will require very few people and will be performed by
IS/MND
[60]
May 2014
existing staff at TID. Therefore, no impact will occur as, the proposed project will not induce a
substation population growth in the area either directly or indirectly
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact
The proposed project will not require displacing housing through project activities, and will not
necessitate the need to build replacement housing elsewhere. Thus, no impact will occur as a result of
the proposed project.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact
As mentioned above in b), the proposed project will not displace housing, and as a result will not
displace people. As such, no impact will occur as a result of the proposed project implementation.
IS/MND
[61]
May 2014
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i)
Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
SETTING
The objective TID's proposed project is to provide an additional 69kV line to ensure the reliability of the
existing electrical transmission system to its customers (including public facilities) in the event of a
failure of the already existing transmission infrastructure. The surrounding area is characterized by
industrial, commercial, residential, and some public facilities, within in the City of Turlock. As
discussed previously in Section 4.13 of this document the proposed project will not cause in an increase
of population, and in addition will not require the permanent or temporary use of any public facility.
As a result it is not anticipated that the proposed project will increase the need for additional public
services, require additional maintenance of existing facilities, or the relocation of facilities to a new
location as a result of the proposed project implementation.
Fire Protection
Fire services in the project area are provided by the City of Turlock Fire Department. The nearest fire
station Turlock Fire Station #2 located is located approximately 50 feet from the proposed project
alignment at 191 South Walnut Road.
Police Protection
IS/MND
[62]
May 2014
Police services for the project area are primarily provided by the City of Turlock Police Department.
The nearest police department is located approximately one mile away at 244 North Broadway
Avenue.
Schools
The Turlock Unified School District serves as the project area's public school district. The Osborn
Elementary School is the nearest public school located at 201 North Soderquist Road in the City of
Turlock, and is one- quarter mile east of the proposed project location.
Parks
Parks and other recreational opportunities within the vicinity of the project area are maintained by the
City of Turlock's Parks, Recreation and Facilities Department. Currently the City of Turlock has over 20
parks for its residents. The Soderquist Ballfield is the nearest public park located 0.25-mile east of the
proposed project at 1100 Flower Street.
DISCUSSION
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i.
ii.
Fire protection?
Police protection?
iii.
Schools?
iv.
Parks?
v.
Other public facilities?
No Impact
The proposed project is expected to result in no change to existing levels of demand for public services
or facilities. The proposed project will result in a positive impact for public facilities in the area by
providing reliable electrical power in the event of an outage of the Walnut-Commons and WalnutFairground 69 kV lines. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have no impact on public
services.
IS/MND
[63]
May 2014
4.15 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
SETTING
developments within the City of Turlock. The proposed project as discussed in Section 4.13 and 4.14
will not increase the population in the area as a result of the proposed project implementation, or cause
adverse impacts to public facilities. In addition, no recreational facilities exist in the proposed project
area, as the nearest Soderquist Ballfield is 0.25-mile away. Finally, construction and operation of the
proposed project is not anticipated create nor create the need for recreational facilities through direct or
indirect means.
DISCUSSION
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact
As discussed in Section 4.13, the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in population
to the area. As a result, the proposed project will not cause an increase to the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks, and no impact will occur.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact
The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities, nor will it require the
construction/expansion of such. Therefore, no impact will occur.
IS/MND
[64]
May 2014
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards 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)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
SETTING
Roadways
The area road system generally consists of two lane roadways, the capacity of which is governed by
varying factors such as alignment, shoulder and travel way width, passing sight distances, and the
percentage of trucks, agricultural equipment, and/or recreational vehicles using the routes. All roads
adjacent to the proposed project are classified as undivided two-lane collector streets; the alignment
will cross Highway99 which is a divided six-lane highway and West Main Street which is an undivided
four-lane arterial street
IS/MND
[65]
May 2014
Railways
The proposed project alignment would cross the UPRR tracks just north of where the alignment crosses
over to South Tully Road from the Highway99. This railway transports goods to and from various
heavy commercial and industrial facilities located throughout the region.
Bikeways
Bikeways are divided into three classes, defined by Caltrans in the Highway Design Manual as follows:
•
Class I: Path physically divided from, and independent of, a roadway with its own right-of-way
(generally eight feet for two-way travel).
•
Class II: Areas marked by a striped lane on a roadway designated primarily for bicycle use,
although vehicle parking and vehicle and pedestrian cross flow are permitted.
•
Class III: Bike routes marked only with signs, where bicycles share the road with pedestrians
and vehicles.
The proposed project will parallel two Class II bikeways located within the City of Turlock. The
proposed project alignment along West South Walnut Road will parallel the bikeway for
approximately 0.5- mile before the alignment turns east to cross over Highway 99. The alignment will
again parallel another bikeway along North Tully Road, for approximately 25 feet before North Tully
Road veers to the west.
Stanislaus County
The County’s Standards and Specifications manual establishes standards for all work performed within
the public right-of-way. Section 3.32 sets design standards for utility installation. Above ground
structures not within a Public Utilities Easement should be within two feet of the right-of-way line of
the adjacent roadway and a minimum of 70 feet from the centerline of any intersection (Stanislaus
County 2012).
In general, the manual discourages the use of above ground utility poles. Use of existing poles, where
possible, is favorable and projects should not result in two sets of utilities poles in the same location or
along the same road. The location of new utilities is subject to approval from the Department of Public
Works.
The Circulation element of Stanislaus County’s General Plan outlines the existing and projected
transportation-related challenges faced by the county. The element identifies goals and implementing
policies to ensure that an adequate LOS is maintained. The document also encourages the addition of
bike lanes as upgrades are performed to local roadways.
City of Turlock
IS/MND
[66]
May 2014
The Circulation element of the City of Turlock General Plan establishes the goal of providing for the
long-range planning and development of the city’s roadway system. The plan contains no policies
specific to utility infrastructure or planning in relation to transportation
DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
No Impact
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, as none exist. Therefore, no
impact will occur.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No Impact
No applicable congestion management program exists for the proposed project. Construction of TID's
proposed project will result in a minor, temporary increase in traffic due to construction vehicles.
Temporary lane closures may be required during installation of the 69kV transmission line. The
frequency of inspections and maintenance associated with the proposed project will be similar to
existing levels, and therefore no change to operation-related traffic is expected. As such it is anticipated
that the proposed project will have no impact.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact
The proposed project will not need to change air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact will occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact
The proposed project will not alter the current design of the transportation/traffic infrastructure, and
will not create or cause the need for additional land uses. Thus, no impact is expected to occur as a
result of project implementation.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant
IS/MND
[67]
May 2014
As mentioned above in b) temporary lane closures may be needed during construction. These lane
closures will not impede emergency response or emergency access to locations, as one lane will remain
open for traffic ingress/egress. A less than significant impact is anticipated to emergency access as a
result of the proposed project.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact
No impact to adopted policies, plans, or programs for public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities will
occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
IS/MND
[68]
May 2014
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new storm
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 the
Project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
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
capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SETTING
Water Supply
Domestic water in the region is supplied by groundwater wells. Irrigation water is delivered to the area
by TID, which diverts water from the Tuolumne River. Water is distributed through laterals and canals,
via gravity flow, to a 307 square mile service area (TID 2014).
Wastewater
The Turlock Regional Water Quality Control Facility is located directly adjacent to the proposed project
alignment along the west side of South Walnut Road. The facility provides tertiary treatment of
wastewater from the City of Turlock, Ceres and the community service districts of Keyes and Denair.
IS/MND
[69]
May 2014
The facility is designed to treat up to 20mgd of raw wastewater from domestic and industrial
watewater flows (City of Turlock 2014b)
Solid Waste
The proposed project alignment is located adjacent to the Turlock Transfer Station and Turlock
Recycling located along South Walnut Road within the City of Turlock. The Turlock Transfer facility
located at 1100 South Walnut Road, processes household and commercial waste prior to transferring to
a landfill. Turlock Recycling located at 1020 South Walnut Road, is a Buy-Back Center that accepts
recyclable commodities (i.e. aluminum cans and containers, glass, plastic, paper products etc.).
The Fink Road Landfill operated by Stanislaus County is located approximately 16 miles southwest of
the proposed project area and is the nearest land fill to the proposed project. The landfill receives all of
the non-recyclable garbage from Stanislaus County, approximately 95 percent of which is then sent to
the Waste to Energy cogeneration facility where it is burned for electricity. The remaining nonrecyclable, non-combustible garbage is buried in the landfill.
Electrical Services
The proposed project is located within TID’s 662 square mile electric service area, which encompasses
the communities of Turlock, Ceres, South Modesto, La Grange, Patterson, Crows Landing, Hilmar,
Keyes, Denair, Hughson, Delhi, Ballico, Hickman and Diablo Grande (TID 2014).
Existing Utility Locations
Overhead Utilities
TID has existing 69kV transmission lines running through the proposed project area, as well as a
network of 12-kV distribution lines. In addition, various telecommunication companies have
distribution systems throughout the area, primarily located on TID poles. There is an existing 69kV line
located along South Walnut Road, which where the proposed project would remove and install new
poles to accommodate the additional 69kV line. From South Walnut Road the alignment would use the
existing 69kV transmission infrastructure and would follow the existing transmission line to the
Fairground Substation, crossing over electrical distribution lines along the way.
Underground Utilities
Underground utility lines such as irrigation pipelines, gas lines, and communication lines are located
within the proposed project area.
DISCUSSION
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
No Impact
IS/MND
[70]
May 2014
The proposed project will have no impact on the treatment of wastewater, as it will not be required for
project construction or infrastructure maintenance.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact
The proposed project consists of erecting and upgrading existing 69kV electrical infrastructure, and
upgrading TID's Industrial and Fairground Substations to accommodate the 69kV line. As a result the
proposed project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater facilities.
Thus, no impact is expected to occur to water and wastewater facilities.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact
Construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is not anticipated
as a result of the proposed project. As such the project will have no impact on the storm water drainage
system and or facilities.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Water supply for construction purposes will be temporary in nature, and will be utilized for dust
control purposes only. TID currently has sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project though
their existing water distribution system, and as such is considered a less than significant amount. Once
construction of the proposed project is complete, it is not anticipated that a water supply will be
needed for maintenance.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 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?
No Impact
As mentioned above, the proposed project will not discharge wastewater during construction or
maintenance, as such no wastewater treatment will be needed, and no impact will occur.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Approximately 25 existing distribution and transmission poles would be replaced through
implementation of the proposed project. Wooden poles may have been treated with, and could contain,
quantities of pentachlorophenol, copper napthenate, or other materials on the State Toxic Characteristic
IS/MND
[71]
May 2014
List. Poles treated along their entire length with these chemicals cannot be disposed of in the county
landfill. Poles that cannot be sent to the landfill would either be re-used or recycled to the public for
construction and landscape-related uses.
Poles that have not been treated, or have been only partially treated along the length buried below
ground would be sent to the Stanislaus County landfill on Fink Road. Disposal of the used poles would
not significantly affect the capacity or operation of the Fink Road Landfill. No significant amount of
electrical equipment, other than poles, would be disposed of as a result of this Project. TID plans to
comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste.
The disposal of used poles and other discarded project materials would not significantly affect landfill
operations or available capacity. Therefore, the impacts associated with the project would be less than
significant
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact
As mentioned in part f) TID plans to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid wastes generated as a result of the project. No anticipated impact is expected to occur as
a result of project implementation.
IS/MND
[72]
May 2014
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the Project:
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c)
Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
No Impact
The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a 69kV line within the City of Turlock.
The area is highly developed with industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. Because the
proposed project site has previously been developed and is within a developed neighborhood, it will
not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate examples
of California history or prehistory. As such the proposed project will have no impact on these resources
and no mitigation would be required.
IS/MND
[73]
May 2014
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
No Impact
All construction and operational related impacted would be reduced to a less than significant level
with mitigation identified under each checklist section above. Therefore the proposed project would
have no impact and would not add considerably to any cumulative impacts in the region.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The prescribed mitigation measures found under each section would reduce the impact of any of the
proposed environmental effects on human beings to a less than significant level. As such, the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, as prescribed under
each checklist section.
IS/MND
[74]
May 2014
5.0
References
Calflora. 2014. Calflora, What Grows Here Database v 2. Internet database available at
http://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998. Fact Sheet. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification
Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines. Sacramento, CA.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
Sacramento, CA.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009a. Final Staff Report Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009b. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing
GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2000. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory
Committee. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys In
California's Central Valley. May 31, 2000.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. RareFind 3, California Natural Diversity
Data Base. Sacramento, California. (updated monthly by subscription service)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition,
v8-02). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Wednesday, January 22,
2014. Available electronically at http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/
City of Turlock. 2012. General Plan. Adopted September 2012. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and
Regional Planners for the City of Turlock.
City of Turlock. 2014a. Turlock Municipal Code "A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City
of Turlock, California". Chapter 10-2. Accessed January 2014. Available electronically at
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/turlock/
City of Turlock. 2014b. City of Turlock Municipal Services Water Quality Control. Accessed February
2014. Available electronically at
http://www.turlock.ca.us/citydepartments/municipalservices/waterqualitycontrol/waterqualityc
ontrolfacility/
Hickman, J. C., editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Parish. 2008. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California. California Department of Conservation,
California Geological Society.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJAPCD). 2002. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating
Air Quality Impacts.
Stanislaus County. 2007. Stanislaus County Department of Public Works. Standards and Specifications
Manual.
IS/MND
[75]
Stanislaus County. 2012. Stanislaus County General Plan. Originally published 1994. Revised 2012.
Available electronically at http://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/general-plan.shtm
Stanislaus County. 2014. Stanislaus County Code Zoning Ordinance. Accessed February 2014.
Available electronically at http://qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/
Turlock Groundwater Basin Association (TGBA). 2008. Turlock Groundwater Basin: Groundwater
Management Plan. Turlock, CA; Turlock Irrigation District.
Turlock Irrigation District (TID). 2004. Avian Protection Plan. Turlock, CA. Available electronically at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/almond/documents/applicant/afc/Volume_2/A2PP_Appe
ndix_5.2E_Avian%20Protection.pdf
Turlock Irrigation District (TID). 2014. TID Water and Power. Turlock, CA. Accessed February 2014
Available electronically at http://www.tid.org/
United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USEPA
and USACE). 2008. Revised Guidance on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the Supreme
Court Decision in Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. Memorandum available online at
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/cwa_guide/cwa_juris_2dec08.
pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. National Resources Conservation Service.
GeoSpatial Data Gateway. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO 2.2). Data Downloaded
for Stanislaus County, CA. Availible electronically at
http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx
United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2014. Critical Habitat Database. Critical Habitat
Portal. Available electronically at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/
Weather Channel. 2014. Monthly Averages for Turlock CA. Accessed February 2014. Available
electronically at http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA1169
IS/MND
[76]
6.0
Tables
IS/MND
[77]
TABLE 4.3.1 STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS AND POTENTIAL SOURCES
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
National
Primary
Standard
1 hour
0.09 ppm
-*
8 hour
0.07 ppm
0.08 ppm
8 hour
9.0 ppm
9.0 ppm
1 hour
0.18 ppm
-
Annual
Average
0.03 ppm
0.053 ppm
24 hour
50 μg/m3
150 μg/m3
Annual
Average
20 μg/m3
-
24 hour
-
35 μg/m3
Annual
Average
12 μg/m3
15 μg/m3
O3
CO
NO2
PM10
PM2.5
Note: ppm=parts per million; and μg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter
*The Federal One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on June 15, 2005.
Source: California Air Resource Board, available at www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
IS/MND
[78]
Major Pollutant Sources
On-road motor vehicles, other mobile
sources, solvent extraction,
combustion, industrial and
commercial processes.
Internal combustion engines,
primarily gasoline-powered motor
vehicles.
Motor vehicles, petroleum refining
operations, industrial sources,
aircraft, ships, and railroads.
Dust- and fume-producing industrial
and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and
ocean sprays).
Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment and industrial sources;
residential and agricultural burning.
Also formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants,
including NOx, sulfur oxides, and
organics.
TABLE 4.3.2 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA, 2010–2012
Modesto-14th Street
Monitoring Site
Pollutant Concentration by
Year
Pollutant
Turlock-S Minaret Street
Monitoring Site
Pollutant Concentration by
Year
2011
2012
2010
2011
2012
0.105
0.091
0.104
0.123
0.111
0.115
14
1
10
8
4
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.081
0.078
0.091
0.096
0.094
0.107
Days over State Standard
9
7
12
19
34
56
Days over National Standard
3
3
6
10
17
35
1.78
2.71
2.10
1.53
1.44
1.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
54
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
N/A
N/A
2010
O3 a
Highest 1-hour average, ppm b
Days over Federal Standard
c
Highest 8-hour average, ppm b
CO a
Highest 8-hour average, ppm c
NO2a
Highest 1-hour average ppb c
NO SAMPLE DATA
Annual average, ppb
b
PM10 a
Highest 24-hour average, µg/m3 d
58.9
73.5
74.6
73.2
73.3
103.8
1
6
5
4
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.1
N/A
25.6
24.8
N/A
31.0
53.2
71.7
62.3
56.5
77.9
58.4
10
25
13
19
36
24
12.2
14.6
11.9
12.7
17.1
14.8
Annual average, µg/m3 b
PM2.5 a
Highest 24-hour average, µg/m3 c
Annual average, µg/m
3 b
NOTE: Bold values are in excess of applicable state standard; Italicized values are in excess of applicable federal standards; Exceedance is not necessarily a violation of
standards; NA = Not Applicable or Not Available.
a
Data were collected at the Modesto-14th Street and Turlock-S Minaret Street Stations approximately 12 miles north and 2 miles southeast, respectively, of the proposed project
b
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppb= parts per billion
c
Federal One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on June 15, 2005.
d
Federal Annual PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on December 17, 2006.
SOURCE: CARB, Summary of Air Quality Data, Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants, 20010, 2011, and 2012 data; www.arb.ca.gov/adam
IS/MND
[79]
TABLE 4.3.3 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Standards*
State Standards*
Ozone—One Hour
No Federal Standard**
Severe nonattainment
Ozone—Eight Hour
Nonattainment/Serious
Nonattainment
PM10
Attainment
Nonattainment
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Unclassified/Attainment
Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Attainment
Unclassified
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfates
No Federal Standard
Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide
No Federal Standard
Unclassified
Visibility-Reducing Particles
No Federal Standard
Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide
Lead (Particulate)
*State area designations current as of 2012 based on 2009-2010 monitoring data, Federal designations current as of 2011.
* *The Federal One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard was revoked on June 15, 2005.
Source: CARB, www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
represent air quality based on 2008 to 2010 monitoring data
A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
IS/MND
[80]
TABLE 4.4.2 DATABASE QUERY RESULTS OF SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Rare Plant
Rank
State Listing
Status
Federal Listing
Status
1B.2
Endangered
Threatened
Hoover's spurge
Castilleja campestris var.
succulenta
Chamaesyce hooveri
1B.2
None
Threatened
Delta button-celery
Eryngium racemosum
1B.1
Endangered
None
Colusa grass
San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
hairy Orcutt grass
Neostapfia colusana
1B.1
Endangered
Threatened
Orcuttia inaequalis
1B.1
Endangered
Threatened
Orcuttia pilosa
1B.1
Endangered
Endangered
Greene's tuctoria
Tuctoria greenei
1B.1
Rare
Endangered
succulent owl's-clover
Source: CNPS 2014
IS/MND
[81]
TABLE 4.6.1 SOILS PRESENT IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Unit
Symbol
Description
Map Unit Name
DrA
Dinuba sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
Occur on nearly to gently sloping alluvial fans
and valley plains under grass-herb vegetation.
HdA
Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
HfA
Hilmar loamy sand, 0 to 1 percent, Somewhat
excessively drained
Deep, well drained soils that formed in
moderately coarse textured alluvium (usually
from granite). Clay content averages 6 to 18
percent. Organic matter is less than 1 percent
and decreases regularly with increasing depth.
The soil is located on the basin floor, and covers
approximately 85% of the map unit. The parent
material consists of wind modified alluvium
derived from granite.
Source USDA NCRS Data gateway
IS/MND
[82]
TABLE 4.12.1 STANISLAUS COUNTY NOISE LIMITS
Daytime
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Nighttime
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Hourly Leq, dBA
55
45
Maximum level, dBA
75
65
Source: Stanislaus County, Stanislaus County General Plan, Noise Element 2006.
A: As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise
mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line
noise mitigation measures.
Notes: Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dBA for pure tone noises, noise
consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. The standards in the table should be
applied at a residential or other noise-sensitive land use and not on the property of a noise-generating land use.
Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient
levels.
IS/MND
[83]
TABLE 4.12.2 CITY OF TURLOCK NOISE LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Time Interval
Multiple Family
Residential (dBA, LMax)
One and Two Family
Residential (dBA, LMax)
Commercial and
Industrial (dBA, LMax)
Mobile Construction Equipment (operation periods of less than 10 days per month)
Daily 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
75
80
85
Weekends/Holidays 9:00
60
65
70
a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Stationary Construction Equipment (operation periods of 10 days or more per month)
Daily 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
60
65
70
Weekends/Holidays 9:00
50
55
60
a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
IS/MND
[84]
TABLE 4.12.3 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Quantity
Individual Lmax for
equipment at 50 feet
(dBA)
Individual Leq
for equipment
at 50 feet (dBA)
Backhoe/Digger
2
77.6
73.6
Cement Truck
1
78.8
74.8
Crane
2
80.6
72.6
Drill rig truck
3
77.6
70.6
Grader
1
85
81
Line truck
4
76.5
72.5
Pickup truck
4
75.0
71.0
Equipment
Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006).
IS/MND
[85]
7.0
Figures
IS/MND
[86]
PROJECT LOCATION
0
1 inch = 10 miles
10
20
Miles
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Fairground/Industrial 69kV Line
Map Date: 03/05/2014
Background Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps, ESRI Terrain
Figure 2.2.1
SAN JOAQUIN CO.
STANISLAUS CO.
Map Location
MERCED CO.
Fairground
Substation
Industrial
Substation
Legend
Proposed Project Location
Existing 69kV Infrastructure Select Retrofit
New 69kV Line
Temporary 12kV Distribution Line
Existing Electrical Substation
0
1:24,000
2,000
Feet
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Map Date: 04/22/2014
4,000
¯
Figure 2.2.2
Fairground
Substation
North Tully Rd
West Canal Dr
Turlock Memorial Park
& Funeral Home
West Main St
V
U
99
uth
So
tR
lnu
Wa
d
uth
So
ly
Tul
Rd
Turlock Regional Water
Quality Control Facility
Legend
New 69kV Line
0
1 inch = 600 feet
600
Feet
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Map Date: 04/25/2014
Background Source: ESRI Aerial
1,000
Industrial
Substation
¯
West Linwood Ave
Figure 2.2.3
Fairground
Substation
W. Canal Dr
W. Main St
99
U
V
d
ly R
Tul
Legend
New 69kV Line
Land Use Classification
Public/ Semi-Public
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Undeveloped
0
Walnut Rd
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION MAP
Map Date: 04/22/2014
Background Source: ESRI Aerial
Industrial
Substation
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1,000
Feet
2,000
¯
Figure 4.1.1
P
Fairground
Substation
S
P
V
R
S
P
L
D
Legend
New 69kV Line
FMMP Classifications
Farmland of Statewide Importance (S)
Farmland of Local Importance (L)
Prime Farmland (P)
Unique Farmland (U)
Grazing Land (G)
Other Land (R, V, sAC)
Urban and Built-up Land (D)
V
S
U
Parcels Under Williamson Act Contracts
S
0
Industrial
Substation
S
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES MAP
Map Date: 04/22/2014
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1,000
Feet
2,000
¯
S
Figure 4.2.1
subtle orache &
heartscale
Swainson's hawk
hoary bat
Swainson's hawk
Legend
Project Location
1 Mile Buffer
5 Mile Buffer
Special-Status Species Occurrences
Swainson's hawk
heartscale
hoary bat
subtle orache
Steelhead Critical Habitat
0
1 inch = 2 miles
2
4
Miles
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES OCCURRENCES/
CRITICAL HABITAT
Map Date: 04/25/2014
¯
Figure 4.4.1
HfA
DeA
HmA
HmA
DeA
DrA
DeA
Fairground
Substation
HfA
GsA
HfA
HdA
DrA
DeA
Legend
HfA
New 69kV Line
DeA
Electrical Substation
Soil Type
DeA: Delhi loamy sandy, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
Somewhat excessivly drained
DmA: Dinuba fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes,
Moderately well drained
HfA
DrA: Dinuba sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes,
Moderately well drained
GsA: Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
Well drained
HdA: Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
Well drained
HfA: Hilmar loamy sand, 0 to 1 percent,
Somewhat excessively drained
HkaA: Hilmar loamy sand, slightly saline-alkali,
0 to 1 percent slopes, Poorly drained
HmA: Hilmar sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes,
Somewhat excessively
drained
HmA
0
HfA
1 inch = 1,000 feet
1,000
Feet
2,000
DmA
¯
Industrial
Substation
SOILS MAP
Map Date: 04/22/2014
Figure 4.6.1
Fairground
Substation
Quad: Turlock PR 1976; Township: 5S; Range 10E; Section: 22
Stanislaus County, California.
TID LATERAL NO 4
PUBKx
PUBKx
Industrial
Substation
Legend
PUSCx
New 69kV Line
National Wetland Inventory
TID Canals
0
1:24,000
2,000
Feet
HYDROLOGY
Map Date: 04/22/2014
4,000
¯
TID LATERAL NO 5
Figure 4.9.1
Legend
Project Area
Flood Zone
Zone A: Inside 100-year Floodplain
Zone AE: 1% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Zone X: Outside the 500-year floodplain
0
1 inch = 2 miles
2
4
Miles
FEMA FLOOD ZONES
Map Date: 03/05/2014
Background Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps
Figure 4.9.2
8.0
Appendices
IS/MND
[96]
P.O. Box 949
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title:
Fairground-Industrial 69kV Line Project.
Lead Agency:
The Turlock Irrigation District (TID) is the Lead Agency for the Project (as described herein) and has prepared the
Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements set forth in the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Public Hearing
The TID Board will hold a public hearing for the consideration of the adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and to address public comments for the project on June 24, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at:
TID Headquarters
Turlock, CA 95380
Project Location:
City of Turlock, between TID's Fairground and Industrial Substations.
Project Need:
To ensure the reliability of TID's electrical transmission system, a new transmission line between Fairground
Substation and Industrial Substation is needed to prevent transmission line overloads that could result from
transmission line outages.
Project Description:
The proposed project is located within the City of Turlock, which is situated in central Stanislaus County,
California. The proposed project would consist of several steps to reach completion:
•
TID substation construction and retrofitting to accommodate the additional 69kV line
TID proposes to add an additional bay and replace the existing 69kV infrastructure within TID's Industrial
Substation which is located at the intersection of South Walnut Road and West Linwood Avenue in the
City of Turlock. Work items would include minor grading, foundation excavation and pouring, construction
and installation of electrical infrastructure (switchyard, conduit, ground grid, and wiring), and testing of the
new electrical infrastructure.
TID also proposes to replace a 69kV breaker found within Fairground Substation, located at along West
Canal Drive in the City of Turlock. Work items at this location would include breaker delivery, removal and
installation.
•
Pole replacement and electrical transmission infrastructure retrofitting
TID proposes the replacement of poles for the addition of a new 69kV transmission line to service TID's
Industrial Substation, and to retrofit existing electrical transmission poles along the line that runs south of
TID's Fairground Substation prior to the line being energized. Replacement of poles for additional 69kV
transmission line would occur along the west side of South Walnut Road just north of TID's Industrial
Substation. During the replacement of the poles a temporary 12, 000-volt (12kV) distribution line would
also need to be constructed along the east side of South Walnut Road to provide power to TID's
customers. The retrofitting of existing transmission infrastructure (select pole and insulator replacement)
would occur along TID's transmission line that runs south of the Fairground Substation until it reaches
Highway 99 approximately 4,700 feet to the south of the substation.
Copies of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration are Available at the Following Locations:
Electronic copies are available online at:
http://www.tid.org/fairgoundindustrial
Hard copies are available at:
333 E Canal Drive
Turlock, CA 95380
Turlock Public Library
550 North Minaret Avenue
Turlock, CA 95380
Modesto Public Library
1500 I Street
Modesto, CA 95354
20-Day Public Comment Period:
Begins: May 15, 2014
Ends: June 3, 2014
For Additional Information or to Submit Written Comments, Please Contact:
Mr. Ed Jeffers, TID Electrical Engineer Department Manager
P.O. Box 949
(209) 883-8419
E-mail: [email protected]
DO NOT REMOVE FROM POSTING
UNTIL:
June 3, 2014

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Transcription

Similar documents

3RD ANNUAL WALNUT ENERGY FAIRE

February 2016 - Turlock Christian School

items listed can be purchased at our Museum gift shop

Eagle News...JH/HS - Turlock Christian School

2013-dubai-big5-gaia.. - Globcom General Trading LLC

109928_Layout 1 - Turlock Chamber of Commerce

President`s Message - bakersfield

Walk to `D

Putting a damper on fireworks