AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF KING CITY COUNCIL
AND
Sitting as SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF
THE RDA FOR THE CITY OF KING
TUESDAY MAY 23, 2023
6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL
212 S. VANDERHURST AVENUE
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA 93930
The City Council meeting will be conducted in hybrid in-person/virtual format.
To join the meeting virtually, please use the link below to join the Zoom meeting:
https://bit.ly/3e0zvaR
Meeting ID: 881 5287 9536
Or by telephone: 1-669-900-9128
Passcode: 052933
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, Please contact the City Clerk's Office (831-386-5925) at least 48 hours prior to the Meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. * Please submit all correspondence for City Council PRIOR to the meeting with a copy to the City Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Council Members Oscar Avalos, Carlos DeLeon, Robert Cullen, Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Victoria, and Mayor Mike LeBarre
3. FLAG SALUTE
4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. National Public Works Week Proclamation
B. Alliance on Aging Transportation Program presentation by Transportation Coordinator Maribel Trejo
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed three minutes’ total on any item of interest within the jurisdiction of this Council that is not on the agenda. The Council will listen to all communications; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot act on items not on the agenda. Comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not to any individual Council Member. Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, staff member or member of the audience is not permitted.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS & COMMITTEE REPORTS
Individual Council Members may comment on Council business, his or her Council activities, City operations, projects or other items of community interest. Council Members may also request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting on any matter or take action to direct staff to prepare a staff report for a future agenda.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Comments presented by the City Manager, City Attorney or other staff on City business and/or announcements.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
The following items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Members of the audience may speak on any item(s) listed on the Consent Agenda. Any Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney may request that an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow for full discussion.
The Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. Items withdrawn from the Consent Agenda may be considered by separate motions at the conclusion of the discussion of each item.
A. Consideration: Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2023, Council Meeting Recommendation: approve and file.
B. Consideration: City of King Check Register May 1, through May 15, 2023 Recommendation: receive and file.
C. Consideration: King City Community Power Paid Invoices April 2023 Recommendation: receive and file.
D. Consideration: FY 2023-24 Street Improvement Project, Including Adoption of Finding of a Categorical Exemption, Pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines
Recommendation: 1) adopt a Resolution designating street projects for revenues from SB 1 - The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for FY 2022-23; 2) approve the FY 2022-23 Street Improvement Project; 3) approve a tentative 5-year plan for future street projects; and 4) adopt a finding of a categorical exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
E. Consideration: Authorization to Purchase Phase 3.2 of the Citywide Security Camera System from Surveillance Grid Integration Incorporated and the Gridassure Annual Maintenance & Service Contract
Recommendation: 1) authorize the purchase of Phase 3.2 of the Citywide security camera system from Surveillance Grid Integration Incorporated; and 2) appropriate $250,000 to the General Fund from an approved State Pass Through Grant.
F. Consideration: Modification to Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program
Recommendation: adopt a Resolution modifying the Downtown Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program.
G. Consideration: Successor Agency Check Register May 1, through May 15, 2023
Recommendation: receive and file.
H. Consideration: Public Financing Authority Check Register May 1, through May 15, 2023
Recommendation: receive and file.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of King Approving The Amended Wastewater Treatment Plan And Recycled Water Project And Adopting The Mitigated Negative Declaration And Mitigation Monitoring And Report Plan For The King City Wastewater Treatment Plan And Recycled Water Project (Sch No. 2023030751)
Recommendation: 1) adopt a Resolution approving the final Wastewater Treatment Plant/Recycled Water Project scope of work; and 2) adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program.
11. REGULAR BUSINESS
None
12. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
Announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in Closed Session will be made in open session and repeated at the beginning of the next Regular City Council meeting as this portion of the meeting is not recorded.
A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957:
Title: City Manager
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – Government Code section 54957.6. Unrepresented employees: Chief of Police; Director of Public Works; Community Development Director.
C. Conference With Legal Counsel— Pending Litigation
Pending Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d): (One case) Working Families of Monterey County and Efrain Aguilera v. The King City Planning Commission and King City City Council
13. ADJOURNMENT
The City of King is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 5(A)
Not official minutes of the meeting.
RE D U C E R E U S E R E C Y C L E
“To manage Salinas Valley solid waste as a resource, promoting sustainable, environmentally sound and cost-effective practices through an integrated system of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, innovative technology, customer service, and education.”
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
M E E T I N G HI G H L I G H T S
April 20, 2023
MEETING PROTOCOL
After three years of virtual and hybrid meetings the Board of Directors have resumed all in-person meetings. For some Directors it was the first time meeting other Directors and staff in person. The Board of Directors meets at the Gonzales City Council Chambers every third Thursday of the month. Public participation will continue to be available via Zoom and meetings are live streamed via YouTube. All meetings are saved on our website at www.svswa.org and our YouTube Channel. Live translation services in Spanish are available for both inperson and via Zoom at all Board of Directors meetings. Saved videos offer translation via closed caption in multiple languages by clicking the CC icon at the bottom of the screen, then selecting settings, clicking Subtitles/CC, and selecting Auto Translate.
RECYCLING RECOGNITION
Creekside Elementary School was awarded the Great Stewart Award.
With the support of Principle Ms. Moreno, they successfully formed a Green Team composed of Mrs. Bravos 3
rd grade students. The Green Team assisted
in successfully implementing comprehensive programs for food scraps and other diversion programs. With principle, custodial, and faculty support they were able to implement programs to Compost, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle throughout the entire school. Mr. Daniel, Custodian, took the initiative to learn and assist the Green Team to ensure the successful implantation of the programs. The Green Team took their duties seriously by promptly completing all training prior to implementation day. On implementation day Mr. Daniel took the lead on providing information to all students of the new programs early in the day, while the Green Team assisted Authority staff during lunch time. Great job Creekside Elementary School! Thank you for your incredible dedication to your school, your community, the environment, for helping us extend the life of the Johnson Canyon Landfill, and for doing your part in having a healthier Salinas Valley.
UPDATE ON SENATE BILL 1383 (SB 1383) IMPLEMENTATION FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTIES SB 1383 establishes statewide targets to reduce the amount of organic waste disposed in landfills. Programs for single-family dwellings, businesses, and organizations have already rolled out. Multi-Family properties are the final group of implementations to tackle. The strategy to work with this group began with education, outreach, and a pilot program with CHISPA & MCHA Properties across the Salinas Valley. These organizations have good communication with their managers and tenants and can request mandatory meetings, making it an ideal place to begin. The next steps will be to target these easy adopters by hosting virtual events for all property managers, owners, jurisdictions, and waste haulers to explain what SB 1383 requires and what the responsibilities are for each entity. The goal is to provide as many resources as possible to owners, managers, and residents to ensure the successful implementation of the programs and ensure compliance with SB 1383. For more information visit our website, Tenants & Managers or contact Julia Brooker at [email protected].
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED FEBRUARY 2023 (66.7% OF THE FISCAL YEAR) Revenue collected $ 16,218,006 (68.2% of Estimated Revenue of $23,764,900) Expenditures for operations $ 14,011,545 (65.3% of Operating Budget of $21,450,000) Cash balance $ 33,764,906
7(A)
Not official minutes of the meeting.
“Manejar los residuos sólidos del Valle de Salinas como un recurso, promocionando prácticas sostenibles y ecológicamente racionales y practicas costos eficaces a través de un sistema integrado de reducción, reutilización, reciclaje, tecnología innovadora, servicio al cliente y educación.”
R E D U C I R R E U T I L I Z A R R E C I C L A R
JUNTA DIRECTIVA
N O T A S DE S T A C A D A S
20 de abril 2023
(Agencia gubernamental de gestión de residuos sólidos)
PROTOCOLO DE REUNIÓN
Después de tres años de reuniones virtuales e híbridas, el Consejo Directivo ha reanudado todas las reuniones en persona. Para algunos directores, era la primera vez conocían en persona a otros directores y personal. El Consejo Directiva se reúne en las Cámaras del Concejo Municipal de Gonzales cada tercer jueves del mes. La participación pública seguirá estando disponible a través de Zoom y las reuniones se transmitirán en vivo a través de YouTube. Todas las reuniones se archivan en nuestra página web en www.svswa.org y en nuestro canal de YouTube. Los servicios de traducción en vivo en español están disponibles tanto en persona como a través de Zoom en todas las reuniones del Consejo Directiva. Los videos archivados ofrecen traducción a través de subtítulos en varios idiomas al hacer clic en el ícono CC en la parte inferior de la pantalla, luego seleccionar la configuración, hacer clic en Subtítulos/CC y seleccionar Traducir automáticamente.
RECONOCIMIENTO DE RECICLAJE
La escuela primaria Creekside Elementary recibió el premio Great Stewart. Con el apoyo de la directora Sra. Moreno, formaron con éxito un Equipo Verde compuesto por estudiantes de tercer grado de la clase de la Sra. Bravos. El Equipo Verde ayudó a implementar con éxito programas integrales para sobras de comida y otros programas de desvío. Con el apoyo de los directores, personal de limpieza y el personal de facultad, pudieron implementar programas para compostar, reducir, reutilizar y reciclar en toda la escuela. El Sr. Daniel, Custodio, tomó la iniciativa de aprender y asistir al Equipo Verde para asegurar la implantación exitosa de los programas. El Equipo Verde se tomó en serio sus deberes al completar con prontitud toda la capacitación antes del día de la implementación. El día de la implementación, el Sr. Daniel tomó la iniciativa de brindar información a todos los estudiantes sobre los nuevos programas temprano en el día, mientras que el Equipo Verde ayudó al personal de la Agencia durante la hora de la comida. ¡Buen trabajo Creekside Elementary! Gracias por su increíble dedicación a su escuela, su comunidad, el medio ambiente, por ayudarnos a extender la vida útil del Relleno Sanitario Johnson Canyon y por hacer su parte para tener un Valle de Salinas más saludable.
ACTUALIZACIÓN DEL PROYECTO DE LEY DEL SENADO 1383 (SB 1383 POR SUS SIGLAS DN INGLES) IMPLEMENTACIÓN PARA
PROPIEDADES MULTIFAMILIARES
SB 1383 establece objetivos a nivel estatal para reducir la cantidad de desechos orgánicos desechados en vertederos. Ya se han implementado programas para viviendas unifamiliares, empresas y organizaciones. Las propiedades multifamiliares son el último grupo de implementaciones a abordar. La estrategia para trabajar con este grupo comenzó con educación, divulgación y un programa piloto con CHISPA y MCHA Properties en todo el Valle de Salinas. Estas organizaciones tienen buena comunicación con sus gerentes e inquilinos y pueden solicitar reuniones obligatorias, por lo que es un lugar ideal para comenzar. Los próximos pasos serán apuntar a los adoptadores fáciles organizando eventos virtuales para todos los administradores de propiedades, propietarios, jurisdicciones y transportistas de desechos para explicar qué requiere SB 1383 y cuáles son las responsabilidades de cada entidad. El objetivo es proporcionar tantos recursos como sea posible a los propietarios, administradores y residentes para garantizar la implementación exitosa de los programas y garantizar el cumplimiento de la SB 1383. Para obtener más información, visite nuestra página web, Inquilinos y Administradores o comuníquese con Julia Brooker en [email protected].
INFORME FINANCIERO DEL MES FIN ALIZADO EN FEB RERO 2023 (66.7% DEL AÑ O FISCAL) Ingresos recaudados $ 16,218,006 (68.2% del Ingreso Estimado de $23,764,900) Gastos de operaciones $ 14,044,545 (65.3% del Presupuesto Operativo de $21,450,000) Saldo de caja $ 33,764,906
7(A)
City Council Meeting
May 9, 2023
1.__CALL TO ORDER:
Regular Meeting called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor LeBarre.
2.__ROLL CALL:
City Council: Mayor Mike LeBarre, Council member, Oscar Avalos, Rob Cullen, Carlos DeLeon, Mayor Pro Tem Carlos Victoria
City Staff: City Manager Steve Adams; City Attorney Roy Santos; City Clerk, Erica Sonne.
3.__FLAG SALUTE:
The flag salute was led by Under Sheriff Keith Boyd.
4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None
5.__SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
A. Oath of Office was Administered by the City Clerk Erica Sonne to James Hunt as Police Chief City Manager Adams introduced the new Chief prior to his swearing in. Once Chief Hunt was sworn in, his wife pinned on his badge and he expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve the community of King City and thanked the council and staff for their support.
B. Oath of Office was Administered by the City Clerk Erica Sonne to Robert Masterson as Police Captain
Chief Hunt introduced the new Captain prior to his swearing in. Once Captain Masterson was sworn in, his daughter pinned on his badge.
All the Councilmembers and Mayor expressed their appreciation for both gentlemen.
Mayor LeBarre called for a 20-minute recess for a short reception with cake.
6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:
None
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
Council Member DeLeon had nothing to report tonight.
Council Member Avalos stated that the fair starts May 18th with the wine tasting and goes through May 21st. 700 animals will be auctioned off on Saturday May 20th.
Council Member Cullen stated that he will be at the fair everyday all day. Rotary at the district level did a Women’s Empowerment event. Steve was highly involved. He attended with his daughter. It was a wonderful event. At the end of Broadway the clock is not working so could we ask the owners to get it working again.
9(A)
Mayor Pro Tem Victoria stated he would like Councilmember Avalos to get a t-shirt. He also needed to know if we still have the incentive for the community to purchase cameras.
Mayor Lebarre stated he had nothing tonight.
8. CITY STAFF REPORTS AND COMMENTS:
City Manager Adams would like Council to see the thermos plastic for the striping, it should last longer.
The Dive pool has to have resurfacing done and the pool will have to be closed for two weeks in June.
City Attorney Roy Santos stated he had nothing tonight.
9. CONSENT
A. Consideration: Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2023, Council Meeting B. Consideration: City of King Check Register April 16, through April 30, 2023 C. Consideration: King City Police Department Annual Report On Military Weapons For Reporting Period May 1, 2022 Through March 15, 2023
D. Consideration: Certification of Local Funding for Purchase of a Fire Rescue Utility Truck E. Consideration: Budget Advisory Committee Appointments Action: Motion to approve consent agenda items A—E by and Victoria seconded by Cullen.
AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, Victoria, Cullen, DeLeon, Avalos NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
10. PUBLIC HEARING:
None
11. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consideration: Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Salinas Valley Fairgrounds City Manager Steven Adams introduced this item.
Councilmember Cullen is concerned about the noise ordinance that is noted in the MOU that it is confusing, and he would like to explore this more.
Councilmember Avalos explained that the Fairgrounds does test the decibel level during events to stay where they need to be and pays attention to time as well. He also explained the time and people involved in putting this MOU together.
Councilmember Cullen is alright with passing this MOU as is tonight and revisiting the noise ordinance in the future.
Karen Jernigan, Mildred St., agrees with Councilmember Cullen about having simple and clear wording but she also wants to remind the council of the cost that goes into every ordinance that is passed.
Action: Motion to approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of King (“City”), the County of Monterey (“County”) and Salinas Valley Fair, Inc. (“Fair”) regarding enforcement, regulatory authority and responsibilities involving the Salinas Valley Fairgrounds (“Fairgrounds”) property by Cullen seconded by DeLeon.
AYES: Council Members: Avalos, Cullen, DeLeon, Victoria, LeBarre, NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
12. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators
Properties: APN 026-193-007-000; 026-193-010-000; 026-193-012-000; 026-193-016-000 Agency Negotiator: Steven Adams
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Liability Claims (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.95) Consideration of Claim No. MB210132 relating to Workers Compensation liability.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor LeBarre adjourned the meeting to closed session at 7:26p.m. Mayor LeBarre adjourned the meeting at 8:06p.m.
Approved Signatures:
Mayor Mike LeBarre City Clerk, Erica Sonne
City of King City of King
Item No. 9(B)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF KING CHECK REGISTER MAY 1
THROUGH MAY 15, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended City Council receive and file.
BACKGROUND:
At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.
COST ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No Environmental Review required for this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:
1. Receive and file the report; or
2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.
Item No. 9(C)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF KING KCCP PAYMENTS FOR
THE MONTH OF APRIL 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended City Council receive and file.
BACKGROUND:
At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.
COST ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No Environmental Review required for this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:
1. Receive and file the report; or
2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.
Item No. 9 (D)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OCTAVIO HURTADO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY
ENGINEER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF FY 2023-24 STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF FINDING OF A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301
OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) adopt a Resolution designating street projects for revenues from SB 1 - The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for FY 2022-23; 2) approve the FY 2022-23 Street Improvement Project; 3) approve a tentative 5-year plan for future street projects; and 4) adopt a finding of a categorical exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
A Street Improvement Program 5-Year Capital Improvement Project is being proposed again as part of the Recommended FY 2023-24/FY 2024-25 Biennial Budget. The primary sources of funding include the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Measure X sales tax funds and the SB 1 funds approved by the State.
In conjunction with TAMC, the City has developed a Pavement Management System. The system takes into account data on the condition of each street to determine recommended streets for overlay and slurry seal improvements to manage the projects over time in the most cost-efficient manner. Therefore, this system is used to help identify recommended streets for resurfacing and slurry seal treatments each year.
The State requires the City to specifically designate the projects proposed to be funded with SB 1 funding. The window for submitting proposed SB 1 expenditures for FY 2022-23 ends June 30, 2023 with a second deadline to
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FY 2023-24 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
INCLUDING ADOPTION OF FINDING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 4
submit of October 1, 2023. Updated Measure X and SB 1 revenue figures have been received for FY 2023-24. Therefore, staff have prepared a revised list of projects so staff can submit the required documentation for compliance with SB
1. Since many of the street projects utilize a variety of funding sources, the SB 1 report submittal provides a good time to outline and seek Council’s approval for the entire street improvement CIP. This enables staff to coordinate funding sources to address the highest priorities, integrate revenues in the most effective manner, and notify other utilities of upcoming projects so they can schedule their street work prior to resurfacing projects.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 2021-22 budgeted street improvements included repaving the South San Lorenzo Street area. It was delayed in order to coordinate with the sidewalk improvement project. Staff believe this area is a good candidate for CDBG funding. Therefore, staff will be recommending submittal of an application for a CDBG grant in the next round and recommends the schedule of future street improvements be modified at this time. Staff also recommend a delay in repaving Metz Road in order to coordinate with a future proposed Cal Water waterline upgrade project.
The Pavement Management System maintains staff’s recommended approach of reconstructing a few of the streets in the worst condition each year, while at the same time applying a slurry seal to some of the streets in better condition to prevent them from deteriorating to a point where reconstruction is necessary.
The slurry seal streets will be recommended at a later time. Staff is requesting the City Council approve staff’s recommendations for present and future programmed street projects, which include the following:
FY 2023-24 Division Street and Collins Street (N. Russ Street to N Third Street)
FY 2024-25 San Antonio Drive (Willow Street to Mildred Avenue) Slurry Seal Project
FY 2025-26 Broadway Street (San Lorenzo Street to San Antonio Road) FY 2026-27 Slurry Seal Project (Area’s to be determined per PMP) FY 2027-28 North Third Street
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF FY 2023-24 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
INCLUDING ADOPTION OF FINDING OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE 3 OF 4
The timing of these projects is tentative at this time and can be escalated if the Local Sales Tax Measure under consideration is approved. It will also be modified if the CDBG grant is not approved.
COST ANALYSIS:
The current balance of SB 1 funds is $666,163 and Measure X is $488,905. The projected funds from SB 1 in FY 2023-24 are $330,707, the projected funds from Measure X are $521,220, and the projected funds from RSTP Fair Share are 82,884, which are recommended to be allocated in full to these projects.
The following are projected funding sources and expenditures for the projects proposed to be programmed:
FY Project SB 1 Measure X RSTP
General
Fund
2023-24 Division and Collins $996,870 $289,700 $150,000 2024-25 San Antonio Dr $340,628 $150,000
2024-25 Slurry Seal $216,556 $252,816
2025-26 Broadway Street $350,847 $2,121,153 $300,000
2026-27 Slurry Seal $317,522
2027-28 N Third Street $372,214 $573,936 $120,000 $150,000 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has performed a preliminary environmental assessment of this project and has determined that it falls within the Class 1 Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, section 15301 as this project is limited to repair and maintenance of existing facilities and does not involve any expansion of existing uses. Furthermore, staff have determined that none of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are presented for Council consideration:
1. Adopt the Resolution and overall FY 2023-24 Street Improvement Project;
2. Modify and adopt the Resolution;
3. Modify the approved projects;
4. Do not adopt the Resolution; or
5. Provide staff other direction.
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KING ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 FUNDED BY
SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of King City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City of King must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City of King, will receive an estimated $330,707 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2023-24 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the sixth year in which the City of King is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate five roads in the City that are in tremendous need of rehabilitation; and WHEREAS, the City has many streets in poor condition and this revenue will help the City establish an ongoing pavement management program that will significantly increase the overall quality of its road system over the next decade; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the City’s local street and road infrastructure will improve safety, road conditions, appearance of the City, and reduce future costs by enabling the City to maintain its street system in a more efficient manner.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of King, State of California, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The following list of proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with fiscal year 2023- 24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Grind and Overlay of Division Street from Canal Street to South First Street 25 Year Useful Life
Projected Start Date: March 1, 2022
Projected Completion Date: June 30, 2024
Grind and Overlay of Collins Street from North Russ Street to North Third Street 25 Year Useful Life
Projected Start Date: March 1, 2024
Projected Completion Date: June 30, 2024
This resolution was passed and adopted this 23
rd day of May, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, Council Members:
NAYS, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
ABSTAIN, Council Members:
APPROVED:
______________________________
Mike LeBarre, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Erica Sonne, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Roy Santos, City Attorney
Item No. 9 (E)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JAMES HUNT, CHIEF OF POLICE
RE: CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PHASE
3.2 OF THE CITYWIDE SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM FROM
SURVEILLANCE GRID INTEGRATION INCORPORATED AND
THE GRIDASSURE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE & SERVICE
CONTRACT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council: 1) authorize the purchase of Phase 3.2 of the Citywide security camera system from Surveillance Grid Integration Incorporated; and 2) appropriate $250,000 to the General Fund from an approved State Pass Through Grant.
BACKGROUND:
In 2017 the City Council adopted the City of King “Comprehensive Plan to End Youth Violence” which was developed with input from stakeholders in government, public-safety, non-profit organizations, and the community at-large.
The plan developed five categories of recommendations which are prevention, intervention, enforcement, re-entry, and public outreach. Since the adoption of the plan, the City has made a concerted effort to implement the tenets of the plan. One recommendation within the plan initially designated as an enforcement tool was a security camera system.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) process was conducted by the City to identify and select a vendor to develop and implement the security camera system. At the conclusion of the RFP process, Surveillance Grid Integration Incorporated was selected as the City’s preferred vendor and has conducted all implementation of the security camera system to date. The City, with design and technical support from Surveillance Grid Integrated Incorporated, has successfully implemented the first three phases of the security camera system and is now moving forward to implement Phase 3.2 in collaboration with Surveillance Grid Integrated Incorporated.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PHASE 3.2 OF THE
CITYWIDE SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM FROM SURVEILLANCE GRID
INTEGRATION INCORPORATED AND THE GRIDASSURE ANNUAL
MAINTENANCE & SERVICE CONTRACT
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 3
DISCUSSION:
Law enforcement technology is advancing at a rapid pace and the advancement in technology has allowed law enforcement agencies to use it in ways that may not have been initially expected. The City currently possesses a security camera system which was designed with enforcement in mind. The Police Department has successfully used the security camera system during numerous police investigations varying in degree from minor criminal offenses to traffic collisions to major criminal offenses such as homicide. The video evidence developed by the camera system has been invaluable in aiding in the successful identification of suspects in crimes as well as their arrest and prosecution.
The security camera system provides more benefits to the City other than just for enforcement purposes. It presents opportunities for prevention and intervention services based on review of available footage. The Police Department also receives complaints regarding traffic issues or possible criminal activity for which staff can utilize it to evaluate the merits of the complaint.
A recent State grant made possible by State Senator Anna Caballero has now enabled the Police Department to expand the third phase of the system to address gaps and surveillance to more priority areas. The proposed additional priority locations include the following:
• City Hall Complex;
• King City Branch Library;
• Remaining parks;
• Freeway underpasses;
• Gang & violent crime hot spots;
• Downtown Plaza project;
• Northeast corner of Broadway Street and San Antonio Drive; and • Broadway Street medians.
The proposed system upgrade will also include the following:
• Installation of an archiver and fail-over service to increase data security; • Expanded camera licenses for BriefCam, which is the software providing the capability for automatic searches;
• Upgrade of older equipment; and
• ALPA upgrade for LP cameras, which will link 22 camera license plate readers to national data bases to notify the Police Department when a
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 1 Creating Safe Places to Live, Work and Learn through
Community Partnerships and Technology. 2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved EXHIBIT 1
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 2 TM
2021
Phase 3.2
Budget
Breakdown
2022 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved 2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved Locations Purpose Budget
Data Integrity Archiver, Failover 31,201.84$
City Hall City Hall, PD, Fire House, Voter Station Exterior 26,177.72$ Forden Park Park area overview 38,995.28$
San Lorenzo Gang Trouble Spot overview 12,489.61$
BriefCam License enable all available streams to be searchable 18,000.00$ Tech Upgrade Upgrade LP cameras limited View and Poor Nightime Vision Multi-lens 21,024.00$ Pocket Park Park Area overview 10,617.41$
Vanderhurst @ Broadway New Building Add-on 4,567.04$
Library Public Space overview 3,736.50$
Canal Underpass View Improvement 2,982.14$
Broadway and San Antonio View Improvement 4,294.81$
ALPR CLETS Notification Enable 24 LP Cameras with ALPR notifications 27,136.50$ Jayne St Area Overview 44,709.56$
Broadway Circle Area Overview 4,067.59$
Total 250,000.00$
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 3 TM
2021
Data
Integrity
2022 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
DATA INTEGRITY Archiver for redundant video storage
Failover Server for primary server failure
Control Server for failover management
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$31,201.84 Includes new Failover server and $4,500 Allowance for old server Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 4 TM
2021
City Hall,
PD, FH,
Voting
Station
2022 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
1 2
4 5
3 6
Includes Multi-lens at East Rear Firehouse
Current Coverage
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$26,177.72
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 5 TM
2021
Forden Park
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$38,996.28
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 6 TM
2021
Gang
Activity
San
Lorenzo
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$12,489.61
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 7 TM
2021
BriefCam
Catch-up
BriefCam Initial License Purchase 240 views 240
Actual Views 258 258
New Views Planned Phase 3.2 37 Views 37
Licenses Needed 55 55
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$15,000.00 new Licenses
$ 3,000.00 subscription Updates
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 8 TM
2021
Out of
Warranty &
Technology
Upgrade
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$21.024.00
Phase 3.2 Budget
Out of Warranty & Technology upgrade
• Arecont Broadway Out of warranty & poor night image 3 Cameras • Bosch Dinion LP Out of Warranty no color at night 7 cameras • AXIS Q1786 Out of warranty no lens 1 Camera
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 9 TM
2021
Pocket
Park
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$10.617.41
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 10 TM
2021
Vanderhurst &
Broadway
&
Library
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$8,303.54
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 11 TM
2021
Canal
Street
Underpass
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$2,982.14
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 12 TM
2021
NE Corner
Broadway
and
San Antonio
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$4,294.81
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 13 TM
2021
ALPR
Upgrade for
LP
Cameras
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
Subscription $12,000
Server and integration $15,136.50
Phase 3.2 Budget
Vigilant (Motorola Solutions ALPR)
Software Subscription
Notifications for Stolen Vehicles, Stolen Plates and much more Currently have 22 LP Capture systems adding two
Add LinC software and management server
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 14 TM
2021
Jayne
Street
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$44,709.56
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 15 TM
2021
Broadway
Circle
Overview
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
$4,067.59
Phase 3.2 Budget
© 2017 SurveillanceGRID Integration. All rights reserved. SurveillanceGRID Integration Proprietary and Confidential 16 TM
2021
GRID
ASSURE
2023 -2024
2023 SurveillanceGRID Integration all rights reserved
• Predictive Continuous Monitoring 258 devices $18,576.00 • IoT Monitor radios and switches 156 devices $ 5.616.00 • MAINTAIN (Cleanings and warranty management) 86 locations $ 9,202.00 • RESPOND (Onsite Service, support, remote management) $ 9,202.00 • SERVER PROTECT (Server maintenance and back-up support $ 2,400.00 • BriefCam Subscription $13,000.00
• Exacq Subscription $ 5,000.00
• TOTAL $62,996.00
Phase 3 added
• 73% views
• 41% Backbone infrastructure
• BriefCam AI Video Review
Invoice
Date
7/2/2023
Invoice #
1425
Bill To
King City
212 South Vanderhurst Ave.
King City, CA 93930
Ship To
Steve Adams
King City
P.O. No. Terms
Due on receipt
Project
GRID ASSURE
Total
16490 Vineyard Blvd. Suite B
Morgan Hill, CA. 95037
408-504-3222
SurveillanceGRID Integration Inc.
PO Box 2168
Morgan Hill, CA 95038
SEND REMITTANCE TO:
Quantity Item Code Description Price Each Amount
GRID ASSURE - MONITOR VK-PRED-C100 Viakoo Predictive Subscription Cloud Deployment Service and Maintenance Continuous Diagnostic Monitoring and Management of Security Network. Automated Detection, Alerting, Corrective Actions, QOS metrics, Time series Flow Maps and Automated reporting.
From 7-15-22 to 7-14-23
258 72.00 18,576.00
GRID ASSURE MON-IoT IoT Monitor includes Switches and Radios From 7-15-22 to 7-14-23
156 36.00 5,616.00
GRID ASSURE - MAINTAIN MAINTAIN includes two exterior camera cleaning per year, B Stock warranty management and replacement availability, business hour phone, email and text support, license upto date service VMS and O/S, From 7-15-22 to 7-14-23
86 107.00 9,202.00
GRID ASSURE - RESPOND RESPOND is a Service Level plan that includes next day response to identified problems.
From 7-15-22 to 7-14-23
86 107.00 9,202.00
GRID ASSURE - SERVER P... server protect is a remote management to maintain server up-time and dependability
From 7-15-22 to 7-14-23
12 200.00 2,400.00
50 EXQ SSA-SYNC Exacq Subscription Sync Through 7-31-23 Config ID: 7AKYJHMEQ9 100.00 5,000.00
Exhibit 2
Invoice
Date
7/2/2023
Invoice #
1425
Bill To
King City
212 South Vanderhurst Ave.
King City, CA 93930
Ship To
Steve Adams
King City
P.O. No. Terms
Due on receipt
Project
GRID ASSURE
Total
16490 Vineyard Blvd. Suite B
Morgan Hill, CA. 95037
408-504-3222
SurveillanceGRID Integration Inc.
PO Box 2168
Morgan Hill, CA 95038
SEND REMITTANCE TO:
Quantity Item Code Description Price Each Amount
MAC Address: 0C-C4-7A-28-C8-CD
Orig SSA: 2023-01-19
New SSA: 2023-07-31
30 Enterprise IP Channels
MAC Address: 2C-EA-7F-43-C5-65
Orig SSA: 2022-11-02
New SSA: 2023-07-31
58 Enterprise IP Channels
MAC Address: 00-22-4D-D8-25-AA
Orig SSA: 2022-07-18
New SSA: 2023-07-31
1 Enterprise IP Channel
1 BC-IT-MNT-001 ANNUAL LICENSE MAINTENANCE AND UPDATES 13,000.00 13,000.00 Monterey County 8.75% 0.00
$62,996.00
Item No. 9 (F)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION TO OUTDOOR DINING
AREA IMPROVEMENTS GRANT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution modifying the Downtown Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program.
BACKGROUND:
At the July 12, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution establishing a program using Federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to provide grants to downtown businesses to create or expand outdoor dining areas. The purpose is to support economic development efforts designed to create a more vibrant and activity oriented downtown commercial area. It will promote business that will attract more customers to the downtown, and those people will then support other businesses. It will also assist restaurant businesses by preventing future impacts from future pandemics. The program is consistent with the recommendations and goals of the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan.
Under the approved program guidelines, The City will assist with design services and grants for construction up to $75,000. Other businesses may apply for grants up to $10,000 for outdoor dining tables and chairs to be used on the sidewalk. Staff have been working with business and property owners on potential projects. As a result, based on the experience thus far, staff are recommending modifications to the guidelines to accommodate project opportunities that have been identified.
DISCUSSION:
Due to inflation experienced over the past year, staff is recommending the cost limits be revised. It is also recommended to provide additional categories of improvements due to opportunities identified that will benefit the downtown area.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KING
ESTABLISHING AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA IMPROVEMENTS GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a Downtown Streetscape Master Plan establishing proposed improvements to Broadway Street from First Street to San Lorenzo Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Streetscape project has been deemed as the critical first step in the City’s overall economic development efforts; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan includes creating incentives for outdoor dining to create a more vibrant and activity oriented downtown area; and WHEREAS, restaurants have been one of the businesses most negatively impacted by the pandemic and continue to be at risk of closures in the future due to future strains of COVID19 and the potential of other pandemics; and WHEREAS, creation of outdoor dining areas protects businesses from the impacts of the spread of disease, enables customers to access food establishments with a lower risk of negative health effects, and creates a more enjoyable dining experience that encourages new customers and business; and
WHEREAS, creating outdoor dining opportunities has been deemed important to creating a successful commercial environment that will benefit the community by attracting visitors, increasing businesses, creating jobs, and increasing City revenues for public services and improvements; and
WHEREAS, grants for the construction of outdoor dining area improvements and furniture have been deemed necessary to make the installation of outdoor dining infrastructure economically viable for local business and property owners; and WHEREAS, the Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program will implement improvements that will benefit the entire community by promoting public health, supporting downtown revitalization, enhancing access to food services, and providing economic benefits to King City citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program was established by Council Resolution on July 12, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify the program guidelines to increase the effectiveness and results of the program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of King hereby modifies the Downtown Outdoor Dining Area Improvements Grant Program to provide design and bidding process assistance for eligible projects at no cost; grants up to a maximum amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) per business to construct street front outdoor dining areas; grants up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) per business to create other outdoor dining areas on private property; grants up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for outdoor dining furniture on private property or public property 01222.0001/325812.1
CC Resolution No. 2023-
subject to an encroachment permit; and fee waivers for encroachment and building permits for eligible projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that restaurant business and property owners located on Broadway Street between First Street to San Lorenzo Avenue shall be eligible to apply for said grants.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the award of grants shall be approved by the City Manager contingent upon the availability of budgeted funding, and grant amounts will be determined based upon established criteria designed to meet the City’s Downtown Streetscape Master Plan and overall economic development goals.
This resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of May, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, Council Members:
NAYS, Council Members:
ABSENT, Council Members:
ABSTAIN, Council Members:
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike LeBarre, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Erica Sonne, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
Roy Santos, City Attorney
Item No. 9(G)
REPORT TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER KING CITY CDA DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECK
REGISTER FOR MAY 1 THROUGH MAY 15, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council acting as the Successor Agency Board receive and file.
BACKGROUND:
At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the Successor Agency Board, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.
COST ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No Environmental Review required for this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:
1. Receive and file the report; or
2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.
Item No. 9(H)
REPORT TO THE PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
DATE: MAY 23, 2023
TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CHECK
REGISTER MAY 1, 2023 THROUGH MAY 15, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council acting as the Public Finance Authority Board receive and file.
BACKGROUND:
At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents for the Public Financing Authority are attached.
COST ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No Environmental Review required for this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:
1. Receive and file the report; or
2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.
Item No. 10 (A)
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 23 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOREEN LIBERTO, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
OCTAVIO HURTADO, CE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER RE: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF KING APPROVING THE AMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLAN AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORT PLAN FOR THE KING CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLAN AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023030751)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council: 1) adopt a Resolution approving the final Wastewater Treatment Plant/Recycled Water Project scope of work; and 2) adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program.
BACKGROUND:
On September 12, 2017, the City Council approved a Master Plan for the City’s wastewater collection system and a Facility Plan for the wastewater treatment plant. Both plans were prepared by Carollo Engineers. The improvements proposed at the time would result in the construction of a new (upgraded) wastewater treatment facility intended to comply with new discharge requirements, produce unrestricted re-use quality recycled water and provide adequate treatment capacity for the next 20 years. In 2020, an Initial Study (IS) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the 2017 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project. The IS concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be applicable to the project. A Notice of Completion (NOC) was posted with the County Clerk and routed for a 30-day public review period to the State of California, and other interested parties. The City received two letters responding to the NOC. One letter was submitted by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) and one from the California Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Department. The IS/MND was re-circulated. Correspondence from the County Health Department and Salinan Tribe were received on the re-circulated MND.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KING APPROVING THE AMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND
RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORT PLAN FOR THE
KING CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023030751)
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE 2 OF 4
On July 12, 2022, the City Council authorized awarding a contract to Carollo Engineering to design the new Wastewater Treatment Plant. The scope of work of the project was expanded to include a new paved access roadway and modifications to the layout of the Plant. To reflect the expanded design, a new Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and routed for review, pursuant to CEQA. The new IS/MND analyzed the potential impacts of the expanded WWTP Project. The 2017 project scope of work was also recently modified and expanded to include the recycled water “purple” pipe distribution system throughout the City (Reference Exhibit 1).
Staff and the consultants have been working on grant applications to submit to the State Water Resources Control Board for State funding for the project. Since a number of funding sources may be considered, including the potential for Federal funds, the environmental review process has been expanded to address the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) required for Federally funded projects.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will replace the City’s existing WWTP headworks/ponds treatment system and construct a 2.0 mgd maximum month secondary wastewater treatment plant that meets regulatory requirements and planned area growth; construct a 1.8 mgd average day tertiary recycled water treatment plant; and construct approximately 5.3- mile pipeline distribution system that will help offset approximately 1,000 acre-feet per year of potable and agricultural water use in the community. A new access road to the WWTP will also be designed as the existing access road is currently in an agricultural field and has limited to no access to the plant during winter months and flooding events.
Both the secondary and tertiary treatment plants would be located within the existing treatment plant boundary. The tertiary recycled water treatment and distribution system is planned to serve agricultural and landscape irrigation users, as well as commercial/process uses. Recycled water “purple” pipes will be installed throughout the City. (Exhibit 1 outlines the details of the onsite and offsite portion of the project. Exhibit 2 outlines the onsite portions of the project.)
On February 22, 2023, a Tribal Consultation letter pursuant to AB 52 and Section 102 was sent to several native America Tribes. On February 24, 2023, the Xolon Salinan Tribe sent a letter requesting additional information. (Reference Exhibit 5.) The requested information was provided by the City and the environmental consultant on March 29, 2023. No further comments have been received from the Xolon Salinan Tribe.
On March 29, 2023, a Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) on the Draft IS/MND were also filed with the State Clearinghouse and County of Monterey and released for a thirty (30) day review period. The review period was from March 20,
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KING APPROVING THE AMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND
RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORT PLAN FOR THE
KING CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023030751)
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE 3 OF 4
2023 to May 1, 2023. The IS/MND concluded that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions to the project and/or mitigation measures can be made to reduce the level to less than significant.
COST ANALYSIS:
The current projected construction cost for the project is approximately $170 million. An application for full funding has been submitted to the State and staff are waiting for a determination. If only partial funding is approved, the City may need to fund and construct the project in phases. Staff will prepare a funding plan once the determination is received.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
When faced with a discretionary project which is not exempt from CEQA, a Lead Agency must prepare an initial study (IS), or checklist, to determine whether a project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration (ND) can be prepared if the IS determines there are no significant impacts from a project. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) is a negative declaration that incorporates revisions (mitigation measures) in the proposed project that will avoid or mitigate impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the environment would occur.
The IS/MND is also part of the CEQA Plus review. The State Water Control Resources Control Board (SWRCB) established CEQA Plus to include requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Comments and Responses to the 2023 IS/MND
Pursuant to CEQA, a Public Review Draft IS/MND was prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Project. On March 29, 2023, to initiate public review of the Public Review Draft IS/MND, a NOC and NOA were filed with the State Clearinghouse and County of Monterey and release for public review. The City received one comment letter during the 30-day review period. The letter is from the Department of Water Resources – Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) (Reference Comment Letter A in Exhibit 4). While the DSOD has no comments on the project, it has concerns that the existing wastewater storage ponds could be under DSOD jurisdiction. DSOD was sent copies of the existing as-built drawings for the existing wastewater storage ponds. Additionally, Table 4 of Chapter 4 of the Public Draft IS/MND was amended to list DSOD as a potential regulator.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KING APPROVING THE AMENDED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND
RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORT PLAN FOR THE
KING CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN AND RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT (SCH NO. 2023030751)
MAY 23, 2023
PAGE4OF4
Potential Impacts and Mitigations Measures
Exhibit 3 and Exhibit4 are the 2023 Public Review IS/MND and Final IS/MND which describe potential project impacts on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impact level to insignificance. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is attached as Table A of Exhibit 4. Mitigation measures cover Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Traffic and Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources.
ALTERNATIVES
The following recommendations are provided for Council consideration:
1. Approve staff's recommendations;
2. Request additional analysis be prepared;
3. Direct staff to modify the scope of the project;
4. Direct staff to further refine the IS/MND; or
5. Provide other direction to staff.
Exhibits:
1. Proposed Project - Onsite and Offsite Improvements
2. Proposed Onsite Project Improvements
3. 2023 Public Review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. 2023 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
5. February 24, 2023 Xolon Salinan Tribe Letter
6. City Council Resolution
Submitted by: DoreenlibertO:AicP,commutyo�velopment � -Ji·� Director Approved by: -�
Steven Adams, City Manager
Exhibit 1 – On and Off-site Improvements
Exhibit 2 – Onsite Proposed
Project
King City
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water
Project
Public Draft
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by:
SMB Environmental, Inc.
March 2023
Figure 4
Overview of Proposed Project
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
Project/Action Location
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WWTP
TU)"
=
TU")
=
TU")
=
10 ''
344 ft
10 ''
860 ft
Northeast Business Park Area
Arboleda
Development
Mills Ranch
Development
King City Golf Course
King City
Park
King City
High School
Salinas Valley
Fair Grounds
San Antonio
Park
King City
Cemetary District
Del Rey
Elementary School
King City Arts
Magnet School
Santa Lucia
School
Agricultural Area - Mission
Ranches Company, LLC
(1)
(15)
(12)
(13)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(5)
(2)
(4)
(7)
US 101
San Antonio Dr
Metz Rd
Bitterwater Rd
Broadway St
Canal St
Airport Rd
Lonoak Rd
Spreckels Rd
Pearl St
River Dr
N 3rd St
N 2nd St
N Russ St
Lewis St
S 3rd St
7th St
Willow St
Villa Dr
Industrial Way
3rd St
Central Ave
Broadway Cir
Sandringham St
S Mildred Ave
Cambridge Ave
Kings Pl
US 101
1st St
8 ''
3,652 ft
3,688 ft
12 ''
1,029 ft
10 ''
8 ''
3,722 ft
12 ''
2,180 ft
6 ''
1,901 ft
8 ''
1,850 ft
8 ''
2,419 ft
6 ''
1637 ft
12 ''
989 ft
950 ft
8 ''
8 ''
949 ft
6 ''
1,214 ft
12 ''
832 ft
12 ''
588 ft
12 ''
530 ft
8 ''
463 ft
8 ''
231 ft
955 ft
8 ''
8 ''
954 ft
6 ''
1023 ft
12 ''
1,001 ft
854 ft
8 ''
903 ft
6 ''
12 ''
669 ft
8 ''
464 ft
Last Revised: January 19, 2023 [ENTER PROJECT WISE PATH NAME TO MXD] For Example:pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/ClientName/10265A00/Data/GIS/Figure_01_01.mxd O
0 550 1,100
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: King City, ESRI
Figure A Alternative 5
PROJECT NAME | TM | CLIENT
Legend
WWTP Wastewater
Treatment Plant
TU)"
= Storage Tank and
Pump
!( Junctions
Proposed New Service
Road
Recycled Water
Pipelines (Diameter
[in], Length [ft])
Existing
Proposed
Potential Custumers
Agricultural
Irrigation
Roads
Exhibit 3
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Location and Background........................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2 Need for the Proposed Project ............................................................................... 1-6
1.3 Goal and Objectives ............................................................................................... 1-7
1.4 Document Organization and Review Process ........................................................ 1-7 Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives ................................................ 2-1
2.1 Proposed Project Description ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Recycled Water Customers.................................................................................... 2-2
2.2 Construction Considerations .................................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy ............. 2-7
2.4 Operational Plans ................................................................................................... 2-8
2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals...................................................... 2-8
2.6 No Project Alternative............................................................................................. 2-9 Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences ....................................................... 3-1
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases........................................................................ 3-6
3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 3-12
3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 3-24
3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 3-28
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 3-30
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................ 3-35
3.9 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................ 3-41
3.10 Mineral Resources................................................................................................ 3-42
3.11 Noise .................................................................................................................... 3-43
3.12 Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 3-46
3.13 Public Services ..................................................................................................... 3-47
3.14 Recreation ............................................................................................................ 3-48
3.15 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... 3-49
3.16 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................... 3-51
3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 3-54
3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 3-57
3.19 Wildfire.................................................................................................................. 3-59
3.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................... 3-60 Chapter 4 Determination: ...................................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 5-1 List of Figures
Figure 1: General Location Map..............................................................................................1-2 Figure 2: King City General Vicinity Map................................................................................1-4 King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 ii
Figure 3: King City WWTP Site Layout...................................................................................1-5 Figure 4: Overview of Proposed Project................................................................................2-4 Figure 5: Overview of Proposed WWTP Improvements........................................................2-5 Figure 6: FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map.............................................................................3-39 List of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Project Parameters.................................................................................. 2-1 Table 2: Recycled Water Customers ..................................................................................... 2-2 Table 3: Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines....................................................................2-3 Table 4: Potential Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations.......................2-8 Table 5: Proposed Project Construction Emissions............................................................ 3-9 Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Emissions Calculations................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment Report .................................................... B-1 Appendix C: SHPO Correspondence.....................................................................................C-1 Appendix D: Cultral Resources Investigation Report (Not for Public Distribution).......... D-1 Appendix E: Native American Outreach................................................................................E-1 King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 iii
List of Abbreviations
AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AAF average annual flow
AB 3030 Groundwater Management Act
AB 3030 Groundwater Management Act
ADMMF average daily maximum month flow
ADWF average dry weather flow
AF Acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
Anti-degradation Policy State Resolution 68-16
aSAR adjusted Sodium Adsorption Rate
Basin Salinas River Groundwater Basin
Basin Plan 2017 Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin bgs below ground surface
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BPTC best practicable treatment or control
CAG 45 ConAgra 45
Cal Water California Water Service
CAS Conventional activated
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring CCR Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEC contaminant of emerging concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of King City
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CSD Community Services District
CSMP Collection System Master Plan
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 iv
CSWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
CT chlorine contact time
CUP conditional use permit
CWAP California Water Action Plan
CWC California Water Code
DAFT dissolved air flotation thickener
DBP disinfection byproducts
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DIF development impact fees
DWP Drinking Water Program
e pump efficiency
Ecw Electrical Conductance
ENRCCI Engineering News Record Construction Code Index
ERBP-SP East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan
ET evapotranspiration
ET o Reference evapotranspiration
ETc crop evapotranspiration
eWRIMS Electronic Water Rights Information Management System FYE fiscal year end
GIS geographical information system
GO general obligation
gpd/ac gallons per day per acre
gpm gallons per minute
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plans
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
HOA Home Owners Association
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
KC Agricultural crop coefficient
kWh kilowatt hour
LF linear foot
MBR membrane bioreactor
MCC medical cannabis cultivation
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 v
MCL maximum contamination limit
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency
MDF maximum daily flow
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger
MST Monterey-Salinas Transit
NE BP Northeast Business Park
NL notification level
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC National Research Council
NWRI National Water Research Institute
O&M Operations and maintenance
paygo pay-as-you-go
PHF peak hour flow
PHG public health goal
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RW Policy Recycled Water Policy
RWFS Study
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB X7-7 Water Conservation Act of 2009
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management
SRF State Revolving Fund
SVBGSA Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency SWQCB State Water Quality Control Board
TDS total dissolved solids
TDS total dissolved solids
Title 22 CCR Title 22, Division4, Chapter 3 of the California Administrative Code
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 vi
Title XVI Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992
TOrC trace organic constituents
TSS total suspended solids
US EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UV ultraviolet light
UVT UV transmittance
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WWTFP Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that addresses the potential environmental impacts of the City of King’s (City) proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Recycled Water Project (Project or Proposed Project)1
. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to comply
with new Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB) permit effluent requirements with additional treatment plant processes than currently exist, prepare for planned growth, offset existing and future potable water demands and help maintain a sustainable groundwater supply. The City has identified three beneficial uses for recycled water within the City planning area. These include:
• Landscape Irrigation
• Agricultural Irrigation
• Commercial Use
This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The City is the lead agency under CEQA. In addition, the City is seeking grant funds from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). The SRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is subject to federal environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others. Federal agencies have their own policies on how they comply with federal environmental laws.
Instead of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), USEPA has chosen to use CEQA as the compliance base for California’s SRF Loan Program, in addition to compliance with ESA, NHPA, and CAA. Collectively, the State Board calls these requirements CEQA-Plus. As a result, this document has been prepared to meet the CEQA-Plus requirements.
1.1 Project Location and Background
As shown in Figure 1, the City is located in the Salinas Valley of Monterey County, California along the Salinas River and serves a population of 13,443 (2022). The City currently covers 3.9 square miles and is surrounded mostly by agricultural land. The City has a moderate climate with hot, dry summers, and cool, wet winters. Precipitation is almost entirely rain, with most of it falling during the six-month period from November to April. The elevation of the City is approximately 330-feet above sea level in the downtown area and approximately 290-feet above sea level at the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) 2 . The
major transportation route in the area is State Highway 101. The Union Pacific Railroad also serves the area. The City also has an airport, the Mesa Del Rey Airport. 1 The City originally circulated this IS/MND through the State Clearinghouse on April 19, 2021 (SCH#: SCH No. 20210250084) and it was then recirculated on July 13, 2022 to address agency comments through the 30-day review process which identified additional Project impacts and necessary mitigation measures that were not addressed in the April 2021 document. Since then, the City has expanded the Proposed Project to include additional recycled water pipeline facilities throughout the City and is recirculating this CEQA document again. 2 Source: Google earth elevation mapping Figure 1
General Location Map
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
Project/Action Location
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 1-3
1.1.1 Project Background
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is the agency responsible under State law for management of water resources within the Salinas Valley. Cal Water is the main water provider for the City. However, the City does have a few production wells. California Water Service Company (Cal Water) sources the water from local groundwater wells. As stated above, the City owns and operates the wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities that serve the City’s population. The City’s WWTP is located along the Salinas River and consists of some treatment ponds and a headworks facility. Figure 2 provides an overview of the City’s WWTP location. The City has two existing 12-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline sections installed, but currently has no recycled water treatment facilities or operating distribution system. These existing lines are also shown on Figure 2.
The WWTP was constructed in 1970 and underwent capacity expansions in 1982, 1991, and 2010. The facility consists of a domestic treatment and disposal system as well as an industrial disposal-only system.
The facility is located along the east bank of the Salinas River on Cemetery Road, King City, California 93930. The domestic treatment facility has a design average daily maximum month flow (ADMMF) of 1.2 mgd.
An overview of the existing treatment facilities site plan is provided in Figure 3. The WWTP’s treatment process treats domestic wastewater and consists of a headworks, five primary aerated/facultative ponds, two secondary polishing ponds, and six domestic spray irrigation fields for disposal of treated effluent.
The WWTP currently treats municipal wastewater from the City to meet treatment standards and discharge requirements established by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). These requirements are outlined in the City's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) (Order No. 91-05, which was last renewed in 1991). The WDR discharge specifications allow an average day mean monthly flow (ADMMF) of 1.2 mgd to the domestic sprayfields. The domestic wastewater includes all residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater that is generated within the City limits, with the exception of the CAG 45 industrial facility. CAG 45 was historically an agricultural processing facility that discharged to separate industrial sprayfields located adjacent to the domestic sprayfields, but currently only discharges small amounts of distilled water if anything at al. Industrial wastewater effluent was historically pretreated at the CAG 45 facility via a DAFT prior to entering an industrial sewer for disposal on the industrial sprayfields at the WWTP.
The City monitors industrial wastewater discharge from CAG 45 under a separate WDR (Order No. 91- 84). Currently, CAG 45 is a cogeneration facility with no plans to return to agricultural processing. Should CAG 45 return to agricultural or industrial processes in the future, pretreatment of the effluent would be required before accepting it into the existing domestic WWTP.
Although the WWTP is permitted to treat and dispose of an ADMMF of 1.2 mgd, the maximum historical ADMMF from 2008 to 2016 was 0.98 mgd.
The historical average daily flows measured at the WWTP are reported in the WWTP’s monthly monitoring reports as both influent and effluent flow. From January 2008 through October 2016, the data was plotted separately for non-drought years and drought years. As expected, the non-drought years generally indicated a higher average annual flow (AAF) than in the drought years which was likely due to water conservation Figure 2
King City General Vicinity Map
Figure 3
King City WWTP Site Layout
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 1-6
efforts. Also, the non-drought years generally experienced an increase in flow and loads during the dry weather months (March to October) compared to the wet weather months likely due to the increased farmworker population residing in the community only during agriculturally-intensive months. In comparison, during the drought years the dry weather months had less of an increase compared to the wet weather months. Flow in 2014 was relatively constant, and flow in 2015 was the lowest over the range of historical data, again likely due to water conservation efforts.
From January 2008 through December 2011, non-drought ADMMF was approximated by calculating a 90th percentile flow of 0.94 mgd. Non-drought AAF over this time span is 0.86 mgd. From January 2012 through October 2016, drought ADMMF was approximated by calculating a 90th percentile flow of 0.91 mgd. Drought AAF over this time span is 0.85 mgd. Table 3.2 presents historical flows from 2008 to 2016.
1.2 Need for the Proposed Project
Some of the main drivers for the City to implement an updated secondary wastewater treatment plant project is complying with the new Central Coast RWQCB General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3- 2020-0020 for discharges from domestic wastewater systems with flows greater than 100,000 gallons per day (General Permit), and meeting anticipated planned growth in the City. And some of the main drivers for the City to implement a recycled water program include water reliability and diversity, drought planning, maintaining a sustainable groundwater supply, and aiding the State in achieving urban water use reduction goals.
The General Permit was approved by the SWRCB in 2020 and it has been determined that the City of King does fall under this new General Permit and its requirements, which includes effluent limits, monitoring, reporting, and much more. To meet the effluent limits contained in the General Permit, the wastewater treatment facilities need to be upgraded to more dependable and reliable treatment processes.
Meeting planned and approved growth in the City is based on the City’s General Plan and ongoing Land Use and Housing Element Updates as well as the 2017 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Master Plan.
Currently, the City’s water supplies are all sourced from the Salinas River Groundwater Basin (Basin). As stated above, Cal Water provides water to the city. Relying upon a single source of water leaves the City vulnerable in the event of drought, groundwater contamination, or some other event that could compromise the groundwater supply. A recycled water system would diversify the City’s water supply by providing an additional, reliable source of water.
Diversifying the City’s water supply would also help reduce strain upon the Basin. In September 2014, then-California Governor, Jerry Brown, signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), a three-bill legislative package providing the framework for sustainable groundwater management. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. According to the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring’s (CASGEM) 2014 Final Basin Prioritization results which take into account factors such as population, irrigated acreage, and the number of wells in a basin, the Basin is of high priority. High priority basins are required to adopt a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or submit an alternative. Therefore, utilizing recycled water for appropriate uses currently served with groundwater supplies could be included in a GSP as it would help alleviate stresses on the Basin and contribute to a sustainable management of supplies.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 1-7
In addition to helping meet Basin goals, a recycled water system would contribute to meeting state water reduction goals., The state set a 2030 target for recycling 800,000 acre-feet of water by 2030 – an 8% increase from the amount recycled in 2020.Implementing a recycled water program in the City would contribute to the targeted reductions by utilizing recycled water for appropriate uses currently served by potable water, as well as newly planned and approved uses in the City.
1.3 Goal and Objectives
The goals and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Project are to:
• Upgrade the City’s existing WWTP to meet existing and more stringent permit requirements to stricter discharge/effluent limits (i.e., updates to the City's Waste Discharge Requirements [WDR] by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board [Central Coast Regional Board]); • Increase plant capacity required to accommodate planned and approved growth in the City; • Replace/rehabilitate aging infrastructure to ensure reliability; • Construct a new tertiary treatment/recycled water treatment plant to produce and distribute recycled water meeting Title 22 unrestricted reuse requirements, thereby adding recycled water to the City water resources portfolio and offsetting potable water use.
1.4 Document Organization and Review Process
This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA-Plus requirements and is to provide a preliminary environmental investigation of the Proposed Project to determine if it may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. This document is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1, Introduction. Chapter 1 describes the location, background, goals and objectives of the Proposed Project, and document organization, content and review process. • Chapter 2, Project Description and Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes the major components of the Proposed Project and describes the No Project Alternative. • Chapter 3, CEQA Initial Study Checklist. Chapter 3 discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Each resource section of the checklist is followed by a discussion of each potential impact listed in that section. It also presents corresponding mitigation measures proposed as part of the Proposed Project, to avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This checklist has been modified to include additional topics to meet the requirements of NEPA for the State Board’s CEQA-Plus requirements. • Chapter 4, Determination. Chapter 4 provides the proposed result of this Initial Study. • Chapter 5, Bibliography. Chapter 5 provides a list of reference materials and persons consulted during the preparation of the Initial Study.
This document will be available for a 30-day public review period, during which written comments may be submitted to the following address:
Doreen Liberto, AICP, Community Development Director
City of King
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 1-8
City Hall, 212 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 831-385-3281
Responses to written comments received by the end of the 30-day public review period will be prepared and included in the final IS/MND document to be considered by the City and/or the State Board prior to taking any discretionary action/decision on the Proposed Project.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-1
Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description and Alternatives This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project including a discussion of the construction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary. In addition, this section also describes the No Project Alternative.
2.1 Proposed Project Description
The Proposed Project is to replace the City’s existing WWTP headworks/ponds treatment system and construct a 2.0 mgd maximum month secondary wastewater treatment plant that meets regulatory requirements and planned area growth, as well as construct a 1.8 mgd average day tertiary recycled water treatment plant and approximately 5.3-mile pipeline distribution system that will help offset approximately 1,000 acre-feet per year of potable and agricultural water use in the community. A new access road to the WWTP will also be designed as the existing access road is currently in a farmer’s field and has limited to no access to the plant during winter months and flooding events. Both the secondary and tertiary treatment plants would be located within the existing treatment plant boundary. The tertiary recycled water treatment and distribution system is planned to serve agricultural and landscape irrigation users, as well as commercial/process uses. This project includes the facilities as defined below. Figure 4 provides an overview of the Proposed Project, including the proposed recycled water pipelines. Figure 5 provides an overview and close-up of the specific proposed improvements to the WWTP.
Seasonal land disposal (i.e., spray fields and/or percolation ponds) would continue to be used when recycled water demand is low or does not exist. A recycled water storage tank would be used to store the recycled water for municipal and industrial users, while a large, lined storage pond would be used for the agricultural user(s). Use of recycled water would incorporate the regulatory landscape, including recent State policies regarding the drought, the State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and salt and nutrient management planning.
Table 1 below details the following new facilities and processes/facilities are planned for the Proposed Project.
Table 1
Proposed Project Parameters
Item/Description Number of Units Size/Footprint
New WWTP access road 1 6,600 ft long
Septage Receiving Station 1 1,200 sf
Administration Building 1 4,200 sf, one story
Maintenance Building 1 5,000 sf, up to two
story
Electrical Building 2 800 SF, each
Headworks (screening, pumping, grit removal, sampling,
flow metering)
1 3,000 sf
Odor Control 1 350 sf
Oxidation Ditch 2 18,000 sf, each
Secondary Clarifier 2 75’ diam, each
RAS/WAS Pump Station 1 1,000 sf
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-2
Table 1
Proposed Project Parameters
Item/Description Number of Units Size/Footprint
Tertiary Influent PS 1 900 sf
Cloth Disk Filters 2 (# of trains) 1,600 sf
UV Disinfection 2+1 (# of trains) 3,500 sf
Tertiary Effluent PS 1 900 sf
Chemical Facility 1 2,400 sf
Tertiary Recycled Water Storage Tank 1 125 ft diameter, 40 ft Height
Effluent Irrigation Pump Station 1 400 sf
Dewatering structure (screw press, polymer feed, conveyor, cake bin)
1 5,400 sf
Aerated Sludge Holding Tank 1 3,000 sf
Recycled Water Distribution pipelines 27,937 Lineal feet (see Tables 2 and 3 for
further information)
Recycled Water Storage Pond 1 5.5 acres
Peak Flow Equalization Pond 1 1 acre
Domestic Spray Field Area 1 75 acres
Percolation Ponds 5 40 acres
Industrial Spray Field Area 1 65 acres
Potable water well 1 N/A
2.1.1 Recycled Water Customers
Planned customers are shown in Table 2. The agricultural site, Site #1, has a total of over 400 acres. It is planned to maximize the use of recycled water with the municipal and industrial users for landscape irrigation and commercial/process uses first, and then provide the agricultural user(s) recycled water.
Therefore, the agricultural acreage used in the summary table is approximately 1/3 of the total acreage.
Table 2
Recycled Water Customers
Site No. (1) Site Name/Description Type of Use Irrigable acreage
(acres)
Avg Day
Demand
(gpd)
Average
Annual
Demand
(AFY)
1 Mission Ranches Farm (2) Agricultural 143.0 507,200 570 2 Del Ray Elementary School Landscape 3.7 7,200 8
4 King City Arts Magnet School Landscape 2.7 5,300 6
5 King City Cemetery District Landscape 7.8 15,300 17
6 King City Golf Course Landscape 45.9 133,800 150
7 Santa Lucia School Landscape 2.7 5,300 6
8 King City High School Landscape 15.3 30,000 34
9 King City Park Landscape 6.1 12,000 13
10 Salinas Valley Fairgrounds Landscape 7.4 14,500 16
11 San Antonio Park Landscape 7.8 15,300 17
12 Arboleda/Creekbridge Development
(including Linear Park, 2 parks,
parking strips, middle school)
Landscape 26.1 51,200 57
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-3
Table 2
Recycled Water Customers
Site No. (1) Site Name/Description Type of Use Irrigable acreage
(acres)
Avg Day
Demand
(gpd)
Average
Annual
Demand
(AFY)
13 Mills Ranch Development (including
Linear Park, 2 parks (future), median
and parking strips)
Landscape 13.5 26,500 30
15 King City Business Park/NE Industrial
Area (estimated from City)
Landscape 12.0 23,625 26.5
SUBTOTAL - Agriculture 143.0 570
SUBTOTAL – Landscape 151.0 - 380.50
TOTAL 294 - 950.5
Notes:
(1) Numbering based on 2019 Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Areas 3 and 14 have since been removed from the Proposed Project.
(2) Assumed 35% of agricultural area
Table 3
Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines
Street Name/Location
Diameter
(Inches)
Length
(Linear Feet)
Along 3rd Street between San Antonio Drive and Pearl Street 8 3,652 Along Spreckles Road between San Antonio Drive and northwest of Lewis Street 10 2,233 Along Pearl Street from San Lorenzo Street to Jayne Street 8 2,367 Along San Antonio Drive from Livingston Ave/Beech Street to Bitterwater Road 8 3,263 Along Broadway Street from San Antonio Drive to San Lorenzo Street 8 3,058 Along San Antonio Drive from San Antonio Park, south to Broadway Street 8 2,308 Along San Lorenzo Street from Broadway Street to King City Golf Course 8 2,580 Along San Antonio Drive, between San Antonio Park, north to Mildred Avenue 12 2,180 Calcagno Street between Walker Avenue and Spreckles Road 6 1,637 Northwest of Spreckles Road and parallel to the north of Divina Way 6 1,023 Along Metz Road between San Antonio Drive and Bitterwater Road 6 1,901 Near Del Rey Elementary School 6 903
Near San Antonio Park 12 832
Total 27,937
2.2 Construction Considerations
Construction activities for the Proposed Project would begin in the spring/summer of 2024 and continue into the spring/summer of 2026 (i.e., Approximately 6 months of heavy activity and 24 months overall) and would include grading activities. Construction work in the downtown area will typically be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Due to no sensitive receptors, construction at the WWTP can be done seven days a week from the hours of 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Some large concrete pours and coating work may require night time work as needed and will require prior written permission/authorization from the Public Works Director.
Figure 4
Overview of Proposed Project
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
Project/Action Location
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WWTP
TU)"
=
TU")
=
TU")
=
10 ''
344 ft
10 ''
860 ft
Northeast Business Park Area
Arboleda
Development
Mills Ranch
Development
King City Golf Course
King City
Park
King City
High School
Salinas Valley
Fair Grounds
San Antonio
Park
King City
Cemetary District
Del Rey
Elementary School
King City Arts
Magnet School
Santa Lucia
School
Agricultural Area - Mission
Ranches Company, LLC
(1)
(15)
(12)
(13)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(5)
(2)
(4)
(7)
US 101
San Antonio Dr
Metz Rd
Bitterwater Rd
Broadway St
Canal St
Airport Rd
Lonoak Rd
Spreckels Rd
Pearl St
River Dr
N 3rd St
N 2nd St
N Russ St
Lewis St
S 3rd St
7th St
Willow St
Villa Dr
Industrial Way
3rd St
Central Ave
Broadway Cir
Sandringham St
S Mildred Ave
Cambridge Ave
Kings Pl
US 101
1st St
8 ''
3,652 ft
3,688 ft
12 ''
1,029 ft
10 ''
8 ''
3,722 ft
12 ''
2,180 ft
6 ''
1,901 ft
8 ''
1,850 ft
8 ''
2,419 ft
6 ''
1637 ft
12 ''
989 ft
950 ft
8 ''
8 ''
949 ft
6 ''
1,214 ft
12 ''
832 ft
12 ''
588 ft
12 ''
530 ft
8 ''
463 ft
8 ''
231 ft
955 ft
8 ''
8 ''
954 ft
6 ''
1023 ft
12 ''
1,001 ft
854 ft
8 ''
903 ft
6 ''
12 ''
669 ft
8 ''
464 ft
Last Revised: January 19, 2023 [ENTER PROJECT WISE PATH NAME TO MXD] For Example:pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/ClientName/10265A00/Data/GIS/Figure_01_01.mxd O
0 550 1,100
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: King City, ESRI
Figure A Alternative 5
PROJECT NAME | TM | CLIENT
Legend
WWTP Wastewater
Treatment Plant
TU")
=
Storage Tank and
Pump
!( Junctions
Proposed New Service
Road
Recycled Water
Pipelines (Diameter
[in], Length [ft])
Existing
Proposed
Potential Custumers
Agricultural
Irrigation
Roads
Figure 5
Overview of Proposed WWTP Improvements
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
Project/Action Location
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-6
The first activity will be to construct the permanent access road to the treatment plant. The existing plant access is a dirt road that runs through a farmer’s field, which makes the plant inaccessible during wet weather events or when an irrigation line breaks. A temporary construction easement will allow the road to be constructed to support the Proposed Project. A permanent easement will grant the City access to the plant without disrupting farming operations.
Once the permanent access road has been constructed, Pond 1 will be drained and the surface aerators will be transferred to adjacent ponds to provide additional aeration capacity during construction. The clay liner will be removed from the pond and the new treatment facilities as described in Section 2.0 will be constructed within and around Pond 1. Existing solar arrays will be relocated to allow the new administration building to be constructed.
Following startup of the new treatment plant, the wastewater from the existing treatment ponds will be treated through the new treatment plant. The clay liner from the treatment ponds 1a, 1b, 2, 4, and 5 will be excavated and used as backfill in Pond 1 around new structures to bring the site up to grade. Once the clay liner is excavated, Ponds 1a, 1b, and 2 will be disked so they can be used for effluent percolation. A plastic liner will be installed on Pond 3, which will provide recycled water storage for agricultural irrigation. Ponds 4 and 5 will serve as effluent storage ponds, which will feed the domestic effluent discharge areas to the west of the ponds.
The existing industrial effluent pump station will be rehabilitated and remain in service to feed the industrial discharge area, north of the domestic discharge area and the ponds. Currently the domestic spray fields are on the north side of the site and the industrial spray fields are located on the south side of the site. It is planned to swap the industrial and domestic spray fields. The domestic spray fields may also be modified to be shallow infiltration basins. The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50-footwide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction. However, in most places a 25-foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3- to 5-feet wide and 3-to 6- feet deep for the pipelines and the excavation for the percolation ponds would be approximately 10- to 12- feet deep.
Dewatering of the pipelines, as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities, shall be discharged to land and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, its assumed that the secondary/tertiary treatment plant project would be constructed by up to 50 to 60 workers on the site. For the distribution pipelines two (2) crews of 10 to 15 workers each. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that would minimize hauling distances and long-term disruption.
Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Project. Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-site during construction or disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for this project.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-7
Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-concrete to the site.
During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Project could generate up to 40 round-trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one-time during construction may include, but not limited to:
• Track-mounted excavator
• Backhoe
• Grader
• Crane
• Dozer
• Compactor
• Trencher/boring machine
• End and bottom dump truck
• Front-end loader
• Water truck
• Flat-bed delivery truck
• Forklift
• Compressor/jack hammer
• Asphalt paver & roller
• Street sweeper
It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the City’s design standards or established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.
2.3 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy
The Proposed Project will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that process, the State Board prepared an IS/MND for the use of recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by reference for this document and Proposed Project. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-8
by at least 1,000,000 AFY by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the Central Coast RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the Central Coast Area and including Monterey County.
The Proposed Project will provide high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water from the City’s upgraded tertiary WWTP and made available to users within the City. All irrigation systems will be operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any reclamation permits issued by the Central Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically require the following
• Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated; • Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities; • Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;
• Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and • Irrigation will not occur within 50-feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions have been met as defined in Title 22.
2.4 Operational Plans
The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its M&I users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as follows:
• Municipal and Industrial Irrigation: 8 PM to 4 AM
• Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required
2.5 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals
Table 4 below summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to construction of the Proposed Project. Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.
Table 4
Potential Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Proposed Project Agency Type of Approval
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit for Stormwater
Discharge Associated with Construction
Activities
• Recycled Water Use Permit
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
• Construction activities in compliance with
CAL/OSHA safety requirements
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 2-9
Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD)
• Authority to Construct
• Permit to Operate
2.6 No Project Alternative
Under the No Project/Action Alternative, the City’s Proposed Project would not be constructed. For this analysis, it is assumed that the existing baseline condition and the future No Project condition are the same.
That is, the No Project Alternative assumes that none of the Proposed Project facilities would be constructed. As a result, the impact description and summary compare the Proposed Project to the existing conditions now and into the future assuming that the City would not construct any facilities to meet the objectives of the Proposed Project. Again, the No Project assumes that none of the proposed facilities will be constructed now or in the future. Alternatives analyzed in the City’s WWTP Upgrades and Recycled Water Preliminary Feasibility Studies would have very similar environmental impacts as the Proposed Project that are virtually indistinguishable from an environmental impact perspective and have been eliminated due to technical and/or engineering reasons and are not carried forward in this environmental document.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-1
Chapter 3 Environmental Review and Consequences
This chapter evaluates the potential for the Proposed Project to have a significant effect on the environment.
Using a modified CEQA Environmental Checklist Form as presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as a framework, the checklist identifies the potential impacts of the Proposed Project pursuant to CEQA. This document compares the Proposed Project against the No Project Alternative as is required by CEQA.
Environmental Impact Designations
For this checklist, the following designations are used to distinguish between levels of significance of potential impacts to each resource area:
Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant according to the threshold criteria identified for the resource, even after mitigation strategies are applied and/or an adverse effect that could be significant and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared to meet CEQA requirements, respectively.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Adverse environmental consequences that have the potential to be significant, but can be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the application of identified mitigation strategies that are not already been incorporated into the Proposed Project description.
Less-than-Significant Impact. Potential adverse environmental consequences have been identified. However, they are not so adverse as to meet the significance threshold criteria for that resource. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
No Impact. No adverse environmental consequences have been identified for the resource or the consequences are negligible or undetectable. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
Environmental Resources Evaluated
The following are the key environmental resources that were evaluated in this document.
Aesthetics Hydrology / Water Quality Socioeconomics
Agriculture Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation/Traffic Air Quality Mineral Resources Tribal Cultural Resources Biological Resources Noise Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Population and Housing Wildfire
Geology / Soils Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Hazards/Hazardous Materials Recreation
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-2
3.1 Aesthetics
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas and therefore would not have a substantial impact on a scenic vista. The existing WWTP is located on a relatively flat alluvial plain north of King City. The current facilities contain single-story structures for administrative and repair activities. The Salinas riverbed, which is located immediately west of the WWTP, contains many large trees and vegetation which shields views of the WWTP from the adjacent US Highway 101. Given the relatively low visual profile of the existing treatment plant facility and the undeveloped nature of surrounding areas, the existing WWTP is barely visible from any developed areas in the vicinity of the existing facility. Further, there are no scenic vistas within the City limits where the recycled water pipelines would be placed.
Once constructed, the pipelines would be buried and not be visible. Therefore, none of the Proposed Project facilities will have a substantial adverse effect upon any scenic vistas nor will they degrade any existing scenic resources or the visual character or quality of its surroundings. As a result, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not affect any scenic vistas or its designation. No impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required. (b) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located near or within a designated state scenic highway and therefore would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Highway 101 through the City is not a scenic corridor and is not designated as state scenic highway by the City, County and/or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As a result, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not affect any scenic resources along Highway 101 or its designation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no specific mitigation measures are required. (c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the Proposed Project would be visible and would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-3
the presence of construction equipment and materials. However, the proposed construction activities at the WWTP would be considered less than significant as there are no sensitive receptors around the facilities. However, the construction of the approximately 5.3-miles of recycled water pipelines would involve temporary negative aesthetic effects, including open trenches as well as the presence of construction equipment and materials. Specifically, visual conditions during construction activities would include various types of construction equipment, materials staging areas, construction-force parking areas, construction fencing, and construction-related debris.
Although this would represent a temporary visual condition, construction of the recycled water pipelines throughout the City could be considered an unsightly condition for nearby residential and business receptors. Although temporary, such conditions represent an impact on visual quality of the Project Area. However, with implementation of the mitigation measure below, the Proposed Project’s construction-related impacts would be further reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Implement Visual Construction Best Management Practices. The City and/or its contractor shall remove construction debris and dispose of it at a licensed facility on a daily basis. In the event daily disposal is not determined to be practical, it must be stored on site as far from residential receptors as feasible and be screened from view. The contractor would also be required to remove any debris, mud or other soils from the site that was deposited on public roadways by construction-related traffic. Construction equipment and crew parking areas are to be staged in an orderly manner and as far as possible from existing residences. Site conditions are to be left in a clean and orderly manner at the end of each working day.
Once constructed, the Proposed Project the recycled pipelines would be buried and not visible. The improvements of the new WWTP facilities would be above ground, but would be in the same location with little or no sensitive visual receptors and would not be considered a new visual impact over the existing baseline condition(s). As a result, any visual impacts as a result of new permanent facilities would be considered to be less-than-significant. (d) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not be constructed during nighttime hours and therefore would not have any intensive lighting or glare. However, the Proposed Project would require additional lighting for security and safety as the existing water storage ponds and treatment facilities have little or no lighting. Also, the WWTP is surrounded by agricultural fields and no residences or businesses, and since the lighting will be localized for safety and security, it should not be seen from a distance. As a result, any visual impacts as a result of new permanent facilities would be considered to be less-than-significant.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-4
3.2 Agricultural Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use?
Discussion
(a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Active agriculture operations are ongoing in areas east, northeast and south of the existing WWTP. All of the Proposed Project improvements shall be located in a manner that does not directly impact these ongoing agricultural activities. The first activity of the Proposed Project will be to construct the 1.25-mile (6,600 linear feet) permanent access road to the treatment plant. Assuming a 28-foot right-of-way, this could result in the conversion of approximately 4.25 acres to non-agricultural use. However, the Proposed Project’s proposed WWTP access road is currently a dirt service road that runs along the edge of a farmer’s field and is not in agricultural production. During wet weather events, this dirt road becomes flooded and unusable which makes the WWTP inaccessible during wet weather events. This land is not in agricultural production and is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). A temporary construction easement will allow the road to be constructed to support the Proposed Project. A permanent easement will grant the City access to the plant without disrupting farming operations. Any impacts of converting the existing dirt road to a permanent access road would be considered less-than-significant. In addition, the Proposed Project’s approximately 5.3-miles of recycled water pipeline distribution facilities would be constructed within existing paved streets within the City and therefore would not result in the conversion of any Farmlands. As a result, the Proposed Project would not Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. However, Project construction could temporarily impact roadways important to adjacent agricultural operations. As a result, the following mitigation is proposed:
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-5
Mitigation Measure AGR-1: Early Notice of any Planned Closures or Detours on Existing Roadways. The City and/or its contractor shall provide early notice of any planned closures or detours on existing roadways serving existing agricultural operations to adjacent property owners and any farm lessee/operators. These notices should be provided no less than two weeks prior to these closures or detours. Regular updates about forthcoming closures or detours shall be provided to those impacted by these activities as well as being posted on local roadways so that adequate planning can be made for the movement of agricultural goods, equipment and personnel.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, any potentially significant visual impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
(b) Less Than Significant Impact. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above and with the exception of the conversion of the existing dirt access road to a permanent access road, the Proposed Project would not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. This land is not under a Williamson Act contract. As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with agricultural practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract. Any impacts are considered less-thansignificant, and no mitigation is required or necessary. (c) Less- than-Significant Impact. As stated above and with the exception of the conversion of the existing dirt access road to a permanent access road, the Proposed Project would not be located on any existing agricultural fields or farmlands. This land is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with agricultural practices and usage over existing baseline conditions, and/or a conflict with a Williamson Act Contract. Any impacts are considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required or necessary.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-6
3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
g) Conflict with an application plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) (formally known as the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties. MBARD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and review process. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict, violate, and/or obstruct with MBARD’s Air Quality Plan. Any impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.
No mitigation is required or necessary.
(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project site is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin. This Basin is currently designated “non-attainment” for the state ozone and PM10 but is in attainment or unclassified for all other state and federal standards.
The MBARD is required to produce plans for complying with ambient air quality standards in its jurisdiction every 3 years. As MBARD 's contribution to the California State implementation Plan King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-7
(SIP), three local plans have been prepared: (1) the 2008 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for achieving the 2006 California O3 standard; (2) the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan, for maintaining the 1997 federal O3 standard; and (3) the 2005 Particulate Matter Plan, for particulate matter made in response to Senate Bill 656. Consistency determinations with the AQMP are used by the MBARD to address a project's cumulative impact on regional air quality. Projects that are not consistent with the AQMP are not accommodated in the AQMP, and will have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality unless emissions are entirely offset. Consistency of direct emissions associated with equipment or process operations of a commercial, industrial, or institutional facility subject to MBARD permit authority is determined by assessing whether the emission source complies with all applicable MBARD rules and regulations, including emission offset and emission control requirements; and/or whether or not project emissions are accommodated in the AQMP.
MBARD has established quantitative significance thresholds for both construction and operational phases of a project. Construction activities (e.g., excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that would directly generate 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air quality when they are located nearby and upwind of sensitive receptors. Also, the potential screening-level threshold is for projects that would affect 2.2 to 8.1 acres per day, depending on the level of earthmoving (grading/excavation) that is contemplated.
According to MBARD, projects using typical construction equipment such as dump trucks, scrappers, bulldozers, compactors and front-end loaders that temporarily emit precursors of ozone (i.e., VOC or NOX), are accommodated in the emission inventories of state- and federally-required air plans, and would not have a significant impact on the attainment and maintenance of ozone AAQS (MBARD, 2008). Therefore, emissions of these criteria pollutants during construction that uses typical equipment would not cause or substantially contribute to the violation of other state or national AAQS.
Construction activities for the Proposed Project would begin in the spring/summer of 2024 and continue into the spring/summer of 2026 (i.e., Approximately 6 months of heavy activity and 24 months overall) and would include grading activities. However, construction activities would not result in affecting more than 10.0 acres per day. Overall construction work would require the use of various types of mostly diesel-powered equipment, including bulldozers, wheel loaders, excavators, and various kinds of trucks.
Construction activities typically result in emissions of particulate matter, usually in the form of fugitive dust from activities such as trenching and grading. Emissions of particulate matter vary dayto-day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather.
Estimated construction emissions for the construction of the Proposed project were generated by using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s URBEMIS Construction Emissions Model. (Note that this model was used because it has been is ideal for estimating construction projects like this). The URBEMIS Construction Emissions Model is a Microsoft Excel worksheet available to assess the emissions of linear construction projects. The estimated construction equipment fleet-mix and the acreage and soil volume are put into the URBEMIS model in order to determine potential emissions. See Appendix A and Table 5 below.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-8
As shown in Table 5, the Proposed Project’s construction emissions would not exceed MBARD’s daily and/or annual significance thresholds, with the exception of PM10.
MBARD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts (as noted in their CEQA Guidelines) is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive basic construction control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. With implementation of the mitigation measures below, the Proposed Project’s construction-related impacts (including PM10) would be further reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Table 5
Estimated Proposed Project Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5*
Grubbing/Land Clearing 3.4 30.7 25.0 101.0 21.7
Grading/Excavation 9.0 85.4 76.0 103.3 23.8
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 7.2 72.3 56.7 102.4 22.9
Paving 3.6 38.4 27.3 1.2 1.0
Maximum (lbs/day)** 9.0 85.4 76.0 103.3 23.8
Total Tons Project/ Year 1.9 18.0 15.0 23.1 5.2
MBARD’s Thresholds of Significance
Pounds per Day 137 550 137 82 82
Tons per Project/Year 25 100 25 15 15
Potentially Significant Impact? No No No Yes No
• Estimated. MBARD does not have specific threshold for PM2.5 Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for ALL Proposed Construction Projects. During all phases of construction, the following procedures shall be implemented, as appropriate:
• Provide MBARD at least 10 working days’ notice prior to renovation, demolition, or construction activities.
• Contact MBARD If old underground piping or other asbestos containing construction materials are encountered during trenching activities.
• Use clean air vehicles and construction equipment that conform to MBARD’s Tier 3 or 4 emission standards when ever possible.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
• Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph). • Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydro seed area.
• Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2'0" of freeboard.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-9
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. • If/as appropriate, plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
• Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. • All green waste (e.g., trees, shrubs, etc.) shall be disposed of via wood chipping or taken to a landfill instead of burning.
• Cover inactive storage piles.
• Install wheel washers at the entrance to construction sites for all exiting trucks. • Pave all roads on construction sites.
• Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. • Post a publicly visible sign which specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall be visible to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance). • Limit the area under construction at any one time.
• Limit the pieces of equipment used at any one time.
• Minimize the use of diesel-powered equipment (i.e., wheeled tractor, wheeled loader, roller) by using gasoline-powered equipment to reduce NOx emissions. • Limit the hours of operation for heavy-duty equipment. • Undertake project during non-zone season (November 1 – April 30). • Off-site mitigation
Once operational, emission sources resulting from project operations would be associated with primarily regular maintenance and inspection work. Operational impacts for the Proposed Project, even if detectible, would be well below MBARD’s thresholds identified above and would likely be considered less-than-significant. With respect to project conformity with the federal Clean Air Act, the Proposed Project’s potential emissions are well below minimum thresholds and are below the area’s inventory specified for each criteria pollutant designated non-attainment or maintenance for the Central Coast Air Basin. As such, further general conformity analysis would not likely be required.
(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation.
As stated above, the Proposed Project site is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin. This Basin is currently designated “non-attainment” for the state ozone and PM10 but is in attainment or unclassified for all other state and federal standards. The MBARD is active in establishing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations in order to attain all state and federal ambient air quality standards and to minimize public exposure to airborne toxins such as naturally occurring King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-10
asbestos (NOA) and nuisance odors. NOA is known to occur in the disturbed acreage along Spreckels Road and the area bounded by Cemetery Road, Metz Road, and San Antonio Drive. Air emissions would be generated during construction of the Proposed Project, which could increase criteria air pollutants, including PM10 and NOA. However, construction activities would be temporary and would incorporate the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Comply with Asbestos ATCM by Obtaining an Approved Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan or Exemption. VMP-related ground-disturbing activities greater than 1 acre within potential NOA containing areas (specifically areas disturbed acreage along Spreckels Road and the area bounded by Cemetery Road, Metz Road, and San Antonio Drive) will be required to comply with the California Air resources Board’s (CARB) airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) for NOA. The City and its contractors will prepare and implement an asbestos dust mitigation plan in compliance with the State Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations with the MBARD’s implementation requiring submission of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan Application, which includes a checklist of BMPs that must be implemented. The plan will specify actions to be taken during construction activities to minimize NOA emissions.
The plan will also address specific emission sources as identified by the MBARD to be:
track-out onto the paved public road; active storage piles; inactive disturbed surface areas and storage piles; traffic on unpaved onsite roads; earthmoving activities; off-site transport of materials; and post-project stabilization of disturbed soil surfaces. Specific measures to be implemented will include but not be limited to removing visible track out, keeping active storage piles covered or wet, controlling inactive areas or storage piles, maintain trucks and wet loads to prevent spillage, and limit vehicle speeds. The City and its contractors will submit the plan to MBARD for approval prior to implementation, and will not proceed with construction of the Proposed Project until MBARD has approved the plan and proposed BMPs or an exemption is received.
As mentioned above, upon completion of construction activities, emission sources resulting from Proposed Project operations would be associated with regular maintenance and inspection work.
Given the limited number of trips that would be required, only limited emissions would be generated; these emissions would be expected to be well below MBARD’s guidelines. See Table 5 above. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants, and the impacts would be even less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 as identified above. (d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from dieselpowered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and that only a limited number of diesel trucks would be associated with operation of the project, localized exposure to DPM would be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a 70- King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-11
year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-than-significant.
Likewise, as noted above, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial emissions of any criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors, including residents in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, impacts to sensitive receptors would be further reduced and considered to be less-than-significant. No additional mitigation measures are required.
(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the Proposed Project, the various dieselpowered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. These odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate area and, in addition, would be temporary and short-lived in nature. Once constructed, the operations of the Proposed Project would not result in any odor issues.
Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.
(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. MBARD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction and/or operational-related GHG emissions for projects like this.
Operation of the Proposed Project is not expected to generate any significant amounts of GHG emissions. During construction of the Proposed Project, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could generate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Proposed Project would not exceed the thresholds for NOx, which is an indicator for generating GHG emissions.
MBARD’s approach to analyses of construction impacts as noted in their CEQA Guidelines is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive basic construction control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. As a result, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, any potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No additional mitigation measures are required. (g) No Impact. The construction and/or the operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with an application plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No mitigation is necessary or required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-12
3.4 Biological Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
(a) Less-than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
As shown in Appendix B, the following discussion of biological resources is based upon the Biological Resources Assessment for the King City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) prepared by the firm of Althouse & Meade, Inc. in February 2023. The 229.9-acre site (Study Area) includes sections of the 467.5-acre WWTP property (Property), as well as agricultural fields and King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-13
developed areas in King City, California. Results include a habitat assessment, botanical and wildlife inventory, a discussion of special status species that have potential to occur within the Study Area, and an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed facility improvements, access road and pipeline (Project). Content of this report also addresses comments and recommendations made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; 2021) regarding the April 19, 2021 and July 22, 2022 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this Project (SCH No. 2021050084). Additional mitigation recommendations for potential impacts to biological resources are also provided. A summary of the report is provided below3 .
• The Proposed Project entails construction and operation of improvements to the existing King City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), where this updated report focuses on the addition of 5.3-miles of proposed pipelines and access road improvements. Planned work will occur within the existing facility footprint with upgrades to an existing access road through farmland (disturbed habitat), and within City streets (developed habitat). • The Study Area is comprised of disturbed and developed habitats. Disturbed habitat comprises the water treatment plant where different land uses affiliated with water treatment include spray fields, water treatment ponds, access roads, and miscellaneous facility components. Developed habitat comprises areas of proposed pipeline within the City.
• Botanical surveys identified 45 species of vascular plants in the Study Area. There are three special status plants with low potential to occur in the Study Area but have no potential to occur in the Project area due to lack of suitable habitat where work is proposed. No special status plants were observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
• Wildlife surveys detected 28 animal species in the Study Area. There are 16 special status animals with some potential to occur in the Study Area. No special status animals were observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys. • Biological resources that could be impacted by the Project include existing disturbed habitat (particularly conversion of water treatment ponds), developed habitat (City streets), nesting birds, special status amphibians and reptiles (western spadefoot toad, Coast Range newt, northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, and coast horned lizard), special status birds (Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, great blue heron, burrowing owl, and bank swallow), and special status mammals (Salinas pocket mouse, American Badger, and San Joaquin kit fox). Project impacts will be negligible for many special status species with potential to occur in the vicinity due to current management practices and habitat conditions within disturbed and developed habitats. Mitigation recommendations are provided to reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources mentioned above.
3 Some of the exact numbering of the mitigation measures, format, and/or specific content may have been changed or altered for the efficacy and readability of this overlying report.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-14
• It should be noted that the existing WWTP has incorporated several design features that are intended to reduce potential impacts of this facility. These measures include monitoring wells throughout the WWTP property which should detect changes in groundwater quality in order to ensure that off-site groundwater is not degraded. The WWTP is also surrounded by a levy and setbacks in order to ensure that surface water drains into off-site areas. It should also be noted that the existing spray field adjacent to the river habitat will no longer be in operation once the proposed improvements to the WWTP are completed. This represents a beneficial impact upon biological resources within the adjacent Salinas River habitats.
The following is a summary of the potential of the Proposed Project to adversely affect special status species.
Botanical Resources
Special status plants with the potential to be found in the Proposed Project area are not likely to occur. Portions of the Proposed Project area that are marginally suited to support special status plants will not be impacted due to regular long-term disturbance of natural habitat and/or the lack of appropriate habitat. No special status plants either in bloom or senesced were detected during on-site surveys conducted in 2021. As such, no further mitigation measures or botanical surveys are required.
Wildlife Resources
Special status wildlife species with the potential to be found in the Proposed Project area are as follows:
Nesting Birds - Impacts to or taking of nesting birds could occur if project construction is conducted during the nesting season, that being February 1 through August 31. Mitigations are provided below which will reduce potential adverse effects of the Proposed Project on nesting birds (see "Mitigation Measures" below).
Western Bumblebee - Project construction as proposed within existing treatment ponds would not impact potential nesting habitat for the western bumblebee. No further mitigations are required.
Amphibians and Reptiles - Several special status amphibians have the potential to occur within the study area. These special status amphibian species include the western spadefoot toad and the coast range newt. Special status reptiles include the Northern California legless lizard, the western pond turtle and the coast horned lizard. Due to the project being restricted to the on-site treatment ponds, it is unlikely for all but the western pond turtle to be potentially impacted by project related activities. Mitigation measures are recommended to protect these special status amphibians and reptiles from project - related impacts (see "Mitigation Measures" below).
Special Status Birds - Special status birds with the potential to occur within the project area include the cooper's hawk, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, great blue heron, burrowing owl, bank swallow and least bell's vireo. Mitigation measures are provided below which are intended King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-15
to protect these special status birds from project related impacts (See "Mitigation Measures" below).
• Cooper's Hawk- Suitable nesting habitat for the cooper's Hawk is limited to one tree in the study area which is located approximately 400 feet from the project site. Nesting bird surveys will ensure no nesting habitat of the cooper's hawk would be impacted by the proposed project (see "Mitigation Measures" below). • Tricolored Blackbird - A limited nesting substrate around the existing on-site treatment ponds is present which could support nesting tricolored blackbirds.
Mitigation measures provided below are intended to reduce impacts to the species noted above to a less than significant level (see "Mitigation Measures" below). • Golden Eagle - Suitable nesting habitat for the golden eagle is not present in the general area nor within one mile of the proposed project. As such, impacts to foraging would be negligible. As such, no further mitigation measures are required. • Great Blue Heron - Rookery habitat for the great blue heron is not present in the general area. No known nesting colonies are located within the general area of the proposed project. Potential impacts to the great blue heron would be negligible. As such, no furthermitigation measures are required.
• Burrowing Owl - Resurgent grassland habitat suitable for denning burrowing owl is present within the existing inactive industrial spray field within the treatment plant area. As such there is potential for project related impacts to the burrowing owl.
Mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level(see "Mitigation Measures" below).
• Bank Swallow - Suitable nesting habitat for the bank swallow is not present within the Proposed Project area. However, there is potential for bank swallow nesting in the riparian habitat along the Salinas River approximately 1300 feet west of the study area. Given this distance of separation, project activities will not impact this potential nesting habitat. As such, no further mitigation measures are required. • Lli Bell Vireo - Suitable habitat for the least bell's vireo is not present in the Proposed Project area. There is potential for nests in shrubby riparian habitat along the Salinas River approximately 1300 feet (0.2-miles) west of the proposed project. In spite of this distance of separation, CDFW recommends that any project within 0.5 miles of potential least bell's vireo nesting habitat be surveyed to ensure protection of this species when nesting. As a result, mitigation measures are recommended (see ""Mitigation Measures"" below).
Mammals
Special status mammals including the Salinas pocket mouse, American badger and San Joaquin kit fox have the potential to occur in the study area and could be impacted by project related activities Salinas Pocket Mouse - The Salinas pocket mouse is unlikely to occur but could be present in the King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-16
study area. Mitigation measures are provided which would reduce these potential impacts to the Salinas pocket mouse to a less than significant level (see ""Mitigation Measures"" below)." • American Badger - Existing habitat conditions are suitable to support denning American badger activities within the on-site spray fields. Mitigation measures are provided which would reduce these potential impacts to the American badger to a less than significant level (see ""Mitigation Measures"" below)."
• San Joaquin Kit Fox - Occurrences of the San Joaquin kit fox has been documented in the vicinity of the project area. Habitat assessments conducted in the study area on December 7, 2021 determined that marginally suitable habitat in the existing inactive industrial spray fields on-site could support denning kit fox. Areas surrounding the project site are actively farmed and would impede kit fox movement into the study area from less developed areas to the east and south. Though not likely to occur on-site mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that no take of the San Joaquin kit fox occurs (see ""Mitigation Measures"" below).
Mitigation Measures
Potential Project impacts to the special status species identified above will be reduced to less than significant levels through current management practices as well as the implementation of proposed mitigation measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys. If construction occurs between February 1 and September 15, nesting bird survey shall be conducted within 10 days prior to construction/ground disturbance activities. If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activity shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist will continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the project. If behavioral changes occur, work causing that change shall cease and the CDFW will be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is notfeasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250-feet around active nests of non-listed birds and a 500-foot no disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds are fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. A preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the project site and nest locations shall be included within the report. The biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buff depending upon site conditions.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all earth-disturbing construction activities and draining of treatment ponds associated with construction of the project including, but not limited to, King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-17
grading, excavations, tilling, draining and dredging. The biologist shall contact a morning clearance survey of the project area each day that ground disturbing activities are proposed. Special status animals (i.e., western spadefoot toad, coast range newt northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, coast horned lizard and Salinas pocket mouse) captured during surveys or during construction monitoring shall be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat outside of the project area. A letter report shall be submitted to the County and CDFW within 30 days of relocation or as directed by CDFW.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Tricolored Blackbird Surveys. To the extent possible, the Proposed Project construction activities shall be timed to avoid the typical bird breeding season of February 1 through September 15. However, if Project construction activities that could disrupt nesting must take place during that time (i.e., February 1 through September 15), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct focused surveys for nesting tricolored blackbird to determine the presence or absence of the species or nesting colonies in the study area."
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Tricolored Blackbird Colony Avoidance. If an active tricolor blackbird nesting colony is found during surveys, a minimum 300-foot nodisturbance buffer shall be installed and observed in accordance with CDFW requirements until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that nesting has ceased and the young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the colony or parental care for survival. It is important to note that tricolored blackbird colonies can expand over time and for this reason, CDFW recommends that an active colony be re-assessed to determine its extent within 10 days prior to Project Construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Tricolored Blackbird Take Authorization. In the event that a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is observed during survey consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss whether the project can avoid take and if take avoidance is not feasible, to acquire all necessary permits pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code."
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. Where suitable habitat is present on or in the vicinity of the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused burrowing owl surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) “Burrowing Owl Survey and Mitigation Guidelines" and the California Department of Fish and Game "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012)". Specifically, these documents suggest three or more surveillance surveys be conducted during daylight hours with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season of April 15th to July 15th when the burrowing owls are most detectable. In addition, CDFW advises that surveys include a minimum 500-foot survey radius around the project site.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Burrowing Owl Avoidance. No disturbance buffers as outlined within the California Department of Fish and Game (2012) document noted above, shall be implemented prior to and during any ground disturbing activities and that impactsto occupied burrows be avoided unless a qualified biologist verifiesthrough non-invasive methods that either the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation or King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-18
that juveniles from the occupied burrows and are foraging independently are capable of independent survival.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Burrowing Owl Eviction and Mitigation. If burrowing owls are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to the California Department of Fish and Game (2012), evicting birds from burrows is not a take avoidance, minimization or mitigation method and is instead considered a potentially significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. If it is necessary for the project construction to proceed, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by a qualified biologist and only during the non-breeding season before breeding behavior is exhibited and aft the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods such as surveillance.
Mitigation in the form of replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a minimum ratio of one burrow collapsed to one artificial burrow constructed shall be implemented to mitigate the evicting of burrowing owls and the loss of burrows. Burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or recolonize an area that will be impacted. As such, CDFW recommends ongoing surveys at a rate that is sufficient to detect burrowing owl if they return.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Focused Least Bell's Vireo Surveys. In order to reduce potential project related impacts to the least bell's vireo, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct surveys following the survey methodology developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) prior to project construction within the project area and a ½ mile buff around the project area. In addition, if project activities take place during the typical breeding season (February 1 through September 15), additional preconstruction surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the start of project construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Least Bell's Vireo Buffer. If an active least bell's vireo nest is found during protocol or preconstruction surveys, a minimum 500-foot, no disturbance buff shall be implemented and maintained until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest site or parental care for survival.
Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Least Bell's Vireo Nest Avoidance and Habitat Mitigation. In addition to avoiding occupied nests, CDFW recommends that impacts to known nests be avoided at all times of the year. Regardless of nesting status, if potential or known least bell's vireo nesting habitat (i.e., trees) is removed, CDFW recommends it be replaced with appropriate native tree species planted a ratio of 3:1 (replaced to removed) in an area that will be protected in perpetuity. This mitigation will off-set potential impacts of the loss of potential nesting habitat.
Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Least Bell's Vireo Take Authorization. If a 500- foot no-disturbance nest buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW is warranted and acquisition of required permits may be necessary prior to project construction in order to avoid unauthorized take pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-19
Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Preconstruction Survey for the America Badger. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted on the project site in order to locate occupied American badger dens within 100-feet of the Proposed Project site. The survey shall be conducted within 15-days of starting any grading, grubbing or oak tree removal. Orange construction fencing, or other easily identifiable buff material, shall be installed under the direction of a project biologist in a manner sufficient to protect the dens from construction equipment. A buffer of 50-feet shall be used for occupied non-maternal dens. A buffer of 150- feetshall be installed if the den is determined to be a maternal pupping den. Construction activities shall not commence within the exclusion area until the badger has moved on its own accord. A pre-construction survey letter report shall be submitted to the City for review within one week after completion of the survey.
Mitigation Measure BIO-14: San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys and Minimization. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys to assess for the presence or absence of the San Joaquin kit fox. The survey area will consist of the entire project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer. In addition, recommendations made by the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service for the San Joaquin kit fox shall be followed during Proposed Project construction as noted below. The following measures are taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior To or During Ground Disturbance (2011) and shall be implemented as specified below.
• Project-related vehicles shall observe a daytime speed limit of 15 mph throughout the Proposed Project site and all project areas except on County roads and State and Federal highways. This is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Nighttime construction shall be minimized to the extent possible.
However, if it does occur, the speed limit shall be reduced to 10 mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated areas shall be prohibited. • In order to prevent inadvertent entrapment of Kit foxes or other animals during project construction, all excavated, steep walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the California Department Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted. • Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes or become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods shall be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-20
shall not be moved until the California Fish and Wildlife Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once in order to remove it from the path of construction activity until the kit fox has escaped.
• No firearms shall be allowed on the Proposed Project site. • No pets,such as dogs or cats,shall be permitted on theProposed Project site in ordertoprevent harassment, mortality of kitfoxes, or destruction of dens. • Use of rodenticides and herbicides in the project area shall be restricted in order to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture and other State and Federal legislation as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the California Fish and Wildlife Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to the kit fox.
• A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or trapped kit fox. The representative will shall be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the California Fish and Wildlife Service.
• An employee education program shall be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to the kit fox or other endangered species. This program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program shall include the following: a description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs, a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area, an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation.
A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.
• Upon completion of the proposed project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, etc. shall be re-contoured if necessary and vegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during construction of the proposed project, but after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-21
to be re-vegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas shall be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation wit CDFW and revegetation experts.
• In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structure should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape or the California Fish and Wildlife Service shall be contacted for map guidance. During the site disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such animal either dead, injured, or entrapped shall be required to report the incident immediately to the City. In the event that any observations are made of an injured or dead kit fox, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CDFW shall be immediately notified by telephone. In addition, for notification shall be provided in writing within three working days of finding any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the incident. Any threatened or endangered species found dead or injured shall be turned over immediately to CDFW for care, analysis or disposition.
• New sightings of San Joaquin kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed shall also be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Non-Sensitive Species
The construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in temporary disturbance of nonsensitive plant and wildlife species which are not considered sensitive by the resource agencies.
However, these temporary impacts are considered less than significant and the Proposed Project would not result in adverse effects to special-status species. As a result, and with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed above, the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW and/or USFWS.
(b) No Impact. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters are not present in the Study Area.
Manmade water treatment ponds are present on the site as part of water treatment operations, but do not provide wetland function nor connectivity to other aquatic resources. The Salinas River and any potential wetlands affiliated with this riverine system are partially on the WWTP Property but are over 1,000 feet west of the proposed Project area. Proposed pipelines will have no impact on aquatic features. As a result, no mitigation is required or necessary. (c) No Impact. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters are not present in the Study Area.
Manmade water treatment ponds are present on the site as part of water treatment operations, but do not provide wetland function nor connectivity to other aquatic resources. The Salinas River and any potential wetlands affiliated with this riverine system are partially on the WWTP Property but King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-22
are over 1,000 feet west of the proposed Project area. Proposed pipelines will have no impact on aquatic features. As a result, no mitigation is required or necessary. (d) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As a result, no mitigation is required or necessary. (e) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project is not expected to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impacts to oak trees are anticipated by the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project. However, to ensure oak trees are protected during construction, the following precautionary measures are recommended to be implemented if and/or as appropriate to avoid impacts to native oak trees.
Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Oak Tree Avoidance and Protection. Native oak trees in and near the Project footprint shall be protected in place. If/as necessary, pruning may be conducted by a licensed Arborist in a manner that would not result in a decrease in tree health. The critical root zones (CRZs) of native oak trees shall be defined as an area of root space equivalent to 1.5 times the radius of the canopy dripline (e.g.: a 10-foot radius canopy has a CRZ of 15-feet around the trunk). Impacts include any ground disturbance within the CRZ, such as grading, trenching, parking vehicles, or staging materials. If appropriate and prior to commencement of construction, protective high visibility fencing shall be installed at the outer limit of the CRZ. The fencing shall be marked with signage indicating No Access – Tree Protection Zone or similar text. Fencing shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-16: Monitoring and As-Built Impact Report. If/as appropriate, a licensed Arborist or qualified Botanist shall inspect and approve any tree protective fencing prior to start of earthwork. If tree protection fencing placed at the limits of the CRZ must be temporarily removed to complete construction activities, an Arborist or Botanist shall be present. If grading or other ground disturbance occurs within oak tree CRZ, or if trimming or pruning of oak tree limbs/branches occur, the tree and area of impact shall be mapped in the field and recorded. Any roots of 1-inch diameter or greater that are exposed during grading that cannot be saved, should be cut clean with a sharp pruning tool or Sawzall. Treatment of the cut roots is at the discretion of the Arborist. Upon completion of work, an As-built Impact Report will be provided to the City that will include an assessment of impacts that occurred during work. The report will include the number of impacted trees and type of mitigation recommended to reduce impacts to native oak trees (typically replaced at a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted oak trees and 4:1 ratio for removed oak trees).
Mitigation Measure BIO-17: Oak Tree Mitigation Plan. As/if appropriate, impacted and removed oaks documented in the As-built Impact Report shall be replaced using the appropriate mitigation ratio and a mitigation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to the conclusion of construction activities. The mitigation plan shall incorporate the most current City standards for mitigating impacts to oak trees. Impacts to native trees King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-23
with a DBH of 4 inches or greater shall be mitigated by planting additional trees on site.
Oaks removed shall be replaced in kind at a 4:1 ratio (i.e., four replacement trees per one removed tree). Oaks impacted shall be replaced in kind at a 2:1 ratio. Removal of individual California bay trees shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., two replacement trees per one removed tree). Replacement trees shall be a minimum of one gallon in size, of local origin, and of the same species as was impacted. Replacement trees shall be seasonally maintained (browse protection, weed reduction and irrigation, as needed) and monitored annually for at least five years. A mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared that outlines success criteria and provides a timeline for monitoring replacement oak trees. Annual reports will be provided to the City that will include monitoring results and recommendations for tree establishment success.
(f) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As a result, no impacts are expected and no specific mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-24
3.5 Cultural Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
The existing WWTP site is highly disturbed and is not expected to contain any known archaeological sites, paleontological resources or historical structures. As shown in Appendix C, on June 16, 2022, the City sent a letter to the State Office of Historic Preservation requesting Section 106 clearance and stating that the WWTP upgrade portion of the Proposed Project will not cause foreseeable harm to archaeological sites paleontological resources and/or historic resources. On July 11, 2022, the Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation responded that they do not object to the City's finding of No Historic properties affected.
However, due to fact that the Proposed Project has since been expanded to include 5.3 miles of recycled water pipelines, new cultural resources investigation/study was prepared in January 2023. Please see Appendix D4
. As part of that new report, a new record search for previously recorded cultural resources was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), California Historical Resources Information System, on January 17, 2023 (NWIC File 22-1055). The search covered the alignments of the project area and the ½-mile radius around it. There are four previously recorded resources within the project area (P-27- 002322; P-27-002820; P-27-002923; P-27-002972) and four resourceswithin ½-mile of the project area(P-27- 001738; P-27-002613; P-27-002714; P-27-003958). Fifteen reports incorporate some element of the project area, and fifteen reports come within ½-mile of the project area. Dr. Molly Fierer-Donaldson of Archaeological/Historical Consultants surveyed the entire project area on January 26 and 27, 2023. Dr.
Fierer-Donaldson meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for archaeology and is a Registered 4 Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of cultural resources, this Cultural Resources Survey Report is not available to the General Public.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-25
Professional Archaeologist. Dr. Fierer-Donaldson has over five years of experience in California archaeology.
A pedestrian survey was used to inspect the project area for cultural resources. Open patches of ground, road cuts, and agricultural fields were closely inspected for evidence of Native American and historic-era occupation, including midden soil, shell, bone, modified lithic materials, fire-affected rock, and historic debris and features.
Most of the project alignments are located in already constructed roadways. Soil was evaluated in empty planter beds and undeveloped lots adjacent to the alignments were possible. 1.25 miles of the project area has been designated for an access road to the wastewater treatment facility. This road currently exists as a dirt road alongside an agricultural field. The entire road length was covered, and the road cuts and edges along both sides were carefully examined for any indications of cultural resources. (a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. All four of the known resources within the project area are historic-era built environmental resources, including highways, educational buildings, railroads, and a transmission line. However, based upon a field survey on January 26 and 27, 2023, none of these historic-era resources (or any other historic resources) would be impacted by the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required or necessary. (b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. No known significant archaeological resources are known to exist within the Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unique archaeological resources. Once constructed, the Proposed Project would not have any effect on archeological resources.
Nevertheless, there is a slight chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in accidentally discovering unique archaeological resources during construction. However, to further reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance of Identified Cultural Resources. Prior to and/or during the engineering and final design phase, a qualified professional archeologist or cultural resources specialist will provide a final pre-construction survey of the exact proposed pipeline alignment and placement of the Proposed Project facilities within the proposed construction corridor and ensure that the construction activities of the Proposed Project will not affect known archeological resources within the Project area (i.e., P-27-002322; P-27-002820; P-27- 002923; and P-27-002972) and the four resourceswithin ½-mile of the project area(i.e., P27-001738; P-27-002613; P-27-002714; and P-27-003958) as identified by NWIC above.
In the unlikely event that the Proposed Project could affect these resources, the proposed project facilities shall be constructed in a manner that will avoid damaging these resources. Specifically, the pipeline shall either be installed by avoidance of the resource by realignment of the pipeline or facility around or under the resource(s).
CR-2: Cultural Resources Education and Monitoring. Prior to excavation and construction on the Project site, the City and its contractor (or any subcontractor(s)) King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-26
shall be briefed by a qualified archaeologist provided by the City on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying historic or prehistoric cultural resources or removing artifacts such as, but not limited to, prehistoric groundstone, projectile points, shell middens, or debitage, human remains, historic materials such as, but not limited to, bottles or cans and other cultural materials from the project site.
Prior to any soil disturbing activities (especially beyond four feet deep), the qualified archaeologist shall monitor the excavation and be authorized to perform spot check monitoring of subsurface construction for potential cultural resources and analyze and evaluate those artifacts or resources that may be uncovered. The qualified archaeologist will also have the authority to temporarily halt excavation and construction activities in the immediate vicinity (within a 50-meter radius or approximately 164 feet) of a find if significant or potentially significant cultural resources are exposed and/or adversely affected by construction operations.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt Work if Cultural Resources are Discovered. In the event that any prehistoric, archaeological, or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5[a][3] or as unique archaeological resources per Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code), representatives of the City and a qualified archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is carried out.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to archeological resources.
(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. Because of the infrequency of fossil preservation, fossils – particularly vertebrate fossils – are considered to be nonrenewable resources. Because of their rarity, and the scientific information they can provide, fossils are highly significant records of ancient life.
No known significant paleontological resources exist within the Project area. Once constructed, the Proposed Project would not have any effect on paleontological resources. Also, because the Proposed Project would result in minimal, if any, excavation in bedrock conditions, significant paleontological discovery would be unlikely. However, fossil discoveries can be made even in areas of supposed low King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-27
sensitivity. In the event a paleontological resource is encountered during project activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to less-thansignificant.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: Stop Work if Paleontological Resources are Discovered. If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100-feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with and approval by the City.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to unique paleontological or geological resources. (d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no known burial sites within the project area. Once constructed, the Proposed Project would not have any effect on human remains.
Nonetheless, the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure CR-5: Halt Work if Human Remains are Found. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities conducted for the Proposed Project, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the Monterey County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered human remains and any associated burial goods.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-28
3.6 Geology and Soils
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
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 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 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event. The proposed pipelines will not cross a known fault, but the project area is susceptible to strong groundshaking during an earthquake which could occur along known faults in the region. However, the Proposed Project does not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-29
including the risk of loss and injury due to a seismic event. Any impacts would be considered lessthan-significant and no mitigation is required or necessary. (b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would involve excavation and earthmoving which could cause erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction activities would involve excavation, moving, filling, and the temporary stockpiling of soil. Earthwork associated with development construction could expose soils to erosion. However, the Proposed Project would be constructed at the City’s existing WWTP site and in existing roadways and utility corridors and would be covered and paved immediately after the pipeline has been installed. As a result, any soil erosion or loss of top soil would be considered less-than-significant and no mitigation is required or necessary.
(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project may be located in areas that consist of medium dense to dense fine granular soils. In addition, perched ground water could be present. As such, the soil in some areas of the alignment may have a high susceptibility to liquefaction during seismic shaking. Other portions of the Project may be less susceptible to liquefaction and related damage. Lateral spreading, often associated with liquefaction, is less likely because there are no steep banks or hard ground bordering the Project area, but could still potentially be a hazard. As a result, the following mitigation is proposed:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Perform Geotechnical Investigation. The City shall require a design-level geotechnical study to be prepared prior to project implementation to determine proper design and construction methods, including any cathodic protection measures needed for installing the pipelines in these soils.
With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, any resulting impacts would be considered to be less-than-significant.
(d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 above, any impacts would be less-than-significant. (e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems – with the exception of land application through the use of spray fields. Application of recycled water to landscaped areas in excess of agronomic rates could alter some soil properties that influence the suitability of a site to be used for septic tanks or alternate wastewater disposal systems. However, the City will ensure that all recycled water users apply water at agronomical rates. Therefore, no adverse effects to soil resources are expected. No mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-30
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or 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 Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area?
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private
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?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve the routine transportation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the Proposed Project could temporarily increase the transport of materials generally regarded as hazardous materials that are used in construction activities. It is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-31
paint, and other similarly related materials would be brought onto the project site, used, and stored during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials to be used could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment. In addition, construction of the Proposed Project could result in the exposure of construction workers and residents to potentially contaminated soils. As a result, the following mitigation measures are proposed:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Store, Handle, Use Hazardous Materials in Accordance with Applicable Laws. The City shall ensure that all construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be stored, handled, and used in a manner consistent with relevant and applicable federal, state, and local laws. In addition, construction-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be staged and stored away from stream channels and steep banks to keep these materials a safe distance from near-by residents and prevent them from entering surface waters in the event of an accidental release.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Properly Dispose of Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered or if suspected contaminated is encountered during project construction, work shall be halted in the area, and the type and extent of the contamination shall be identified. A contingency plan to dispose of any contaminated soil or groundwater will be developed through consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Equipment Inspection and Maintenance. The City shall ensure that well-maintained equipment will be used to perform the work, and except in the case of a failure or breakdown, equipment maintenance will be performed off-site.
Equipment will be inspected daily by the operator for leaks or spills. If leaks or spills are encountered, the source of the leak will be identified, leaked material will be cleaned up, and the cleaning materials will be collected and properly disposed. Spills, leaks, and other problems of a similar nature will be resolved immediately to prevent unnecessary effects on state and federally listed species and their habitats. A plan for the emergency cleanup of any spills of fuel or other material will be available on site, and adequate materials for spill cleanup will be maintained on site.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Fueling Activities. The City will protect state and federally listed species and their habitats from pollution due to fuels, oils, lubricants, and other harmful materials. Vehicles and equipment that are used during the Proposed Project will be fueled and serviced in a manner that will not affect federally listed species or their habitats. Machinery and equipment used will be serviced, fueled, and maintained on uplands in a “safe” area (i.e., outside of sensitive habitats) and will be located outside of suitable habitats for federally listed species, to prevent contamination. Fueling equipment and vehicles will be kept more than 200-feet away from aquatic habitats (i.e., waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State), and more than 100-feet away from suitable terrestrial habitats for federally listed species. Exceptions to this distance requirement may be allowed for large cranes, pile drivers, and drill rigs, if they cannot be easily moved. The City will establish a temporary fuel containment basin if these buffers cannot be maintained.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-32
Fueling will be conducted in accordance with procedures to be developed in a Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Plan.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: Equipment Staging. The City shall ensure that no staging of construction materials, equipment, tools, buildings, trailers, or restroom facilities will occur in a floodplain during flood season, even if staging is only temporary.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-6: Properly Dispose of Hydrostatic Test Water. Dewatering and of the pipelines during hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the Proposed Project could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 identified above, potential impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.
(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of portions of the pipeline segments of the Proposed Project would be located within one-quarter mile of several existing schools, including King City High School, Santa Lucia Elementary School, and Chalone Peaks Middle School. Although construction activities would require the use of some hazardous materials, due to the short duration and limited extent of construction activity, the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials associated with construction activities to affect nearby school children. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 identified above, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. (d) No Impact. The Proposed Project is not located on a site which is known to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, a records search was conducted using the State of California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Envirostor Database and GIS mapping system and no records of any identified hazardous waste or materials was identified within the Proposed Project. As a result, no impact is expected and no specific mitigation is required.
(e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within two miles of the Mesa Del Rey Airport, which is located in the northwest portion of the City. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no specific mitigation is necessary or required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-33
(f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within two miles of the Mesa Del Rey Airport, which is located in the northwest portion of the City. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no specific mitigation is necessary or required. (g) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. However, when installing the pipelines in the existing roadways, the Proposed Project could block access to nearby roadways for emergency vehicles. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-7: Develop and Maintain Emergency Access Strategies. In conjunction with Mitigation Measure Traffic-1: Develop a Traffic Control Plan identified below in the Traffic and Transportation section, comprehensive strategies for maintaining emergency access shall be developed. Strategies shall include, but not limited to, maintaining steel trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across open trenches and identification of alternate routing around construction zones. Also, police, fire, and other emergency service providers shall be notified of the timing, location, and duration of the construction activities and the location of detours and lane closures. (h) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the Proposed Project would be located within an agricultural and urban setting, but is not generally located in an area where there is the substantial risk of a wildland fire. Specifically, a records search of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Severity mapping system does not regard the Proposed Project Area to be in an area of high risk to wildfires. However, project components would be constructed within or near annual grasslands with moderate to high potential for fire in the dry season.
Operation of equipment used to construct the Proposed Project, such as bulldozers, tractors, transportation vehicles, welders, and grinders cold increase the potential for fire. The potential exists for construction equipment and vehicles to come into contact with heavily vegetated areas, thereby igniting dry vegetation. With the implementation of the following mitigation, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: Develop and Implement Fire Management Plan. The City shall comply with all federal, state, county and local fire regulations pertaining to burning permits and the prevention of uncontrolled fires. As appropriate, the following measures shall be implemented to prevent fire hazards and control of fires:
• Prior to construction, the City shall develop and implement a fire prevention and suppression plan for the Proposed Project for those activities that have a risk of starting a wildfire.
• A list of relevant fire authorities and their designated representative to contact shall be maintained on site by City and/or construction personnel.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-34
• Adequate firefighting equipment shall be available on site in accordance with the applicable regulatory requirements.
• The level of fire hazard shall be posted at the construction office (where visible for workers) and workers shall be made aware of the hazard level and related implications. • The City or its contractor shall provide equipment to handle any possible fire emergency.
This shall include, although not be limited to, water trucks; portable water pumps; chemical fire extinguishers; hand tools such as shovels, axes, and chain saws; and heavy equipment adequate for the construction of fire breaks when needed. Specifically, the City or its contractor shall supply and maintain in working order an adequate supply of fire extinguishers for each crew engaged in potentially combustible work such as welding, cutting, and grinding.
• All equipment shall be equipped with spark arrestors. • In the event of a fire, the City or its contractor shall immediately use resources necessary to contain the fire. The City or contractor shall then notify local emergency response personnel.
• Any and all tree-clearing activities (if any) are to be carried out in accordance with local rules and regulations for the prevention of forest fires. • Burning shall be prohibited.
• Flammable wastes shall be removed from the construction site on a regular basis. • Flammable materials kept on the construction site must be stored in approved containers away from ignition sources.
• Smoking shall be prohibited on the construction site, except at designated safe areas with proper cigarette disposal containers.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-35
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
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 of siltation onor off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Erosion Potential)
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 of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-36
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Excavation, grading, and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project could violate water quality as those activities would expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in erosion, station, and water quality issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact nearby creeks and drainages (i.e., San Lorenzo Creek), therefore posing a potentially significant impact to water quality. With the incorporation of the following mitigation, any potential impacts to water quality are reduced to lessthan-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Implement Construction Best Management Practices.
To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the Central Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainage patterns to pre-existing conditions.
In addition, the operation of the Proposed Project and application of recycled water will increase salts and nutrient loadings on the soils which could result in significant impacts to adjacent surface and groundwater resources. The sole source of water supply for the City and Cal Water customers of the King City District is groundwater from the Upper Valley subarea of the Salinas River Groundwater Basin. The total stored volume of groundwater in the Basin is about 6.8 million acre-feet (af), and the aquifer storage capacity is approximately 7.2 million af; this suggests that there is an unfilled storage capacity of about 0.4 million af.
Groundwater in the Salinas River Groundwater Basin area has an average TDS level of approximately 478 milligrams per liter (mg/l)5
. However, the City’s drinking water supply has an average TDS level of 337 (mg/l)6
.
At build out, the Proposed Project would offset approximately 1,000 afy of that supply with recycled water for irrigation purposes. The proposed new recycled water supply would have an average TDS level of approximately 750 mg/l7 which would result in an approximately 222 percent increase in salt loading for the 1,000 afy of water to be used for irrigation purposes. It is assumed that with proper irrigation best 5 California, Department of Water Resources (DWR), California’s Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118. February 2004. 6 King City 2021 Water Quality Report
7 City of King, Reclaimed Water Effluent TDS Study. September 2022.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-37
management practices, recycled water operations would have an 80 percent irrigation efficiency, meaning that 80 percent of the applied recycled water would be lost through evapotranspiration and the remaining 20 percent of the flow would percolate through the root zone. All of the applied salts are assumed to remain with the 20 percent flow and would percolate into the groundwater as a result of winter rains. The increased salt loading would result in approximately 500 tons per year which would be considered a less than significant impact to the overall Salinas River Groundwater Basin which currently has a stored volume of
6.8 million acre-feet. Also, recycled water has higher amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium than potable supplies. Thus, recycled water helps to alleviate the need to use fertilizers which are more readily applied if potable supplies are used for irrigation and which are not accounted for in this TDS calculations.
However, the increase in TDS (i.e., 500 tons per year) in the Basin at the local level could be a considered a significant impact as the groundwater basin does not readily mix percolating water supplies. As a result, the following recycled water best management practices are recommended to be implemented so that any local-level groundwater quality adverse impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: Implement Recycled Water Best Management Practices. In order to help reduce the potential effects of increased salt loading potential as a result of using recycled water, the City shall:
• Ensure that water is applied consistent with Title 22 requirements and in amounts (frequency and intensity) which meet the demands of the plant (agronomic rates), but not in excessive amounts such that salts buildup in the soil beyond the root zone and/or otherwise are leached to groundwater;
• Ensure that adequate soil drainage is maintained;
• Ensure that salt-sensitive plants are not to be sprayed wet; and • Addressing sodium and alkalinity concerns through addition of water and soil amendments, including addition of gypsum.
• Monitor the groundwater TDS levels both upstream and downstream of the City and WWTP and Report results to the Central Coast RWCB on a quarterly and annual basis.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2, any water quality impacts as a result of the use of recycled water will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. No additional mitigation measures or demineralization facilities would be required. (b) No Impact. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not 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. Construction of the Proposed Project would be limited to 3- to 6-feet below surface elevation and would not interfere with groundwater supplies. Once constructed, the pipeline will also not adversely affect groundwater supplies. In fact, the importation of up to 1,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year has the potential to offset current groundwater pumping which has the potential to increase local groundwater supplies and water quality through an in-lieu recharge basis. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-38
(c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not 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 of siltation on- or off-site. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed Project could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation issues.
However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, potential impacts to surface water quality and drainage patterns would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. (d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not 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 flooding on- or off-site. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed Project could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation issues. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, potential impacts to surface water quality and drainage patterns would be reduced to less-than-significant levels (e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in any new significant impervious surfaces and would not create new areas of low permeability. The new facilities at the WWTP would not significantly increase the impervious surfaces and therefore would not create new areas of low permeability. As a result, no significant additional runoff is expected to be generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is necessary.
(f) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not substantially affect water quality. As discussed earlier, the construction of the Proposed Project could result in minor, temporary, and highly localized soil erosion and siltation issues. However, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 above, potential impacts to surface water quality would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Further the decrease in salt loading from the use of the recycled water due to a lower TDS level would have benefits to the local groundwater basin. (g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not redirect flood flows or otherwise place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary. (h) No Impact. As shown on Figure 6, the Proposed Project would not be located within the 100-year flood plain of the Salinas River. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required or necessary. (i) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding; including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam. The proposed storage facilities could potentially rupture as a result of flooding and or a seismic event. However, the amount or volume of water would not significantly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Any potential impacts would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required or necessary.
Figure 6
FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
Project/Action Location
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-40
(j) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving a seiche or tsunami. In addition, the Proposed Project area is essentially level, with minimal to no potential hazards from mudflows. No impacts are likely or anticipated.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-41
3.9 Land Use and Planning
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the Project (including, but not limited to 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?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Proposed Project is located in the City. Construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not result in a disruption, physical division, or isolation of existing residential or open space areas. As a result, no impacts are likely or anticipated. (b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project area. In fact, the City has developed strategic plans and policies to encourage the use of recycled water. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. As stated above, the Proposed Project would be constructed primarily within existing roadways and in agricultural lands of farmers who are interested in receiving the recycled water. For this reason, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-42
3.10 Mineral Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed 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 locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project site is not located on a site that is identified as a significant source of mineral resources. Specifically, the Proposed Project is not located in an area identified as containing mineral resources classified MRZ-2 by the State geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources; therefore, no impact is expected. No mitigation is required.
(b) No Impact. The City’s General Plan does not identify any locally important mineral resources or recovery sites in the Proposed Project’s area. Further, as discussed in (a), the Proposed Project would be unlikely to result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource deposit that has been identified as a mineral resource of value. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-43
3.11 Noise
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards 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?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project is located in an area with high potential for sensitive receptors. The existing sensitive receptors to the project site are residences and commercial and industrial businesses along the proposed pipeline alignment within the City limits. The Proposed Project has the potential to generate noise during the construction phase through the use of equipment and construction vehicle trips. Once constructed, the Proposed Project (i.e., the pipeline portion) would be buried underground and would not create any new sources of operational noise. Therefore, operation of the pipeline would not result in noise impacts.
Construction of the Proposed Project would generate temporary and intermittent noise. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment.
Back-up beepers associated with trucks and equipment used for material loading and unloading at the staging area would generate significantly increased noise levels over the ambient noise King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-44
environment in order to be discernable and protect construction worker safety as required by OSHA (29 CFR 1926.601 and 29 CFR 1926.602). Residences in the vicinity of the staging area would thus be exposed to these elevated noise levels.
Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary in nature and related noise impacts would be short-term. However, since construction activities could substantially increase ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive locations, construction noise could result in potentially significant, albeit temporary, impacts to sensitive receptors, including residents and commercial businesses. Compliance with the City’s noise ordinance and implementation of the following mitigation measures is expected to reduce impacts related to construction noise, to a lessthan-significant level. The following mitigation measures are proposed:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit Construction Hours. Construction activities will be limited to the least noise-sensitive times and will comply with the City noise ordinances.
Construction, alteration, repair or land development activities within the downtown business and residential area(s) shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays. Due to having no nearby sensitive receptors, construction, alteration, repair or land development activities at the WWTP area shall be allowed seven days a week between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. No construction outside of these windows shall occur without prior written permission/authorization from the Public Works Director.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Locate Staging Areas away from Sensitive Receptors.
The City’s construction specification shall require that the contractor select staging areas as far as feasibly possible from sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Maintain Mufflers on Equipment. The City’s construction specifications shall require the contractor to maintain all construction equipment with manufacturer’s specified noise-muffling devices.
Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Idling Prohibition and Enforcement. The City shall prohibit and enforce unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. In practice, this would mean turning off equipment if it will not be used for five or more minutes.
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Equipment Location and Shielding. The City shall require locating all stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as air compressors as far as possible from homes and businesses.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, noise impacts would be considered lessthan-significant. (b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in exposing people to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or noise impacts.
Construction of the Proposed Project could likely result in minor and temporary increases in groundborne vibration or noise, however, construction activities would be temporary. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts associated with the King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-45
exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (c) No Impact. The operation of the Proposed Project would not increase noise in and around the Project area. Once constructed, the operation of the pipeline facilities would not result in any noise.
The Proposed Project would not cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, this impact is considered less-thansignificant and no mitigation is required. (d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project construction activities may lead to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5 impacts resulting in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within two miles of the Mesa Del Rey Airport, which is located in the northwest portion of the City. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no specific mitigation is necessary or required. (f) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is located within two miles of the Mesa Del Rey Airport, which is located in the northwest portion of the City. However, construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect an airport or airport operations, including, noise, take-offs, landings, flight patterns, safety, light, navigation, or communications between aircraft and the control tower within the Project area. No significant impacts would occur as a result of the Proposed Project and no specific mitigation is necessary or required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-46
3.12 Population and Housing
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
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?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not induce population growth either directly or indirectly.
The Proposed Project would upgrade the WWTP to meet Central Coast RWQCB requirements and to provide approximately 1,000 afy of recycled water for irrigation to offset surface and groundwater supplies currently being used for irrigation purposes. This recycled water supply would help supplement the Salinas Groundwater Basin’s current groundwater supplies by an inlieu recharge process, but would not be a sufficient supply to induce urban growth in the area in and of itself. Therefore, this new supply would not really aid or facilitate any new growth beyond the City’s existing planning horizon. Further, the City has growth management strategies in place to control growth. In addition, construction, operation, and maintenance would not result in any substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers/employees. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(b) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not result in displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Construction of the Proposed Project would avoid the need to demolish any existing houses and would not affect any other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed Project would not displace existing housing, and therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Construction of the Proposed Project would avoid the need to demolish existing housing and other housing structures. As a result, the Proposed Project is not expected to displace people from their homes. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-47
3.13 Public Services
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Would the Project 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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.12 - Population and Housing, the Proposed Project will not generate population growth and the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would not be labor intensive. In addition, the Proposed Project would not increase the demand for the kinds of public services that would support new residents, such as schools, parks, fire, police, or other public facilities. As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-48
3.14 Recreation
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project will not contribute to population growth. Therefore, the Proposed Project will not 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. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required. (b) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Furthermore, as discussed in (a), the Proposed Project will not increase the demand for recreational facilities. As a result, no impact is expected and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-49
3.15 Socioeconomics
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Project:
a) Result in any adverse socioeconomic effects?
b) Conflict with Executive Order 12898
(Environmental Justice) policies?
c) Affect Indian Trust Assets?
Discussion
(a) Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would not have any adverse socioeconomic effects. The Proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of a recycled water system to offset the use of existing non-potable surface and groundwater supplies. This would ensure a reliable, long-term water supply that would help support the existing and future agricultural and urban landscape irrigation activities within the City and which would be considered a beneficial socioeconomic effect. In addition, the Proposed Project would also benefit the City and residents of the City by finding a use of the City’s treated wastewater. The development of this water supply could have a beneficial impact to the region. The City is pursuing funding mechanisms which would help reduce the cost of the project. The additional project costs would not adversely affect any minority or low-income populations and/or adversely alter the socioeconomic conditions of populations that reside within the City. As a result, the Proposed Project would not have any adverse socioeconomic effects.
(b) No Impact. Executive 12898 requires each federal agency to achieve environmental justice as part of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health on environmental effects, including social and economic effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations of the United States. The Proposed Project would involve the construction and operation of a new/upgraded WWTP and recycled water system to deliver supplemental water to the region to help protect and enhance the existing M&I and agricultural practices within the City. The Proposed Project does not propose any features that would result in disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects, have any physical effects on minority or low-income populations, and/or alter socioeconomic conditions of populations that reside or work within the City.
(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not have any adverse effects on Indian Trust Assets (ITA). ITAs are legal interests in property or rights held by the United States for Indian Tribes or individuals. Trust status originates from rights imparted by treaties, statutes, or executive orders.
Examples of ITAs are lands, including reservations and public domain allotments, minerals, water rights, hunting and fishing rights, or other natural resources, money or claims. Assets can be real property, physical assets, or intangible property rights. ITAs cannot be sold, leased, or otherwise alienated without federal approval. ITAs do not include things in which a tribe or individuals have no legal interest such as off-reservation sacred lands or archaeological sites in which a tribe has no King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-50
legal property interest. No ITAs have been identified within the construction areas of the Proposed Project. As a result, the Proposed Project would have no adverse effects on ITAs.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-51
3.16 Traffic and Transportation
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location which results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Most of the construction would be associated with the WWTP upgrades and would be located on the western side of the City in a remote area where there is not much traffic or transportation issues. However, portions of the Proposed Project would be constructed within existing paved roadways within the City. These construction activities would temporarily disrupt transportation and circulation patterns in the vicinity of the project thus disrupting local vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic along the haul route. Although constructiongenerated traffic would be temporary during peak excavation and earthwork activities, average daily truck trips would be 40 round-trip truck trips per day. The primary impacts from the movement of trucks would include short-term and intermittent lessening of roadway capacities due to slower movements and larger turning radii of the trucks compared to passenger vehicles. The following mitigation measures are proposed:
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Prepare and Implement Traffic Control Plan. As is consistent with existing policy, the City shall require the contractor to prepare and King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-52
implement effective traffic control plans in the areas of City streets to show specific methods for maintaining traffic flows. Examples of traffic control measures to be considered include: 1) use of flaggers to maintain alternating one-way traffic while working on one-half of the street; 2) use of advance construction signs and other public notices to alert drivers of activity in the area; 3) use of “positive guidance” detour signing on alternate access streets to minimize inconvenience to the driving public; 4) provisions for emergency access and passage; and 5) designated areas for construction worker parking.
Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Return Roads to Pre-construction Condition. Following construction, the City shall ensure that road surfaces that are damaged during construction are returned to their pre-construction condition or better.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, potential temporary impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.
(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above in (a), construction activities of the Proposed Project may result in increased vehicle trips. This could temporarily exceed, either individually or cumulatively, existing level of service standards. However, the Proposed Project would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions or level of service on any project roadways. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 impacts associated with exceeding level of service standards would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (c) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not involve use of air transit, nor is it expected to cause any change in air traffic patterns. No impact is expected and no mitigation is required. (d) No Impact. The Proposed Project does not propose to make changes to roadways that would create road hazards or alter design features developed to mitigate such hazards. No impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
(e) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would have temporary effects on traffic flow, due to added truck traffic during construction which could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require the contractor to establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in the project vicinity and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access to land uses along the truck route.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would also ensure potential impacts associated with temporary effects on emergency access would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. (f) Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related construction activities would require additional parking for workers and equipment on a temporary basis. However, sufficient space exists within the construction easement to accommodate parking needs for construction workers and equipment.
As a result, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (g) Less-than-Significant Impact. The construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be short term and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Also once constructed, the Proposed Project would not conflict with King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-53
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Any short-term effects would be considered less than significant.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-54
3.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Discussion
a) Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is either: (1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); and/or (2) is a resource determined by the City or its archeological consultant, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-55
As documented in Appendix E – Native American Consultation, on January 18, 2023, a letter was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), requesting a listing of local Native American tribes in the area and any information regarding sacred lands within the area in order to be compliant with Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). On February 7, 2023, NAHC sent the City a list of the Native American Tribes to request a government-to-government consultation to determine the potential of the Proposed Project to affect Tribal Cultural Resources. On February 22, 2023, the City sent a letter to each Native American Tribe requesting consultation and information regarding how the Proposed Project could potentially affect any known tribal cultural resources. To date, two of the tribes (i.e., the Xolon Salinan Tribe and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People) have responded and requested information regarding cultural resources and that they be notified prior to construction so they can have a monitor from their tribe be present during construction. A copy of the IS/MND and the Cultural Resources Survey Report have been provided to them during the 30- day public review period.
In addition, and as documented in Section 3.5 - Cultural Resources, on January 17, 2023, a records search was conducted by staff at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California (NWIC No: 22-1055). The record search included the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) and a 0.50-mile radius outside the project boundaries. The record search included current inventories of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California State Historic Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest. However, due to the sensitive nature of the information, this information is not available to the general public and is on a need-to-know basis. As a result, this public document will only summarize those resources and findings.
In addition, a pedestrian archeological survey was conducted of the Project area on January 26 and 27, 2023. All open areas were inspected for cultural evidence such as historic structures, artifacts, and features; and indicators of prehistoric archaeological deposits like midden soil, flaked lithics, groundstone, and shell. No cultural resources including tribal cultural resources were observed during the survey.
As a result, there are no tribal cultural resources that are known to exist within the Project area.
Therefore, the Proposed Project is not likely to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known or unique tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, there is always a chance that construction activities of the Proposed Project could result in accidentally discovering unique tribal cultural resources. To further reduce this less-than-significant impact, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented along with and in combination with the Mitigation Measures: CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 as identified in Section 3.5 - Cultural Resources:
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Notify and Invite Local Native American Tribes to be Present During Project Construction Activities. The City shall notify and invite the Xolon Salinan Tribe, Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People, and all of the identified Native American Tribes within the Project Area that requested to be present during the construction of the Proposed Project. The Tribes would be responsible for their own expenses for any and all monitoring services performed by them.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-56
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: Halt Work if Tribal Cultural Resources are Discovered.
In the event that any tribal cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 100-feet of the resources shall be halted and after notification, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and local tribes to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant as a unique tribal cultural resource, the City shall treat the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including to, but not limited to, the following:
• Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; • Protecting the traditional use of the resource; and
• Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist and/or the appropriate tribe in order to mitigate impacts to any tribal cultural resources find, the City shall determine whether avoidance is feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) as determined by the City shall be instituted and coordinated with the appropriate tribe(s). Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources or other unique archaeological resources are carried out.
With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts to tribal cultural resources.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-57
3.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new 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?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. In fact, the Proposed Project would help dispose of the City’s existing treated wastewater consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
(b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would involve the construction of an upgraded wastewater treatment facility and water recycling system to serve the recycled water for irrigation and commercial purposes within the City. However, any impacts associated with the construction and/or operations are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-58
(c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of additional offsite storm water drainage facilities. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
(d) No Impact. Under the Proposed Project the City will be providing tertiary treated recycled water from its existing WWTP for irrigation and commercial purposes in the City. The City is the wastewater treatment provider and has sufficient supplies to meet the needs of the Proposed Project and would not need to purchase any new supplies or entitlements. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
(e) No Impact. Under the Proposed Project, the City will be providing tertiary treated recycled water from its existing WWTP for irrigation and commercial purposes in the City. The City is the wastewater treatment provider and has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the Proposed Project.
Therefore, no impacts are expected and no mitigation is required. (f) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not generate a significant amount of solid wastes. The City and much of Monterey County’s solid wastes currently are shipped approximately 30-miles to the Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Gonzales, CA. However, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not generate a significant amount of solid wastes. No significant impacts are expected to existing landfills and no mitigation is required.
(g) No Impact. The Proposed Project would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts and no mitigation is required.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-59
3.19 Wildfire
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
(a) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required. (b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. A records search of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Severity mapping system regards the Proposed Project Area to be in an area of low to moderate risk to wildfires.
However, the potential exists that construction activities could cause a fire, especially in a drought situation or in the dry season. As a result, there is potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-8: Fire Prevention and Control (above on Pages 3-34 and 3-35) any potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. (c) No Impact. The Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Therefore, no impacts are expected, and no mitigation is required. (d) No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-60
3.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a) 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) Have impacts that would be 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) Have environmental effects that would
cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
(a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. With the incorporation of the previously identified mitigation measures, the Proposed Project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, 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. Any impacts from the Proposed Project in these areas are considered here to be less-than-significant with the implementation and incorporation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures.
(b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects as a result of the Proposed Project. No direct project-specific significant effects were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative (as well as direct) King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 3-61
impacts associated with these environmental issues. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As a result of mitigation included in this environmental document, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly.
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft JS/MND
Chapter4 Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation for the City of King Recycled Water Project:
D I find that the Proposed Project/Action WOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [gJ I find that although the Proposed Project/ Action COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project and/or mitigation measures have been made by or agreed to by the City. A :MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I fwd that the Proposed Project/Action MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D l fwd that the Proposed Project/Action 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 Il\1PACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
D I find that although the Proposed Project/ Action 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/ Action, nothing further is required.
) Date
Steven Adams City Manager
Printed Name Title
March 2023 4-1
King City WWTP and Recycled Water Project
Public Draft IS/MND
March 2023 5-1
Chapter 5 Bibliography
Detailed below are the sources referenced during the preparation of this environmental document. • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Severity Mapping, November 2022. • California Department of Parks and recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, July 11, 2022. • California Department of Toxic Substances. Envirostor database and GIS System. November 2022. • California, Department of Water Resources (DWR), California’s Groundwater Basin, Bulletin 118, February 2004.
• City of King, Biological Resources Report: WWTP, April 2022. • City of King, Draft General Plan Land Use Element Update, April 2021. • City of King Final Wastewater Facilities Plan, September 2017. • City of King, Recycled Water Feasibility Study, April 2019 • City of King, General Plan, 1998.
• City of King, Self-Monitoring Domestic Reclaimed Water Effluent TDS Study, September 2022. • City of King, Urban Water Management Plan, 2015.
• City of King, Water Quality Report, 2021.
• Monterey Bay Area Air Resources District, CEQA Guidelines, 2008.
Appendix A
Air Quality Emissions Calculations
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 7.1.5.1
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (English Units) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 3.4 30.7 25.0 101.0 1.0 100.0 21.7 0.9 20.8 6,010.3 Grading/Excavation 9.0 85.4 76.0 103.3 3.3 100.0 23.8 3.0 20.8 17,977.1 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.2 72.3 56.7 102.4 2.4 100.0 22.9 2.1 20.8 14,266.4 Paving 3.6 38.4 27.3 1.2 1.2 - 1.0 1.0 - 6,961.7
Maximum (pounds/day) 9.0 85.4 76.0 103.3 3.3 100.0 23.8 3.0 20.8 17,977.1 Total (tons/construction project) 1.9 18.0 15.0 23.1 0.6 22.4 5.2 0.6 4.7 3,651.0 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2024
Project Length (months) -> 24
Total Project Area (acres) -> 230
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 10
Total Soil Imported/Exported (yd3/day)-> 19
Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Metric Units) ROG (kgs/day) CO (kgs/day) NOx (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM10 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) PM2.5 (kgs/day) CO2 (kgs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.5 14.0 11.4 45.9 0.5 45.5 9.9 0.4 9.5 2,732.0 Grading/Excavation 4.1 38.8 34.6 47.0 1.5 45.5 10.8 1.3 9.5 8,171.4 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.3 32.9 25.8 46.5 1.1 45.5 10.4 1.0 9.5 6,484.7 Paving 1.6 17.5 12.4 0.5 0.5 - 0.5 0.5 - 3,164.4
Maximum (kilograms/day) 4.1 38.8 34.6 47.0 1.5 45.5 10.8 1.3 9.5 8,171.4 Total (megagrams/construction project) 1.7 16.4 13.6 20.9 0.6 20.4 4.8 0.5 4.2 3,311.5 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2024
Project Length (months) -> 24
Total Project Area (hectares) -> 93
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (hectares) -> 4
Total Soil Imported/Exported (meters3/day)-> 15
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sume of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.
City of King's WWTP Upgrade and Recycled Water Project
City of King's WWTP Upgrade and Recycled Water Project
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns H and I. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column J are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns K and L.
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment Report
UPDATED DRAFT
Biological Resource Assessment
for
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
SCH No. 20210250084
King City, California
Prepared for
SMB Environmental, Inc.
c/o Steve Brown
P.O. Box 381
Roseville, CA 95661
by
ALTHOUSE AND MEADE,INC.
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1650 Ramada Drive #180
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626
February 2023
1323.01
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant i February 2023
Reporting Biologist:
Jason Dart
Principal Biologist
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626
[email protected]
Kristen Andersen
Senior Biologist | Project Manager
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626
[email protected]
This Biological Resource Assessment was prepared according to professional standards and that the statements furnished in the report and associated maps are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2/28/2023
Signature Date
2/28/2023
Signature Date
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant ii February 2023
Table of Contents
SYNOPSIS...................................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 6
1.1 Purpose............................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Project Location................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Local and Regional Context ................................................................................ 7
1.4 Project Background and Description ................................................................... 7
1.5 Sensitivity Criteria / Regulatory Framework....................................................... 11
1.5.1 Federal Law and Regulations......................................................................... 11
1.5.2 State Law and Regulations ............................................................................ 11
1.6 Special Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Regulations ............................... 13
1.6.1 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) ........................................... 14
1.6.2 Federal and State Endangered Species Listings .......................................... 14
1.6.3 Global and State Ranks ................................................................................ 14
1.6.4 California Rare Plant Ranks.......................................................................... 15
1.6.5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Rank............................... 16
1.6.6 Sensitive Habitats ......................................................................................... 16 2 METHODS................................................................................................................ 17
2.1 Literature and Data Review ............................................................................... 17
2.2 Sensitive Species Evaluation ............................................................................ 17
2.3 Soils................................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Surveys ............................................................................................................. 18
2.4.1 Botanical ....................................................................................................... 18
2.4.2 Wildlife .......................................................................................................... 18
2.5 Maps.................................................................................................................. 19 3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................ 20
3.2 Soils................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Habitat Types .................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Disturbed Habitat .......................................................................................... 23
3.3.2 Developed Habitat ........................................................................................ 27
3.4 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters.................................................... 29
3.5 Botanical Resources.......................................................................................... 29
3.5.1 Special Status Plant Species ........................................................................ 29
3.5.2 Botanical Survey Results .............................................................................. 34
3.6 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................. 36 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant iii February 2023
3.6.1 Special Status Animal Species ..................................................................... 36
3.6.2 Wildlife Survey Results ................................................................................. 52
3.6.3 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement................................................. 53 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION.................................... 55
4.1 Habitats ............................................................................................................. 56
4.1.1 Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters ................................... 56
4.1.2 Oak Trees ..................................................................................................... 56
4.2 Botanical Resources.......................................................................................... 59
4.3 Wildlife Resources............................................................................................. 59
4.3.1 Nesting Birds................................................................................................. 59
4.3.2 Invertebrates................................................................................................. 59
4.3.3 Amphibians and Reptiles .............................................................................. 60
4.3.4 Special Status Birds...................................................................................... 60
4.3.5 Mammals ...................................................................................................... 62
4.3.6 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement................................................. 65 5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 66 6 APPENDICES........................................................................................................... 72 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant iv February 2023
List of Tables
Table 1. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers Associated with the Project .................................. 7 Table 2. Responsible Parties .......................................................................................... 8 Table 3. Field Surveys................................................................................................... 18 Table 4. Land Uses Within Study Area.......................................................................... 23 Table 5. Special Status Plant List.................................................................................. 31 Table 6. Vascular Plant List........................................................................................... 34 Table 7. Special Status Animal List............................................................................... 45 Table 8. Wildlife List ...................................................................................................... 52 Table 9. Impacts and Mitigation Summary .................................................................... 55 List of Figures
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map .................................................................................. 9 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................... 10 Figure 3. Biological Resources...................................................................................... 28 Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Database Plant Records ..................................... 33 Figure 5. California Natural Diversity Database Animal Records .................................. 50 Figure 6. USFWS Critical Habitat.................................................................................. 51 Figure 7. Biological Resources Impacts ........................................................................ 58 List of Appendices
Appendix A. Special Status Plants Reported from the Region Appendix B. Special Status Animals Reported from the Region Appendix C. USDA Soils Survey (USDA 2023)
Cover Page: California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) on edge of water treatment pond, view east. December 7, 2021.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 11 February 2023
SYNOPSIS
• This report describes the study of biological resources at a 229.9-acre site (Study Area) in King City, California. The Study Area includes Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 245-111-006, - 007, -008, -010, -014, -031, -032, -038 - 044, -050, 261-410-010, 264-510-560, -570, -630, 265- 310-070, -140, 265-610-100, and 266- 110-080.
• The proposed project (Project) entails construction and operation of improvements to the existing King City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), where this updated report focuses on the addition of 5.3-miles of proposed pipelines and access road improvements. Planned work will occur within the existing facility footprint with upgrades to an existing access road through farmland (disturbed habitat), and within City streets (developed habitat). • The Study Area is comprised of disturbed and developed habitats. Disturbed habitat comprises the water treatment plant where different land uses affiliated with water treatment include spray fields, water treatment ponds, access roads, and miscellaneous facility components. Developed habitat comprises areas of proposed pipeline within the City. • Botanical surveys identified 45 species of vascular plants in the Study Area. There are three special status plants with low potential to occur in the Study Area but have no potential to occur in the Project area due to lack of suitable habitat where work is proposed. No special status plants were observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys. • Wildlife surveys detected 28 animal species in the Study Area. There are 16 special status animals with some potential to occur in the Study Area. No special status animals were observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys. • Biological resources that could be impacted by the Project include existing disturbed habitat (particularly conversion of water treatment ponds), developed habitat (City streets), nesting birds, special status amphibians and reptiles (western spadefoot toad, Coast Range newt, northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, and coast horned lizard), special status birds (Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle, great blue heron, burrowing owl, and bank swallow), and special status mammals (Salinas pocket mouse, American Badger, and San Joaquin kit fox).
Project impacts will be negligible for many special status species with potential to occur in the vicinity due to current management practices and habitat conditions within disturbed and developed habitats. Mitigation recommendations are provided to reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources mentioned above.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 11 February 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This report provides information regarding biological resources associated with the King City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and sites for proposed access roads and pipelines. The 229.9-acre site (Study Area) includes sections of the 467.5-acre WWTP property (Property), as well as agricultural fields and developed areas in King City, California. Results include a habitat assessment, botanical and wildlife inventory, a discussion of special status species that have potential to occur within the Study Area, and an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed facility improvements, access road and pipeline (Project). Content of this report addresses comments and recommendations made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; 2021) regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this Project (SCH No. 2021050084). Additional mitigation recommendations for potential impacts to biological resources are also provided.
1.2 Project Location
The Study Area is in western King City limits, east of the Salinas River and State Highway 101, west of San Antonio Drive, and is accessible from Cemetery Road. The Study Area overlaps with 18 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), summarized in Table 1 below. Location coordinates are
36.21934°N, 121.5346°W (WGS 84) in the Thompson Canyon United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 7 February 2023
Figure 1). The Study Area is governed by zoning regulations and policies associated with the incorporated city land use designation, in the South County Area of the Monterey County Planning Area.
TABLE 1. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT APNs
245-111-006 245-111-032 264-510-570
245-111-007 245-111-038 264-510-630
245-111-008 245-111-044 265-310-070
245-111-010 245-111-050 265-310-140
245-111-014 261-410-010 265-610-100
245-111-031 264-510-560 266-110-080
1.3 Local and Regional Context
King City (City) is in south Salinas Valley, 51 miles south of the City of Salinas in southern Monterey County. Highway 101, a major north-south route roughly outlines the City’s southern and western boundaries. The region is largely agriculture fields and row crops; however, over the years the City has maintained a rural community character (City 1998). The area surrounding the site is mostly open with agriculture to the north, south, and east. The eastern limits of the Salinas River corridor outline the site’s western edge. Elevations onsite and within the vicinity are relatively flat at approximately 278 and 288 feet above mean sea level (Figure 2).
1.4 Project Background and Description
After issuance of the MND for the Project in April 2021 (Wood 2021), the City received a letter of comments and recommendations from CDFW to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources (CDFW 2021). This BRA addresses comments in the letter and provides updated results regarding special status species with potential to occur within the updated Project area and an analysis of potential impacts affiliated with the new Project description provided by the City in January 2023.
The proposed Project will replace the City’s existing WWTP headworks/ponds treatment system (approximately 6.0 acres at location of Pond 1; Figure 3) and construct a 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd) maximum month, secondary wastewater treatment plant that meets regulatory requirements and planned area growth, as well as construct a 1.8 mgd average day tertiary recycled water treatment plant within the WWTP portion of the Study Area. An approximately 5.3-mile pipeline distribution system is also proposed that will help offset approximately 1,000 acre-feet per year of potable and agricultural water use in the community. A new access road to the WWTP will be designed as the existing access road is currently in a farmer’s field and has limited to no access to the plant during winter months and flooding events. Both the secondary and tertiary treatment plants would be located within the existing WWTP boundary. The tertiary recycled water treatment and distribution system is planned to serve agricultural and landscape irrigation users, as well as commercial/process uses.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 8 February 2023
Seasonal land disposal (i.e., spray fields and/or percolation ponds) would continue to be used when recycled water demand is low or does not exist. A recycled water storage tank would be used to store the recycled water for municipal and industrial users, while a large, lined storage pond would be used for the agricultural user(s). Use of recycled water would incorporate the regulatory landscape, including recent State policies regarding the drought, the State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and salt and nutrient management planning.
Contact information for the project applicant/project engineer, environmental consultant, biological consultant, and lead agency are provided in Table 2.
TABLE 2. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
Applicant/Project Engineer Environmental Consultant
King City WWTP
c/o Octavio Hurtado,
Applicant/City Engineer
212 South Vanderhurst Ave
King City, CA 93930
(831) 385-3281
[email protected]
SMB Environmental, Inc.
c/o Steve Brown, Principal
P.O. Box 381
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 517-2189
[email protected]
Biological Consultant Lead Agency
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
c/o Kristen Anderson, Senior Biologist
1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626
[email protected]
City of King, Depart. of Planning
c/o Doreen Liberto, AICP, MDR
Community Development Director
212 South Vanderhurst Ave
King City, CA 93930
(831) 385-3281
[email protected]
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres) WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 27, 2023 01:49 PM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. 0 0.5 1 Mile ±
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.139°W 36.21321°N
King City, Monterey County
USGS Quadrangle: Thompson Canyon
Figure 1. United States Geological Survey Topographic Map Sacramento
San Francisco
Fresno
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 1 Topo
Map:
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres) WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 27, 2023 01:52 PM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. ±
0 0.5 1 Mile
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.14347°W 36.22414°N
King City, Monterey County
Imagery Source: USDA NAIP, 05/13/2022
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 2 Aerial
Map: Aerial
101
Salinas River
E San Antonio Dr
Broadway St
Pearl St
N 3rd St
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 11 February 2023
1.5 Sensitivity Criteria / Regulatory Framework
Standards for environmental protection and restoration, in the form of laws and regulations, are created within three different organizational levels of government: Federal, State, and Local.
Entities exist within each level to create and enforce regulations that help ensure protection of specific and pertinent regional issues threatening ecosystems and environments. The following regulations are applicable to the proposed Project.
1.5.1 Federal Law and Regulations
Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. “Critical Habitat” is a term within the FESA designed to guide actions by federal agencies and is defined as “an area occupied by a species listed as threatened or endangered within which are found physical or geographical features essential to the conservation of the species, or an area not currently occupied by the species which is itself essential to the conservation of the species.” Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and/or critical habitat are considered a ‘take’ under the FESA. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Projects that would result in “take” of any federally listed threatened or endangered species, or critical habitats, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of FESA, depending on the involvement by the federal government in permitting and/or funding of the project. Through Section 10, it is required to prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to be approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which results in the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). Through Section 7, which can only occur when a separate federal nexus in a project exists (prompting interagency consultation), a consultation by the various federal agencies involved can take place to determine appropriate actions to mitigate negative effects on endangered and threatened species and their habitat.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All migratory, non-game bird species that are native to the U.S. or its territories are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13), as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004. The MBTA makes it illegal to purposefully take (pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird, except under the terms of a valid Federal permit. Migratory non-game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal MBTA.
1.5.2 State Law and Regulations
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), similar to FESA, contains a process for listing of species and regulating potential impacts to listed species.
State threatened and endangered species include both plants and wildlife, but do not include invertebrates. The designation “rare species” applies only to California native plants. State threatened and endangered plant species are regulated largely under the Native Plant Preservation Act in conjunction with the CESA. State threatened and endangered animal species are legally Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 12 February 2023
protected against “take.” The CESA authorizes the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take of listed species to issue an incidental take permit for a state-listed threatened and endangered species only if specific criteria are met.
Section 2080 of the CESA prohibits the take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act. Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: 1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated; 3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and 4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA defines a “project” as any action undertaken from public or private entity that requires discretionary governmental review (a non-ministerial permittable action). All “projects” are required to undergo some level of environmental review pursuant to CEQA, unless an exemption applies. CEQA’s environmental review process includes an assessment of existing resources, broken up by categories (i.e., air quality, aesthetics, etc.), a catalog of potential impacts to those resources caused by the proposed project, and a quantifiable result determining the level of significance an impact would generate. The goal of environmental review under CEQA is to avoid or mitigate impacts that would lead to a “significant effect” on a given resource; section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a “significant effect” as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
Public agencies are required to implement CEQA and execute jurisdiction to determine when applicable activities are or are not subject to CEQA. A public agency with the most prominent nexus and jurisdiction to a project is called the lead agency. The lead agencies determine the scope of what is considered an impact and what constitutes a “significant effect”. “Biological resources” is one of the varying categories considered during environmental review through CEQA. A lead agency can require a biological assessment to be prepared to report on existing biological resources and recommended mitigation measures that will reduce or lessen potential negative impacts to those biological resources. The questions listed in CEQA’s Appendix G:
Biological Resources section, which are used to guide assessment of impacts to biological resources are as follows:
• Does the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
• Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
• Does the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
• Does the project 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?
• Does the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 13 February 2023
• Does the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The lead agency has the final determination over whether a project is or is not permissible, based upon the environmental review, completed requirements and environmental documentation, and their judgement that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, or that all significant effects have been mitigated for.
California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) is one of the 29 legal codes that form the general statutory law of California. A myriad of statutes regarding fish and game are specified in the CFGC; the following codes are specifically relevant to the proposed Project:
California Native Plant Protection Act. Sections 1900-1913 of the California Fish and Game Code contain the regulations of the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. The intent of this act is to help conserve and protect rare and endangered plants in the state. The act allowed the CFGC to designate plants as rare or endangered.
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. Section 1602 of the CFGC requires any person, state, or local governmental agency to provide advance written notification to CDFW prior to initiating any activity that would: 1) divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or remove material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or 2) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material into any river, stream, or lake. The state definition of “lakes, rivers, and streams” includes all rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a well-defined bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life, and watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation.
Nesting Birds. Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of CFGC states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto,” and “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird” unless authorized.
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates impacts to water quality in federal waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, but they also regulate any isolated waters that are impacted under the state Porter Cologne Act utilizing a Waste Discharge Requirement. Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, discharge of fill material into waters of the State not subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE may require authorization pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act through application for waste discharge requirements or through waiver of waste discharge requirements.
1.6 Special Status Species and Sensitive Habitat Regulations For purposes of this Biological Resource Assessment, special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS under the FESA; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the CESA; animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW; and plants with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, 3, or 4. In the following sections, further details are provided to highlight the different Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 14 February 2023
guidelines and qualifications that are used to help identify special status species in this report. In Sections 3.5and 3.6, the various qualifications are listed in the special status species tables (Table 5 and Table 7) for each species with potential to occur in the project area.
1.6.1 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
"Special Plants" and “Special Animals” are broad terms used to refer to all the plant and animal taxa inventoried by the CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection status (CDFW 2023b, CDFW 2023c). The Special Plants list includes vascular plants, high priority bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts), and lichens. The Special Animals list is also referred to by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.”
According to the CNDDB, Special Plants and Animals lists include: taxa that are officially listed or proposed for listing by California or the Federal Government as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare; taxa which meet the criteria for listing, as described in Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines; taxa deemed biologically rare, restricted in range, declining in abundance, or otherwise vulnerable; population(s) in California that may be marginal to the taxon’s entire range but are threatened with extirpation in California; and/or taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at a significant rate. Separately, the Special Plants List includes taxa listed in the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, as well as taxa determined to be Sensitive Species by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service. The Special Animals List distinctively includes taxa considered by the CDFW to be a Species of Special Concern (SSC) and taxa designated as a special status, sensitive, or declining species by other state or federal agencies.
1.6.2 Federal and State Endangered Species Listings
The Federal and California Endangered Species Acts are the regulatory documents that govern the listing and protection of species, and their habitats, identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Possible listing status under both Federal and California ESA includes Endangered and Threatened (FE, FT, CE, or CT). Species in the process of being listed are given the status of either Proposed Federally Endangered/Threatened, or Candidate for California Endangered/Threatened (PE, PT, CCE, or CCT). The CESA has one additional status: Rare (CR).
1.6.3 Global and State Ranks
Global and State Ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species or habitats across its entire range. Basic ranks assign a numerical value from 1 to 5, respectively for species with highest risk to most secure. Other ranking variations include rank ranges, rank qualifiers, and infraspecific taxon ranks. All Heritage Programs, such as the CNDDB use the same ranking methodology, originally developed by The Nature Conservancy and now maintained and recently revised by NatureServe. Procedurally, state programs such as the CNDDB develop the State ranks. The Global ranks are determined collaboratively among the Heritage Programs for the states/provinces containing the species. Rank definitions, where G represents Global and S represents State, are as follows:
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 15 February 2023
• G1/S1: Critically imperiled globally/in state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer populations)
• G2/S2: Imperiled globally/in state because of rarity (6 to 20 populations) • G3/S3: Vulnerable; rare and local throughout range or in a special habitat or narrowly endemic (on the order of 21 to 100 populations)
• G4/S4: Apparently secure globally/in state; uncommon but not rare (of no immediate conservation concern)
• G5/S5: Secure; common, widespread, and abundant
• G#G#/S#S#: Rank range - numerical range indicating uncertainty in the status of a species, (e.g., G2G3 more certain than G3, but less certain that G2) • G/S#?: Inexact numeric rank
• Q: Questionable taxonomy - Taxonomic distinctiveness of this entity is questionable • T#: Infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) – indicating an infraspecific taxon that has a lower numerical ranking (rarer) than the given global rank of species
1.6.4 California Rare Plant Ranks
Plant species are considered rare when their distribution is confined to localized areas, their habitat is threatened, they are declining in abundance, or they are threatened in a portion of their range.
The California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) categories range from species with a low threat (4) to species that are presumed extinct (1A). All but a few species are endemic to California. All of them are judged to be vulnerable under present circumstances, or to have a high potential for becoming vulnerable. Threat ranks are assigned as decimal values to a CRPR to further define the level of threat to a given species. The rare plant ranks and threat levels are defined below. • 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere • 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere • 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere • 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere • 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
• 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
• 0.2: Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
• 0.3: Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 16 February 2023
1.6.5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Animal Rank The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) assigns one of three ranks to Special Animals: Watch List (WL), Species of Special Concern (SSC), or Fully Protected (FP). Unranked species are referred to by the term Special Animal (SA).
Animals listed as Watch List (WL) are taxa that were previously designated as SSC, but no longer merit that status, or taxa that which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status.
Animals listed as California Species of Special Concern (SSC) may or may not be listed under California or federal Endangered Species Acts. They are considered rare or declining in abundance in California. The Special Concern designation is intended to provide the CDFW biologists, land planners, and managers with lists of species that require special consideration during the planning process to avert continued population declines and potential costly listing under federal and state endangered species laws. For many species of birds, the primary emphasis is on the breeding population in California. For some species that do not breed in California but winter here, emphasis is on wintering range. The SSC designation thus may include a comment regarding the specific protection provided such as nesting or wintering.
Animals listed as Fully Protected (FP) are those species considered by CDFW as rare or faced with possible extinction. Most, but not all, have subsequently been listed under the CESA or FESA.
Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of the California Fish and Game code authorizes the issuance of permits or licenses to take any Fully Protected species.
1.6.6 Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive Natural Community is a state-wide designation given by CDFW to specific vegetation associations of ecological importance. Sensitive Natural Communities rarity and ranking involves the knowledge of range and distribution of a given type of vegetation, and the proportion of occurrences that are of good ecological integrity (CDFW 2018). Evaluation is conducted at both the Global (G) and State (S) levels, resulting in a rank ranging from 1 for very rare and threatened to 5 for demonstrably secure. Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities in California and may need to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 17 February 2023
2 METHODS
2.1 Literature and Data Review
Althouse and Meade, Inc. (A&M) reviewed data from the CNDDB and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California on February 20, 2023 (CDFW 2023a, CNPS 2023). Other database searches included herbarium specimen records for locality data within King City, as maintained by eBird (eBird 2023), and the Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH 2023). The search area included the Thompson Canyon USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding quadrangles: Bear Canyon, Cosio Knob, Espinosa Canyon, Greenfield, Paraiso Springs, Pinalito Canyon, Reliz Canyon, and San Lucas. Data were compiled for sensitive plant and wildlife species and reviewed according to each species potential to occur at the Study Area. Special status species lists produced by database and literature searches were cross-referenced with the described habitat types in the Study Area. The complete list of species and determinations is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B.
2.2 Sensitive Species Evaluation
Special status species lists produced by database and literature searches were cross-referenced and analyzed according to the described habitat types in the Study Area to identify all potential special status species that could occur in or near the Study Area. After review of the literature, and completing site visits, the following criteria were used to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the Study Area:
• Present: The species was observed in the Study Area during field surveys. • High Potential: Highly suitable habitat and CNDDB or CNPS occurrence records indicate the species is likely to occur in the Study Area or the immediate vicinity. Individuals may not have been observed during field surveys; however, the species likely occurs in or immediately adjacent to the Study Area and (for wildlife) could move into the Study Area in the future.
• Moderate Potential: Moderately suitable habitat is present in the Study Area and CNDDB occurrences or surveys have recorded the species in the vicinity of the Study Area.
Individuals were not observed during field surveys, but the species could be present, at least seasonally or as a transient.
• Low Potential: Marginally suitable habitat is present in the Study Area, and there are no occurrence records or other historical (i.e., 50 years or older) records in the vicinity of the Study Area. Individuals were not observed during surveys and are not expected to be present.
• No Potential: Suitable habitat for the species is not present in the Study Area, and/or the species is not known to occur in the region.
Each special status species that could occur in or near the Study Area is individually discussed in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.6.1.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 18 February 2023
2.3 Soils
A soil report was created by importing the Study Area as an Area of Interest (AOI) into the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGRO) via their online portal. The resulting soil report was reviewed to determine soils suitable to support special status plants and wildlife (denning substrate) known to occur in the region. Soils data are summarized in Section 3.2 with a full report provided in Appendix C.
2.4 Surveys
On December 7, 2021 and January 26, 2023, A&M Senior Biologist Kristen Andersen conducted pedestrian surveys to assess existing conditions of the current facility and proposed access road to inventory plant and wildlife species, describe habitat types, and to collect photographic documentation of the Study Area. Vehicular surveys were conducted in developed areas where proposed pipelines will be constructed within roads. Each habitat type was field inspected and described by species composition, as interpreted in Section 3.3. All plant and animal species observed in the field were identified and documented in Sections 3.5.2 and 3.6.2. Transects were meandering with an emphasis on locating habitat appropriate for special status plants and animals.
Observations on site were utilized to map boundaries of different vegetation types, describe general conditions and dominant species, compile species lists, and evaluate potential habitat for special status species. Table 3 provides survey dates, weather conditions, tasks conducted, and personnel.
TABLE 3. FIELD SURVEYS
Date Weather Tasks Biologist
December 7, 2021 58-65°F, partly
cloudy, winds calm
Biological and winter
botanical surveys Kristen Andersen
January 26, 2023 52-62°F partly
cloudy, winds calm
Biological and winter
botanical surveys Kristen Andersen
2.4.1 Botanical
Identification of botanical resources include field observations and laboratory analysis of collected material (Table 6). Botanical surveys followed protocol guidelines for an early season survey (USFWS 2000, CDFW 2018, and CNPS 2001). Botanical surveys were conducted during the fall and winter seasons following early season rainfall that induced plant germination. All species identifiable during this time of year were recorded. Each habitat type occurring in the Study Area was inspected, described, and catalogued (Section 3.3). Habitats within the Study Area and surrounding areas were assessed for potential to support special status plant species known from the region (Table 5). Botanical nomenclature used in this document follows Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2023).
2.4.2 Wildlife
Identification of wildlife resources were made by direct observations or by visual signs of animal presence such as burrows/dens, vocalization, tracks, and/or scat. Wildlife observations were recorded during Study Area field surveys (Table 8). Birds were identified by sight, using 10-power Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 19 February 2023
binoculars, or by vocalizations. Reptiles and amphibians were identified by sight, often using binoculars, and by hand-captures; traps were not used. Mammals recorded in the Study Area were identified by sight, burrow/dens, scat, and tracks. Wildlife surveys were conducted during the fall and winter seasons and focused on defining habitats within the Study Area that could support special status animal species known from the region (Table 5). Wildlife nomenclature for birds is in accordance with the American Ornithological Society Checklist (Chesser et al. 2019) and Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Bradley et al. 2014).
2.5 Maps
Field spatial data were collected using mobile devices equipped with GPS receivers and a thirdparty mapping application. Maps were created by importing GPS data into ArcGIS Pro, a Geographic Information System (GIS) software program. Data were overlaid onto recent aerial imagery for further analysis and visualization (Esri 2021). Soil data were overlaid on a 2020 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial of Monterey County (USDA 2021).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 20 February 2023
3 RESULTS
3.1 Existing Conditions
The Study Area is comprised of disturbed habitat (Photo 1) within the existing King City WWTP facility (originally established in 1970) and developed habitat in City areas to the east and south (Photo 2). Land use within the disturbed habitat varies depending on which phase of water treatment the land is currently facilitating, and includes conditioning and polishing ponds, spray fields, access roads, and associated facility structures. Existing ponds comprise approximately
48.6 acres of the Study Area. These ponds are actively treating domestic water in phases of conditioning and polishing. Water inputs to the site near the southeast corner of the Study Area and is processed and then discharged through the existing spray fields in the northwest portion of the Study Area.
Spray fields comprise the majority of land use within the WWTP portion of the Study Area (approximately 130.1 acres), where the northern spray field is actively being used as the final stage in domestic water treatment, occupying approximately 57.5 acres of the site. Industrial spray fields occupy approximately 72.6 acres in the southwest portion of the WWTP. This portion of the site is currently inactive and has demonstrated a subtle conversion to weedy, annual grassland habitat over time. Though land use dedicated to industrial spray fields has been inactive, this habitat shows clear signs of disturbance through semi-recent disking and still has intact piping for spraying/irrigation use, should the industrial demand for water treatment increase within the City.
Existing dirt roads encompass the WWTP, allowing access to the individual water treatment land uses, with the main entrance near the southeast corner of the site. Access roads are unvegetated and are frequently used by small and large vehicles, including tractors used for disking the spray fields. Dirt perimeter roads occupy approximately 21.5 acres of the site. Two trailer-sized facilities are located near the entrance and several patches of land within the Study Area are lined with solar panels to provide onsite energy for operations (approximately 16.9 acres). Landscaped ornamental plants comprise the vegetation along the eastern perimeter road.
Developed habitat comprises 7.2 acres of the Study Area and consists entirely of asphalted City streets surrounded by sidewalks and residential housing and/or commercial/industrial buildings with intermittent areas of landscaped vegetation.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 21 February 2023
Photo 1. View of spray fields in southern portion of the WWTP within the Study Area, facing west. December 7, 2021.
Photo 2. View of proposed pipeline location within road in northeast portion of the Study Area, facing east. January 26, 2023.
3.2 Soils
Eight soil map units are represented within the Study Area: Metz complex, Metz fine sandy loam, Mocho silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes, Mocho silty clay loam, Xerorthents loamy, Cropley silty clay 0-2 percent slopes, Corducci and Typic Xerofluvents 0-5 percent slopes, and Pico fine sandy loam (USDA 2023a). A complete soils report is provided in Appendix C.
Metz complex (Mg) soils are represented in the WWTP portion of the Study Area, accounting for nearly 60 percent. The typical soil profile is fine sandy loam/loamy sand (0 to 12 inches) over Stratified sand to very fine sandy loam (12 to 99 inches). This soil class is considered somewhat excessively drained with a medium runoff class. This soil class formed from sandy alluvium in floodplains derived from sedimentary rock and is classified as farmland of statewide importance (USDA 2023a).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 22 February 2023
Metz fine sandy loam (Mf) is located within the existing ponds, comprising approximately 23 percent of the Study Area. The typical soil profile is fine sandy loam (0 to 12 inches) over stratified sand to very fine sandy loam (12 to 99 inches). This soil class is generally located on 0- to 2 percent slopes that are somewhat excessively drained and has a low runoff class. This soil complex is made up of approximately 85 percent Metz and similar soils, with the remaining 15 percent minor components. This soil class formed from sandy alluvium floodplains derived from sedimentary rock and is prime farmland if irrigated (USDA 2023a).
Mocho silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes (MnA) soils are within the northern limits of the WWTP within existing spray fields and ponds, and eastern portion of the Study Area in developed habitat, comprising approximately 12 percent of the site. The typical soil profile is silt loam, 0 to 60 inches.
Mocho silt loam is well drained with a low runoff class. This soil class formed from alluvial fans derived from sedimentary rocks and is classified as prime farmland if irrigated (USDA 2023a).
Mocho silty clay loam (MoA) is documented in the eastern portion of the WWTP and throughout developed habitat in the Study Area (3 percent). This soil type is very deep, well drained, and a nearly level soil typical of alluvial fans and plains. It formed in alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks. Included in this map unit are minor areas of Camarillo loam, drained; Cropley clay; Marimel silty clay loam, drained; Mocho fine sandy loam; Mocho Varient fine sandy loam; Salinas loam; and Tujunga loamy sand. Permeability of this Mocho soil is moderately slow and the available water capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight (USDA 2023a).
Xerorthents, loamy (Xc) soils are encountered in a small area in the western section of the Study Area (1 percent). It is also very deep and well-drained on encountered on moderate and steep slopes at the end of terraces. It is derived from mixed loamy alluvium and typically its profile contains loam, clay loam within the first 60 inches. The available water storage in its profile is very high (USDA 2023a).
Cropley silty clay 0-2 percent slopes (CnA) are located within the spray fields and small area of proposed pipeline to the east, and comprise less than 1 percent within the Study Area. The typical soil profile is silty clay, 0 to 69 inches. Cropley silty clay is well drained with a high runoff class.
This soil class formed from silty and clayey alluvium floodplains derived from sedimentary rock and is prime farmland if irrigated (USDA 2023a).
Corducci and Typic Xerofluvents 0-5 percent slopes (300) soils are located within the spray fields along the western Study Area edge and comprise less than 1 percent within the Study Area.
The typical soil profile is fine sand (0 to 35 inches) over sand (35 to 45 inches). This soil class is considered somewhat excessively drained with a very low runoff class. This soil class formed from mixed alluvium along stream terraces, alluvial fans, floodplains and is derived from igneous and sedimentary rock and is not prime farmland (USDA 2023a).
Pico fine sandy loam (Pf) soils are very deep and well-drained and are located mostly along the area of proposed access road and southeast areas of proposed pipeline within the City, at less than 1 percent. This soil profile is typically encountered on mild to moderate slopes formed from calcareous alluvium derived from sedimentary rocks. Included in this map unit are small areas of Elder loam, gravelly sand, Cropley clay, and Tujunga fine sand. The permeability is rapid, and the available water capacity is moderate to high (USDA 2023a).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 23 February 2023
3.3 Habitat Types
Table 4 lists habitats and the various land uses that currently exist within the Study Area (Figure 3).
Disturbed and developed habitats comprise the Study Area, where disturbed area is further defined by WWTP operational land uses. Developed habitat consists of urban City elements (i.e., streets, residential housing, commercial/industrial buildings, sidewalks, landscaping).
TABLE 4. LAND USES WITHIN STUDY AREA
Habitat/Land Use Type Approximate
Area (Acres)
Disturbed Habitat 222.7
Domestic Spray Fields 57.5
Industrial Spray Fields 72.6
Treatment Ponds 48.6
Access Roads 27.1
Miscellaneous Facilities 16.9
Developed Habitat 7.2
Residential/Industrial Zones 7.2
TOTAL 229.9
3.3.1 Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat comprises approximately 222.7 acres of the Study Area, where different operational land uses offer varying degrees of micro-habitats with differing vegetation, or lack thereof. Domestic spray fields are predominantly open mud flats used to release treated water back into the water table through passive filtration. Water is sprayed rotationally across this portion of the site to allow for infiltration, and surface water ponds temporarily as a result (Photo 3 and Photo 4). Spray fields are regularly disked to allow for soil aeration and to aid in water infiltration (Photo 5 and Photo 6). Residential and migratory shorebirds were observed foraging in the mud for insects. In contrast, the inactive industrial spray fields have largely revegetated and are dominant with non-native annual grasses, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and red brome (Bromus rubens), and weedy forbs including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and wild mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) (Photo 7 through Photo 9). Associate native forbs observed in the industrial spray fields included telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), lessingia (Lessingia sp.), tarplant (Deinandra sp.), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.). Sandy loam soils were observed in open bare patches within this historically disturbed grassland portion of the site, where small mammal burrows were noted semifrequently. One red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) tree is present within the industrial spray field and a large, inactive raptor nest was observed within the tree and mapped (Photo 10). Though not located directly in the Study Area, Photo 11 depicts riparian habitat surrounding the Salinas River within the Property boundary, to the west of the site. Photo 12 shows the manmade berm that acts as the western boundary of the Study Area and separates the spray fields from the Salinas River floodplain.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 24 February 2023
Existing treatment ponds provide aquatic habitat to numerous waterfowl and other residential and migratory bird species. Flycatchers, including Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), were observed foraging on an abundant insect prey population at onsite ponds. No fish or amphibians were observed during December 2021 and January 2023 surveys but could be present in the ponds. And though ponds are a functioning part of the water treatment plant, wetland vegetation persists along the periphery of the ponds at low densities and included cattails (Typha sp.), California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and willow dock (Rumex salicifolius), providing marginal wetland habitat and refugia for potential aquatic resources (Photo 13 and Photo 14).
Access roads and areas around existing structures are mostly unvegetated and have a relatively high level of human disturbance from daily operations on site and within adjacent agricultural fields (Photo 15 through Photo 18). Solar panels, power poles, and buildings provide roosting structures used by many bird species, including birds of prey. Bats may utilize some onsite structures as occasional roosting sites.
Photo 3. Domestic spray field ponded water and
mud flats, view west. December 7, 2021.
Photo 4. Domestic spray field between sprays,
view east. December 7, 2021.
Photo 5. Disking of domestic spray fields, view
south. December 7, 2021.
Photo 6. Disking of domestic spray field, view
southeast. December 7, 2021.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 25 February 2023
Photo 7. Industrial spray field with disked rows,
view southwest. December 7, 2021.
Photo 8. Industrial spray field with spray
component line and regrowth of annual grasses,
view west. December 7, 2021.
Photo 9. Portion of recently disked industrial
spray field, view east. December 7, 2021.
Photo 10. Raptor nest observed in red gum tree
in industrial spray fields. December 7, 2021.
Photo 11. Riparian habitat along Salinas River,
west of Study Area boundary, view west.
December 7, 2021.
Photo 12. Photo from top of berm that borders
western boundary of Study Area between
developed habitat and Salinas River, view north.
December 7, 2021.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 26 February 2023
Photo 13. Active treatment pond with wetland
vegetation in foreground, view east. December 7,
2021.
Photo 14. Active treatment pond, view north.
December 7, 2021.
Photo 15. Solar panels along perimeter roads as
part of WWTP facilities, view southwest.
December 7, 2021.
Photo 16. Associated WWTP facilities including
office, storage container, and parking, view east.
December 7, 2021.
Photo 17. Location of current and proposed
access road and adjacent agricultural fields.
January 26, 2023.
Photo 18. Location of current and proposed
access road and adjacent agricultural fields.
January 26, 2023
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 27 February 2023
3.3.2 Developed Habitat
Developed habitat within the Study Area, which comprises the majority of proposed and existing pipeline locations, consists entirely of residential, commercial and industrial developments with paved streets and sidewalks (Photo 19 and Photo 20), totaling 7.2 percent of the site. Where present, ornamental and non-native species comprise most of the landscaped vegetation. Due to the ongoing presence of human disturbance and lack of natural environmental features, it is unlikely for special status species to utilize this developed urban habitat. However, common bird species could nest in landscaped vegetation and trees.
Photo 19. Location of proposed 8-inch pipeline
section along Broadway Street. Commercial
zone, view southwest. January 26, 2023.
Photo 20. Location of proposed 6-inch pipeline
section along Calcagno Street. Residential zone,
view east. January 26, 2023.
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres)
WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
Habitats
Developed (7.2 acres)
Disturbed (222.7 acres)
Raptor Nest
Current WWTP Land Use
Dirt Perimeter Roads
Domestic Spray Field - Active
Existing Treatment Ponds - Active
Industrial Spray Field - Inactive
WWTP Misc. Facilities
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC.
Map Updated:
February 28, 2023 11:45 AM by SAF
0 2,000 4,000 Feet ±
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.14347°W 36.22414°N
King City, Monterey County
Imagery Source: USDA NAIP, 05/21/2020
Figure 3. Biological Resources
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 3 Bio Resources
Map:
#
1A
1B
1 2
3 5 4
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 29 February 2023
3.4 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters
Potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters are not present in the Study Area. Manmade water treatment ponds are present on the site as part of water treatment operations, but do not provide wetland function nor connectivity to other aquatic resources. The Salinas River and any potential wetlands affiliated with this riverine system are partially on the WWTP Property but are over 1,000 feet west of the proposed Project area. Proposed pipelines will have no impact on aquatic features.
3.5 Botanical Resources
Updated research on special status plant occurrences conducted within the designated search area (see Methods) determined 44 special status plant species are known to occur in the region (Appendix A, CDFW 2023b, CNPS 2023. Figure 4 and Figure 6 depict the current GIS data for special status plants mapped near the Study Area by the CNDDB.
3.5.1 Special Status Plant Species
Based on an analysis of known ecological requirements for the special status plant species reported from the region, and the habitat conditions that were observed in the Study Area, it was determined that three special status plant species have low potential to occur within the Study Area, and no potential to occur in the Project area: Douglas’ spineflower, elegant wild buckwheat, and paleyellow layia. Two additional species, umbrella larkspur and Davidson’s bush mallow, have no potential to occur but are further discussed to address CDFW comments (CDFW 2021). Five species are discussed below and summarized in Table 5. The Project would be constructed within disturbed areas of existing ponds, access roads, and City streets, therefore no special status plants would likely be impacted.
1. Douglas’ Spineflower (Chorizanthe douglasii) is a CRPR 4.3 species endemic to San Benito, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. It is known to occur on sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and lower montane coniferous forests habitats between 55- and 1600-meters elevation. It is an annual herb that typically blooms between April and July. The closest known record is approximately 1.7 miles east of the Study Area in 1944 (CCH #SD43530). The sandy loam soils in the Study Area are marginally suitable for this species; however, appropriate habitat is not present and the developed land uses of the site reduce the potential for this species to occur. Douglas’ spineflower was not detected during our December 2021 and January 2023 surveys and is not present within the proposed Project footprint.
2. Elegant Wild Buckwheat (Eriogonum elegans) is a CRPR 4.3 species endemic to the central coast of California. It is known to occur on sandy or gravelly soil in cismontane woodlands, grasslands; and washes between 200- and 1,525-meters elevation. It is an annual herb that typically blooms between May and November. The closest known record is approximately 0.6 miles south of the Study Area in 1931 (CCH SBBG179105). Roadside habitat along the western edge of the Study Area could support this species, however if present, it is likely that forensic specimens would have been detected during off-season surveys. Elegant wild buckwheat could also occur in wash habitat along the Salinas River, but has very low potential to occur in the Study Area due to disturbed conditions, and has no potential to occur within the Project footprint. Elegant wild buckwheat was not detected in the Study Area during December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 30 February 2023
3. Pale-yellow Layia (Layia heterotricha) is a CRPR 1B. 1 species endemic to central California.
It is known to occur on alkaline or clay soils in cismontane woodland, chaparral, and grassland habitat between 300- and 1,705-meters elevation. It is an annual herb that typically blooms between March and May. The closest known record is approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the Study Area in 1962 (CCH #PGM H-5428). This occurrence was observed in farmland habitat with similarly disturbed conditions. All occurrences in the vicinity of the site are historic, and with only marginally suitable habitat and soils present in the Study Area, this species has low potential to occur. Pale-yellow layia was not detected in the Study Area during December 2021 and January 2023 surveys and is not likely to be present. This species does not occur within the Project area.
Two special status plants, umbrella larkspur and Davidson’s bush mallow, have no potential to occur in the Study Area due to lack of suitable habitat but warrant further discussion due to proximity of known occurrences and CDFW concern for their potential presence in the Study Area.
4. Umbrella Larkspur (Delphinium umbraculorum) is a CRPR 1B.3 species endemic to Kern, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. It is known to occur in chaparral, cismontane, and moist oak forest habitats between 400- and 1,600-meters elevation.
It is a perennial herb that typically blooms between April and June. Two closest known records are approximately 2.3 miles west and south of the Study Area in 1962 (CNDDB #24, 67). Suitable oak forest or chaparral habitat is not present in the Study Area and this species has no potential to occur on the site. Umbrella larkspur was not detected during offseason surveys conducted in December 2021 and January 2023 and is not likely to occur in the disturbed or developed habitat where Project activities are proposed.
5. Davidson's Bush Mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii) is a CRPR 1B.2 species that occurs from San Mateo County south to Los Angeles County and is endemic to California. It is known to occur in sandy wash, chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, and riparian woodland habitats between 185- and 1,140-meters elevation. It is a perennial deciduous shrub that typically blooms between June and January. The closest known record is approximately
3.4 miles south of the Study Area in 1962 within chaparral habitat (CNDDB #37). An updated record was reported near the same location in 1997 (CCH PGM H-4648) and this species is likely present at this location. Sandy wash habitat occurs within the Salinas River, west of the Study Area boundary. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study Area, and though there is a relatively close occurrence, this species has no potential occur on the site. Davidson’s bush mallow was not observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys and would have been detected due to its perennial shrub habit and overlapping bloom period, if present.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 31 February 2023
TABLE 5. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT LIST
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
1. Chorizanthe douglasii Douglas'
Spineflower
-/-
G4/S4
4. 3
Apr-Jul Cismontane
woodland, lower
montane coniferous
forest, chaparral,
coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland;
in sand or gravel.
Low. Suitable soils are
present though limited, and
the site is heavily disturbed.
Nearest occurrence is historic
(from 1944) 1.7 mi east of the
Study Area (CCH
#SD43530).
2. Delphinium
umbraculorum
Umbrella Larkspur -/-
G3/S3
1B.3
Apr-Jun Moist oak forest No Potential. Appropriate
oak forest habitat is not
present and historic farming
of the area is not suited for
this species. Nearest
occurrence is 2.1 mi east of
the Study Area in 1962
(CNDDB #24).
3. Eriogonum elegans Elegant Wild
Buckwheat
-/-
G4G5/S4S5
4. 3
May-Nov Uncommon.
Cismontane
woodland, valley and
foothill grassland.
Usually in sandy or
gravelly substrates;
often in washes,
sometimes roadsides.
Low. Marginal habitat is
present in Industrial Spray
Fields. Nearest occurrence is
historic (from 1931), 0.6 mi
south of the Study Area
(CCH SBBG179105).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 32 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
4. Layia heterotricha Pale-Yellow Layia -/-
G2/S2
1B. 1
Mar-Jun Open clayey or sandy
soil, sometimes +-
alkaline
Low. Suitable soils are
present in the Study Area;
however, the site has been
historically disturbed. Nearest
occurrence is 2 mi northeast
in similar farmland habitat
(CCH #PGM H-5428) from
1962.
5. Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson’s Bush
Mallow
-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Jun-Jan Sandy washes in
coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, chaparral
No Potential. Appropriate
habitat is not present in the
Study Area and site is heavily
disturbed. Conspicuous bush
mallow shrubs were not
observed at the time of
survey.
See section 1.6 for status and rank definitions
3 5
1 4
2 5
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres)
WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
5-Mile Buffer
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 27, 2023 01:53 PM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. 0 1 2 Miles ±
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.13965°W 36.21864°N
King City, Monterey County
CNDDB GIS Data Last Updated: February 2023
Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Database Plant Records Davidson's bush-mallow
Indian Valley bush-mallow
Pale-yellow layia
Recurved larkspur
Umbrella larkspur
Common Name
1 2
3 4
5 Label
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 4 CNDDB Plants
Map: CNDDB Plants
101
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 34 February 2023
3.5.2 Botanical Survey Results
Botanical surveys conducted on December 7, 2021 and January 26, 2023 identified 45 species, subspecies, and varieties of vascular plant taxa in the Study Area (Table 6). The list includes 21 species native to California and 24 introduced (naturalized or planted) species. Native plant species account for approximately 47 percent of the Study Area flora; introduced species account for approximately 53 percent.
TABLE 6. VASCULAR PLANT LIST
Scientific Name Common Name Special
Status Origin
Trees - 4 Species
Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red gum None Introduced
Morus sp. Mulberry None Introduced
Populus fremontii Cottonwood None Native
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak None Native
Salix sp. Willow None Native
Shrubs - 3 Species
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush None Native
Baccharis salicifolia subsp.
salicifolia
Mule fat None Native
Phoradendron leucarpum
subsp. macrophyllum
Big leaf mistletoe None Native
Forbs - 31 Species
Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed amaranth None Introduced
Amsinckia sp. Fiddleneck None Native
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush None Introduced Centaurea melitensis Tocolote None Introduced
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle None Introduced Chenopodium album Lamb’s-quarters None Introduced
Croton californicus California croton None Native
Cyperus eragrostis Umbrella sedge None Native
Deinandra sp. Tarplant None Native
Epilobium ciliatum Willow herb None Native
Erigeron bonariensis Asthma weed None Introduced
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree None Introduced
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 35 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Special
Status Origin
Erigeron canadensis Common horseweed None Native
Euphorbia serpens Matted sandmat None Native
Gnaphalium palustre Lowland cudweed None Native
Heliotropium curassavicum
var. oculatum
Seaside heliotrope None Native
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed None Native
Hirschfeldia incana Wild mustard None Introduced
Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed None Introduced Lessingia sp.
1 Lessingia None Native
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed None Introduced
Marrubium vulgare Horehound None Introduced
Plantago lanceolata English plantain None Introduced
Pseudognaphalium
californicum
California everlasting None Native
Rumex crispus Curly dock None Introduced
Rumex salicifolius Willow dock None Native
Salsola tragus Russian thistle None Introduced
Schoenoplectus californicus California tule None Native Stephanomeria virgata Twiggy wreath plant None Native
Typha sp. Cattail None Introduced
Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur None Introduced
Graminoids - 7 Species
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome None Introduced
Bromus madritensis subsp.
rubens
Red top brome None Introduced
Distichlis spicata Saltgrass None Native
Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass None Introduced
Hordeum marinum subsp.
gussoneanum
Barley None Introduced
1 Lessingia sp. observed during the December 2021 site survey was partially in bloom, but nearly senesced and not completely identifiable due to lack of all phenological parts necessary to key to species. The rare species, L. tenuis or spring lessingia, has a bloom period of May through July, and would not be in bloom in December. Additionally, habitat where observed is not suitable for L. tenuis. Therefore, Special Status was determined to be None.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 36 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Special
Status Origin
Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley None Introduced
Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beardgrass None Introduced See Section 1. 6 for status and rank definitions.
3.6 Wildlife Resources
Updated research on special status animal occurrences conducted within the designated search area (see Methods) determined 29 special status animal species are known to occur in the region (Appendix B, CDFW 2023c). Figure 5 and Figure 6 depict the current GIS data for special status species mapped near the Study Area by the CNDDB and USFWS Critical Habitat.
3.6.1 Special Status Animal Species
Based on an analysis of known ecological requirements for the special-status wildlife species reported or known from the region (Appendix B), and the habitat conditions that were observed in the Study Area, it was determined that 16 special status animal species have some potential to occur within the Study Area. Potential for special status bird species to occur is defined by nesting and inflight/foraging potential, and include Cooper’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, great blue heron, burrowing owl, bank swallow, and least Bell’s vireo. Other special status animals with potential to occur include those with low potential (northern California legless lizard, western bumble bee, Salinas pocket mouse, coast horned lizard, western spadefoot, coast range newt, and San Joaquin kit fox) and moderate potential (western pond turtle and American badger). The Study Area is within known critical habitat for two special status species, vernal pool fairy shrimp and steelhead – South/Central California Coast DPS, and a third species, Monterey hitch, is known to occur along the Salinas River. These three species have no potential to occur, and a rationale for this determination is provided in the following discussion. Each species is discussed in detail below and summarized in Table 7.
1. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is a CDFW Watch List species (for nesting occurrences only) that occurs regularly in California during the winter months and during spring and fall migration (CDFW 2018a). It is generally regarded as a regular but uncommon nesting species in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties (Hall et al. 1992; Lehman 2020), and several observations are reported on eBird within Monterey County (eBird 2021). Cooper's hawks frequent oak and riparian woodland habitats, and increasingly urban areas, where they prey primarily upon small birds (Curtis et al. 2006). The closest reported occurrence of nesting Cooper’s hawk is located approximately 15 miles south of the Study Area in 1999 in a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) tree within oak woodland habitat (CNDDB #68). Nesting habitat is not present in the Study Area, aside from one red gum tree which currently hosts a potential red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) nest. Several more recent occurrences have been reported on eBird, with the closest record approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the site (Hoff 2007).
Cooper’s hawks are likely more abundant in the area than records show in the CNDDB and have high potential to be seen either in flight or foraging on small birds within the Study Area.
Woodland habitat in the vicinity could support nesting Cooper’s hawks, but due to minimal Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 37 February 2023
nesting habitat directly in the Study Area, they have low potential to nest on the site. Cooper’s hawks were not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
2. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a California Species of Special Concern (nesting colonies) and is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Tricolored blackbird occurs predominately in the Central Valley of California and in smaller disjunctive nesting colonies southwest of the Cascade Sierra axis and at higher elevations only in northwestern California (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Within its restricted range, the tricolored blackbird will migrate during the breeding season, moving north after the first nesting efforts, and in winter moving to lower elevations (Shuford and Gardali 2008) . The breeding season is generally from April to July, but in the Central Valley there has been active breeding reported in October and November (CDFW 2014). Historically, the tricolored blackbird nested in emergent wetlands, marshes and swamps making their nests in tall, dense cattails, tules, tall herbs, thickets of willows and blackberries. The species also requires foraging space with an abundance of insect prey that can sustain the nesting colony (Weintraub et al. 2016). In a recent study, it was found that the tricolored blackbird had a higher breeding success nesting in nonnative invasive vegetation like the Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) over the native cattail (Typha spp.) (Cook and Toft 2005). The closest reported occurrence of a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is approximately 8.4 miles southeast of the Study Area in 1997 (CNDDB #993). Several observations of this species in flight are documented on eBird with the nearest occurrence approximately 1.8 miles east of the Study Area (Rinkert 2021), where a large flock was observed in flight. Due to very limited reed substrate, it is unlikely for tricolored blackbirds to nest in the WWTP area and suitable habitat is not present in the areas of proposed pipeline locations. Tricolored blackbirds were not observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
3. Northern California Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra) is a California Species of Special Concern that occurs from Contra Costa to Santa Barbara County. It has a Global Rank of G3 and a State Rank of S3, both of which indicate that this species is considered Vulnerable. This species includes the subspecies formerly treated as A. pulchra nigra and A. pulchra pulchra which was shown to be an invalid designation (Pearse and Pogson 2000). Northern California legless lizard inhabits friable soils in a variety of habitats from coastal dunes to oak woodlands and chaparral. Adapted to subterranean life, the legless lizard thrives near native coastal shrubs that produce an abundance of leaf litter and have strong roots systems (Kuhnz et al. 2005).
Areas of exotic vegetation and open grassland do not provide suitable habitat for the legless lizard since these plant communities support smaller populations of insect prey and offer little protection from higher ground temperatures and soil desiccation (Slobodchikoff and Doyen 1977; Jennings and Hayes 1994). The closest reported occurrence of the northern California legless lizard is located approximately 1.9 miles southeast from Study Area in 2018 (CNDDB #362), where one adult was observed within a drainage of Pine Canyon. Loose loamy soils occur in the inactive Industrial Spray Fields land use area; however, is not the typical habitat for legless lizards There is potential for this species to inhabit the riparian habitat that occupies the Salinas River banks, where suitable soils are present and leaf litter is abundant. Due to the proximity of suitable conditions, there is low potential for legless lizards to occur in the WWTP portion of the Study Area, but they are not likely to be present near the treatment ponds where most of the proposed Project activities will occur. Northern California legless lizard was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 38 February 2023
4. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is designated a Fully Protected species by the CDFW and is federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The species range extends throughout much of North America and in California is found in broadleaved upland and montane coniferous forests, cismontane, pinon and juniper woodlands, coastal prairie, great basin scrub and great basin, valley and foothill grassland habitat types (CDFW 2018a). Most golden eagles in California are residents year-round, but in the winter months this population will be augmented with individuals from other nearby western states. The breeding season in California is generally from late January through August. The golden eagle prefers open habitat and in California it extensively utilizes grazed grasslands and open shrublands for preying on its main food source of hares or rabbits and marmots or ground squirrels (Hunt 1995; Watson 2010). Studies have shown that both the golden eagle’s reproduction rate and success declines with a decrease in prey abundance. Golden eagle’s will even refrain from egg laying when prey numbers are low (Driscoll 2010). In California, the golden eagle nests almost exclusively in trees (82% trees in central California) but in montane regions it also has a preference for cliffs and will avoid nesting in densely forested habitat (Hunt 1995; Pagel et al. 2010). The golden eagle is highly sensitive to anthropogenic presences and will avoid nesting near urban areas (Pagel et al. 2010). Golden eagles will even abandon nests when human activity and development increases in their territory (Driscoll 2010). The closest reported occurrence of nesting golden eagles is located approximately 10.3 miles west of the Study Area in 2008 (CNDDB #132) on a cliff above Vaqueros Creek. More recent occurrences are reported on eBird, with the nearest observation of one adult in flight approximately 0.9 mi south over San Lorenzo County Park (Roberson 2021). Due to the high presence of human activity and lack of nesting substrate, golden eagles have no potential to nest on the site but could be seen in flight or occasionally hunting in the open spray field areas. The raptor nest found within the Study Area was too small for this species. Golden eagle was not observed during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
5. Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) is a CDFW Special Animal and a colonial nesting waterbird whose nesting colonies are tracked by the CNDDB. Adaptable and widespread, the great blue heron is found in a wide variety of habitats. When feeding, it is usually seen in slowmoving or calm salt, fresh, or brackish water. Great blue herons inhabit brackish and freshwater marshes, estuaries, swamps, riparian forests, and wetlands. They nest colonially in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on marshes. Rookery sites are typically in proximity to foraging areas such as marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, and wet meadows.
Great blue herons hunt predominantly by day though they may also be active at night. The closest reported occurrence of a great blue heron rookery is approximately 11.4 miles east of the Study Area in 2008 (CNDDB #87). Several occurrences of great blue heron have been reported on eBird, with the nearest occurrence directly overhead the Study Area in 2002 (Yough 2002). There is no suitable rookery habitat present in the Study Area but it is highly likely that this species could be seen in flight or utilizing onsite treatment ponds. Great blue heron was not observed during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
6. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) is a California Species of Special Concern. It is a small, rare owl that occupies abandoned mammal holes in the ground, most notably those of the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). In California, the burrowing owl is a year-round resident in the Carrizo Plain, Central Valley, Imperial Valley, and the San Francisco Bay region. In the winter months, burrowing owl individuals from other western populations will augment the year-round Californian populations (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 39 February 2023
The breeding season is generally from March through August. Suitable habitat types for the burrowing owl are dry, open annual or perennial grasslands and deserts with an abundance of burrows (CDFW 2014; CDFW 2018). More specifically, the owl is found in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, great basin, Mojavean and Sonoran Desert scrub and great basin, valley and foothill grassland habitats (CDFW 2018). The burrowing owl commonly nests in abandoned holes in the ground, most notably those of the California Ground squirrel, but the owl is also known to inhabit badger and fox dens and man-made holes, such as pipes and culverts. Rarely it has been known to dig its own burrow in softer soil types(Coulombe 1971; Gervais et al. 2008). Burrows with high horizontal visibility and low vegetation coverage are preferred but burrows with dense vegetation with high perch sites will be used (Green and Anthony 1989).
Orthoptera are the main food source for the owl but it will also consume other insects, as well as amphibians, carrion, small mammals, reptiles and birds (York et al. 2002; Gervais et al. 2008; CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of the burrowing owl is approximately
2.0 miles east from the Study Area in 2002 (CNDDB #436) where burrowing owl was observed denning in soil mounds within a corporation yard. Though more likely to occur in the interior, the inactive Industrial Spray Field could provide suitable denning habitat for burrowing owl, but due to high activity in the area, potential to den and/or hunt on site is low. Burrowing owl was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
7. Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis) is a candidate Endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act and is a designated Sensitive species under the United States Forest Service (USFS), with a Global Rank of G2G3 (imperiled and vulnerable) and a State Rank of S1 (critically imperiled). According to NatureServe (2014), the overall global rank of the species has to be G4 because one or two of the subspecies appears to be secure based on substantial information from 2009 and more recently. However, western bumblebee is clearly not secure in most of its range. The conservation status of the two subspecies appears to be very different, and each is now (as of 2014) ranked and document separately. Though once widespread, disease is stipulated to be the cause of the precipitous decline in this species from southern British Columbia to central California. Rangewide, example food plants of WBB include genera Ceanothus, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Cirsium, Geranium, Grindellia, Lupinus, Melilotus, Monardella, Rubus, Solidago, and Trifolium (Williams et al. 2014). The nearest occurrences of WBB are approximately 10 miles northwest and southeast of the Study Area in 1967 and 1935, respectively (CNDDB #293, 277). Due to limited host plants, lack of burrows in the Project area, and overall decline of the species, western bumblebee has very no potential to occur in the Study Area. Western bumble bee was not detected, nor were any bumble bee species observed, during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
8. Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata [Actinemys marmorata]) has a Global Rank of G3G4 and a State Rank of S3. It is a California Species of Special Concern that has a widespread distribution in north and south California west of the Sierra-Cascade crest (Jennings and Hayes 1994; CDFW 2014) . The western pond turtle requires permanent to semi-permanent and slack or slow-moving water type habitat, including ponds, rivers, streams, reservoirs and wetlands found in grasslands, open forests and woodlands. It has also been observed in abandoned gravel pits, sewage treatment lagoons, irrigation ditches and stock ponds (Pilliod et al. 2013; CDFW 2014; CDFW 2018). Suitable water habitat will have plenty of basking and cover sites such as logs, reeds, rocks and muddy banks. The western pond turtle also requires suitable upland habitat for nests, migration, overwintering and aestivation (Pilliod et al. 2013; CDFW 2014; CDFW 2018). Nests are laid on dry and unshaded south-facing slopes that are < 25º and of Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 40 February 2023
high clay or silt fraction (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Females lay eggs from April to August, depending on the latitude, and will travel as far as 400 meters from the water to find a suitable nesting spot (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Reese and Welsh 1997). Hatchling turtles leave the nest the following spring and spend their time in shallow highly vegetated waters (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The western pond turtle is omnivorous and has a diet that consists mostly of aquatic invertebrates, vegetation, small fish and duck carrion (Jennings and Hayes 1994; CDFW 2014). The biggest threat to the western pond turtle is the destruction of wetland habitat, but its population size is also affected by the American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus) which will prey on hatchlings and can even eliminate recruitment in some populations (USFWS 1992; Overtree and Collings 1997). The closest reported occurrence of western pond turtle is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast from the Study Area in the Salinas River (CNDDB #1054). The active water treatment ponds could attract pond turtles and they have a moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. Western pond turtle was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys but could be present.
9. Salinas Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus psammophilus) is a rare pocket mouse listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2018). It has a Global Rank of G4T2 (rounded status T2 – Imperiled) and a State Rank of S1 (Critically Imperiled). The Salinas pocket mouse is one of three subspecies located from the Sacramento Valley, south to the San Joaquin and contiguous valleys (including Salinas Valley). Like other species of pocket mice, the Salinas pocket mouse is nocturnal and spends the day in a burrow with a plugged entrance.
During periods of low temperatures, these mice will enter a period of torpor, emerging occasionally from their burrow if its cache needs to be replenished. The Salinas pocket mouse forages on the seeds of grasses and forbs as well as seasonal vegetation. The closest reported occurrence of the Salinas pocket mouse is located over 14 miles northwest from the Study Area in 1936 (CNDDB #7). Documented occurrences of this species are rare and historic, suggesting that either the species has been extirpated from the area or that more research is required to determine presence in the County. Though suitable habitat is present in the Industrial Spray Fields portion of the Study Area, it is unlikely that Salinas pocket mouse are present, and they have very low potential to occur. Salinas pocket mouse or its sign was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
10. Coast Horned Lizard (or Blainville’s Horned Lizard) (Phrynosoma blainvillii) is a California Species of Special Concern. The coast horned lizard is distributed from northern Baja California through Northern California occurring in open areas of valley foothill hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine-cypress, juniper and annual grassland habitats (Laudenslayer 2007). The horned lizard needs friable sandy soil with rocks and logs essential for burrows and reproduction (Laudenslayer 2007, Gerson 2011). Appropriate habitat for the horned lizard must include an abundance of the native harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex and Messor). The nonnative Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) is detrimental to horned lizard food resources as it is out competing the native harvester ant, and the lizard will not eat the Argentine ant (Gerson 2011). Very little data exists on the habitat requirement for reproduction of the coast horned lizard; however, it has been reported that in southern California the egg laying season is from late May through June (CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of the coast horned lizard is located approximately 10.3 miles west of the Study Area in 2008 (CNDDB #681), where horned lizard was observed along Vaqueros Creek, adjacent to oak woodland habitat.
Wash habitat with sandy soils is present along the Salinas River and coast horned lizard could be present, but is less likely to disperse into the WWTP portion of the Study Area and has low Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 41 February 2023
potential to occur. Coast horned lizard was not observed during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
11. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) is a state-listed threatened species with a Global Rank of G5 (Secure) and a State Rank of S2 (Imperiled). It typically nests in colonies, excavating tunnels into vertical sandbanks along rivers, streams, lakes, and ocean coasts. This species forages over any habitat, especially near water. The closest reported observation of bank swallow colonies is located approximately 1.4 miles south of the Study Area observed in 1993 (CNDDB #93), along the Salinas River. More recent occurrences of bank swallow sightings are documented on eBird, with the nearest observation approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Study Area along Metz Road (Rinkert 2014). Nesting habitat is not present in the Study Area but breeding colonies of bank swallow are documented in the area and there is moderate potential for this species to be seen foraging or in flight within the Study Area. Bank swallows were not observed during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
12. Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) is a California Species of Special Concern and has a Global Rank of G3 (Vulnerable) and a State Rank of S3 (Vulnerable). The species is endemic to California and northern Baja California, Mexico. Western spadefoot toad is primarily an inland species, occurring in grassland habitats with friable soils and seasonal rain pools (CNDDB 2017). Spadefoot toads remain underground for most of the year, emerging to breed in seasonal wetland pools during the rainy season and if enough rain occurs, they can be found above ground from October through April. Typical breeding season is from December to March. Development of the larvae from egg to metamorphosis can be very quick (3-11 weeks), depending upon water temperature and food resources. Recruitment will most often fail if breeding ponds are habited by predators such as bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana) and crayfishes (CDFW 2014, Jennings and Hayes 1994). The closest reported occurrence of western spadefoot toad is located approximately 9.6 miles north of the Study Area in 1943 (CNDDB #840), however due to suitable conditions within and surrounding the Salinas River, this species is likely to occur more closely to the site. Western spadefoot toad was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys but could be present in low numbers as suitable upland habitat and soils are present in the Industrial Spray Field that could be used by burrowing spadefoot during estivation.
13. Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa) has a Global Rank of G4 and a State Rank of S4, meaning this species is considered Apparently Secure on a global and state scale according to NatureServe (2018). It is also a California Species of Special Concern that has a disjunctive range along the coastline of California from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Coast range newts spend most of the year in terrestrial habitats but move to slow-moving streams, lakes and reservoirs to breed in the wet winter months (CNDDB 2017, Gamradt 1997, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Suitable habitat types for the coast range newt are coastal drainages of oak forest, mixed chaparral, annual grassland, valley-foothill hardwood, coastal scrub and mixed conifer (CDFW 2014). Within its preferred habitat, the coast range newt uses mammal burrows, fallen logs and rocks for shelter on land and in the water, females lay eggs within dense vegetation and larvae seek shelter under fallen debris, rocks and undercut banks (CDFW 2014). The movement of Coast Range newts has not been studied in depth, but it is thought that it can migrate long distances, sometimes over one kilometer, to breeding sites (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The closest reported occurrence of this species is located approximately 10.3 miles east of the Study Area in 2008 along a riparian corridor (CNDDB #57). Suitable stream Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 42 February 2023
habitat is not directly present in the Study Area, but due to the proximity of the Salinas River there is low potential that Coast Range newt could utilize the site. Coast range newt was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
14. American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern with a widespread range across the state (Brehme et. al. 2015, CDFW 2014). It is a permanent but uncommon resident in all parts of California, except for forested regions of the far northwestern corner, and is more abundant in dry, open areas of most shrub and forest habitats (CDFW 2021c). The American badger requires friable soil in order to dig burrows for cover and breeding. The main food source for the species is fossorial rodents, mainly ground squirrels and pocket gophers (CDFW 2014). The breeding season for badgers is in summer and early fall, and females give birth to litters usually in March and April (CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of the American badger is located approximately 1.6 miles east of the Study Area (CNDDB #300), with no observation date. Suitable soils are present for denning badger in the Industrial Spray Fields and there is moderate potential for this species to occur on the site. Fragmented habitat and relatively high human activity in the area reduce potential for this species to more frequently occur. American badger or its sign was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
15. Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is one of four subspecies of Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii) and is both state and federally listed as endangered. Least Bell’s vireo winters in Baja California, Mexico and migrates to California during the breeding season (generally March to September), where it is found in scattered populations from Central to Southern California.
They are a small, olive colored bird whose habitat consists of low, dense riparian growth near dry and intermittent streams (USFWS 1994). Preferred nesting habitat is on low branches of willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and mesquite bushes (Prosopis spp.) where insects can be found for feeding (Brown 1993). Range wide decline has occurred due to habitat loss, and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) throughout range of California (CNDDB 2017). The closest reported occurrence of the least Bell’s vireo is historic and is located over 10 miles southeast of the Study Area in 1919 (CNDDB #512).
Records of least Bell’s vireo on eBird are over 30 miles southeast. Due to the lack of riparian habitat in the Study Area and no recent occurrences, there is no potential for this species to nest on site but could potentially nest in the riparian habitat along the Salinas River. Few isolated mule fat shrubs were noted within the Industrial Spray Fields; however, not enough to create the suitably dense, shrubby nesting habitat preferred by this species. Due to the lack of suitable nesting habitat on the site, there is no potential for least Bell’s vireo to occur in the Study Area. Least Bell’s vireo was not observed in the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys but could nest within 0.5 mile of the Project.
16. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; SJKF) is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. The SJKF is one of two subspecies of the kit fox, Vulpes macrotis, which is the smallest canid species in North America. It is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and a few adjacent valleys in the central region of California (Cypher et al. 2013). The SJKF is primarily nocturnal and typically occurs in annual grassland or mixed shrub/grassland habitats throughout low, rolling hills and in valleys. They need loose sandy soils in order to dig their burrows and a prey population of black-tailed jackrabbits, rodents, desert cottontails, insects, some birds, reptiles and vegetation (CDFW 2014, CNDDB 2017). The most suitable habitat for SJKF has low precipitation, sparse vegetation coverage with high densities of Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 43 February 2023
kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.). For the SJKF to succeed in an area it needs large expanses of non-fragmented suitable habitat. This type of habitat is decreasing rapidly by conversion into agricultural land or degraded by urban development (Cypher et al. 2013). Female SJKF began preparing natal dens in September and October and then breeding occurs from December through February. Pups are born from January to March and family groups typically split up the following October (Meaney et al. 2006). The closest reported occurrence of the SJKF is located approximately 2.2 miles from the Study Area in 1986 (CNDDB #940), with no known details of the occurrence. Several other observations east and north of the site are from 1975 and these populations are likely extirpated. The most recent occurrence is located approximately 9.4 miles southeast in 2002 (CNDDB #50). Agricultural land use in the area is heavily active, and though kit fox are known to occupy croplands, soils are heavily impacted through regular disking and planting and potential burrows or mounds were not observed in adjacent farmlands during the December 2021 and January 2023 site visits. Resurgent grassland with friable soils in the Industrial Spray Fields could support denning SJKF, but access to this portion of the site is not within direct connectivity to any other suitable habitat aside from the Salinas River corridor (for which kit fox do not typically utilize). Due to the lack of recent occurrences in the area, it is very unlikely for SJKF to utilize the site for denning or hunting, but measures should be observed to ensure protection of this federally and state listed species. SJKF or its sign was not detected during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys.
The following three special status species, which are listed under the FESA, CESA, and/or are SSC by the state of California, are not likely to occur in the Study Area but are known to occur in the region and therefore warrant further discussion: vernal pool fairy shrimp, Monterey hitch, and steelhead (South/Central California Coast DPS). Each species is discussed below and summarized in Table 7.
17. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a small freshwater crustacean that is federally listed as threatened and occurs in the Central Valley of California from Shasta County to Tulare County and the central and southern Coast Ranges from northern Solano County to Ventura County, California (USFWS 2003). This shrimp is found in grasslands in cool, clearwater sandstone-depression, grassed swale, earth slump and basalt-flow depression pools with a higher occurrence in Redding, Corning and Red Bluff soils (Helm 1998; CDFW 2018a).
Preferred pool depth by the shrimp ranges from 2-122 cm. Individuals hatch from cysts during cold-weather winter storms and require water temperatures of 50°F or lower to hatch (Helm 1998; Eriksen and Belk 1999). The time to maturity and reproduction is temperature dependent, varying between 18 days and 147 days, with a mean of 39.7 days. Immature and adult shrimp are known to die off when water temperatures rise to approximately 75°F (Helm 1998). The species is typically associated with smaller and shallower vernal pools (typically about 6 inches deep) that have relatively short periods of inundation (Helm 1998) and relatively low to moderate total dissolved solids (TDS) and alkalinity. The Study Area is with the 5-mile radius of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, however no CNDDB occurrences are reported within the 9-quad search area. Existing treatment ponds are not seasonal and have greater depth and higher temperatures than preferred fairy shrimp vernal pool habitat. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, active operation of the facility, and no occurrences in the vicinity of the Project, vernal pool fairy shrimp have no potential to occur on the site.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 44 February 2023
18. Monterey Hitch (Lavinia exilcauda harengus) is a California Species of Special Concern, which is widely distributed in the Pajaro River and Salinas River systems, both tributary to Monterey Bay. When the sandbar forms at its mouth in early summer, the Salinas River lagoon can substantially convert to fresh water with a lens of salt water near the bottom. Monterey hitch apparently tolerate such brackish conditions, as indicated by the fact that they have been captured in the lagoon from water with salt concentrations as high as nine parts per thousand (ppt; Habitat Restoration Group 1992). Hitch are deep-bodied cyprinids with a terminal, slightly upturned mouth that can grow to over 350 mm standard length. Young fish are silver and have a dark, triangular blotch on the caudal peduncle. As fish age, they become duller in color, with the dorsal area turning brownish yellow (Moyle 2002). The hitch prefers the lower, sandy to muddy, slow-moving stretches of rivers or the quiet pools of creeks, generally in fairly warm water. According to Murphy (1948) it appears to require gravel-bottomed streams for successful spawning. It feeds, in large part at least, on fine microscopic organisms (plankton), as shown by the rather numerous gill rakers, the long intestine and the grinding type of pharyngeal teeth. Monterey hitch exist in a rapidly changing environment where flows are often tenuous and intermittent as the result of intensive agricultural land use, an arid climate, and increasing human demand for water. This is compounded by the fact that the majority of Monterey hitch habitat occurs on private lands, where there is little formal protection for aquatic organisms. Nearest occurrence of Monterey hitch is approximately 0.2 miles west of the Study Area along the Salinas River in 2018 (CNDDB #1). Monterey hitch could be present in the Salinas River but have no potential to occur in the Study Area due to the lack of riverine habitat directly on the site.
19. Steelhead - South/Central California Coast DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) is the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Adults spawn in freshwater, while juveniles remain in freshwater before migrating to the ocean to grow and become sexually mature prior to returning as adults to spawn in freshwater. Steelhead in the South/Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment (SCCCDPS) include naturally spawned O. mykiss occurring downstream from natural and manmade barriers from the Pajaro River, south to but not including the Santa Maria River. A Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is a group of steelhead that is genetically distinct from other California steelhead populations. Steelhead are known to occur in coastal streams and rivers in San Luis Obispo County, including but not limited to Arroyo Grande Creek, Pismo Creek, San Luis Obispo Creek, Chorro Creek, San Simeon Creek, and other coastal streams. Steelhead are known to occur in the Salinas River and its tributaries from Monterey south to the vicinity of Santa Margarita. The Salinas River and coastal streams in Monterey County are critical habitat for migrating steelhead. Steelhead generally require cool, fast-flowing streams with rock and cobble substrate for spawning and rearing. Though the Property is in designated steelhead critical habitat, no portion of the Study Area is within riverine habitat. Project activities will occur within the existing plant footprint, over 1,200 feet from the Salinas River. Project activities would not impact steelhead directly or indirectly with adherence to the current King City WWTP Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) measures in place during construction and operation.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 45 February 2023
TABLE 7. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL LIST
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State
Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
1. Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk -/-
G5/S4
WL
Oak woodland, riparian, open fields.
Nests in dense trees, esp. coast live oak.
Low (nesting). Suitable nesting habitat is
located west of the site along the Salinas
River, with one tree directly in the Study
Area.
High (in flight/foraging). Potential
nesting habitat is located just off-site,
and several occurrences have been
reported in the vicinity. High prey-base
of small birds is present.
2. Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
Blackbird
-/CT
G2G3/S1S2
SSC
Requires open water, protected nesting
substrate, & foraging area with insect
prey near nesting colony.
No Potential (nesting). Reed and nesting
substrate is not sufficiently present, with
only a few small patches of tule and
cattails occurring in the Study Area.
Nesting colonies require dense reed
habitat.
High (in flight/foraging). Numerous
occurrences of large flocks have been
reported in the vicinity and insect preybase is present in the Study Area.
3. Anniella pulchra Northern California
Legless Lizard
-/-
G3/S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under coastal
scrub or oak trees. Soil moisture
essential.
Low. Loose litter and loamy soils are
present though appropriate habitat is not
directly within the Study Area. Nearest
occurrence is 2.0 mi south in drainage
along Jolon Road (CNDDB #362) in
2018.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 46 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State
Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
4. Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle -/-
G5/S3
FP
Nests in large, prominent trees in valley
and foothill woodland. Requires adjacent
food source.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable nesting
substrate is not present in the Study
Area.
Low (in flight/foraging). Not prominent
in the area. Nearest occurrence is over 10
west (CNDDB #132 in 2008) and limited
open space is present. Several eBird
occurrences near King City.
5. Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron -/-
G5/S4
SA
Rookeries located in tall trees near
foraging areas.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable rookery
habitat is not present in the Study Area.
High (in flight/foraging). Onsite water
detention ponds likely attract great blue
herons, and an observation was made
within the Study Area in 2002 (Yough
2002). Numerous occurrences
documented in the area on eBird.
6. Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl -/-
G4/S3
SSC
Burrows in squirrel holes in open
habitats with low vegetation.
Low (nesting/burrowing). Covering
grassland is present in the Industrial
Spray Fields, which could provide
suitable denning habitat for burrowing
owls. Nearest occurrence is 2.0 mi east
(CNDDB #436) in 2002, where soil
mounds were observed in corporation
yard.
Low (in flight/foraging). Nearest
occurrence is 2.0 mi east (CNDDB
#436) in 2002, where soil mounds were
observed in corporation yard. Nearest
occurrence on eBird is incomplete and
more species common in the interior.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 47 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State
Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
7. Bombus
occidentalis
Western Bumble
Bee
-/CCE
G2G3/S1
SA
Wide variety of natural, agricultural,
urban, and rural habitats. Flower-rich
meadows of forests and subalpine zones.
No Potential. Nearest occurrences are
historic, and site is void of most host
plant species. Land Use in the WWTP is
heavily disturbed and no burrows occur
in the Project area.
8. Branchinecta
lynchi*
Vernal Pool Fairy
Shrimp
FT/-
G3/S3
SA
Clear water sandstone depression pools,
grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt
flow depression pools.
No Potential. Vernal pool habitat is not
present in the Study Area. Study Area is
within 5-mi radius of critical habitat for
VPFS.
9. Emys marmorata Western Pond
Turtle
-/-
G3G4/S3
SSC
Permanent or semi-permanent streams,
ponds, lakes.
Moderate. Retention ponds on site could
attract pond turtles and Salinas River
adjacency could provide connectivity
during normal rain years. Nearest
occurrence is 1.3 mi southeast along
Salinas River in King City (CNDDB
#1054).
10. Lavinia exilcauda
harengus
Monterey Hitch -/-
G4T2T4/S2S4
SSC
Rivers No Potential. Riverine habitat is not
present in the Study Area. Nearest
documented occurrence mapped
nonspecifically along the 110-mile-long
Salinas River (CNDDB #1) in 2018.
11. Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
9 Steelhead - SouthCentral California
Coast Dps
FT/-
G5T2Q/S2
SA
Federal listing refers to runs in coastal
basins from the Pajaro River south to,
but not including, the Santa Maria River.
No Potential. Not documented in this
portion of the Salinas River by the
CNDDB. Property is within known
critical habitat for this species, but no
riverine habitat in the Study Area. New
project operations would not indirectly
impact steelhead trout.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 48 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State
Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
12. Perognathus
inornatus
psammophilus
Salinas Pocket
Mouse
-/-
G4T2?/S1
SSC
Annual grassland and desert shrub in
Salinas Valley, with friable soils
Low. Disturbed habitat with marginally
suitable grassy conditions is present
within the inactive industrial spray
fields. Nearest occurrence is over 14
northwest and historic, from 1936
(CNDDB #7). No potential within the
Project footprint.
13. Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Coast Horned
Lizard
-/-
G3G4/S3S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered low bushes.
Low. Dry, sandy washes are seasonally
present along the Salinas River, adjacent
to the Study Area, however nearest
occurrence is >10 mi west in 2008
(CNDDB #681).
14. Riparia riparia Bank Swallow -/CT
G5/S2
SA
Nests colonially in riparian and other
lowland habitats west of the desert.
Requires vertical banks or cliffs with
sandy soils (to dig cavities) near streams,
lakes, or the ocean.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable nesting
substrate is not present in the Study
Area.
Moderate (in flight/foraging). Breeding
colonies are known to occur in the area
and species could be seen in the Study
Area. Nearest occurrence is 1.3 mi
southeast (CNDDB #93) in 1991, at
known breeding colony. More recent
occurrences at same locations on eBird.
15. Spea hammondii Western Spadefoot -/-
G3/S3
SSC
Grassland and woodland habitats with
vernal pools for breeding. Most of year
spent underground.
Low. Suitable upland conditions for
underground estivation are present and
the Salinas River could support breeding
spadefoots when water ponds. Retention
ponds may also provide breeding habitat,
but no records of breeding in the vicinity
are known to date. Nearest occurrence is
historic and 9.7 mi north (CNDDB #840
in 1943).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 49 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State
Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
16. Taricha torosa Coast Range Newt -/-
G4/S4
SSC
Lives in terrestrial habitats & will
migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds,
reservoirs & slow moving streams.
Low. Retention ponds could attract this
species as suitable breeding habitat,
though nearest occurrence is >10 west
and no records are documented along the
Salinas River.
17. Taxidea taxus American Badger -/-
G5/S3
SSC
Needs friable soils in open ground with
abundant food source such as California
ground squirrels.
Moderate. Known to occur in the area
and suitable soils are present. Potential
denning habitat is limited on the site to
the Industrial Spray Fields.
18. Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's Vireo FE/CE
G5T2/S2
SA
Riparian habitat, near water or dry
streambed, <2000 ft. Nests in willows,
mesquite, Baccharis.
No Potential (nesting). Riparian habitat
with suitable nesting substrate is not
present in the Study Area.
No Potential (in flight/foraging).
Riparian habitat adjacent to the Study
Area is suitable to support nesting least
Bell’s vireos however none have been
documented in the area to date and this
species is unlikely to occur. Nearest
occurrence is historic and >10 southeast
(CNDDB #512 in 1919). Nearest eBird
record is in Bradley, >30 southeast.
19. Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin Kit
Fox
FE/CT
G4T2/S2
SA
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages
with scattered shrubby vegetation. Needs
loose textured sandy soil and prey base.
Low. Limited recovering grassland
habitat is present in the Industrial Spray
Fields, but the mapped historical range
for kit fox shows no observations in the
immediate area beyond 1990 (CDFW
2020).
*Not listed in the CNDDB for the search area, but species is a possibility for the location.
See section 1.6 for status and rank definitions.
4 2
1 7
8 5
3 6
7 7
2 5
7 7
1 7
7 2
7 7
7 Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres)
WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
5-Mile Buffer
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 27, 2023 01:53 PM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. ±
0 1 2 Miles
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.13965°W 36.21864°N
King City, Monterey County
CNDDB GIS Data Last Updated: February 2023
Figure 5. California Natural Diversity Database Animal Records American badger
Bank swallow
Burrowing owl
Monterey hitch
Northern California legless lizard
San Joaquin coachwhip
San Joaquin kit fox
Western pond turtle
Common Name
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Label
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 5 CNDDB Animals
Map: CNDDB Animals
101
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres)
WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
5-Mile Buffer
NMFS Critical Habitat
Steelhead trout
USFWS Critical Habitat
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
0 1 2 Miles ±
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.13965°W 36.21864°N
King City, Monterey County
NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat Data Last Updated: February 2023 Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 27, 2023 01:54 PM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC.
Figure 6. National Marine Fisheries Service and
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 6 Critical Habitat
Map: Critical Habitat
101
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 52 February 2023
3.6.2 Wildlife Survey Results
A total of 28 wildlife taxa were observed within the Study Area during the December 2021 and January 2023 surveys: 23 birds and five mammals. Table 8 provides a list of the wildlife observed in the Study Area. Numerous small mammal burrows were identified throughout the WWTP portion of the Study Area, likely affiliated with unidentified mouse species (Family Muridae).
California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows were limited across the site. One coyote (Canis latrans) was observed hunting along the western boundary of the Study Area, near the Salinas River, and other large mammal tracks were detected in muddy soils on WWTP property including wild boar (Sus scrofa) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). One raptor nest was observed and mapped outside the nesting season in the singular red gum tree within the Industrial Spray Field and was guarded by one adult red-tailed hawk within the tree. Ponds associated with the existing treatment facility were utilized by waterfowl, including mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), American coots (Fulica americana), and buffleheads (Bucephala albeola). Shorebirds and other migratory bird species, including western sandpiper (Calidris mauri) and killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), were abundantly foraging within the muddy flats where open spray fields operated as part of the final water treatment process.
TABLE 8. WILDLIFE LIST
Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Habitat Type Birds – 23 Species
Aechmophorus
occidentalis
Western Grebe None Aquatic habitats
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard None Lakes, ponds, streams
Aphelocoma
californica
California Scrub-jay None Oak, riparian woodlands
Bucephala albeola Bufflehead None Ponds, lakes
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk None Open, semi-open country Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper None Shorelines, flats, agricultural fields, sewage treatment ponds, saltmarshes,
and freshwater marshes
Charadrius vociferous Killdeer None Mud flats, stream banks, grazed fields Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier None Nest on ground in tall reeds or grasses Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker None Woodlands
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow None Many habitats, esp. urban Euphagus
cyanocephalus
Brewer’s Blackbird None Open habitats
Falco sparverius American Kestrel None Open, semi-open country Fulica americana American Coot None Aquatic habitats
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 53 February 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Habitat Type Haemorhous
mexicanus
House Finch None Riparian, grasslands, chaparral,
woodlands, urban
Larus californicus California Gull None Beach, urban areas Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow None Oak, riparian woodland Passerculus
sandwichensis
Savannah Sparrow None Open habitats, marshes, grasslands Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe None Near water in natural and urban settings Sayornis saya Say’s Phoebe None Open country, grassland Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark None Open habitats, grasslands Sturnus vulgaris European Starling None Agricultural, livestock areas Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove None Open and semi-open habitats Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned
Sparrow
None Oak, riparian woodlands, open or
shrubby habitats, meadows, forest edges
Mammals – 5 Species
Canis latrans Coyote None Open woodlands, brushy areas, wide ranging.
Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer None Many habitats
Otospermophilus
beecheyi
California Ground
Squirrel
None Grasslands
Sus scrofa Wild Boar None Variety of habitats with water source and dense vegetation for cover
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail None Brushy habitats See Section 1.6 for status and rank definitions.
3.6.3 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are important for the movement of wildlife between different populations and habitats. Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies.
The western edge of the Study Area is separated from the Salinas River by a vegetated berm approximately 6 to 10 feet high. The Salinas River flows northbound through three counties with a length of approximately 175 miles. This river system provides food, aquatic resources, refugia, Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 54 February 2023
and suitable breeding habitat to a wide variety of wildlife species. As evidenced by coyote, wild boar, mule deer, desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel activity, it is reasonable to assume that terrestrial wildlife occurs locally in and around the Study Area and for use of the Salinas River. The Salinas River is the most significant regional corridor associated with the Study Area and provides a major thoroughfare for unobstructed terrestrial wildlife movement.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 55 February 2023
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
Disturbed habitat with associated WWTP land uses, and developed habitat with associated commercial, residential and industrial land uses, comprise the 229.9-acre Study Area. As proposed, the Project would affect various biological resources, including impacts to disturbed and developed habitat, nesting birds, special status amphibians and reptiles, potentially nesting special status birds (Cooper’s hawk and burrowing owl,), in flight and/or foraging special status birds, and special status mammals including Salinas pocket mouse, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. Due to the presence of human activity and urban development within the City, the Project area of focus for special status species with potential to occur is within the WWTP portion of the Study Area where suitable habitat is present. This section provides mitigation recommendations (BIO) designed to reduce impacts to biological resources onsite, as summarized by Table 9.
TABLE 9. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Biological Resource Potential Effect from Proposed
Project
Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation, Measures
Disturbed Habitat Negligible. Conversion of existing
disturbed habitat.
No Mitigation Required
See impacts to nesting birds and
special status species below
(BIO-4 through BIO-23)
Developed Habitat Negligible. Temporary disturbance
within existing City streets
(developed habitat).
No Mitigation Required
See impacts to nesting birds
below (BIO-4)
Oak Trees No Impacts Proposed No Mitigation Required
Recommended Avoidance &
Minimization Measures: BIO-1,
BIO-2, BIO-3
Special Status Plants None detected, no potential to occur in Project area.
No Mitigation Required
Nesting Birds Minimal loss of potential habitat for
ground-nesters. Potential indirect
impacts to special status birds
nesting within specified distances.
BIO-4
See impacts to special status birds
below (BIO-6 through BIO-8)
Western Bumble Bee No Impacts Proposed. Suitable
habitat is not present in the Project
Area.
No Mitigation Required
Special Status Amphibians
and Reptiles
Mitigable. Loss of potential aquatic
habitat during pond conversion.
BIO-5
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 56 February 2023
Biological Resource Potential Effect from Proposed
Project
Avoidance, Minimization, and
Mitigation, Measures
Special Status Birds
(foraging)
Negligible. Indirect impacts to
foraging birds during Project
activities.
No Mitigation Required
Tricolored Blackbird No Effect. Project would avoid
impacts.
No Mitigation Required
Burrowing Owl Mitigable. Indirect impacts to
potentially denning BUOW.
BIO-6 through BIO-8
Least Bell’s Vireo No Effect. Project would avoid
impacts.
No Mitigation Required
Salinas Pocket Mouse Mitigable. Minimal loss of potential habitat.
BIO-5
American Badger Mitigable. Indirect impacts if dens
are within 150 feet of Project
activities.
BIO-9
San Joaquin Kit Fox No Effect. Project would avoid
impacts.
BIO-10 through BIO-23
4.1 Habitats
The proposed Project would occur within the existing project footprint, along an existing access road through an agricultural area, and through developed residential and commercial areas.
Impacts would occur primarily in already disturbed and developed habitats. A total of 14.0 acres of the existing facility would be permanently impacted by site improvements to facilitate additional growth in King City (Figure 7). Proposed pipelines and staged equipment will be within the existing facility boundaries and/or within City streets. Impacts to disturbed and developed habitats are not considered significant except where these habitat impacts affect other sensitive biological resources such as nesting birds or sensitive animals (see following Section 4.3).
4.1.1 Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters No impacts are proposed to riparian habitat or potentially jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters.
4.1.2 Oak Trees
No impacts to oak trees are proposed by the Project. Coast live oak trees are present within riparian habitat along the Salinas River. One oak tree is present along the shoulder of the existing access road and will be avoided during construction. Oak tree limbs that may impede over the existing fence line along the western boundary of the Study Area will not be impacted by the Project. To ensure oak trees are protected during work, we recommend the following measures to avoid impacts to native oak trees.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 57 February 2023
BIO-1. Oak Tree Avoidance and Protection. Native oak trees in and near the Project footprint shall be protected in place. Canopy pruning may be conducted by a licensed Arborist in a manner that would not result in a decrease in tree health. The CRZs of native oak trees shall be defined as an area of root space equivalent to 1.5 times the radius of the canopy dripline (e.g.: a 10-foot radius canopy has a CRZ of 15-feet around the trunk). Impacts include any ground disturbance within the CRZ, such as grading, trenching, parking vehicles, or staging materials. Prior to commencement of construction, protective high visibility fencing shall be installed at the outer limit of the CRZ. The fencing shall be marked with signage indicating No Access – Tree Protection Zone or similar text. Fencing shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of construction.
BIO-2. Monitoring and As-Built Impact Report. A licensed Arborist or qualified Botanist shall inspect and approve tree protective fencing prior to start of earthwork. If tree protection fencing placed at the limits of the CRZ must be temporarily removed to complete construction activities, an Arborist or Botanist shall be present. If grading or other ground disturbance occurs within oak tree CRZ, or if trimming or pruning of oak tree limbs/branches occur, the tree and area of impact shall be mapped in the field and recorded. Any roots of 1-inch diameter or greater that are exposed during grading that cannot be saved, should be cut clean with a sharp pruning tool or Sawzall. Treatment of the cut roots is at the discretion of the Arborist. Upon completion of work, an Asbuilt Impact Report will be provided to the City that will include an assessment of impacts that occurred during work. The report will include the number of impacted trees and type of mitigation recommended to reduce impacts to native oak trees (typically replaced at a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted oak trees and 4:1 ratio for removed oak trees).
BIO-3. Oak Tree Mitigation Plan. Impacted and removed oaks documented in the As-built Impact Report shall be replaced using the appropriate mitigation ratio and a mitigation plan shall be prepared and approved by the City. The mitigation plan shall incorporate the most current City standards for mitigating impacts to oak trees. Impacts to native trees with a DBH of 4 inches or greater shall be mitigated by planting additional trees on site. Oaks removed shall be replaced in kind at a 4:1 ratio (i.e., four replacement trees per one removed tree). Oaks impacted shall be replaced in kind at a 2:1 ratio.
Removal of individual California bay trees shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (i.e., two replacement trees per one removed tree). Replacement trees shall be a minimum of one gallon in size, of local origin, and of the same species as was impacted. Replacement trees shall be seasonally maintained (browse protection, weed reduction and irrigation, as needed) and monitored annually for at least five years. A mitigation monitoring plan will be prepared that outlines success criteria and provides a timeline for monitoring replacement oak trees. Annual reports will be provided to the City that will include monitoring results and recommendations for tree establishment success.
Legend
Study Area (229.9 acres)
WWTP Property (467.5 acres)
Proposed Impact Area*
(14.0 acres)
Proposed Road
Existing Pipeline
Proposed Pipeline
Salinas River
Raptor Nest
Habitats
Developed (7.2 acres)
Disturbed (222.7 acres)
Current WWTP Land Use
Dirt Perimeter Roads
Domestic Spray Field - Active
Existing Treatment Ponds - Active
Industrial Spray Field - Inactive
WWTP Misc. Facilities
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
February 28, 2023 11:45 AM by SAF ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. ±
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
King City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Map Center: 121.1309°W 36.21876°N
King City, Monterey County
Imagery Source: USDA NAIP, 05/13/2022
Figure 7. Proposed Impacts to Biological Resources
G:\kingCityWWTP\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 7 Proposed Impacts to Biological Resources Map:
0 50 100 Feet
101
Salinas River
E San Antonio Dr
King St
Calcagno St
Broadway St
Pearl St
S San Lorenzo Ave
S 3rd St
N 3rd St
Spreckels Rd
Metz Rd
*Includes Proposed Pipeline and Proposed Road
5 4
2 1
1B
3 1A
#
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 59 February 2023
4.2 Botanical Resources
Special status plants with potential to occur in the Study Area are not likely to occur within the existing facility or proposed Project area. Portions of the site that are marginally suited to support special status plants will not be impacted as part of the Project. Appropriately timed botanical surveys were not conducted as part of this assessment, however no special status plants, in bloom or senesced, were detected during December 2021 and January 2023 surveys. Due to regular longterm disturbance of natural habitat and lack of appropriate habitat in the Project area, the Project is not expected to affect special status plants. No further mitigation measures or botanical surveys are recommended.
4.3 Wildlife Resources
4.3.1 Nesting Birds
Impacts to or take of nesting birds could occur if Project activities are conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through September 15; CDFW nesting season). Ground nesting is not anticipated to occur within developed areas, but ornamental trees, buildings and other structures have the potential to support nests. To reduce potential adverse effects of the proposed Project on nesting birds, the following mitigation measure is recommended.
BIO-4. Nesting Bird Surveys. Within one week of ground disturbance activities, if work occurs between February 1 and September 15, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted.
If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. Once construction begins, a qualified biologist will continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, work causing that change shall cease and CDFW will be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified wildlife biologist is not feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. A preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions.
4.3.2 Invertebrates
4.3.2.1 Western Bumble Bee
Project activities are proposed within existing treatment pond land use and existing access road areas and would not impact potential nesting habitat for western bumblebee.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 60 February 2023
4.3.3 Amphibians and Reptiles
Special status amphibians (western spadefoot toad and Coast Range newt) and special status reptiles (northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, and coast horned lizard) each have some potential to occur in the WWTP portion of the Study Area based on the habitat assessment conducted on December 7, 2021 and January 26, 2023. However, due to the Project area being restricted to the treatment pond and highly disturbed or developed areas, it is unlikely for all but western pond turtle to be directly impacted by Project-related activities. The following mitigation measure is recommended to protect special status amphibians and reptiles from Project-related impacts.
BIO-5. Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor shall be present during all earth disturbing construction activities and draining of treatment ponds associated with developing the Project within the WWTP portion of the Study Area, including but not limited to grading, excavations, tilling, draining, and dredging. The biologist shall conduct a morning clearance survey of the WWTP Project area each day that ground disturbing activities are proposed. Special status animals (i.e., western spadefoot toad, coast range newt, northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, coast horned lizard, Salinas pocket mouse) captured during surveys or during construction monitoring shall be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat outside of the Project area.
A letter report shall be submitted to the City.
4.3.4 Special Status Birds
Special status birds with potential to occur in the Study Area include Cooper’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, golden eagle, great blue heron, burrowing owl, bank swallow, and least Bell’s vireo.
Only Cooper’s hawks and burrowing owl have the potential to nest in or immediately adjacent to the Project footprint within disturbed habitat. The following sections provide recommended mitigation measures for each bird species, where applicable.
4.3.4.1 Cooper’s Hawk
Suitable nesting habitat is limited to one tree in the WWTP portion of the Study Area approximately 400 feet from the Project area, and no trees are present in the WWTP Project area.
Nesting bird surveys (BIO-4) will ensure no nesting Cooper’s hawks are impacted by the Project.
Impacts to foraging hawks would be negligible and no additional mitigation measures are recommended.
4.3.4.2 Tricolored Blackbird
Nesting habitat is not present in the Study Area to support nesting tricolored blackbirds. A few individual reeds have recruited at low-density within the active treatment ponds but have not significantly established enough to create suitable nesting habitat for this species. No further mitigation measures or focused surveys are recommended.
4.3.4.3 Golden Eagle
Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the Study Area or within one mile of the Project. Impacts to foraging eagles would be negligible and no further mitigation measures are recommended.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 61 February 2023
4.3.4.4 Great Blue Heron
Rookery habitat is not present in the Study Area and no known nesting colonies are within the vicinity of the Project. Impacts to foraging herons would be negligible and no mitigation measures are recommended.
4.3.4.5 Burrowing Owl
Resurgent grassland habitat suitable for denning BUOW is present within the inactive Industrial Spray Fields and there is potential for Project-related activities to impact burrowing owl, if present.
The following mitigation measures are provided to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant.
BIO-6. Preconstruction Surveys. Where suitable habitat is present on or in the vicinity of the Project area, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused BUOW surveys following the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines” and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG; 2012) “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation”. Specifically, these documents suggest three or more surveillance surveys conducted during daylight, with each visit occurring at least three weeks apart during the peak breeding season of April 15 to July 15, when burrowing owl are most detectable. In addition, CDFW advises that surveys include a minimum 500-foot survey radius around the Project area.
BIO-7. Avoidance. No-disturbance buffers, as outlined by CDFG (2012), shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities, and specifically that impacts to occupied burrows be avoided in accordance with the following table unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. The following table defines appropriate buffer size according to the level of Project disturbance and time of year:
BIO-8. Burrowing Owl Eviction and Mitigation. If burrowing owls are found within these recommended buffers and avoidance is not possible, it is important to note that according to CDFG (2012), evicting birds from burrows is not a take avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and is instead considered a potentially significant impact under CEQA. If it is necessary for Project implementation, CDFW recommends that burrow exclusion be conducted by qualified biologists and only during the nonbreeding season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty through non-invasive methods, such as surveillance. Mitigation in the form of replacement of occupied burrows with artificial burrows at a minimum ratio of one burrow collapsed to one artificial burrow constructed (1:1) shall be implemented to mitigate for evicting burrowing owl and the loss of burrows. burrowing owl may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, CDFW recommends ongoing surveillance at a rate that is sufficient to detect burrowing owl if they return.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 62 February 2023
4.3.4.6 Bank Swallow
Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the Project area for bank swallow. There is potential for bank swallow to nest in riparian habitat along the Salinas River, along the west boundary of the Study Area, however facility improvements will occur over 1,300 feet (0.2 miles) east of any potential nesting habitat. Project activities would not impact nesting bank swallow, and no further mitigation measures are recommended.
4.3.4.7 Least Bell’s Vireo
Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the Project area for least Bell’s vireo. There is potential for vireos to nest in shrubby riparian habitat along the Salinas River, along the west boundary of the Study Area, however facility improvements will occur over 1,300 feet (0.2 miles) east of any potential nesting habitat. No impacts to least Bell’s vireo are anticipated and no further mitigation measures or focused surveys are recommended.
4.3.5 Mammals
Special status mammals, including Salinas pocket mouse, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, each have some potential to occur in the Study Area and could be impacted by Project-related activities. The following sections provide mitigation measures suitable for each species to reduce impacts to less than significant.
4.3.5.1 Salinas Pocket Mouse
Salinas pocket mouse are unlikely to occur but could be present in the Study Area. Implementation of BIO-5 would reduce impacts to Salinas pocket mouse to less than significant through preactivity surveys, biological monitoring, and relocation.
4.3.5.2 American Badger
Habitat conditions are suitable to support denning badger in the Industrial Spray Fields. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce impacts to American badger.
BIO-9. Preconstruction Survey. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted on the Property to locate occupied American badger dens within 100 feet of Project areas. The survey shall be conducted within 15 days of starting any grading, grubbing, or oak tree removal. Orange construction fencing, or other easily identifiable buffer material, shall be installed under the direction of a project biologist in a manner sufficient to protect the dens from construction equipment. A buffer of 50 feet shall be used for occupied non-maternal dens. A buffer of 150 feet shall be installed if the den is determined to be a maternal pupping den. Construction activities shall not commence within the exclusion area until the badger has moved of its own accord. A preconstruction survey letter report shall be submitted to the lead agency for review within one week after completion of the survey.
4.3.5.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox
SJKF occurrences have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area. A habitat assessment was conducted of the site on December 7, 2021 and on January 26, 2023 which determined that marginally suitable habitat in the inactive Industrial Spray Fields could support denning kit fox, Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 63 February 2023
should the spray fields remain inactive (i.e., not be irrigated or sprayed; see habitat discussion in Section 3.3.1). No known or potential kit fox dens are known to be present in the Study Area.
Surrounding land use is actively farmed and would impede kit fox movement into the Study Area from less developed areas to the east and south. Locations of proposed pipelines are within developed habitat not suitable for kit fox and are not included in the survey area. Though not likely to occur on the site, the following measure is recommended to ensure avoidance of San Joaquin kit fox.
BIO-10. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys and Minimization. A qualified biologist will conduct surveys to assess for presence or absence of kit fox in the project area. The survey area will consist of the Project area within the WWTP property and surrounding 500-foot buffer. In addition, recommendations made by the USFWS (2011) for kit fox shall be followed during Project implementation (see below).
The following mitigation measures (BIO-11 through BIO-23) are extracted from the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior To or During Ground Disturbance (2011), and shall be implemented as specified to protect kit fox:
BIO-11. Project-related vehicles should observe a daytime speed limit of 20-mph throughout the site in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. Night-time construction should be minimized to the extent possible. However if it does occur, then the speed limit should be reduced to 10-mph. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas should be prohibited.
BIO-12. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of a project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen-fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox is discovered, the Service and CDFG shall be contacted as noted under Measure 26 (BIO-26) referenced below.
BIO-13. Kit foxes are attracted to den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the Service has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped.
BIO-14. All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps should be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 64 February 2023
BIO-15. No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
BIO-16. No pets, such as dogs or cats, should be permitted on the project site to prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes, or destruction of dens.
BIO-17. Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide should be used because of a proven lower risk to kit fox.
BIO-18. A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The representative will be identified during the employee education program and their name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service.
BIO-19. An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has anticipated impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and/or agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: A description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of kit fox in the project area; an explanation of the status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to the species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to the previously referenced people and anyone else who may enter the project site.
BIO-20. Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground disturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, pipeline corridors, etc. should be re-contoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to preproject conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the Service, CDFW, and revegetation experts.
BIO-21. In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for guidance.
BIO-22. During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such animal either Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 65 February 2023
dead, injured, or entrapped shall be required to report the incident immediately to the applicant and City. In the event that any observations are made of injured or dead kit fox, the applicant shall immediately notify the USFWS and CDFW by telephone. In addition, formal notification shall be provided in writing within three working days of the finding of any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the incident. Any threatened or endangered species found dead or injured shall be turned over immediately to CDFW for care, analysis, or disposition.
BIO-23. New sightings of kit fox shall be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location of where the kit fox was observed should also be provided to the Service at the address below.
4.3.6 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement
This Project does not propose impacts that would impede or block wildlife from utilizing this site for movement; therefore, no mitigation measures are recommended.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 66 February 2023
5 REFERENCES
Bradley, Robert D, Ammerman LK, Baker RJ, Bradley LC, Cook JA, Dowler RC, Jones C. 2014.
Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University, Occasional Papers. October 2. Accessed December 14, 2021. https://www. Depts. Ttu. Edu/nsrl/publications/downloads/OP327. Pdf.
Beier P, Loe S. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20: 434-440.
Brehme CS, Hathaway R, Booth BH, Fisher RN. 2015. Research of American badgers in western San Diego County, 2014. Data Summary prepared for California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Diego Association of Governments.
Brown BT. 1993. Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii). Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill F, editors. The Birds of North America Online. doi:10.2173/bna.35. [accessed 2022 Jan 2]. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/belvir/introduction. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018 (minor editorial revisions made on February 2, 2021). Available from: https://nrm. Dfg. Ca. gov/FileHandler.
Ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. Comment Letter re: King City Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements (Project), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), SCH No. 2021050084). June 3, 2021.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023a. BIOS. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) [online edition v5. 96. 99]. Available from https://wildlife. Ca. gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed February 1, 2023. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. 2023b. Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list, periodic publication [Internet]. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2023. Available from http://www. Dfg. Ca. gov/wildlife/nongame/list. Html.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Natural Diversity Database. 2023c. Special animals list, periodic publication [Internet]. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2023. Available from https://www. Dfg. Ca. gov/wildlife/nongame/list. Html.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2001. CNPS botanical survey guidelines [Internet].
Sacramento (CA): California Native Plant Society. Revised June 2, 2001. Available from https://www. Cnps. Org/plant-science/field-protocols-guidelines. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. Sacramento (CA): California Native Plant Society; [online Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 67 February 2023
edition, v8-03 0. 39]. Available from http://www. Rareplants. Cnps. Org. Accessed February 1, 2023.
Carollo Engineers. 2017. King City Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan Final. September 2017.
Chesser RT, Burns KJ, Cicero C, Dunn JL, Kratter AW, Lovette IJ, Rasmussen PC, Remsen, JV Jr., Stotz DF, Winker K. 2019. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist. Americanornithology. Org/taxa. [CCH] Consortium of California Herbaria [Internet] 2023. Berkeley (CA): Regents of the University of California. Available from http://ucjeps. Berkeley. Edu/consortium/.
Accessed February 1, 2023.
Cook LF, Toft CA. 2005. Dynamics of extinction: population decline in the colonially nesting Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor. Bird Conservation International. 15(01):73–88.
Doi:10.1017/S0959270905000067. [accessed 2022 Jan 2].
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0959270905000067.
Coulombe HN. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor. 73(2):162–176.
Doi:10.2307/1365837. [accessed 2023 Feb 1]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1365837. [County] County of Monterey, Planning and Building Department. 2010. Monterey County General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Available:
https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/45804/636389938499530 000. Adopted October 26, 2010.
Curtis OE, Rosenfield RN, Bielefeldt J. 2006. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). In: Birds of North America. (Poole A, editor.).
Cypher BL, Phillips SE, Kelly PA. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications. Canid Biology and Conservation. 16:25–31.
Driscoll DE. 2010. Protocol for golden eagle occupancy, reproduction, and prey population assessment. American Eagle Research Institute, Apache Junction, AZ. eBird. 2023. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed February 1, 2023).
Eriksen CH, Belk D. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press.
Gerson MM. 2011. Population status and habitat affinities of the Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) at a site in the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California.
Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 6(2):228–236.
Gervais JA, Rosenberg DK, Comrack LA. 2008. Burrowing owl. In: Shuford WD, Gardali T, editors. California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Camarillo, CA & Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists & California Department of Fish and Game. (Studies of Western Birds 1).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 68 February 2023
Green GA, Anthony RG. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor. 91(2):347–354. Doi:10.2307/1368313. [accessed 2023 Feb 1]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1368313.
Habitat Restoration Group. 1992. Monterey hitch (Lavinia exilicauda harengus). https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=104339. Access January 12, 2022.
Hall LS, Fish AM, Morrison ML. 1992. The Influence of weather on hawk movements in coastal northern California. Source: The Wilson Bulletin. 104(3):447–461.
Hatfield R, Jepse S, Thorp R, Richardson L, Colla S, Jordan FS. 2015. Bombus occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937492A46440201. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937492A46440201.en. Accessed on 14 January 2022.
Helm BP. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Sacramento, CA: Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. California Native Plant Society.
Hoff B. 2007. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S3190199. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York.
Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2, 2023).
Hunt G. 1995. A pilot golden eagle population study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (United States); California Univ., Santa Cruz, CA (United States). Predatory Bird Research Group.
Jennings MR, Hayes MP. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division Rancho Cordova.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2023. Jepson eFlora. Available from http://ucjeps. Berkeley.
Edu/eflora/. Accessed February 1, 2023.
[City] King City Planning Department. 1998. King City General Plan. Consolidated plan document. 212 South Vandenhurst Ave., King City, California. December.
Kuhnz LA, Burton RK, Slattery PN, Oakden JM. 2005. Microhabitats and population densities of California legless lizards, with comments on effectiveness of various techniques for estimating numbers of fossorial reptiles. Journal of herpetology.:395–402.
Laudenslayer WF. 2007. Species notes for coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum):
California wildlife habitat relationships (CWHR) system level II model prototype.
California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.
Lehman, P. E. 2020. The Birds of Santa Barbara County, California, Revised edition, June 2020.
Available at http://www.sbcobirding.com/lehmanbosbc.html.
Meaney CA, Reed-Eckert M, Beauvais GP. 2006. Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Golden, Colorado.
Moyle PB. 2002. Inland fishes of California: Revised and expanded. University of California Press.
Murphy GI. 1948. Notes on the biology of the Sacramento hitch (Lavinia e. exilicauda) of Clear.
Lake, Lake County, California. California Fish and Game 34(3):101-110.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 69 February 2023
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. South-Central California coast steelhead recovery plan. Long Beach, CA West Coast Region.
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005 Sep 2. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for seven evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon and steelhead in California. Federal Register. [accessed 2022 Jan 2]. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/09/02/05-16389/endangered-andthreatened-species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-seven-evolutionarily.
NatureServe. 2018. Bombus occidentalis occidentalis. Arlington, VA (NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]). [accessed 2023 Feb 2]. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Bombus+occidentalis+ occidentalis.
Overtree L, Collings G. 1997. Western pond turtles in the Kern Valley region. Kern River Research Center Fieldnotes. 6(1):1–2.
Pagel JE, Whittington DM, Allen GT. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Pearse DE, Pogson GH. 2000. Parallel evolution of the melanic form of the California legless lizard, Anniella pulchra, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Evolution. 54(3):1041–1046.
Pilliod DS, Welty JL, Stafford R. 2013. Terrestrial movement patterns of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in central California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 8(1):207–221.
Reese DA, Welsh HH. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata): implications for management. In: Pages 352-357 in Proceedings:
Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Turtles and Tortoises. An International Conference. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society.
Rinkert R. 2014. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S18560475. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2, 2023).
Rinkert R. 2021. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S94660250. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2, 2023).
Roberson D. 2021. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/S97547849. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2, 2023).
Sawyer J, Keeler-Wolf T, Evens J. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2 nd ed. Sacramento
(CA): California Native Plant Society Press 1300p.
Shuford WD, Gardali T, editors. 2008. California bird species of special concern 2006: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Camarillo and Sacramento (CA): Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game 65 p.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 70 February 2023
Slobodchikoff CN, Doyen JT. 1977. Effects of Ammophila arenaria on sand dune arthropod communities. Ecology. 58(5):1171–1175. Doi:10.2307/1936939. [accessed 2022 Jan 2]. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/1936939 [USACE] Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and Environmental Protection Agency (US). 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule:
Definition of “Waters of the United States”. Federal Register (US); [cited 2020 Apr 21].
Available from https://www. Federalregister. Gov/documents/2020/04/21/2020- 02500/the-navigable-waters-protection-rule-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states. [USACE] United States Army Corps of Engineers, National Wetland Plant List (NWPL). 2018.
NWPL v. 3. 4 Available from http://wetland-plants. Usace. Army.
Mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home. Html.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). 2021. Aerial photomosaic of Monterey County [Internet]; Available from https://www.
Fsa. Usda. Gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/index. February 6, 2023. [USDA] Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 2023a. Web Soil Survey. Available from http://websoilsurvey. Nrcs. Usda.
Gov/. Accessed February 6, 2023.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023b. Soil Survey Area of Monterey County, California, Version 18. February 6, 2023.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding and commencement of status reviews for a petition to list the western pond turtle and California red-legged frog. Federal Register. 57(193):45761–45762. [USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for the least Bell’s vireo. Federal Register. 59(22). [USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed, proposed, and candidate plants. Washington (DC): U. S.
Fish and Wildlife. January 2000. Available from: https://www. Fws.
Gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/botanicalinventories. Pdf. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final designation of critical habitat for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in California and southern Oregon: final rule. Federal Register. 68(151):46683– 46867.
[USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IpaC). Available online at https://ecos. Fws. Gov/ipac. Accessed February 2, 2023. [USFWS] U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2023b. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Available online at https://ecos. Fws.
Gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat. Html. Accessed February 2, 2023.
Watson J. 2010. The golden eagle. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Weintraub K, George TL, Dinsmore SJ. 2016. Nest survival of tricolored blackbirds in California’s Central Valley. The Condor. 118(4):850–861.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 71 February 2023
Williams PH, Thorp RW, Richardson LL, Colla SR. 2014. The Bumble bees of North America:
An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton. [Wood] Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc.. 2021. King City Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared for City of King.
April 19, 2021.
York MM, Rosenberg DK, Sturm KK. 2002. Diet and food-niche breadth of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley, California. Western North American Naturalist.:280–287.
Yough M. 2002. eBird Checklist: https://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist/ S18772594. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: February 2, 2023).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant 72 February 2023
6 APPENDICES
• Appendix A. Special Status Plants Reported from the Region • Appendix B. Special Status Animals Reported from the Region • Appendix C. USDA Soils Survey (USDA 2023)
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-1February 2023 APPENDIX A. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
1. Acanthomintha
obovata subsp. cordata
Heart-Leaved ThornMint -/- G4T3/S3
4.2 Apr-Jul Grassy slopes, oak
woodland, chaparral, vertic clay
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area.
2. Acanthomintha
obovata subsp. obovata
San Benito ThornMint -/- G4T3T4/S3S4
4.2 Apr-Jul Grassy slopes, oak
woodland, chaparral, vertic clay, occasionally serpentine No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is over 11 mi south (CCH #SBBG 111081) in 1995.
3. Amsinckia
douglasiana
Douglas' Fiddleneck -/-
G4/S44.2
Mar-May Valley and foothill grassland.
Dry habitats with unstable shaly sedimentary slopes. 150-1600 m.
No Potential. Sloping habitat is not present and all occurrences in the vicinity are historic.
4. Aristocapsa insignis Indian Valley
Spineflower
-/- G1/S11B.2
May-Sep Sandy soil in grassland
communities, and in pine-oak or juniper woodlands
No Potential. Site conditions are heavily disturbed and nearest occurrence is over 12 miles south (CNDDB #4).
5. Astragalus macrodon Salinas Milk-Vetch -/-
G4/S44.3
Apr-Jul Eroded pale shales or
sandstone, serpentine alluvium
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area.
6. Calandrinia breweri Brewer's Calandrinia -/-
G4/S44.2
Mar-Jun Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Disturbed sites, burns. Sandy to loamy soil. <1200 m.
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-2February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
7. Calycadenia villosa Dwarf Calycadenia -/-
G3/S31B.1
May-Oct Dry, rocky hills, ridges,
grassland, openings in foothill woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area.
8. Camissoniopsis
hardhamiae
Hardham's EveningPrimrose -/- G2/S2
1B.2
Mar-May Sandy soil, limestone,
disturbed oak woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area.
9. Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's
Jewelflower
-/- G3/S31B.2
Feb-May Grassland, chaparral, scrub No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area and site is heavily disturbed. Nearest occurrences are over >10 mi north/northwest, however similar conditions occur in the Study Area.
10. Chorizanthe
douglasii
Douglas' Spineflower -/-
G4/S44.3
Apr-Jul Cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; in sand or gravel.
Low. Suitable soils are present though limited, and
the site is heavily disturbed. Nearest occurrence is historic (from 1944) 1.7 mi east of the Study Area (CCH #SD43530).
11. Chorizanthe pungens
var. pungens
Monterey Spineflower FT/-
G2T2/S21B.2
Apr-Aug Sand; dunes, coastal No Potential. Appropriate
habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is historic (from 1920) and over Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-3February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
12. Clarkia jolonensis Jolon Clarkia -/-
G2/S21B.2
Apr-Jun Dry woodland No Potential. Appropriate
woodland habitat is not present in the Study Area.
13. Clarkia lewisii Lewis' Clarkia -/-
G4/S44.3
May-Jul Coastal scrub, woodland,
chaparral
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is historic and over 9 mi south (CCH UC114022).
14. Clinopodium
mimuloides
Monkey-Flower Savory
-/- G3/S34.2
Jun-Oct Moist places, streambanks,
chaparral, woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area and no occurrences in the vicinity.
15. Collinsia antonina San Antonio Collinsia -/-
G2/S21B.2
Mar-May Margins of oak scrub on
white shale scree
No Potential. Open scrub habitat with shale scree substrate is not present in the Study Area.
16. Collinsia multicolor San Francisco
Collinsia
-/- G2/S21B.2
Feb-May Moist, +- shady scrub, forest No Potential. Mesic conditions with shaded canopy are not present in the Study Area.
17. Convolvulus
simulans
Small-Flowered Morning-Glory
-/- G4/S44.2
Mar-Jul Clay substrates, occasionally
serpentine, annual grassland, coastal-sage scrub, chaparral No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area.
18. Cryptantha rattanii Rattan's Cryptantha -/-
G4/S44.3
Apr-Jul Rocky, gravelly slopes,
grassland, coastal scrub, chaparral, foothill woodland
No Potential. Rocky slope habitat is not present in the Study Area.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-4February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
19. Delphinium
recurvatum
Recurved Larkspur -/-
G2?/S2?1B.2
Mar-Jun Poorly drained, fine, alkaline
soils in grassland, <i>Atriplex</i> scrub
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 4.9 mi east of the Study Area (CNDDB #66).
20. Delphinium
umbraculorum
Umbrella Larkspur -/-
G3/S31B.3
Apr-Jun Moist oak forest No Potential. Appropriate
oak forest habitat is not present and historic farming of the area is not suited for this species. Nearest occurrence is 2.1 mi east of the Study Area in 1962 (CNDDB #24).
21. Eriastrum luteum Yellow-Flowered
Eriastrum
-/- G2/S21B.2
May-Jun Bare sandy decomposed
granite slopes in cismontane woodland, chaparral, forest No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area and the site is heavily disturbed.
22. Eriastrum virgatum Virgate Eriastrum -/-
G3/S34.3
May-Jul Sandy soils often in coastal
strand or chaparral
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area and soils are predominantly sandy loam, farmland. Nearest occurrences are historic (CCH #LA106806) or over 12 miles northwest.
23. Eriogonum
butterworthianum
Butterworth's Buckwheat
-/CR G2/S21B.3
Jun-Jul Sandstone, chaparral No Potential. Appropriate
habitat is not present in the
Study Area.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-5February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
24. Eriogonum elegans Elegant Wild
Buckwheat
-/- G4G5/S4S54.3
May-Nov Uncommon. Cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Usually in sandy or gravelly substrates; often in washes, sometimes roadsides.
Low. Marginal habitat is present in Industrial Spray
Fields. Nearest occurrence is
historic (from 1931), 0.6 mi south of the Study Area (CCH SBBG179105).
25. Eriogonum nudum
var. inductum
Protruding Buckwheat -/-
G5T4/S44.2
Apr-Dec Clay soils in shadscale scrub,
foothill woodland, or chaparral
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present are not present and there are no known occurrences in the vicinity.
26. Eschscholzia
hypecoides
San Benito Poppy -/-
G4/S44.3
Mar-Jun Grassy areas in woodland,
chaparral
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area and the site is heavily disturbed.
27. Fritillaria agrestis Stinkbells -/-
G3/S34.2
Mar-Jun Clay, often vertic,
occasionally serpentine
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present are not present and there are no known occurrences in the vicinity.
28. Galium andrewsii
subsp. gatense
Phlox-Leaf Serpentine Bedstraw
-/- G5T3/S34.2
Apr-Jul Dry, rocky places in
serpentine soil, chaparral or open oak/pine woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat with serpentine soils is not present in the Study Area.
29. Galium californicum
subsp. luciense
Cone Peak Bedstraw -/-
G5T3/S31B.3
Mar-Sep Pine, oak forests No Potential. Forest habitat
is not present in the Study Area.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-6February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
30. Gilia tenuiflora
subsp. amplifaucalis
Trumpet-Throated Gilia
-/- G3G4T3/S34.3
Mar-Apr Sandy soil of dry creeks,
floodplains, slopes
No Potential. Sandy soils are partially present in the Industrial Spray Fields of the WWTP but site is disturbed and appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area.
31. Hooveria purpurea
var. purpurea
Santa Lucia Purple Amole
FT/- G2T2/S21B.1
Apr-Jun Often in grassy areas with
blue oaks in foothill woodland. Gravelly clay soils.
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area.
32. Horkelia yadonii Santa Lucia Horkelia -/-
G3/S34.2
Apr-Jul Sandy meadow edges,
seasonal streambeds in chaparral or foothill-pine
woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 9 mi southwest of the site (CCH #SBBG165897) in 1996.
33. Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia Dwarf
Rush
-/- G3/S31B.2
Apr-Jul Wet, sandy soils of seeps,
meadows, vernal pools, streams, roadsides
No Potential. Study Area is outside the known range for this species. Nearest occurrence is 12 mi south from 1956 (CNDDB #35).
34. Lasthenia leptalea Salinas Valley
Goldfields
-/- G3/S34.3
Feb-Apr Openings in woodland No Potential. Appropriate
woodland habitat is not present in the Study Are and the site has been historically disturbed.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-7February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
35. Layia heterotricha Pale-Yellow Layia -/-
G2/S21B.1
Mar-Jun Open clayey or sandy soil,
sometimes +- alkaline
Low. Suitable soils are present in the Study Area; however, the site has been historically disturbed. Nearest occurrence is 2 mi northeast in similar farmland habitat (CCH #PGM H5428) from 1962.
36. Lessingia tenuis Spring Lessingia -/-
G4/S44.3
May-Jul Openings in chaparral,
woodland
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area.
37. Malacothamnus
aboriginum
Indian Valley BushMallow -/- G3/S3
1B.2
Apr-Oct Open rocky slopes No Potential. Appropriate
rocky slope habitat is not present in the Study Area and site is heavily disturbed.
38. Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson's BushMallow -/- G2/S2
1B.2
Jun-Jan Sandy washes in coastal
scrub, riparian woodland, chaparral
No Potential. Appropriate habitat is not present in the Study Area and site is heavily disturbed. Conspicuous bush mallow shrubs were not observed at the time of survey.
39. Malacothamnus
palmeri var. involucratus
Carmel Valley BushMallow -/- G3T2Q/S2
1B.2
Apr-Oct Valleys, chaparral No Potential. Appropriate
habitat is not present in the Study Area and site is heavily disturbed.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-8February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State StatusGlobal/State Rank CA Rare Plant Rank Blooming Period Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
40. Navarretia
nigelliformis subsp.
radians
Shining Navarretia -/-
G4T2/S21B.2
Mar-Jul Grassland and cismontane
woodland. Often on clay and alkaline sites, sometimes vernal pools. 65-1,000 m.
No Potential. Suitable soils are not present in the Study Area and species is not common for Monterey County. Nearest occurrence is over 14 mi south (CNDDB #25) in 1994.
41. Pentachaeta exilis
subsp. aeolica
San Benito Pentachaeta
-/- G5T2/S21B.2
Mar-May Grassland, woodland No Potential. Appropriate
habitat is not present in the Study Area and site is heavily disturbed. Nearest occurrence is over 11 mi southwest (CCH #SBBG 122051).
42. Plagiobothrys
uncinatus
Hooked Popcornflower
-/- G2/S21B.2
Apr-May Chaparral, canyon sides,
rocky outcrops, +- fire follower
No Potential. Appropriate rocky canyon habitat is not present in the Study Area.
43. Senecio astephanus San Gabriel Ragwort -/-
G3/S34.3
May-Jul Steep rocky slopes in
chaparral/coastal-sage scrub
and oak woodland
No Potential. Appropriate rocky sloping habitat is not present in the Study Area.
44. Sidalcea hickmanii
subsp. hickmanii
Hickman's Checkerbloom
-/- G3T2/S21B.3
May-Jul Chaparral No Potential. Appropriate
chaparral habitat is not present in the study Area.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant A-9February 2023 State/Rank Abbreviations:
FE: Federally EndangeredFT: Federally Threatened
PE: Proposed Federally Endangered
PT: Proposed Federally ThreatenedCE: California Endangered CR: California Rare
CT: California Threatened CCE: Candidate for California EndangeredCCT: Candidate for California Threatened California Rare Plant Ranks:
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
0.1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 - Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
0.3 - Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
Global/State Ranks:
G1/S1 – Critically Imperiled
G2/S2 – Imperiled
G3/S3 – Vulnerable G4/S4 – Apparently Secure
G5/S5 – Secure
Q – Element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it.
Range rank – (e.g., S2S3 means rank is somewhere between S2 and S3) ? – (e.g., S2? Means rank is more certain than S2S3 but less certain that S2) Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-1February 2023 APPENDIX B. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
1. Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk -/-
G5/S4WL
Oak woodland, riparian, open fields. Nests in dense trees, esp. coast live oak.
Low (nesting). Suitable nesting habitat is located west of the site along the Salinas River, with one tree directly in the Study Area. High (in flight/foraging). Potential nesting habitat is located just off-site, and
several occurrences have been reported in the vicinity. High prey-base of small birds is present.
2. Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
Blackbird
-/CT G2G3/S1S2SSC
Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, & foraging area with insect prey near nesting colony.
No Potential (nesting). Reed and nesting substrate is not sufficiently present, with only a few small patches of tule and cattails occurring in the Study Area. Nesting colonies require dense reed habitat.High (in flight/foraging). Numerous occurrences of large flocks have been reported in the vicinity and insect preybase is present in the Study Area.
3. Ambystoma
californiense pop. 1
California Tiger Salamander – Central California DPS
FT/CT G2G3T3WL
Need underground refuges, ground squirrel burrows & vernal pools or other seasonal water for breeding.
No Potential. Suitable breeding habitat is not present and nearest occurrence is over 13 miles southwest from 1996 (CNDDB #75). Conditions of treatment ponds are not suitable for breeding.
4. Anaxyrus
californicus
Arroyo Toad FE/-
G2G3/S2S3SSC
Rivers with sandy banks, willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. Prefers loose gravelly soils in drier portions of their range.
No Potential. Riverine and suitable wash habitat is not present in the Study Area and nearest occurrence is over 15.8 mi south (CNDDB #58) in 1998.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-2February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
5. Anniella pulchra Northern California
Legless Lizard
-/- G3/S3SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under coastal scrub or oak trees. Soil moisture essential.
Low. Loose litter and loamy soils are present though appropriate habitat is not directly within the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 2.0 mi south in drainage along Jolon Road (CNDDB #362) in 2018.
6. Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat -/-
G5/S3SSC
Rock crevices, caves, tree hollows, mines, old buildings, and bridges.
No Potential. Disturbed quality of the site is not appropriate for this species and roosting habitat is minimal to none.
7. Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle -/-
G5/S3FP
Nests in large, prominent trees in valley and foothill woodland. Requires adjacent food source.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable nesting substrate is not present in the Study Area. Low (in flight/foraging). Not prominent in the area. Nearest occurrence is over 10 west (CNDDB #132 in 2008) and limited open space is present. Several eBird occurrences near King City.
8. Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron -/-
G5/S4SA
Rookeries located in tall trees near foraging areas.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable rookery habitat is not present in the Study Area. High (in flight/foraging). Onsite water detention ponds likely attract great blue herons, and an observation was made within the Study Area in 2002 (Yough 2002). Numerous occurrences documented in the area on eBird.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-3February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
9. Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl -/-
G4/S3SSC
Burrows in squirrel holes in open habitats with low vegetation.
Low (nesting/burrowing). Covering grassland is present in the Industrial Spray Fields, which could provide suitable denning habitat for burrowing owls. Nearest occurrence is 2.0 mi east (CNDDB #436) in 2002, where soil mounds were observed in corporation yard.Low (in flight/foraging). Nearest occurrence is 2.0 mi east (CNDDB #436) in 2002, where soil mounds were observed in corporation yard. Nearest occurrence on eBird is incomplete and more species common in the interior. 10 Bombus
occidentalis
Western Bumble Bee
-/CCE G2G3/S1SA
Wide variety of natural, agricultural, urban, and rural habitats. Flower-rich meadows of forests and subalpine zones.
No Potential. Nearest occurrences are historic, and site is void of most host plant species. Land Use in the WWTP is heavily disturbed and no burrows occur in the Project area. 11 Branchinecta
lynchi*
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
FT/- G3/S3SA
Clear water sandstone depression pools, grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt flow depression pools.
No Potential. Vernal pool habitat is not present in the Study Area. Study Area is within 5-mi radius of critical habitat for VPFS.
12 Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's BigEared Bat -/- G3G4/S2
SSC
Roosts in caves, abandoned buildings, tunnels. Roosting sites limiting. Sensitive to human disturbance.
No Potential. Site heavily disturbed and potential roosting sites are minimal to none.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-4February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
13 Emys marmorata Western Pond
Turtle
-/- G3G4/S3SSC
Permanent or semi-permanent streams, ponds, lakes.
Moderate. Retention ponds on site could attract pond turtles and Salinas River adjacency could provide connectivity during normal rain years. Nearest occurrence is 1.3 mi southeast along Salinas River in King City (CNDDB #1054). 14 Lavinia exilicauda
harengus
MontereyHitch (Pajaro/Salinas Hitch)
-/- G4T2T4/S2S4SSC
Rivers No Potential. Riverine habitat is not
present in the Study Area. Nearest documented occurrence mapped nonspecifically along the 110-mile-long Salinas River (CNDDB #1) in 2018.
15 Lavinia
symmetricus subditus
Monterey Roach -/-
G4T2T3/S2S3SSC
Tributaries to Monterey Bay, specifically the Salinas, Pajaro, & San Lorenzo drainages.
No Potential. Riverine habitat is not present in the Study Area. Not known to occur in the vicinity according to CNDDB records. Nearest is over 14 mi southwest in 2016 (CNDDB #4), found in shallow San Antonio River. 16 Masticophis
flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin Coachwhip
-/- G5T2T3/S2?SSC
Open, dry, treeless areas, including grasslands and saltbush scrub; takes refuge in burrows and under shaded vegetation No Potential. Appropriate dry open grassland habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 6.6 mi east (CNDDB #48) in 1987. More common in the interior. 17 Neotoma macrotis
luciana
Monterey DuskyFooted Woodrat -/- G5T3/S3
SSC
Variety of habitats with moderate to dense understory vegetation No Potential. Appropriate woodland or other dense woody habitat is not present in the Study Area and not known to occur in the vicinity.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-5February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
18 Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop. 9
Steelhead - SouthCentral California Coast Dps
FT/- G5T2Q/S2SA
Federal listing refers to runs in coastal basins from the Pajaro River south to, but not including, the Santa Maria River.
No Potential. Not documented in this portion of the Salinas River by the CNDDB. Property is within known critical habitat for this species, but no riverine habitat in the Study Area. New project operations would not indirectly impact steelhead trout. 19 Optioservus canus Pinnacles
Optioservus Riffle Beetle
-/- G1/S1SA
Found on rocks and in gravel of riffles in cool, swift, clear streams.
No Potential. Stream habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is over 10 mi northwest (CNDDB #9) in Arroyo Seco River. No date affiliated with record. 20 Perognathus
inornatus psammophilus
Salinas Pocket Mouse
-/- G4T2?/S1SSC
Annual grassland and desert shrub in Salinas Valley, with friable soils Low. Disturbed habitat with marginally suitable grassy conditions is present within the inactive industrial spray fields. Nearest occurrence is over 14 northwest and historic, from 1936 (CNDDB #7). No potential within the Project footprint.
21 Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Coast Horned Lizard
-/- G3G4/S3S4SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most common in lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes.
Low. Dry, sandy washes are seasonally present along the Salinas River, adjacent to the Study Area, however nearest occurrence is >10 mi west in 2008 (CNDDB #681). 22 Rana boylii Foothill YellowLegged Frog -/CCT G3/S3
SSC
Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with rocky substrate. Min. 15 weeks for larval development.
No Potential. Appropriate stream habitat is not present in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 7.6 mi southwest and historic (CNDDB #2394 in 1938).
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-6February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
23 Rana draytonii California RedLegged Frog FT/- G2G3/S2S3 SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks for larval development.
No Potential. No occurrences in the vicinity, and Study Area is not within known critical habitat for CRLF. Nearest occurrence >10 mi west in 2008 along Vaqueros Creek in Greenfield (CNDDB #1002). 24 Riparia riparia Bank Swallow -/CT
G5/S2SA
Nests colonially in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical banks or cliffs with sandy soils (to dig cavities) near streams, lakes, or the ocean.
No Potential (nesting). Suitable nesting substrate is not present in the Study Area. Moderate (in flight/foraging). Breeding colonies are known to occur in the area and species could be seen in the Study Area. Nearest occurrence is 1.3 mi southeast (CNDDB #93) in 1991, at known breeding colony. More recent occurrences at same locations on eBird. 25 Spea hammondii Western Spadefoot -/-
G3/S3SSC
Grassland and woodland habitats with vernal pools for breeding. Most of year spent underground.
Low. Suitable upland conditions for underground estivation are present and the Salinas River could support breeding spadefoots when water ponds. Retention ponds may also provide breeding habitat, but no records of breeding in the vicinity are known to date. Nearest occurrence is historic and 9.7 mi north (CNDDB #840 in 1943). 26 Taricha torosa Coast Range Newt -/-
G4/S4SSC
Lives in terrestrial habitats & will migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs & slow moving streams.
Low. Retention ponds could attract this species as suitable breeding habitat, though nearest occurrence is >10 west and no records are documented along the Salinas River.
Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant B-7February 2023 Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preference Potential to Occur
27 Taxidea taxus American Badger -/-
G5/S3SSC
Needs friable soils in open ground with abundant food source such as California ground squirrels.
Moderate. Known to occur in the area and suitable soils are present. Potential denning habitat is limited on the site to the Industrial Spray Fields. 28 Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's Vireo FE/CE
G5T2/S2SA
Riparian habitat, near water or dry streambed, <2000 ft. Nests in willows, mesquite, Baccharis.
No Potential (nesting). Riparian habitat with suitable nesting substrate is not present in the Study Area. No Potential (in flight/foraging). Riparian habitat adjacent to the Study Area is suitable to support nesting least Bell’s vireos however none have been documented in the area to date and this species is unlikely to occur. Nearest
occurrence is historic and >10 southeast (CNDDB #512 in 1919). Nearest eBird record is in Bradley, >30 southeast. 29 Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin Kit Fox
FE/CT G4T2/S2SA
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered shrubby vegetation. Needs loose textured sandy soil and prey base.
Low. Limited recovering grassland habitat is present in the Industrial Spray Fields, but the mapped historical range for kit fox shows no observations in the immediate area beyond 1990 (CDFW 2020). *Species not listed in CNDDB 9-quad search but is within 5-mile radius of critical habitat for the species under USFWS.
Federal and State Status Abbreviations:
FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened PE: Proposed Federally Endangered PT: Proposed Federally Threatened CE: California Endangered CT: California Threatened CCE: Candidate for California Endangered CCT: Candidate for California Threatened
Global/State Ranks:
G1/S1 – Critically Imperiled G2/S2 – Imperiled G3/S3 – Vulnerable G4/S4 – Apparently Secure G5/S5 – Secure Q – Element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it. Range rank – (e.g., S2S3 means rank is somewhere between S2 and S3) ? – (e.g., S2? Means rank is more certain than S2S3 but less certain that S2) CDFW Rank:
WL: Watch List SSC: Species of Special Concern FP: Fully Protected SA: Special Animal Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1323.01
UPDATED DRAFT Biological Resource Assessment for King City Wastewater Treatment Plant C-1 February 2023
APPENDIX C. USDA SOILS SURVEY (USDA 2023)
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Monterey
County,
California
King City Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 6, 2023
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 5 Soil Map................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 Map Unit Legend.................................................................................................. 8 Map Unit Descriptions.......................................................................................... 8 Monterey County, California............................................................................10 300—Corducci and Typic Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded, MLRA 14.............................................................10 CnA—Cropley silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................................12 Mf—Metz fine sandy loam...........................................................................13 Mg—Metz complex......................................................................................15 MnA—Mocho silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14............................17 MoA—Mocho silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14...................19 Pf—Pico fine sandy loam............................................................................ 20 Xc—Xerorthents, loamy.............................................................................. 22 References............................................................................................................25 4 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 6
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4008300 4008900 4009500 4010100 4010700 4011300
4008300 4008900 4009500 4010100 4010700 4011300
664500 665100 665700 666300 666900 667500 668100 668700 669300 669900 664500 665100 665700 666300 666900 667500 668100 668700 669300 669900
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
1
:
0DSSURMHFWLRQ
:HE0HUFDWRU&RUQHUFRRUGLQDWHV
:*6(GJHWLFV
870=RQH1:*6
0 1000 2000 4000 6000
)HHW
0 350 700 1400 2100
0HWHUV
0DS6FDOH
LISULQWHGRQ$ODQGVFDSH
[
VKHHW
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Monterey County, California
Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 14, 2022
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 11, 2022—May 29, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 300 Corducci and Typic
Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded,
MLRA 14
0.7 0.3%
CnA Cropley silty clay, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
0.8 0.4%
Mf Metz fine sandy loam 53.3 23.2%
Mg Metz complex 137.4 59.8%
MnA Mocho silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, MLRA 14
27.8 12.1%
MoA Mocho silty clay loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes, MLRA 14
7.2 3.1%
Pf Pico fine sandy loam 0.5 0.2%
Xc Xerorthents, loamy 2.0 0.9%
Totals for Area of Interest 229.8 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit Custom Soil Resource Report
8 descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a VRLOVHULHV. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into VRLOSKDVHV. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A FRPSOH[ consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An DVVRFLDWLRQ is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An XQGLIIHUHQWLDWHGJURXS is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include PLVFHOODQHRXVDUHDV. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9 Monterey County, California
300—Corducci and Typic Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded, MLRA 14
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
2xm5w
(OHYDWLRQ
70 to 2,480 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
9 to 24 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
58 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
219 to 346 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
&RUGXFFLDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
50 percent
7\SLF[HURIOXYHQWVDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
30 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
20 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Corducci
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Stream terraces, flood plains, alluvial fans
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Mixed alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock Typical profile
$WRLQFKHV
fine sand
&WRLQFKHV
fine sand
&WRLQFKHV
sand
&WR
LQFKHV
coarse sand
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 5 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Very low
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
High to very high (5.99
to 19.99 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
OccasionalNone
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
$YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
None specified
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
6e
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
A
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG913CA - Dry Sandy Terrace
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Description of Typic Xerofluvents
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Stream terraces, flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Mixed alluvium derived from igneous and sedimentary rock Typical profile
$WRLQFKHV
sand
&WRLQFKHV
sand
&WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
&WR
LQFKHV
sand
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 5 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Very low
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
High (2.00 to 5.99
in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
OccasionalNone
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
$YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Low (about 3.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
None specified
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
6e
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
A
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG914CA - Sandy Terrace
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Xeropsamments, frequently flooded
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
/DQGIRUP
Drainageways
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
0LFURIHDWXUHVRIODQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
Channels
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Concave
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Tujunga, very rarely flooded
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
/DQGIRUP
Stream terraces, flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Custom Soil Resource Report
11 Xerofluvents, frequently flooded
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
/DQGIRUP
Drainageways
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
0LFURIHDWXUHVRIODQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
Channels
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Concave
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Metz, very rarely flooded
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
/DQGIRUP
Stream terraces, flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
CnA—Cropley silty clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
h923
(OHYDWLRQ
30 to 2,100 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
12 to 30 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
57 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
200 to 360 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
&URSOH\DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
85 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Cropley
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains, alluvial fans
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope, footslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear, convex
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Silty and clayey alluvium derived from sedimentary rock Typical profile
+WR
LQFKHV
silty clay
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
12 'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Well drained
5XQRIIFODVV
High
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
2s
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3s
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
C
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG916CA - Clayey Fan
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Sorrento
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Salinas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Clear lake
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
/DQGIRUP
Basin floors
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Dip
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Concave
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Concave
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Antioch
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mf—Metz fine sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
h94s
(OHYDWLRQ
30 to 2,500 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
12 to 20 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
57 to 61 degrees F
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 )URVWIUHHSHULRG
175 to 340 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
0HW]DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
85 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Metz
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Sandy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
+WR
LQFKHV
stratified sand to very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Low
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
2s
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3s
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
B
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG906CA - Dry Loamy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Pacheco
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Mocho
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Metz, loamy sand
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Fluvents
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Psamments
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Tujunga
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Pico
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mg—Metz complex
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
h94t
(OHYDWLRQ
0 to 1,820 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
11 to 15 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
57 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
235 to 360 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
0HW]DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
40 percent
0HW]DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
30 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
30 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Metz
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 /DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Sandy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
+WR
LQFKHV
stratified sand to very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
2 to 9 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Medium
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
2e
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3e
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
B
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG906CA - Dry Loamy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Description of Metz
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Sandy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
loamy sand
+WR
LQFKHV
stratified sand to very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
2 to 9 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Medium
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
None specified
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 /DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
4e
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
B
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG908CA - Dry Sandy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Metz, sand
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
10 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Psamments
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
10 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Tujunga
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Unnamed
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
5 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
MnA—Mocho silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
2tyyr
(OHYDWLRQ
10 to 1,320 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
11 to 23 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
56 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
270 to 360 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
0RFKRDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
85 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Mocho
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains, alluvial fans
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
$SWRLQFKHV
silt loam
$SWRLQFKHV
silt loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
17 &WRLQFKHV
silt loam
$EWRLQFKHV
silt loam
&
WRLQFKHV
silt loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Well drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Low
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.20 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
&DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW
5 percent
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3c
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
B
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG906CA - Dry Loamy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Salinas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho, silty clay loam
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Pacheco
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Pico
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Metz
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho, loam
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Sorrento
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 Docas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho, fine sandy loam
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
MoA—Mocho silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14 Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
2tyz2
(OHYDWLRQ
10 to 1,900 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
11 to 19 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
56 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
270 to 360 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
0RFKRDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
85 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Mocho
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains, alluvial fans
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
$SWRLQFKHV
silty clay loam
$WRLQFKHV
silty clay loam
&WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
&WR
LQFKHV
silty clay loam
&
WRLQFKHV
stratified sand
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Well drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Medium
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
Custom Soil Resource Report
19 &DOFLXPFDUERQDWHPD[LPXPFRQWHQW
5 percent
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 6.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3c
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
C
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG917CA - Dry Loamy Fan
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Cropley
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
7 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Metz
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Sorrento
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
2 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Pico
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho, silt loam
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Camarillo, drained
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
/DQGIRUP
Alluvial flats
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Salinas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
1 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Pf—Pico fine sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
h95n
(OHYDWLRQ
0 to 1,900 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
11 to 16 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
57 to 61 degrees F
Custom Soil Resource Report
20 )URVWIUHHSHULRG
225 to 365 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
3LFRDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
70 percent
0HW]DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
15 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Pico
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Coarse-loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
+WRLQFKHV
stratified sand to silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Well drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Very low
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 7.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
3c
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
A
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG906CA - Dry Loamy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Description of Metz
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Coarse-loamy alluvium derived from sedimentary rock
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
fine sandy loam
+WR
LQFKHV
stratified sand to very fine sandy loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
21 Properties and qualities
6ORSH
0 to 2 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Somewhat excessively drained
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 6.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
None specified
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
B
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R014XG906CA - Dry Loamy Bottom
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Pacheco
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
4 percent
/DQGIRUP
Flood plains
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Toeslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
Yes
Mocho
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
4 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Salinas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
4 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Tujunga
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Xc—Xerorthents, loamy
Map Unit Setting
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
h97q
(OHYDWLRQ
20 to 2,000 feet
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
10 to 25 inches
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
57 to 61 degrees F
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
245 to 350 days
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
Not prime farmland
Custom Soil Resource Report
22 Map Unit Composition
;HURUWKHQWVORDP\DQGVLPLODUVRLOV
85 percent
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
15 percent
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW Description of Xerorthents, Loamy
Setting
/DQGIRUP
Terraces, alluvial fans
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
Footslope
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
Tread, talf
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
Linear
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
Linear, convex
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
Mixed loamy alluvium
Typical profile
+WRLQFKHV
clay loam
Properties and qualities
6ORSH
15 to 50 percent
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
More than 80 inches
'UDLQDJHFODVV
Well drained
5XQRIIFODVV
Medium
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
Moderately high (0.20
to 0.57 in/hr)
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
More than 80 inches
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
None
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
None
0D[LPXPVDOLQLW\
Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) $YDLODEOHZDWHUVXSSO\WRLQFKHV
Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
None specified
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
6e
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
C
(FRORJLFDOVLWH
R015XD024CA - FINE LOAMY
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Minor Components
Cropley
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Mocho
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Salinas
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Badland
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Xerorthents, sandy
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
3 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
23 +\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
No
Custom Soil Resource Report
24 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 25 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
26 Appendix C
SHPO Correspondence
June 16, 2022
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95816
ATTACHMENT 4
RE: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN- KING CITY, CALIFORNIA (MONTEREY
COUNTY)
To Whom it May Concern:
The City of King is proposing to construct a new wastewater treatment facility to comply with new discharge requirements. (Reference Exhibit 1 for Site Location.) The facility will be located within a reduced development footprint of the existing wastewater treatment facility. The site has undergone prior site disturbance and grading to accommodate the existing wastewater treatment facility.
A mitigated negative declaration (MND) has been prepared and states the site is highly disturbed and is not expected to contain any known archaeological sites, paleontological resources or historical structures. The City may pursue federal funding to help upgrade the facility to meet new discharge requirements. In keeping with the intent of Section 106, no cultural resources will be adversely affected by this project and there are no known historical structures on the site. The City will include the City's standard cultural resources condition of approval/mitigation measure related to steps that need to be taken in the event cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during any future soil disturbing activities.
Based on the MND, the City has determined the project has no potential to affect identified historic properties and cultural resources and there are no further Section 106 obligations. Please notify our office at (831} 385-3281 if you have any additional questions related to the project.
Sincerely,
n��
Doreen Liberto, AICP
Community Development Director
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Site Location
c: City Engineer
Community Development
212 S. VANDERHURST AVENUE • KING CITY, CA 93930
PHONE: (831) 385-3281 • FAX: (831) 385-6887
WWW.KINGCITY.COM
EXHIBIT 1: SITE LOCATION
S('• N LO
j
. s
ATTACHMENT 5
��. ···. =
S
=
m
=
te
=
o
=
f
=
C
=
al
=
iro
=
m
=
ia
=•N
==
at
=
u
=
ra
=
IR
=
e
=
so
=
u
=
�e
=
s
=
A
=
g
=
en
=
c
y
==================
G
=
a
=
vi
=
n
=
N
=
ew
=
s
=
o
=
m
=,
G
• =
o
=
�
=
m
=
o
=
r
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Arma
ndo Quintero, Director
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Julianne Polanco, State Hi
sto r
ic Pre servation Officer
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100
Te
lephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053
[email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
July 11 , 2022
[VIA EMAIL]
Ms. Doreen Liberto, AICP
Community Development Director
City of King
21 South Vanderhurst Avenue
King City, CA 93930
Refer to HUD_2022_0615_001
Re: King City Waste Water Plant Reconstruction Project, King City, CA Dear Ms. Liberto,
The California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) received the consultation submittal for the above referenced undertaking for review and comment pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations found at 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations and advisory materials are located at www.achp.gov.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(d) the SHPO does not object to the City of King's finding of No historic properties affected for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded waste water treatment plant reconstruction project. The City may have additional Section 106 responsibilities under certain circumstances set for in 36 CFR Part 800. For example, in the event that historic properties are discovered during the implementation of the undertaking, the City is required to consult further pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13(b ).
SHPO appreciates the City of King's consideration of historic properties in the project planning process.
If you have questions please contact Shannon Lauchner Pries, Historian II, with the Local Government & Environmental Compliance Unit at [email protected] Note that we are only sending this letter in electronic format. Please confirm receipt of this letter. If you would like a hard copy mailed to you, respond to this email to request a hard copy be mailed.
Sincerely,
�v
Julianne Polanco
State Historic Preservation Officer
Appendix D
Cultural Resources Survey Report
This Appendix is Not Available to the Public
Appendix E
Native American Outreach
P.O. Box 381 Roseville, CA 95661 www.smbenviromental.com 916-517-2189 January 18, 2022
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Subject: Sacred Land Files and Native American Contact List Request for the City of King City WWTP Upgrade and Recycled Water Project
To Whom It May Concern:
SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) is assisting the City of King City (City) on its proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Recycled Water Project (Proposed Project). The purpose of the Proposed Project is to comply with new Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB) permit effluent requirements with additional treatment plant processes than currently exist, prepare for planned growth, offset existing and future potable water demands and help maintain a sustainable groundwater supply. The City has identified three beneficial uses for recycled water within the City planning area. These include: landscape irrigation, agricultural irrigation, and commercial use. Please see attached map and request form.
We would appreciate you checking the Sacred Lands Files and report to us if there are any culturally sensitive areas within the immediate project vicinity. We would also like to receive a list of Native American organizations that may have knowledge in the area and we will attempt to contact them to solicit their written input/concerns about the Proposed Project.
Thank you for your cooperation and assistance. I look forward to your earliest possible reply. If any questions, please feel free to contact me at 916-517-2189 or at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Steve Brown
Principal
Figure 1
Overview of Proposed Project
Little to No
Emergent
Vegetation
!( Project/Action Location
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
WWTP
TU)"
=
TU)"
=
TU")
=
10 ''
344 ft
10 ''
860 ft
Northeast Business Park Area
Arboleda
Development
Mills Ranch
Development
King City Golf Course
King City
Park
King City
High School
Salinas Valley
Fair Grounds
Downtown Additional
Development
San Antonio
Park
King City
Cemetary District
Del Rey
Elementary School
King City Arts
Magnet School
Forden Park
Santa Lucia
School
Agricultural Area - Mission
Ranches Company, LLC
(1)
(15)
(12)
(13)
(6)
(8)
(9)
(14)
(10)
(11)
(5)
(2)
(4)
(7)
(3)
US 101
San Antonio Dr
Metz Rd
Bitterwater Rd
Broadway St
Canal St
Airport Rd
Lonoak Rd
Spreckels Rd
Pearl St
River Dr
N 3rd St
N 2nd St
N Russ St
Lewis St
S 3rd St
7th St
Willow St
Villa Dr
Industrial Way
3rd St
Central Ave
Broadway Cir
Sandringham St
S Mildred Ave
Cambridge Ave
Mesa Verde Rd Jolon Rd
Kings Pl
US 101
1st St
8 ''
3,652 ft
3,688 ft
12 ''
6 ''
3,501 ft
6 ''
2,995 ft
1,029 ft
10 ''
8 ''
3,722 ft
12 ''
2,180 ft
6 ''
1,901 ft
6 ''
1,850 ft
8 ''
2,419 ft
6 ''
1637 ft
12 ''
989 ft
950 ft
6 ''
6 ''
949 ft
6 ''
1,214 ft
12 ''
832 ft
6 ''
652 ft
12 ''
588 ft
12 ''
530 ft
6 ''
463 ft
8 ''
231 ft
955 ft
8 ''
8 ''
954 ft
6 ''
1023 ft
12 ''
1,001 ft
854 ft
8 ''
903 ft
6 ''
12 ''
669 ft
8 ''
464 ft
Last Revised: December 13, 2022 [ENTER PROJECT WISE PATH NAME TO MXD] For Example:pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/ClientName/10265A00/Data/GIS/Figure_01_01.mxd O
0 550 1,100
Feet
Disclaimer: Features shown in this
figure are for planning purposes and
represent approximate locations.
Engineering and/or survey accuracy
is not implied.
Data Sources: King City, ESRI
Figure A Alternative 5
PROJECT NAME | TM | CLIENT
Legend
WWTP Wastewater
Treatment Plant
TU")
=
Storage Tank and
Pump
!( Junctions
Proposed New
Service Road
Recycled Water
Pipelines (Diameter
[in], Length [ft])
Existing
Proposed
Potential Custumers
Agricultural
Irrigation
Future
Roads
Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Type of List Requested
☐
X CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) – Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ❑ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3.
Local Action Type:
___ General Plan ___ General Plan Element ___ General Plan Amendment ___ Specific Plan ___ Specific Plan Amendment ___ Pre-planning Outreach Activity Required Information
Project Title: City of King City Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Recycled Water Project Local Government/Lead Agency
Contact Person: ______S_t_e_v_e_B_r_o_w__n__________________________________________________________ Street Address: ____P__.O__._B_o_x__3_8_1____________________________________________________________ City:______R_o_s
_e_v_il_l_e________________________________________ Zip:___ 9_5_6_6_1___________________
Phone: 916-517-2189 ___ Fax:_______________________________________ Email:______
S_te_v_e
_@__s_
m_b__en__v_ir_o_n_m__e
_
n_t
_
a
_
l.
_
c
_
o_m______________
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County: _Monterey_ City/Community: _________King City, CA______________ Project Description:
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Recycled Water Project Additional Request
☐X Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information:
USGS Quadrangle Name(s):_San Lucas and Thompson Canyon_________________________________________ Township: T20S Range: R8E Section: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION