Attachment 3 - Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration — Manteca City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Final
IniƟal Study and
MiƟgated
NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
for the
City of Manteca
Well 29 TCP
Treatment Project
SCH #2023070265
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, California 95337
September 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
State Clearinghouse Number
2023070265
September 2023
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, California 95337
Prepared by:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Notice of Determination
Notice of Determination 1 September 2023

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: FROM:

Office of Planning and Research
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, California 95337
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 of the Public Resources Code
PROJECT TITLE: City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number 2023070265 Elba Mijango, Associate Engineer 209-456-8460 Project Approval
The City of Manteca (City) adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project on September 19, 2023.

Project Location
Well 29 is located at 614 El Portal Avenue in Manteca, California on the west side of Yosemite Village Park.

Well 29 was drilled in 2017. The Project Area consists of a small neighborhood park that is regularly mowed and maintained. Low grass covers the majority of the Project Area with landscape trees and shrubs around the perimeter, a small play structure and basketball court to the west, scattered picnic benches, and a preexisting well building located immediately adjacent to the basketball court.

Project Description
The project involves constructing a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 located in Yosemite Village Park to remove 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with California Code Regulations, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is 0.005 micrograms per Liter (µg/L). The City is considering two Layout Options as described below.

Layout Option A would place six new 12-foot-diameter GAC treatment vessels directly to the east of the existing well site on a concrete pad measuring 40 by 60-feet. The new GAC system would tie into the existing Well 29 raw water discharge pipe, prior to arsenic treatment, via two new 12-inch pipes that would run approximately 90-feet southwest. The new GAC vessels would discharge backwash waste into an 8-inch pipe running approximately 255-feet from the GAC vessels to the existing backwash tank located adjacent to the arsenic treatment system. The existing site fencing would be continued around the new treatment facility, and two 16-foot sliding gates would be added for maintenance access. The hypochlorite injection point for potable water disinfection would be relocated from the existing wellhead ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Notice of Determination
Notice of Determination 2 September 2023
to an above-grade injection point after the GAC treatment system. A connection to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made in the street adjacent to the site with a new sanitary sewer manhole. An additional sanitary sewer manhole and drain lines would be installed onsite for collecting wash water from the backwash process and excess water that must be drained during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14-feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing Well 29 footprint.

The City of Manteca (City), as the Lead Agency, has approved the above-described Project and has made the following determinations:
 There is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment;
 In accordance with CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project was prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted by the City, which is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at the City of Manteca, 1001 West Center Street, Manteca, California 95337. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City;
 Mitigation measures were required to be made a condition of approval of the Proposed Project;  A Statement of Overriding Considerations was not required to be adopted for the Proposed Project; and
 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan was adopted for the Proposed Project.

This is to certify that the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments and responses, the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, and record of Project approval is available to the general public at: City of Manteca, 1001 West Center Street, Manteca, California 95337.

Kevin Jorgensen II, Director of Engineering/City Engineer City of Manteca
Date
Date Received for Filing at OPR: _____________________________ ATTACHMENT 3
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration i September 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration ii September 2023
City of Manteca
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
State Clearinghouse Number 2023070265
September 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration iii September 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 1 September 2023

CONTENTS
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – CAL FIRE Prado Helitack Base Replacement...................... i Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects .......................................................ii SECTION 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 SECTION 2. Project Overview...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 SECTION 3. Comments and Responses .................................................................................................................................. 3-1 SECTION 4. Revisions to the Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration................................................ 4-1 SECTION 5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan .................................................................................................. 5-1 SECTION 6. List of Appendices................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Notice of Intent
Appendix B – Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 1 September 2023

FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MANTECA – WELL 29 TCP TREATMENT PROJECT
Lead Agency: City of Manteca
Project Location: Yosemite Village Park, 614 El Portal Avenue, Manteca, California 95337 Project Description: The project involves constructing a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 located in Yosemite Village Park to remove 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with California Code Regulations, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is 0.005 micrograms per Liter (µg/L).

The City is considering two Layout Options as described below.

Layout Option A would place six new 12-foot-diameter GAC treatment vessels directly to the east of the existing well site on a concrete pad measuring 40 by 60-feet. The new GAC system would tie into the existing Well 29 raw water discharge pipe, prior to arsenic treatment, via two new 12-inch pipes that would run approximately 90-feet southwest. The new GAC vessels would discharge backwash waste into an 8-inch pipe running approximately 255-feet from the GAC vessels to the existing backwash tank located adjacent to the arsenic treatment system. The existing site fencing would be continued around the new treatment facility, and two 16-foot sliding gates would be added for maintenance access. The hypochlorite injection point for potable water disinfection would be relocated from the existing wellhead to an above-grade injection point after the GAC treatment system. A connection to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made in the street adjacent to the site with a new sanitary sewer manhole. An additional sanitary sewer manhole and drain lines would be installed onsite for collecting wash water from the backwash process and excess water that must be drained during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14-feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing Well 29 footprint.

Finding: Based on the information contained in the attached Initial Study, The City finds that there would not be a significant effect to the environment because the mitigation measures described herein would be incorporated as part of the Proposed Project.

Public Review Period: July 14, 2023 through August 14, 2023 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 2 September 2023
Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys. Within 14 days prior to construction activities and vegetation removal, a qualified biologist will survey the Project Area and 500 feet adjacent for nesting birds. If an active nest (i.e., containing eggs or young) is observed, the qualified biologist will install a species-specific no-disturbance buffer around the active nest. No Project activities will occur within the no-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If there is a lapse in construction activities of 15 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to reinitiating construction activities.

BIO-2: Day Roosting Bat Surveys. The trees and building within the Project Area may provide marginally suitable bat day-roosting habitat for species such as the pallid bat. A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal and construction activities near the existing building. If day roosting bat habitat occurs in trees that will be removed, or within the existing building, a qualified biologist will conduct an evening emergence survey when nighttime low temperatures are above 45°F.

If bats are observed exiting day-roosting habitat during the evening emergence survey, the habitat will be removed/affected outside of the maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low temperatures are above 45°F (typically May 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15). Occupied trees will be removed using the two-step removal process under direction from a qualified biologist. If occupied bat day roosting habitat within the existing building will be affected by construction activities, the habitat can be excluded by a qualified biologist outside of the maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low temperatures are above 45°F (typically May 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15).

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered, all constructionrelated activities within 100 feet shall be immediately halted and the City of Manteca should be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 3 September 2023
Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, hereafter qualified archaeologist, should inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the Project could damage a significant cultural resource, mitigation should be implemented with a preference for preservation in place, consistent with the priorities set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist should prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Manteca and, for prehistoric resources, the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s). If the resource is determined to be a TCR, as defined by PRC 21074, the City of Manteca, in consultation with the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s), should, if feasible, minimize significant adverse impacts by avoiding the resource or treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, which includes protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting the traditional use of the resource, and protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Human Remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction-related activities the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) shall be followed and such activities should cease within 100 feet of the find until the San Joaquin County coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If it is determined that the remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC will then identify the person it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD would, in turn, make recommendations to the City of Manteca for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any other items associated with the grave.

TRANSPORTATION
Mitigation Measure
TRANS-1: Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction of the Project, the City shall require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s traffic control guidelines and shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
▪ Provide written notice at least 2 weeks prior to the start of construction to owners/occupants along streets affected during construction. ▪ Signage, striping, delineated detours, flagging operations and any other devices will be used during construction to guide motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians safely through the construction area and allow for adequate access and circulation. ▪ Designate detours or alternative routes for bicyclists using affected bicycle lanes as well as for pedestrians using adjacent sidewalks.
▪ Maintain continuous vehicular and pedestrian access to any affected residential driveways from the public street to the private property line, except where necessary ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 4 September 2023
construction precludes such continuous access for reasonable periods of time.

Access will be reestablished at the end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as described above, the City shall notify the owner or occupant of the closure of the driveway at least 5 working days prior to the closure. ▪ Ensure that the construction of the Project does not interfere unnecessarily with the work of other agencies such as mail delivery, school buses, and municipal waste services.
▪ Notify local emergency responders of any planned partial- or full-lane closures or blocked access to roadways or driveways required for Project construction.

Emergency responders include fire departments, police departments, and ambulances that have jurisdiction within the Project Area. Written notification and disclosure of lane closure location must be provided at least 30 days prior to the planned closure to allow emergency response providers adequate time to prepare for lane closures.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure
TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find.

A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested consultation on the Project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist, who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negated Declaration 5 September 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Introduction 1-1 September 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration including the Responses to Comments and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Final IS/MND) for the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project. It has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resource Code Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) as amended. This Final IS/MND and Responses to Comments document supplements and updates the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) released for public review on July 14, 2013.

The City is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. On July 14, 2023 the City distributed the Draft IS/MND for the Proposed Project to public agencies and the general public for review and comment. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day review period, which ended on August 14, 2013, was completed. During the public review period, two comment letters and/or emails on the Draft IS/MND were received from interested parties.

This Final IS/MND and Responses to Comments document is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 provides a discussion of the purpose of the document and discusses the structure of the document;
Section 2.0 contains a summary of the Project Description, a description of minor changes to the Project Description and a discussion regarding why these changes do not require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND;
Section 3.0 includes the comment letters received and responses to these comments; Section 4.0 includes the Proposed Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; and Section 5.0 includes the Notice of Intent, Proof of Publication, Environmental Filing Receipt, and the Draft IS/MND.

This Final MND document and the Draft IS/MND together constitute the environmental document for the proposed Project. Based on the comments received, no substantial revisions to the text were required and therefore, the document does not need to be recirculated. A substantial revision according to Section 15073.5 of the 2021 CEQA Statute Guidelines shall mean:
“(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required.”
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Introduction 1-1 September 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Project Overview 2-1 September 2023

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Project Location
The project is located within Yosemite Village Park at 614 El Portal Avenue, Manteca, California 95337.

2.2 Project Description
The project involves constructing a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 located in Yosemite Village Park to remove 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with California Code Regulations, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is 0.005 micrograms per Liter (µg/L). The City is considering two Layout Options as described below.

Layout Option A would place six new 12-foot-diameter GAC treatment vessels directly to the east of the existing well site on a concrete pad measuring 40 by 60-feet. The new GAC system would tie into the existing Well 29 raw water discharge pipe, prior to arsenic treatment, via two new 12-inch pipes that would run approximately 90-feet southwest. The new GAC vessels would discharge backwash waste into an 8-inch pipe running approximately 255-feet from the GAC vessels to the existing backwash tank located adjacent to the arsenic treatment system. The existing site fencing would be continued around the new treatment facility, and two 16-foot sliding gates would be added for maintenance access. The hypochlorite injection point for potable water disinfection would be relocated from the existing wellhead to an above-grade injection point after the GAC treatment system. A connection to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made in the street adjacent to the site with a new sanitary sewer manhole. An additional sanitary sewer manhole and drain lines would be installed onsite for collecting wash water from the backwash process and excess water that must be drained during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14-feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing Well 29 footprint.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Project Overview 2-2 September 2023

2.3 Decision Not to Recirculate Draft MND
After the completion of the public/agency comment period for the Draft IS/MND, no changes were made to sections of the IS/MND. Therefore, criteria for recirculation of the MND prior to adoption as outlined in Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines were not met and the document does not need to be recirculated.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-1 September 2023

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This section of the document contains copies of the comment letters received during the 30-day public review period, which began on July 14, 2023, and ended on August 14, 2023. In conformance with Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, The City of Manteca has considered comments on environmental issues from reviewers of the Draft IS/MND and has prepared written responses. Two letters were received via email, commenting on the Draft IS/MND. These letters, and the responses to the comments contained in the letters are provided in this section.

A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft IS/MND is presented below. The letters and the responses to the comments follow this page.

3.1 List of Comment Letters
Letter
Number Sender Date of Letter
1 State Water Resources Control Board August 3, 2023
2 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board August 14, 2023 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-2 September 2023

3.2 Letter 1 (State Water Resources Control Board) – Lori Schmitz, Environmental Scientist, Division of Financial Assistance, August 3, 2023
SWRCB-1
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-3 September 2023
SWRCB-1
(cont.)
SWRCB-2
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-4 September 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-5 September 2023

3.3 Letter 1 Responses to Comments

3.3.1 Response to Comment SWRCB-1:

Each GAC treatment train will feature two adsorption vessels operated in series, with the lead vessel receiving raw well water first and the lag vessel receiving treated water from the lead vessel, so that well water always passes through two GAC beds. Each vessel will have a bed depth sufficient for TCP removal and sampling ports located at the inlet, outlet, and at approximately 25%, 50%, and 75% bed depths.

On a monthly basis, TCP samples will be collected from the following locations: well head (raw water), lead GAC vessel discharge, vessel sample tap, and combined GAC effluent. The Operations Manual will contain a written procedure for taking samples from the sample taps. Sampling will start at the lead vessel 25% sample tap. Once TCP is detected at that depth, the next sampling will switch to the 50% tap. Once TCP is detected at the 50% tap, sampling will move to the 75% tap. Once TCP is detected at the 75% tap, sampling will move to the lag vessel 25% tap and a media change out for the lead vessel will be scheduled. It will take approximately 4 weeks to complete the change out, but the entire bed volume of the lag vessel plus the remaining 25% of the lead vessel will provide sufficient active bed depth to reduce TCP to non-detect prior to distribution until the change out can be completed.

A sample of the media profile will be collected at a minimum of once every five years, starting at the time of the first media change-out, to determine the constituent makeup of the spent media and establish suitability for reactivation or disposal, and if required the appropriate means of disposal.

Spent carbon is typically hauled away for disposal or reactivation by the company delivering the new carbon. Before the carbon supplier can accept the spent carbon, it is necessary for them to “profile” the carbon to ensure that it can be disposed of in conformance with all Federal, State, and local regulations.

Specifically, it must be determined whether or not the carbon is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. The City would determine whether the carbon is a RCRA waste and would certify that determination. Once the profiling is complete, the carbon supplier can haul the spent carbon away for either disposal or reactivation.

There is no chemical injection upstream of GAC, only raw well water will be fed to the GAC system. There may be incidental removal of a portion of other raw well water constituents, although the GAC system is not designed to remove these other constituents, so removal rates will vary. Media profiling will identify any impact of incidental removal on media disposal or reactivation approaches.

3.3.2 Response to Comment SWRCB-2
Comment noted. Once the City’s review and adoption process is complete, the following items will be forwarded with the permit application to the State Water Board, DDW Stockton District Office at [email protected]:
1) Copy of the Final IS/MND that will contain the MMRP, Draft IS/MND, comments received and responses, and the Notices.
2) Copy of Resolution or Board Minutes adopting the MND and MMRP ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-6 September 2023

3.4 Letter 2 (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) – Peter Minkel, Engineering Geologist, August 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-7 September 2023
RWCB-1
RWCB-2
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-8 September 2023
RWCB-2
(Cont.)
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-9 September 2023
RWCB-2
(Cont.)
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-10 September 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-11 September 2023

3.4.1 Letter 2 Responses to Comments

3.4.1.1 Response to Comment RWQCB-1:

The environmental document addresses potential impacts the Project may have on groundwater, water quality, and waters on site in Chapter 4-10 Hydrology and Water Quality and Chapter 4-4 Biological Resources in the Draft IS/MND. The Project will comply with all applicable regulations and obtain all necessary permits. Applicable permits from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that will be obtained as a part of the Proposed Project include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The project would also adhere to the Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual (June 2015) developed to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Municipal Separate Sewer System Water Program Permit requirements.

Additionally, based on the Biological Resource Evaluation, there are no indications of the presence of waters or wetlands on aerial photographs or street view photographs of the Project footprint, based on a review back to 1993. The reviewed sources (i.e., NWI, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] topographic maps, aerial photographs) indicate there are no state or federally protected wetlands or waters in the project footprint. All potential impacts are less than significant or no impact.

3.4.1.2 Response to Comment RWQCB-2:

See response to comment CVRWQCB-1.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-12 September 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-1 September 2023

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN

4.1 Introduction
In accordance with CEQA, an MND that identifies adverse impacts related to the construction activity for the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project was prepared. The MND identifies mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate these impacts.

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Sections 15091(d) and 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP is required for the Proposed Project because the IS/MND identified potentially significant adverse impacts related to construction and operation of the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures have been identified to mitigate these impacts. Adoption of the MMRP will occur along with approval of the Proposed Project.

4.2 Purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan This MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed according to schedule and maintained in a satisfactory manner during the construction and operation of the Proposed Project, as required. The MMRP may be modified by the City of Manteca during Project implementation, as necessary, in response to changing conditions or other Project refinements. Table 4-1 has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the MMRP.

This table identifies the category of significant environmental impact(s), individual mitigation measures, monitoring and mitigation timing, responsible person/agency for implementing the measure, monitoring and reporting procedure, and notation space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures. The numbering of the mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence in the IS/MND.

4.3 Roles and Responsibilities
The City of Manteca is responsible for oversight of compliance of the mitigation measures in the MMRP.

4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The column categories identified in Table 4-1 are described below.

Mitigation Measure – This column lists the mitigation measures by number.

Monitoring Activity/Timing/Frequency/Schedule – This column lists the activity to be monitored for each mitigation measure, the timing of each activity, and the frequency/schedule of monitoring for each activity.

Implementation Responsibility/Verification – This column identifies the entity responsible for complying with the requirements of the mitigation measure, and provides space for verification initials and date.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-2 September 2023 Responsibility for Oversight of Compliance/Verification – This column provides the agency responsible for oversight of the mitigation implementation and is to be dated and initialed by the agency representative based on the documentation provided by the construction contractor or through personal verification by agency staff.

Outside Agency Coordination – this column lists any agencies with which Manteca may coordinate for implementation of the mitigation measure.

Comments – this column provides space for written comments, if necessary.

ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-3 September 2023 Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys. Within 14 days prior to
construction activities and vegetation removal, a qualified biologist will survey the Project Area and 500 feet adjacent for nesting birds. If an active nest (i.e., containing eggs or young) is observed, the qualified biologist will install a speciesspecific no-disturbance buffer around the active nest. No Project activities will occur within the no-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If there is a lapse in construction activities of 15 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to reinitiating construction activities Action:

Preconstruction nesting bird
surveys
Timing:

If construction is to occur
during the nesting season
(generally February 1 through
September 30). If construction
takes place outside of the
nesting bird season, BIO-1 is
not necessary
Project Biologist
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
CDFW Only if
construction is
to occur
during the
nesting
season. If
construction
takes place
outside of the
nesting bird
season, BIO-1
is not
necessary
BIO-2: Day Roosting Bat Surveys. The trees and building within the Project Area may provide marginally suitable bat day-roosting habitat for species such as the pallid bat. A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal and construction activities near the existing building. If day roosting bat habitat occurs in trees that will be removed, or within the existing building, a qualified biologist will conduct an evening emergence survey when nighttime low temperatures are above 45°F.

If bats are observed exiting day-roosting habitat during the evening emergence survey, the habitat will be
removed/affected outside of the maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low temperatures are above 45°F
(typically May 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15). Occupied trees will be removed using the twostep removal process under direction from a qualified biologist. If occupied bat day roosting habitat within the existing building will be affected by construction activities, the habitat can be excluded by a qualified biologist outside of the Action:

Preconstruction roosting bat
surveys
Timing:

Prior to tree removal
Project Biologist
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
CDFW
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-4 September 2023 Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low
temperatures are above 45°F (typically May 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15).

CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Archaeological
Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered, all
construction-related activities within 100 feet shall be immediately halted and the City of Manteca should be
notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology,
hereafter qualified archaeologist, should inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the Project could damage a significant cultural resource,
mitigation should be implemented with a preference for
preservation in place, consistent with the priorities set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist should prepare and
implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Manteca and, for prehistoric resources, the
ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s). If the resource is determined to be a TCR, as defined by PRC 21074, the City of Manteca, in consultation with the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s), should, if feasible, minimize significant adverse impacts by avoiding the resource Action:

Activity suspension if
unknown resources are found.

Timing:

During construction
Project
Archaeologist,
Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-5 September 2023 Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
or treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, which includes protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting the traditional use of the resource, and protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Human Remains.

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction-related activities the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) shall be followed and such activities should cease within 100 feet of the find until the San Joaquin County coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If it is determined that the remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC will be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC will then identify the person it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD would, in turn, make recommendations to the City of Manteca for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any other items associated with the grave.

Action:

Suspension of activities if
human remains are found
Timing:

During construction
Project
Archaeologist,
Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
TRANS-1: Prior to the start of construction of the
Project, the City shall require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s traffic control
guidelines and shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
• Provide written notice at least 2 weeks prior to the
start of construction to owners/occupants along
streets affected during construction.
• Signage, striping, delineated detours, flagging
operations and any other devices will be used during
construction to guide motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians safely through the construction area and
allow for adequate access and circulation.

Action:

Traffic Control Plan
Timing:

Prior to and during
construction
Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-6 September 2023 Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
• Designate detours or alternative routes for bicyclists using affected bicycle lanes as well as for pedestrians using adjacent sidewalks.
• Maintain continuous vehicular and pedestrian access
to any affected residential driveways from the public
street to the private property line, except where
necessary construction precludes such continuous
access for reasonable periods of time. Access will be
reestablished at the end of the workday. If a
driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as
described above, the City shall notify the owner or
occupant of the closure of the driveway at least 5
working days prior to the closure.
• Ensure that the construction of the Project does not
interfere unnecessarily with the work of other
agencies such as mail delivery, school buses, and
municipal waste services.
• Notify local emergency responders of any planned
partial- or full-lane closures or blocked access to
roadways or driveways required for Project
construction. Emergency responders include fire
departments, police departments, and ambulances
that have jurisdiction within the Project Area. Written notification and disclosure of lane closure location
must be provided at least 30 days prior to the
planned closure to allow emergency response
providers adequate time to prepare for lane closures.

TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources.

If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribes that requested Action:

Suspension of activities if
unanticipated resources are
found
Project
Archaeologist,
Construction
Manager
City of Manteca
Initials
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-7 September 2023 Table 4-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
consultation on the Project shall be immediately contacted and invited to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If deemed necessary by the City, a qualified cultural resources specialist, who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Qualifications for Archaeology, may also assess the significance of the find in joint consultation with Native American representatives to ensure that Tribal values are considered. Work at the discovery location cannot resume until the City, in consultation as appropriate and in good faith, determines that the discovery is either not a TCR, or has been subjected to culturally appropriate treatment, if avoidance and preservation cannot be accommodated.

Timing:

During construction
Initials
Date
Date
To be signed when all mitigation measures have been completed:

City of Manteca
Signature
Printed Name
Date
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Manteca -Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4-8 September 2023

5.0 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Notice of Intent
Appendix B – Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
ATTACHMENT 3

APPENDIX A
Notice of Intent
ATTACHMENT 3
Engineering Department

1001 W. CENTER ST. MANTECA, CA 95337 (209) 456-8460 FAX (209) 923-8940 July 14, 2023
TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations SUBJECT: City of Manteca Well 29 TCP Treatment Project— CITY OF MANTECA, SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY
The City of Manteca (City) is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the proposed City of Manteca Well 29 TCP Treatment Project (Proposed Project). The City has directed the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in compliance with CEQA.

Project Location: Well 29 is located at 614 El Portal Avenue in Manteca, California on the west side of Yosemite Village Park. Well 29 was drilled in 2017. The Project Area consists of a small neighborhood park that is regularly mowed and maintained. Low grass covers the majority of the Project Area with landscape trees and shrubs around the perimeter, a small play structure and basketball court to the west, scattered picnic benches, and a preexisting well building located immediately adjacent to the basketball court.

Project Description: The project involves constructing a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 located in Yosemite Village Park to remove 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with California Code Regulations, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is 0.005 micrograms per Liter (µg/L). The City is considering two Layout Options as described below.

1001 W. CENTER ST. MANTECA, CA 95337 (209) 456-8425 FAX (209) 923-8940 during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14-feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing Well 29 footprint.

Findings/Determination: They City of Manteca has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as supported by evidence provided in the Initial Study. The City of Manteca hereby prepares and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

IS/MND Document Review and Availability: The public review and comment period for the Draft IS/MND will extend for 30 days starting July 14, 2023 and ending August 14, 2023. Draft IS/MND can be viewed and/or downloaded at the following website:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/engineering/project-information/-folder60#docan768_1395_288 Comments/Questions: Comments and/or questions regarding the IS/MND may be directed to:

City of Manteca Engineering Department
Attn: Elba Mijango, Associate Engineer
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, CA 95337
or
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 3

APPENDIX B
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT
IniƟal Study and
MiƟgated
NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
for the
City of Manteca
Well 29 TCP
Treatment Project
SCH #2023070265
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, California 95337
July 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Manteca
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project
Manteca, California
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, California 95337
Prepared By:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, California 95677
July 2023
ATTACHMENT 3

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency:

Project Proponent:

Project Location:

Project Description:

City of Manteca
City of Manteca Engineering Department
614 El Portal Avenue
Manteca, California 95337
The project involves constructing a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 located in Yosemite Village Park to remove 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with California Code Regulations, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is 0.005 micrograms per Liter (µg/L). The City is considering two Layout Options as described below.

Layout Option A would place six new 12-foot-diameter GAC treatment vessels directly to the east of the existing well site on a concrete pad measuring 40 by 60- feet. The new GAC system would tie into the existing Well 29 raw water discharge pipe, prior to arsenic treatment, via two new 12-inch pipes that would run approximately 90-feet southwest. The new GAC vessels would discharge backwash waste into an 8-inch pipe running approximately 255-feet from the GAC vessels to the existing backwash tank located adjacent to the arsenic treatment system. The existing site fencing would be continued around the new treatment facility, and two 16-foot sliding gates would be added for maintenance access. The hypochlorite injection point for potable water disinfection would be relocated from the existing wellhead to an above-grade injection point after the GAC treatment system. A connection to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made in the street adjacent to the site with a new sanitary sewer manhole. An additional sanitary sewer manhole and drain lines would be installed onsite for collecting wash water from the backwash process and excess water that must be drained during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14-feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing Well 29 footprint.

Layout Option B would include the majority of the same infrastructure as Layout Option A but would be located directly north of the existing well site. Due to the location of Option B, a new 16-foot-wide access driveway would be required just north of the new infrastructure. Since this layout option would be placed where the existing basketball court is located, a new basketball court is being proposed east of the existing playground. Option B would not require tree removal as a part of the Proposed Project
Public Review Period: July 14, 2023 to August 14, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects:

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys. Within 14 days prior to construction activities and vegetation removal, a qualified biologist will survey the Project Area and 500 feet adjacent for nesting birds. If an active nest (i.e., containing eggs or young) is observed, the qualified biologist will install a species-specific no-disturbance buffer around the active nest. No Project activities will occur within the no-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If there is a lapse in construction activities of 15 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to reinitiating construction activities.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered, all constructionrelated activities within 100 feet shall be immediately halted and the City of Manteca should be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, hereafter qualified archaeologist, should inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the Project could damage a significant cultural resource, mitigation should be implemented with a preference for preservation in place, consistent with the priorities set forth in CEQA ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-3 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist should prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Manteca and, for prehistoric resources, the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s). If the resource is determined to be a TCR, as defined by PRC 21074, the City of Manteca, in consultation with the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s), should, if feasible, minimize significant adverse impacts by avoiding the resource or treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, which includes protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting the traditional use of the resource, and protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

Transportation
TRANS-1: Prior to the start of construction of the Project, the City shall require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s traffic control guidelines and shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
 Provide written notice at least 2 weeks prior to the start of construction to owners/occupants along streets affected during construction.  Signage, striping, delineated detours, flagging operations and any other devices will be used during construction to guide motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians safely through the construction area and allow for adequate access and circulation.  Designate detours or alternative routes for bicyclists using affected bicycle lanes as well as for pedestrians using adjacent sidewalks.
 Maintain continuous vehicular and pedestrian access to any affected residential driveways from the public street to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes such continuous access for reasonable periods of time.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-4 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
 Ensure that the construction of the Project does not interfere unnecessarily with the work of other agencies such as mail delivery, school buses, and municipal waste services.
 Notify local emergency responders of any planned partial- or full-lane closures or blocked access to roadways or driveways required for Project construction.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. i July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Project Location/Site Characteristics...................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Project Background....................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Project Timing ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals.......................................................................... 2-0

2.6 Consultation With California Native American Tribe(s) .................................................................. 2-0

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND DETERMINATION.................................... 3-1

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected......................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Aesthetics (I) Environmental Checklist and Discussion .................................................. 4-1

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................................................ 4-4

4.2.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (II) Environmental Checklist and Discussion......................................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.3.2 Air Quality (III) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ............................................... 4-9

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-16

4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................... 4-16

4.4.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.2 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion......................... 4-17

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-20

4.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 4-20

4.5.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-21

4.5.2 Sources Reviewed........................................................................................................................ 4-21 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. ii July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.5.3 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.............................. 4-22

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-24

4.6 Energy............................................................................................................................................................... 4-24

4.6.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-24

4.6.2 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion .................................................... 4-25

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-27

4.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 4-27

4.7.1 Geomorphic Setting................................................................................................................... 4-27

4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ............................ 4-28

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-32

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 4-32

4.8.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-32

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ......... 4-35

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-36

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................... 4-36

4.9.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-36

4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 4-37

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-40

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 4-40

4.10.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-40

4.10.2 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion........ 4-40

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-43

4.11 Land Use and Planning.............................................................................................................................. 4-43

4.11.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-43

4.11.2 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.................... 4-44

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-45

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................ 4-45

4.12.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-45

4.12.2 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion............................ 4-46

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-46

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-46

4.13.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-46

4.13.2 Noise (XIII.) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ................................................... 4-51

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-55 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. iii July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................... 4-55

4.14.1 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.............. 4-55

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-56

4.15 Public Services............................................................................................................................................... 4-56

4.15.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-56

4.15.2 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion................................... 4-57

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.16 Recreation....................................................................................................................................................... 4-57

4.16.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-57

4.16.2 Recreation (XVI) Materials Checklist.................................................................................... 4-58

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-58

4.17 Transportation............................................................................................................................................... 4-59

4.17.1 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ................................ 4-59

4.17.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-61

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 4-62

4.18.1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................................... 4-62

4.18.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................... 4-63

4.18.3 Summary of Tribal Consultation............................................................................................ 4-65

4.18.4 Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................... 4-65

4.18.5 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion........... 4-66

4.18.6 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-67

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................... 4-67

4.19.1 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 4-67

4.19.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-69

4.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................. 4-70

4.20.1 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion................................................. 4-70

4.20.2 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................. 4-71

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................................... 4-72

4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 4-72

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Lead Agency Name ....................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 ECORP Consulting, Inc. ................................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 HydroScience Engineers.............................................................................................................................. 5-1 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. iv July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................................................. 6-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Proposed Project Components ............................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2-2. Proposed Project Components ............................................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions..................................................................................................................... 4-10 Table 4.3-2. Health Risk Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 4-14 Table 4.6-1. Automotive Fuel Consumption in in San Joaquin County 2018 - 2022 .......................................... 4-25 Table 4.6-2. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption.................................................................................... 4-26 Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 4-35 Table 4.13-1. ANSI Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 A-weighted Sound Levels Corresponding to Land Use and Population Density....................................................................................................................................................... 4-50 Table 4.13-2. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Receptors ............................ 4-52 Table 4.13-3. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................................................ 4-53 Table 4.13-4. Construction Vibration Levels at 170 Feet............................................................................................... 4-54

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project Location and Vicinity ............................................................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1. Proposed Site Layout- Option A........................................................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-2. Alternative Site Layout- Option B...................................................................................................................... 2-7

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality/Climate Change Modeling Results A1 – Air Quality/Climate Change Modeling, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 A2 – Prioritization Calculator, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix C – Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix D – Total Construction-Related Gasoline Usage, ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Blackburn Consulting, 2023 Appendix F – Roadway Construction Noise Model, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. v July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
µg/L Micrograms per Liter
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BAU Business-as-Usual
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
BPS Best Performance Standards
CAA Clean Air Act
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCIC Central California Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CHL California Historical Landmark
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CI Coccidioides immitis
City City of Manteca Engineering Department
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CM Coccidioidomycosis
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
cy Cubic Yard
dB Decibels
DHS Department of Health Services
DOC Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Endangered Species Acts
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. vi July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Term Definition
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GLO General Land Office
gpm Gallons Per Minute
HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan
HRA Health Risk Assessment
IS Initial Study
kWh Kilowatt-Hours
Ldn Day-Night Average
Leq Equivalent Noise Level
LF Linear Feet
LRA Local Responsibility Areas
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
MMT Million Metric Tons
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph Miles per Hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 Ozone
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PHG Public Health Goal
PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less ppt Parts Per Trillion
PRC Public Resources Code
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
Project City of Manteca TCP Treatment Project/
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
SB Senate Bill
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SRA State Responsibility Areas
sf Square Feet
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. vii July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Term Definition
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SRA Sensitive Receptor Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCP 1,2,3-trichloropropane
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WQCF Manteca Water Quality Control Facility
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. viii July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Summary
Project Title: City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, California 95337
Contact Person and Phone Number: Elba Mijango, Associate Engineer 209-456-8460
Project Location: Yosemite Village Park
614 El Portal Avenue
Manteca, California
General Plan Designation: P-Park
Zoning: Park (P)

1.2 Introduction
The City of Manteca (City) is the Lead Agency for this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study (IS). This IS has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the City of Manteca TCP Treatment Project (Project) to satisfy CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) and state CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.).

CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before approving those projects. The City will use this CEQA IS to determine which CEQA document is appropriate for the Project: Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

In accordance with CEQA, this IS/MND will be circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period.

Written comments on the Draft IS/MND should be submitted to:

City of Manteca Engineering Department
Attn: Elba Mijango
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, California 95337
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

1.3 Project Location/Site Characteristics
Well 29 is located at 614 El Portal Avenue in Manteca, California (Figure 1-1) on the west side of Yosemite Village Park. Well 29 was drilled in 2017. The Project Area consists of a small neighborhood park that is regularly mowed and maintained. Low grass covers the majority of the Project Area with landscape trees and shrubs around the perimeter, a small play structure and basketball court to the west, scattered picnic benches, and a preexisting well building located immediately adjacent to the basketball court.

ATTACHMENT 3
Study Area
120
4 99
Tracy
Stockton
132
580 Modesto
Oakdale
Map Date: 3/27/2023
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2023\2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\MW29 Location and Vicinity.aprx - MW29 Location and Vicinity 20230327 (jwelsh - 3/27/2023) Manteca, CA [1952 (p.r.1980, m.r.1994),
NAD 27]
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

San Joaquin County, California
§5, T.02S, R.07E, MDBM
Latitude (NAD83): 37.792718°
Longitude (NAD83): -121.23254°
Watershed: San Joaquin Delta (18040003)
I 0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP
Figure 1-1. Project Location and Vicinity
Study Area - 1.79 ac.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-4 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Background
In August 2009, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment established a California Public Health Goal (PHG) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) of 0.0007 µg/L (0.7 Parts Per Trillion [ppt]) based on carcinogenicity, or the ability to produce cancer. This is the second lowest California PHG among all drinking water contaminants. In July 2017, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a regulation with a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppt (0.005 µg/L) for TCP, which became effective in December 2017.

The City of Manteca has a population of approximately 86,928 people. The City’s water system provides potable water to both residential and commercial customers within an approximately 18-square-mile area through approximately 23,436 service connections. The City’s entire water supply is extracted from 15 groundwater wells and treated surface water purchased from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. The City’s water is supplied to customers through a water distribution system operated as a single pressure zone.

The City of Manteca Department of Public Works Water Division began sampling the City’s groundwater wells for compliance with the TCP in June 2019, and TCP was detected on October 12 and 26, 2020. A Compliance order was issued to the city on April 2, 2021 for TCP treatment by April 10, 2024.

2.2 Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to construct a Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) water treatment system to treat the water produced by Well 29 to remove TCP to achieve a treated water concentration that complies with California SWRCB Compliance Order No. 01-10-21R-002. This Order requires compliance with CCR, Title 22, Section 64444 on or before April 10, 2024. The MCL for TCP is 0.005 µg/L.

2.3 Project Characteristics
The Project Site currently contains a well house, emergency diesel generator, a backwash tank, and two arsenic filter vessels. The filters will continue to be used to remove arsenic. Well 29 is connected at two locations to the distribution system; one connection is located west of the well site at El Portal Avenue and the other connection is located to the east at El Capitan Avenue as shown in Figure 2. Well 29 has a deep well turbine pump that produces 2,000 Gallons Per Minute (gpm) at 50 pounds per square inch.

During normal operation, a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) operates the pump as determined by system demand. The VFD is controlled by a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC receives a call to run, then signals the VFD to start the pump and run at the flow rate needed to maintain a preset system pressure. The PLC also starts the sodium hypochlorite metering pump and flow paces the sodium hypochlorite metering pump to match the well flow. A portion of the pump discharge flow is diverted into the arsenic filters through the use of a blending valve.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
The amount of water to be treated by the arsenic filters has been predetermined, based on the arsenic concentration in the source water and the desired arsenic level in the blended effluent (the water leaving the well facility must have an arsenic concentration <10 Parts per Billion or ug/L).

The Proposed Project has two layout options: Proposed Site Layout- Option A and Alternative Site Layout- Option B. Components of these two options are detailed below and summarized in Table 2-1.

Layout Option A would place six new 12-foot-diameter GAC treatment vessels directly to the east of the existing well site (Figure 2-1) on a concrete pad measuring 40 by 60 feet. The new GAC system would tie into the existing Well 29 raw water discharge pipe, prior to arsenic treatment, via two new 12-inch pipes that would run approximately 90 feet southwest. The new GAC vessels would discharge backwash waste into an 8-inch pipe running approximately 255 feet from the GAC vessels to the existing backwash tank located adjacent to the arsenic treatment system. The existing site fencing would be extended around the new treatment facility, and two 16-foot sliding gates would be added for maintenance access. The hypochlorite injection point for potable water disinfection would be relocated from the existing wellhead to an above-grade injection point after the GAC treatment system. A connection to the existing sanitary sewer system would be made in the street adjacent to the site with a new sanitary sewer manhole. An additional sanitary sewer manhole hole and drain lines would be installed onsite for collecting wash water from the backwash process and excess water that must be drained during media change-outs from the GAC delivery truck. Media change outs are completed by sending a water and media slurry from the treatment vessels to the GAC delivery trucks. Excess water must be drained from the trucks after the slurry pumping operation is completed and before the truck may depart. The water utilized to generate the slurry is potable water. The existing driveway would be widened by 14 feet and additional pavement added to accommodate the truck turning radius. Option A would require removal of one ornamental tree located at the southeast corner of the existing well 29 footprint.

Layout Option B would include the majority of the same infrastructure as Layout Option A but would be located directly north of the existing well site (Figure 2-2). Due to the location of Option B, a new 16-footwide access driveway would be required just north of the new infrastructure. Since this Layout Option would be placed where the existing basketball court is located, a new basketball court would be constructed east of the existing playground (Figure 2-2). Option B would not require tree removal as a part of the Proposed Project.

Table 2-1. Proposed Project Components
Layout New Component or
Feature Size Within Existing Footprint?
Option A Concrete pavement 5,700 Square Feet (sf) No, located adjacent on expanded site within
existing City property.

All new tanks and fencing
would be adjacent to and
Perimeter fence, iron
ornamental, with gates
180 Linear Feet (LF), 7 feet high
GAC filter tanks, welded
painted steel
Each: 10,000 gallon 18.3 feet tall
by 12 feet diameter; quantity of 6
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-3 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Table 2-1. Proposed Project Components
Layout New Component or
Feature Size Within Existing Footprint?
Buried yard piping 8-12 inches diameter, 470 LF outside of existing fenced area
Above-grade piping 8-12 in diameter, 120 LF
Landscaping Trees and shrubs around portion
of perimeter for screening
purposes
Option B Concrete pavement 6,800 sf No, located adjacent on expanded site within
existing City property.

All new tanks and fencing
would be adjacent to and
outside of existing fenced
area
Perimeter fence, iron
ornamental, with gates
145 (linear feet) LF, 7 feet high
GAC filter tanks, welded
painted steel
Each: 10,000 gallon 18.3 feet tall
by 12 feet diameter; quantity of 6
Buried yard piping 8-12 inches diameter, 670 LF
Above-grade piping 8-12 inches diameter, 120 LF
Landscaping Trees and shrubs around portion
of perimeter for screening
purposes

2.4 Project Timing
Table 2-2 summarizes the proposed construction activities, construction footprint, change in impervious surfaces, estimated construction vehicle trips, equipment and the Project schedule required to implement the project. The information presented in Table 2 represents a conservative estimate of Project construction requirements. Demolition would include removal of some existing landscaping and fencing.

Some minor saw-cutting of concrete/curbs would be required for tying in of underground utilities. Offhaul of approximately 50 cubic yards of material is anticipated.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-4 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Table 2-2. Proposed Project Components
Layout Construction Tasks
Disturbance Area Increase in
Impervious
Surface
(above
existing
conditions)
Construction
Vehicle Trips,
Haul/Delivery
Truck Trips
Estimated Construction
Equipment (Quantity
and Duration)
Construction
Duration
Temporary
Disturbance
Area
(Mobilization/
laydown area)
Permanent
Disturbance
Area
Option A • Demolition of
landscaping and
fences.
• Clearing & grubbing.
• Site grading.
• Underground utility
piping.
• Underground electrical
conduit installation.
• Underground piping in
public streets.
• Concrete forming and
rebar placement.
• Pouring concrete slabs
and footings.
• Placement of above
ground piping and
filter vessels.
33,000 SF 8,100 SF 5,600 SF • 12 worker
vehicles per
day
• 8 truck trips
per day
• Work trucks (2 per
day)
• Possibly a crane (if not,
a boom truck) (1 day)
• Backhoe/ skip loader/
front loader (2 weeks)
• Concrete trucks (1-2
days)
• Concrete pump (1-2
days)
• Dump Truck (3 trips)
• Vibratory Compaction
Equipment
February 2024-
August 2024
(6 months)
Option B Same as above Same as above 6,900 SF 3,800 SF Same as above Same as above Same as above ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 2-1. Proposed Site Layout - Option A
2023-051.01 Manteca Well 29 Treatment Project
Source: HydroScience Engineers

WIDEN (E) DRIVE
.. ,
'----'b---~_..EXJSTING 1 !2" I f O
DIST l<bN
..------- I\!
I
,.·
DISCHARGE BACKWA~~I, :Ak I
~~------.--~-.c'----"- 71f I AN
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONS LTA TS
~ EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
\ ) DEMO FENCE AND GATE
·-~ ~~...,,..., .J}

CONTINUE EXISTING FENCING

AROUND GAC TREATMENT SITE

RELOCATE HYPO INJECTION FROM

WELLHEAD TO GAC TREATMENT DISCHARGE
12-FT DIA GAC TREATMENT
VESSELS x6
2" HB
16 FT ROLLING GATE x 2
~~~~¾~_::_oc-----tS!E3 _~""1 (N) 12" RAW WATER AND TREATED WATER , ~ (N) 8" BACKWASH WASTE
'SSCO -=-

REMOVE EXISTING TREE

EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING 1 RSENIC TREATMENT
~ EXISTING 1~ ' W TO -

DISTRIBUTION
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-6 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 2-2. Alternative Site Layout - Option B
2023-051.01 Manteca Well 29 Project
Source: HydroScience
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRON MENTAL CO NS ULT ANTS
,--7
I I

I -I - ---'---OPTIONAL RELOCATED BASKETBALL COURT
L
__ _J

EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT

TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED
16 FT ROLLING GATE

EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN

CONTINUE EXISTING FENCING

AROUND GAC TREATMENT SITE

RELOCATE HYPO INJECTION FROM

WELLHEAD TO GAC TREATMENT DISCHARGE
12-FT DIA GAC TREATMENT
VESSELS x6
:f<==-~ ~ ~ ~~=--------------= .. -----=--- ---~
EXISTING \ RSENIC TREATMENT
~ EXISTING 12"WTO

DISTRIBUTION

ATTACHMENT
3 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-8 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-0 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals
A summary of permits and approvals that could be required for Project implementation is provided below.

Further regulatory approvals could be required in the event that local, county, state, or federal agencies determine that specific construction activities require additional permits or approvals.

Federal
 At this time, federal approvals do not appear to be required for project implementation.

State
 SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water: The City’s water supply permit would need to be amended to include the addition of wellhead treatment and would require submittal of design plans. An operations plan would need to be submitted that covers the treatment plant.  State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) System Technical Report Local
 City of Manteca City Council: adoption of the IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and approval of project.
 Encroachment Permit
 Hydrant Meter Permit
 Permission and/or Approval from the City for any tree removal.

2.6 Consultation With California Native American Tribe(s) The City has notified the following California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project: Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, California Valley Miwok Tribe, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom. As of this time, the City has not received responses back nor has any tribe requested consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1. Section 4.18 of this IS/MND provides a summary of the notification process.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED AND

DETERMINATION

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Hazards/Hazardous Materials Recreation
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation Air Quality Land Use and Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Wildfire
Energy Paleontological Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Geology and Soils Population and Housing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Public Services
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project, nothing further is required.

City of Manteca
Kevin Jorgensen II, Director of Engineering/City Engineer Date
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.1 Environmental Setting

4.1.1.1 Regional Setting
State Scenic Highways
The California Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the scenic beauty of California’s highways and adjacent corridors. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) can designate a highway as scenic based on how much natural beauty can be seen by users of the highway, the quality of the scenic landscape, and if development impacts the enjoyment of the view.

The Project Area is not within a scenic highway corridor (Caltrans 2023).

Community Design Policy
The General Plan does not include any designated scenic resources. However, the Community Design Element in the General Plan considers scenic quality in the context of the community form and quality of the built environment.

Community Design Policy-27 states: The City shall encourage designs for new construction and renovation in in-fill neighborhoods that are compatible with the adjacent buildings and the existing residential scale and character of the neighborhood.

4.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Site
The visual character of the Well 29 site is defined by the surrounding residential neighborhood and Yosemite Village Park, where the Project Site is located. The park is a small, developed neighborhood park that includes existing well infrastructure, one basketball court, a small playground and swing set, mowed grass field, and scattered picnic tables. The park is lined by numerous large ornamental trees. The park is visible from an approximate 500-foot section of El Portal Avenue (between Tenaya Court and Marion Street) and a 140-foot section of El Capitan Avenue (between Tioga Way and El Capitan Court). Other than those two areas, the park is bordered by 6-foot residential privacy fencing (backyard fencing).

4.1.2 Aesthetics (I) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
No Impact.

Due to the flat urbanized character of the surrounding area and flat topography, there are no scenic vistas of, or within the well site vicinity. Further, due to the flat topography and density of structures and landscaping surrounding the park, the project site is not in the foreground of a distant scenic vista. While the project will make minor visible changes to the infrastructure that is currently onsite, the project will have no effect on a scenic vista.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.

The Project Site is not within view of any designated state or local scenic highways or routes (Caltrans 2023; San Joaquin County 2023). Therefore, the Project would have no impact on designated state, or local, scenic highways.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an
urbanized area, would the Project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The City of Manteca is considered an urbanized area, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, and as mapped by the U.S. Census; thus, considering impacts associated with degradation of existing visual character or quality are considered in the context of the potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The General Plan does not include any designated scenic resources. The Community Design Element of the General Plan considers scenic quality in the context of the community form and quality of the built environment.

The design for the Proposed Project is similar to existing infrastructure already in place at the site. Given the limited General Plan policy or guidance related to scenic quality resources and because the Project Area is within an area of public use; the City, as Lead Agency must consider the potential for the Project to □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-3 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and surrounding areas as described below.

4.1.2.1 Project Construction
Project construction activities would include equipment and materials staging and laydown; site preparation, consisting of excavation and grading; construction of new facilities; and landscape improvements such as revegetation. Construction activities could be intermittently visible to people traveling along El Portal or El Captain Avenue, but such views of the site would be fleeting and indirect, as travelers would be in motion and focused on their path of travel. Moreover, the work areas and construction materials, to the extent visible, would be temporary and would not conflict with the scale and extent of the houses and other structures in the area and/or the defining characteristic of the City’s developed neighborhoods.

As noted in Table 2-2, construction material staging and storage are anticipated to occur entirely within the boundaries of the construction site, which would be closed to the public during Project construction.

The work area would be enclosed by chain link fencing. Thus, views of Project construction would be mostly limited to short-range views from areas immediately surrounding the active construction sites.

Since the Project Site is a public park, it is possible that people passing through the park would see construction activities; however, considering the small size of the work area, most park visitors would be able to find areas of the park where views were not obstructed by temporary construction equipment or fencing. Given that any adverse effects on the aesthetic character of the park resulting from the presence of construction equipment and associated materials would be temporary and generally limited to the active work areas as people pass the work area, the impact would be less than significant.

4.1.2.2 Project Operation
As described above, the Proposed Project would occur within areas previously developed or disturbed.

Upon completion of construction, disturbed areas beyond the Project footprint would be returned to their approximate pre-construction conditions. The changes to the existing site with the addition of treatment facilities would not be considered demonstrably adverse because they would be consistent with existing facilities and uses, as well as the intended purpose of these developed City-owned sites.

While the visual character of the site would be slightly altered, it would be screened with fencing and landscaping, which would limit views of the facility from the surrounding neighborhood and park. The Project Area does not offer notable views to scenic resources as described in Criterion A above, and the General Plan does not include any designated scenic resources. The materials and colors proposed for the major components of the treatment facilities include the following: GAC tanks would be welded, painted steel; exposed piping would be painted steel; and the color for all tanks would be determined from a palette that includes earth tone shades of grey, green, tan or blue based on the surrounding environment.

As described above, the Project would occur in an urbanized area, primarily adjacent to the existing well facility and water infrastructure. Under either option, the site would be designed with visual screening consisting of landscaping and fencing to reduce the visibility of the site from public views and to remain ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-4 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
compatible with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista and applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Would the Project create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would not include nighttime construction and there would be no lighting required during the construction phase. As part of the Proposed Project, the GAC treatment plants would have site lighting installed. Lighting would be designed for low light spillover utilizing shields or other light pollution reduction features. Site lighting would be automated with photocells and be provided with dimming controls. The default lighting level would be set to the minimum lighting level required for site security, with the ability for operators to manually and temporarily increase in the event that night work (i.e., operation or maintenance) is required. The need for night operations and maintenance visits is expected to be infrequent due to the low maintenance requirements of this system. Therefore, the Project would not introduce any new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area and the impact would be less than significant.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Site is located within the existing Yosemite Village Park and is not located on land that is considered agricultural or forest land and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, the site is not zoned for agriculture or forestry use or under Williamson Act contract.
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-5 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (II) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact.

The Project Site is not on land that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder map; the Proposed Project site is on land that is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2023). Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and the result would be no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project site is not located on land that is zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on this criterion.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-6 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
No Impact.

The Project Site is zoned as Park (City of Manteca 2018). Furthermore, the site does not conflict with existing zoning for, or would cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland-zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have no impact on this criterion.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use at any of the Project Sites as no forest lands occur in the Project Area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on this criterion.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Refer to discussions under items 2a, 2b, and 2d, indicating that no agricultural or forest land occurs in the Project Area. Further, the purpose of the Project is to improve water quality to meet current water quality standards but does not increase water supply for the City of Manteca and would not result in a change in the environment that could result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impact on this criterion.

4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-7 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.3 Air Quality
This assessment was prepared using methods and assumptions recommended in the rules and regulations of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Regional and local existing conditions are presented, along with pertinent pollutant emissions standards and regulations. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate criteria air pollutants attributable to the Project and determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Site is located in the City of Manteca. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Proposed Project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB occupies the southern two-thirds of the Central Valley. SJVAB is mostly flat, less than 1,000 feet in elevation, and is surrounded on three sides by the Sierra Nevada, Tehachapi, and Coast Range mountains. This bowl-shaped feature forms a natural barrier to the dispersion (spreading over an area) of air pollutants. As a result, the SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time.

The climate in the SJVAB is strongly influenced by the presence of mountain ranges. The mountains create a partial rain shadow over the valley and block the free circulation of air, trapping stable air in the valley for extended periods. The climate is semi-arid and is characterized by long, hot, dry summers and cool, wet, and foggy winters. Based on historical data, ambient temperatures range from an average minimum of 39˚F in January to an average maximum of 98˚F in July. The average monthly precipitation is approximately 6.24 inches per year, with January and February averaging 1.35 inches. The average daily wind speed is 5.9 miles per hour (mph). The air flow patterns are characterized by one of four directions depending on the season. For example, during the summer, winds are predominantly northwestern (upvalley), while winters typically feature a prevailing stagnant condition that leads to high incidence of valley fog.

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards establish safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called criteria pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (PM), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas.

The air quality regulating authority in Manteca is the SJVAPCD, whose primary responsibility is ensuring that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards are attained and maintained in the SJVAB, which encompasses Manteca and the Project Site. The City of Manteca, located in San Joaquin County, is designated as a nonattainment for the national standards O3 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and designated as a nonattainment area for the state standards of O3, coarse particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5 (CARB 2022a). The SJVAPCD is responsible for adopting or creating a ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-8 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
comprehensive plan to reduce the emissions of these criteria pollutants. They also enforce rules and regulations, inspect and issue permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, respond to citizen complaints, monitor ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, award grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conduct public education campaigns. The SJVAPCD coordinates work from government agencies, businesses, and private citizens to achieve and maintain healthy air quality.

The following is a list of noteworthy SJVAPCD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Proposed Project:
 Regulation IV (Visible Emissions), Rule 4101, Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public from source operations that emit or may emit air contaminants or other materials. It prohibits emissions of air contaminants or other materials “which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public.”
 Regulation IV (Visible Emissions), Rule 4601, Architectural Coatings. The rule limits Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from architectural coatings and specifies practices for proper storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. Rule 4601 applies to “any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any architectural coating, or who manufactures, blends or repackages any architectural coating for use within the District.” Materials covered by the rule include adhesives, architectural coatings, paints, varnishes, sealers, stains, concrete curing compounds, concrete/masonry sealers, and waterproofing sealers.  Regulation IV (Visible Emissions), Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Curve and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of certain types of asphalt and maintenance operations and applies to the use of these materials. Specifically, certain types of asphalt cannot be used for penetrating prime coat, dust palliative, or other paving: rapid cure and medium cure cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt that contains more than 0.5 percent of organic compound, which evaporates at 500˚F or lower, and emulsified asphalt containing VOC in excess of 3 percent, which evaporates at 500˚F or lower.
 Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), Rules 8021–8071, Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

The purpose of these rules is to limit airborne particulate emissions associated with construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities, as well as with open disturbed land and emissions associated with paved and unpaved roads. Accordingly, these rules include specific measures to be employed to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions from anthropogenic sources.
 Regulation IX (Mobile and Indirect Sources), Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review. This rule will reduce emissions of NOx and PM10 from new development projects that attract or generate motor vehicle trips. In general, new development contributes to the air pollution problem in the SJVAB by increasing the number of vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. Although newer, cleaner technology is reducing per-vehicle pollution, the emissions increase from new development ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-9 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
partially offsets emission reductions gained from technology advances. Indirect Source Review applies to larger development projects that have not yet gained discretionary approval.

4.3.2 Air Quality (III) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
No impact.

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. The Project region is classified as nonattainment for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for state O3, PM2.5 and PM10 standards (CARB 2022a). The USEPA, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), requires each state with regions that have not attained the federal air quality standards to prepare a SIP detailing how these standards are to be met in each local area. The SIP is a legal agreement between each state and the federal government to commit resources to improving air quality. It serves as the template for conducting regional and project‐ level air quality analysis. CARB is the lead agency for developing the SIP in California. Local air districts, such as the SJVAPCD, prepare air quality attainment plans or air quality management plans and submit them to CARB for review, approval, and incorporation into the applicable SIP. The air districts develop the strategies stated in the SIPs for achieving air quality standards on a regional basis.

The SJVAPCD is required, pursuant to the federal CAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SJVAB is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SJVAPCD prepared the following air quality plans:
 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan
 2007 Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2009 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard
 2014 RACT SIP
 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2020 RACT Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard  2022 Plan for the 2018 8-Hour Ozone Standard
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-10 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan
 2008 PM2.5 Plan
 2012 PM2.5 Plan
 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard
 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard
 2018 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard
These plans collectively address the air basin’s nonattainment status with the national and state O3 standards as well as particulate matter by establishing a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards.

Pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions.

According to the SJVAPCD (2015), the established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD New Source Review offset requirements for stationary sources.

Stationary sources in the SJVAB are subject to some of the most stringent regulatory requirements in the nation. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality planning efforts. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are determined to “Not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plan” (SJVAPCD 2015). As shown in Table 4.3-1, Project construction would not generate emissions that would exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds and therefore would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations. Additionally, once construction is complete, the Project would not generate quantifiable criteria emissions from Project operations. The Project would not conflict with any applicable air quality plans. There is no impact.

Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions
Activity ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Pollutant (tons per year)
Construction Calendar Year
One 0.03 0.20 0.22 0.0 0.00 0.00
SJVAPCD Significance
Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed SJVAPCD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix A1 for Model Data Outputs.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-11 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Emissions associated with Project construction would be temporary and short-term but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. Two basic sources of short-term emissions will be generated through Project construction: operation of the heavy-duty equipment (i.e., excavators, loaders, haul trucks) and the creation of fugitive dust during excavation. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive PM emissions that affect local air quality at various times during construction.

Effects would be variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. The dry climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation. Project construction activities would be subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, which specifies the following measures to control fugitive dust:
 Apply water to unpaved surfaces and areas.
 Use nontoxic chemical or organic dust suppressants on unpaved roads and traffic areas.  Limit or reduce vehicle speed on unpaved roads and traffic areas to a maximum 15 mph.  Maintain areas in a stabilized condition by restricting vehicle access.  Install wind barriers.
 During high winds, cease outdoor activities that disturb the soil.  Keep bulk materials sufficiently wet when handling.
 Store and handle materials in a three-sided structure.  When storing bulk materials, apply water to the surface or cover the storage pile with a tarp.  Don’t overload haul trucks. Overloaded trucks are likely to spill bulk materials.  Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover. Or, wet the top of the load enough to limit visible dust emissions.
 Clean the interior of cargo compartments on emptied haul trucks prior to leaving a site.  Prevent trackout by installing a trackout control device. □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-12 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
 Clean up trackout at least once a day. If along a busy road or highway, clean up trackout immediately.
 Monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate measures for maximum dust control.

Construction-generated emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.12. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction-generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Joaquin County as well as construction phasing, timing and equipment provided by the Project proponent. See Appendix A for the assumptions used in this analysis. It is noted that the Project has two layout options. For a conservative analysis, the option disturbing the most area during construction was used in the emission modeling. It is noted that the construction equipment for each layout option is the same.

Predicted daily and maximum emissions attributable to Project construction are summarized in Table 4.3-1. Such emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as Project construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance.

As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction-related emissions would not exceed thresholds established by the SJVAPCD or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The impact is less than significant.

In addition to the SJVAPCD criteria air pollutant thresholds, SJVAPCD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, aims to fulfill the SJVAPCD’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans.

This rule applies to the following construction projects within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD:
 50 residential units,
 2,000 sf of commercial space,
 25,000 sf of light industrial space,
 100,000 sf of heavy industrial space,
 20,000 sf of medical office space,
 39,000 sf of general office space,
 9,000 sf of educational space,
 10,000 sf of government space,
 20,000 sf of recreational space, or
 9,000 sf of space not identified above.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-13 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
This rule also applies to any transportation or transit project where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed 2 tons of NOx 2 tons of PM10.

Since the Project does not include the construction of a permanent building and is not a transportation project, the Proposed Project would not be required to comply with this rule.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant impact.

Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are singlefamily homes fronting El Portal Avenue and Tenaya Court located south and west of the Project Site.

4.3.2.1 Construction-Generated Air Contaminants
Construction of the Project would result in temporary, short-term Proposed Project-generated emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), Reactive Organic Gasses (ROGs), NOx, CO, and PM10 from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for Project construction; soil hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. The portion of the SJVAB that encompasses the Project Area is designated as nonattainment for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for state O3, PM2.5 and PM10 standards (CARB 2022a). Thus, existing O3 PM2.5, and PM10 levels in the SJVAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. However, as shown in Table 4.3-1, the Project would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds for construction emissions and therefore no regional health effects from Project criteria pollutants would occur.

Per SJVAPCD guidance, this analysis employs the SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator health risk screening tool to assess the potential health risk-related effects of Project construction. The SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator identifies a Prioritization score based on the Project emission potency at the vicinity sensitive residential receptors. A prioritization score of 10 or greater, as determined by this screening protocol, is potentially significant and indicates that mitigation should be imposed, or a detailed Health Risk Assessment should be performed.

In addition to cancer risk, the significance thresholds for TAC exposure requires an evaluation of noncancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. It should be noted that there is no acute health hazard for DPM, which is the only significant □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-14 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
air toxic associated with construction for this Project. Thus, the maximum acute index for construction of the Project is zero.

The calculated carcinogenic risk and highest maximum chronic hazard indexes at the nearby sensitive residential receptors due to Project construction are depicted in Table 4.3-2.

Table 4.3-2. Health Risk Summary
Exposure Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk
at Residence
Maximum Chronic
Hazard Index at
Residence
Maximum Acute
Hazard Index at
Residence
Project Construction 0.01 0.0002 0.00
SJVAPCD Screening
Threshold 10.0 1.0 1.0
Exceed SJVAPCD
Screening Threshold? No No No
Source: SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator. Refer to Appendix A2 for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.3-2, impacts related to both cancer risk and non-cancer risk (chronic and acute hazard indexes) because of Project construction would not surpass the screening thresholds at the nearest permanent, offsite sensitive residential receptors. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants.

Valley Fever
Coccidioidomycosis (CM), often referred to as San Joaquin Valley Fever or Valley Fever, is one of the most studied and oldest known fungal infections. Valley Fever most commonly affects people who live in hot dry areas with alkaline soil and varies with the season. This disease, which affects both humans and animals, is caused by inhalation of arthroconidia (spores) of the fungus Coccidioides immitis (CI). CI spores are found in the top few inches of soil and the existence of the fungus in most soil areas is temporary. The cocci fungus (an organism that grows and feeds on dead or decaying organic matter) lives as a saprophyte in dry, alkaline soil. When weather and moisture conditions are favorable, the fungus blooms and forms many tiny spores that lie dormant in the soil until they are stirred up by wind, vehicles, excavation, or other ground-moving activities and become airborne. Agricultural workers, construction workers, and other people who work outdoors and who are exposed to wind and dust are more likely to contract Valley Fever. Children and adults whose hobbies or sports activities expose them to wind and dust are also more likely to contract Valley Fever. After the fungal spores have settled in the lungs, they change into a multicellular structure called a spherule. Fungal growth in the lungs occurs as the spherule grows and bursts, releasing endospores, which then develop into more spherules.

Valley fever (CM) is found in California, including San Joaquin County. In about 50 to 75 percent of people, valley fever causes either no symptoms or mild symptoms and those infected never seek medical care; when symptoms are more pronounced, they usually present as lung problems (i.e., cough, shortness ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-15 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
of breath, sputum production, fever, and chest pains). The disease can progress to chronic or progressive lung disease and may even become disseminated to the skin, lining tissue of the brain (meninges), skeleton, and other body areas.

The fungal spores get into the air when soil containing this fungus is disturbed by ground-disturbing activities such as digging or grading, by vehicles raising dust, or by the wind. When people breathe the spores into their lungs, they may get valley fever. Fungal spores are small particles that can grow and reproduce in the body. The highest infection period for valley fever occurs during the driest months in California, between June and November. Infection from valley fever during ground-disturbing activities can be partially mitigated through the control of Project-generated dust. As noted, Project-generated dust would be controlled by adhering to SJVAPCD dust-reducing measures (Regulation VIII), which includes the preparation of a SJVAPCD-approved dust control plan describing all fugitive dust control measures that are to be implemented before, during, and after any dust-generating activity.

With minimal site grading (mass grading is not required for the installation of treatment facility) and conformance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, dust from the construction of the Project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of people to this fungus, including construction workers. In summary, Project construction would not result in a potentially significant contribution to regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants.

4.3.2.2 Operational Air Contaminants
Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in the development of any substantial sources of air toxins. There would be no stationary sources associated with Project operations; nor would the Project attract additional mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Onsite Project emissions would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at any sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would not be a substantial source of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). The Project will not result in a high carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk during operation.

This impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-16 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.

Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would not adversely affect a substantial number of people to odor emissions.

Land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Proposed Project does not include any uses identified as being associated with odors.

This impact would be less than significant.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.4 Biological Resources
This section is based on the analysis and recommendations presented in the Biological Resources Evaluation prepared for the Proposed Project (ECORP 2023, Appendix B).

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-17 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area consists of a regularly mowed and maintained suburban park. Low grass covers the majority of the Project Area with landscape trees and shrubs around the perimeter. A preexisting well building is located within the Project Area.

4.4.1.1 Aquatic Resources
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was reviewed to determine if any previously identified aquatic resources occur within the Project footprint. There are no indications of the presence of waters or wetlands on aerial photographs or street view photographs of the Project footprint, based on a review back to 1993 (Google, Inc. 2019). The reviewed sources (i.e., NWI, U.S.

Geological Survey [USGS] topographic maps, aerial photographs) indicate there are no state or federally protected wetlands or waters in the project footprint.

4.4.1.2 Special-status Species
Special-status species are regulated under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations or are species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. A list of special-status species with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project Site was compiled based on data contained in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2023), the USFWS list of federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may occur in or may be affected by the Proposed Project (USFWS 2023), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2023). Table 1 of Appendix B lists all special-status plant and animal species identified from the database queries and literature review.

Included in this table are the listing status for each species, a brief habitat description, approximate flowering period for plants and survey period for animals, and a determination on the potential to occur onsite.

4.4.2 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

Special-status species and their habitats that may be affected either directly or indirectly through implementation of the Proposed Project include nesting birds regulated by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act such as white tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), yellow-billed □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-18 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
magpie (Pica nuttallii), Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii). The Project Site and the immediate vicinity have the potential to support nesting birds. Depending on species, birds may nest in trees, shrubs, structures, signs/poles, and in or on the ground. Direct impacts on active nests could occur during initial Project activities such as clearing and grubbing, and tree removal. Nesting birds could be adversely affected if active nesting, roosting, or foraging sites are either removed or exposed to a substantial increase in noise or human presence during Project activities. The impact would be less than significant if construction activities occur during the nonbreeding season (i.e., from September 1 through January 31). However, construction activities conducted during the breeding season between February 1 and August 31 could adversely affect nesting birds and result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts to these species to less than significant.

Additionally, the trees and building within the Project Area may provide marginally suitable bat dayroosting habitat for species such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). Construction activities and noise from construction activities could impact bats roosting nearby. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required to reduce impacts to these species to less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact.

There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities in or near the Project footprint based on a review of CNDDB (CDFW 2023), aerial photographs, and street-view photographs (Google, Inc. 2023).

Therefore there would be no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) 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?
No Impact.

There are no wetlands in or near the Project footprint based on a review of NWI (USFWS 2023), aerial photographs, and street-view photographs (Google, Inc., 2023); therefore, there would be no impact. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-19 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife or fish. The Project is in an urbanized area. The Project would not impact any potential wildlife movement corridors through the urbanized area; therefore, there would be no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would remove one tree for Option A and would not require tree removal for Option B. City of Manteca, California Municipal Code Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places Chapter

12.08 Trees and Shrubs Subsection 12.08.070 addresses Tree trimming and removal and states:
“No person shall cut, prune, remove, injure or interfere with any tree, shrub, or plant upon or in any street tree area or other public place in the city without prior permission and approval therefore from the director. The director is authorized to grant such permission at his or her discretion and where necessary.”
As stated in Section 2.5, the Proposed Project would gain all applicable permissions/approvals for any tree removal activities from the City Director. Therefore, the Project has a less than significant impact on local policies and ordinances regarding biological resources because it does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and includes replacement trees for those removed.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-20 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
No Impact.

The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space plan (SJMSCP) is an adopted County-wide Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. The City of Manteca is a party to the SJMSCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires this project to implement similar survey and avoidance measures for nesting birds. The project would not conflict with the SJMSCP. There are no other adopted HCPs in the Project Area.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys. Within 14 days prior to construction activities and vegetation removal, a qualified biologist will survey the Project Area and 500 feet adjacent for nesting birds. If an active nest (i.e., containing eggs or young) is observed, the qualified biologist will install a species-specific no-disturbance buffer around the active nest. No Project activities will occur within the no-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If there is a lapse in construction activities of 15 days or more, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to reinitiating construction activities.

4.5 Cultural Resources
ECORP Consulting, Inc. prepared a Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review (ECORP 2023) for the Proposed Project to determine if cultural resources were present in or adjacent to the Project Area and assess the sensitivity of the Project Area for undiscovered or buried cultural resources. Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and historic structures, and generally consist of artifacts, food waste, structures, and facilities made by people in the past. Prehistoric archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by the native population of the area (i.e., Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in Southern California.

Places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people during the period when written ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-21 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
records were produced after the arrival of Europeans are considered historic archaeological sites. Historic structures include houses, garages, barns, commercial structures, industrial facilities, community buildings, and other structures and facilities that are more than 50 years old. Historic structures may also have associated archaeological deposits, such as abandoned wells, cellars, privies, refuse deposits, and foundations of former outbuildings.

The information provided below is an abridged version of the Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review and is included here to provide a brief context of the potential cultural resources in the Project Area. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources and their records and documentation, which are restricted from public distribution by state and federal law, the IS/MND appendices do not include the cultural resources report; however, all pertinent information necessary for impact determinations is included in this section.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area consists of approximately 1.79 acres of land located in the southwestern corner of Yosemite Village Park on El Portal Avenue in the City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. The property is in the southwestern quarter of the northwestern quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1952 (photorevised 1980, minor revision 1994) “Manteca, California” U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1-1). It is also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 219-090-10.

4.5.2 Sources Reviewed
ECORP requested a records search for the property at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Stanislaus on March 27, 2023 (CCIC Search #CC12490L; Appendix C). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.5-mile (800-meter) radius of the Proposed Project location, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. CCIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on March 28, 2023.

In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Joaquin County, ECORP also reviewed the following historic references: Built Environment Resource Directory (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2020); Historic Property Data File for San Joaquin County (OHP 2012); the National Register Information System (National Park Service 2023); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (CHL; OHP 2022); CHL (OHP 1996 and updates); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2019); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2018); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002). ECORP also reviewed geologic maps and soils data to assess buried site potential.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-22 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
 1855 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 2 South, Range 7 East;  1914 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale);  1952 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale);  1952 (photorevised 1976) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); and
 1952 (photorevised 1980, minor revision 1994) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale).

ECORP reviewed aerial photographs taken in 1957, 1968, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2017, 2018, and 2020 for any indications of property usage and built environment.

ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 27, 2023 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Area (Appendix C). This search determines whether the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have recorded Sacred Lands because the Sacred Lands File is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs), but the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies do not delegate government-to-government authority to any private entity to conduct tribal consultation.

4.5.3 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, object, site, or district listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California. The following discussion focuses on architectural and structural resources. Archaeological resources, including those that qualify as historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are addressed under criterion b.

Results of the literature and map review revealed that the property was used for agriculture prior to 1960 but was developed into a municipal park sometime between 1957 and 1968 as the city limits of Manteca expanded through the area. Further improvements were made, which began in 2017 with the installation □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-23 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
of the well and filtration system (ECORP 2023). No cultural resources have been previously identified within the Project Area, and the only previous study within the Project Area did not include a pedestrian survey and was conducted more than 20 years ago using methods and under conditions that are now considered obsolete; therefore, the Project would result in no impact to historical resources.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

As part of the determination made pursuant to PRC Section 21080.1, the lead agency shall determine whether the Project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. A significant effect would occur if a project would cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

As described above in (a), The Project Site was developed into a park sometime between 1957 and 1968 and further improvements took place in 2017 with the installation of the existing well and filtration system. Additionally, no cultural resources have been previously identified within the Project Area. Based on the environmental context and previous disturbance, it is unlikely that the Project would have an impact on cultural resources. However, since there is always a low potential that unknown archaeological resources would be discovered during Project implementation, Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, would reduce impacts potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources to less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

The records search and background research indicated that no human remains are known to exist at the Project Site. The proposed Project is not anticipated to impact human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. While unlikely, if any previously unknown human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, impacts to the human remains resulting from the Project could be potentially significant. Any potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Human Remains. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-24 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Unknown Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered, all constructionrelated activities within 100 feet shall be immediately halted and the City of Manteca should be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, hereafter qualified archaeologist, should inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the Project could damage a significant cultural resource, mitigation should be implemented with a preference for preservation in place, consistent with the priorities set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist should prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of Manteca and, for prehistoric resources, the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s). If the resource is determined to be a TCR, as defined by PRC 21074, the City of Manteca, in consultation with the ethnographically associated Native American tribe(s), should, if feasible, minimize significant adverse impacts by avoiding the resource or treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, which includes protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting the traditional use of the resource, and protecting the confidentiality of the resource.

4.6 Energy

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
California relies on a regional power system comprised of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Natural gas provides California with a majority of its electricity followed by renewables, large hydroelectric and nuclear (California Energy Commission 2022).

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to San Joaquin County. It generates or ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-25 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
buys electricity from hydroelectric, nuclear, renewable, natural gas, and coal facilities. PG&E provides natural gas and electricity to most of the northern two thirds of California, from Bakersfield and Barstow to near the Oregon, Nevada and Arizona state lines. It provides 5.2 million people with electricity and natural gas across 70,000 square miles. PG&E announced in 2019 that 100 percent of the company's delivered electricity comes from Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission-free sources, including renewables, nuclear, and hydropower (PG&E 2019).

Potential energy-related impacts associated with this Project include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal) and emissions of pollutants during the construction. Since the Proposed Project is an existing and active well site, there will be no increase in operational energy uses, and thus will not be discussed in this analysis. Discussion of the impact will focus on the equipment-fuel necessary for Project construction, the single source of energy relevant to the Proposed Project:.

4.6.1.1 Energy Consumption
Electricity use is measured in Kilowatt-Hours (kWh). Natural gas is measured in therms. Vehicle fuel use is typically measured in gallons (e.g., of gasoline or diesel fuel), although energy use for electric vehicles is measured in kWh. Total automotive fuel consumption in San Joaquin County from 2018 to 2022 is shown in Table 4.6-1. As shown, automotive fuel consumption decreased since 2018.

Table 4.6-1. Automotive Fuel Consumption in in San Joaquin County 2018 - 2022 Year Total Fuel Consumption (gallons)
2022 359,858,447
2021 358,203,636
2020 321,051,013
2019 368,235,402
2018 363,906,175
Source: CARB 2022b

4.6.2 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-26 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Less Than Significant Impact.

Operations of the Proposed Project would not result in the consumption of electricity or natural gas and thus, would not contribute to the County wide usage. The one quantifiable source of energy associated with the Project includes the equipment fuel necessary for construction. For the purpose of this analysis, Project increases in construction fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2022, the most recent full year of data. The amount of total construction-related fuel used was estimated using ratios provided in the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program, Version 2.1.

Addressing energy impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. There are no established thresholds of significance, statewide or locally, for what constitutes a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy for a proposed land use. For the purposes of this analysis, the amount of fuel necessary for Project construction is calculated and compared to that consumed in in San Joaquin County (Table 4.6-2).

Table 4.6-2. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption Energy Type Annual Energy Consumed
(gallons)
Percentage Increase
Countywide
Vehicular/Equipment Fuel Consumption
Construction Calendar Year One 5,517 0.001
Source: ECORP Consulting, Appendix D.

Notes: The Project increase construction-related fuel consumption is compared with the countywide constructionrelated fuel consumption in 2022, the most recent full year of data.

As shown in Table 4.6-2, the Project’s gasoline fuel consumption during the first and only calendar year of construction is estimated to be 5,517 gallons of fuel resulting in an annual increase of gasoline fuel use in the County by 0.001 percent. As such, Project construction would have a nominal effect on local and regional energy supplies, especially over the long term. Additionally, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with state regulations limiting engine idling times and require recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Project construction. For these reasons, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature.

Operations of the Project would not generate any fuel consumption as it would not be contributing to any mobile sources. As such, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project during operation would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-27 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact.

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to construct a water treatment system to treat water produced by Well 29. Once in operation, the Project would not increase water pumping or treatment and would supply clean water to the surrounding community. There is no impact.

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Geomorphic Setting
According to the Geotechnical Report by Blackburn Consulting (Blackburn Consulting 2023) included in Appendix E. The Project Site is located in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley Province includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and is bound by the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Ranges on the west. The relatively flat surface of the Sacramento Valley is underlain by alluvial, lacustrine, and marine sedimentary deposits that have accumulated as the structural trough (Great Valley) formed and the adjacent mountain ranges were elevated. The thickness of the sediments varies from a thin veneer along the valley margins to thousands of feet at the axis of the trough. The main axis of the trough is oriented north-south along the valley’s main drainage (over 20 miles east of the site. The site is underlain by Quaternary dune sand.

4.7.1.1 Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones
According to the Geotechnical Report by Blackburn (2023). The California DOC Division of Mines and Geology, defines an active fault as one that has been subjected to surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A fault is considered inactive if it has not shown geologic evidence of surface displacement in the last 11,000 years.

The Fault Activity Map of California and the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle do not identity Historic or Holocene age faults (displacement within the last 11,700 years) within or adjacent to the site.

Faults with Historic or Holocene (last 11,700 years) rupture are often considered active. The closest mapped fault to the site is the Quaternary Vernalis fault located approximately 6.8 miles southwest of the site.

The Project Site does not lie within or adjacent to an Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-28 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.7.1.2 Soils
According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey website (NRCS 2023), only one type of soil is present in the Project Area: Delhi-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (143). This soil is a somewhat excessively drained, wind-modified alluvium derived from granitic rock sources.

4.7.1.3 Paleontological Resources
The underlying geomorphology of this area consists of sediments deposited during flood stages of major streams in areas between natural stream levees and alluvial fans and are probably of late Pleistocene age (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2023). This means that the parcel exhibits alluvial sediments deposited by ancient and recent water flow, which can mask archaeological sites. Holocene (approximately 12,000 years ago to present) alluvial deposits are geological landforms which are likely too young for paleontological deposits.

4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.
i) The Project Area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as delineated on Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps. The closest active fault to the Project Area is the Vernalis Fault, approximately 7 miles to the southeast. Additionally, none of the proposed activities would increase the risk of surface rupture or exposure of people to loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known fault.

The impacts under this criterion would be less than significant. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-29 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking could occur in the Project Area because the active Vernalis Fault is approximately 7 miles southeast from the Project Area. While the Project would be located in a seismically active area, none of the Project components would be used for human occupancy, nor would any Project components exacerbate the existing risk of seismic shaking or associated damage. The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the Project by Blackburn Consulting provides seismic design criteria in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) and American Society of Civil Engineers 7-10 seismic design requirements (Blackburn Consulting 2023).

The Geotechnical Investigation Report by Blackburn concluded that the Project Site is suitable from a geotechnical perspective to support the proposed structures construction. Therefore, based on the proposed uses of the improvements, no exacerbation of seismic ground-shaking risks, and incorporation of building code requirements into Project design, any impact related to seismic ground shaking would be considered less than significant.
iii) The Project would not include the construction of any habitable structures and would not exacerbate any liquefaction hazards currently present. The geotechnical report by Blackburn Consulting concluded that liquefaction hazards at this site are low and the Project would not alter the potential for liquefaction to occur which is typically triggered by seismic activity. Any potential damage that could occur from liquefaction would be minimized through the implementation of building code requirements. Project components would be required to adhere to the most current version of the CBC, which includes specifications and seismic design criteria (e.g., site preparation measures and foundation design) that are created to minimize damage from anticipated ground shaking and secondary effects of liquefaction.

Therefore, based on the Project design, no exacerbation of liquefaction hazards and incorporation of seismic design criteria in accordance with building code requirements would limit the potential damage to less than significant levels.
iv) Landslides generally are any type of ground movement that occurs primarily due to gravity acting on relatively weak soils and bedrock on an over steepened slope. Slope instability is often initiated or accelerated from soil saturation and groundwater pressure, though may also be aggravated by grading activity, such as removal of toe support by excavation or addition of new loads, such as fill placement.

Areas that are more prone to landslides include old landslides, the bases or tops of steep or filled slopes, and drainage hollows. Accordingly, due to the relatively flat topography of the project site, impacts related to landslides are not expected to affect any Project components, nor would the Project directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides—seismically-induced or otherwise.

Therefore, the potential impact from landslides is less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-30 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction activities associated with the Project would require land disturbing activities such as grading and excavation that could increase the susceptibility of soils to erosion by wind and/or water, and subsequently result in soil loss or erosion. The total site size is 1.79 acres; however, implementation of the Proposed Project would require less than one acre of disturbance. Therefore, the state Construction General Permit and its required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requirement would not apply. Although a SWPPP is not required, the contractor would establish erosion protection measures to minimize erosion. Where applicable, these measures would generally consist of Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as straw waddles, silt fences and stormwater drain inlet protection. Construction materials stored on site would be either on pallets or inside containers and trash cans and/or debris dumpsters would be covered and portable toilets would include secondary containment. Once constructed, surface soils at the site would be covered by the proposed improvements and revegetated to match existing conditions such that there would not be any potential for long-term erosional effects.

Therefore, the potential impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil is less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the Project, and potentially result in
onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact.

As discussed above in criterion a) iv), the topography of the proposed improvements is relatively flat and the project would not cause or be subject to any landslide hazards. Lateral spreading, a condition related to liquefaction, and liquefaction, is also addressed above in criterion a) iii). The Project would not exacerbate any potential for lateral spreading or liquefaction and adherence to CBC requirements would minimize any adverse effects of these hazards to the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements could potentially cause subsidence through the placement of new loadings if not designed appropriately. However, all proposed improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with current building code requirements, which would minimize the potential for causing subsidence.

Collapse is generally the result of the extraction of groundwater or oil or construction on materials such as windblown deposits that are susceptible to collapse; the Project does not include any such extraction nor would any of the components be located on materials susceptible to collapse. Therefore, based on the □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-31 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
characteristics of the Project, Project Site, and adherence to CBC requirements, the potential impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Expansive soils are soils that possess a shrink-swell characteristic, also referred to as linear extensibility.

Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained and have a high to very high percentage of clay. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. If the linear extensibility is more than three percent, shrinking and swelling may cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2023). According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils present at the Project site have a low linear extensibility rating (NRCS 2018). Therefore, impacts related to soil expansion would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact.

The Project would not include any elements that would require a septic or other alternative wastewater system. Therefore, there would be no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-32 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Less Than Significant Impact.

Fill and Holocene-age alluvial deposits are mapped at the surface within the Project site. The surficial to shallow Holocene sediments are likely to be less than 12,000 years old and therefore would not be anticipated to contain significant paleontological resources. The fill and Holocene sediments would not be considered a unique paleontological resource. Additionally, the site is currently being used for the well infrastructure and a neighborhood park and is highly disturbed. Therefore, the impact relative to paleontological or unique geological resources would be less than significant.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
GHG emissions are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons, creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface, preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth’s climate system.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps more than 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds for GHG’s do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-33 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).

In addition, Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f)). As a note, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.

Per CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, the SJVAPCD provides a tiered approach in assessing significance of project specific GHG emission increases as shown below.
 Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-34 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS).
 Projects implementing BPS would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.  Projects not implementing BPS would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, and compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in the 2017 Scoping Plan. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHGs.

The BPS and the BAU portion of the SJVAPCD tiered approach are problematic based on the 2015 California Supreme Court Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 2014, 213, 221, 227 (Newhall Ranch) decision, which stated that a GHG-related impact determination based on the BAU approach is “not supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence.” Additionally, the SJVAPCD thresholds were adopted to achieve statewide GHG-reduction goals for the year 2020, and the Proposed Project would not be built until after the year 2020. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, Project GHG emissions are quantified and compared to the thresholds issued by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), which is an association of the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout California, including the SJVAPCD. CAPCOA recommends a significance threshold of 900 metric tons annually. This threshold is based on a capture rate of 90 percent of land use development projects, which in turn translates into a 90 percent capture rate of all GHG emissions. The 900 metric ton threshold is considered by CAPCOA to be low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions.

In the Newhall Ranch decision, following its review of various potential GHG thresholds proposed in an academic study [Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203], the California Supreme Court identified the use of numeric bright-line thresholds as a potential pathway for compliance with CEQA GHG requirements. The study found numeric bright line thresholds designed to determine when small projects were so small as to not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change was consistent with CEQA. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21003(f) provides it is a policy of the state that "[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment." The ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-35 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Supreme Court-reviewed study noted, "[s]ubjecting the smallest projects to the full panoply of CEQA requirements, even though the public benefit would be minimal, would not be consistent with implementing the statute in the most efficient, expeditious manner. Nor would it be consistent with applying lead agencies' scarce resources toward mitigating actual significant climate change impacts." (Crockett, Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: California's Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World (July 2011), 4 Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 203, 221, 227.)

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact.

A potent source of GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be combustion of fossil fuels during construction activities. Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project Site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Table 4.8-1 illustrates the specific construction generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons/Year)
Construction Calendar Year One 56
Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 900
Exceed Significant Impact Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.12. Refer to Appendix A1 for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 56 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction, which is below the significance threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2e. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Operational GHG emissions impacts are long-term GHG emissions impacts that are associated with any changes in the permanent use of the Project Site by onsite stationary and offsite mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. The Project proposes the construction of a granular activated carbon water treatment system at an existing well site. Once upgrades are complete, the Project would not be a greater source of operational emissions beyond current conditions. Therefore, Proposed Project operations would not contribute to on- or offsite emissions. □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-36 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact.

The Project would not conflict with any adopted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As discussed previously, the Proposed Project-generated GHG emissions would not surpass the CAPCOA GHG significance threshold, which was developed in consideration of statewide GHG reduction goals. Additionally, the Project would not include new permanent sources of GHG emissions and would not generate new or unplanned permanent GHG emissions.

The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation related to the reduction in GHG emissions. There is no impact.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined by the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501 as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. "Hazardous materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

A hazardous material is defined in 22 CCR Section 662601.10 as follows:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-37 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Transporters of hazardous waste in California are subject to several federal and state regulations. They must register with the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and ensure that vehicle and waste container operators have been trained in the proper handling of hazardous waste. Vehicles used for the transportation of hazardous waste must pass an annual inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP).

Transporters must allow the CHP or DHS to inspect its vehicles and must make certain required inspection records available to both agencies. The transport of hazardous materials that are not wastes is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) through national safety standards.

Other risks resulting from hazardous materials include the use of these materials in local industry, businesses, and agricultural production. The owner or operator of any business or entity that handles a hazardous material above threshold quantities is required by state and federal laws to submit a business plan to the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The San Joaquin County Division of Environmental Health is designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the CUPA for San Joaquin County in order to focus the management of specific environmental programs at the local government level. The CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits and conduct inspection and enforcement activities throughout San Joaquin County. This approach strives to reduce overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of different governmental agencies independently managing these programs. The County would refer large cases of hazardous materials contamination or violations to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Region) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). It is not uncommon for other agencies, such as federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations, to become involved when issues of hazardous materials arise.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the DTSC and the SWRCB are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up-to-date lists on their websites. The Project Site is not listed by the DTSC as a hazardous substances site (EnviroStor) on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).

4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Project construction activities would likely require the use of limited quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, lubricants, paint, and solvents. The improper use, storage, handling, transport or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or an accidental release could expose construction workers, the public, and the environment, including soil and/or ground or surface water, to adverse effects. Generally, the Proposed Project would not be expected to pose a risk of accidental release of □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-38 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
hazardous materials or wastes, as these materials would not be used or stored on-site in significant quantities.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards, including the handling and use of hazardous materials during operation.

Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the USDOT and Caltrans. All contractors handling hazardous materials during construction and the City of Manteca during operations are required to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). The HMMP would require identification of the hazardous materials to be used, training for workers in the proper handling of the materials, and procedures for responding to spills, if any. Regulations, including Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Interim Final Rule found in 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926.62 (lead and leadbased paint) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements under their Asbestos Program would limit exposure to hazardous building materials. Together, federal, state, and local regulations regulate the storage, handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, including hazardous building materials, which are all designed to minimize the risk of accidental release and exposure. Therefore, the transport, use, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials for the Project would be adequately controlled through compliance with existing regulatory requirements and the potential impact during construction and operation would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Less Than Significant Impact.

See discussion above in checklist question (a).

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
No Impact.

Construction of the Project would not occur within 0.25 mile of a school. The closest school is Sequoia Elementary approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, there is no impact. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-39 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
No Impact.

The Project Site and staging area is not included on any of the environmental databases maintained by the SWRCB (2023) or the department of DTSC (2023). Therefore, the Project would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to being located on a known hazardous materials site and there would be no impact.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a Project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project
Area?
No Impact.

The Project and staging area would not be located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport or within the vicinity of an active private air strip. There would be no impact regarding air traffic hazards or excessive noise.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Proposed project would require temporary lane closure during the sewer manhole installation; however, this would be short term and access to the area would not be completely blocked and would not require detours. Therefore, there would be no emergency response and/or evacuation plans would not be impacted.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-40 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Less Than Significant Impact.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project Site and staging areas would not be within an area designated as very high or high fire hazard zones. The Project would be located in an urban area and would not include any habitable structures. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact associated with potential exposure to wildland fires.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located in an existing small neighborhood park. The site is flat and does not include visible drainage ditches or basins. Water is reabsorbed through the grass during rain events. During heavy events, the water likely either ponds in indentions in the field or drains from the grass, over the sidewalks, and into the existing gutters.

4.10.2 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

As noted, the total ground disturbance for the Proposed Project would be less than one acre and the state Construction General Permit and its required SWPPP requirement would not apply. Although a SWPPP is not required, the contractor would establish erosion protection measures to minimize erosion. These measures would generally consist of BMPs such as straw waddles, silt fences and stormwater drain inlet protection (where applicable). Construction materials stored onsite would be either on pallets or inside containers and trash cans and/or debris dumpsters would be covered; portable toilets would include secondary containment. The Project design would be required to adhere to applicable drainage control □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-41 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
requirements to ensure that the new impervious surfaces created by the Project would not violate water quality control standards. The project would adhere to the Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual (June 2015) developed to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Municipal Separate Sewer System Water Program Permit requirements. The manual provides postconstruction standards to address stormwater quality for new development and redevelopment projects.

These drainage control requirements apply to all projects that create or replace more than 5,000 sf of impervious surfaces.

The Project would treat the well water to remove TCP and improve water quality in the distribution system. As part of periodic maintenance, the GAC treatment tanks would be backwashed to remove fines.

The backwash wastewater would be collected in backwash tanks and discharged directly into the existing sanitary sewer system for further treatment at the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility in accordance with any applicable facility requirements. The use of the two GAC tanks in series (i.e., the effluent of the first tank would become the intake for the second tank) with routine monitoring would ensure that water quality goals are being met. Therefore, with the proposed monitoring, routine maintenance, and consistency with any applicable Manteca Water Quality Control Facility discharge requirements, there would be no violations of water quality control requirements or discharge requirements. Therefore, with implementation of proposed BMPs and post-construction stormwater standards, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to water quality control standards and waste discharge standards.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the Project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would create a minor amount of additional impervious surface and the small footprint would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, the Project does not include groundwater extraction. Well 29 already exists and the Project would just be adding an additional filtration/treatment process to the existing well system. The Project won’t change the original well water usage. Therefore, the Project would not negatively impact groundwater supplies and the impact would be less than significant.
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-42 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner that would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite
or offsite;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding onsite or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact.
i) As previously discussed above in (a), the project would implement BMPs to prevent erosion and siltation during construction, such that the impact would be less than significant. ii) Additionally, the Project would have a relatively small footprint and would not produce significant runoff that would cause potential issues with on- or offsite flooding. As previously mentioned, the Project would be required to adhere to post construction drainage control requirements in accordance with the Multi-Agency Post Construction Stormwater Standards Manual that would also include measures to control runoff volumes. Considering the small footprint and required drainage control, the potential for flooding on or off site would be less than significant. iii) As discussed above, the Project would implement BMPs to control runoff during construction, and drainage control features during operation such that the potential to exceed capacity of the existing drainage system or create additional sources of polluted runoff would be minimal. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
iv) The Project footprint is not located in a flood zone (Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2019; Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2019) and therefore would not impede or redirect any flood flows. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-43 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
No Impact.

According to the California DWR the Project Area is neither within a FEMA 100-year flood zone, nor within a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 200-year flood zone. The Project Area is landlocked and not within proximity of any closed or semi-enclosed water body such that there is no risk of seiches adversely affecting the Project. Additionally, the Project Area is not located near the ocean where tsunamis occur.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation caused by a flood, seiche, or tsunami.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The purpose of the Project is to improve water quality, specifically by removing TCP from extracted well water prior to discharge to the distribution system. The improvement of water quality would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the local water quality control plan, 2005 Water Master Plan for the City of Manteca. As noted above, the Project would not increase groundwater extraction over existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The Proposed Project Site is located within the City of Manteca in the existing Yosemite Village neighborhood park. The park is currently zoned as (P) Park. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-44 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.11.2 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would add water treatment equipment and appurtenances to the existing City of Manteca water treatment system to remove TCP. Construction and operation would occur at an existing City of Manteca water well and associated facilities and would not result in the division of any established communities in the area because the project site is already being used for water treatment purposes.

Therefore, the Project would result in no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact.

The General Plan and zoning designations of the Project Site are (P) Park. As stated above, the construction of water treatment equipment would occur at the existing onsite well and related facilities.

Although the project would result in a minor increase in footprint, implementation of the Proposed Project would not change the land use or zoning designations of the Project Site. Construction of the treatment facility and connection pipelines within existing City property or road rights-of-way would comply with existing land use designations for the site. The new facilities would therefore represent no change in existing land uses.

The General Plan’s Land Use Element, establishes the goals that define the characteristics of land uses throughout the City and policies to guide the overall development within Manteca. As part of this analysis, the Land Use Element’s goals and policies were reviewed for any potential conflict that the Proposed Project could have with specific policies whose purpose is to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

There was no conflict since many of the goals and policies are related to growth and development and this Project does not induce growth. Goal LU-5 is to “provide adequate land for development of public and quasi-public uses to support existing and new residential, commercial, and industrial land uses” and Goal LU-8 states “To reinforce strong urban design, quality development and a compact city form”, both of which could be applicable to the project, which consists of developing public infrastructure on Cityowned land and designed to conform with the surrounding environment (City of Manteca 2003). The Project does not conflict with these goals or their supporting policies and therefore, the Proposed Project □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-45 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation and the result would be no impact.

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Minerals are defined as any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds formed by inorganic processes and organic substances. Minable minerals are defined as a deposit of ore or minerals having a value materially in excess of the cost of developing, mining, and processing the mineral and reclaiming the Project Area. The conservation, extraction, and processing of mineral resources is essential to meeting the needs of society.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) states that cities and counties shall adopt ordinances “...that establish procedures for the review and approval of reclamation plans and financial assurances and the issuance of a permit to conduct surface mining operations...” (PRC Section 2774). The intent of this legislation is to ensure the prevention or mitigation of the adverse environmental impacts of mining, the reclamation of mined lands, and the production and conservation of mineral resources are consistent with recreation, watershed, wildlife, and public safety objectives (PRC Section 2712).

SMARA requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of that land. The process is based solely on geology, without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The primary goal of mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral potential of land is recognized by local government decision makers and considered before land use decisions are made, which could preclude mining. Areas subject to California mineral land classification studies are divided into the following MRZ categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral potential:
 MRZ-1: Areas of no mineral resource significance
 MRZ-2: Areas of identified mineral resource significance  MRZ-3: Areas of undetermined mineral resource significance  MRZ-4: Areas of unknown mineral resource significance The Mineral Land Classification Map published by the CGS shows the Project Area is within a MRZ-1: Area of no mineral resources.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-46 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.12.2 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact.

The City of Manteca General Plan identifies areas near the San Joaquin River, as areas of significant mineral resources, however, there are no Project components planned near the San Joaquin River and would therefore not result in the loss of any of those resources. The General Plan does not identify any area of significant mineral resources within or adjacent to the Project Area. The Mineral Land Classification Map published by the CGS shows the Project Area is within an MRZ-1: area of no known mineral resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources. There would be no impact.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
No Impact.

As stated above, the Project is not in an area known to contain mineral resources, including locally important mineral recovery sites. There would be no impact.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Environmental Setting

4.13.1.1 Noise Fundamentals
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-47 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:
 Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.  Day-Night Average (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5-dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations.

Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed (FHWA 2011).

The manner in which older structures in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows (Caltrans 2002). The exteriorto-interior reduction of newer structures is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006).

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-48 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60- to 70-dBA range, and high, above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted in understanding this analysis:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3.0-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in level of at least 5.0 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5.0 dBA is typically considered substantial.

A 10.0-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Sensitive Noise Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are single-family homes fronting El Portal Avenue and Tenaya Court located south and west of the Project Site.

4.13.1.2 Vibration Sources and Characteristics
Ground vibration can be measured several ways to quantify the amplitude of vibration produced, including through Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) or root mean square velocity. These velocity measurements measure maximum particle at one point or the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, respectively. Vibration impacts on people can be described as the level of annoyance and can vary depending on an individual’s sensitivity. Generally, low-level vibrations may cause window rattling but do not pose any threats to the integrity of buildings or structures.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-49 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.13.1.3 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
There are several significant noise sources in the City of Manteca. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks traveling on area roadways, are the most common and significant noise in the Project Area.

Other sources of noise are the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational) throughout the City that generate stationary-source noise. The Project Site is located at the Yosemite Village Park and is surrounded by residential land uses.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 “Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 3: Short-Term Measurements with an Observer Present” provides a table of approximate background sound levels in Ldn, daytime Leq, and nighttime Leq, based on land use and population density. The ANSI standard estimation divides land uses into six distinct categories. Descriptions of these land use categories, along with the typical daytime and nighttime levels, are provided in Table 4.13-1. At times, one could reasonably expect the occurrence of periods that are both louder and quieter than the levels listed in the table. ANSI notes, “95% prediction interval [confidence interval] is on the order of +/- 10 dB.” The majority of the Project Area would be considered ambient noise Category 4.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-50 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Table 4.13-1. ANSI Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 A-weighted Sound Levels Corresponding to Land Use and Population Density
Category Land Use Description
People
per
Square
Mile
dBA
Typical
Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Nighttime
Leq
1 Noisy
Commercial &
Industrial Areas
and Very Noisy
Residential
Areas
Very heavy traffic conditions, such
as in busy, downtown commercial
areas; at intersections for mass
transportation or other vehicles,
including elevated trains, heavy
motor trucks, and other heavy
traffic; and at street corners where
many motor buses and heavy
trucks accelerate.
63,840 67 66 58
2 Moderate
Commercial &
Industrial Areas
and Noisy
Residential
Areas
Heavy traffic areas with conditions
similar to Category 1, but with
somewhat less traffic; routes of
relatively heavy or fast automobile
traffic, but where heavy truck
traffic is not extremely dense.
20,000 62 61 54
3 Quiet
Commercial,
Industrial Areas
and Normal
Urban & Noisy
Suburban
Residential
Areas
Light traffic conditions where no
mass-transportation vehicles and
relatively few automobiles and
trucks pass, and where these
vehicles generally travel at
moderate speeds; residential areas
and commercial streets, and
intersections, with little traffic,
compose this category.
6,384 57 55 49
4 Quiet Urban &
Normal
Suburban
Residential
Areas
These areas are similar to
Category 3, but for this group, the
background is either distant traffic
or is unidentifiable; typically, the
population density is one-third
the density of Category 3.
2,000 52 50 44
5 Quiet
Residential
Areas
These areas are isolated, far from
significant sources of sound, and
may be situated in shielded areas,
such as a small-wooded valley.
638 47 45 39
6 Very Quiet
Sparse
Suburban or
rural
Residential
Areas
These areas are similar to
Category 4 but are usually in
sparse suburban or rural areas;
and, for this group, there are few
if any nearby sources of sound.
200 42 40 34
Source: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 2013 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-51 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.13.2 Noise (XIII.) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project result in
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact.

As previously described, noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are single-family homes fronting El Portal Avenue and Tenaya Court located south and west of the Project Site.

4.13.2.1 Onsite Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary and would vary depending on the specific nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., site preparation, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, pile drivers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). During construction, exterior noise levels could negatively affect sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction site.

The City does not promulgate a numeric threshold pertaining to the noise associated with construction.

This is because construction noise is temporary, short term, intermittent in nature, and would cease on completion of the Project. The City of Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 17.85, Performance Standards, states that construction is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

To estimate the worst-case onsite construction noise levels that may occur at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors and in order to evaluate the potential health-related effects (physical damage to the ear) from construction noise, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Noise Construction Model and compared against the construction‐related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-52 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Exposure prepared in 1998 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The NIOSH construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3-dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half.

This reduction results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receptors.

It is acknowledged that the majority of construction equipment is not situated at any one location during construction activities, but rather spread throughout the Project Site and at various distances from sensitive receptors. Therefore, this analysis employs Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance for calculating construction noise, which recommends measuring construction noise produced by all construction equipment simultaneously from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018), which in this case is approximately 170 feet from the nearest residence. It is noted that the Project has two layout options. As such, the nearest sensitive receptor among the two options was utilized in this analysis. Additionally, since the equipment required for both options is the same, only a single construction layout option is presented. The anticipated short-term construction noise levels generated for the necessary equipment for each phase of construction are presented in Table 4.13-2.

Table 4.13-2. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Receptors Equipment
Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise Level
at Existing Residences
(dBA)
Construction
Noise Standards
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Standards?
Demolition 70.8 85 No
Grading 69.8 85 No
Underground Piping & Electrical 71.9 85 No
Paving 68.5 85 No
Miscellaneous Activities 62.7 85 No
Source: Construction noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting using the FHWA Roadway Noise Construction Model (FHWA 2006). Refer to Appendix F for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Construction equipment used during construction provided by Project applicant. Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction noise, construction noise was measured from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018), which is 170 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.

Leq = The equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time.

Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

As shown in Table 4.13-2, Project onsite construction activities would not exceed the NIOSH threshold of 85 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Construction noise would have a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-53 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.13.2.2 Operational Noise Impacts
The Project is proposing the construction of a granular activated carbon water treatment system at an existing well site. Once upgrades are complete, the Project Site would not generate noise beyond current conditions. The Project would have no impact.

Would the Project result in
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact.

4.13.2.3 Construction Vibration Impacts
Excessive groundborne vibration impacts result from continuously occurring vibration levels. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the Proposed Project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction on the Project Site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance.

Construction-related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks.

It is not anticipated that pile drivers would be necessary during Project construction. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance, and it is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project Site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to sensitive receptors. Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.13-3.

Table 4.13-3. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet
(inches per second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Pile Driver 0.170
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Rock Breaker 0.089
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Source: Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-54 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Per Section 17.58.070 of the City of Manteca Municipal Code, vibration from temporary demolition/ construction is exempt from City standards. However, a discussion of construction vibration is included for full disclosure purposes. For comparison purposes, the Caltrans (2020) recommended standard of 0.3 inches per second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for older residential buildings is used as a threshold. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings.

Consistent with FTA recommendations for calculating construction vibration, construction vibration was calculated to account for all Project construction equipment operating simultaneously from the center of the Project Site (FTA 2018). The nearest structure of concern to the construction site, with regard to groundborne vibrations, are single-family homes located approximately 170 feet from the Project Site center.

Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types in Table 4.13-3 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA (2018), it is possible to estimate the potential project construction vibration levels. The FTA provides the following equation:
[PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5]
Table 4.13-4 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at a distance of 170 feet.

Table 4.13-4. Construction Vibration Levels at 170 Feet Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)1
Peak
Vibration Threshold Exceed
Large Threshold
Dozer
Pile
Driver
Drilling
& Rock
Breaker
Loaded
Trucks Roller Jackhammer
Small
Dozer

0.0049 0.0095 0.0049 0.0042 0.0117 0.0019 0.0001 0.0117 0.3 No As shown in Table 4.13-4, groundborne vibrations attenuate rapidly from the source due to geometric spreading and material damping. Geometric spreading occurs because the energy is radiated from the source and spreads over an increasingly large distance while material damping is a property of the friction loss which occurs during the passage of a vibration wave. Vibration as a result of construction activities would not exceed 0.3 PPV. Thus, Project construction would not exceed the recommended threshold. This impact is less than significant.

4.13.2.4 Operational Vibration Impacts
Project operations would not include the use of any large-scale stationary equipment that would result in excessive vibration levels. Therefore, the project would not result groundborne vibration impacts during operations. No impact would occur.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-55 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
Project Area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.

The Project Site is located approximately 7.0 miles south of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Aircraft noise does not significantly impact the Project Site area and would not expose people working on the Project Site to excess airport noise levels. No impact would occur.

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.14 Population and Housing
The Project is located within an existing neighborhood and is not considered to be growth-inducing and would not impact the existing population or housing within the City.

4.14.1 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would not induce unplanned population growth directly or indirectly because it neither proposes new homes or businesses nor expands water supplies or infrastructure to deliver water supplies.

Therefore, the Project would have no potential to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth. The following discussion addresses indirect inducement of unplanned population growth.

4.14.1.1 Project Construction
The Project would employ up to 12 workers at the Site over a 10-month period. These workers would likely either be already living in the existing community or from a nearby location due to the short □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-56 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
duration of the construction. The short duration of the Project would not be likely to lead any construction workers to move to a new community. Even if the construction workers did move, 12 people and their families would be well within the planned growth of 20,076 people over the next 10 years as outlined in the City of Manteca’s Municipal Services Review, and thus would not be considered a substantial unplanned growth in population (City of Manteca 2008). Impact would be less than significant.

4.14.1.2 Project Operation
The Proposed Project would improve water quality in the City of Manteca, however, the Project would not result in an expansion of treatment system capacity or an increase in the amount of pumped groundwater or surface water supplies, such that it would result in an increase of water usage for the City’s drinking supply. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the amount of water available for new development, thereby not contributing to an indirect inducement of population growth. The impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of people or
existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would not displace any existing people or housing. The Project footprint for the Project components would either be built within the existing well site or immediately adjacent to or within the existing neighborhood park and City property. Therefore, the impact to people and housing displacement would be less than significant.

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.15 Public Services

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The public services in the City of Manteca are provided by the Manteca Fire Department, Manteca Police Department, Manteca Unified School District, and the City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department. □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-57 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.15.2 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
No Impact.

While the Proposed Project is currently within, and would be expanded in, the western part of the Cityowned Yosemite Village Park, the Project would not result in the need for new or altered recreational facilities. As described below in Section 4.17 Recreation, the project would impact only a small amount of park acreage and would still allow for public use at the park during project construction and operation.

Additionally, as stated in Section 4.15, Population and Housing, the Proposed Project would not induce unplanned population growth directly or indirectly because it neither proposes new homes or businesses, nor expands water supplies or infrastructure to deliver water supplies. Because there would not be an increase in population, there would be no need for new or physically altered governmental facilities including fire facilities, police facilities, or new schools. Therefore, there would be no impact.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

4.16 Recreation

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within the existing approximate 5-acre Yosemite Village Park. The park is within a residential neighborhood and has one basketball court, a small playground, grass fields and scattered picnic benches.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-58 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.16.2 Recreation (XVI) Materials Checklist
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project proposes to upgrade existing water treatment operations and add additional facilities on Cityowned land. The Well 29 site would be permanently expanded but the new footprint would be only slightly larger than the existing one. Therefore, the loss of this portion of the park would not result in the displacement of park visitors from this park to other nearby parks such that their increase in use would result in substantial physical deterioration of their facilities. Additionally, the park would remain open to the public and would not permanently close any feature that would cause visitors to seek out other recreational facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would therefore not increase the use of other recreational facilities resulting in a substantial physical deterioration. Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
No Impact.

The Project does not propose to construct recreational facilities and would not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. Option B impacts the existing basketball court within the park but the basketball court would be relocated to another area of the park under this option. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-59 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.17 Transportation

4.17.1 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would result in short-term traffic increases associated with the following activities:
trucks hauling equipment and materials to and from the site; and the daily arrival/departure of construction workers to the sites. Construction of the proposed improvements would be temporary, and therefore would not result in any long-term degradation in roadway operating conditions. Construction trucks traveling to and from the Project Site 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, which would increase vehicle delay. Operational traffic would be limited to filter backwash maintenance activities approximately once every quarter, which occur during routine operator site visits, and media changeouts approximately once every 2 years; both of these maintenance activities would require very few vehicle/truck trips (i.e., less than five). Due to the infrequent nature and low volume of traffic generated by project operations, no discernable increase in vehicle delay is anticipated.

Thus, potential transportation effects would be confined to construction of the proposed facilities.

Construction activities may need to take place within El Portal Avenue to make connections to existing infrastructure under the road; however, one travel lane would remain open to through traffic during that time.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) addresses the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts and establishes the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts in a CEQA document. These revisions to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts are primarily focused on projects within transit priority areas and shifts the focus from driver delay to reduction of GHG emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses. VMT, is a measure of the total number of miles driven to □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-60 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
or from a development and is sometimes expressed as an average per trip or per person. In addition, Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines suggests that the analysis of VMT impacts applies mainly to land use and transportation projects. Furthermore, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 operational trips per day would generally be exempt from further consideration with respect to VMT and impacts are assumed to be less than significant. Per this guidance, since the Proposed Project is neither a land use nor a transportation project, and would generate very few operational trips, it can be assumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
The Proposed Project includes adding water treatment equipment and appurtenances to the existing Well 29 water treatment system to treat potable water to remove TCP within the City of Manteca. The Proposed Project does not include the construction of a new roadway or intersection, which could be determined to be a hazardous design feature. Therefore, the Project would not result in a hazard associated with a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections).

Regarding the potential to result in a hazard associated with incompatible uses, construction of the Proposed Project would include the use of heavy trucks to bring construction materials to and from the Project Area. While local drivers could experience increased travel times if they were traveling behind a heavy truck due to slower movement and turning radii compared to passenger vehicles, these delays would be intermittent throughout the day and would cease once construction activities are completed.

Further, heavy trucks are typical of construction activities and are not considered a roadway hazard.

However, construction of the facility included under the Proposed Project would require partial road closures, which could result in hazardous driving conditions; a significant impact associated with incompatible uses. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would require the preparation and implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, which would be prepared to minimize the impact. With implementation of TRAF-1 this impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction activities could cause delays to vehicles traveling along El Portal Avenue. Although emergency vehicles could continue to travel through the construction zone as they do today, slower □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-61 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
speeds/vehicle delays could increase emergency vehicle response times, a significant impact with respect to inadequate emergency access. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would require the construction contractor to notify local emergency responders of any planned partial- or full-lane closures or blocked access to roadways or driveways required for Project construction. Emergency responders include fire departments, police departments, and ambulances that have jurisdiction within the Project Area. Written notification and disclosure of lane closure location must be provided at least 30 days prior to the planned closure to allow emergency response providers adequate time to prepare for lane closures.

In addition, it would require the construction contractor to establish methods for maintaining traffic flow in and along the subject roadway corridor and minimizing disruption to emergency vehicle access to land uses along the alignment. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, impacts related to temporary effects on emergency access would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4.17.2 Mitigation Measures
TRANS-1: Prior to the start of construction of the Project, the City shall require the construction contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan. The Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s traffic control guidelines and shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements:
 Provide written notice at least 2 weeks prior to the start of construction to owners/occupants along streets affected during construction.  Signage, striping, delineated detours, flagging operations and any other devices will be used during construction to guide motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians safely through the construction area and allow for adequate access and circulation.  Designate detours or alternative routes for bicyclists using affected bicycle lanes as well as for pedestrians using adjacent sidewalks.
 Maintain continuous vehicular and pedestrian access to any affected residential driveways from the public street to the private property line, except where necessary construction precludes such continuous access for reasonable periods of time.

Access will be reestablished at the end of the workday. If a driveway needs to be closed or interfered with as described above, the City shall notify the owner or occupant of the closure of the driveway at least 5 working days prior to the closure.  Ensure that the construction of the Project does not interfere unnecessarily with the work of other agencies such as mail delivery, school buses, and municipal waste services.
 Notify local emergency responders of any planned partial- or full-lane closures or blocked access to roadways or driveways required for Project construction.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-62 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
The following analysis of the potential environmental impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) is derived primarily from the following sources and agencies:
 California NAHC Sacred Lands File Search, March 28, 2023; and  Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review for the HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project, San Joaquin County, California (ECORP 2023).

4.18.1 Environmental Setting

4.18.1.1 Ethnographic History and Cultural Context
The Project Area is associated with territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Northern Valley Yokuts.

Their territory extends from a point just south of the junction of the San Joaquin, Old, and Mokelumne rivers on the north, to a point south of a large eastward bend in the San Joaquin River. Unfortunately, the ethnography of the northern, or lower, San Joaquin Valley is poorly known, due to the fact that the native inhabitants were for the most part gone by the time studies were undertaken. Disease, flight from missionization, and conflicts with the miners and settlers who suddenly entered the area in large numbers reduced the native population to small, isolated remnants. Thus, the available information has been gleaned from historic accounts of early explorers, soldiers, hunters and trappers, missionaries, etc.

Archaeology has added some information, but the record is by no means complete (ECORP 2023).

The Yokuts, (meaning “person” or “people”) who were Penutian/Yokutsan speakers, were divided into three distinct groups: the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothills Yokuts.

These groups spoke different dialects, and were separated by topography (ECORP 2023). Controversy surrounds the date for Yokuts presence in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley. Linguistic studies suggest that the Northern Valley Yokuts were relatively recent arrivals, moving from the south about 500 years ago as a result of pressure from Numic speakers moving into the San Joaquin drainage from the west. However, it is suggested that a Yokuts presence in the Stockton area can be discerned in the archaeological record before AD 400. A drier climate in the lower foothills and valley edges may have triggered occupation of the riverbanks in the central valley at that time. In any case, by the time the Spanish arrived in the early part of the nineteenth century, the Northern Valley Yokuts were well entrenched, with established settlements on low mounds in the delta and along the banks of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Population estimates for the entire San Joaquin Valley range from 11,000 to over 52,000, but these are only estimates, and the true population is not known (ECORP 2023).

Village settlements were composed of small round to oval house structures, which were closely spaced in a row along a riverbank. Houses were covered with light, woven tule reed mats. Villages were located mostly along the eastern bank of the San Joaquin River and along its tributaries. Sweathouses and ceremonial chambers were also found in these villages (ECORP 2023). Territories of the tribes within the Yokuts group averaged about 300 square miles, which he suggests is about a half-day’s walk in each direction. Though no records exist, it is likely that social organization was centered on the family. It has been suggested that the Southern Valley Yokuts were divided into two moieties based on patrilineal ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-63 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
descent, and this may have also been true for those in the north (ECORP 2023). However, marriage was matrilocal, with the groom moving in with the bride’s family. Polygamy was also practiced, with wives located in several villages, thus creating ties and alliances between dispersed groups (ECORP 2023).

Not surprisingly, given their proximity to rivers and the delta, a large part of Northern Valley Yokuts subsistence was based on fishing. King salmon, which spawned in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, were an important resource, but the Yokuts made use of other native species such as white sturgeon, river perch, western suckers, and Sacramento pike. Dragnets with stone sinkers were used, as were harpoons with bone or antler tips (ECORP 2023).

In addition, the enormous populations of waterfowl present in the valley were exploited, as were the large herds of tule elk and pronghorn antelope. It is thought, however, that hunting was a marginal resource procurement activity, when compared to fishing. Gathering of plant resources, though, was as important as fishing, with acorns from the stands of huge valley oaks being a major component of this activity. Tule roots and a variety of seeds were also utilized (ECORP 2023).

Like their Nisenan neighbors to the north, the Northern Valley Yokuts were politically organized into tribelets, estimated to be of about 300 people each. Tribelets known to be in the Delta area were the Chulamni, the Cholbones, the Coybos, and the Nototemnes. A tribelet identified as the Lakisamne and Chulamni reportedly lived near the Project Area (ECORP 2023). Generally sedentary, the Northern Valley Yokuts would disperse seasonally for hunting and gathering expeditions and were sometimes forced out by flooding (ECORP 2023). Chiefs gained their position through wealth, and since women were occasionally chiefs, inheritance appears to have been important (ECORP 2023).

The Spanish arrived on the coast in 1769, and by 1776 the central valley had been explored by José Canizares. In 1808, the area was crossed by Gabriel Moraga, and in 1813, a major battle was fought between the Miwok to the north and the Spaniards near the mouth of the Cosumnes River. Though the Yokuts appear to have escaped being removed to missions by the Spanish, they were not spared the ravages of European-spread disease. In 1833, an epidemic – probably malaria – raged through the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, killing an estimated 75% of the native population. Not far to the north, when John Sutter erected his fort at the future site of Sacramento, he had no problem getting the few neighboring Nisenan survivors to settle nearby. The discovery of gold in 1848, near the Nisenan village of Colluma (also Coloma), drew thousands of miners into the area, and led to widespread killing and devastating consequences to traditional Nisenan and Yokuts cultures (ECORP 2023).

4.18.2 Regulatory Setting

4.18.2.1 Assembly Bill 52
Effective July 1, 2015, AB 52 amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and project alternatives.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-64 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the PRC defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; and/or b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of an Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as an Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their tribal cultural resources and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that requested notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

4.18.2.1 Significance Criteria
AB 52 established that a substantial adverse change to a TCR has a significant effect on the environment.

In assessing substantial adverse change, the City must determine whether or not the Project will adversely affect the qualities of the resource that convey its significance. The qualities are expressed through integrity. Integrity of a resource is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association [CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)]. Impacts are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired [CCR Title 14, §15064.5(a)]. Accordingly, impacts to a TCR would likely be significant if the Project negatively affects the qualities of integrity that made it significant in the first place. In making this determination, the City need only address the aspects of integrity that are important to the TCR’s significance.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-65 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.18.3 Summary of Tribal Consultation
AB 52 consultation requirements went into effect on July 1, 2015, for all projects that have not already published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration or published a Notice of Preparation of an EIR (Section 11 [c]). The lead agency (City) is responsible for carrying out AB 52 consultation. At this time, City has not received any formal written requests from any tribes for AB 52 consultation on City projects in accordance with PRC § 21080.3.1(d).

The lead agency (City) sent letters on June 12, 2023 to all individuals identified by the NAHC. As of the circulation of this draft, no response has been received.

4.18.4 Tribal Cultural Resources
In the absence of tribes wishing to consult, information about potential impacts to TCRs was drawn from:
1) the results of a search of the Sacred Lands File of the NAHC; 2) existing ethnographic information about pre-contact lifeways and settlement patterns; and 3) information on archaeological site records obtained from the CHRIS.

4.18.4.1 Sacred Lands File Search
A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was requested on March 28, 2023. A search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC was returned on April 12, 2023 and failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the Project Area.

4.18.4.2 Potential for Buried Tribal Cultural Resources Certain geological characteristics and formations are more likely to be of concern for archaeological materials. The underlying geomorphology of this area consists of sediments deposited during flood stages of major streams in areas between natural stream levees and alluvial fans, and are probably of late Pleistocene age (California Geological Survey 2023). This means that the parcel exhibits alluvial sediments deposited by ancient and recent water flow, which can mask archaeological sites. Holocene (approximately 12,000 years ago to present) alluvial deposits are geological landforms in which Native American archaeological deposits that are not visible on the surface may be present.

The one soil type present in the Project Area is Delhi-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Typically, Delhi-type sand and soils indicate a higher probability of buried archaeological deposits; however, that probability is reduced by the mixing of Urban land soil types, and further reduced by past disturbances by previous agricultural endeavors and more recent development of urban sprawl. It is likely that archaeological remains within the Project Area, if any, would have been destroyed during the installation of Well 29 and the development of the neighborhood surrounding the Project Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-66 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.18.5 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
Tribe.

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated.

In assessing potential for buried archaeological sites, ECORP reviewed reasonably available information regarding natural water and soils. The presence of natural water sources is often an indicator for the potential presence of archaeological resources because pre-contact Native American communities and post-contact European-American and Native American communities exploited natural water courses for a variety of subsistence and economic resources. The region falls under the traditionally recognized lands of the Native American tribe, Northern Valley Yokuts. The Northern Valley Yokuts’ ancestral territory encompasses the Project Area. Typically, there is a greater concentration of archaeological resources along bays and major rivers than in areas farther from a primary water source. No natural waterways appear associated with the parcel in historic maps and aerial photographs, although the San Joaquin River is located approximately 4 miles west of the Project Area. Through this investigation, no TCRs were identified within the Project Area.

While there are no known TCRs associated with the Project Area and immediate vicinity, if any previously unrecorded archaeological resources are identified during ground-disturbing construction-related activities and are found to qualify as a TCR pursuant to PRC Section 21074(a)(1) (determined to be eligible □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-67 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources), any impacts to the resource resulting from the Project could be potentially significant. Potential significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementing Mitigation Measure TCR-1 – Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which ensures that work immediately halt in the vicinity of a find until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment and provide additional recommendations if necessary, including contacting Native American tribes.

4.18.6 Mitigation Measures
TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the find.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.1 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project consists of adding new water treatment equipment to an existing facility, which is the subject of this IS/MND. The impacts of the water treatment improvements are discussed throughout this document. The Project would require only minimal adjustments to other utilities, and thus the impact would be less than significant.
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-68 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would require a limited amount of water during construction for dust control and other construction-related purposes. This would be for a limited timeframe and therefore would have a less than significant impact on water supplies. The Project would be adding a filtration system to the existing Well 29 and would not require additional water usage (above what is currently being used) for operation of the facility.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would create additional wastewater through the backwash water created from the GAC vessels. However, to reduce the impact on the existing wastewater treatment provider, design considerations have been incorporated. In particular, the backwash water would be buffered in a backwash equalization tank and subsequently gradually drained into the sewer system at a rate within the sewer system capacity. This additional backwash water would be metered to the sewer infrequently, approximately once per quarter (every 3 months), and would be slowly drained to the sewer at a rate of approximately 300 gpm. The wastewater would be transported via the existing sewer system from the Project Site to the Manteca Water Quality Control Facility (WQCF), located at 2450 West Yosemite Avenue in the southwest corner of the city. The WQCF currently treats up to approximately 6.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and is currently permitted to treat up to 9.87 MGD. The infrequency of the backwash disposal and the slow drain rate would be managed to ensure it is within the sewer system’s permitted capacity.

These factors would minimize the impact to the existing wastewater treatment provider and therefore be a less than significant impact.
□ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-69 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction of the Proposed Project would create a minimal amount of solid waste. The Project does not involve demolition of facilities. Any solid waste created by the Project would be transported to the Lovelace Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station, where waste is then transported to Foothill Sanitary Landfill. Project construction would not generate solid waste beyond levels normally found in similar projects and within the capacity of the Foothill landfill. The Project would comply with County Municipal Code related to solid waste, which applies to the Foothill Sanitary Landfill (San Joaquin County 2019), as well as the City of Manteca’s Municipal Code related to construction and demolition waste, by recycling all recyclable materials (City of Manteca 2019). Waste generated by Project operation would also comply with relevant statutes and codes for San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca and therefore, would have a less than significant impact related to compliance with solid waste management and reduction statutes.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Please see above discussion (d).

4.19.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-70 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.20 Wildfire

4.20.1 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact.

CAL FIRE has published Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones for both Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) and State Responsibility Areas (SRA). SRAs are the official boundaries where the State of California (through CAL FIRE) has the primary legal and financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. LRAs include incorporated cities and densely populated areas. Fire protection within these areas is typically provided by the city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local governments (CAL FIRE 2022). These maps give areas either a moderate, high, or very high fire hazard rating classification. The Project Site is neither located within or near an area designated as an SRA nor is it classified as very high fire hazard severity zone or located near a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Project Site is mapped as LRA Unzoned (CAL FIRE 2012). The Project Site is within developed/urbanized areas within the City of Manteca and is not within a wildland-urban interface.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial impact related to lands within very high fire hazard severity zones.

Further, the Project is located in a relatively flat area, not subject to factors that exacerbate wildfire risks and without downslope areas that could be affected by post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.

The Project does not include installation or maintenance of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risks, such as new roads or fuel breaks, or new power lines. The Project is not within a high fire hazard severity zone, and therefore there is no impact associated with such zones.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from, a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No Impact.

See discussion above (a). The Project is not in or near an SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there is no impact on this criterion. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-71 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
No Impact.

See discussion above (a). The Project is not in or near an SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there is no impact on this criterion.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
No Impact.

See discussion above (a). The Project is in or near an SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, there is no impact on this criterion.

4.20.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-72 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion
Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially 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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Potentially significant impacts for biological resources, have been identified and can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementing Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 and are not expected to degrade environmental quality, or substantially reduce the habitat or affect populations of any wildlife, fish, or plant species. It has been determined that construction of the Proposed Project would not have any impact on any examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would be implemented to ensure that any impacts resulting from the incidental discovery of cultural resources, human remains, or TCRs during construction would be less than significant with mitigation implementation.

Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in this IS was conducted to determine if there were any Project-specific effects that are peculiar to the Project or its sites.

Consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the Project Area and vicinity □ □ □
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-73 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
indicate that the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. No Project-specific significant effects peculiar to the Project or its sites were identified that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Proposed Project would contribute to environmental effects in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation. Mitigation measures incorporated herein mitigate any potential contribution to cumulative impacts associated with these environmental issues to a less than significant level and would preclude the Project from making a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of nearby ongoing or upcoming projects.

Therefore, the Proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in this IS. The Project could result in significant adverse effects on human beings during construction due to the potential hazard of impaired emergency response during construction caused by planned partial lane closure. This impact along with the potential impact from construction-related impacts to vehicle delay and bicycle and pedestrian access would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation TRAF-1, Traffic Control Plan incorporated. There are no significant environmental effects related to air quality.
□ □ □
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-74 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 Lead Agency Name
City of Manteca
Department of Engineering
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Elba Mijango, Associate Engineer
Somporn Boonsalat, Acting Deputy Director of Engineering

5.2 ECORP Consulting, Inc.

CEQA Documentation/Air Quality/Biological Resources/Cultural Resources/Greenhouse Gas/Noise Amberly Morgan, Sr. Environmental Planner and Project Manager Chris Stabenfeldt, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner and Group Manager Krissy Walker-Berry, Senior Biologists/Certified Arborists Daniel Machek, Staff Biologists
Brian Marks, Registered Professional Archaeologists
Seth Myers, Air Quality and Noise Specialists
Rosey Worden, Air Quality and Noise Specialists
Jeff Swager, GIS Specialists
Laura Hesse, Technical Editor

5.3 HydroScience Engineers
10569 Old Placerville Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
Bill Slenter, Principal
Austin Poulson, Associate Engineer
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-1 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 2013. Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3: Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Environmental Sound – Part 3: Short-Term Measurements with an Observer Present.

Blackburn Consulting. 2023. Geotechnical Report – City of Manteca – Well 29 TCP Treatment Project. April.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022. Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Records Automation Website. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/. Accessed March 28, 2023.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022a. Maps of State and Federal Area Designation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations _____. 2022b. EMFAC2021 Web Database Emissions Inventory. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2021/ California Department of Corrections (DOC). 2023. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. RareFind Natural Diversity Data Base Program.

Commercial version dated: July 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento..

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), accessed 2023. Draft Fire Hazards Severity Zone in LRA (San Joaquin County). Map. Scale 1: 100,000. _____. 2022. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA), Updated by CAL FIRE on November, 2022. Accessed at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sanjoaquin. Accessed on April 28, 2023. _____. 2020. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. _____. 2019. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–Local Agency Bridges Database March 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/maintenance/documents/f0009165-hs-local-a11y.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2023. _____. 2018. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–State Agency Bridges Database September 2018. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/hs_state.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2023.
______. 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

California Energy Commissions (CEC). 2022. 2021 Total System Electric Generations in Gigawatt Hours. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-totalsystem-electric-generation California Geological Survey. 2023. California Geologic Map Series (1981-Present). https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rgm/maps. Accessed March 28, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-2 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Rare Plant Program. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org (Accessed April 5, 2023) City of Manteca, General Plan. 2023. Policy Document, Adopted October 6, 2003. _____. 2019. City of Manteca Municipal Code. Available online at; https://library.qcode.us/lib/manteca_ca/pub/municipal_code. _____. 2018. Zoning Map. Available online at:
https://gisweb.ci.manteca.ca.us/portal/home/item.html?id=07da318baf274f678fade29f181d8e3d October.

Climate Registry. 2016. General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program, Version 2.1. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/tools-resources/reporting-protocols/general-reportingprotocol/.

Crockett, Alexander G. 2011. Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA:

California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World.

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List.

Accessed on: April 23, 2023.

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2019. Best Available Maps (BAM). Available online:
gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/. Accessed on April 25, 2023.

ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023. Biological Resources Evaluation for the Manteca Well 29 Project. May 1. _____. 2023. Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review for the HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project, San Joaquin County, California. May 12.

EnviroStor Database. Accessed on April 23, 2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Available online: https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webviewe r/index.html.

Accessed on April 25, 2023.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.

Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

National Park Service. 2023. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table. Accessed March 21, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-3 July 2023
Well 29 TCP Treatment Project 2023-051.01
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed March 28, 2023.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2022. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387. Accessed March 21, 2023. _____. 2020. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory, dated September 23, 2022 for Glenn County. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338. Accessed March 21, 2023. _____. 2012. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Joaquin County. On file at CCIC, California State University, Stanislaus, California. _____. 1999. Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory. _____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.
_____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2019. Where Your Electricity Comes From. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-yourbill/bill-inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf _____. 2022. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), Updated, 2022. Accessed at http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sanjoaquin. Accessed on April 28, 2023.

San Joaquin County. 2019. Municipal Code, Title 5, Division 2. – Solid Waste Collection and Disposal.

Available online at: https://library.municode.com/ca/
san_joaquin_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT5HESA_DIV2SOWACODI. Accessed on June 28, 2019
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/2020-RACT-Demonstration.pdf _____. 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-ofSignificance.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker database. Accessed on: April 23, 2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Information, Planning, and Consultation System (IPaC) Resource Report List for the Study Area.
_____. 2009. Final Staff Report - Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/1%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20CEQA%20GHG%20Staff%20Report%20- %20Dec%2017%202009.pdf
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A- Air Quality Modeling Results
 A1 – Air Quality/Climate Change Modeling, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023  A2 - Prioritization Calculator. ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix C – Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix D - Total Construction-Related Gasoline Usage, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 Appendix E- Geotechnical Report, Blackburn Consulting, 2023 Appendix F - Roadway Construction Noise Model, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023 ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDIX A1
Air Quality/Climate Change Modeling, ECORP 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
1 / 43
Well 29 Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
2 / 43

3.6. Paving (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

3.10. Trenching (2024) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
3 / 43

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
4 / 43

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
5 / 43

8. User Changes to Default Data
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
6 / 43

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Well 29 Project
Construction Start Date 3/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.40
Precipitation (days) 9.00
Location 600 El Portal Ave, Manteca, CA 95337, USA
County San Joaquin
City Manteca
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2159
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.12

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

33.0 1000sqft 0.76 0.00 0.00 — — —
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
7 / 43

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-9 Use Dust Suppressants
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-12 Sweep Paved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.79 1.51 11.3 11.7 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,767 3,767 0.15 0.03 0.57 3,782 Mit. 1.79 1.51 11.3 11.7 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,767 3,767 0.15 0.03 0.57 3,782 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.78 1.50 11.3 11.5 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.03 0.01 3,768 Mit. 1.78 1.50 11.3 11.5 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.03 0.01 3,768 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
8 / 43
Unmit. 0.19 0.18 1.11 1.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 337 337 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 338 Mit. 0.19 0.18 1.11 1.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 337 337 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 338 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.0 Mit. 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.0 %
Reduced
— — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.79 1.51 11.3 11.7 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,767 3,767 0.15 0.03 0.57 3,782 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.78 1.50 11.3 11.5 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.03 0.01 3,768 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.19 0.18 1.11 1.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 337 337 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 338 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.0

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) -------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
9 / 43
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.79 1.51 11.3 11.7 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,767 3,767 0.15 0.03 0.57 3,782 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.78 1.50 11.3 11.5 0.03 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.40 0.03 0.43 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.03 0.01 3,768 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.19 0.18 1.11 1.24 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 337 337 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 338 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.03 0.03 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 55.8 55.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.0

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.15 0.97 6.91 7.17 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,635 2,635 0.11 0.02 — 2,644 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
-------------------
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
10 / 43
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 72.2 72.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.0 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.4 85.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 86.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
11 / 43
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Demolition (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.15 0.97 6.91 7.17 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,635 2,635 0.11 0.02 — 2,644 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 72.2 72.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.0 -------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
12 / 43
Demolitio — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.4 85.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 86.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
13 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 0.51 3.78 4.31 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,418 1,418 0.06 0.01 — 1,423 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38.8 38.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.43 6.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.45 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
14 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.7 42.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.0 50.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 52.4 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24

3.4. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.60 0.51 3.78 4.31 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,418 1,418 0.06 0.01 — 1,423 -------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
15 / 43
Dust — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.7 42.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.0 50.0 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 52.4 ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
16 / 43
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.08 0.90 6.18 5.83 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.21 — 0.21 — 2,426 2,426 0.10 0.02 — 2,434 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.17 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66.5 66.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66.7 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
17 / 43
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.5 94.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 96.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Paving (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
18 / 43
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.08 0.90 6.18 5.83 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.21 — 0.21 — 2,426 2,426 0.10 0.02 — 2,434 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.03 0.02 0.17 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 66.5 66.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 66.7 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.5 94.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 96.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
19 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.40 2.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Architectural Coating (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 0.27 1.82 2.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 267 267 0.01 < 0.005 — 268 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
20 / 43
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.33 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.2 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.12 8.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.14 Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
21 / 43
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Architectural Coating (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 0.27 1.82 2.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 267 267 0.01 < 0.005 — 268 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
22 / 43
Off-Road 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.12 8.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.14 Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
23 / 43
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.72 1.44 11.2 10.8 0.03 0.44 — 0.44 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,626 3,626 0.15 0.03 — 3,638 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.72 1.44 11.2 10.8 0.03 0.44 — 0.44 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,626 3,626 0.15 0.03 — 3,638 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.31 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 99.3 99.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 99.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 142 142 0.01 0.01 0.57 144 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
24 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 0.01 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Trenching (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.72 1.44 11.2 10.8 0.03 0.44 — 0.44 0.40 — 0.40 — 3,626 3,626 0.15 0.03 — 3,638 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.31 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 99.3 99.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 99.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 142 142 0.01 0.01 0.57 144 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 0.01 0.01 0.01 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.65 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
26 / 43
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
27 / 43
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
28 / 43
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
29 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
30 / 43
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
31 / 43
Demolition Demolition 3/1/2024 3/14/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Grading Grading 3/15/2024 3/28/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Paving Paving 4/12/2024 4/25/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Miscellaneous Activities Architectural Coating 4/26/2024 7/29/2024 5.00 67.0 — Underground piping &
electrical
Trenching 3/29/2024 4/11/2024 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 16.0 0.38 Grading Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 376 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 10.0 0.56
Miscellaneous Activities Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Underground piping &
electrical
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38
Underground piping &
electrical
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Underground piping &
electrical
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Underground piping &
electrical
Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 16.0 0.38
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
32 / 43
Underground piping &
electrical
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 16.0 0.38 Grading Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 376 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 10.0 0.56
Miscellaneous Activities Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Underground piping &
electrical
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 376 0.38
Underground piping &
electrical
Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Underground piping &
electrical
Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29
Underground piping &
electrical
Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 16.0 0.38
Underground piping &
electrical
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
33 / 43
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 5.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.70 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 10.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground piping & electrical — — — —
Underground piping & electrical Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground piping & electrical Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT Underground piping & electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground piping & electrical Onsite truck — — HHDT
Miscellaneous Activities — — — —
Miscellaneous Activities Worker 0.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Miscellaneous Activities Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Miscellaneous Activities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Miscellaneous Activities Onsite truck — — HHDT
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
34 / 43

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 5.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.70 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 10.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground piping & electrical — — — —
Underground piping & electrical Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Underground piping & electrical Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT Underground piping & electrical Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground piping & electrical Onsite truck — — HHDT
Miscellaneous Activities — — — —
Miscellaneous Activities Worker 0.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Miscellaneous Activities Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Miscellaneous Activities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Miscellaneous Activities Onsite truck — — HHDT
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
35 / 43

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Miscellaneous Activities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,980

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Grading — 50.0 0.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.76 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
36 / 43
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
37 / 43

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
38 / 43
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
39 / 43

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 57.8
AQ-PM 55.8
AQ-DPM 30.9
Drinking Water 99.0
Lead Risk Housing 81.1
Pesticides 35.8
Toxic Releases 47.1
Traffic 17.4
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 31.2
Groundwater 33.0
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 43.7
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 39.3
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 83.6
Cardio-vascular 91.2
Low Birth Weights 32.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 65.7
Housing 67.3
Linguistic —
Poverty 92.0
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
40 / 43
Unemployment 96.1

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 16.25818042
Employed 15.11612986
Median HI 26.27999487
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 2.053124599
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 22.41755422
Transportation —
Auto Access 55.28037983
Active commuting 49.87809573
Social —
2-parent households 22.84101116
Voting 32.16989606
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 47.44001027
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 47.9019633
Supermarket access 25.77954575
Tree canopy 75.15719235
Housing —
Homeownership 48.58206082
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
41 / 43
Housing habitability 45.82317464
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 96.0733992 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 3.977928911
Uncrowded housing 58.11625818
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 31.82343128
Arthritis 20.9
Asthma ER Admissions 14.2
High Blood Pressure 15.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 42.8
Asthma 14.8
Coronary Heart Disease 25.9
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 13.3
Diagnosed Diabetes 45.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 17.3
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 36.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 7.1
Mental Health Not Good 21.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 18.6
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 27.6
Stroke 29.9
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 35.4
Current Smoker 15.5
ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
42 / 43
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 26.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 76.6
English Speaking 71.7
Foreign-born 39.2
Outdoor Workers 13.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 37.8
Traffic Density 37.2
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 72.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 23.6

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 79.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 19.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

ATTACHMENT 3
Well 29 Project Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
43 / 43

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction phases updated to match project.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment list updated to match PD.

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
APPENDIX A2
Prioritization Calculator
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Well 29 Project
ID#: CEQA
Project #: 2023-051.01
Unit and Process# Construction
Operating Hours hr/yr 968.00
Cancer Chronic Acute
Score Score Score
0< R<100 1.000 1.68E-02 2.25E-04 0.00E+00 1.68E-02
100≤R<250 0.250 4.20E-03 5.63E-05 0.00E+00 4.20E-03
250≤R<500 0.040 6.72E-04 9.02E-06 0.00E+00 6.72E-04
500≤R<1000 0.011 1.85E-04 2.48E-06 0.00E+00 1.85E-04
1000≤R<1500 0.003 5.04E-05 6.76E-07 0.00E+00 5.04E-05
1500≤R<2000 0.002 3.36E-05 4.51E-07 0.00E+00 3.36E-05
2000<R 0.001 1.68E-05 2.25E-07 0.00E+00 1.68E-05
Construction
Substance CAS#
MW
Correction
Annual
Emissions
(lbs/yr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Corrected
Annual
Emissions
Corrected
Maximum
Hourly
Average
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter (Diesel PM) 9901 1.0000 0.007272146 0.040873189 7.27E-03 4.09E-02 7.51E-06 Carbon Monoxide [Criteria Pollutant] 42101 1.0000 0.226714023 1.242268617 2.27E-01 1.24E+00 2.34E-04 Oxides of Nitrogen 42603 1.0000 0.202284234 1.10840676 2.02E-01 1.11E+00 2.09E-04 Reactive Organic Gas 16113 1.0000 0.033652043 0.184394754 3.37E-02 1.84E-01 3.48E-05 Oxides of sulfur 42401 1.0000 0.000588624 0.003225334 5.89E-04 3.23E-03 6.08E-07 Particulate Matter 11101 1.0000 0.009194907 0.050383054 9.19E-03 5.04E-02 9.50E-06 Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or less 88101 1.0000 0.007272146 0.039847377 7.27E-03 3.98E-02 7.51E-06 Receptor Proximity and Proximity Factors Max Score Receptor proximity is in meters. Priortization scores are calculated by multiplying the total
scores summed below by the proximity
factors. Record the Max score for your
receptor distance. If the substance list for the
unit is longer than the number of rows here or
if there are multiple processes use additional
worksheets and sum the totals of the Max
Scores.

Enter the unit's CAS# of the substances emitted and their amounts.

Prioritzation score for each substance
generated below. Totals on last row.

Prioritization Calculator
Use to provide a Prioritization score based on the emission potency method. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Rosey Worden May 8, 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDIX B
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
for the
Manteca Well 29 Project
San Joaquin County, California
Prepared For:

HydroScience Engineers
Prepared By:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, California 95677
May 1, 2023
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
i May 1, 2023
2023-051.01

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Desktop Review ................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Project Setting ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Evaluation of Special-Status Species ........................................................................................................... 2

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Day Roosting Bats ............................................................................................................................................ 16

4.3 Manteca Tree Ordinance ............................................................................................................................... 16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation................................................................................................................................. 3

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Species Database Search Lists

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Description
BCC Birds of conservation concern
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
ESA Endangered Species Act
Project Manteca Well 29 Project
SSC Species of special concern
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
1 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of HydroScience Engineering, ECORP Consulting, Inc. conducted a biological resources evaluation for the proposed Manteca Well 29 Project (Project) located in the City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. The purpose of the evaluation is to collect desktop-level review information on the biological resources present within the Project Area and to determine any potential biological constraints to Project activities.

1.1 Project Location
The Project Area is located within Yosemite Park on El Portal Avenue in the City of Manteca, California.

The approximately 1.79-acre Survey Area for the Project corresponds to a portion of Section 5, Township 2 South, and Range 7 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian) of the “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle. The approximate center of the Project Area is located at 37.792678 latitude and -121.231737 longitude.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this biological resources evaluation is to assess the potential for occurrence of specialstatus plant and animal species or their habitat in the Project Area. This evaluation does not include site visits or determinate field surveys conducted according to agency-promulgated protocols.

For the purposes of this evaluation, special-status species are defined as plants or animals that:
 are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA);
 are listed or candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the California ESA;  meet the definitions of endangered or rare under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
 are identified as a species of special concern (SSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
 are birds identified as birds of conservation concern (BCC) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
 are plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be "rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere" or “rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere” (California Rare Plant Ranks 1 and 2);  are plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); or
 are fully protected in California in accordance with the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (amphibians and reptiles), and 5515 (fishes).

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
2 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Only species that fall into one of the above-listed groups were considered for this evaluation.

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Literature Review
The following resources were reviewed to determine the special-status species that could have the potential to occur onsite:
 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) data for the “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles.
 The CNPS species list for the “Manteca California” 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles.
 The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation species list for the Manteca Well 29 Project Area.
 The National Marine Fisheries Service species list for the “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle.

2.2 Desktop Review
A desktop review of the Project Area was conducted by reviewing aerial photography and Google Earth street images. The images were reviewed for special-status species habitat elements such as trees, shrubs, aquatic features, potential elderberry shrubs, and landscaping.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Project Setting
The Project Area consists of a suburban park that is regularly mowed and maintained. Low grass covers the majority of the Project Area with landscape trees and shrubs around the perimeter. A preexisting well building is located within the Project Area.

3.2 Evaluation of Special-Status Species
Table 1 lists all special-status plant and animal species identified from the database queries and literature review. Included in this table are the listing status for each species, a brief habitat description, approximate flowering period for plants and survey period for animals, and a determination on the potential to occur onsite.

The potential to occur onsite was evaluated based on the following criteria:
 Present - Species was observed during the site visit or is known to occur within the Survey Area based on documented occurrences within the CNDDB or other literature.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
3 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
 Potential to Occur - Habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) for the species occurs within the Survey Area.
 Low Potential to Occur - Marginal or limited amounts of habitat occur and the species is not known to occur within the vicinity of the Survey Area based on CNDDB records and other available documentation.
 Absent - No suitable habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) and the species is not known to occur within the vicinity of the Survey Area based on CNDDB records and other documentation.

Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Plants
Alkali milk–vetch
(Astragalus tener
var. tener)
-- -- 1B.2 Alkaline soils in playas,
valley and foothill
grasslands, adobe clay, and
vernal pools.

Elevation: 5’–195’
Bloom Period: March–June
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
-- -- 1B.2 Alkaline or saline valley and
foothill grasslands,
meadows and seeps, and
chenopod scrub
communities.

Elevation: 0’–1,835’
Bloom Period: April–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula)
-- -- 1B.1 Alkaline, sandy soils in
chenopod scrub, playas, and
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 50’–655’
Bloom Period: May–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Big tarplant
(Blepharizonia
plumosa ssp.
plumosa)
-- -- 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 100’–1,655’
Bloom Period: July–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Watershield
(Brasenia schreberi)
-- -- 2B.3 Freshwater marshes and
swamps.

Elevation: 100’–7,220’
Bloom Period: June–
September
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
4 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Palmate–bracted
bird’s–beak
(Chloropyron
palmatum)
FE CE 1B.1 Alkaline areas in chenopod
scrub and valley and foothill
grassland.

Elevation: 15’–510’
Bloom Period: May–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
-- -- 1B.2 Chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill
grasslands.

Elevation: 10’–2,590’
Bloom Period: March–June
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
-- -- 1B.2 Chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and
valley and foothill
grasslands.

Elevation: 10’–2,590’
Bloom Period: March–June
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Delta button–celery
(Eryngium
racemosum)
-- CE 1B.1 Vernally mesic clay
depressions in riparian scrub
communities.

Elevation: 10’–100’
Bloom Period: June–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

San Joaquin
spearscale
(Extriplex
joaquinana)
-- -- 1B.2 Alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, meadows seeps,
playas, and valley and
foothill grassland.

Elevation: 5’–2,740’
Bloom Period: April–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Woolly rose–mallow
(Hibiscus lasiocarpos
var. occidentalis)
-- -- 1B.2 Marshes and freshwater
swamps. Often in riprap on
sides of levees.

Elevation: 0’–395’
Bloom Period: June–
September
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Alkali–sink
goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
-- -- 1B.1 Alkaline vernal pools.

Elevation: 0’–655’
Bloom Period: February–
April
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
5 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Delta tule pea
(Lathyrus jepsonii
var. jepsonii)
-- -- 1B.2 Freshwater and brackish
marshes and swamps.

Elevation: 0’–15’
Bloom Period: May–July
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

California alkali
grass
(Puccinellia simplex)
-- -- 1B.2 Alkaline, vernally mesic
areas and sinks, flats and
lake margins in chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools.

Elevation: 5’–3,050’
Bloom Period: March–May
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Sanford’s
arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
-- -- 1B.2 Shallow marshes and
freshwater swamps.

Elevation: 0’–2,135’
Bloom Period: May–October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Suisun Marsh aster
(Symphyotrichum
lentum)
-- -- 1B.2 Brackish and freshwater
marshes and swamps.

Elevation: 0’–10’
Bloom Period: May–
November
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Wright’s
trichocoronis
(Trichocoronis
wrightii var. wrightii)
-- -- 2B.1 Alkaline soils in meadows
and seeps, marshes and
swamps, riparian forest, and
vernal pools.

Elevation: 15’–1,425’
Bloom Period: May–
September
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Saline clover
(Trifolium
hydrophilum)
-- -- 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, mesic
and alkaline areas in valley
and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools.

Elevation: 0’–985’
Bloom Period: April–June
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Caper–fruited
tropidocarpum
(Tropidocarpum
capparideum)
-- -- 1B.1 Alkaline hills in valley and
foothill grassland.

Elevation: 5’–1,495’
Bloom Period: March–April
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
6 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE CR 1B.1 Vernal pools.

Elevation: 100’–3,510’
Bloom Period: May–July
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Invertebrates
Conservancy fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
conservatio)
FE -- -- Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: NovemberApril when surface water is
present.

Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
lynchi)
FT -- -- Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April when surface water is
present.

Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE -- -- Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: NovemberApril when surface water is
present.

Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Crotch bumble bee
(Bombus crotchii)
-- CC -- Primarily nests underground
in open grassland and scrub
habitats from the California
coast east to the Sierra
Cascade and south to
Mexico.

Survey Period: MarchSeptember
Absent. The Project Area
is a suburban park subject
to frequent mowing and
maintenance activities; no
suitable habitat onsite.

Western bumble
bee
(Bombus
occidentalis)
-- CC -- Meadows and grasslands
with abundant floral
resources. Primarily nests
underground. Largely
restricted to high elevation
sites in the Sierra Nevada,
although rarely detected on
the California coast.

Survey Period: AprilNovember
Absent. The Project Area
is a suburban park subject
to frequent mowing and
maintenance activities; no
suitable habitat onsite.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
7 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FC -- -- Overwinters along coastal
California in wind-protected
groves of eucalyptus,
Monterey pine and cypress
with nearby nectar and
water sources; disperses in
spring throughout
California. Adults breed and
lay eggs during the spring
and summer, feeding on a
variety of nectar sources;
eggs are laid exclusively on
milkweed plants.

Absent. The Project Area
is a maintained park with
mowed grass and
scattered trees; based on
the desktop review it
does not contain
milkweed host plants or
nectar sources.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT -- -- Found exclusively on its host
plant, the elderberry shrub,
in riparian and oak
woodland/ oak savannah
habitats of California’s
Central Valley from Shasta
to Madera counties.

Absent. No elderberry
shrubs present within the
Project Area based on
desktop review.

Fish
Green sturgeon
(Acipenser
medirostris)
FT -- CDFW:

SSC
Anadromous; undammed
cold-water rivers having
relatively deep pools with
large substrates.

Survey Period: N/A
Absent. No aquatic
habitat within the Project
Area.

Steelhead (CA
Central Valley DPS)
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus)
FT - - Fast-flowing, welloxygenated rivers and
streams below dams in the
Sacramento and San
Joaquin River systems.

Survey Period: N/A
Absent. No aquatic
habitat within the Project
Area.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
FT CE - Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.

Survey Period: N/A
Absent. No aquatic
habitat within the Project
Area.

Longfin smelt
(Spirinchus
thaleichthys)
FC CT SSC Freshwater and coastal
estuaries.

Survey Period: N/A
Absent. No aquatic
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
8 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Hardhead
(Mylopharodon
conocephalus)
- - SSC Relatively undisturbed
streams at low to mid
elevations in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin
and Russian River drainages.

In the San Joaquin River,
scattered populations found
in tributary streams, but only
rarely in the valley reaches
of the San Joaquin River.

Survey Period: N/A
Absent. No aquatic
habitat within the Project
Area.

Amphibians
California tiger
salamander (Central
California Distinct
Population
Segment)
(Ambystoma
californiense)

FT CT CDFW
WL
Breeds in vernal pools and
seasonal wetlands in
grassland or oak woodland
habitats; adults are
terrestrial using
underground refuges such
as ground squirrel or gopher
burrows. Central Valley and
Inner Coast Range.

Survey Period: WinterSpring.

Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
-- -- SSC California endemic species
of vernal pools, swales, and
seasonal wetlands in
grassland, scrub and
woodland habitats
throughout the Central
Valley and South Coast
Ranges. Prefers open areas
with sandy or gravelly soils.

Survey Period: WinterSpring.

Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
9 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Reptiles
Northern California
legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra)
-- -- SSC The most widespread of
California’s Anniella species.

Occurs in sandy or loose
soils under sparse
vegetation from Antioch
south coastally to Ventura.

Bush lupine is often an
indicator plant, and two
melanistic populations are
known.

Survey Period: Generally
spring, but depends on
location and conditions
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)
FT CT -- Freshwater ditches, sloughs,
and marshes in the Central
Valley. Almost extirpated
from the southern parts of
its range.

Survey Period: April-October
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Birds
White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus)
-- -- CFP Nesting occurs within trees
in low elevation grassland,
agricultural, wetland, oak
woodland, riparian,
savannah, and urban
habitats.

Nesting: March-August
Low Potential. Trees
within Project Area
provide marginally
suitable nesting habitat.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni)
-- CT -- Nesting occurs in trees in
agricultural, riparian, oak
woodland, scrub, and urban
landscapes. Forages over
grassland, agricultural lands,
particularly during
disking/harvesting, irrigated
pastures.

Nesting: March-August
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
10 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)
FT CE -- Breeding habitat is generally
open woodland with
clearings and low, dense,
scrubby vegetation
associated with
watercourses, and includes
desert riparian woodlands
with willow, Fremont’s
cottonwood, alder, walnut,
box-elder, and dense
mesquite. Nests are
generally found in
deciduous hardwoods with
thick bushes, vines, or
hedgerows providing dense
foliage within 10 meters (33
feet) of ground; prefer
riparian patches of at least
81 hectares (200 acres).

Winters in South America.

Nesting: June 15-August 15
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
-- -- BCC,
SSC
Nests in burrows or burrow
surrogates in open, treeless,
areas within grassland,
steppe, and desert biomes.

Often with other burrowing
mammals (e.g., prairie dogs,
California ground squirrels).

May also use human-made
habitat such as agricultural
fields, golf courses,
cemeteries, roadside,
airports, vacant urban lots,
and fairgrounds.

Nesting: February-August
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Nuttall's
woodpecker
(Dryobates nuttallii)
-- -- BCC Resident from northern
California south to Baja
California. Nests in tree
cavities in oak woodlands
and riparian woodlands.

Nesting: April-July
Low Potential. The trees
within the Project Area
may support nesting
habitat for this species.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
11 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Yellow-billed
magpie
(Pica nuttallii)
-- -- BCC Endemic to California; found
in the Central Valley and
coast range south of San
Francisco Bay and north of
Los Angeles County; nesting
habitat includes oak
savannah with large
expanses of open ground;
also found in urban parklike
settings.

Nesting: April-June
Potential. The trees within
the Project Area may
support nesting for this
species.

Oak titmouse
(Baeolophus
inornatus)
-- -- BCC Nests in tree cavities within
dry oak or oak-pine
woodland and riparian
habitat; where oaks are
absent, they nest in juniper
woodland, open forests
(gray, Jeffrey, Coulter,
pinyon pines and Joshua
tree).

Nesting: March-July
Low Potential. The trees
within the Project Area
may support nesting for
this species.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius
ludovicianus)
-- -- SSC Found throughout California
in open country with short
vegetation, pastures, old
orchards, grasslands,
agricultural areas, open
woodlands. Not found in
heavily forested habitats.

Nesting: March-July
Low Potential. Suitable
nesting habitat in trees
with low suitability
foraging opportunities.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
12 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Least Bell's vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus)
FE CE -- In California, breeding range
includes Ventura, Los
Angeles, Riverside, Orange,
San Diego, and San
Bernardino counties, and
rarely Stanislaus and Santa
Clara counties. Nesting
habitat includes dense, low
shrubby vegetation in
riparian areas, brushy fields,
young second-growth
woodland, scrub oak, coastal
chaparral and mesquite
brushland. Winters in
southern Baja California Sur.

Nesting: April 1-July 31
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Belding's savannah
sparrow
(Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi)
-- CE BCC Resident coastally from
Point Conception south into
Baja California; coastal salt
marsh.

Year-round resident; nests
March-August
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Song sparrow
"Modesto"
(Melospiza melodia
heermanni)
-- -- SSC Resident in central and
southwest California,
including Central Valley;
nests in marsh, scrub
habitat.

Nesting: April-June
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
13 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor)
-- CT BCC,
SSC
Breeds locally west of
Cascade-Sierra Nevada and
southeastern deserts from
Humboldt and Shasta
counties south to San
Bernardino, Riverside and
San Diego counties. Central
California, Sierra Nevada
foothills and Central Valley,
Siskiyou, Modoc and Lassen
counties. Nests colonially in
freshwater marsh, blackberry
bramble, milk thistle, triticale
fields, weedy (mustard,
mallow) fields, giant cane,
safflower, stinging nettles,
tamarisk, riparian scrublands
and forests, fiddleneck and
fava bean fields.

Nesting: March-August
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Yellow-headed
blackbird
(Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus)
-- -- BCC,
SSC
In California, breeds in the
Great Basin region, along
Colorado River south to Baja
California, Salton Sea, Kern,
Ventura, Riverside, San
Diego and possibly Orange,
Lake counties and locally in
the Central Valley. Nests are
constructed over deep water
in emergent vegetation of
prairie wetlands, quaking
aspen parklands, mountain
meadows, forest edges,
large lakes.

Nesting: April-July
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Bullock’s oriole
(Icterus bullockii)
-- -- BCC Breeding habitat includes
riparian and oak woodlands.

Nesting: March-July
Potential. The trees onsite
provide suitable nesting
habitat.

Saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa)
-- -- BCC,
SSC
Breeds in salt marshes of
San Francisco Bay; winters
San Francisco south along
coast to San Diego County.

Nesting: March-July
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
14 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Mammals
Pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus)
- - SSC Crevices in rocky outcrops
and cliffs, caves, mines, trees
(e.g., basal hollows of
redwoods, cavities of oaks,
exfoliating pine and oak
bark, deciduous trees in
riparian areas, and fruit trees
in orchards). Also roosts in
various human structures
such as bridges, barns,
porches, bat boxes, and
human occupied as well as
vacant buildings
Survey Period: AprilSeptember
Low Potential. Trees and
buildings within the
Project Area provide
marginally suitable
habitat.

Riparian brush
rabbit
(Sylvilagus
bachmani riparius)
FE CE - Riparian brush rabbits
inhabit dense, brushy areas
of valley riparian forests
marked by extensive thickets
of California wild rose (Rosa
californica), California
blackberries (Rubus ursinus),
and willows (Salix spp.).

Thriving mats of lowgrowing vines and shrubs
serve as ideal living sites
where they build tunnels
under and through the
vegetation.

Survey Period: Any season
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
15 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
Table 1. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description
Potential To Occur
FESA Onsite
CESA/
NPPA Other
Riparian woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes
riparia)
FE - SSC The riparian woodrat occurs
in riparian woodland with an
overstory canopy of trees
and moderate to dense
shrub understory, with
abundant dead branches
and downed woody material
(Williams 1993). Currently, a
single population is known
to exist along the Stanislaus
River in and immediately
adjacent to Caswell
Memorial State Park Survey
Period: Any season
Absent. No suitable
habitat within the Project
Area.

Status Codes:

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
FE FESA listed, Endangered
FT FESA listed, Threatened
FC Candidate for FESA listing as Threatened or Endangered BCC USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2021)
CE CESA- or NPPA listed, Endangered
CT CESA- or NPPA-listed, Threatened
CR CESA- or NPPA-listed, Rare
CC Candidate for CESA listing as Endangered or Threatened CFP California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species (§ 3511-birds, § 4700- mammals, §5050-reptiles/amphibians)
SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
CDFW WL CDFW Watch List
1B CRPR/Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2B CRPR/Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

0.1 Threat Rank/Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Threat Rank/Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 Threat Rank/Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Nesting Birds
Within 14 days prior to construction activities and vegetation removal, a qualified biologist will survey the Project Area and 500 feet adjacent for nesting birds. If an active nest (i.e. containing eggs or young) is observed, then the qualified biologist will install a species-specific no-disturbance buffer around the active ATTACHMENT 3
Biological Resources Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Manteca Well 29
16 May 1, 2023
2023-051.01
nest. No Project activities will occur within the no-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. If there is a lapse in construction activities of 15 days or more, then an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted prior to reinitiating construction activities.

4.2 Day Roosting Bats
The trees and building within the Project Area may provide marginally suitable bat day roosting habitat for species such as the pallid bat. A bat habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal and construction activities on the existing building. If day roosting bat habitat occurs in trees that will be removed, or within the existing building, then a qualified biologist will conduct an evening emergence survey when nighttime low temperatures are above 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

If bats are observed exiting day roosting habitat during the evening emergence survey, then the habitat will be removed/affected outside of the maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low temperatures are above 45 degrees (typically May 1 through April 15th and September 1 through October 15th). Occupied trees will be removed using the two-step removal process under direction from a qualified biologist on both days. On Day 1, limbs that do not have day-roosting bat habitat will be removed. On Day 2 (next consecutive day) the remainder of the tree will be removed.

If occupied bat day roosting habitat within the existing building will be affected by construction activities, the habitat can be excluded by a qualified biologist outside of the maternity and hibernation season when nighttime low temperatures are above 45 degrees (typically May 1 through April 15th and September 1 through October 15th).

4.3 Manteca Tree Ordinance
City of Manteca, California Municipal Code Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places Chapter 12.08 Trees and Shrubs Subsection 12.08.070 Tree trimming and removal “No person shall cut, prune, remove, injure or interfere with any tree, shrub, or plant upon or in any street tree area or other public place in the city without prior permission and approval therefor from the director. The director is authorized to grant such permission at his or her discretion and where necessary.” ECORP consulting, Inc. recommends that the Project adheres to the local municipal tree removal ordinance.

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT A
Species Database Search Lists
ATTACHMENT 3
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
AAAAA01181 Ambystoma californiense pop. 1
California tiger salamander - central California DPS
Threatened Threatened G2G3T3 S3 WL
AAABF02020 Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
None None G2G3 S3S4 SSC
ABNJB05035 Branta hutchinsii leucopareia
cackling (=Aleutian Canada) goose
Delisted None G5T3 S3 WL
ABNKC06010 Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
None None G5 S3S4 FP
ABNKC19070 Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None Threatened G5 S4
ABNKD06030 Falco columbarius
merlin
None None G5 S3S4 WL
ABNRB02022 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1
ABNSB10010 Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None None G4 S3 SSC
ABPAT02011 Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
None None G5T4Q S4 WL
ABPBR01030 Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
None None G4 S4 SSC
ABPBW01114 Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
Endangered Endangered G5T2 S3
ABPBXA3013 Melospiza melodia pop. 1
song sparrow ("Modesto" population)
None None G5T3?Q S3? SSC
ABPBXB0020 Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None Threatened G1G2 S2 SSC
ABPBXB3010 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird
None None G5 S3 SSC
AFCAA01031 Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon - southern DPS
Threatened None G2T1 S1
AFCHA0209K Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
Threatened None G5T2Q S2
AFCHB01040 Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt
Threatened Endangered G1 S1
AFCHB03010 Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
Candidate Threatened G5 S1
AFCJB25010 Mylopharodon conocephalus
hardhead
None None G3 S3 SSC
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Manteca (3712172) OR Avena (3712171) OR Peters (3712181) OR Lathrop (3712173) OR Stockton West (3712183) OR Stockton East (3712182) OR Salida (3712161) OR Vernalis (3712163) OR Ripon (3712162)) Report Printed on Wednesday, April 05, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 4 Information Expires 10/1/2023
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
ATTACHMENT 3
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
AMACC10010 Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None None G4 S3 SSC
AMAEB01021 Sylvilagus bachmani riparius
riparian brush rabbit
Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1
AMAFF08081 Neotoma fuscipes riparia
riparian (=San Joaquin Valley) woodrat
Endangered None G5T1Q S1 SSC
ARACC01020 Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
None None G3 S2S3 SSC
ARADB36150 Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
Threatened Threatened G2 S2
CTT61410CA Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest
None None G2 S2.1
CTT61420CA Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest
None None G2 S2.2
CTT61430CA Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest
None None G1 S1.1
CTT63440CA Elderberry Savanna
Elderberry Savanna
None None G2 S2.1
ICBRA03010 Branchinecta conservatio
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Endangered None G2 S2
ICBRA03030 Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
Threatened None G3 S3
ICBRA03150 Branchinecta mesovallensis
midvalley fairy shrimp
None None G2 S2S3
ICBRA06010 Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
None None G2G3 S2S3
ICBRA10010 Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Endangered None G4 S3
IICOL48011 Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Threatened None G3T2T3 S3
IICOL49010 Anthicus sacramento
Sacramento anthicid beetle
None None G4 S4
IICOL4C020 Lytta moesta
moestan blister beetle
None None G2 S2
IIDIP05010 Rhaphiomidas trochilus
San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly
None None G1 S1
IIHYM24252 Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
IIHYM24260 Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
None None G3G4 S2
IIHYM24380 Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
None None G2G3 S1S2
Report Printed on Wednesday, April 05, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 4 Information Expires 10/1/2023
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
ATTACHMENT 3
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
IIHYM24480 Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
None Candidate
Endangered
G2 S2
IMBIV19010 Gonidea angulata
western ridged mussel
None None G3 S2
PDAPI0Z0S0 Eryngium racemosum
Delta button-celery
None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
PDAST1C011 Blepharizonia plumosa
big tarplant
None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.1
PDAST2E0U0 Cirsium crassicaule
slough thistle
None None G1 S1 1B.1
PDAST5L030 Lasthenia chrysantha
alkali-sink goldfields
None None G2 S2 1B.1
PDAST9F031 Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii
Wright's trichocoronis
None None G4T3 S1 2B.1
PDASTE8470 Symphyotrichum lentum
Suisun Marsh aster
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDBRA2R010 Tropidocarpum capparideum
caper-fruited tropidocarpum
None None G1 S1 1B.1
PDCAB01010 Brasenia schreberi
watershield
None None G5 S3 2B.3
PDCHE040B0 Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata
heartscale
None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
PDCHE041F3 Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDCHE042M0 Atriplex minuscula
lesser saltscale
None None G2 S2 1B.1
PDFAB0F8R1 Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
PDFAB250D2 Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
Delta tule pea
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
PDFAB400R5 Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDMAL0H0R3 Hibiscus lasiocarpos var. occidentalis
woolly rose-mallow
None None G5T3 S3 1B.2
PDRAN0B1J0 Delphinium recurvatum
recurved larkspur
None None G2? S2? 1B.2
PDSCR0J0J0 Chloropyron palmatum
palmate-bracted bird's-beak
Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
PMALI040Q0 Sagittaria sanfordii
Sanford's arrowhead
None None G3 S3 1B.2
PMPOA53110 Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
None None G2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Wednesday, April 05, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 4 Information Expires 10/1/2023
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
ATTACHMENT 3
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
PMPOA6N010 Tuctoria greenei
Greene's tuctoria
Endangered Rare G1 S1 1B.1
Record Count: 62
Report Printed on Wednesday, April 05, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated April, 1 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 4 Information Expires 10/1/2023
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
ATTACHMENT 3

!"#$%&'!
&
!&
&!

("
&%
)
($(&
(&*+,- "&!% "
./01102/011012/011312/0110/2/0113/2/01132/011412/0114/2/01145 6)$789:7;7$ 9<=8 $>==>9 9<=8 ;<=7?@?7;8;>A=B?>>=79C D8A7>E ;8E?7): ):<:8 ?7): C?>B<? A<9F ):<:8 A<9F $<A<A8 D?<9: A<9F $<89E8=7$ E<:8 <EE8EDG>:>
HIJKLMLNOIJPQPK R(#JPQPK
%'%&&%', R
;S

!! %
(S =(,T !9!
9!
CU:V)VVB#U@

V++W, XV,XV 9D <R&%S%
HJKYZNP[ \]K^ONLJLR(#
(
%
$
!_"&

!! %
(S<_(,>9!
9!
C`:U)UVB#U@

V+aa, XV,XV bV++W AS
(8# D(

!c D#E#
HJKYZNP[\]K]QLJL R(#\]K]QLJL (d!
%
$
!_"&

!! %
(S =(,>9!
9!
CW:`)`W#U@

V++W, XV,XV bV++W AS
(8# D(

!c D#E#
HJKYZNP[ eYQOI\ONL %

(
%
%
$
!_"&

!! %
(S =f,>9!
9!
CU)UVB#V@

V++W, XV,XV bUXXX AS
(8# D(

!c D#E#
gNPZhLKYi]QYL ZNOe]IL S&j(_%!<

(

!! %
(ST %,>9!
9!
CVCU)V)UVB#V@

V++W, XV,XV 9D <R&%S%
gKLIPQYL I\hKPkPKY
d
(
&
%"$SS

_
(
!!&% (&l

(Smn &o T !,)
_9!
9!
Cp)`UB#` UXVX, VX,Uq bUXVW F&(

!
BR

rPQJK]eL^YL ZLKKsY

_#KO^YI D((ft
( j (_%! <

(

!! %
(S =f,>9!
9!
C`:`)`W#U@

UXXq, Xp,UU 9D <R&%S%
rhN]K]ZsK]Q ZLNeLJOe _%
, S(
"S&("t
, S
' >(S!

!! %
(S m
&_(
&&o =f,>;8$8CV)VVB#V@

V+qW, XV,XV 9D <R&%S%

• CALIFORNIA
( .. ) NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
ATTACHMENT 3

!"#""$%"&
"'() *"*"
+

,

-
./0
12 ,3
4
5

6

!78#78"$%7&
"'99 *"*"
+

,

:;0<
= >

?

@6 A
BC!"#""$%"&
"'() *"*"
+

,

:D2.

D E=F00 #6
G

B

3

A

!7#7"$%7&
"'99 *"*"
+

,

H
.

1D

0
I

I
J

6

!K#K)%7&
7**" *"*" L7*"( 6

>

HM =.=,% =N
02 I

I

,
P
O

?O@ 6#

!QRK#K"$%7&
"'() *"*" L7*7* #,
+

S2/
0
/;02/
4

4

3J
3

T

!7#7"$%"&
7*"' *'K* L7**' B
J
#
U,

V #

S2/
0
W

T
X

3J
3

T

!K#K)%7&
7**" *"*" L7**' Y

, S2/;E
.=0 ,%E
.=0 >

T

6
? #@

!QR7#7"$%7&
"'() *"*" L7**K
4
T

Z0
.

D B
J

4

!7#7"$%7 7*"Q "*"Q
+

,

[<22
0W=N
#J
3X

I3

O
P
O

?O@

A?
,@

!K#K"$%7&
"'9) *"*" L7*"K >
\% B

4 [;./;=2/
02 #

P
O

?@

,

!7#7"$%7&
"'() *"*"
+

,

ATTACHMENT 3

!"#
$%
%
&'()#*+,* *-.." /*"/* %
0

1234 567234

$"9
%
%
&+#+*,+:
+//*" /*"/* %
0

76;734 ;77;6<34 $
"=

> $>$
? ,

"$%
%
&*#**,*:
*-@'" /*"/* %
0

3
;

<<< &

!" 9

A#
$B 8CDE&*#**,*:
*-@'" /*"/* F+//.
8 &

#G
*

+'
=
+'

HIJJKLMKN
OPMQMPRST D
=
%

0
#
!U
E

0
0?
+/+)
E

0
V

!
A

-WB

$XYYGGG
$
$ Z

>
W
$

+/+)[
ATTACHMENT 3
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
San Joaquin County, California
1/111111 I> !,•
l.!: G• ~-~ . ... . ,
• I I., I
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
\. (916) 414-6600
Iii (916) 414-6713
l=PrlPr.::il R11ilrlinu
ATTACHMENT 3
2806' Cottage\ivay, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
ATTACHMENT 3
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheriesl ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for ~pecies under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status pag~ for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

ATTACHMENT 3

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Amphibians
NAME
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
htq~s://ecos. fws.gov/eqJ/SP-ecies/2076
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s:// ecos.fws.gov I ec P-lsgecies/97 43
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desrnocerus californicus dimorphus
Wherever found
There is fi nal critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
httP-s:/ /ecos. fws.gov/ecQISP-ecies/7850
Crustaceans
NAME
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
httP-s:/ / ecos.fws.gov I ecP-ISP-ecies/ 498
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
httgs:/ / ecos. fws.gov / ecg/sgecies/2246
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
Candidate
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
ATTACHMENT 3
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actl and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Actl .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migrato[Y. Birds TreatY. Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern httP-s://www.fws.gov/P-rogram/migratorY.-birds/sP-ecies • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds httP-s://www.fws.gov/Ii bra rY./ col lecti ans/avoiding-and-minim izi ng-i ncid enta I-takem igr ato[Y.-bi rds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds
htq~s://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasu res. P-df The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data maP-J~ing tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

ATTACHMENT 3
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA httgs:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecg/sgecies/8
Bullock's Oriole lcterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA httgs:/ / ecos. fws.gov I ecg/sgecies/2084
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation f'{egions (BCRs) in the continental USA htq~s://ecos.fws.gov/eq::1/sgecies/941 O
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httgs:/ / ecos.fws.gov I ecg/species/9656
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httgs:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecg/species/3910

BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 1 O
ATTACHMENT 3
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httQs:/ I ecos.fws.gov I ecQISP-ecies/9726
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence [n the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found 'in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probabil ity of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probabi lity of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between O and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

ATTACHMENT 3
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data(- )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yel lowthroat

BCC - BCR
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC- BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

JAN FEB MAR
+ -
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort - no data

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

ATTACHMENT 3
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or P-ermits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BC(). and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledgg Network {AKN) .. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the RaP-id Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probabil ity of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
ATTACHMENT 3

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Model ing and Predictive Mam:iing of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb SP-iegcl or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a P-ermit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location''. Please be aware this report provides the "probabillty of presence" of birds within the 1 o km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

ATTACHMENT 3
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refug~ system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. ArmY. CoqJs of Engineers District.

Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI maP- to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

ATTACHMENT 3
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

ATTACHMENT 3
Quad Name Manteca
Quad Number 37121-G2
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) -
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) - X
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -
ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
-
-
I
ATTACHMENT 3
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH -
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH -
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -
MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
I
ATTACHMENT 3
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDIX C
Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review,
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2023
ATTACHMENT 3
2023-051.01/HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 2525 Warren Drive ● Rocklin, CA 95677 ● Tel: (916) 782-9100 ● Fax: (916) 782-9134 ● www.ecorpconsulting.com DRAFT
HydroScience Engineers
10569 Old Placerville Road
Sacramento, CA 95827
RE: Cultural Resources Due Diligence Review for the HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project, San Joaquin County, California
Greetings:

At your request, ECORP Consulting, Inc. carried out a cultural resources due diligence records search and literature review for the HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project. The Project Area consists of approximately 1.79 acres of land located in the southwestern corner of Yosemite Village Park on El Portal Avenue in the City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. The property is in the southwestern quarter of the northwestern quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1952 (photorevised 1980, minor revision 1994) Manteca, California U.S.

Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1). It is also known as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 219-090-10.

The review used reasonably accessible records search and database information and included the examination of aerial photographs and maps. This summary letter identifies potential constraints based on the reviewed information and provides an outline of steps that may be necessary to entitle the property for development. This due diligence review does not include field surveys for cultural resources, agency or tribal consultation, or evaluations of significance for any previously recorded resources. The assessment is based on existing data that was already accessible to ECORP and may not predict all potential exposures; however, it conservatively identifies the potential exposures that are reasonably applicable to the property.

RECORDS SEARCH
Qualifications
This assessment was directed by Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Brian S. Marks, Ph.D., who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61). Dr. Marks is a Senior Archaeologist with more than 26 years of experience. Arik J. K. Bord, RPA conducted the records search and data gathering. Mr. Bord is a Staff Archaeologist with more than 10 years of experience in anthropological and archaeological investigations.

ECORP Consulting, Inc. ENV I RONMENTAL CONSULT,....,. A-N"""r """s _______________________ _ ATTACHMENT 3
Study Area
120
4 99
Tracy
Stockton
132
580 Modesto
Oakdale
Map Date: 3/27/2023
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2023\2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\MW29 Location and Vicinity.aprx - MW29 Location and Vicinity 20230327 (jwelsh - 3/27/2023) Manteca, CA [1952 (p.r.1980, m.r.1994),
NAD 27]
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

San Joaquin County, California
§5, T.02S, R.07E, MDBM
Latitude (NAD83): 37.792718°
Longitude (NAD83): -121.23254°
Watershed: San Joaquin Delta (18040003)
I 0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Study Area - 1.79 ac.

ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 3 Draft2023-051.01 Sources Reviewed
ECORP requested a records search for the property at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Stanislaus on March 27, 2023 (CCIC Search #CC12490L; Appendix A). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.5-mile (800-meter) radius of the Proposed Project location, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. CCIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on March 28, 2023.

In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Joaquin County, ECORP also reviewed the following historic references: Built Environment Resource Directory (California Office of Historic Preservation [OHP] 2020); Historic Property Data File for San Joaquin County (OHP 2012); the National Register Information System (National Park Service [NPS] 2023); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (CHL; OHP 2022); CHL (OHP 1996 and updates); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2018); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002). ECORP also reviewed geologic maps and soils data to assess buried site potential.

Other references examined include a RealQuest Property Search and historic General Land Office (GLO) land patent records (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2022). In addition, ECORP reviewed the following maps:
 1855 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 2 South, Range 7 East;  1914 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale);  1952 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale);  1952 (photorevised 1976) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); and
 1952 (photorevised 1980, minor revision 1994) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale).

ECORP reviewed aerial photographs taken in 1957, 1968, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2017, 2018, and 2020 for any indications of property usage and built environment.

ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 27, 2023 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Area (Appendix B). This search determines whether the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have recorded Sacred Lands because the Sacred Lands File is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding Tribal Cultural Resources, but the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project
4 Draft
2023-051.01
local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies do not delegate government-togovernment authority to any private entity to conduct tribal consultation.

SEARCH RESULTS
Records Search
Seven previous cultural resource investigations were conducted within 0.5 mile of the property, covering the entire area surrounding the Project Area within the records search radius (Table 1). The previous studies were conducted between 1998 and 2017.

Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies in or within 0.5 mile of the Project Area Report
Number
SJAuthor(s) Report Title Year Includes the
Project Area?
4786 Windmiller, Ric and
Donald Napoli
City of Manteca--General Plan Update,
Background Reports: Archaeological Resources,
Historical Resources, Records Search Results
2002 Yes
5309 Baloian, M., R. Baloian,
and W. Nettles
Cultural Resources Investigations for the South
San Joaquin Irrigation District in San Joaquin
County, California
2004 No
6625
ASI Archaeology and
Cultural Resource
Management
Cultural Resources Survey, South County Surface
Water Project, San Joaquin County, California,
South San Joaquin Irrigation District
1998 No
6739 Hooks, C.

New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet FCC Form
620 Cabral Motors SC13354, 1145 w. Yosemite
Avenue Manteca
2005 No
7214 Travers, A.

Cultural Resources Analysis Downtown
Manteca/CN 1926 1115 West Yosemite Ave, San
Joaquin County Manteca, California 95337 EBI
Project No. 61096032
2009 No
7762 Supernowicz, D.

Letter Report: Records Search Results for the
Downtown Manteca Project, 1115 W. Yosemite
Avenue, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California
2012 No
9257 Falke, M. and K.

Vallaire
Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report,
State Route 120 at Union Road Interchange
Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California;
10-SJ-120, P.M. 3.4/5.2, EA 10-0P200, ID 10-0000-
0182
2017 No
One previous study includes the entire Project Area. SJ-4786 consists of a records search and historical contexts for the entirety of the area included in the City of Manteca General Plan Update (Windmiller and Napoli 2002). This study did not include a pedestrian survey of the Project Area, so one will need to be performed prior to any work being performed.

ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 5 Draft2023-051.01 The records search also determined that four previously recorded historic-period cultural resources are located within 0.5 mile of the property (Table 2). No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the Project Area, and no pre-contact resources were documented within 0.5 mile.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5 mile of the Project Area Site
Number
CA-SJOPrimary
Number
P-39-
Recorder and Year Age/Period Site Description
– 5004
San Joaquin County
Superintendent of Schools,
Public Schools of San Joaquin
County 1852-1990 (1991)
Historic-era
Manteca Unified School
District/Manteca/Yosemite School
– 5090
San Joaquin County
Superintendent of Schools,
Public Schools of San Joaquin
County 1852-1990 (1991)
Historic-era Elliott (Brock) School, 1110 Stonum
Ln., Manteca
– 5098
San Joaquin County
Superintendent of Schools,
Public Schools of San Joaquin
County 1852-1990 (1991)
Historic-era Sequoia Elementary School, 710
Martha St., Manteca
– 5337 M. Walker, Cardno, Inc., for
PG&E (2017) Historic-era
Tesla-Salado-Manteca 115 kV
Transmission Line
Literature Review
The OHP’s Built Environment Resource Directory for San Joaquin County (dated March 3, 2020) lists two properties within 0.5 mile of the Project Area (OHP 2020): 1142 and 1155 Virginia Street. The two properties were evaluated on June 17, 2013 and November 15, 2010, respectively, and are approximately

0.2 mile north of the Project Area. Both properties were determined ineligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process – not evaluated for California Register or local listing (6Y).

The National Register Information System (NPS 2022) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the City of Manteca. The nearest National Register property is located approximately 10 miles north of the Project Area in the City of Stockton.

ECORP reviewed resources listed as California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996) by the OHP (2022) on March 28, 2023. The nearest listed landmark is #668: French Camp, located at the French Camp School approximately 6.7 miles north of the Project Area in the community of French Camp.

A review of Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002) mentions San Joaquin County was one of the original 27 counties in California and that more than 100 village sites have been located throughout the County in the form of mounds or midden deposits.

Historic GLO land patent records from the BLM’s patent information database (BLM 2022) revealed that the southwestern quarter of the northwestern quarter of Section 5 was patented to Livingston S.

ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 6 Draft2023-051.01 Bartholomew and William H. Lyons on March 3, 1855 under the Scrip Warrant Act of 1855 (10 Stat. 701), which issued credits for military service (scrip) that could be used to purchase federal land.

A RealQuest online property search for APN 219-090-10 revealed that the property consists of 4.9 acres of public service land. No other property history information was on record with RealQuest.

The Caltrans Bridge Local and State Inventories (Caltrans 2018, 2019) did not list any historic bridges within 0.5 mile of the Project Area.

Historic Map and Aerial Photograph Review
 The 1855 BLM GLO Plat map for Township 2 South, Range 7 East depicts the Project Area situated in the southwestern quarter of the northwestern Quarter of Section 5 in plot number 80. A road is depicted oriented north–south through the eastern half of Section 4. No other noteworthy depictions are present in the vicinity of Section 5.
 The 1914 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:31,680 scale) depicts the Project Area southwest of Manteca. Yosemite Avenue is depicted with several structures on its northern and southern sides, approximately 0.3 mile north of the Project Area. The Southern Pacific Railroad runs northwest–southeast through Manteca, 0.75 mile northeast of the Project Area.
 The 1952 USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale) depicts Yosemite Avenue, which is labeled California State Route (SR) 120. Union Road runs north–south to the southwest of the Project Area. The Manteca city limits are depicted as having expanded to approximately 0.25 mile east of the Project Area.
 A review of aerial photographs from 1957 show the Project Area on the western side of a farm road that runs northwest–southeast through an agricultural field. Flooded rice fields are visible two fields west of the Project Area, with orchards west of the rice fields.  A review of aerial photographs from 1968 show the Project Area within the southwestern corner of Yosemite Village Park. A residential neighborhood surrounds the Project Area east of Yosemite Road, with agricultural fields to the west. No structures or features are visible within the park where the Project Area is located; however, there are a few trees in the center and around the perimeter of the Project Area.
 The 1952 (photorevised 1976) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale) depicts the City of Manteca expanding again to encompass the Project Area. Residential streets and cul-de-sacs surround the Project Area up to Union Road; however, no structures are depicted within the new neighborhood.
 Aerial photographs from 1982 show the residential neighborhood surrounding the Project Area has expanded west of Yosemite Road. The SR 120 bypass is visible south of the Project Area.  A review of aerial photographs from 1993 show a play area or sandbox in the northern end of Yosemite Village Park, north of the Project Area. Several trees are visible on the northern side of ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project
7 Draft
2023-051.01
the park and along its northeastern and southern perimeter. The neighborhood west of Yosemite Road has expanded farther westward, and the orchards west of the Project Area have been replaced by residential sprawl and Sierra High School.
 The 1952 (photorevised 1980, minor revision 1994) USGS Manteca, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale) depicts the neighborhood surrounding the Project Area expanding further west of Union Road. No new structures are depicted in the vicinity of the Project Area within the photorevised sections of the map. SR 120 is depicted in its current location south of the Project Area.
 Aerial photographs from 2005 show a new rectangular concrete basketball court in the center of the Project Area and a structure on the eastern side of Yosemite Village Park, east of the Project Area. Trees now line the entire perimeter of the park.
 Aerial photographs from 2017, 2018, and 2020 show the Well 29 structures and treatment tanks being constructed in their current locations within the Project Area in the southwestern corner of Yosemite Village Park.

Sacred Lands File Results
A search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the Project Area. A record of all correspondence is provided in Appendix B.

RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Results
The literature and map review revealed that the property was used for agriculture prior to 1960, but was developed into a municipal park sometime between 1957 and 1968 as the city limits of Manteca expanded through the area. Further improvements were made, which began in 2017 with the installation of the well and filtration system. No cultural resources have been previously identified within the Project Area, and the only previous study within the Project Area did not include a pedestrian survey and was conducted more than 20 years ago using methods and under conditions that are now considered obsolete.

Potential for Buried Pre-Contact Archaeological Materials and Need for Tribal Involvement
In assessing potential for buried archaeological sites, ECORP reviewed reasonably available information regarding natural water and soils. The presence of natural water sources is often an indicator for the potential presence of archaeological resources because pre-contact Native American communities and post-contact European-American and Native American communities exploited natural water courses for a variety of subsistence and economic resources. The region falls under the traditionally recognized lands of the Native American tribe, Northern Valley Yokuts. The Northern Valley Yokuts’ ancestral territory encompasses the Project Area. Typically, there is a greater concentration of archaeological resources ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 8 Draft2023-051.01 along bays and major rivers than in areas farther from a primary water source. No natural waterways appear associated with the parcel in historic maps and aerial photographs, although the San Joaquin River is located approximately 4 miles west of the Project Area.

Geological data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) characterize the geology of the local area in reference to archaeological history. Certain geological characteristics and formations are more likely to be of concern for archaeological materials. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey website (NRCS 2023), only one type of soil is present in the Project Area: DelhiUrban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (143). This soil is a somewhat excessively drained, windmodified alluvium derived from granitic rock sources. Typically, Delhi-type sand and soils indicate a higher probability of buried archaeological deposits; however, that probability is highly mitigated by the Urban land soil types present within the Project Area, in addition to past disturbances of the ground by previous agricultural endeavors and more recent development of urban sprawl throughout the area surrounding the Project Area. It is likely that archaeological remains within the Project Area, if any, would have been destroyed during the installation of Well 29 and the development of the neighborhood where the Project Area is located.

The underlying geomorphology of this area consists of sediments deposited during flood stages of major streams in areas between natural stream levees and alluvial fans, and are probably of late Pleistocene age (California Geological Survey 2023). This means that the parcel exhibits alluvial sediments deposited by ancient and recent water flow, which can mask archaeological sites. Holocene (approximately 12,000 years ago to present) alluvial deposits are geological landforms in which Native American archaeological deposits that are not visible on the surface may be present.

Furthermore, although the results of the NAHC search of the Sacred Lands File were negative (Appendix B), local tribes that have previously ascribed interest in projects in the area may become actively engaged in tribal consultation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. Tribal consultation under CEQA will be required as a prerequisite to adopting or certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Initial Study, and consultation under Section 106 will be required as part of any federal permitting or approvals. A common outcome of tribal consultation in this area is a request from tribes to be hired as construction monitors. It is important that the lead agency only entertain such a request if there is a reasonable potential for an impact to a resource identified through tribal consultation. A record of all correspondence to date is provided in Appendix B.

Lastly, cultural resources compliance will factor into work plans and associated ground disturbance activities. Under State law, the discovery of archaeological materials or human remains results in an automatic work stoppage at that location; however, work may continue in other parts of the property while the lead agency determines, in consultation with the project archaeologist and other parties, as appropriate, whether the find represents a historical resource under CEQA or a historic property under Section 106 (if applicable). In the event the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, the San Joaquin County Coroner must be notified to determine if the remains are the result of a crime scene or that of a prehistoric Native American. If the latter, the Coroner must notify the California NAHC to identify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the remains. The MLD will make recommendations to the landowner about the appropriate treatment and disposition of the remains, which may or may not ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 9 Draft2023-051.01 require mediation by the NAHC before construction activities may resume. The procedures are detailed in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

The costs for addressing unanticipated discoveries can vary, depending on the type, size, and nature of the find. Based on ECORP’s experience, the following general patterns apply:
 If the monitoring archaeologist determines that the find does not represent an intact historical resource and can make that determination quickly, work may resume at that location soon after discovery (typically within minutes) and without costlier archaeological excavation and treatment.  If the monitoring archaeologist determines that the find represents an intact archaeological resource, a delay of ground-disturbing activity in order to evaluate the significance can take days or weeks before the lead agency can issue an authorization to resume at that location. The cost for archaeological excavation and evaluation can range between $5,000 and $50,000, although this number can increase if the discovery is large.
 If the find includes fragmented or redeposited human bone, there is typically a one- to four-day delay during the Coroner and MLD identification process. If the MLD recommends reburial in a manner consistent with past practice within the Project Area, the costs would be expected to be minimal. If the find includes intact human burials, there is an additional delay and cost for burial recovery that can take weeks to complete; the cost for burial removal, analysis, and reburial can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RISKS
Based on the information presented above, ECORP concludes that there are no indications that the property is unusually constrained by cultural resources, with the following caveats:
 Although one previous study included a portion of the Project Area, that survey was more than 20 years ago. If ground disturbance will occur as part of the project, it is likely that reviewing agencies will require an updated study to include the entire Project Area, and this possibility increases if the project is subject to a federal undertaking under Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act. The presence of significant cultural resources can affect the level of environmental review under CEQA.
 As the Project Area is a portion of Yosemite Village Park, and the park is more than 50 years old, it is possible that reviewing agencies will require the entire 4.9 acre park area to be evaluated as a potential historic resource prior to any ground disturbing activity.  TCRs may be identified only during tribal consultation, and those resources may not be visible.

The lead agency may still impose construction-related mitigation measures or permit conditions.  Ground-disturbing activity may result in the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources that can affect construction operations.

ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project 10 Draft2023-051.01 I hope this review is helpful to you. Due to the nature of archaeological deposits (i.e., not visible on the surface) and the absence of field visits, this desktop review cannot predict all potential exposures. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues in further detail, please contact me at [email protected] or by phone at (916) 782-9100.

Sincerely,
DRAFT
Brian S. Marks, Ph.D., RPA
Senior Archaeologist
ATTACHMENT 3
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

HydroScience-TO1 Manteca Well 29 TCP Project
11 Draft
2023-051.01

REFERENCES
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2022. Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Records Automation Website. http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/. Accessed March 28, 2023.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–Local Agency Bridges Database March 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/maintenance/documents/f0009165-hs-local-a11y.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2023.
_____. 2018. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–State Agency Bridges Database September 2018. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/hs_state.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2023.

California Geological Survey. 2023. California Geologic Map Series (1981-Present). https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rgm/maps. Accessed March 28, 2023.

Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

National Park Service (NPS). 2023. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm#table. Accessed March 21, 2023.
_____. 2020. National Register Information System Website. Electronic document, http://www.nr. nps.gov/nrloc1.htm. Accessed March 21, 2023.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed March 28, 2023.

Windmiller, Ric and Donald Napoli. 2002. City of Manteca—General Plan Update, Background Reports:

Archaeological Resources, Historical Resources, Records Search Results. Report on file at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), California State University Stanislaus, California ATTACHMENT 3

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation
Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination
ATTACHMENT 3

APPENDIX A
Records Search Confirmation
ATTACHMENT 3

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties Date: 3/28/2023 Records Search File No.: 12490L
Project: Manteca Well 29 Project,
2023-051.01
Arik J. K. Bord
ECORP Consulting, Inc. [email protected]
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
916-782-9100
The Central California Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Manteca 7.5’ quadrangle in San Joaquin County. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project study area and radius:

As per data currently available at the CCaIC, the locations of resources/reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☒ GIS Data/shape files Summary Data:

Resources within the project area: None formally reported to the Information Center.

Resources within the 1/2-mile radius: 4: P-39-005004, 5090, 5098, 5337 Reports within the project area: 1: SJ-04786
Reports within the 1/2-mile radius: 6: SJ-05309, 6625, 6739, 7214, 7762, 9257 Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Historic Properties Directory: New Excel File: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Dated 9/23/2022
Not all resources listed in the BERD are mapped in GIS, nor do we have records on file for; if you identify additional resources in the BERD that you need copies of, contact the IC. §
ATTACHMENT 3
☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email by our Financial Services office* ($301.55), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice ATTACHMENT 3
from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services ATTACHMENT 3

APPENDIX B
Sacred Lands File Coordination
ATTACHMENT 3
1 Arik Bord
From: NAHC@NAHC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Arik Bord
Cc: Torres-Fuentes, Pricilla@NAHC
Subject: RE: Request for information, Manteca Well 29 Project, 2023-051.01 Attachments: MW29 Records Search 20230327 (v01).pdf; NAHC Letter_2023-051.01.pdf; NAHC-Sacred-Lands-NAContact-Form-revised_2023-051.01.pdf Hello,
Thank you for your message. We're in receipt of your request. We have recently hired new staff, and this change in our office is creating some delays. We estimate a turn‐around time of 4 weeks and don't anticipate responding sooner than the end of that time frame. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373‐3710
From: Arik Bord <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 4:17 PM
To: NAHC@NAHC <[email protected]>
Cc: Brian Marks <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for information, Manteca Well 29 Project, 2023‐051.01 Good afternoon,
Attached, please find a request for a search of the Sacred Land File and a list of Native American Tribes for the Manteca Well 29 Project in San Joaquin County (ECORP Project Number 2023‐051.01).

Thank you,
Arik J. K. Bord
Staff Archaeologist
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2525 Warren Drive, Rocklin CA 95677
Ph: 916.782.9100 ᆐᆑ Direct Line: 916.251.5149 ᆐᆑCell: 916.660.6443 ᆐᆑ Fax: 916.782.9134 [email protected] ᆐᆑ www.ecorpconsulting.com
Rocklin ᆐᆑ Redlands ᆐᆑ Santa Ana ᆐᆑ San Diego ᆐᆑ Chico ᆐᆑ Santa Fe, NM P Consulting In . NME, ·rAL CONS LILT '\l 'r
ATTACHMENT 3
2525 Warren DrivH Ń 5RFNOLQ &$
Ń 7HO

-
Ń )D[

-
Ń :HE
ZZZHFRUSFRQVXOWLQJFRP
0DUFK
1DWLYH $PHULFDQ +HULWDJH &RPPLVVLRQ
+DUERU %OYG 6XLWH
:HVW 6DFUDPHQWR &$

QDKF#QDKFFDJRv
RE: Cultural Resources Identification Effort for the Manteca Well 29 Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California
Dear N$+& 6WDII

(&25P &RQVXOWLQJ ,QF KDV EHHQ UHWDLQHG WR DVVLVW LQ WKH SODQQLQJ RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW RQ WKH SURMHFW LQGLFDWHG DERYH 7KLV DVSHFW RI WKH 3URMHFW SURSRVHV WR LQVWDOO LPSURYHPHQWV DQG D ZDWHU WUHDWPHQW V\VWHP WR DQ H[LVWLQJ ZHOO 7Ke 3URMHFW $rea LV ORFDWHG in 6HFWLRQ 5 RI 7RZQVKLS 6RXWK 5DQJH (DVW DV GHSLFWHG RQ WKH HQFORVHG 0DQWHFD

SKRWRUHYLVHG

86*6 -PLQXWH TXDGUDQJOH PDS in 0DQWHFD &DOLIRUQLD 6DQ -RDTXLQ &RXQW\ $V SDUW RI WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ HIIRUW ZH DUH VHHNLQJ LQIRUPDWLRn IURP DOO SDUWLHV WKDW PD\ KDYH NQRZOHGJH RI RU FRQFHUQV ZLWK KLVWRULF SURSHUWLHV RU FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFHV in WKH DUHD RI SRWHQWLDO HIIHFWV ,QFOXGHG LV D PDS VKRZLQJ WKH SURMHFW DUHD RXWOLQHG :H ZRXOG DSSUHFLDWH WKH UHVXOWV RI \RXU VHDUFK RI WKH 6DFUHG /DQGV )LOH DQG OLVW RI WULEDO FRQWDFWV ZKR FDQ EH FRQWDFWHG WR SURYLGe LQSXW RQ WKLV XQGHUWDNLQJ POHDVH ePDLO \RXU UHVSRQVH WR P\ DWWHQWLRQ DW DERUG#HFRrSFRQVXOWLQJFRP ,I \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV SOHDVH

FRQWDFW PH DW

-

7KDQN \RX in DGYDQFH IRU \RXU DVVLVWDQFH
6LnFHUHO\
$ULN - . %RUG 53$
6WDII $UFKDHRORJLVW
ATTACHMENT 3
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search

Project: Manteca Well 29, 2023-051.01
County: San Joaquin
USGS Quadrangle: Manteca 1952 (Photorevised 1994)
Township: 2 South Range: 7 East Section(s): 5
Company/Firm/Agency: ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Contact Person: Arik J. K. Bord
Street Address: __2525 Warren Drive_________________________________ City: __Rocklin________________________________Zip:___95677________ Phone: __(916) 782-9100____________________________________________ Fax: __(916) 782-9134______________________________________________ Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

See attached letter and map.

3/24/2023
ATTACHMENT 3
Map Date: 3/27/2023
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2023\2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP\MAPS\Cultural_Resources\MW29 Cultural Resources.aprx - MW29 Records Search 20230327 (jwelsh - 3/27/2023) Manteca, CA [1952 (p.r.1980, m.r.1994),
NAD 27]
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

San Joaquin County, California
§5, T.02S, R.07E, MDBM
Latitude (NAD83): 37.792718°
Longitude (NAD83): -121.23254°
Watershed: San Joaquin Delta (18040003)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2023-051.01 HydroScience-Manteca Well 29 TCP
Records Search
Study Area - 1.79 ac.

Buffer - 0.5 mi
ATTACHMENT 3
1 Arik Bord
From: Torres-Fuentes, Pricilla@NAHC <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 2:03 PM
To: Arik Bord
Subject: Manteca Well 29,2023-051.01 Project
Attachments: SLF No 2022 Manteca Well 29,2023-051.01 Project 4.12.23.pdf; Manteca Well 29,2023-051.01 list.pdf Good afternoon,
Attached is the response to the project referenced above. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact our office email at [email protected].

Regards,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
[email protected]
(916)373-3714 Direct
(916)373-3710 Office
ATTACHMENT 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Page 1 of 1 ends

Manteca City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Manteca City Council
September 19, 2023