Cities Index.
Attachment 6 - Exhibit A to Resolution for ISMND

Manteca City Council
June 16, 2026

Document
Attachment 6 - Exhibit A to Resolution for ISMND
Meeting
June 16, 2026
Body
Manteca City Council
Original file
13.4 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on manteca-ca.legistar1.com. That file is the official record.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
State Clearinghouse Number
2026041206
June 2026
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Prepared by:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, California 95677

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Notice of Determination 1 June 2026

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: FROM:

Office of Planning and Research
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 of the Public Resources Code
PROJECT TITLE: City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number 2026041206 Alfredo Mijango 209-456-8422
Project Approval
The City of Manteca adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Central Trunk Sewer Project on June 16, 2026.

Project Location
The City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) area consists of approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City. The Project Site is located within Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S. Geological Survey Manteca, California 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Summary Project Description
The Central Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) consists of the replacement of an existing 36-inch diameter sanitary sewer trunk line that is deteriorated and aged connecting to the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) located within the Parks Department Corporation Yard. The new 36-inch trunk sewer line will be approximately 4,300 LF of 36-inch PVC SDR 26 pipe. The existing lifting station will be decommissioned in the future by others. The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole.

The City of Manteca, 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;
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Notice of Determination 2 June 2026
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project was prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted by the City of Manteca which is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at the following website:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planningdocuments/environmental-documents-notices 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:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planningdocuments/environmental-documents-notices David Ruby, AICP
City of Manteca
Date
Date Received for Filing at OPR: ___________
5/28/2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
State Clearinghouse Number
2026041206
June 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration i June 2026

CONTENTS
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – City of Manteca Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects ........................................... i 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 Appendix.................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Appendix A – Notice of Intent
Appendix B – Proof of Publication
Appendix C – CDFW Filing Fee Receipt
Appendix D – Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
IS Initial Study
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
OPR Office and Planning and Research
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration i June 2026

FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF MANTECA CENTRAL TRUNK SEWER PROJECT
Summary
Lead Agency: City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project Project Location: The City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) area consists of approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City. The Project Site is located within Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S.

Geological Survey Manteca, California 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Summary Project Description: The Central Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) consists of the replacement of an existing 36-inch diameter sanitary sewer trunk line that is deteriorated and aged connecting to the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) located within the Parks Department Corporation Yard.

The new 36-inch trunk sewer line will be approximately 4,300 LF of 36-inch PVC SDR 26 pipe. The existing lifting station will be decommissioned in the future by others. The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole.

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

Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects Biological Resources
BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Habitat Avoidance. The following measures shall be implemented to avoid impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat within the pipeline alignment:
 A special-status plant survey shall be conducted according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Native Plant Society, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols prior to Project ground-disturbing or vegetation disturbing activities within undeveloped areas. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as defined per agency protocols) throughout all potential habitat for specialstatus plants within the Project Site and a 15-foot buffer. The survey shall be timed according to the identifiable period for special-status plant species with potential to occur (typically the blooming period). To the extent feasible, known reference populations shall be visited prior to the survey to confirm target species are evident and identifiable at the time of the survey. If no special-status plants are found and the survey is still considered recent as per CDFW and USFWS protocols at the time of Project implementation, no further measures pertaining to special-status plants are necessary. If City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration ii June 2026
a special-status plant is identified within or adjacent to the Project Site, the following shall apply.
 An impact assessment shall be made by a qualified biologist to determine whether Project-related activities would be significant such that they would have the potential to eliminate, substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of the special-status plant species, and/or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting specialstatus plant species. If impacts are determined to be less than significant, no further measures are needed.
 If potential impacts are determined to be significant, then a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around special-status plant populations to be avoided within or adjacent to the Project Site. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the extent of the avoided special-status plants (as determined by a qualified biologist during an appropriate time to identify the plants immediately preceding construction) plus a minimum 15-foot buffer. The avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field and demarcation shall be maintained for the duration of Project construction. No vegetation-disturbing or ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the avoidance area.

BIO-2: Northwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey within the Project Site within 48 hours prior to the initiation of Project construction activities. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are found within or near the Project Site during the survey or during Project implementation, they shall be allowed to move out of the Project Site on their own volition or relocated by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW and silt fencing shall be installed.

BIO-3: Nesting Bird. If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 1– August 31, and as early as January 1 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of Project related activities to identify active nests that could be impacted by construction. The survey shall be conducted within the Project Site and a 500-foot buffer for raptors and a 100-foot buffer for other birds, where accessible. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. A qualified biologist shall establish a buffer distance. The buffer shall be maintained until the nestlings have fledged (e.g., are capable of flight and become independent of the nest), to be determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer can be removed, and no further measures are necessary once the young have fledged or the nest is no longer occupied, as determined by a qualified biologist.

BIO-4: Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance preconstruction survey according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active/occupied burrows are City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration iii June 2026
detected, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the burrow. The buffer distance shall be established in coordination with CDFW.

BIO-5: Swainson’s Hawk. If construction is scheduled during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31), then, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Swainson’s hawk nesting activity within a 0.5-mile distance surrounding the Project Site. The qualified biologist shall conduct surveys according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley or, if proposing an alternate survey methodology, shall submit the proposed survey timing and methods to CDFW for review and written approval prior to the initiation of surveys. If there is a lapse in Project related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If Swainson’s hawk nesting activity is observed during the survey, an avoidance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained while the nest is active.

BIO-6: Western Red Bat. Tree trimming/removal shall occur outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 through August 31), as feasible.

BIO-7: Aquatic Resources. Construction in this area will take place in one phase and will be completed before the irrigation ditch is used to convey any water.

Additionally, the applicant shall prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to avoid and minimize sediment and erosion to aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project Site boundary.

BIO-8: Tree and Vegetation Removal. The Project proponent shall consult with the City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department prior to impacting vegetation in any public space and shall secure their approval for impacting such vegetation prior to construction, if needed.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Unanticipated Discoveries. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration iv June 2026
eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined by CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
 If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the San Joaquin County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC).

This will also include either recording the site with NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Paleontological Resources
GEO-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area, and the area shall be isolated using orange or yellow fencing until the City is notified and the area is cleared for future work. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate treatment of the inadvertently discovered paleontological resources. If the City resumes work in a location where paleontological remains have been discovered and cleared, the City will have a paleontologist onsite to confirm that no additional paleontological resources are in the area.

Transportation
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration v June 2026
TRANS-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencing construction of the Proposed Project, a construction traffic management plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, in coordination with the City. The management plan shall be detailed and comprehensive to adequately mitigate potential conflicts between baseline and construction-related traffic. The construction traffic management plan will include, at a minimum, the following measures:

A. Adequate off-street worker parking shall be provided along the pipeline route.

B. A flagman or signal-controlled one-way traffic-control operation shall be provided where two-way traffic operation is impractical or unsafe.

C. Roadway disturbances shall be minimized during non-working hours; open trenches shall be covered with steel plates or by the use of temporary backfill during nonworking hours.

D. Temporary steel plate trench crossings shall be provided as needed to maintain access to homes, farms, and businesses.

E. Construction sites shall be posted with appropriate warning signage at least one week prior to construction to allow local residents to select an alternative travel route.

F. Construction staging areas shall be provided to minimize storage of equipment and materials in the traffic lanes.

G. All paved surfaces disturbed during construction shall be repaved when work is complete.

H. The Contractor shall provide traffic control and diversion plans for review and approval by each appropriate jurisdiction.

I. To minimize delays in emergency response during Project construction, emergency providers shall be notified in advance. Police, fire protection, and ambulance services shall be notified in advance of the times, duration, and location of construction activities throughout the Project’s construction process.

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 100 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from the Confederated Village of Lisjan Nation 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 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration vi June 2026
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.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration vii June 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Introduction 1-1 June 2026

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) including the Responses to Comments and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer 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 April 24, 2026.

The City of Manteca (City) is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. On April 24, 2026, the City distributed the Draft IS/MND for the 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 May 25, 2026, was completed. During the public review period no comments were received.

This Final IS/MND 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, and a discussion of why recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required;
Section 3.0 includes the comment letter received and responses to these comments; Section 4.0 includes corrections and revisions made to the Draft IS/MND in response to comments; Section 5.0 includes the Proposed Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6; and Section 6.0 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. As a result of comments received on the Draft IS/MND, minor revisions were required to the Draft IS/MND text, however, there were no substantial revisions that would require recirculation of the document. 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.”
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Introduction 1-2 June 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Project Overview 2-1 June 2026

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Project Location
The City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) consists of approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City. The Project Site is located within Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S. Geological Survey Manteca, California 7.5-minute quadrangle.

2.2 Project Description Summary
The Central Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) consists of the replacement of an existing 36-inch diameter sanitary sewer trunk line that is deteriorated and aged connecting to the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) located within the Parks Department Corporation Yard. The new 36-inch trunk sewer line will be approximately 4,300 LF of 36-inch PVC SDR 26 pipe. The existing lifting station will be decommissioned in the future by others. The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole.

2.3 Decision Not to Recirculate Draft MND
According to Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, “A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has been given pursuant to Section 15072 but prior to its adoption.” Because no revisions were proposed, this Final MND does not meet the criteria for recirculation provided in Section 15073.5 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are provided below, along with an explanation regarding the reasons why the changes to the Project do not require recirculation.

Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
a. Based on the conclusion of tribal consultation, minor revisions were made to TCR-1.

The addition of new language was not to provide any additional coverages, minimizations, or decrease findings. The new language was strictly to reflect the request of the tribe while maintaining the original content of the mitigation measure. Therefore, the intent of the original mitigation has not changed and recirculation is not required.
(2) New Project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the Project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Project Overview 2-2 June 2026
a. No revisions to the Project as described in the Draft IS/MND have been made. (3) Measures or conditions of Project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration, which is not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects, and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. a. As discussed, no new mitigation measures were added. Once mitigation measure we slightly revised however, the project findings with incorporation of the new language has not changed and is still less than significant. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. a. No new information has been added to the MND.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-1 June 2026

3.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The 30-day public review period began on April 24, 2026 and ended on May 25, 2026. During this time, no agency or public comments were received on the Project.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Comments and Responses 3-2 June 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Revisions to the Draft IS/MND 4-1 June 2026

4.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
During the 30-day public review period, April 24, 2026, through May 25, 2026, no public or agency comments were received. However, results of consultation with the Lisjan Nation have resulted in minor changes to the TCR-1 Mitigation. New text is shown with an underline and old removed text is shown with a strikethrough.

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 50 100 feet of the find. A Native American Representative from the Confederated Village of Lisjan Nation 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.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Revisions to the Draft IS/MND 4-2 June 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-1 June 2026

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN

5.1 Introduction
In accordance with CEQA, an MND that identifies adverse impacts related to construction and operation of the 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.

5.2 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 5-1 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.

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

5.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The column categories identified in Table 5-1 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.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-2 June 2026
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 the City of Manteca may coordinate for implementation of the mitigation measure.

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

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-3 June 2026
Table 5-1.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Habitat Avoidance. The
following measures shall be implemented to avoid impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat within the pipeline alignment:
 A special-status plant survey shall be conducted
according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Native Plant Society, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols prior to Project
ground-disturbing or vegetationdisturbing activities
within undeveloped areas. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as defined per agency protocols) throughout all potential habitat for special-status plants within the Project Site and a 15-foot buffer. The survey shall be timed according to the identifiable period for special-status plant species with potential to occur
(typically the blooming period). To the extent feasible, known reference populations shall be visited prior to the survey to confirm target species are evident and
identifiable at the time of the survey. If no special-status plants are found and the survey is still considered recent as per CDFW and USFWS protocols at the time of Project
implementation, no further measures pertaining to
special-status plants are necessary. If a special-status Action:

Conduct a special-status plant
survey.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
Possible
consultation with
CDFW and
USFWS
depending on
outcome of
survey
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-4 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
plant is identified within or adjacent to the Project Site, the following shall apply.
 An impact assessment shall be made by a qualified
biologist to determine whether Project-related activities would be significant such that they would have the
potential to eliminate, substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of the special-status plant
species, and/or conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting special-status plant species. If
impacts are determined to be less than significant, no
further measures are needed.
 If potential impacts are determined to be significant, then a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around
special-status plant populations to be avoided within or adjacent to the Project Site. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the extent of the avoided special-status
plants (as determined by a qualified biologist during an appropriate time to identify the plants immediately
preceding construction) plus a minimum 15-foot buffer.

The avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the
field and demarcation shall be maintained for the
duration of Project construction. No vegetationdisturbing or ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the avoidance area.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-5 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
BIO-2: Northwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey within the Project Site within 48 hours prior to the initiation of Project construction activities. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are found within or near the Project Site during the survey or during Project implementation, they shall be allowed to move out of the Project Site on their own volition or relocated by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW and silt fencing shall be installed.

Action:

Conduct a northwestern pond
turtle preconstruction survey.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
Possible
consultation with
CDFW and
USFWS
depending on
outcome of
survey
BIO-3: Nesting Birds. If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 1– August 31, and as early as January 1 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of Projectrelated activities to identify active nests that could be impacted by construction. The survey shall be conducted within the Project Site and a 500- foot buffer for raptors and a 100-foot buffer for other birds, where accessible. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If active nests are found, a nodisturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. A qualified biologist shall establish a buffer distance. The buffer shall be maintained until the nestlings have fledged (e.g., are capable of flight and become independent of the nest), to be Action:

Conduct a nesting bird
preconstruction survey.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
Possible
consultation with
CDFW and
USFWS
depending on
outcome of
survey
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-6 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer can be removed, and no further measures are necessary once the young have fledged or the nest is no longer occupied, as determined by a qualified biologist.

BIO-4: Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance preconstruction survey according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active/occupied
burrows are detected, a no-disturbance buffer shall be
established around the burrow. The buffer distance shall be established in coordination with CDFW.

Action:

Conduct a burrowing owl
preconstruction survey.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
Possible
consultation with
CDFW and
USFWS
depending on
outcome of
survey
BIO-5: Swainson’s Hawk. If construction is scheduled during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31), then, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for
Swainson’s hawk nesting activity within a 0.5-mile distance surrounding the Project Site. The qualified biologist shall conduct surveys according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley or, if proposing an alternate survey methodology, shall submit the proposed survey timing and methods to CDFW for review and written approval prior to Action:

Conduct a Swainson’s Hawk
preconstruction survey.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Possible
consultation with
CDFW and
USFWS
depending on
outcome of
survey
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-7 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
the initiation of surveys. If there is a lapse in Projectrelated work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If Swainson’s hawk nesting activity is observed during the survey, an avoidance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained while the nest is active.

Date
BIO-6: Western Red Bat. Tree trimming/removal shall occur outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 through August 31), as feasible.

Action:

Tree trimming impacts shall be
outside of bat maternity
season.

Timing:

During construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
BIO-7: Aquatic Resources. Construction in this area will take place in one phase and will be completed before the
irrigation ditch is used to convey any water.

Additionally, the applicant shall prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to avoid and minimize Action:

Avoid aquatic resources, and if
not possible, procure any
required regulatory permits.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists / City of
Manteca
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-8 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
sediment and erosion to aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project Site boundary.

Initials
Date
Initials
Date
BIO-8: Tree and Vegetation Removal. The Project
proponent shall consult with the City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department prior to impacting vegetation in any public space and shall secure their approval for impacting such vegetation prior to construction, if needed.

Action:

Consult the City of Manteca’s
Parks and Recreation
Department about any
impacts to vegetation in public
space.

Timing:

Prior to Construction.

Construction
Manager / Project
Biologists
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager / City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Unanticipated Discoveries. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional Action:

Implement unanticipated
discovery and human remains
protocol.

Timing:

Ongoing and as needed
during construction activities.

Construction
Manager/Qualified
Professional
Archeologist.

Initials
City of Manteca
Initials
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-9 June 2026
Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate
treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a
Historical Resource under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), as defined by CEQA or a Historic
Property under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, if applicable. Work may not resume
within the no-work radius until the lead agencies,
through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the
treatment measures have been completed to their
satisfaction.
 If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable
protection measures are taken to protect the discovery
from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The
archaeologist shall notify the San Joaquin County
Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code).

Date
Date
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-10 June 2026 Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the
coroner determines the remains are Native American and
not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which
then will designate a Native American Most Likely
Descendant (MLD) for the Project (§ 5097.98 of the PRC).

The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time
access to the property is granted to make
recommendations concerning treatment of the remains.

If the landowner does not agree with the
recommendations of the MLD, NAHC can mediate
(§ 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not
be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with NAHC or the
appropriate Information Center; using an open space or
conservation zoning designation or easement; or
recording a reinternment document with the county in
which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not
resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their
satisfaction.

Geology and Soils
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-11 June 2026 Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
PALEO-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. If any
paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area, and the area shall be isolated using orange or yellow fencing until the City is notified and the area is cleared for future work. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and recommend
appropriate treatment of the inadvertently discovered
paleontological resources. If the City resumes work in a location where paleontological remains have been discovered and cleared, the City will have a paleontologist onsite to confirm that no additional paleontological resources are in the area.

Action:

Notify the City of Manteca and
Qualified Paleontologist in the
event of a discovery.

Implement appropriate
treatment of found materials.

Timing:

Ongoing and as needed
during construction activities.

Project
Paleontologist/
Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
Transportation
TRANS-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencing construction of the Proposed Project, a
construction traffic management plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, in coordination with the City. The
management plan shall be detailed and comprehensive to
adequately mitigate potential conflicts between baseline and construction-related traffic. The construction traffic
management plan will include, at a minimum, the following measures:

Action:

Construction noise mitigation.

Timing:

Ongoing and as needed
during construction activities.

Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
City of Manteca
Initials
Date
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-12 June 2026 Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
A. Adequate off-street worker parking shall be provided along the pipeline route.

B. A flagman or signal-controlled one-way traffic-control operation shall be provided where two-way traffic
operation is impractical or unsafe.

C. Roadway disturbances shall be minimized during nonworking hours; open trenches shall be covered with steel plates or by the use of temporary backfill during non-working hours.

D. Temporary steel plate trench crossings shall be provided as needed to maintain access to homes, farms, and
businesses.

E. Construction sites shall be posted with appropriate
warning signage at least one week prior to construction to allow local residents to select an alternative travel route.

F. Construction staging areas shall be provided to
minimize storage of equipment and materials in the
traffic lanes.

G. All paved surfaces disturbed during construction shall be repaved when work is complete.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-13 June 2026 Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
H. The Contractor shall provide traffic control and
diversion plans for review and approval by each
appropriate jurisdiction.

I. To minimize delays in emergency response during
Project construction, emergency providers shall be
notified in advance. Police, fire protection, and
ambulance services shall be notified in advance of the
times, duration, and location of construction activities throughout the Project’s construction process.

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 100 feet of the find. A Native American
Representative from the Confederated Village of Lisjan
Nation 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
Action:

Unanticipated discovery
protocol.

Timing:

Ongoing and as needed
during construction activities.

Construction
Manager
Initials
Date
Construction
Manager/ City of
Manteca
Initials
Date
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Approval
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5-14 June 2026 Mitigation Measure
Implementation Actions
and Timing
Implementation
Responsibility
Responsibility
for Oversight of
Compliance/
Verification
Agency
Coordination
Comments
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.

To be signed when all mitigation measures have been completed:

City of Manteca
Signature
Printed Name Date

6.0 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Notice of Intent
Appendix B – Proof of Publication
Appendix C – CDFW Filing Fee Receipt
Appendix D – Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project

APPENDIX A
Notice of Intent
Engineering Department

1001 W. CENTER ST. MANTECA, CA 95337 (209) 456-8460 FAX (209) 923-8940 April 21, 2026
TO: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations SUBJECT: City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project – City of Manteca The City of Manteca (City) is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the proposed City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Proposed Project). The City has directed the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in compliance with CEQA.

Project Location: The City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) Area consists of an area approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City. The Project Site is located within Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S. Geological Survey Manteca, California 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Project Description: The Central Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) consists of the replacement of an existing 36-inch diameter sanitary sewer trunk line that is deteriorated and aged connecting to the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) located within the Parks Department Corporation Yard. The new 36-inch trunk sewer line will be approximately 4,300 LF of 36-inch PVC SDR 26 pipe.

The existing lifting station will be decommissioned in the future by others. The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole.

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 April 24, 2026 and ending May 25, 2026. Draft IS/MND can be viewed and/or downloaded at the following website:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planningdocuments/environmental-documents-notices Comments/Questions: Comments and/or questions regarding the IS/MND may be directed to:

CITY OF MANTECA

1001 W. CENTER ST. MANTECA, CA 95337 (209) 456-8425 FAX (209) 923-8940 City of Manteca Engineering Department
Attn: Alfredo Mijango, Associate Engineer
1001 West Center Drive
Manteca, CA 95337
or
[email protected]

APPENDIX B
Proof of Publication

APPENDIX C
CDFW Filing Fee Receipt

CALIFORNIA

WEDLIFE
State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
2026 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEE CASH RECEIPТ
DFW 753.5a (REV. 01/01/26) Previously DFG 753.5a
RECEIPT NUMBER:
39-04222026-112
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If applicable)
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.

LEADAGENCY

CITY OF MANTECA

COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING

SAN JOAQUIN

PROJECT TITLE

LEADAGENCY EMAIL
DRUBY@MANTECA.

CITY OF MANTECA CENTRAL TRUNK SEWER PROJECT

PROJECT APPLICANT NAME

CITY OF MANTECA

PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS
1001 W CENTER DR
PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box)

PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL
DATE
04/22/2026

DOCUMENT NUMBER
39-04222026-112

PHONE NUMBER
(209) 465-8561
CITY
MANTEСА
STATE
CA

ZIP CODE
95337
☐School District ☐ Other Special District ☐ State Agency ☐ Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:
☑ Local Public Agency
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND)
Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document - payment due directly to CDFW Exempt from fee
Notice of Exemption (attach)
CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) County documentary handling fee
Other
$4,227.50 $
$3,043.75 $
$1,437.25 $
$850.00 $
$
$
$0.00
Cash ☐Credit Check ☐Other TOTAL RECEIVED $

SIGNATURE AGENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
PAYMENT METHOD:
xfbpy Claudia Perez-Suarez ,Deputy
DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01012026)

CALIFORNIA

WLDLIFE
State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
2026 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT
DFW 753.5a (REV. 01/01/26) Previously DFG 753.5a
NOTICE
Each project applicant shall remit to the county clerk the environmental document filing fee before or at the time of filing a Notice of Determination (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21152; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4, subdivision (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 753.5). Without the appropriate fee, statutory or categorical exemption, or a valid No Effect Determination issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the Notice of Determination is not operative, vested, or final, and shall not be accepted by the county clerk.

COUNTY DOCUMENTARY HANDLING FEE
The county clerk may charge a documentary handling fee of fifty dollars ($50) per filing in addition to the environmental document filing fee (Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4, subd. (e); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 753.5, subd. (g)(1)). A county board of supervisors shall have the authority to increase or decrease the fee or charge, that is otherwise authorized to be levied by another provislon of law, in the amount reasonably necessary to recover the cost of providing any product or service or the cost of enforcing any regulation for which the fee or charge is levied (Gov. Code, § 54985, subd. (a)).

Filing Notice of Determination (NOD):

COLLECTION PROCEDURES FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
Collect environmental document filing fee or copy of previously issued cash receipt. (Do not collect fee if project applicant presents a No Effect Determination signed by CDFW. An additional fee is required for each separate environmental document. An addendum is not considered a separate environmental document. Checks should be made payable to the county.) Issue environmental document filing fee cash receipt to project applicant.

Attach copy of environmental document filing fee cash receipt and, if applicable, previously issued cash receipt, to NOD.

Mail environmental document filing fee for CRP document to CDFW prior to filing the NOD or equivalent final approval (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 753.5 (b)(5)). The CRP should request receipt from CDFW to show proof of payment for filing the NOD or equivalent approval. Mail payment to address below made attention to the Cash Receipts Unit of the Accounting Services Branch.

If the project applicant presents a No Effect Determination signed by CDFW, also:

D Attach No Effect Determination to NOD (no environmental document filing fee is due).

Filing Notice of Exemption (NOE) (Statutorily or categorically exempt project (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15260-15285, 15300-15333)) Issue environmental document filing fee cash receipt to project applicant.

Attach copy of environmental document filing fee cash receipt to NOE (no environmental document filing fee is due).

Within 30 days after the end of each month in which the environmental document filing fees are collected, each county shall summarize and record the amount collected on the monthly State of California Form No. CA25 (TC31) and remit the amount collected to the State Treasurer. Identify the remittance on Form No. CA25 as "Environmental Document Filing Fees" per Fish and Game Code section 711.4.

The county clerk shall submit the documents below to CDFW on a monthly basis by mail or CDFW's File Transfer Portal (see below):
✓ A photocopy of the monthly State of California Form No. CA25 (TC31) ✓ CDFW/ASB copies of all cash environmental document filing fee cash receipts (including all voided recelpts) Y A copy of all CDFW No Effect Determinations filed in lieu of fee payment ✓
✓
A copy of all NODs and NOEs filed with the county during the preceding month A list of the name, address and telephone number of all project applicants for which an NOD and NOE has been filed. If this information is contained on the environmental document filing fee cash receipt filed with CDFW under California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 753.5, subdivision (e)(6), no additional information is required.

DOCUMENT RETENTION
The county shall retain a copy of the environmental document filing fee cash receipt and all documents described above for at least 12 months. #

RECEIPT NUMBER
The first two digits automatically populate by making the appropriate selection in the County/State Agency of Filing drop down menu. # The next eight digits automatically populate when a date is entered. # The last three digits correspond with the sequential order of issuance for each calendar year. For example, the first receipt number issued on January 1 should end in 001. If a county issued 252 receipts for the year ending on December 31, the last receipt number should end in 252. CDFW recommends that counties and state agencies 1) save a local copy of this form, and 2) track receipt numbers on a spreadsheet tabbed by month to ensure accuracy.

DO NOT COMBINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEES WITH THE STATE SHARE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES.

For access to CDFW's File Transfer Portal, submit email to [email protected] (Subject line: [County name] FTP account).

Mail to:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Accounting Services Branch
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, California 94244-2090
DFW 753.5a (Rev. 01012026)

APPENDIX D
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
DRAFT
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
City of Manteca, California
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Prepared By:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
April 2026
~ ~ ~ . . . . "'
tluJ(/, •
*~ -~~
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Lead Agency: City of Manteca (City)
Project Location: The City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) Area consists of an area approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City. The Project Site is located within Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S. Geological Survey Manteca, California

7.5-minute quadrangle.

Project Description: The Central Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) consists of the replacement of an existing 36-inch diameter sanitary sewer trunk line that is deteriorated and aged connecting to the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) located within the Parks Department Corporation Yard. The new 36-inch trunk sewer line will be approximately 4,300 LF of 36-inch PVC SDR 26 pipe.

The existing lifting station will be decommissioned in the future by others.

The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole.

Public Review Period: April 24, 2026 to May 25, 2026
Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project to Avoid Significant Effects:

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Habitat Avoidance. The following measures shall be implemented to avoid impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat within the pipeline alignment:
 A special-status plant survey shall be conducted according to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Native Plant Society, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols prior to Project ground-disturbing or vegetationdisturbing activities within undeveloped areas. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as defined per agency protocols) throughout all potential habitat for special-status plants within the Project Site and a 15-foot buffer. The survey shall be timed according to the identifiable period for special-status plant species with potential to occur (typically the blooming period). To the extent feasible, known reference populations shall be visited prior to the survey to confirm target species are evident and identifiable at the time of the survey. If no special-status plants are Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
found and the survey is still considered recent as per CDFW and USFWS protocols at the time of Project implementation, no further measures pertaining to special-status plants are necessary. If a special-status plant is identified within or adjacent to the Project Site, the following shall apply.
 An impact assessment shall be made by a qualified biologist to determine whether Project-related activities would be significant such that they would have the potential to eliminate, substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of the special-status plant species, and/or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting special-status plant species. If impacts are determined to be less than significant, no further measures are needed.
 If potential impacts are determined to be significant, then a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around special-status plant populations to be avoided within or adjacent to the Project Site. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the extent of the avoided special-status plants (as determined by a qualified biologist during an appropriate time to identify the plants immediately preceding construction) plus a minimum 15-foot buffer. The avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field and demarcation shall be maintained for the duration of Project construction. No vegetation-disturbing or ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the avoidance area.

BIO-2: Northwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey within the Project Site within 48 hours prior to the initiation of Project construction activities. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are found within or near the Project Site during the survey or during Project implementation, they shall be allowed to move out of the Project Site on their own volition or relocated by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW and silt fencing shall be installed.

BIO-3: Nesting Birds. If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 1– August 31, and as early as January 1 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of Projectrelated activities to identify active nests that could be impacted by construction. The survey shall be conducted within the Project Site and a 500-foot buffer for raptors and a 100-foot buffer for other birds, where accessible. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. A qualified biologist shall establish a buffer distance. The buffer shall be maintained until the nestlings have fledged (e.g., are capable of flight and become independent of the nest), to be determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer can be removed, and no further measures are necessary once the young have fledged or the nest is no longer occupied, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-3 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
BIO-4: Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance preconstruction survey according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active/occupied burrows are detected, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the burrow. The buffer distance shall be established in coordination with CDFW.

BIO-5: Swainson’s Hawk. If construction is scheduled during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31), then, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Swainson’s hawk nesting activity within a 0.5-mile distance surrounding the Project Site. The qualified biologist shall conduct surveys according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley or, if proposing an alternate survey methodology, shall submit the proposed survey timing and methods to CDFW for review and written approval prior to the initiation of surveys. If there is a lapse in Projectrelated work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If Swainson’s hawk nesting activity is observed during the survey, an avoidance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained while the nest is active.

BIO-6: Western Red Bat. Tree trimming/removal shall occur outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 through August 31), as feasible.

BIO-7: Aquatic Resources. Construction in this area will take place in one phase and will be completed before the irrigation ditch is used to convey any water.

Additionally, the applicant shall prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to avoid and minimize sediment and erosion to aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project Site boundary.

BIO-8: Tree and Vegetation Removal. The Project proponent shall consult with the City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department prior to impacting vegetation in any public space and shall secure their approval for impacting such vegetation prior to construction, if needed.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Unanticipated Discoveries. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-4 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as defined by CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if applicable. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
 If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the San Joaquin County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Geology and Soils
PALEO-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area, and the area shall be isolated using orange or yellow fencing until the City is notified and the area is cleared for future work. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate treatment of the inadvertently discovered paleontological resources. If the City resumes work in a location where paleontological remains have been discovered and cleared, the City will have a paleontologist onsite to confirm that no additional paleontological resources are in the area.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-5 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Transportation
TRANS-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencing construction of the Proposed Project, a construction traffic management plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, in coordination with the City. The management plan shall be detailed and comprehensive to adequately mitigate potential conflicts between baseline and construction-related traffic. The construction traffic management plan will include, at a minimum, the following measures:

A. Adequate off-street worker parking shall be provided along the pipeline route.

B. A flagman or signal-controlled one-way traffic-control operation shall be provided where two-way traffic operation is impractical or unsafe.

C. Roadway disturbances shall be minimized during non-working hours; open trenches shall be covered with steel plates or by the use of temporary backfill during nonworking hours.

D. Temporary steel plate trench crossings shall be provided as needed to maintain access to homes, farms, and businesses.

E. Construction sites shall be posted with appropriate warning signage at least one week prior to construction to allow local residents to select an alternative travel route.

F. Construction staging areas shall be provided to minimize storage of equipment and materials in the traffic lanes.

G. All paved surfaces disturbed during construction shall be repaved when work is complete.

H. The Contractor shall provide traffic control and diversion plans for review and approval by each appropriate jurisdiction.

I. To minimize delays in emergency response during Project construction, emergency providers shall be notified in advance. Police, fire protection, and ambulance services shall be notified in advance of the times, duration, and location of construction activities throughout the Project’s construction process.

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.

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 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-6 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-7 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. i April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................................ 2-1

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

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

2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals .......................................................................... 2-4

2.6 Consultation With California Native American Tribe(s) .................................................................. 2-5

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 .................................................. 4-2

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................................................ 4-3

4.2.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4-3

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

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

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................. 4-6

4.3.2 Air Quality (III) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ............................................... 4-8

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-17

4.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................4-17

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

4.4.2 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.........................4-25

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-28

4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................................4-30

4.5.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-31

4.5.2 Research Methods ......................................................................................................................4-34

4.5.3 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion..............................4-35 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. ii April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-37

4.6 Energy...............................................................................................................................................................4-38

4.6.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-38

4.6.2 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ....................................................4-39

4.6.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-41

4.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................................4-41

4.7.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-41

4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ............................4-44

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-47

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................4-48

4.8.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-48

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion .........4-51

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-52

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................................................................................................4-52

4.9.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-52

4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.......................................................................................................................................4-54

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-57

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................4-57

4.10.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-57

4.10.2 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion........4-59

4.11 Land Use and Planning ..............................................................................................................................4-63

4.11.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-63

4.11.2 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion....................4-63

4.11.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-64

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................................................4-64

4.12.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-64

4.12.2 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion............................4-65

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-65

4.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................................4-66

4.13.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-66

4.13.2 Noise (XIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ....................................................4-70

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-75

4.14 Population and Housing ...........................................................................................................................4-75

4.14.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-75 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. iii April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.14.2 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ..............4-75

4.14.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-76

4.15 Public Services...............................................................................................................................................4-76

4.15.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-76

4.15.2 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion...................................4-78

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-78

4.16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................................4-78

4.16.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-78

4.16.2 Recreation (XVI) Materials Checklist....................................................................................4-79

4.16.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-80

4.17 Transportation...............................................................................................................................................4-80

4.17.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-80

4.17.2 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion ................................4-81

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-82

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................4-83

4.18.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-83

4.18.2 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion...........4-85

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-86

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................4-86

4.19.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-86

4.19.2 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.......................................................................................................................................4-87

4.19.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-89

4.20 Wildfire.............................................................................................................................................................4-89

4.20.1 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................................4-89

4.20.2 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.................................................4-89

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................................4-91

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.....................................................................................................4-91

4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion.......................................................................................................................................4-91

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

5.1 City of Manteca............................................................................................................................................... 5-1

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

5.3 HydroScience................................................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. iv April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Construction Operations.......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions.....................................................................................................................4-12 Table 4.3-2. Health Risk Summary..........................................................................................................................................4-14 Table 4.6-1. Total Fuel Consumption in San Joaquin County (2020–2024)............................................................4-38 Table 4.6-2. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption....................................................................................4-40 Table 4.7-1. Soil Map Units within the Project Site..........................................................................................................4-42 Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................4-51 Table 4.9-1. SWRCB GeoTracker LUST Cleanup Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site.................................4-54 Table 4.13-1. American National Standards Institute Standard 12.9-2013/Part 3 A-Weighted Sound Levels Corresponding to Land Use and Population Density.....................................................................................4-69 Table 4.13-2. Construction Average (dBA) Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Receptors ............................4-72 Table 4.13-3. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................................................4-73 Table 4.13-4. Construction Vibration Levels at 20 Feet..................................................................................................4-74

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Project Site Plan........................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix C – Energy Consumption Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix D – Noise Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BAU Business-as-Usual
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. v April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Term Definition
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
BMP Best Management Practice
BPS Best Performance Standard
BSA Biological Study Area
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCaIC Central California Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CI Coccidioides immitis
City City of Manteca
CMU Commercial Mixed-Use
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. vi April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Term Definition
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ECORP ECORP Consulting, Inc.

EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emission Factor
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESJGS-GSP Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
I Interstate
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
kWh kilowatt-hours
Ldn Day-Night Average Noise Level
Leq Equivalent Noise Level
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MPD Manteca Police Department
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSL Mean Sea Level
N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOx nitric oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. vii April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Term Definition
PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
Project City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SP Special Publication
SR State Route
SSC Species of Special Concern
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWD City of Manteca Solid Waste Division
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
URLS Union Road Lift Station
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WQCF Wastewater Quality Control Facility
WWMP Wastewater Master Plan
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. viii April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1 Summary
Project Title: City of Manteca (City) Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Manteca
1001 W Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Contact Person and Phone Number: Alfredo Mijango, Associate Engineer PE 209-456-8422
Project Location: The Project Site consists of an area approximately 0.8 mile in length and 40 feet in width for the proposed new segment of sewer line within the City.

General Plan Designation: Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) and Park (P) Zoning: CMU and P

1.2 Introduction
The City is the Lead Agency for this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study. This Initial Study has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental impacts of the 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 Initial Study to determine which CEQA document is appropriate for the Project: Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

In accordance with CEQA, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (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:

Alfredo Mijango, Associate Engineer PE
City of Manteca
1001 W. Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
[email protected]
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Background
The City’s 2024 Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) included hydraulic modeling to evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer collection system. The hydraulic model simulated conditions under a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall design storm for all pipes with diameters greater than 8-inches and was calibrated using the wet weather flow model and applying a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. In addition to analyzing the performance of the existing sewer system, the hydraulic model also included an evaluation of the existing sewer collection system to handle buildout and/or future development scenarios. The outcome of the model presented in the 2024 WWMP identified the Central Trunk Sewer system as deficient and recommended improvement to the system in order to convey the flows described in the future growth analysis scenarios. The City also noted that the Union Road Lift Station (URLS) is beyond its useful life, requires significant operations and maintenance, and consistently surcharges the upstream collection system.

In response to the deficiencies identified as a part of the WWMP, the City proposes to replace a portion of the existing 36-inch trunk sewer section between a new subdivision east of Airport Road and north of Kaiser Development and up to the URLS at a lower depth to eliminate the URLS. The Project will allow flows from the Central Shed to flow by gravity to the City’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF).

The URLS will remain in operation and protected-in-place for the purposes of this Project.

2.2 Existing Conditions
The majority of the Central Trunk Sewer was constructed in the 1970s and several sections of the Central Trunk Sewer have limited to no residual capacity under peak wet weather flow conditions. The City recently replaced a section of the 36-inch North Trunk Sewer with a 54-inch trunk sewer with the intention of decommissioning the existing URLS. Additionally, the City replaced a 36-inch trunk sewer section with a newer 36-inch truck sewer section on Airport Way between the Manteca Park Golf Course and Louise Avenue. Construction of this Project will allow the City to decommission the URLS and convey wastewater, using a gravity system, from the Central Trunk Sewer shed.

Recently, plans were completed to construct a new subdivision within a section of the Central Trunk Sewer system. The existing subdivision is planned to have a future east-west street (Center Street), that will contain a new 36-inch sanitary sewer with a stub connection at the existing sewer utility hole located at the southeastern border of the development. The existing stub will be the downstream connection point for the new 36-inch trunk gravity sewer pipeline.

The upstream connection point is planned to tie into the URLS upstream at the existing and adjacent sewer utility hole

2.3 Project Characteristics
The Project proposes to construct a new 36-inch trunk sewer pipeline. The new sewer line will begin downstream near the newly constructed subdivision off the Airport Road and extend eastward through Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
the Kaiser Development, crossing the canal, through the Manteca Park Golf Course, continuing under the Parks Department Corp Yard and tie-in to the URLS at an existing sewer manhole. The total length of the Project alignment is 4,318 linear feet (see Figure 2-1: Site Plan).

The new Central Trunk Sewer line will primarily utilize open-cut construction method using PVC standard dimension ratio–26 pipe.

Post project construction, restoration of the sewer pipeline trench will be completed in accordance with the standards of the jurisdiction through which the pipeline traverses (i.e., SSJID and/or the City). The Project alignment is primarily routed through vacant lots and vegetated areas with a small portion crossing the SSJID canal. Trenching in unpaved area will require minimum surface restoration. In these areas, the project proposes adding a Class 2 Aggregate base fill within the existing public utility easement (PUD) on Kaiser property and golf course areas. The section of the alignment located in the golf course area will require use of turf soil that is adequate for the golf course lawn to grow in a short time.

The Proposed Project will construct sewer utility holes at approximate standard spacing per City design standards.

The existing 36-inch pipe will be abandoned in-place, and a concrete plug will be installed at both ends of the pipe.

Temporary construction staging would occur along the alignment, within areas that are already paved or highly disturbed.

2.4 Project Timing
This schedule may be extended pending approval of the construction contract and issuance of a notice of award, and for potential extended supply times for materials. Also, current supply chain issues have increased lead times for some materials (pipe and fittings) and may delay the start date for groundbreaking. See Table 2-1 for a detailed breakdown of anticipated construction activities and approximate timeframe to completion.

Frauenfeld S
t
Sc
haffhausen St
Crom St W Crom St
W Yosemite Ave
Manteca
Medical Center
Kaiser
Permanente
Clubhouse Way
Crom St
Golf Cir E
Murietta Way
Golf Cir W
Trevino Ave
W Center S
t
Manteca Park
Golf Course
Manteca
Shopping
Center
Las Casuelas
Central Valley
Veternary
Hospital
Carl's Jr.

McDonald's
Cabral Motors
Kaiser
Permanente
Golf Cart
Parking P.L. Fry and
Son Funeral
Home
Grand Prix Ave
Watson Ave
S Pacific Rd
Les Schwab
Tire Center Starbucks
Union Rd
0 400
I
Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\CMTS_LnV.aprx - CMCTS Aerial 20251022 (jcorbridge - 10/22/2025) F
i
g
ure
2-1. Project Site Plan Map Date: 10/22/2025
Sources: Esri, Maxar, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS,
© OpenStreetMap
2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer
Map Contents
Project Area - 3.96 acres
' l ' z
,, C: z I ::l :s: Louise Ave I o· OJ
~i I
\
' ' ::l s·
1 I ,, :;<l
~
\
' -.?-
' I I °",Manteca I ' / -,
' ~ Yosemite Ave ..... ' I ", -- / ~
~ / '
l
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-4 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Table 2-1 Construction Operations
Description of Activity Duration
Excavation Operations*
• Rubber tired backhoe loader(s) (sized up to Cat 450)
• Trench excavator(s) (mini X [Cat 303])
• Wheel loader(s) (likely no larger than Cat 938)
• Trenching machines (not expected)
• Rock removal by hydraulic hammer on excavator (not expected to be required or very limited based on geotechnical investigation) • Compaction via in-trench hand compaction (wacker, vibraplate) • Sweeper
• Air Compressor(s)
Approximately 4-5 months
Hauling Operations*
• Rubber tired dump truck(s)
• l transfer truck and trailers
• Semi bottom and end dumps possible but not likely considering narrow and winding access
Approximately 3 months
Final Paving Operations
• Roller compactor(s)
• Pavers
• Asphalt grinders
• Asphalt cutters
• Concrete saw
• Sweeper
Approximately 1 months
Other Equipment*
• Sprayers
• Air compressor
• Portable generator
Approximately 3 months
Total Duration Approximately 5-6 months
Notes: *Some of these activities will be performed concurrently

2.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals
The Proposed Project would require the following approvals and regulatory permits:
 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – The City must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit. The permit requires that the project applicant prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any construction activities.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-5 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 Acquire easements for some right-of-way through private property, only if needed to complete construction.

2.6 Consultation With California Native American Tribe(s) On March 19, 2026 The City has notified the following California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project: Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Wilton Rancheria, Wilton Rancheria, Tule River Indian Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2-6 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Administrative Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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.

David Ruby, AICP
Senior Planner
Date
April 23, 2026
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□
□
□
□
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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.

Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System: the segment of Interstate (I) 580 from I-5 to State Route (SR) 205. This route traverses the edge of the Coast Range to the west and Central Valley to the east. The City is not visible from this roadway segment (Caltrans 2018).

General Plan
A scenic corridor is the view from the road that may include a distant panorama and/or the immediate roadside area. A scenic corridor encompasses the outstanding natural features and landscapes that are considered scenic. It is the visual quality of the man-made or natural environments within a scenic corridor that are responsible for its scenic value. Commonly, the physical limits of a scenic corridor are broken down into foreground views (zero to one quarter mile) and distant views (over one quarter mile).

In addition to distinct foreground and distant views, the visual quality of a scenic corridor is defined by special features, which include the following:
 Focal points – prominent natural or man-made features which immediately catch the eye.  Transition areas – locations where the visual environment changes dramatically.  Gateways – locations which mark the entrance to a community or geographic area.

The City of Manteca General Plan does not designate any scenic corridors or viewsheds (City 2024a).

4.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Site
The Project Site is a narrow linear corridor that includes urban development, fallow agricultural fields, stormwater and surface flow infrastructure, and recreational development. The Proposed Project would traverse through the City corporation yard, Morenzone Ballfield, and the first hole of the Manteca Park Golf Course before crossing through a City owned canal. This alignment continues through undeveloped areas and the north side of Kaiser Development. The total length of the Project Alignment is 4,318 linear feet through the City.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

A scenic vista is a viewpoint that provides a distant view of highly valued natural or manufactured landscape features for the benefit of the general public. Typical scenic vistas are locations where views of rivers, ocean, hillsides, and open space areas can be obtained as well as locations where valued urban landscape features can be viewed in the distance. As previously discussed, per the City of Manteca General Plan, the City does not designate any scenic corridors or viewsheds.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful lifeand lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. Any impacts to a scenic vista would be temporary during construction activities. Once the Proposed Project is completed there will be no change in the visual character or quality of public views of the site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to visual scenic vistas.

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

According to Caltrans’s list of designated Scenic Highways and the City of Manteca General Plan, the Proposed Project is not located near or within a state scenic highway and therefore would not damage designated scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Any impacts would be less than significant. □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-3 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Proposed Project is primarily within urbanized development. Project construction activities would introduce equipment, including light trucks, backhoes, winch, bursting head, generator, and other similar machinery into the viewshed of all viewer groups, creating temporary effects on views of and from the Project Site during construction. Once the Proposed Project is completed there will be no change in the visual character or quality of public views of the site and surroundings and the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Any impacts would be less than significant.

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?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful lifeand lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. No new lighting is proposed as part of the Project and the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. There would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

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 California Department of Conservation (DOC), as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, prepares Important Farmland Maps indicating the potential value of land for agricultural □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-4 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
production. The San Joaquin County Important Farmland Map identifies five agriculture related categories and three non-agricultural categories:
 Prime Farmland – Prime farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
 Farmland of Statewide Importance – Farmland of statewide importance is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. The land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
 Unique Farmland – Unique farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.  Farmland of Local Importance – Farmland of local importance is considered land important to the local agricultural economy but does not meet the criteria of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock or dairy facilities, aquaculture, poultry facilities, and dry grazing. It also includes soils previously designated by soil characteristics as "Prime Farmland," "Farmland of Statewide Importance," and "Unique Farmland" that has since become idle.

According to DOC, the Proposed Project does pass through land that is designated as Farmland of Local Importance (DOC 2022). However, the Project Site is not zoned for agriculture or forestry use or is under Williamson Act contract (DOC 2025).

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? Less than Significant Impact.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-5 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The proposed alignment of the replacement sewer line roughly follows the existing line. It extends westward from the eastern tie-in location and continues under a maintenance yard, the Morenzone Ballpark, and a portion of the Manteca Park Golf Course. The alignment turns south briefly to cross the Southern San Joaquin Reclamation District Drain 5 ditch and under an open field before continuing westward under a portion of the Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center property to the western tie-in location.

The alignment does pass through land that has been designated by DOC as Farmland of Local Importance, but this land has already been built upon and modified by the new Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center Project. The land is no longer being used for agriculture. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not convert prime farmland beyond what is currently existing, and any 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 existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project Site and surrounding parcels are not under Williamson Act contracts (DOC 2025).

The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not change the existing use of the Project Site and would not result in any land use designation or zoning change. Therefore, any impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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))?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project does not involve properties zoned for forest land, timberland or Timberland Production, and therefore would not conflict with existing zoning codes. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-6 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

The Proposed Project does not involve properties zoned for forest land, timberland or Timberland Production, and therefore would not conflict with existing zoning codes. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

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.

See discussion under item a), the Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required.

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

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 within the City. 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). 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 □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-7 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
dispersion (spreading over an area) of air pollutants. As a result, SJVAB is highly susceptible to pollutant accumulation over time.

The climate within 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 degrees Fahrenheit (°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. 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 (EPA) 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, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide, 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 within the City is SJVAPCD, with the primary responsibility is ensuring that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards are attained and maintained within SJVAB, which encompasses the City and the Project Site. The City, located in San Joaquin County, is designated as a nonattainment for the national standards O3 and Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter (PM2.5, also known as fine particulate matter) and designated as a nonattainment area for the state standards of O3, Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter (PM10, also known as coarse particulate matter) and PM2.5 (CARB 2023). SJVAPCD is responsible for adopting or creating a 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. 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.” Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-8 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 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 within SJVAB by increasing the number of vehicles and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Although newer, cleaner technology is reducing per-vehicle pollution, the emissions increase from new development 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, EPA 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 □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-9 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 2023). EPA, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 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 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.

SJVAPCD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which SJVAB is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, SJVAPCD prepared the following air quality plans:
 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan
 2006 PM10 Plan
 2007 Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan
 2008 PM2.5 Plan
 2009 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
 2012 PM2.5 Plan
 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard
 2014 RACT SIP
 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard
 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard
 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2018 Moderate Area Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standard  2020 RACT Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard  2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard
 2023 Maintenance Plan and Resignation Request for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard  2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-10 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 SJVAPCD, the established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD New Source Review offset requirements for stationary sources (SJVAPCD 2015).

Stationary sources within 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 below, 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.

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 non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact.

4.3.2.1 Construction-Generated Air Pollutant Emissions
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 particulate matter 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.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-11 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 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 miles per hour.
 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.  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. 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. The Project Site was measured using information provided in the Project Description, and the average distance to sensitive residential receptors was calculated to be 300 meters. See Appendix A for the assumptions used in this analysis. It is noted that the Project has three 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 SJVAPCD’s thresholds of significance.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-12 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions
Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Pollutant (tons per year)
Construction Calendar Year One 0.07 0.61 0.80 0.00 0.03 0.02 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceed SJVAPCD Daily Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = Particulate Matter Less than 10 Microns in Diameter; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Microns in Diameter; ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; SO2 = sulfur dioxide Source: California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction related emissions would not exceed thresholds established by 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 for. The impact is less than significant.

In addition to the SJVAPCD criteria air pollutant thresholds, SJVAPCD Rule 9510, Indirect Source Review, aims to fulfill SJVAPCD’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans. This rule applies to the following construction projects within the jurisdiction of SJVAPCD:
 50 residential units;
 2,000 square feet of commercial space;
 25,000 square feet of light industrial space;
 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space;
 20,000 square feet of medical office space;
 39,000 square feet of general office space;
 9,000 square feet of educational space;
 10,000 square feet of government space;
 20,000 square feet of recreational space; or
 9,000 square feet of space not identified above.

This rule also applies to any transportation or transit project where construction exhaust emissions equal or exceed two tons of NOx or two 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. Further, the Project would not exceed two tons of NOx or two tons of PM10 as the Project proposes the replacement of sewage Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-13 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
treatment pipes on an existing pipeline. Once upgrades are complete, the Project would not be a greater source of operational emissions beyond current conditions.

4.3.2.2 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions
Operational emissions impacts are long-term criteria air pollutant 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 replacement of sewage treatment pipes on an existing pipeline. Once upgrades are complete, the Project would not be a greater source of operational emissions beyond current conditions. 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
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 all potential alignments of the Project Site are single-family residences facing the undeveloped parcel west of W Center Street, as well as residences located both north and south of W Center Street, which parallels the Project Site in the modeled alignment.

4.3.2.3 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 Gases, NOx, CO, and PM10 from the exhaust of offroad, heavy-duty diesel equipment for Project construction; soil hauling truck traffic; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. The portion of SJVAB that encompasses the Project Site 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 2023). Thus, existing O3 PM2.5, and PM10 levels within 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 □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-14 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 toxic air contaminant exposure requires an evaluation of non-cancer 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 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 provided 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 4.38 0.0044 0.00
SJVAPCD Screening Threshold 10.0 1.0 1.0
Exceed SJVAPCD Screening Threshold? No No No
Notes: SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Source: SJVAPCD Prioritization Calculator. Refer to Appendix A 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 from the average distance of the 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, 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 occur in the top few inches of soil, and the existence of CI 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 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-15 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 is found in California, including Fresno 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 (cough, shortness 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.

When soil containing this fungus is disturbed by ground-disturbing activities such as digging or grading, by vehicles raising dust, or by the wind, the fungal spores get into the air. 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 a solar array) 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.

4.3.2.4 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. The Project will not result in a high carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk during operation. This impact would be less than significant.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-16 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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).

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. The replacement sanitary sewer pipes would not result in the introduction of any new processes that are considered to have a high odor-generation □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-17 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
potential and would not result in substantial changes to the overall flow rates or treatment processes that are of primary concern with regard to odor generation (i.e., sludge handling or drying practices).

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact when it comes to odors.

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 Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project (ECORP Consulting, Inc. [ECORP] 2025b; Appendix B). The Biological Study Area (BSA) includes all areas where Project-related activities may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The 3.96-acre BSA corresponds to a portion of Section 31, Township 1 South, and Range 7 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1994 minor revised edition of the 1980 photorevised edition of the 1952 U.S. Geological Survey Manteca, California 7.5-minute quadrangle (Appendix B, Figure 1). The approximate center of the BSA is located at 37.870075055° North and -121.24208436° West within the San Joaquin Delta watershed.

The BSA is a narrow linear corridor that includes fallow agricultural fields, stormwater and surface flow infrastructure, recreational development, and urban development. Undeveloped portions of the BSA primarily include annual grasslands and disturbed areas.

4.4.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The following sections describe the vegetation community and land cover types within the BSA as observed during the site reconnaissance. A list of plants incidentally observed within the BSA during the site reconnaissance can be found in Appendix B.

Annual Grassland
Small strips of annual grassland are found within detention basins within the central portion of BSA. The annual grassland within the BSA is dominated by nonnative annual grasses including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Johnson grass (Sorgum halepense). Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) is the dominant forb.

The annual grasslands can be characterized as the Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance. Semi-natural alliances are strongly dominated by nonnative plants that have become naturalized in the State, do not have state rarity rankings, and are not considered sensitive natural communities.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-18 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Ruderal/Disturbed
The ruderal/disturbed land cover type is found along the trails of the nearby golf course, the SSJID maintenance roads, the farm road margins, and the recently disced, bare-ground agricultural fields within the BSA. Scattered populations or individuals of Bermuda grass, turkey mullein (Croton setiger), and Jimson weed (Datura stramonium) are predominant species in this land cover type.

Urban/Developed
The urban/developed land cover type within the BSA consists of species commonly used in landscaping, including trees such as coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.), pines (Pinus sp.), and Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). The Manteca Park Golf Course and Union Road Park in the northern and eastern portions of the BSA respectively, contained the greatest concentration of mature trees. The understory consists of a variety of turf grasses and other ornamental landscaping species which were not identified during the assessment. This land cover type generally does not provide habitat for most wildlife species, except for trees or structures tall enough to support nesting or roosting animals.

4.4.1.2 Aquatic Resources
USFWS has established the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to conduct a nationwide inventory of U.S. wetlands to provide biologists and others with information on the distribution and type of wetlands to aid in conservation efforts. USFWS’s objective of mapping wetlands and deep-water 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-theground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The NWI program was neither designed nor intended to produce legal or regulatory products; therefore, wetlands identified by the NWI program are not the same as wetlands defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). However, the NWI provides a baseline of potential aquatic resources for ECORP biologists to ground-truth during assessments.

Review of the NWI showed one aquatic feature mapped within the BSA (Appendix B, Figure 4). The NWI mapping designation indicates the presence of Freshwater Emergent Wetland within or adjacent to the BSA, which roughly corresponds to the detention basin and ditch observed on site.

ECORP mapped a total of 0.010 acre of aquatic resources within the BSA, which includes the ditch along the northern boundary (Appendix B, Figure 5) This ditch is regularly maintained by SSJID and was primarily unvegetated during the site reconnaissance. Scattered ruderal species were present such as turkey mullein or Bermuda grass.

4.4.1.3 Wildlife
The BSA provides a very limited amount of habitat for a variety of wildlife species commonly found in urban environments. A full list of wildlife species observed within or near the BSA is provided in Appendix B.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-19 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.4.1.4 Special-Status Species
Appendix G of the Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B; ECORP 2025a) provides a list of all the special-status plant and wildlife species identified as potentially occurring within the BSA. This list was created based on a review of literature and database searches including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory, USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation, and National Marine Fisheries Service Resources data, as further described in Appendix B. This provides the listing status for each species, a brief habitat description, and a determination on the potential to occur within the BSA. The following sections briefly describe and discuss the special-status species that are either listed or are candidates for listing under the California or federal Endangered Species Acts (ESAs) and could potentially occur within the BSA.

Plants
Heartscale
Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs but is designated as a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 species and a San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) Covered Species. This species is an herbaceous annual found within alkaline or saline sandy valley and foothill grasslands, meadows and seeps, and chenopod scrub communities. Heartscale flowers from April through October and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 0 to 1,835 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Heartscale is endemic to California; the current range of this species includes Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yolo counties; it is considered extirpated from San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties.

There are no CNDDB records of heartscale occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the slightly saline soils in the annual grassland within the BSA may provide marginally suitable habitat for this species.

Heartscale has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Big Tarplant
Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs but is designated as a CRPR 1B.1 species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in valley and foothill grassland, usually in clay soil. Big tarplant blooms from July through October and is known to occur from 100 to 1,655 feet above MSL. Big tarplant is endemic to California; the current range of the species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Solano, and Stanislaus counties; it is considered extirpated from Solano County.

There are no CNDDB records of big tarplant occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the annual grassland within the BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for this species due to disturbance from surrounding urban development. Big tarplant has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-20 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Parry’s Rough Tarplant
Parry’s rough tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs but is designated as a CRPR 4.2 species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in vernal pools and valley and foothill grassland with alkaline and vernally mesic soils, seeps, and sometimes roadsides. Parry’s rough tarplant blooms from May through October and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 0 to 330 feet above MSL. Parry’s rough tarplant is endemic to California; its current range includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Merced, Modoc, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties.

There are no CNDDB records of Parry’s rough tarplant occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the annual grassland and ruderal/disturbed portions of the agricultural or SSJID easement within the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Parry’s rough tarplant has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Showy Golden Madia
Showy golden madia (Madia radiata) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs but is designated as a CRPR 1B.1 species and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland. Showy golden madia blooms from March through May and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 80 to 3,985 feet above MSL. Showy golden madia is endemic to California; its current range includes Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus counties. It is considered to be extirpated in Contra Costa, Kings, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Joaquin counties.

There are no CNDDB records of showy golden madia occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the annual grassland within the BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for this species. Showy golden madia has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Invertebrates
ECORP identified no potential habitat for special-status invertebrate species during the site reconnaissance.

Amphibians
ECORP identified no potential habitat for special-status amphibian species during the site reconnaissance.

Reptiles
Northwestern Pond Turtle
The northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) is proposed for listing as Threatened pursuant to the federal ESA, is considered a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW, and is an SJMSCP-Covered Species. The range of the northwestern pond turtle in California extends from the Coast Ranges on the Oregon border southward to Marin County, throughout the lower elevations and foothills of the southern Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-21 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and within the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. The elevation range for the species extends from near sea level to 4,690 feet (1,430 meters).

They can occur in a variety of waters including ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, rivers, settling ponds of wastewater treatment plants, and other permanent and ephemeral wetlands. However, in streams and other lotic features they generally require slack- or slow-water aquatic microhabitats. Northwestern pond turtles also require basking areas such as logs, rocks, banks, and brush piles for thermoregulation. Nesting sites for pond turtles are typically located in annual grasslands adjacent to a watercourse with little slope and hard, dry soil. Nesting habitat soils typically display high clay or silt fraction, with few nests located in sandy soils. Nests are usually within 400m of a watercourse, with the majority being within 50m of the water’s edge.

There is one CNDDB record of northwestern pond turtle occurring within 5 miles of the BSA. Aquatic habitat is present just northwest of the BSA and the friable soil of the ditch provides marginal nesting habitat. Northwestern pond turtle has a low potential to occur within the BSA.

Birds
Cooper’s Hawk
The Cooper’s hawk (Astur cooperii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs. However, it is a CDFW Watch List and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. Typical nesting and foraging habitats include riparian woodland, dense oak woodland, and other woodlands near water. Cooper’s hawks nest throughout California from Siskiyou County to San Diego County and includes the Central Valley.

Breeding occurs from March through July, with a peak from May through July.

There are no CNDDB records of Cooper’s hawk occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Cooper’s hawk has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is not listed pursuant to the federal ESA but is currently a candidate for listing under the California ESA; in addition, it is designated as a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) by USFWS, an SSC by CDFW, and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. Burrowing owls inhabit dry open rolling hills, grasslands, desert floors, and open bare ground with gullies and arroyos. They can also inhabit developed areas such as golf courses, cemeteries, roadsides within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, school campuses, and fairgrounds. This species typically uses burrows created by fossorial mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) but may also use manmade structures such as concrete culverts or pipes; concrete, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath concrete or asphalt pavement. The breeding season typically occurs between February 1 and August 31.

There are three CNDDB records of burrowing owl occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, and the banks of the ditch observed within the BSA provide marginally suitable habitat for this species. Burrowing owls have low potential to occur within the BSA.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-22 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Oak Titmouse
Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) is not listed and protected under either California or federal ESAs but are considered a USFWS BCC. Oak titmouse breeding range includes southwestern Oregon south through California’s Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, western foothills of the Sierra Nevada, into Baja California; they are absent from the humid northwestern coastal region and the San Joaquin Valley. They are found in dry oak or oak-pine woodlands but may also use scrub oaks or other brush near woodlands.

Nesting occurs during March through July.

There are no CNDDB records of oak titmouse occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Oak titmouse has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as a threatened species and are protected pursuant to the California ESA, and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This migratory species nests throughout western North America (Canada, western U.S., and Mexico) and typically winters from South America, north to Mexico.

However, a small population has been observed wintering in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. In California, the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk ranges from mid-March to mid-August.

Swainson’s hawks build stick nests in trees in a variety of natural and human altered habitats including edges of riparian systems, oak woodland, agricultural landscapes, and urban areas. Natural foraging habitats include open grassland, and shrub steppe. As more lands were converted to agriculture, Swainson’s hawks have become associated with low-stature agricultural fields (e.g., alfalfa), irrigated pasture and livestock pastures. In the Central Valley, Swainson’s hawks typically feed on a combination of California vole (Microtus californicus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), many passerine birds, and grasshoppers (Melanopulus species). Swainson’s hawks are opportunistic foragers and will readily forage in association with agricultural mowing, harvesting, discing, and irrigating. The removal of vegetative cover by such farming activities results in more readily available prey items for this species.

There are 29 CNDDB records of Swainson’s hawk occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, and the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. Swainson’s hawk has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Nuttall’s Woodpecker
The Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) is not listed and protected under either the California or federal ESAs but is considered a USFWS BCC. They are resident from Siskiyou County south to Baja California. Nuttall’s woodpeckers nest in tree cavities primarily within oak woodlands but also can be found in riparian woodlands. Breeding occurs from April through July.

There are no CNDDB records of Nuttall’s woodpecker occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Nuttall’s woodpecker has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-23 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, the species is fully protected pursuant to Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is a common resident in the Central Valley and the entire length of the California coast, as well as all areas up to the Sierra Nevada foothills and southeastern deserts. In northern California, white-tailed kite nesting occurs from March through early August, with nesting activity peaking from March through June. Nesting occurs in trees within oak woodland, savannah, agricultural communities, and riparian areas adjacent to open areas.

There are no CNDDB records of white-tailed kite occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, but the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. White-tailed kite has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Bullocks Oriole
The Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs but is currently a BCC according to USFWS. In California, Bullock’s orioles are found throughout the State except the higher elevations of mountain ranges and the eastern deserts. They are found in riparian and oak woodlands where nests are built in deciduous trees, but may also use orchards, conifers, and eucalyptus trees. Nesting occurs from March through July.

There are no CNDDB records of Bullock’s oriole occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, but the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. Bullock’s oriole has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; but is considered an SSC by CDFW. Loggerhead shrikes nest throughout California except the northwestern corner, montane forests, and high deserts. Loggerhead shrikes nest in small trees and shrubs in open country with short vegetation such as pastures, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, agricultural fields, riparian areas, and open woodlands. The nesting season extends from March through July.

There is one CNDDB records of loggerhead shrike occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, but the limited size and level of disturbance within the BSA provides marginally suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Loggerhead shrike has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Yellow-Billed Magpie
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; but is considered an SSC by CDFW. Loggerhead shrikes nest throughout California except the northwestern corner, montane forests, and high deserts. Loggerhead shrikes nest in small trees and shrubs in open country with short vegetation such as pastures, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, agricultural fields, riparian areas, and open woodlands. The nesting season extends from March through July.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-24 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
There is one CNDDB records of loggerhead shrike occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, but the limited size and level of disturbance within the BSA provides marginally suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Loggerhead shrike has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Mammals
Western Red Bat
The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, this species is considered an SSC by CDFW and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is broadly distributed, its range extending from southern British Columbia in Canada through Argentina and Chile in South America and including much of the western U.S. This solitary species day roosts primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs in edge habitats bordering streams or open fields, in orchards, and occasionally urban areas. They are associated with intact riparian habitat, especially with cottonwoods, sycamores, oaks and willows. They feed on a variety of insects and generally begin to forage 1 to 2 hours after sunset. This species is considered highly migratory; however, the timing of migration and the summer ranges of males and females may be different. Winter behavior of this species is poorly understood.

There are no CNDDB records of western red bat occurring within 5 miles of the BSA, but the trees within the BSA provides marginally suitable day roosting habitat for this species. Western red bats have low potential to occur within the BSA.

Long-Legged Myotis
The long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, this species is an SJMSCP-Covered Species. In addition, the Western Bat Working Group has classified the long-legged myotis in California as “imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.” It is common in the mountainous regions of California, occurring in the coastal ranges from Oregon to Mexico, the Sierra Nevada/Cascade ranges to Southern California, most of the Great Basin region, and in several Mojave Desert mountain ranges. This species is most common in woodland and forest communities above 4,000 feet and is absent from the Central Valley and Colorado and Mojave low deserts. The long-legged myotis feeds primarily on moths, foraging at low heights (10 to 15 feet) over water, close to trees and cliffs, and in forest clearings. This bat roosts in rock crevices, buildings, trees, mines, and caves, with trees potentially being the most important. This species forms maternity colonies of hundreds of individuals, usually in trees or snags.

There are no CNDDB records of long-legged myotis occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025), but the within the BSA provides marginally suitable day roosting habitat for this species. Long-legged myotis have low potential to occur within the BSA.

4.4.1.5 Wildlife Movement Corridors
The BSA does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor nor are there any nursery sites within the BSA.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-25 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

There are no known occurrences of special-status species for the BSA, but no protocol level surveys have been performed, to date. However, the BSA supports potentially suitable habitat for a few special-status species. The following discussion provides recommended measures to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to these special-status species.

4.4.2.1 Special-Status Plants
The areas that support natural vegetation within the BSA provide a limited amount of marginally suitable potential habitat for special-status plants, as identified in Section 4.6. In the low chance that a specialstatus plant occurs within or near the Project Site during construction, the Project could result in damage or loss of individual plants. Impacts to plants with CRPR 4 would not likely be significant under CEQA.

Impacts to special-status plants with CRPRs of 1 or 2 may be significant under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which identifies avoidance areas, will reduce impacts to special-status plants to less than significant.

4.4.2.2 Special-Status Wildlife
The ditch within the BSA supports marginally suitable nesting habitat for the northwestern pond turtle. In the low change that the species occurs within or near the Project Site during construction, the Project may result in injury or fatalities to northwestern pond turtle through vehicular traffic and other construction activity. Therefore, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which will minimize potential impacts to the Northwestern Pond Turtle to a less than significant impact.

4.4.2.3 Nesting Birds (Including Raptors)
The BSA and its vicinity contains suitable nesting and/or wintering and foraging habitat for several special-status birds and other birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Impacts to wintering and foraging habitat would not be considered significant under CEQA. If Project-related activities occur during the nesting season, the removal of active nests or disruption of nesting activities could lead to “take” of a protected bird, or an active nest with eggs or young, which would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Therefore, with implementation of □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-26 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Mitigation Measure BIO-3, which will require preconstruction surveys and the steps to implement if a next is found, impacts to special-status birds and nesting birds would be less than significant.

4.4.2.4 Burrowing Owl
The BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for burrowing owls. While the BSA is regularly maintained, the ditch borders and annual grassland support ground squirrels and burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. Therefore, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which will minimize potential impacts to the burrowing owl to a less than significant impact.

4.4.2.5 Swainson’s Hawk
The BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawk; as such, this species has a potential to nest and forage within and near the BSA. Therefore, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-5, which will minimize potential impacts to the burrowing owl to a less than significant impact.

4.4.2.6 Western Red Bat
The trees within the BSA represent marginally suitable potential roosting habitat for western red bat. If occupied bat roosts are present, removal of the habitat feature could result in direct mortality or injury to roosting bats. It is unlikely that the BSA would provide maternity roosting habitat for western red bat.

However, in the low chance that a maternity roosting site is present within the BSA, removal during the maternity roosting season could result in the loss of the site and injury or mortality of pups that are not yet able to fly. Potential impacts to bat maternity roost sites would be considered significant under CEQA.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-6, which will minimize potential impacts to the western red bat to a less than significant impact.

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.

As discussed above, no sensitive natural communities, oak woodlands, or riparian habitat is found within the BSA and therefore will not be adversely impacted during Project implementation. The Project will have no impact on sensitive natural communities, and no mitigation measures is required. □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-27 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

ECORP conducted an aquatic resources assessment and mapped an irrigation ditch within the BSA. The ditch appears to be ephemeral in nature (not a “relatively permanent” feature), and water releases are managed seasonally. The ditch does not appear to meet the definition of Waters of the U.S. and not subject to USACE jurisdiction due ephemeral flow and therefore lack of a continuous surface connection to a relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing body of water. In addition, the ditch does not appear to meet the definition of Waters of the State per Section II.2 and II.3.c of the Procedures, as the ditch is an artificial wetland resulting from human activity, excavated in uplands, subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and is not a modification of a surface water of the State.

Resource verification by USACE and RWQCB would be required to formally determine jurisdictional status of the drainage ditch under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Direct impacts to the ditch would be defined as any grading, trenching, excavation, or placement of temporary or permanent fill within the aquatic resource. Indirect impacts may include inadvertent encroachments, changes in hydrology, and runoff and erosion from the Project Site.

The Project will utilize an open cut trenching method for construction across the canal. As previously stated the ditch does not meet the definition of Waters of the U.S. SSJID controls the follow of water into this ditch and will construct the project during the non-irrigation season when there is no water present.

Additionally, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-7, which will minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources to a less than significant impact.

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.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-28 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
The BSA is not located within any movement corridors and is not expected to support nursery sites.

Therefore, the Project would have no effect on wildlife movement or nursery sites.

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 with Mitigation Incorporated.

The Proposed Project may potentially impact planted vegetation within public spaces owned by the City.

Therefore, the Proposed Project will incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-8, which will minimize potential impacts to a less than significant impact.

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Project would not conflict with any such plans. The Proposed Project is located within the Plan Area for the SJMSCP. If the Project proponent opts to participate in the SJMSCP, all required conditions of the SJMSCP would be implemented. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with the SJMSCP, and any impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Habitat Avoidance. The following measures shall be implemented to avoid impacts to Special-Status Plant Habitat within the pipeline alignment:
 A special-status plant survey shall be conducted according to CDFW, California Native Plant Society, and USFWS protocols prior to Project ground-disturbing or vegetation-disturbing activities within undeveloped areas. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as defined per agency protocols) throughout all potential habitat for special-status plants within the Project Site and a 15-foot buffer. The survey shall be timed according to the identifiable period for specialstatus plant species with potential to occur (typically the blooming period). To the extent feasible, known reference populations shall be visited prior to the survey to confirm target species are evident and identifiable at the time of the survey. If no □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-29 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
special-status plants are found and the survey is still considered recent as per CDFW and USFWS protocols at the time of Project implementation, no further measures pertaining to special-status plants are necessary. If a special-status plant is identified within or adjacent to the Project Site, the following shall apply.  An impact assessment shall be made by a qualified biologist to determine whether Project-related activities would be significant such that they would have the potential to eliminate, substantially reduce the number of, or restrict the range of the special-status plant species, and/or conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting special-status plant species. If impacts are determined to be less than significant, no further measures are needed.
 If potential impacts are determined to be significant, then a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around special-status plant populations to be avoided within or adjacent to the Project Site. The no-disturbance buffer shall include the extent of the avoided special-status plants (as determined by a qualified biologist during an appropriate time to identify the plants immediately preceding construction) plus a minimum 15-foot buffer. The avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field and demarcation shall be maintained for the duration of Project construction. No vegetation-disturbing or ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the avoidance area.

BIO-2: Northwestern Pond Turtle. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction clearance survey within the Project Site within 48 hours prior to the initiation of Project construction activities. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If northwestern pond turtles are found within or near the Project Site during the survey or during Project implementation, they shall be allowed to move out of the Project Site on their own volition or relocated by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW and silt fencing shall be installed.

BIO-3: Nesting Birds. If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 1– August 31, and as early as January 1 for raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey within 14 days prior to the commencement of Projectrelated activities to identify active nests that could be impacted by construction. The survey shall be conducted within the Project Site and a 500-foot buffer for raptors and a 100-foot buffer for other birds, where accessible. If there is a lapse in Project-related work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If active nests are found, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. A qualified biologist shall establish a buffer distance. The buffer shall be maintained until the nestlings have fledged (e.g., are capable of flight and become independent of the nest), to be determined by a qualified biologist. The avoidance buffer can be removed and no further measures are necessary once the young have fledged or the nest is no longer occupied, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-30 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
BIO-4: Burrowing Owl. A qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance preconstruction survey according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active/occupied burrows are detected, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the burrow. The buffer distance shall be established in coordination with CDFW.

BIO-5: Swainson’s Hawk. If construction is scheduled during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 1 to August 31), then, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Swainson’s hawk nesting activity within a 0.5-mile distance surrounding the Project Site. The qualified biologist shall conduct surveys according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley or, if proposing an alternate survey methodology, shall submit the proposed survey timing and methods to CDFW for review and written approval prior to the initiation of surveys. If there is a lapse in Projectrelated work of 14 days or longer, the survey must be repeated prior to resuming Project activities. If Swainson’s hawk nesting activity is observed during the survey, an avoidance buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. The avoidance buffer shall be maintained while the nest is active.

BIO-6: Western Red Bat. Tree trimming/removal shall occur outside of the bat maternity season (April 15 through August 31), as feasible.

BIO-7: Aquatic Resources. Construction in this area will take place in one phase and will be completed before the irrigation ditch is used to convey any water.

Additionally, the applicant shall prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to avoid and minimize sediment and erosion to aquatic resources within or adjacent to the Project Site boundary.
.

BIO-8: Tree and Vegetation Removal. The Project proponent shall consult with the City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department prior to impacting vegetation in any public space and shall secure their approval for impacting such vegetation prior to construction, if needed.

4.5 Cultural Resources
ECORP prepared a Cultural Resources Inventory (ECORP 2025c) for the Proposed Project to determine if cultural resources were present in or adjacent to the Project Site and assess the sensitivity of the Project Site 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 records were produced after the arrival of Europeans are considered historic archaeological sites. Historic structures include houses, Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-31 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Inventory and Architectural History Evaluation Report and is included here to provide a brief context of the potential cultural resources in the Project Site. 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 Site is situated within the San Joaquin Valley within the City limits. The San Joaquin River flows northward through the center of the San Joaquin Valley to the Sacramento Delta. Numerous rivers drain from the Sierra Nevada to the east and flow westward across the valley to join the San Joaquin River. In pre-contact times the valley was characterized by plains and grasslands and marshes and wetlands along the rivers. The closest perennial waterways are the San Joaquin River, approximately 3 miles west of the Project Site and Walthall Slough approximately 3 miles southwest of the Project Site.

The Project Site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, agricultural areas, a golf course to the north, and the Kaiser Medical Center to the southwest. The elevations within the Project Site range from 20 to 30 feet above MSL.

4.5.1.1 Regional History
The first Viceroy of New Spain, Antonio de Mendoza, commissioned maritime explorer Hernando de Alarcón to chart the Gulf of California and Colorado River in 1540. Alarcón and his crew became the first Europeans to reach Alta (Upper) California when they set foot on the banks of the Colorado River in what is now Imperial County. In 1542, the Spanish maritime explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo and his crew became the first Europeans to explore the Alta California coastline, anchoring at San Diego Bay, Santa Catalina Island, and San Pedro Bay. In 1579, the English privateer Francis Drake, midway through his circumnavigation of the world, visited Miwok villages in what is now Marin County. The Spanish explorer Sebastian Vizcaíno, sailing north from Mexico, charted Monterey Bay in 1602.

Spanish colonization of Alta California began in 1769 with the Portolá land expedition led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá and Father Junipero Serra. The overland expedition proceeded from San Diego Bay north to the Santa Clara Valley, where an advance party of scouts led by José Ortega became the first Europeans to observe San Francisco Bay. Spain subsequently established a string of 21 Franciscan missions, 4 presidios (forts), and 4 pueblos (towns) in Alta California’s coastal regions. In 1808, the explorer Gabriel Moraga led an expedition from San Jose pueblo into the Central Valley. Moraga named the valley’s major rivers, including the Sacramento and San Joaquin, but made no attempt to establish permanent settlements in Alta California’s interior.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-32 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
The Republic of Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1821. A year later, Alta California became a territory of Mexico with its capital at Monterey. In 1827, the American fur trapper Jedediah Smith led a party of Rocky Mountain Fur Company trappers across the Mojave Desert to Mission San Gabriel, north up the Central Valley, and east into Nevada, demonstrating the possibility of overland travel across the Sierra Nevada.

During the 1830s, the Mexican government confiscated mission lands and expelled Franciscan friars from Alta California. In coastal regions and in interior valleys, government officials granted vast amounts of acreage to retired soldiers and other Mexican citizens. Three of Alta California’s Spanish pueblos—Los Angeles, San Jose, and Sonoma—survived as permanent towns. Other civilian settlements developed around presidios at San Francisco, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. Many Alta California landowners, called californios, maintained residences in town while hired vaqueros and unpaid Native American laborers worked on rural ranchos (cattle ranches) to produce cow hides and tallow, commodities prized by foreign merchants.

In 1821, the liberalized Mexican government began welcoming non-Spanish immigrants to Alta California.

Hundreds of Americans, British, and other foreigners arrived to establish trading relationships. Others became naturalized Mexican citizens and applied for land grants. John Sutter, a German-speaking immigrant from Switzerland, built a fort at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers in 1839 and petitioned the Mexican governor for a land grant; he received nearly 49,000 acres along the Sacramento River in 1841.

Following the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, Mexico ceded Alta California to the United States.

Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Congress agreed to recognize the private property of former Mexican citizens living within the new boundaries of the United States. This meant confirming California’s Mexican land grants. In 1851, Congress passed the California Land Act creating the Board of Land Commissioners to determine the validity of the individual grants, placing the burden of proof on patentees. The Board, with assistance from U.S. courts, confirmed most of California’s Mexican land grants in subsequent decades.

In January 1848, one of John Sutter’s hired laborers, James Marshall, discovered gold in the flume of a lumber mill on the South Fork of the American River. News of Marshall’s discovery spread around the world, leading to the California Gold Rush of 1849. Tens of thousands of prospectors hurriedly arrived in the Sierra Nevada foothills, prompting the creation of hundreds of small mining camps along streambeds.

The cities of Marysville, Sacramento, and Stockton sprang up along the Feather, Sacramento, and San Joaquin rivers as supply centers for the mines; San Francisco became California’s largest city and the focal point for Gold Rush economic activity. In 1850, following a year of rapid growth, Congress admitted California as the 31st U.S. state. In the following decades, federal surveyors arrived in California to stake out 36-square-mile townships and 1-square-mile sections on California’s public lands. At general land offices, buyers paid cash for up to 320 acres. After 1862, many filed homestead applications to obtain 40-, 80-, and 160-acre tracts at low upfront costs on the condition they establish farms.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-33 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.5.1.2 San Joaquin County
Captain Charles Weber, leader of one of the first overland parties to travel in the San Joaquin Valley, was favorably impressed by the Stockton area’s abundance of fertile lands and oaks on the banks of the San Joaquin River. Although he ended up settling further west in San Jose, he formed a partnership with William Gulnac, a blacksmith who became a naturalized Mexican citizen. Eventually, the two men founded a colony at Campo de los Franceses, also known as French Camp, and in 1844 they were successful in receiving a land grant from the Mexican Governor of Alta California under that name at the future site of Stockton.

The entire Stockton area was part of the Campo de los Franceses land grant, the second largest of the many land grants made by the Mexican government. It was later sold and, with the assistance of Weber, the town of Tuleberg was founded on the south side of the Stockton Channel. The town was renamed in 1849 for Commodore Robert F. Stockton, U.S. Navy, becoming the first town name in California not of Spanish or Native American origin. The City of Stockton was officially incorporated on July 23, 1850, and the first City of Stockton election was held only one day later.

During the Gold Rush, numerous claims were worked along the American River and on the upper reaches of the Cosumnes River. Many miners traveled into the Sierra Nevada via the San Joaquin Valley, and a number returned to the area around Stockton to start farms and ranches to supply the gold camps with meat and other comestibles. The city became a major commercial hub, with flour mills, grain and flour exporting facilities, and factories for agricultural equipment such as harvesters and track-type tractors. In addition, boat building, which began in the 1850s, provided many of the paddle wheel steamers that plied the Delta and the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers from 1849 to 1938.

Prior to 1851, San Joaquin County was considered only good for grazing and hunting. There were immense herds of cattle and some horses ranging within the valley. After 1851 the land was increasingly used for cultivation, as disillusioned gold miners turned to the natural riches of the San Joaquin Valley.

The more arid soils west of the river were cultivated mainly for wheat; the land east of the river produced wheat, barley, potatoes, corn, fruit, and vegetables.

The Central Pacific Railroad completed its line from Oakland to Sacramento via Lathrop in 1869. The Central Pacific Railroad was part of the first transcontinental railroad and made a connection with the Union Pacific Railroad in Utah in 1869. A railroad line south to Modesto was completed in 1870; it was extended to Fresno in 1872 and reached Los Angeles by 1876. In 1871, various railroad machine shops and a roundhouse were constructed at Lathrop. A switchyard was built at the Lathrop wye, which was the division point for the switching and assembly of trains going north and south from Lathrop. The Central Pacific Railroad was merged into the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1885 and after 1889 the Central Pacific Railroad name was no longer used. Another railroad, the Western Pacific Railroad, was completed through Lathrop in 1909 and reached Salt Lake City in 1910. It ran from Oakland via Sacramento and Oroville to Salt Lake City using the Feather River Canyon to cross the Sierra Nevada.

Stanford and his railroad companies endeavored to develop a town as a rival to Stockton. However, the only economic activity in Lathrop through the 1920s was working for the railroad. Later, from 1942 to Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-34 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
1944, during World War II, Permanente Metals Corporation, located in Lathrop and managed by Henry J.

Kaiser of Kaiser Industries, began supplying the military with aircraft and bomb parts. Also, in the 1940s, Lathrop expanded into five square miles east of Louise Avenue and what is now I-5. This region was still primarily agricultural, and in the late 1940s, there was considerable shipment of milk to condensing plants and cheese factories. A fertilizer plant and automobile glass plant were built in this area and were later closed.

Stockton experienced rapid growth through the turn of the twentieth century. It was not heavily damaged by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, and the community sent supplies by boat to San Francisco. A large number of people who had been displaced by the earthquake came to Stockton, including a number of people from China. This influx of residents made Stockton’s Chinatown the largest in California. Despite the floods in the early twentieth century, there was a Stockton building boom, particularly downtown. At this time, residential development increased in subdivisions around Stockton.

During World Wars I and II, Stockton increased its manufacturing and support for the war efforts though increased ship and tank building. During World War II, civilian shipping to and from the Port of Stockton was suspended, which resulted in greater use of rail and roads for shipping.

In 1933, the Port of Stockton opened, becoming the first and largest inland seaport in California. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, the Deep-Water Channel to the Port was expanded, which provided many jobs. The Depression did not hit the region as hard as surrounding areas and an economic boom during this time saw construction of significant private and publicly funded buildings, including a movie palace, railroad depot, museum, post office, and county hospital.

Today, agriculture is the major industry in the San Joaquin Valley, with related support industries such as trucking and shipping. However, steady industrial growth with factories making items such as concrete pipe, baked goods, wood products, fabricated steel, and ship building, and residential development to supply homes for the growing population of workers is changing the face of the valley.

4.5.2 Research Methods
ECORP requested a records search for the Project Site at the Central California Information Center (CCaIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Stanislaus on July 14, 2025 (CCaIC File No. 13419L). The purpose of the records search is to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.5-mile (800-meter) radius of the Proposed Project Site, in addition to whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. CCaIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on July 15, 2025.

In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Joaquin County, ECORP also reviewed the following references: Built Environment Resource Directory for San Joaquin County; the National Register Information System; Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks; California Points of Historical Interest; Caltrans Local Bridge Survey; Caltrans State Bridge Survey; and Historic Spots in California.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-35 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on July 14, 2025 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the Project Site. This search determines whether the California Native American tribes with ancestral ties to the land within the Project Site have recorded Sacred Lands in the SLF, which is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of tribal cultural resources.

ECORP sent letters to the San Joaquin County Historical Society and Museum and the Manteca Historical Society and Museum on July 14, 2025 to solicit comments or obtain historical information that the repositories might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical significance in the area.

ECORP subjected the Project Site to an intensive pedestrian survey on September 10, 2025, under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties, using 15-meter transects. At the time, ECORP archaeologists examined the ground surface for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources and inspected the general morphological characteristics of the ground surface for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, the archaeologists examined the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. ECORP did not conduct any subsurface investigations or artifact collections during the pedestrian survey.

4.5.3 Cultural Resources (V) 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 historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

ECORP’s records search and field survey identified a historic-era golf course (Manteca Park Golf Course) and a historic-era drainage ditch (Drain 5) within the Project Site that meet the age threshold of 50 years under CEQA and, therefore, could be considered Historical Resources. Construction of pipeline will require open cut trenching through the ditch. However, based on initial information, neither Drain 5 nor the Manteca Park Golf Course appear to be eligible for the CRHR or the NRHP.

The Manteca Park Golf Course has been modified since initial construction and has included various ground-disturbing maintenance activities and the construction of a new clubhouse. These maintenance activities and modifications detract from the eligibility of it being potentially a historical resource.

No previously identified Historical Resources were documented within the Project Site. Ground disturbing activities may impact unknown archaeological resources, which may be Historical Resources, but the likelihood is low given the lack of structures historically occurring within the Project Site. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 pertaining to the accidental discovery of unknown □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-36 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
archaeological resources and/or human remains during Project construction. Implementation of this measure would ensure that any archaeological resources, including potential Historical Resources, discovered during Project construction would be handled in a proper manner in accordance with PRC Section 21083. Implementation of this measure would prevent damage to any potential unknown Historical Resources that may be present within the Project Site. With implementation of CUL-1, 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) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

There are no previously documented cultural resources documented within the Project Site. Although the Project Site has low potential for buried archaeological resources, there is potential for ground disturbing activities during construction to affect unknown archaeological resources on the Project Site. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 pertaining to the accidental discovery of unknown archaeological resources and/or human remains during construction. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project would not cause a substantial change in the significance of an archaeological resource because any accidentally discovered archaeological resources would be handled in a proper manner in accordance with PRC Section 21083. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would prevent damage to any potential unknown cultural resources that may be present within the Project Site. With implementation of CUL-1, impact would be 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

There are no known burial or dedicated cemetery sites within the Project Site; however, as stated above in b) there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources or human remains; therefore, with implementation of CUL-1, impacts to human remains will remain less than significant.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-37 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Unanticipated Discoveries. If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 100-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.  If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, the archaeologist shall immediately notify the lead agencies. The agencies shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined by CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if applicable. Work may not resume within the nowork radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the site either: 1) is not a Historical Resource under CEQA or a Historic Property under Section 106; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.  If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, they shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the San Joaquin County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the coroner will notify NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the Project (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the PRC).

If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-38 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.6 Energy
This IS/MND analyzes energy consumption due to the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Project. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal) and emissions of pollutants during the construction and operational phases. The impact analysis focuses on the four sources of energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project: electricity, natural gas, the equipment-fuel necessary for Project construction, and the automotive fuel necessary for Project operations.

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
California relies on a regional power system composed 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. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to San Joaquin County. It generates or 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 Line. It provides 5.2 million people with electricity and natural gas across 70,000 square miles. In 2019, PG&E announced 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 the replacement of an existing and active sewage trunk system, there will be no increase in operational energy uses beyond existing conditions and thus it will not be discussed in this analysis. Discussion of the impact will focus on the single source of energy that is relevant to the Proposed Project: the equipment-fuel necessary for Project construction.

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 2020 to 2024 is shown in Table 4.6-1. As shown, automotive fuel consumption increased since 2020.

Table 4.6-1. Total Fuel Consumption in San Joaquin County (2020–2024) Year Total Fuel Consumption (gallons) Total Diesel Consumption (gallons) 2024 226,846,428 145,732,975
2023 233,623,065 131,553,755
2022 240,514,012 130,359,109
2021 243,300,629 141,296,928
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-39 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Table 4.6-1. Total Fuel Consumption in San Joaquin County (2020–2024) Year Total Fuel Consumption (gallons) Total Diesel Consumption (gallons) 2024 226,846,428 145,732,975
2020 215,813,612 130,305,631
Source: California Air Resources Board 2021, 2025

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?
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 countywide 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 2024, the latest full year of available data, found in CARB’s Emission Factor (EMFAC) 2025 (CARB 2025).

EMFAC 2025 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates and rates of gasoline and diesel consumption from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California. EMFAC also provides annual VMT, which was used to calculate the average countywide fuel economy of both gasoline and diesel vehicles used in construction.

The fuel consumption of Project construction off-road equipment was also modeled, using a combination of CalEEMod Version 2022 (see Appendix A) and CARB’s OFFROAD2021 Version 1.0.7 (CARB 2021).

CalEEMod is a statewide land use computer model designed to quantify resources associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. This model contains default construction equipment and usage parameters for typical construction projects based on several construction surveys conducted in order to identify such parameters. OFFROAD2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates and rates of gasoline and diesel consumption from off-road vehicles that operate in California. Fuel consumption was calculated by deriving the fuel consumption factors of each piece of equipment using EPA’s Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES3.0.2 (EPA 2021), which identifies brake specific fuel capacities of

0.408 pounds of diesel per horsepower-hour for engines below 100 horsepower, and 0.367 pounds of diesel per horsepower-hour for engines above 100 horsepower. The fuel consumption factor was then converted from pounds of diesel per horsepower-hour to gallons of diesel per horsepower-hour using the standard conversion of diesel from pounds to gallons (7.07 pounds per gallon). The fuel consumption factor for vehicles below 100 horsepower was calculated to be 0.0577 gallons of diesel per horsepower- □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-40 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
hour and the fuel consumption factor for vehicles above 100 horsepower was calculated to be 0.0519 gallons of diesel per horsepower-hour. The horsepower and load factor of each piece of equipment was then multiplied by its respective fuel consumption factor in order to determine the fuel consumption rate of the equipment. After identifying the fuel consumption rate, the total quantity of each set of equipment and its daily usage were multiplied to find the total hours of usage per day and then multiplied by the length of their respective construction phases in order to calculate total hours of usage per piece of equipment per construction phase. These total hours were then multiplied by the fuel consumption rate in order to find each piece of equipment’s total fuel consumption (see Appendix D; ECORP 2025d).

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 total fuel necessary for Project construction is calculated and compared to that consumed in in San Joaquin County. Table 4.6-2 describes energy and fuel consumption for the Proposed Project.

Table 4.6-2. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption Energy Type Annual Energy Consumed San Joaquin Countywide Percentage Increase
Construction Fuel Consumption
Construction (Diesel)*,† 60,149 gallons 0.0413 percent
Construction (Gasoline)‡ 365 gallons 0.0002 percent
Notes: CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; CARB = California Air Resources Board; EMFAC = Emission Factor
The Project increases in both gasoline and diesel fuel consumption are compared with the anticipated countywide fuel consumption in 2024, the most recent full year of data. Construction on-road and off-road trips are obtained from estimates generated by CalEEMod.

Source: *
CalEEMod Version 2022 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2022); †OFFROAD2021 (CARB 2021); ‡
EMFAC2025 (CARB 2025; See Appendix C).

As shown in Table 4.6-2, the Project’s gasoline fuel consumption during the one-time construction period is estimated to be 365 gallons, which would increase the annual countywide gasoline fuel use by 0.0002 percent. Additionally, the Project is estimated to consume 60,149 gallons of diesel fuel, which would be

0.0413 percent of San Joaquin County’s annual diesel fuel consumption. 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. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-41 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Project proposes the replacement of sewage treatment pipes on an existing pipeline. As an improvement to existing wastewater treatment infrastructure within the City, the Proposed Project would be compliant with all City and state regulations and measures to enhance local energy efficiency. The Proposed Project would no conflict or obstruct any state or local plans for energy. There would be 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 Environmental Setting

4.7.1.1 Geomorphic Setting
The Proposed Project Site lies in the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The San Joaquin Valley is located in the central portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley, also known as the Central Valley, is a topographically flat, northwest-trending, structural trough (or basin) about 50 miles wide and 450 miles long. It is bordered by the Tehachapi Mountains on the south, the Klamath Mountains on the north, the Sierra Nevada on the east, and the Coast Ranges on the west.

The San Joaquin Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. Large alluvial fans have developed on each side of the Valley. The larger and more gently sloping fans are on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and overlie metamorphic and igneous basement rocks. These basement rocks are exposed in the Sierra Nevada foothills and consist of metasedimentary, volcanic, and granitic rock.

4.7.1.2 Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones
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 U.S. Geological Survey identifies potential seismic sources within 5 miles of the City. The closest known faults classified as active by the U.S. Geological Survey include an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, located approximately 5 miles to the west of the City, and the San Joaquin fault, located □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-42 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
approximately 15 miles to the southwest of the City. The Midway fault is located approximately 20 miles to the west. Other faults that could potentially affect the City include the Corral Hollow-Carnegie fault, the Greenville fault, the Antioch fault, and the Los Positas fault (City 2024a).

4.7.1.3 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
An active earthquake fault, per California’s Alquist-Priolo Act, is one that has ruptured within the Holocene Epoch (approximately 11,000 years ago). Based on this criterion, the California Geological Survey (CGS) identifies Earthquake Fault Zones. These Earthquake Fault Zones are identified in Special Publication (SP) 42, which is updated as new fault data become available. SP 42 lists all counties and cities within California that are affected by designated Earthquake Fault Zones. The Fault Zones are delineated on maps within SP 42 (Earthquake Fault Zone Maps).

The California legislature passed the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act in 1972 to address seismic hazards associated with faults and to establish criteria for developments for areas with identified seismic hazard zones. CGS evaluates faults with available geologic and seismologic data and determines if a fault should be zoned as active, potentially active, or inactive. If CGS determines a fault to be active, then it is typically incorporated into a Special Studies Zone in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Act. Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are usually one-quarter mile or less in width and require site-specific evaluation of fault location and require a structure setback if the fault is found traversing a Project Site. The Proposed Project Site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. The nearest Alquist-Priolo fault zone, the Greenville fault zone, is located approximately 25 miles southwest of the City (DOC 2024).

4.7.1.4 Soils
ECORP staff obtained soil survey mapping for the Project Site from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (Appendix B, Figure 2; NRCS 2025). Table 4.7-1 provides an overview of the soil map units within the Project Site, including the presence of hydric soils, parent materials, or other key features that may influence the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur onsite:

Table 4.7-1. Soil Map Units within the Project Site
Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Parent Material or Key Features Hydric Soils Present 143 Delhi-Urban land
complex, 0 to 2 percents
Wind-modified alluvium derived from granitic rock
sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline Not Applicable 254 Timor loam sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline
Bisgani
(alluvial fans)
255 Tinnin loamy coarse sand,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline Not Applicable
266 Veritas fine sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Alluvium derived from mixed rock sources; Non-saline to slightly saline
Bisgani
(alluvial fans)
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2025
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-43 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.7.1.5 Liquefaction
Liquefaction, which is primarily associated with loose, saturated materials, is most common in areas of sand and silt or on reclaimed lands. Cohesion between the loose materials that comprise the soil may be jeopardized during seismic events, and the ground will take on liquid properties. Thus, specific soil characteristics and seismic shaking must exist for liquefaction to be possible.

Liquefaction typically requires a significant sudden decrease of shearing resistance in cohesionless soils and a sudden increase in water pressure, which is typically associated with an earthquake of high magnitude. The potential for liquefaction is highest when groundwater levels are high, and loose, fine, sandy soils occur at depths of less than 50 feet.

According to the City of Manteca General Plan, the Project Site is a low potential area for shrink-swell or liquefaction (City 2024a).

4.7.1.6 Landslide
Ground failure, including landslides, is dependent on slope and geology as well as the amount of rainfall, excavation, or seismic activities. A landslide is a mass of rock, soil, and debris displaced down a slope by sliding, flowing, or falling. Steep slope sand downslope creep of surface materials characterize landslidesusceptible areas. Debris flows consist of a loose mass of rocks and other granular material that, if present on a steep slope and saturated, can move down slope. The rate of rock and soil movements can vary from a slow creep over many years to sudden mass movements.

Landslides occur throughout the State of California, but the density of incidents increases in zones of active faulting. The Project Site is relatively flat and has not been identified as a known area for landslide potential (CGS 2025).

4.7.1.7 Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof) e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources occur within bedrock geologic deposits that may or may not underly the soil layer and are almost exclusively preserved in sedimentary rocks; however, in rare cases, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has defined fossils as being remains or traces of plants and animals that are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age.

According to a records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Collections Date, 1006 fossils or microfossils have been found and recorded within San Joaquin County. Over half of them are dated to the tertiary period, with quaternary being the second most frequent period (UCMP 2025).

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-44 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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 closest known faults classified as active by the U.S. Geological Survey include an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, located approximately 5 miles to the west of the City, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 15 miles to the southwest of the City. The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful lifeand lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line Implementation of the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to rupture a known earthquake fault. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. ii) The City is located in a seismically active region of California and is subject to potential ground shaking associated with seismic activities. All construction associated with the Proposed Project would be consistent with City and San Joaquin County policies, in addition to the California Building Code (CBC). Installation of the proposed piping would be reviewed by City engineers to ensure that Proposed Project components are consistent with standard engineering practices and requirements which are specifically designed to prevent structural damage during seismic ground shaking. These standards are in place to reduce damage associated with ground-shaking as a result of potential earthquakes. Thus, the implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. iii) Liquefaction occurs when loose sand and silt saturated with water behaves like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Liquefaction potential has been found to be greatest where the groundwater level and loose sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. According to the □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
[8J □
[8J □
[8J □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-45 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
City, the Proposed Project is located in zones that would be considered very low or low risk for liquefaction. Therefore, it is unlikely that liquefaction would pose a hazard for the planned Project Site. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. iv) Steep slopes, in conjunction with certain soil types, can be prone to soil erosion and landslides.

Landslides occur as a result of topographical and soil conditions, where loose soils move down steep slopes. Some of the natural causes of this instability are earthquakes, week soils, erosion, and heavy rainfall. Human activities such as poor grading that undercuts steep slopes or overloads them with fill, excessive irrigation, and removal of vegetation can also contribute to ground failure.

According to CGS, the City generally has low landslide susceptibility. The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The Project would be in compliance with all City of Manteca General Plan policies, City Code, and CBC requirements, which would ensure that impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.

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.

As mentioned above, there are four different types of soil located within the Project Site: Delhi-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percents, Timor loam sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. During construction, any trenching and fill on the Project Site could create locally unstable soil conditions that could result in a localized increase in wind- or water- related soil erosion.

All excavation activities, grading, and construction would be conducted according to standard construction practices and building codes. A NPDES Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit would be required for construction activities from RWQCB, requiring a SWPPP. Implementation of the SWPPP, including the use of stormwater quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), would prevent erosion of soil in storm water runoff during project construction (See Section 4.10). Once construction is completed, soils would be stabilized and monitored according to the SWPPP until a Notice of Termination for the NPDES Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit is filed with RWQCB. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion and/or unstable earth conditions from project construction or operation. This is applicable to all proposed phases of construction. For these reasons, erosion-related impacts are considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required. □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-46 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

For reasons discussed in items a) and b) above, adequate measures would be employed during Project construction, construction staging and the construction of related facilities to control and limit on and offsite soil erosion. With the limited potential for on- and off-site erosion and low depth to bedrock at the Project Site, the potential for Project-induced landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse is minimal. The impact, therefore, is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

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.
“Shrink-swell potential” is the potential for volume changes in a soil with a loss or gain in moisture. If the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, damage to buildings, roads, and other structures can occur. These limitations can vary substantially over short distances. Some clayey soils tend to expand when wet and contract upon drying, which can cause structural damage if not accounted for in construction designs. Soils within the Project Site have a “moderate” potential for shrink-swell behavior, or expansiveness. The Proposed Project is required to comply with existing CBC. Additionally, no new development, structures, or grading will be necessary, therefore reducing the potential for hazards from unstable and expansive soils to less than significant. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-47 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful lifeand lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. Implementation of the Proposed Project would enhance the City’s existing wastewater disposal system. Any impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Ground disturbance will take place during construction. Although the proposed excavation depth would be limited, excavations may result in penetration of the underlying rock. As noted above, paleontological resources occur within bedrock geologic deposits that may or may not underly the soil layer and are almost exclusively preserved in sedimentary rocks; however, in rare cases, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions.

Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project may damage or destroy unknown paleontological resources. This potential impact can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PALEO-1.

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
PALEO-1: Discovery of Unknown Resources. If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area, and the area shall be isolated using orange or yellow fencing until the City is notified and the area is cleared for future work. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and recommend appropriate treatment of the inadvertently discovered paleontological resources. If the City resumes work in a location where paleontological remains have been discovered and cleared, the City will have a paleontologist onsite to confirm that no additional paleontological resources are in the area.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-48 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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 carbon dioxide (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 CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e 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 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 a project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 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]).

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-49 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Senate Bill (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 a 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 that 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, 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 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 (BPSs).
 Projects implementing BPSs 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 BPSs 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 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-50 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 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 (Crocket 2011), 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, PRC 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 Supreme Court–reviewed study noted that:
…[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 2011).

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-51 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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 129
Potentially Significant Impact Threshold 900
Exceed Significant Impact Threshold? No
Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 129 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 replacement of sewage treatment pipes on an existing pipeline. Once upgrades are complete, the Project would not be a greater source of operational emissions beyond current conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-52 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

In 2025, the City adopted the City of Manteca Climate Action Plan (CAP), a long-range plan to reduce communitywide GHG emissions from activities within the City limits. The CAP is a strategy for the City to continue to grow in a sustainable way that meets GHG reduction targets while continuing to allow for public and private development and redevelopment that will uphold the City as a vibrant and livable community. These efficiency-based targets represent the AB 32 and SB 32 targeted emissions levels for 2020 and 2030 on a per service population basis.

The CAP includes strategies and measures that the City will implement to achieve its GHG emissions targets over the next two decades. Implementing the City’s CAP will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emission reduction targets. All development within the City, including the Project, is required to adhere to all applicable City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the City CAP. The City ensures all applicable provisions of the CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. All of the applicable and feasible provisions of the City GHG-reduction program as promulgated by its CAP will be incorporated into the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would in no way conflict with the stated goals of the CAP and thus would not interfere with City’s ability to achieve the goals set forth in the CAP. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the CAP GHGreduction targets. As such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

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, □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-53 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Transporters of hazardous waste in California are subject to several federal and state regulations. They must register with the California Department of Health Services 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.

Transporters must allow the California Highway Patrol or California Department of Health Services 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 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). San Joaquin County 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. San Joaquin County will refer large cases of hazardous materials contamination or violations to RWQCB 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 DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board (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 DTSC as a hazardous substances site on the list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 (Cortese List) (DTSC 2025). The Proposed Project is not listed on the SWRCB GeoTracker website; however, there are five sites within 0.5 mile of the Project Site. They can be found listed on Table 4.9-1 below:

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-54 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Table 4.9-1. SWRCB GeoTracker LUST Cleanup Sites within 0.5 Mile of the Project Site Location Address Potential Contaminants
of Concern Status Date
Ted Peters Trucking
Manteca Facility
1985 W Yosemite Avenue,
Manteca, CA, 95336 Petroleum Case Closed 2/21/2019
Ted Peters Trucking
Manteca Facility
1985 W Yosemite Avenue,
Manteca, CA, 95336 Gasoline Case Closed 9/30/2003
Jackpot Food Mart 1434 Yosemite Avenue W,
Manteca, CA, 95336 Gasoline Case Closed 5/29/1997
Chevron #9-1848 1257 Yosemite Avenue W,
Manteca, CA, 95336 Gasoline Case Closed 6/28/2008
Payless Shoe Store 1160 Yosemite Avenue W,
Manteca, CA, 95336
Benzene, Gasoline, Toluene,
Xylene Case Closed 7/23/2009
Notes: LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board Source: SWRCB 2025

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.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line.

Construction may include the use of hazardous materials, given that construction activities involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small and incidental amounts of oils and fuels and other potentially flammable substances. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials used during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state and federal law.

The transport of hazardous materials by truck is regulated by federal safety standards under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The use of such materials would not create a significant hazard to the public and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-55 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of hazardous materials capable of affecting soil and groundwater are not proposed; therefore, the potential risk associated with accidental discharge associated with use and storage of equipment-related hazardous materials during pipe construction is considered low. The Proposed Project is an infrastructure project that would not require the long-term use or storage of hazardous substances. No potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment is expected. Furthermore, as indicated in the Project Description, the Proposed Project is a sewer rehabilitation project within the City’s service area. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project is approximately 0.4 mile south of the Stella Brockman Elementary School within the City. However, the Proposed Project does not involve the development of a use that would emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste during operations from what is currently being utilized. The use of heavy equipment and activities involving hazardous materials would be limited to the construction phase, would be confined to construction areas, and would cease upon completion of the Project. The use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during the Project’s construction phase would be regulated by health and safety requirements under federal, state, and local laws, including handling, storage, and disposal of the materials, as well as emergency spill response. The construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not pose a significant threat to human health, and impacts would be less than significant.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-56 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both DTSC and 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. A search of the DTSC and SWRCB lists identified that the Proposed Project Site is not located on a hazardous material site. SWRCB showed that there are closed sites within 0.5 mile of the Project Site, however, there are no identified sites within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site. Given that there are no existing hazardous waste sites within the Project Site, the Proposed Project will have no impact, and no mitigation is required.

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 Site is located approximately 6.2 miles south of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. No portion of the Proposed Project is within an airport land use plan. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.

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 with Mitigation Incorporated. □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-57 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
The San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan (San Joaquin County 2022) and the City of Manteca General Plan (City 2024a) has designated Airport Way has an evacuation route within the City.

Construction activities could impede the use of surrounding roadways, including Airport Way. Therefore, the Proposed Project would require implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 (Section 4.17) that requires the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. This mitigation measure would assist in maintaining traffic flow along roadways during construction activities. After construction of the Project is completed, the Project Site would be restored to the existing condition.

Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not obstruct evacuation routes or access to critical emergency facilities. Once construction is completed, the Proposed Project would not interfere with a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan or any evacuation. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, impact is less than significant.

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 (CAL FIRE), the Project Site is located in a local responsibility area and has not been identified as a high fire severity zone (CAL FIRE 2025). The Project does not include any new development, structures, or would involve any new employees to be stationed permanently at the site on a daily basis. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury or death due to wildfires. Any impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
Please see Section 4.17.3 for the referenced mitigation measure.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Environmental Setting

4.10.1.1 Regional Hydrology
The City is located 12 miles south of downtown Stockton, 14 miles northwest of Modesto, and 75 miles southeast of San Francisco. The City is situated in the south-central portion of San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin River and the Stanislaus River border the southwest and southern edge of the City, respectively.

The City is located in northern San Joaquin Valley. The San Joaquin Valley is the southern section of the Great Central Valley of California; the Sacramento Valley is the northern section. The Great Central Valley □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-58 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
is a sedimentary basin, with the Coast Range to the west and the Sierra Nevada to the east. Almost all of the sediments that fill the Great Central Valley eroded from the Sierra Nevada. The oldest of these sediments are full of fragments of volcanic rocks eroded from its early volcanoes. As erosion stripped the cover of volcanic rocks from the granites of the Sierra Nevada, their detritus of pale quartz and feldspar sand began to wash into the Great Central Valley. Drainage into the San Joaquin Valley is mainly from the Sierra Nevada. The sediments on the valley floor were deposited within the past one-two million years, some within the past few thousand years (City 2024a).

4.10.1.2 Watersheds
San Joaquin County is located in the San Joaquin River Hydrological Region. The San Joaquin River is the principal river of the region, and all other streams of the region are tributary to it. The Mokelumne River and its tributary the Cosumnes River originate in the central Sierra Nevada, along with the more southerly Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers. The Merced River flows from the south-central Sierra Nevada and enters the San Joaquin near the City of Newman. The Chowchilla and Fresno rivers also originate in the Sierra south of the Merced River and trend westward toward the San Joaquin River. Creeks originating in the Coast Range and draining eastward into the San Joaquin River include Del Puerto Creek, Orestimba Creek, and Panoche Creek. Del Puerto Creek enters the San Joaquin near the City of Patterson, and Orestimba Creek enters north of the City of Newman. During flood years, Panoche Creek may enter the San Joaquin River or the Fresno Slough near the town of Mendota. The Kings River is a stream of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region, but in flood years it may contribute to the San Joaquin River, flowing northward through the James Bypass and Fresno Slough to enter near the City of Mendota. The Mud, Salt, Berrenda, and Ash Sloughs also add to the San Joaquin River, and numerous lesser streams and creeks also enter the system, originating in both the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range. The entire San Joaquin river system drains northwesterly through the Delta to Suisun Bay (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2021).

4.10.1.3 Groundwater
The City is located in the Eastern San Joaquin River Groundwater Basin. The basin is not adjudicated; however, a basin management plan has been created. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (ESJGS-GSP) (Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority 2019) was prepared in November 2019. The purpose of the ESJGS-GSP is “to meet the regulatory requirements set forth in the three-bill legislative package consisting of AB 1739, SB 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.”
According to DWR Bulletin 118 (DWR 2021), the groundwater basin is critically overdrafted, with historical declines averaging 1.7 feet per year. Past estimates of safe groundwater yield from the basin have indicated that pumping at or below 1 acre-foot per year of City land is sustainable.

4.10.1.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zones Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping provides important guidance for the City in planning for flooding events and regulating development within identified flood hazard areas. FEMA’s Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-59 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
National Flood Insurance Program is intended to encourage state and local governments to adopt responsible floodplain management programs and flood measures. The National Flood Insurance Program additionally defines floodplain and floodway boundaries that are shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

The Proposed Project is not identified as being within a floodplain zone and has been identified as being located within Zone X (FEMA 2025).

4.10.1.5 Site Hydrology and Onsite Drainage
ECORP mapped a total of 0.010 acre of aquatic resources within the Project Site, which includes the ditch along the northern boundary (Appendix B, Figure 5) This ditch is regularly maintained by SSJID.

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.

While no creeks, streams or rivers exist on the Project Site, stormwater ditch that is maintained by SSJID is located within the pipeline alignment.

In accordance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity affecting 1 acre or more, or discharges from smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality. As described previously, the Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP should contain a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the Project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs.

General Permit applicants are required to submit Permit Registration Documents for the Project to the appropriate regional board, which include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, signed certification statement, an annual fee, and a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes pollution prevention measures (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures and measures to control non-stormwater discharges and hazardous spills), demonstration of compliance with all applicable local and regional erosion and sediment control standards, identification of responsible parties, and a detailed construction timeline. The SWPPP must also include implementation of BMPs to reduce construction effects on receiving water □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-60 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
quality by implementing erosion control measures and reducing or eliminating non-stormwater discharges.

Examples of typical construction BMPs included in SWPPPs include, but are not limited to, using temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils; storing materials and equipment to ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain system or surface water; developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan; and installing sediment control devices such as gravel bags, inlet filters, fiber rolls, or silt fences to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants from discharging to the drainage system or receiving waters. SWPPP BMPs are recognized as effective methods to prevent or minimize the potential releases of pollutants into drainages, surface water, or groundwater. Strict SWPPP compliance, coupled with the use of appropriate BMPs, would reduce potential water quality impacts during construction activities.

The Proposed Project would be required to prepare and comply with an approved SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements would reduce the potential water quality impacts to less than significant.

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.

Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would in no way alter current use of groundwater within the Ione service area. Due to the existing conditions of the construction area and construction details any localized effects of the Project on groundwater recharge would be unsubstantial. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-61 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Construction of the Proposed Project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, nor will it alter the course of a stream or river through addition of impervious surfaces. Project construction and staging activities will result in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land area. As such, a NPDES Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit will be required prior to the start of construction.

Additionally, coverage will not occur until an adequate SWPPP has been prepared.

As noted, required elements of a SWPPP include (1) site description addressing the elements and characteristics specific to the site; (2) descriptions of BMPs for erosion and sediment controls; (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and disposal; (4) implementation of approved local plans; (5) proposed postconstruction controls, including a description of local post-construction erosion and sediment control requirements; and (6) non-stormwater management.

Excavation and grading activities associated with the Proposed Project will expose bare soil surfaces making these surfaces more susceptible to erosion and sediment transport. To comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit, the City will be required to file a Notice of Intent with the State of California and submit a SWPPP defining BMPs for construction and post-construction related control of the Proposed Project Site runoff and sediment transport.

Requirements for the SWPPP include incorporation of both erosion and sediment control BMPs. The SWPPP should include the following applicable elements:
 diversion of offsite run-off away from the construction area; □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-62 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 prompt revegetation of proposed landscaped areas;
 perimeter straw wattles or silt fences and/or temporary basins to trap sediment before it leaves the site;
 regular sprinkling of exposed soils to control dust during construction during the dry season;  installation of a minor retention basin(s) to alleviate discharge of increased flows;  specifications for construction waste handling and disposal;  erosion control measures maintained throughout the construction period;  preparation of stabilized construction entrances to avoid trucks from imprinting debris on surrounding roadways;
 contained wash out and vehicle maintenance areas;
 training of subcontractors on general construction area housekeeping;  construction scheduling to minimize soil disturbance during the wet weather season; and  regular maintenance and storm event monitoring.

The SWPPP is a “live” document and should be kept current by the person responsible for its implementation. Preparation of, and compliance with a required SWPPP would effectively prevent Proposed Project on-site erosion and sediment transport off-site. This will reduce potential runoff, erosion, and siltation associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The effects of the Proposed Project on on-site and off-site erosion and siltation, therefore, would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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 FEMA floodplain mapping, the Proposed Project is not located within an area that experiences floods or tsunamis (FEMA 2025). Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-63 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

As discussed under a) and c) above, with acquisition of the required SWPPP, and compliance with standard permit measures for the control and management of construction-related erosion and polluted runoff, the Proposed Project impacts on the quality and quantity of runoff during construction would be less than significant. With restoration of the Project Site to pre-Project conditions relative to topography and cover after Project completion, the long-term impact of the Project on water quality is less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed alignment of the replacement sewer line roughly follows the existing line. It extends westward from the eastern tie-in location and continues under a maintenance yard, the Morenzone Ballpark, and a portion of the Manteca Park Golf Course. The alignment turns south briefly to cross the Southern San Joaquin Reclamation District Drain 5 ditch and under an open field before continuing westward under a portion of the Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center property to the western tiein location. Therefore, portions of the Proposed Project are under the General Plan Designations of CMU and P.

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Once construction is completed, the Project Site would be restored to current, above ground conditions. Any impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-64 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The Proposed Project is consistent with the City’s plans and policies; and therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

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 Site. The conservation, extraction, and processing of mineral resources is essential to meeting the needs of society.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 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).

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) 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, which could preclude mining, are made. 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
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-65 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
 MRZ-2 –Areas of identified mineral resource significance  MRZ-3 –Areas of undetermined mineral resource significance  MRZ-4 – Areas of unknown mineral resource significance According to the DOC mapping software, the Project Site is listed as MRZ-3 (DOC 2012). MRZ-3 are areas of undetermined mineral resources significance.

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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Project Site is within an area identified as having undetermined mineral resources significance.

However, the Project Site runs through the center of the City and is no longer available for mining. Given that the only known MRZ-2 area within the City has already been mined and then subsequently developed, no significant potential for extraction remains from this known MRZ. There are no other known mineral deposits or resources within the City that are of significant value to the region or the State.

Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required 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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project is not within an area identified as having the potential for mineral resources by the City (City 2024a). Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.12.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required. □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-66 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Environmental Setting

4.13.1.1 Noise Fundamentals
A Noise Analysis was conducted for the Proposed Project (ECORP 2026e; Appendix D).

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 Equivalent Noise Level (Leq), the Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (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:
 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.  Ldn is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 A-weighted decibels (dBA) “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am 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.
 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 dBA for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2017a). 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 dBA for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (FHWA 2017a). No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance is normally assumed.

For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 decibels (dB) per doubling of distance is assumed (FHWA 2017a).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of detached buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about five dBA (FHWA 2006), while Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-67 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
a solid wall or berm generally reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA (FHWA 2017b). According to FHWA (2017b), noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 15 dBA in certain instances, yet this level of noise reduction is very difficult to achieve. To achieve the most potent noise-reducing effect, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the “line of sight” between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend lengthwise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the "line of sight" between the source and the receiver.

The manner in which older homes 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 residential units is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006). Generally, in exterior noise environments ranging from 60 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below 45 dBA, a typical residential interior noise standard, with the incorporation of an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in each residential building, and standard thermal-pane residential windows/doors with a minimum rating of Sound Transmission Class (STC) 28. (STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. In the U.S., it is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings, floors, doors, windows, and exterior wall configurations). In exterior noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL or greater, a combination of forced-air mechanical ventilation and sound-rated construction methods is often required to meet the interior noise level limit. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces is readily achievable in noise environments experiencing less than 75 dBA CNEL with proper wall construction techniques following CBC methods, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems.

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.

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 or Ldn 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 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-68 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in A-weighted noise levels (dBA), the following relationships should be noted in understanding this analysis:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference.  A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dBA is typically considered substantial.  A 10-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 all potential Project Site alignments are residences accessed from W Center Street.

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.

4.13.1.3 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
There are several significant noise sources within the City. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks traveling on roadways, are the most common and significant noise in the Project Site. 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 could potentially traverse through an undeveloped parcel of land north of Yosemite Avenue and west of W Center Street. The Project Site would also traverse through W Center Street and would be surrounded by residential land uses in this potential layout. To provide a conservative analysis, this alignment was selected for evaluation as it would place construction activities in closest proximity to existing sensitive receptors. This ensures that potential noise impacts are not underestimated.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-69 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Site would be considered ambient noise Category 3.

Table 4.13-1. American National Standards Institute 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
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 dBA 66 dBA 58 dBA
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 dBA 61 dBA 54 dBA
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 dBA 55 dBA 49 dBA
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-70 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Table 4.13-1. American National Standards Institute 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
Typical
Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Nighttime
Leq
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 onethird the density of Category

3. 2,000 52 dBA 50 dBA 44 dBA
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 dBA 45 dBA 39 dBA
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 dBA 40 dBA 34 dBA
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = Day-Night Average Noise Level; Leq = Equivalent Noise Level Source: American National Standards Institute 2013

4.13.2 Noise (XIII) 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 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 □ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-71 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Project Site are homes accessed from W Center Street.

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 one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four 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 17.58, Performance Standards, states that construction is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In order to remain compliant with the City’s regulations, the Proposed Project would be required to follow these construction guidelines.

A previous appellate court decision held that the use of an absolute noise threshold for evaluating all ambient noise impacts violated CEQA because it did not provide a “complete picture” of the noise impacts that may result from implementation of the ordinance. As such, the Proposed Project’s construction noise is estimated and then added to the typical noise found on the Project Site as determined by ANSI (see Table 4.13-1). As previously described, the dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. For instance, when combining two separate sources where one of the noise sources is 10 dB or more greater than then other noise source, the noise contribution of the quieter source is virtually completely obscured by the louder source.

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 adverse effects from construction noise, the construction equipment noise levels were calculated using FHWA’s Roadway Noise Construction Model and compared against the construction‐related noise level threshold established in the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise 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 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-72 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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. This analysis uses an average of the distance from the furthest and nearest point of construction from the nearest residential sensitive receptor, which in this case is approximately 965 feet distant. It is noted that the Project has multiple layout options. As such, the nearest sensitive receptor among the options was utilized in this analysis. Additionally, since the equipment required for all 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
Ambient
Noise Level*
(dBA Leq)
Estimated Exterior
Construction Noise
Level at Existing
Residences
(dBA)
Existing Ambient
Noise + Exterior
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Construction
Noise
Standards
(dBA Leq)
Exceeds
Standards?
Demolition 55.0 60.7 61.7 85 No
Site Preparation 55.0 57.8 59.6 85 No
Pipe Installation 55.0 60.0 61.2 85 No
Paving 55.0 58.6 60.2 85 No
Notes: CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; dBA = A-weighted decibels; FHWA = Federal Highway Administration; Leq = Equivalent Noise Level† *Ambient noise levels of the Project Site are estimated using the American National Standards Institute 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” (see Table 4.13-1). †
Leq is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a timevarying 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.

Construction equipment used taken from defaults for San Joaquin valley using CalEEMod Version 2022 (Appendix A). CalEEMod is designed to calculate air pollutant emissions from construction activity and contains default construction equipment and usage parameters for typical construction projects based on several construction surveys conducted in order to identify such parameters.

This analysis uses an average of the distance from the furthest and nearest point of construction from the nearest residential sensitive receptor, which in this case is approximately 965 feet distant.

Source: Construction noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting, Inc. using the FHWA Roadway Noise Construction Model (FHWA 2006). Refer to Appendix D for Model Data Outputs.

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.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-73 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.13.2.2 Operational Noise Impacts
The Project is proposing the replacement of an existing and active sewage trunk system. Once upgrades are complete, the Project Site would not generate noise beyond current conditions. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
No 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 (Caltrans 2020).

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: Federal Transit Administration 2018
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-74 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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. The nearest structure of concern to the construction site is a residential building north of the Project Site approximately 20 feet distant.

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 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels. FTA provides the following equation:
[PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5]
Construction vibration was measured from the edge of the Project Site. Table 4.13-4 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at a distance of 20 feet.

Table 4.13-4. Construction Vibration Levels at 20 Feet
Receiver Peak Particle Velocity Levels (inches per second) Peak
Large Bulldozer, Caisson Vibration
Drilling, and Hoe Ram
Loaded
Trucks Jackhammer Pile Driver Vibratory Roller

0.1244 0.1062 0.0489 0.2376 0.2935 0.2935
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. As mentioned previously, the City of Manteca Municipal Code exempts all vibration generated by construction and construction vehicles. Thus, Project construction would be 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 and no mitigation is required.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-75 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Would the Project:

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 6.2 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 and no mitigation is required.

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

4.14 Population and Housing

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
According to the Department of Finance, in 2024 the total population for the City was estimated to be 92,116 and in 2025 was estimated to be 93,733, which resulted in approximate negative 1.8 precent increase (California Department of Finance 2025).

4.14.2 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)?
No Impact.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not extend service to areas that do not currently have service. The Proposed Project would upgrade existing deficient infrastructure and would not induce substantial population growth in the area. Furthermore, minimal operation and maintenance would be required, and no permanent employees would be hired as a result of the Proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-76 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would not displace any existing housing and would not impact any existing housing. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

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

4.15 Public Services

4.15.1 Environmental Setting

4.15.1.1 Police Services
The Manteca Police Department (MPD) provides law enforcement and police protection services throughout the city. MPD operates out of its headquarters located at 1001 W. Center Street. In 2022, MPD had 76 sworn officers (City 2024a).

MPD is organized into two divisions: Operations and Services. Additionally, MPD operates a Public Affairs Unit. For budgeting purposes, MPD is organized into the following programs: administration, patrol, investigations, support services, dispatch, code enforcement, jail services, and animal services.

4.15.1.2 Fire Services
The Manteca Fire Department is responsible for the primary provision of fire service and emergency medical response for the City and its residents. The Manteca Fire Department operates out of five facilities that are strategically located within the City. The Manteca Fire Department is headquartered in Station 242 located at 1154 S. Union Road. This building serves as the Fire Department headquarters and the Fire Prevention Bureau. Fire training and emergency medical services are managed out of Station 241.

Apparatus includes three engines, three reserve engines, one ladder truck, one medium rescue unit, one Urban Search and Rescue trailer, eight staff vehicles, two pick-up trucks, and a public education trailer (City 2024a).

The closest fire station to the Proposed Project is Station 242 located at 1154 South Union Road, approximately 1.25 miles away.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-77 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

4.15.1.3 Schools
The Manteca Unified School District provides school services for grades K through 12 within the communities of Manteca, Lathrop, Stockton, and French Camp. The District is approximately 113 square miles and serves more than 23,500 students. Within the City, there are 14 schools serving elementary age and middle school students (grades K-8), one K-6 school, four high schools (grades 9-12), one community day school (grades 7-12), and one vocational high school (grades 11- 12).

The closest school is the Stella Brockman Elementary School and approximately 0.4 mile north of the Proposed Project Site.

4.15.1.4 Parks
The City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department serves thousands of individuals, including toddlers, youth, teens, and adults throughout the greater Manteca area. The department offers programs and services that foster health, wellness, and human development, strengthen families, and provide recreational opportunities for the purpose of positively affecting the quality of life for all involved. The Department oversees more than 600 acres of neighborhood and community parks, maintenance districts, urban forest, the Tidewater Bikeway, skate park, swimming pool, senior center, library services, and an 18- hole golf course.

4.15.1.5 Other Public Facilities
The Manteca Branch Library, a branch library of the Stockton - San Joaquin County Library system, is located at 320 West Center Street. The library offers a circulating collection of books, magazines, compact discs, and DVDs in both English and Spanish, and carries a number of local regional and national newspapers.

The Manteca Senior Center located at 295 Cherry Lane is a 10,000-plus square-foot, multi-purpose Senior Center serving and involving adults and seniors age 50 and above throughout the greater Manteca area.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-78 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life line and lift station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The proposed pipeline would be maintained by the City and would not require public services beyond existing conditions. During construction, partial roadway closures would be required. The City would consult with affected property owners as to what specific requirements could apply to the use of their property during construction. TRANS-1 requires preparation and implementation of a traffic management plan to ensure access along the Project roadways is maintained for both emergency and residential use during construction. With implementation of TRANS-1, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on public services and no mitigation is required

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
Please refer to Section 4.17.3 for the referenced mitigation measure.

4.16 Recreation

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department serves thousands of individuals, including toddlers, youth, teens, and adults throughout the greater Manteca area. The department offers programs and services that foster health, wellness, and human development, strengthen families, and provide □
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-79 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
recreational opportunities for the purpose of positively affecting the quality of life for all involved. The Department oversees more than 600 acres of neighborhood and community parks, maintenance districts, urban forest, the Tidewater Bikeway, skate park, swimming pool, senior center, library services, and an 18- hole golf course. The City has six developed Community Parks, totaling approximately 78 acres, and 50 Neighborhood Parks, totaling approximately 216 acres (City 2024a). Additionally, the City has 10 Special Use Parks/Facilities totaling approximately 91 acres, including a major multi‐use recreation trail that covers over 3.5 miles of terrain.

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 Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The Proposed Project would not increase city population and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policies and implementation measures.

The Proposed Project would occur within a portion of the Morenzone Ballpark and the Manteca Park Golf Course. Trenching would occur that would temporarily impact recreational activities during Project construction. However, once construction was completed, the ballpark and the golf course would return to existing conditions.

The Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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 Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The Proposed □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-80 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Project would not increase city population and would be implemented consistent with all adopted General Plan policies and implementation measures. Thus, the Proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

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

4.17 Transportation

4.17.1 Environmental Setting

4.17.1.1 State Highways
Two highways operated and maintained by Caltrans pass through the City: SR-99 and SR-120.

SR-99 is a six-lane north-south freeway running through the eastern portion of the City. SR-99 is a primary route, along with I-5, connecting the City to the Cities of Stockton and Sacramento to the north.

SR-99 is the primary route connecting the City to the Cities of Modesto and Fresno to the south. SR-99 has interchanges at the following City streets:
 Lathrop Road
 Yosemite Avenue
 Austin Road
SR-120 is an east-west freeway running through the southern and eastern portions of the City. SR-120 begins at I-5 within the City of Lathrop at its west terminus approximately 1.5 miles west of the city limit and extends six miles easterly to SR-99. It is coincidental with SR-99 for the short distance from the SR-99/120 interchange to the SR-99/Yosemite Avenue interchange and then extends easterly beyond the City toward Yosemite National Park and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. SR-120 has interchanges at the following City streets:
 Airport Way
 Union Road
 Main Street

4.17.1.2 Arterials
Arterial streets are designed to serve through traffic and major local traffic generators such as residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Airport way, which would be used to access the Project Site, is primarily a two-lane road within the City. Outside the City, the facility operates as a two-lane rural Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-81 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
highway, passing primarily through rural residential and agricultural uses. North of SR-120, Airport Way carries approximately 17,300 vehicles per day (City 2024a).

4.17.2 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 with Mitigation Incorporated.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. No long-term modifications to roadway features are Proposed that would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative transportation. Traffic disruption during Project construction, however, may adversely impact access to roadways for alternative transportation. This is considered short-term but potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 will reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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)?
No Impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) addresses the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts and establishes the VMT metric as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts in a CEQA document. The Proposed Project is a pipeline infrastructure project and will not result in a permanent increase in VMT. Consequently, there would be no impact and no mitigation is required.

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)?
No Impact.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-82 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
The Proposed Project involves installation of a below-ground sewer pipeline. After Project installation, the site would return to existing conditions above-ground. No modifications to roadway features are proposed as part of the Project. The Project would not introduce transportation hazards and related impacts. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Traffic disruption during Project construction would be short-term but may adversely affect access to roadways within the Proposed Project Site. This is considered a short-term but potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 will reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
TRANS-1: Construction Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencing construction of the Proposed Project, a construction traffic management plan shall be prepared by the Contractor, in coordination with the City. The management plan shall be detailed and comprehensive to adequately mitigate potential conflicts between baseline and construction-related traffic. The construction traffic management plan will include, at a minimum, the following measures:

A. Adequate off-street worker parking shall be provided along the pipeline route.

B. A flagman or signal-controlled one-way traffic-control operation shall be provided where two-way traffic operation is impractical or unsafe.

C. Roadway disturbances shall be minimized during non-working hours; open trenches shall be covered with steel plates or by the use of temporary backfill during nonworking hours.

D. Temporary steel plate trench crossings shall be provided as needed to maintain access to homes, farms, and businesses.

E. Construction sites shall be posted with appropriate warning signage at least one week prior to construction to allow local residents to select an alternative travel route.

F. Construction staging areas shall be provided to minimize storage of equipment and materials in the traffic lanes.

G. All paved surfaces disturbed during construction shall be repaved when work is complete.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-83 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
H. The Contractor shall provide traffic control and diversion plans for review and approval by each appropriate jurisdiction.

I. To minimize delays in emergency response during Project construction, emergency providers shall be notified in advance. Police, fire protection, and ambulance services shall be notified in advance of the times, duration, and location of construction activities throughout the Project’s construction process.

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans in the region, indigenous groups speaking more than 100 different languages and occupying a variety of ecological settings inhabited California. Subject experts recognize the uniqueness of California’s indigenous groups and classified them as belonging to the California culture area.

The 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. 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-era accounts of early explorers, soldiers, hunters and trappers, missionaries, etc. Archaeology has added some information, but the record is by no means complete.

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. 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, others have 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.

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. Experts suggest that territories of the tribes within Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-84 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 descent, and this may have also been true for those in the north. 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.

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.

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 also were utilized.

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 Leuchas reportedly were mostly missionized by about 1815. Generally sedentary, the Northern Valley Yokuts would disperse seasonally for hunting and gathering expeditions and were sometimes forced out by flooding. Chiefs gained their position through wealth, and since women were occasionally chiefs, inheritance appears to have been important.

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.

4.18.1.1 Summary of Consultation
On March 19, 2026 the City has notified the following California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project: Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band, Wilton Rancheria, Tule River Indian Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Muwekma Ohlone Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-85 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians. The letter provided each tribe with a brief description of the Project and its location, the contact information for the City, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. To date, the only tribe that has responded and requested consultation is the Lisjan Nation. At this time, consultation is ongoing.

4.18.2 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 Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 4.5, ECORP surveyed the Project Area for cultural resources on September 10, 2025. ECORP did not conduct any subsurface investigations or artifact collections during the pedestrian survey.

ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on July 14, 2025 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the Project Site. This search determines whether the California Native American tribes with ancestral ties to the land within the Project Site have recorded Sacred Lands in the SLF, which is populated by members of the Native American community with □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-86 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
knowledge about the locations of tribal cultural resources. The search of the SLF by NAHC returned a negative result for sacred lands in their search area
ECORP sent letters to the San Joaquin County Historical Society and Museum and the Manteca Historical Society and Museum on July 14, 2025 to solicit comments or obtain historical information that the repositories might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical significance in the area.

Examination of the lines of evidence summarized above indicates that the Proposed Project would not have an impact on known TCRs. However, there exists a potential for the discovery of previously unknown TCRs during Project construction. If TCRs are encountered, the Project activity could result in a significant impact to those resources. Implementation of unanticipated discovery procedures, as provided in mitigation measure TCR-1 below, as well as the measure CUL-1, would reduce that impact to less than significant.

4.18.3 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.

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.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.1 Environmental Setting

4.19.1.1 Water Service
The City’s water service area is contiguous with City limits. The City’s water supply sources consist of treated surface water from SSJID through the South County Water Supply Program, local groundwater, and reclaimed water produced at the City’s WQCF (City 2024b).

4.19.1.2 Wastewater
The City’s sewer service area is contiguous with City limits, and is divided into north, south and central sewer sheds. The municipal wastewater collection system includes 242 miles of sewer mains and 19 pump stations. The collection system includes gravity flow pipes ranging from 6-inch to 60-inch diameter, and force mains from 6-inch to 24-inch diameter.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-87 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Municipal wastewater is treated at the City’s WQCF, which treats municipal sanitary sewage from the City, portions of Lathrop, and Raymus Village, just northeast of the City (City 2024a).

4.19.1.3 Solid Waste
The City of Manteca Solid Waste Division (SWD) provides solid waste hauling service for the City. SWD’s services include residential and commercial trash pick-up, residential and commercial recycling pick-up, green waste pick-up, and hazardous waste collections. Solid waste from the City is primarily landfilled at the Forward Sanitary Landfill, located northeast of the City. Other landfills used include Foothill Sanitary and North County.

4.19.2 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 Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require new or expanded water or wastewater facilities. Any impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing pipeline that, due to it’s age and deterioration, is beyond its useful life and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The Proposed Project would be operated by the City, and no new or expanded water demand is associated with implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. □ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-88 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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 Proposed Project consists of replacing an existing, failing and over 50 years old sized wastewater line and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. Implementation of the Proposed Project would enhance wastewater facilities beyond current conditions. Any impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

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.

No recycling or waste disposal would be required for operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project and therefore would not affect landfill capacity because the amount of construction debris requiring disposal would be minor and would only occur during the construction and demolition period. The Project contractors would be responsible for disposing of construction-related debris in local construction-material receiving areas. A less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

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.

As previously described, no recycling or waste disposal would be required for operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project. The contractors would be responsible for disposing of construction-related debris in local construction-material receiving facilities and would comply with all federal, state, and local □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-89 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
statues and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

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

4.20 Wildfire

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The State has charged CAL FIRE with the identification of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within State Responsibility Areas. In addition, CAL FIRE must recommend Very High FHSZs (VHFHSZs) identified within any Local Responsibility Areas. The FHSZ maps are used by the State Fire Marshall as a basis for the adoption of applicable building code standards.

According to CAL FIRE, the Project Site is located in a local responsibility area and has not been identified as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025).

4.20.2 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?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project is not within a VHFHSZ zone. The San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan (San Joaquin County 2022) and the City of Manteca General Plan (City 2024a) has designated Airport Way has an evacuation route within the City. While the Project Site does not include Airport Way, construction activities could impede the use of surrounding roadways, including Airport Way. Therefore, the Proposed Project would require implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 (Section 4.17) that requires the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan if any road closures are required as part of Project implementation. This mitigation measure would assist in maintaining traffic flow along roadways during construction activities. After construction of the Project is completed, the Project Site would be restored to the existing condition. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation required.

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
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-90 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

The Proposed Project is not within a VHFHSZ and would not exacerbate an existing condition by the addition of structures, machinery, people, or recreational opportunities that would encourage the use of flammable materials or create situations that could lead to increase fire risk. The pipeline will be entirely underground, and as an infrastructure improvement project, the Project Site will be returned to its preconstruction state after Project completion. There will be no change to the local population or increase in development associated with the Project that would increase fire risk to the local community.

Consequently, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose people to pollutant concentrations. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

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.

As discussed in item b), the Proposed Project does not exacerbate fire risk under existing conditions. The Proposed Project does not include installation or maintenance of associated structures (i.e., 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. There would be no impact, and no mitigation would be required.

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.
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-91 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
See discussion in items b) and c). The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required..

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

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 with Mitigation Incorporated.

As stated previously in Section 4.4, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on the habitat of wildlife species or population, on any plant or animal community, and would not restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, as stated above in Section 4.5, with the implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures CUL-1, development of the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to Cultural Resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory 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
□ □ □
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-92 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
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.

Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. No mitigation is required relevant to potential cumulative impacts.

For natural resource subjects (Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mineral Resources), there would be no cumulative effects because all impacts would be less than significant or would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

The nature of the Proposed Project would not induce population growth or result in the development of new housing or employment-generating uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulative effect regarding increased demand or expansion for services or utilities. Furthermore, there are no approved or planned projects within proximity to the Proposed Project that would contribute to cumulative effects.

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/MND.
□ □ □
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4-93 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 City of Manteca
Lead Agency:
 Alfredo Mijango, PE
 Gui Chang

5.2 ECORP Consulting, Inc.

CEQA Documentation/Air Quality/Biological Resources/Cultural Resources/GHG/Noise:
 Amberly Morgan, Project Manager/Senior Planner
 Brianna Gustafson, Environmental Planner
 Seth Myers, Senior Air and Noise Specialist
 Sophia Winter, Assistant Air and Noise Specialist
 Carmen David, Associate Biologist
 Stephanie Castle, Senior Biologist
 Daniel Wong, Senior Biologist
 Brian Marks, Senior Archaeologist
 Christa Westphal, Senior Archaeologist
 Arik Bord, Associate Archaeologist
 Grady Lynch, Technical Editor/Document Production
 John Walsh, Geographic Information Systems and Mapping

5.3 HydroScience
Engineering:
 Jigar Shah
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-1 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

6.0 REFERENCES
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.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025. EMFAC2025 Web Database Emissions Inventory. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed March 3, 2026. _____. 2023. Maps of State and Federal Area Designation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

Accessed March 3, 2026.
_____. 2021. OFFROAD2021 v1.0.7. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/offroad/emissions-inventory.

Accessed March 3, 2026.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2025. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html.

Accessed September 18, 2025.
_____. 2024. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.

Accessed September 18, 2025.
_____. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed September 18, 2025
_____. 2012. Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/?page=MineralLand-Classification#data_s=id%3AdataSource_4-18a47b5b8e5-layer-10-192c08351d6-layer28%3A31. Accessed September 29, 2025.

California Department of Finance. 2025. Estimates – E1, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2024 and 2025.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/. Accessed November 14, 2025.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2025. Find Your Fire Hazard Severity Zone. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/firehazard-severity-zones?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template. Accessed September 24, 2025.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2021. California’s Groundwater Update 2020.

November.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2025. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/. Accessed September 23, 2025.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-2 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.
_____. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805711 6f1aacaa. Accessed September 18, 2025.
_____. 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2025. CGS Information Warehouse: Landslides. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/landslides/.

Accessed September 23, 2025.

City of Manteca (City). 2024a. Manteca General Plan. February. _____. 2024b. Water Master Plan. February.
_____. 2022. City of Manteca Municipal Code.

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

California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World. In Golden Gate U. Envtl. L. J. 4:203. July.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority. 2019. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin:

Groundwater Sustainability Plan. https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/eastern-san-joaquingroundwater-subbasin-groundwater-sustainability-plan-revised/. Accessed March 3, 2026.

ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). 2025a. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
_____. 2025b. Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project. _____. 2025c. Cultural Inventory Report for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project. _____. 2025d. Energy Consumption Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project. _____. 2025e. Noise Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2025.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=12525%20Campbell%20Court%2C%20Valley %20Springs%2C%20CA. Accessed March 3, 2026.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. Construction Noise Handbook. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook02.cfm.

Accessed March 3, 2026.
_____. 2017b. Noise Barriers: Technical Considerations and Barrier Effectiveness. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide05.cf m#:~:text=Effective%20noise%20barriers%20can%20reduce%20noise%20levels%20by,%28usually %20called%20earthberms%29%20or%20from%20high%2C%20vertical%20walls.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-3 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144
Accessed March 3,
2026.https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.dot.gov% 2FenvironMent%2Fnoise%2Fregulations_and_guidance%2Fpolguide%2Fpolguide05.cfm%23%3A ~%3Atext%3DEffective%2520noise%2520barriers%2520can%2520reduce%2520noise%2520levels %2520by%2C%2528usually%2520called%2520earthberms%2529%2520or%2520from%2520high %252C%2520vertical%2520walls.&data=05|02|smyers%40ecorpconsulting.com|7df3823152c34ab a549308dd5b46df21|e458bfe2cfa04551853c1ba65232a577|0|0|638767082125688782|Unknown|T WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWF pbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D|0|||&sdata=lFoG3z203RyX76qT7Vt3fkiWUhzKQK7WgLtdTo53gCo%3D&r eserved=0
_____. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

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.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 11, 2025.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2019. Where Your Electricity Comes From. https://www.pge.com/en/about/corporate-responsibility-and-sustainability/takingresponsibility/clean-energy-solutions.html. Accessed March 3, 2026.

San Joaquin County. 2022. Emergency Operations Plan. February.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. 2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard. https://www.valleyair.org/media/3xrdxpvl/2020-ract-demonstration.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2026. _____. 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/m2ecyxiw/1-cms-format-ceqa-air-quality-thresholds-ofsignificance-criteria-pollutants.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2026. _____. 2009. Final Staff Report - Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts Under the California Environmental Quality Act. https://ww2.valleyair.org/permitting/climatechange-action-plan/. Accessed March 3, 2026.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2025. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=T0600700017#.

Accessed September 23, 2025.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2025. UCMP Specimen Search. https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/. Accessed September 23, 2025.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. MOVES Nonroad Technical Reports. https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-nonroad-technical-reports. Accessed March 3, 2026.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6-4 April 2026
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 2025-144

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix C – Energy Consumption Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

Appendix D – Noise Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDIX A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025.

APPENDIX A1 – EMISSIONS MODELLING
(CALEEMOD)OUTPUTS
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
1 / 38
COM Force Main 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 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Pipe Installation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Pipe Installation (2026) - Mitigated
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
2 / 38

3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2026) - 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

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
3 / 38

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

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
4 / 38

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
5 / 38

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name COM Force Main Project
Construction Start Date 3/3/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.40
Precipitation (days) 9.00
Location 37.799668761118284, -121.24248740579115
County San Joaquin
City Manteca
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2161
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.30

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

37.5 1000sqft 0.86 0.00 0.00 — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
6 / 38

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved 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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 0.69 0.88 0.30 0.10 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.08 1.14 2,038 Mit. 1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 0.29 0.49 0.30 0.06 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.08 1.14 2,038 %
Reduced
— — — — — 57% 45% — 43% — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.60 5.06 6.59 0.01 0.20 1.24 1.39 0.18 0.22 0.36 — 1,675 1,675 0.05 0.13 0.05 1,715 Mit. 0.60 5.06 6.59 0.01 0.20 0.90 1.05 0.18 0.17 0.31 — 1,675 1,675 0.05 0.13 0.05 1,715 %
Reduced
— — — — — 28% 25% — 24% 15% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.39 3.37 4.40 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.02 0.13 — 779 779 0.03 0.02 0.09 785 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
7 / 38
Mit. 0.39 3.37 4.40 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.01 0.12 — 779 779 0.03 0.02 0.09 785 %
Reduced
— — — — — 36% 17% — 27% 4% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 0.62 0.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 129 129 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 130 Mit. 0.07 0.62 0.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 129 129 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 130 %
Reduced
— — — — — 36% 17% — 27% 4% — — — — — — —

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 0.69 0.88 0.30 0.10 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.08 1.14 2,038 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.60 5.06 6.59 0.01 0.20 1.24 1.39 0.18 0.22 0.36 — 1,675 1,675 0.05 0.13 0.05 1,715 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.39 3.37 4.40 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.02 0.13 — 779 779 0.03 0.02 0.09 785 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.07 0.62 0.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 129 129 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 130

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) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ------------------
------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
8 / 38
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2026 1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 0.29 0.49 0.30 0.06 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.08 1.14 2,038 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.60 5.06 6.59 0.01 0.20 0.90 1.05 0.18 0.17 0.31 — 1,675 1,675 0.05 0.13 0.05 1,715 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.39 3.37 4.40 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.01 0.12 — 779 779 0.03 0.02 0.09 785 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.07 0.62 0.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 129 129 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 130

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.44 4.09 5.58 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.96 0.96 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
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 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
9 / 38
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.7 46.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.76 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.9 81.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 83.0 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 Hauling 0.01 0.94 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 741 741 0.01 0.12 0.04 777 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.60 4.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.66 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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 COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
10 / 38
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.05

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.44 4.09 5.58 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.61 0.61 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 46.7 46.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.8 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.76 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 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 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
11 / 38
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.9 81.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 83.0 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 Hauling 0.01 0.94 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 741 741 0.01 0.12 0.04 777 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.60 4.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.66 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.77 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.72 6.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.05

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.44 3.74 5.54 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 858 858 0.03 0.01 — 861 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
12 / 38
Dust — — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 3.74 5.54 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 858 858 0.03 0.01 — 861 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.53 0.53 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.20 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 47.0 47.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.79 7.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.81 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
13 / 38
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 45.9 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 Hauling 0.01 0.50 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 422 422 0.01 0.07 0.98 443 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.9 40.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 41.5 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 Hauling 0.01 0.53 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 422 422 0.01 0.07 0.03 442 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.30 2.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.33 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 24.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 3.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.01

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.44 3.74 5.54 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 858 858 0.03 0.01 — 861 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
14 / 38
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 3.74 5.54 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 858 858 0.03 0.01 — 861 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.20 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 47.0 47.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.79 7.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.81 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
15 / 38
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 45.9 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 Hauling 0.01 0.50 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 422 422 0.01 0.07 0.98 443 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.9 40.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 41.5 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 Hauling 0.01 0.53 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 422 422 0.01 0.07 0.03 442 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.30 2.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.33 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 24.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 3.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.01

3.5. Pipe Installation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.02 — 2,038 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
16 / 38
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.60 3.38 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 556 556 0.02 < 0.005 — 558 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.48 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 92.1 92.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 92.4 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
17 / 38
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 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

3.6. Pipe Installation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

1.10 9.51 12.3 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 2,031 2,031 0.08 0.02 — 2,038 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.30 2.60 3.38 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 556 556 0.02 < 0.005 — 558 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.48 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 92.1 92.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 92.4 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 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 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
18 / 38
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

3.7. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.54 4.67 5.92 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 916 916 0.04 0.01 — 920 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 4.67 5.92 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 916 916 0.04 0.01 — 920 ------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
19 / 38
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.26 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50.2 50.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.4 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.31 8.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.34 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.54 161 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 145 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 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.16 COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
20 / 38
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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 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 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

3.8. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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

0.54 4.67 5.92 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 916 916 0.04 0.01 — 920 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 4.67 5.92 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 916 916 0.04 0.01 — 920 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.26 0.32 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50.2 50.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.4 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
21 / 38
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.31 8.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.34 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.54 161 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 145 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 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.16 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 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 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 COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
22 / 38

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
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
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
23 / 38
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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
24 / 38
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
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
25 / 38
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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
------------------
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
26 / 38
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 Demolition Demolition 3/3/2026 3/30/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/31/2026 4/27/2026 5.00 20.0 Site Prep-Trenching Pipe Installation Building Construction 4/28/2026 9/14/2026 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 9/15/2026 10/12/2026 5.00 20.0 —

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 Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
27 / 38
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pipe Installation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Pipe Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Pipe Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pipe Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Pipe Installation Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Pipe Installation Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Pipe Installation Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Pipe Installation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
28 / 38
Pipe Installation Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Pipe Installation Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
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 10.8 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 6.15 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pipe Installation — — — —
Pipe Installation Worker 0.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pipe Installation Vendor 0.00 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Pipe Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pipe Installation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
29 / 38
Paving Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT

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 10.8 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 5.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 6.15 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Pipe Installation — — — —
Pipe Installation Worker 0.00 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Pipe Installation Vendor 0.00 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Pipe Installation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Pipe Installation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
30 / 38

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)

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 (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,763 —
Site Preparation — 982 10.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.86 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
31 / 38

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)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
32 / 38

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 — 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 (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters 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
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
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
33 / 38
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 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
34 / 38
AQ-PM 55.1
AQ-DPM 33.7
Drinking Water 99.0
Lead Risk Housing 21.8
Pesticides 38.4
Toxic Releases 50.2
Traffic 27.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 58.2
Groundwater 14.3
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 62.5
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 79.2
Cardio-vascular 83.5
Low Birth Weights 51.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 48.6
Housing 53.1
Linguistic 2.81
Poverty 38.3
Unemployment 28.2

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 —
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
35 / 38
Above Poverty 49.94225587
Employed 30.10393943
Median HI 52.16219684
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 42.93596818
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 27.71718209
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 37.23854741
Social —
2-parent households 64.55793661
Voting 50.81483383
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 65.75131528
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 70.2681894
Supermarket access 38.1239574
Tree canopy 37.63634031
Housing —
Homeownership 42.08905428
Housing habitability 65.64865905
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 60.64416784 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 70.48633389
Uncrowded housing 44.45014757
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 43.71872193
Arthritis 54.3
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
36 / 38
Asthma ER Admissions 23.0
High Blood Pressure 46.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 55.0
Asthma 34.7
Coronary Heart Disease 69.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 47.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 70.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 37.3
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 63.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 25.4
Mental Health Not Good 41.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 73.0
Obesity 33.9
Pedestrian Injuries 54.4
Physical Health Not Good 51.8
Stroke 70.4
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 19.3
Current Smoker 34.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 45.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 12.9
Elderly 83.6
English Speaking 51.2
Foreign-born 37.2
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
37 / 38
Outdoor Workers 67.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 50.5
Traffic Density 35.3
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 59.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 39.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 58.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 46.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No 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.

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
COM Force Main Project Detailed Report, 8/21/2025
38 / 38
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Phasing names and timing changed to reflect a more conservative expectation for construction.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment More equipment added to maintain a more conservative analysis of construction.

APPENDIX A2 - SAN JOAQUIN APCD

PRIORITIZATION CALCULATOR OUTPUTS
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility: Notes:ID#:Project #:Unit and Process#
Operating Hours hr/yr 1,280.00
Cancer Chronic Acute
Score Score Score
0< R<100 1.000 1.09E+02 1.11E+00 0.00E+00 1.09E+02100R250 0.250 2.74E+01 2.78E-01 0.00E+00 2.74E+01 250R500 0.040 4.38E+00 4.44E-02 0.00E+00 4.38E+00
500R1000 0.011 1.20E+00 1.22E-02 0.00E+00 1.20E+00
1000R1500 0.003 3.28E-01 3.33E-03 0.00E+00 3.28E-011500R2000 0.002 2.19E-01 2.22E-03 0.00E+00 2.19E-012000R 0.001 1.09E-01 1.11E-03 0.00E+00 1.09E-01 Construction
Substance CAS#
MW
Correction
Annual
Emissions
(lbs/yr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Annual
Emissions
(lbs/yr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter (Diesel PM) 9901 1.0000 47.4 0.325 4.74E+01 3.25E-01 3.70E-02 Carbon Monoxide [Criteria Pollutant] 42101 1.0000 1595.4 12.349 1.60E+03 1.23E+01 1.25E+00 Oxides of Nitrogen 42603 1.0000 1222.6 9.5064 1.22E+03 9.51E+00 9.55E-01 Reactive Organic Gas 16113 1.0000 140.2 1.1015 1.40E+02 1.10E+00 1.10E-01 Oxides of sulfur 42401 1.0000 2.8 0.0215 2.80E+00 2.15E-02 2.19E-03 Particulate Matter 11101 1.0000 69.6 1.0469 6.96E+01 1.05E+00 5.44E-02 Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or less 88101 1.0000 44.6 0.3053 4.46E+01 3.05E-01 3.48E-02 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.

Marco Caipo July 9, 2025
Construction
2025-144
CEQA
Central Trunk Sewer Project Distance to receptors was averaged between the furthest and closest points on the Project Site to receptors. Calculated distance was 300 meters.

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

APPENDIX B
Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project, ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2025
Biological Resources Assessment
for the
City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
City of Manteca, California
Prepared For:

HydroScience Engineers
Prepared By:
2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, CA 95677
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
i DRAFT
2025-144

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Biological Study Area.........................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose of This Biological Resources Assessment ................................................................................1

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING......................................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Federal Regulations............................................................................................................................................3

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act..................................................................................................3

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................................................................................4

2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act..................................................................................................................4

2.2 State or Local Regulations...............................................................................................................................4

2.2.1 California Fish and Game Code ....................................................................................................4

2.2.2 California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act..........................................................................6

2.2.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act ..............................................................................................7

2.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act..........................................................................................7

2.2.5 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan........................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.6 City of Manteca Code of Ordinances Title 12, Chapter 12.08 – Trees and Shrubs .................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Site Reconnaissance........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Focused Surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Preliminary Wetland Assessment.............................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Survey ............................................................................ 12

4.0 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use.............................................................................................................. 13

4.2 Soils and Geology ............................................................................................................................................ 13

4.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................................ 15

4.3.1 Annual Grassland............................................................................................................................. 15

4.3.2 Ruderal/Disturbed........................................................................................................................... 15

4.3.3 Urban/Developed............................................................................................................................ 15

4.4 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 17

4.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................. 17

4.6 Special-Status Species.................................................................................................................................... 20

4.6.1 Plants.................................................................................................................................................... 49 Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
ii
2025-144

4.6.2 Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 50

4.6.3 Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................ 50

4.6.4 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................ 50

4.6.5 Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 51

4.6.6 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................ 54

4.7 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites ................................................................................. 55

4.8 Protected Trees/Oak Woodlands............................................................................................................... 55

5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 55

5.1 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(a) – Special-Status Species ..................................................................... 56

5.1.1 Special-Status Plants ...................................................................................................................... 56

5.1.2 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 57

5.2 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(b) – Sensitive Natural Communities .................................................... 59

5.3 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(c) – Aquatic Resources ............................................................................. 59

5.4 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(d) – Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites ................................... 60

5.5 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(e) – Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances ............................. 60

5.6 CEQA Checklist Criteria IV(f) – Conflicts with Conservation Plans ................................................ 60

6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 61

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types .............................................................................................. 16 Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5. Preliminary Wetland Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soil Map Units within the Biological Study Area ................................................................................................. 13 Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation.............................................................................................................................. 20

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Results of Database Queries
Appendix B – Representative Photographs
Appendix C – Plant Species Observed (September 10, 2025) Appendix D – Wildlife Species Observed (September 10, 2025) Appendix E – San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Preconstruction Survey Protocols
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
iii
2025-144

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
°F degrees Fahrenheit
BCC Birds of Conservation Concern
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
BSA Biological Study Area
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
DPS Distinct Population Segment
ECORP ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ESA Endangered Species Act
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCV Manual of California Vegetation
MSL Mean Sea Level
N/A Not Applicable
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
Project City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SSC Species of Special Concern
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
1 2025-144

1.0 INTRODUCTION
ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) has conducted a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) at the request of HydroScience Engineers, for the proposed City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project (Project) located west of North Union Road, north of West Yosemite Avenue, and South of Crom Street in Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. The results of this assessment will support environmental review of the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provide the basis for identifying appropriate measures to lessen or avoid significant impacts to biological resources.

1.1 Project Description
The Proposed Project consists of the replacement of an existing, inadequately sized wastewater line and lifting station with a new 36-inch sewer pipe and trunk line. The existing lifting station would be abandoned.

The Project Area consists of an area approximately 0.8 mile long and 40 feet wide for the proposed new segment of sewer line. The proposed alignment of the replacement sewer line roughly follows the existing line. It extends westward from the eastern tie-in location and continues under a maintenance yard, the Morenzone Ballfield, and a portion of the Manteca Park Golf Course. The alignment turns south briefly to cross the Southern San Joaquin Reclamation District Drain 5 ditch and under an open field before continuing westward under a portion of the Kaiser Permanente Manteca Medical Center property to the western tie-in location.

1.2 Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) includes all areas where Project-related activities may result in impacts to sensitive biological resources. The 3.96-acre BSA corresponds to a portion of Section 31, Township 01 South, and Range 7 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian) of the “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1952 [photorevised 1980; map revised 1994]) (Figure 1). The approximate center of the BSA is located at 37.870075055° North and -121.24208436° West within the San Joaquin Delta watershed (Hydrological Unit Code 18040003; Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] et al. 2024).

1.3 Purpose of This Biological Resources Assessment
The purpose of this BRA is to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and animal species or their habitats, and other sensitive or protected resources such as migratory birds, sensitive natural communities, riparian habitat, oak woodlands, and potential Waters of the U.S. or state, including wetlands, within the BSA. This assessment does not include determinate field surveys conducted according to agency-promulgated protocols. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon a review of available literature and the results of site reconnaissance field surveys.

Map Date: 10/22/2025
Sources: ESRI, USGS
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\CMTS_LnV.aprx - CMCTS LnV 20251022 (jcorbridge - 10/22/2025) Manteca, CA (1952,p.r. 1980, m.r. 1994,
NAD 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

San Joaquin County, California
§31, T.01S, R.07E, MDBM
Latitude (NAD83): 37.80075055°
Longitude (NAD83): -121.24208436 °
Watershed: San Joaquin Delta (18040003)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
BSA - 3.96 acres
Manteca
•Ripo
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 3 2025-144
For the purposes of this assessment, 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 CEQA 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" (California Rare Plant Ranks [CRPRs] 1 and 2), plants listed by CNPS as species about which more information is needed to determine their status (CRPR 3), and plants of limited distribution (CRPR 4);
 are plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.);
 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); or  are San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) Covered Species.

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal, state and local regulations applicable to the Project are described below.

2.1 Federal Regulations

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal ESA protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of listed wildlife, where take is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). For plants, the ESA prohibits removing or possessing any listed plant on federal land, maliciously damaging or destroying any listed plant in any area, or removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any such species in knowing violation of state law (16 U.S. Code 1538). Under Section 7 of ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, may affect a listed species (including plants) or its designated critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion (formal consultation), USFWS and/or NMFS may authorize take of a listed species that is incidental to an otherwise legal activity provided the activity will not jeopardize the continued existence Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
4 2025-144
of the species. USFWS and/or NMFS may issue a letter of concurrence through an informal consultation process if the federal agency demonstrates that the action is not likely to adversely affect a listed species.

Section 10 of the ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits where no other federal actions are necessary provided a Habitat Conservation Plan is developed.

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The protections of the MBTA extend to disturbances that result in abandonment of a nest with eggs or young. USFWS may issue permits to qualified applicants as authorized by the MBTA for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits.

2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act
The purpose of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The definition of Waters of the U.S. includes rivers, streams, estuaries, the territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas:
…that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3 7b).

Under the current regulations implementing the CWA, wetlands are considered Waters of the U.S. and are subject to USACE jurisdiction if they are adjacent (defined as having a continuous surface connection) to relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water.

Substantial impacts to Waters of the U.S. may require an individual permit. Projects with only minimally effects may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions; this certification or waiver is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

2.2 State or Local Regulations

2.2.1 California Fish and Game Code

2.2.1.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2116) generally parallels the main provisions of the federal ESA, but unlike its federal counterpart, the California ESA applies the take Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 5 2025-144
prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called candidates by the State). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize incidental take permits if species-specific minimization and avoidance measures are incorporated to fully mitigate the impacts of a project.

2.2.1.2 Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as fully protected prior to the creation of the federal and California ESAs. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction and included fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under the state and/or federal ESAs. Previously, the regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code Sections 4700 for mammals, 3511 for birds, 5050 for reptiles and amphibians, and 5515 for fish) provided that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. However, on July 10, 2023, Senate Bill 147 was signed into law authorizing CDFW to issue take permits under the California ESA for fully protected species for qualifying projects through 2033. Qualifying projects include:
 a maintenance, repair, or improvement project to the State Water Project, including existing infrastructure, undertaken by the Department of Water Resources;  a maintenance, repair, or improvement project to critical regional or local water agency infrastructure;
 a transportation project, including any associated habitat connectivity and wildlife crossing project, undertaken by a state, regional, or local agency, that does not increase highway or street capacity for automobile or truck travel;
 a wind project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the State to a point of junction with any California based balancing authority; or  a solar photovoltaic project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the State to a point of junction with any California-based balancing authority.

CDFW may also issue licenses or permits for take of these species for necessary scientific research or live capture and relocation, and may allow incidental take for lawful activities carried out under an approved Natural Community Conservation Plan within which such species are covered.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 6 2025-144

2.2.1.3 Native Plant Protection Act
The NPPA of 1977 was created with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW and provided in California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The California ESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.

2.2.1.4 Special Protections for Birds
Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code specifically protect birds.

Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird.

Subsection 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Strigiformes (owls) or Falconiformes (hawks and eagles), as well as their nests and eggs. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA. Section 3800 states that, with limited exceptions, it is unlawful to take any nongame bird, defined as all birds occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds. These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, serve to protect all nongame birds and their nests and eggs, except as otherwise provided in the code.

2.2.1.5 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires an entity to notify CDFW of activities that may: “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river stream or lake; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or deposit or dispose of debris, waste or other materials containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.” The statute has been interpreted by CDFW to include modification of adjacent wetland and riparian habitat. If CDFW determines the activity may “substantially adversely affect a fish or wildlife resource,” the entity may not commence the activity without a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement establishes measures necessary to protect the resource, and is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant.

2.2.2 California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act was passed in 2001 to address loss of oak woodland habitats throughout the State. As a result of the Act, the Oak Woodland Conservation Program was established to provide funding for conservation and protection of California oak woodlands. Public Resources Code Section 21083.4 went into effect as of January 1, 2005 and requires lead agencies to analyze potential effects to oak woodlands during the CEQA process. The lead agency must implement one of several mitigation alternatives, including conservation of oak woodlands through conservation easements, planting or restoration of oak woodlands, contribution of funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, or other appropriate mitigation measures if it is determined that a project may have a significant effect on oak woodlands,.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
7 2025-144

2.2.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The RWQCB implements water quality regulations under the federal CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. These regulations require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), including compliance with the California Storm Water NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water runoff associated with construction activities. General Construction Permits for projects that disturb 1 or more acres of land require development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the RWQCB also regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the water of the state” (Water Code 13260[a]). Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code 13050[e]). The RWQCB regulates all such activities, as well as dredging, filling, or discharging materials into Waters of the State, that are not regulated by the USACE due to a lack of connectivity with a navigable water body. The RWQCB may require issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements for these activities.

2.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires state and local agencies to disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects. Where significant impacts are identified, the agency must adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts.

2.2.4.1 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria Sections 15063-15065 of the CEQA Guidelines address how an impact is identified as significant.

Generally, impacts to state or federally listed (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered) species are considered significant. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15380, a species not protected on a federal or state list may be considered rare or endangered if it meets certain criteria. A species is considered “endangered” if its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy; a species is considered “rare” when it is present in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens.

Assessment of impact significance to populations of non-listed species (e.g., SSC) usually considers the proportion of the species’ range that will be affected by a project, impacts to habitat, and the regional and population level effects.

Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds that the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Appendix G, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if a project would:
 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 8 2025-144
 have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
 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;
 conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
 conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA because although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.

2.2.4.2 Species of Special Concern
SSC are defined by CDFW as a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that is not legally protected under the ESA, the California ESA, or the California Fish and Game Code but currently satisfies one or more of the following criteria:
 The species has been completely extirpated from the State or, as in the case of birds, it has been extirpated from its primary seasonal or breeding role.
 The species is listed as federally (but not State) threatened or endangered, and meets the state definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed.  The species has or is experiencing serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.
 The species has naturally small populations that exhibit high susceptibility to risk from any factor that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.

Projects that result in substantial impacts to SSC may be considered significant under CEQA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 9 2025-144

2.2.4.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates USFWS to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under ESA.” To meet this requirement, USFWS published a list of BCC (USFWS 2021) for the U.S. The list identifies the migratory and nonmigratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent USFWS’s highest conservation priorities. Projects that result in substantial impacts to BCC may be considered significant under CEQA.

2.2.4.4 California Rare Plant Ranks
CNPS maintains the Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025a), which provides a list of plant species native to California that are threatened with extinction, have limited distributions, or low populations. Plant species meeting one of these criteria are assigned to one of six CRPRs. The rank system was developed in collaboration with government, academic, non-governmental organizations, and private sector botanists, and is jointly managed by CDFW and CNPS. The CRPRs are currently recognized in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The following are definitions of the CNPS CRPRs:
 Rare Plant Rank 1A – presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere  Rare Plant Rank 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere  Rare Plant Rank 2A – presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere  Rare Plant Rank 2B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere  Rare Plant Rank 3 – a review list of plants about which more information is needed  Rare Plant Rank 4 – a watch list of plants of limited distribution Additionally, CNPS has defined Threat Ranks that are added to the CRPR as an extension. Threat Ranks designate the level of threat on a scale of 0.1 through 0.3, with 0.1 being the most threatened and 0.3 being the least threatened. Threat Ranks are generally present for all plants ranked 1B, 2B, or 4, and for the majority of plants ranked 3. Plant species ranked 1A and 2A (presumed extirpated in California), and some species ranked 3, which lack threat information, do not typically have a Threat Rank extension. The following are definitions of the CNPS Threat Ranks:
 Threat Rank 0.1 – seriously threatened in California (greater than 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
 Threat Rank 0.2 – moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
 Threat Rank 0.3 – not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 102025-144
Factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are considered in setting the Threat Rank; and differences in Threat Ranks do not constitute additional or different protection (CNPS 2025b). Substantial impacts to plants ranked 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B are typically considered significant under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Significance under CEQA is typically evaluated on a case-by-case basis for plants ranked 3 or 4.

2.2.4.5 Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are vegetation communities that are imperiled or vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. CDFW maintains the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2025b), which provides a list of vegetation alliances, associations, and special stands as defined in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; CNPS 2025b), along with their respective state and global rarity ranks, if applicable. Natural communities with a state rarity rank of S1, S2, or S3 are considered sensitive natural communities. Substantial impacts to sensitive natural communities may be considered significant under CEQA.

2.2.4.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites
Impacts to wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites may be considered significant under CEQA. As part of the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, CDFW and the California Department of Transportation maintain data on Essential Habitat Connectivity areas. This data is available in the CNDDB.

The goal of the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project is to map large intact habitat or natural landscapes and potential linkages that could provide corridors for wildlife. In urban settings, riparian vegetated stream corridors can also serve as wildlife movement corridors. Nursery sites include but are not limited to concentrations of nest or den sites such as heron rookeries, bat maternity roosts, and mule deer critical fawning areas. These data are available through CDFW’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System database or as occurrence records in the CNDDB and are supplemented with the results of the field reconnaissance.

2.2.5 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan The key purpose of the SJMSCP (San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000) is to:
 provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve Open Space and the need to Convert Open Space to non-Open Space uses while protecting the region's agricultural economy;  preserve landowner property rights;
 provide for the long-term management of plant, fish, and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the federal ESA or the California ESA;  provide and maintain multiple-use Open Space which contributes to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and
 accommodate a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society at large.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
11 2025-144
In accordance with federal ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and California ESA Section 2081(b) incidental take permits, the SJMSCP provides compensation for the conversion of Open Space to non-Open Space uses that affect the plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the SJMSCP.

The SJMSCP allows SJMSCP Permittees (San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc., San Joaquin County and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy) to issue incidental take permits or allows project applicants to mitigate for impacts to SJMSCP-Covered Species resulting from Open Space land conversion resulting from covered projects. Once an incidental take permit is issued, it allows a project applicant to unintentionally "take" a threatened or endangered species listed under the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts.

The BSA is located within the Central Zone of the SJMSCP area.

2.2.6 City of Manteca Code of Ordinances Title 12, Chapter 12.08 – Trees and Shrubs No individual is allowed to cut, prune, remove, harm, or otherwise disturb any tree, shrub, or plant located in a street tree area (area between public street right-of-way lines) or other public space within the City of Manteca without first obtaining permission and approval from the designated director or representative of the City of Manteca. The director has the authority to grant this permission as needed and at their discretion. Except for utility companies, as described in Section 12.08.080, any permission given cannot remain valid for more than thirty days after it is issued.

The designated director may authorize trimming, pruning, or removal of any tree, shrub, plant, or vegetation in street tree areas or other public spaces. If street trees are removed, they must be replaced with trees that comply with the street tree plan and the approved street tree list.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Literature Review
ECORP biologists reviewed existing available information for the BSA. Literature sources included current and historical aerial imagery, previous biological studies conducted for the area, topographic mapping, soil survey mapping available from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Mapper, and other relevant literature as cited throughout this document. ECORP reviewed the following resources to identify special-status plant and wildlife species that have been documented within or near the BSA:
 CDFW’s CNDDB data for the “Lathrop, California” and “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangles and the surrounding ten quadrangles (CDFW 2025a)  CNPS Rare Plant Inventory data for the “Lathrop, California” and “Manteca, California” 7.5-minute quadrangles and the surrounding ten quadrangles (CNPS 2025a)  USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Resource Report List for the BSA (USFWS 2025a)
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
12 2025-144
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National ESA Critical Habitat Mapper (NOAA 2025a)
 NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper for the Pacific Region (NOAA 2025b) Note that unprocessed CNDDB data were not included in the results, as these data have not been quality controlled by CDFW. The results of the database queries are provided in Appendix A. Each special-status species identified in the literature review is evaluated for its potential to occur within the BSA in Section 4 based on available information concerning species habitat requirements and distribution, occurrence data, and the findings of the site reconnaissance.

3.2 Site Reconnaissance
ECORP Senior Biologist Daniel Wong conducted the site reconnaissance visit on September 10, 2025. The biologist visually assessed the BSA while walking meandering transects through all portions of the site, paying special attention to identifying those portions of the BSA with the potential to support specialstatus species or sensitive habitats, and using binoculars to scan inaccessible areas. The biologist collected the following biological resource information:
 Characteristics and approximate boundaries of vegetation communities and other land cover types
 Plant and animal species or their sign directly observed  Characteristics and approximate extents of potential aquatic resources observed  Incidental observations of special habitat features such as burrows, active raptor nests, and potential bat roost sites
The biologist qualitatively assessed and mapped vegetation communities based on dominant plant composition. Vegetation community classification was based on the classification systems presented in the MCV. Data were recorded on a GPS unit, field notebooks, and/or maps. Photographs were taken during the survey to provide visual representation of the conditions within the BSA.

3.3 Focused Surveys

3.3.1 Preliminary Wetland Assessment
ECORP biologist Daniel Wong conducted a preliminary wetland assessment for the BSA concurrently with the site reconnaissance in accordance with the field methods described the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008).

3.3.2 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Survey
ECORP biologist Daniel Wong conducted a survey for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) concurrently with the site reconnaissance. The determinate-level survey for valley elderberry longhorn beetle was conducted following the guidelines in the Framework for Assessing Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 132025-144
Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 2017). The survey requires that all elderberry shrubs (Sambucus spp.) with at least one stem measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level within the BSA be identified, their locations mapped, and the shrubs thoroughly searched for evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle presence (i.e., exit holes). The guidelines recommend a 165-foot survey buffer around the Project Area; however, a survey buffer was not included for this survey because the BSA is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by properties that have been developed or are highly disturbed.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use
The BSA is located on relatively flat terrain situated at an elevational range of approximately 20 to 27 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the San Joaquin Valley subregion of the California floristic province (Jepson Flora Project [eds.] 2025). The average winter low temperature is 39.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the average summer high temperature is 94.3 °F; the average annual precipitation is approximately 12.24 inches at the Stockton Metro AP station, which is approximately 6 miles from the BSA (NOAA 2025c).

The BSA is a narrow linear corridor that includes fallow agricultural fields, stormwater and surface flow infrastructure, recreational development, and urban development. Undeveloped portions of the BSA primarily include annual grasslands and disturbed areas. Vegetation communities and plant species composition are described in further detail in Section 4.3.

Representative photographs of the BSA are provided in Appendix B.

4.2 Soils and Geology
ECORP staff obtained soil survey mapping for the BSA from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (Figure 2; NRCS 2025). Table 1 provides an overview of the soil map units within the BSA, including the presence of hydric soils, parent materials, or other key features that may influence the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur onsite.

Table 1. Soil Map Units within the Biological Study Area Map Unit
Symbol Map Unit Name Parent Material or Key Features Hydric Soils Present 143 Delhi-Urban land
complex, 0 to 2 percents
Wind-modified alluvium derived from granitic rock
sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline Not Applicable 254 Timor loam sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline
Bisgani
(alluvial fans)
255 Tinnin loamy coarse sand,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Alluvium derived from granitic rock sources; Non-saline to very slightly saline Not Applicable
266 Veritas fine sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes
Alluvium derived from mixed rock sources; Non-saline to slightly saline
Bisgani
(alluvial fans)
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2025
255
255
254
266
266
143
143
0 200 400
I
Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Soils_and_Geology\CTS Soils.aprx - CTS Soils 20251024 (kedwards - 10/27/2025) Map Date: 10/27/2025
Sources: Esri Imagery, Maxar (2024), NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for
San Joaquin County, CA
2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Figure 2. Natural Resources Conservation
Service Soil Types
Map Features
BSA - 3.96 ac.

NRCS Soils Type
Series Number - Series Name
143 - Delhi-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
254 - Timor loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
255 - Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
266 - Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
ECORP Consulting, Inc . .._,.~ ~ _, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 152025-144

4.3 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
The following sections describe the vegetation community and land cover types within the BSA as observed during the site reconnaissance. A list of plants incidentally observed within the BSA during the site reconnaissance can be found in Appendix C. The approximate extent of the vegetation community and land cover types are depicted on Figure 3.

4.3.1 Annual Grassland
Small strips of annual grassland are found within detention basins within the central portion of BSA. The annual grassland within the BSA is dominated by nonnative annual grasses including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Johnson grass (Sorgum halepense). Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) is the dominant forb.

The annual grasslands can be characterized as the Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (CNPS 2025b). Semi-natural alliances are strongly dominated by nonnative plants that have become naturalized in the State, do not have state rarity rankings, and are not considered sensitive natural communities.

4.3.2 Ruderal/Disturbed
The ruderal/disturbed land cover type is found along the trails of the nearby golf course, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) maintenance roads, the farm road margins, and the recently disced, bare-ground agricultural fields within the BSA. Scattered populations or individuals of Bermuda grass, turkey mullein (Croton setiger), and Jimson weed (Datura stramonium) are predominant species in this land cover type.

4.3.3 Urban/Developed
The urban/developed land cover type within the BSA consists of species commonly used in landscaping, including trees such as coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.), pines (Pinus sp.), and Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana). The Manteca Park Golf Course and Union Road Park in the northern and eastern portions of the BSA respectively, contained the greatest concentration of mature trees. The understory consists of a variety of turf grasses and other ornamental landscaping species which were not identified during the assessment. This land cover type generally does not provide habitat for most wildlife species, except for trees or structures tall enough to support nesting or roosting animals. 0 200 400
I
Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Vegetation_and_LandCover\CTS Vegetation.aprx - CTS Vegetation 20251027 (kedwards - 10/27/2025) Figure 3. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Map Date: 10/27/2025 Sources: Esri Imagery, Maxar (2024)
2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Map Contents
BSA - 3.96 acres
Vegetation and Land Cover Type
Annual Grassland - 0.15 ac.

Ruderal/Disturbed - 1.04 ac.

Urban/Developed - 2.78 ac.

ECORP Consulting, Inc . .._,.~ ~ _, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1111
1111
1111
Q anteca
State Route 120
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
17 2025-144

4.4 Aquatic Resources
The USFWS has established the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) to conduct a nationwide inventory of U.S. wetlands to provide biologists and others with information on the distribution and type of wetlands to aid in conservation efforts (USFWS 2025b). The USFWS’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. The NWI program was neither designed nor intended to produce legal or regulatory products; therefore, wetlands identified by the NWI program are not the same as wetlands defined by the USACE. However, the NWI provides a baseline of potential aquatic resources for ECORP biologists to ground-truth during assessments.

Review of the NWI showed one aquatic feature mapped within the BSA (Figure 4). The NWI mapping designation indicates the presence of Freshwater Emergent Wetland within or adjacent to the BSA (USFWS 2025b), which roughly corresponds to the detention basin and ditch observed on site.

ECORP mapped a total of 0.010 acre of aquatic resources within the BSA, which includes the ditch along the northern boundary (Figure 5) This ditch is regularly maintained by SSJID and was primarily unvegetated during the site reconnaissance. Scattered ruderal species were present such as turkey mullein or Bermuda grass.

4.5 Wildlife
The BSA provides a very limited amount of habitat for a variety of wildlife species commonly found in urban environments. A full list of wildlife species observed within or near the BSA is provided in Appendix D.
0 200 400
I
Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Aquatic_Resources\CTS ARD.aprx - CTS NWI 20251024 (kedwards - 10/27/2025) Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory
Map Date: 10/27/2025
Sources: Esri Imagery, Maxar (2024), National Wetlands Inventory 2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Map Contents
BSA - 3.96 acres
NWI Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
ECORP Consulting, Inc . .._,.~ ~ _, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 1111
1111
1111
Q anteca
State Route 120
@
@@
!H GF
!H
!H
DITCH-01
1 2
3 4
0 320
I
Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2025\2025-144 OM Central Trunk Sewer Project\MAPS\Aquatic_Resources\CTS ARD.aprx - CTS Preliminary Wetland Assessment 20251027 (kedwards - 10/27/2025) Figure 5. Preliminary Wetland Assessment Map Date: 10/27/2025 Sources: Esri Imagery, Maxar (2024)
2025-144 City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
Map Contents
BSA - 3.96 acres
Culvert
GF Transect
Sample Points
!H Upland
Wetland Type
1111 Ditch - 0.010 ac.

Manteca
State Route 120

ENVIRONMENTAL
ECORP Consulting,

CONSULTANTS
Inc. - -- -
Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 202025-144

4.6 Special-Status Species
Table 2 presents the full list of special-status plant and animal species identified through the literature review. For each species, the table provides the listing status, a brief description of habitat requirements and/or species ecology, a determination of the potential to occur within the BSA, and the rationale for that determination. The potential for each species to occur onsite was assessed using the following criteria:
 Present – Species was observed during the site visit or is known to occur within the BSA based on recent documented occurrences in the CNDDB or other literature.  Moderate to High Potential – Suitable habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) occurs within the BSA, and the species is known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA based on available data sources.
 Low Potential – Marginal or limited amounts of habitat occur within the BSA, or the species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA based on available data sources.  Presumed Absent – No suitable habitat (including soils and elevation requirements) occurs within the BSA, or the BSA is outside of the current known geographical range for the species.

Following the table is a brief description and discussion of each special-status species that was determined to have potential to occur within the BSA.

Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Plants*
Large-flowered
fiddleneck
(Amsinckia
grandiflora)
FE CE 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grasslands.

Elevation: 885–1,805 feet
Bloom Period: April–May
Presumed Absent. The BSA
is outside of the known
geographical range for this
species.

Alkali milk-vetch
(Astragalus tener
var. tener)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Alkaline playas and vernal
pools, and alkaline adobe clay
soils in valley and foothill
grasslands.

Elevation: 5–195 feet
Bloom Period: March–June
Presumed Absent. The
grassland within the BSA
contains no alkaline or
adobe clay soils; there are
no playas, ephemeral
wetlands within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
21 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Heartscale
(Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Alkaline or saline valley and
foothill grasslands, meadows
and seeps, and chenopod
scrub communities.

Elevation: 0–1,835 feet
Bloom Period: April–October
Low Potential to Occur. The
annual grassland within the
BSA contains slightly saline
soils and may provide
marginally suitable habitat
for this species.

Crownscale
(Atriplex coronata
var. coronata)
– – 4.2
Alkaline, often clay substrates
in chenopod scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal
pools.

Elevation: 5–1,935 feet
Bloom Period: March–October
Presumed Absent. The BSA
contains no alkaline soils
nor vernal pool habitat.

Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa) – – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Alkaline and clay soils within
chenopod scrub, meadows
and seeps, playas, valley and
foothill grasslands, and vernal
pools.

Elevation: 5–1,050 feet
Bloom Period: April–October
Presumed Absent. The BSA
contains no alkaline soils
nor vernal pools.

Lesser saltscale
(Atriplex minuscula) – – 1B.1
Alkaline, sandy soils in
chenopod scrub, playas, and
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 50–655 feet
Bloom Period: May–October
Presumed Absent. There are
no alkaline soils within the
BSA.

Big tarplant
(Blepharizonia
plumosa ssp.
plumosa)
– – 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 100–1,655 feet
Bloom Period: July–October
Low Potential. There is
marginally suitable habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Watershield
(Brasenia schreberi) – – 2B.3
Freshwater marshes and
swamps.

Elevation: 0–7,220 feet
Bloom Period: June–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Hoover’s
calycadenia
(Calycadenia
hooveri)
– – 1B.3,
SJMSCP
Rocky soils in cismontane
woodland and valley and
foothill grassland.

Elevation: 215–985 feet
Bloom Period: July–September
Presumed absent. There is
marginally suitable potential
habitat within the BSA for
this species; however, this
species is not known to
occur in the vicinity of the
BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
22 DRAFT
2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Bristly sedge
(Carex comosa) – – 2B.1,
SJMSCP
Mesic (Zika et al. 2015) valley
and foothill grassland, coastal
prairie, and lake margins of
marshes and swamps.

Elevation: 0–2,050 feet
Bloom Period: May–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Succulent owl’s
clover
(Castilleja
campestris var.
succulenta)
FT CE 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Vernal pools and other moist
places (CDFW 2025a), often in
acidic environments.

Elevation: 165–2,460 feet
Bloom Period: April–May
Presumed Absent. There are
no vernal pools or moist
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Parry’s rough
tarplant
(Centromadia parryi
ssp. rudis)
– – 4.2
Alkaline, vernally mesic areas,
and seeps in valley and foothill
grassland and vernal pools,
sometimes found on
roadsides and in disturbed
sites (Baldwin 2012)
Elevation: 0–330 feet
Bloom Period: May–October
Low Potential. There is no
alkaline or vernally mesic
habitat within the BSA;
however, the grassland and
disturbed areas within the
BSA may provide marginally
suitable habitat for this
species.

Palmate-bracted
bird’s-beak
(Chloropyron
palmatum)
FE CE 1B.1
Saline-alkaline soils in
seasonally-flooded lowland
plains and basins (CDFW 2023)
in chenopod scrub and valley
and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 15–510 feet
Bloom Period: May–October
Presumed absent. There is
no seasonally flooded or
alkaline habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Slough thistle
(Cirsium crassicaule) – – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Chenopod scrub, sloughs in
marshes and swamps, and
riparian scrub.

Elevation: 10–330 feet
Bloom Period: May–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium
recurvatum)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Alkaline habitats within
chenopod scrub, cismontane
woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands.

Elevation: 10–2,590 feet
Bloom Period: March–June
Presumed Absent. The BSA
contains no alkaline soils
required for this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 232025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Delta button-celery
(Eryngium
racemosum)
– CE 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Vernally mesic clay
depressions in riparian scrub
communities.

Elevation: 10–100 feet
Bloom Period: June–October
Presumed Absent. There is
no mesic or clay habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Diamond-petaled
California poppy
(Eschscholzia
rhombipetala)
– – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Valley and foothill grassland in
alkaline and clay soils.

Elevation: 0–3,200 feet
Bloom Period: March–April
Presumed Absent. There are
no alkali or clay soils within
the BSA for this species.

San Joaquin
spearscale
(Extriplex
joaquinana)
– – 1B.2
Alkaline soils in chenopod
scrub, meadows seeps, playas,
and valley and foothill
grassland.

Elevation: 5–2,740 feet
Bloom Period: April–October
Presumed Absent. The
grassland within the BSA
contains no alkaline soils
required for this species.

Hogwallow starfish
(Hesperevax
caulescens)
– – 4.2
Mesic areas with clay soil
within valley and foothill
grassland, shallow vernal
pools, and sometimes alkaline
areas.

Elevation: 0–1,655 feet
Bloom Period: March–June
Presumed Absent. There is
no mesic or alkaline habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Woolly rose-mallow
(Hibiscus lasiocarpos
var. occidentalis)
– – 1B.2
SJMSCP
Marshes and freshwater
swamps (river banks and low
peat islands in sloughs), and
riprap on sides of levees.

Elevation: 0–395 feet
Bloom Period: June–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Red Bluff dwarf rush
(Juncus leiospermus
var. leiospermus)
– – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Vernally mesic areas in
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools.

Elevation: 115–4,100 feet
Bloom Period: March–June
Presumed Absent. There is
no mesic habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Alkali-sink
goldfields
(Lasthenia
chrysantha)
– – 1B.1
Alkaline vernal pools.

Elevation: 0–655 feet
Bloom Period: February–April
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline or vernal pool
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
24 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Ferris’ goldfields
(Lasthenia ferrisiae) – – 4.2
Alkaline and clay vernal pools.

Elevation: 65–2,295 feet
Bloom Period: February–May
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline or vernal pool
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Delta tule pea
(Lathyrus jepsonii
var. jepsonii)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Freshwater and brackish
marshes and swamps.

Elevation: 0–15 feet
Bloom Period: May–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Legenere
(Legenere limosa) – – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Various seasonally inundated
areas including wetlands,
wetland swales, marshes,
vernal pools, artificial ponds,
and floodplains of intermittent
drainages (USFWS 2005).

Elevation: 5–2,885 feet
Bloom Period: April–June
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Mt. Hamilton
coreopsis
(Leptosyne
hamiltonii)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Rocky soils in cismontane
woodland.

Elevation: 1,805–4,265 feet
Bloom Period: March–May
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Mason’s lilaeopsis
(Lilaeopsis masonii) – – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Brackish or freshwater
marshes or swamps and
riparian scrub.

Elevation: 0–35 feet
Bloom Period: April–
November
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Delta mudwort
(Limosella australis) – – 2B.1,
SJMSCP
Usually mud banks in
freshwater or brackish
marshes and swamps and
riparian scrub.

Elevation: 0–10 feet
Bloom Period: May–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Showy golden
madia
(Madia radiata)
– – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Cismontane woodland and
valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation: 80–3,985 feet
Bloom Period: March–May
Low Potential to Occur. The
grassland within the BSA
may provide marginally
suitable habitat for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 252025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
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 feet
Bloom Period: March–May
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline or mesic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii) – – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Shallow freshwater marshes
and swamps. Ponds, ditches
Elevation: 0–2,135 feet
Bloom Period: May–October
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Suisun Marsh aster
(Symphyotrichum
lentum)
– – 1B.2,
SJMSCP
Brackish and freshwater
marshes and swamps.

Elevation: 0–10 feet
Bloom Period: May–November
Presumed Absent. There is
no aquatic habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Wright’s
trichocoronis
(Trichocoronis
wrightii var. wrightii)
– – 2B.1,
SJMSCP
Alkaline soils in meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps,
riparian forest, and vernal
pools.

Elevation: 15–1,425 feet
Bloom Period: May–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline or aquatic
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Saline clover
(Trifolium
hydrophilum)
– – 1B.2
Marshes and swamps, mesic
and alkaline areas in valley
and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools.

Elevation: 0–985 feet
Bloom Period: April–June
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline or aquatic
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Caper-fruited
tropidocarpum
(Tropidocarpum
capparideum)
– – 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Alkaline hills in valley and
foothill grassland.

Elevation: 5–1,495 feet
Bloom Period: March–April
Presumed Absent. There is
no alkaline habitat within
the BSA for this species.

Greene’s tuctoria
(Tuctoria greenei)
FE CR 1B.1,
SJMSCP
Vernal pools.

Elevation: 100–3,510 feet
Bloom Period: May–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no vernal pool habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 262025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Invertebrates
Crotch’s bumble
bee
(Bombus crotchii)
– CC –
Primarily nests underground,
found in variety of habitats
including open grasslands,
shrublands, chaparral, desert
margins, and semi-urban
settings, from the California
coast east to the Sierra
Cascade and from Redding
south to Mexico.

Survey Period: FebruaryOctober (Preferably April–
August)
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat within
the BSA for this species due
to high site disturbance and
lack of nectar resources.

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: April–
November
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat within
the BSA for this species due
to high site disturbance and
lack of nectar resources.

Conservancy fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
conservatio)
FE – SJMSCP
Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Longhorn fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
longiantenna)
FE – SJMSCP
Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi)
FT – SJMSCP
Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Midvalley fairy
shrimp
(Branchinecta
mesovallensis)
– – SJMSCP
Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
27 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Monarch butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
FPT – –
Adult monarchs west of the
Rocky Mountains typically
overwinter in sheltered
wooded groves of Monterey
pine, Monterey cypress, and
gum eucalyptus along coastal
California, then disperse in
spring throughout California,
Nevada, Arizona, and parts of
Oregon and Washington.

Adults require milkweed and
additional nectar sources
during the breeding season.

Larval caterpillars feed
exclusively on milkweed.

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. There is
no overwintering habitat or
milkweed, and there are
very limited, if any, nectar
sources for this species
within the BSA.

Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
FT – SJMSCP Elderberry shrubs.

Survey Period: Any season
Absent. There are no
elderberry shrubs within the
BSA.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi)
FE – SJMSCP
Vernal pools/wetlands.

Survey Period: November–
April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Moestan blister
beetle
(Lytta moesta)
– – SJMSCP
Annual grassland, foothill
woodland, and saltbrush
(Atriplex spp.) scrub with
ground-nesting bees (San
Joaquin Council of
Governments 2000). Adults are
often found on flowers, eggs
are deposited in shallow
excavated underground
burrows, and larvae are nest
parasitize of solitary bees
(Shanks 2006).

Presumed Absent. There are
only small patches of
grassland and are very
limited, if any, floral
resources within the BSA for
this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 282025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Molestan blister
beetle
(Lytta molesta)
– – SJMSCP
Annual grassland, foothill
woodland, and saltbrush
(Atriplex spp.) scrub with
ground-nesting bees (San
Joaquin Council of
Governments 2000). Adults are
often found on flowers, eggs
are deposited in shallow
excavated underground
burrows, and larvae are nest
parasitize of solitary bees
(Shanks 2006).

Presumed Absent. There are
only small patches of
grassland and are very
limited, if any, floral
resources within the BSA for
this species.

Fish
Green sturgeon
(Acipenser
medirostris)
FT – SSC,
SJMSCP
Anadromous; undammed
cold-water rivers having
relatively deep pools with
large substrates.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)

FT CE SJMSCP
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Steelhead (CA
Central Valley DPS)
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus)
FT – SSC
Fast-flowing, well-oxygenated
rivers and streams below dams
in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River systems.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Steelhead (Northern
California DPS)
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus)
FT – –
Fast-flowing, well-oxygenated
rivers and streams below dams
in Humboldt and Sonoma
counties.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 292025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Steelhead
(South-Central
California Coast
DPS)
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus)
FT – –
Fast-flowing, well-oxygenated
rivers and streams. This DPS,
includes naturally spawned
anadromous
steelhead originating below
natural and manufactured
impassable barriers from the
Pajaro River to (but not
including) the Santa Maria
River. Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Sacramento splittail
(Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
San Francisco Bay estuary and
Central Valley lakes and rivers.

Spawns in upstream
floodplains and backwater
sloughs.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Longfin smelt – San
Francisco Bay-Delta
DPS
(Spirinchus
thaleichthys)

FE CT SSC,
SJMSCP
Occurs primarily in the
brackish zones of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta region of
California.

Survey Period: N/A
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Amphibians
California tiger
salamander (Central
California DPS)
(Ambystoma
californiense)

FT CT 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: Winter–Spring.

Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Western spadefoot
(Northern DPS)
(Spea hammondii)
FPT – SSC,
SJMSCP
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: Winter–Spring.

Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 302025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
California redlegged frog
(Rana draytonii)
FT – SSC,
SJMSCP
Lowlands and foothills of the
northern and southern Coast
Ranges and Sierra Nevada.

Found in deep standing or
flowing water with dense
shrubby or emergent riparian
vegetation; requires 11-20
weeks of permanent water for
larval development. Adults
require aestivation habitat to
endure summer dry down.

Survey Period: January–Sept.

Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Foothill yellowlegged frog
West/Central Coast
Clade
(Rana boylii)

FT CE SSC,
SJMSCP
Partly shaded shallow streams
and riffles in variety of
habitats. Needs cobble-sized
substrate for egg-laying and
at least 15 weeks of
permanent water to attain
metamorphosis. Can be active
all year in warmer locations;
become inactive or hibernate
in colder climates. San
Francisco Peninsula and
Diablo Range to southern
inner Coast Ranges.

Survey Period: May–October.

Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Reptiles
Northwestern pond
turtle
(Actinemys
marmorata)
FPT – SSC,
SJMSCP
Requires basking sites and
upland habitats up to 0.5
kilometer from water for egg
laying. Uses ponds, streams,
detention basins, and
irrigation ditches.

Survey Period: April–
September
Low Potential to Occur.

There is no suitable habitat
for this species within the
BSA, however aquatic
habitat was observed within
the vicinity.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 312025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

San Joaquin
coachwhip
(Coluber flagellum
ruddocki)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Occurs in open, dry, usually
flat habitats in Valley
Grassland and Saltbush Scrub
with little to no shrub cover in
the San Joaquin Valley. A
dietary generalist.

Survey Period: March–October
Presumed Absent. There
grassland community does
provide shrub cover or flat
open habitat. for this
species within the BSA.

Blainville’s (“Coast”)
horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Formerly a wide-spread
horned lizard found in a wide
variety of habitats, often in
lower elevation areas with
sandy washes and scattered
low bushes. Also occurs in
Sierra Nevada foothills.

Requires open areas for
basking, but with bushes or
grass clumps for cover,
patches of loamy soil or sand
for burrowing and an
abundance of ants (Stebbins
and McGinnis 2012).

Survey Period: April–October
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Giant garter snake
(Thamnophis gigas)

FT CT SJMSCP
Freshwater ditches, sloughs,
and marshes in the Central
Valley. Almost extirpated from
the southern parts of its range.

Survey Period: April–October
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable aquatic habitat
for this species within the
BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 322025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Birds
Sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Nests in trees in most forest
types with at least some
conifers. In California, nesting
occurs in the Sierra Nevada
and Cascade Ranges (foothills
to tree line) and northwestern
coastal range.

Nesting: April–August
Wintering in Central Valley:

September–April
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
wintering habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Western grebe
(Aechmophorus
occidentalis)
– – BCC,
SJMSCP
Winters on salt or brackish
bays, estuaries, sheltered sea
coasts, freshwater lakes, and
rivers. Nests on freshwater
lakes and marshes with open
water bordered by emergent
vegetation.

Nesting: June–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) – CT
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
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 (Beedy et al. 2023).

Nesting: March–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
foraging habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 332025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Mountain plover
(Anaryhnchus
montanus)
– –
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
Breeds in the Great
Plains/Midwestern U.S.;
winters in California, Arizona,
Texas, and Mexico; wintering
habitat in California includes
tilled fields, heavily grazed
open grassland, burned fields,
and alfalfa fields.

Wintering: September–March
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable wintering or
breeding habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Great egret
(Ardea alba) – – CNDDB,
SJMSCP
Colonial nester; nests in
woody vegetation, shrubs and
trees usually near lakes,
ponds, marshes estuaries,
human-made impoundments,
or natural and human-made
islands.

Nesting: March-July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) – – CNDDB,
SJMSCP
Colonial nester; prefers to nest
in vegetation on islands or in
swamps but may also be
found in upland habitats in
trees, bushes, on the ground
and on artificial structures.

Foraging habitat is widely
diverse and includes swamps,
coastlines, estuaries, beaches,
pastures, cultivated fields, and
riparian areas.

Nesting: February–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 342025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Bell's sparrow
(Artemisiospiza belli
belli)
– – WL,
SJMSCP
A. b. belli – resident in
California in Coast Ranges
from the San Francisco Bay
region and Sierra Nevada
foothills south to Baja
California; nests in dry
chaparral and coastal sage
scrub. A. b. canescens breeds
in southern San Joaquin Valley
through Mojave Desert to
Owens Valley; nests in low
desert scrub of saltbush,
bitterbrush, big sagebrush,
and shadescale. A. b. cinerea is
resident in Baja California
(Martin and Carlson 2020).

Nesting: March–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Cooper’s hawk
(Astur cooperii) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Nests in trees in riparian
woodlands, deciduous/mixed
and evergreen forests, and
urban landscapes (Rosenfield
et al. 2024).

Nesting: March–July
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There is suitable
nesting and foraging habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Short-eared owl
(Asio flammeus) – –
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
Nests in large expanses of
prairie, coastal grasslands,
heathlands, shrub-steppe,
tundra, and agricultural areas.

Nesting: March–July
Wintering in Central Valley:

August–March
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia) – CC
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
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-landscapes such as
agricultural fields, golf
courses, cemeteries, roadside,
airports, vacant urban lots, and
fairgrounds.

Nesting: February–August
Low Potential to Occur.

There are suitable ground
squirrel burrows observed
within the BSA for this
species. However, foraging
habitat is marginal.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 352025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos) – –
CFP,
WL,
SJMSCP
Nesting habitat includes
mountainous canyon land,
rimrock terrain of open desert
and grasslands, riparian, oak
woodland/savannah, and
chaparral. Nesting occurs on
cliff ledges, river banks, trees,
and human-made structures
(e.g., windmills, platforms, and
transmission towers). Breeding
occurs throughout California,
except the immediate coast,
Central Valley floor, Salton Sea
region, and the Colorado River
region, where they can be
found during Winter.

Nesting: February-August
Wintering in Central Valley:

October–February
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Oak titmouse
(Baeolophus
inornatus)
– – BCC
Nests in tree cavities within
dry oak or oak-pine woodland
and riparian; where oaks are
absent, they nest in juniper
woodland, open forests (gray,
Jeffrey, Coulter, pinyon pines,
and Joshua tree).

Nesting: March–July
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There is suitable
nesting habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Aleutian cackling
goose
(Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia)
Delisted – WL,
SJMSCP
Overwintering habitat includes
mudflats, shallow tidal waters,
salt marsh, wet grasslands,
freshwater marsh, lakes,
reservoirs and rivers (breeds in
Alaska on various Aleutian
Islands; winters in California’s
Central Valley, with a small
wintering population in
southwestern Oregon, and
migration staging areas
around Humboldt Bay and
Crescent City in California and
New River bottoms in Oregon.

Wintering: October–March
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable wintering
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 362025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Ferruginous hawk
(Buteo regalis) – –
BCC,
WL,
SJMSCP
Rarely breeds in California
(Lassen County); winter range
includes grassland and shrubsteppe habitats from Northern California (except northeast
and northwest corners) south
to Mexico and east to
Oklahoma, Nebraska, and
Texas.

Wintering: September–March
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
wintering habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) – CT SJMSCP
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
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There are suitable
nesting and foraging habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Northern harrier
(Circus hudsonius) – –
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
Nests on the ground in open
wetlands, marshy meadows,
wet/lightly grazed pastures,
(rarely) freshwater/brackish
marshes, tundra, grasslands,
prairies, croplands, desert, and
shrub-steppe.

Nesting: April–September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 372025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzus
americanus)

FT CE SJMSCP
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) (Hughes
2020). Winters in South
America.

Nesting: June 15–August 15
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

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
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There is suitable
nesting habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Snowy egret
(Egretta thula) – – CNDDB,
SJMSCP
Colonial nester; nests in
coastal and inland wetlands in
isolated sites. Nesting habitat
includes a variety of trees,
including cactus, along large
rivers, reservoirs/lakes, grassy
marshes, wet meadows,
irrigation channels, and
estuaries.

Nesting: March–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

White-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus) – – CFP,
SJMSCP
Nesting occurs within trees in
low elevation grassland,
agricultural, wetland, oak
woodland, riparian, savannah,
and urban habitats.

Nesting: March–August
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There is suitable
nesting and foraging habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 382025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
California horned
lark
(Eremophila alpestris
actia)
– – WL,
SJMSCP
San Joaquin Valley, coast
range from Sonoma County
south to Baja California;
grassland, agricultural.

Nesting: March–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Merlin
(Falco columbarius) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Breeds in Oregon, Washington
north into Canada. Winters in
southern Canada to South
America, including California.

Breeds near forest openings,
fragmented woodlots, and
riparian areas. Wintering
habitat includes wide variety,
open forests, grasslands, tidal
flats, plains, and urban
settings.

Wintering in the Central
Valley: September–April; does
not breed in California.

Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable wintering
habitat within the BSA for
this species.

Prairie falcon
(Falco mexicanus) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Found in open habitat at all
elevations up to 3,350 meters
(Steenhof 2024). Nests on
cliffs and bluffs in arid plains
and steppes; In California,
nesting throughout state
except northwest corner,
along immediate coast, and
the Central Valley floor.

Winters throughout California,
in open habitats, such as
grasslands in Central Valley.

Nesting: March–July
Wintering in Central Valley:

September–February
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
wintering habitat within the
BSA for this species.

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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 392025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Yellow-breasted
Chat
(Icteria virens)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Early successional riparian
habitats with a well-developed
shrub layer and an open
canopy. Narrow borders of
streams, creeks, sloughs, and
rivers. Taller trees like
cottonwood (Populus sp.) and
alder (Alnus sp.) are necessary
for song perches.

Nesting: March–September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Bullock’s oriole
(Icterus bullockii) – – BCC
Breeding habitat includes
riparian and oak woodlands.

Nesting: March–July
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur. There is suitable
nesting habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus) – – SSC,
SJMSCP
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. There is
marginally suitable habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

California gull
(nesting colony)
(Larus californicus)
– – BCC,
WL
Nesting occurs in the Great
Basin, Great Plains, Mono
Lake, and south San Francisco
Bay. Breeding colonies located
on islands on natural lakes,
rivers, or reservoirs. Winters
along Pacific Coast from
southern British Columbia
south to Baja California and
Mexico. In California, winters
along coast and inland
(Central Valley, Salton Sea).

Nesting: April–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
wintering habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 402025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
California black rail
(Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus)
– CT CFP,
SJMSCP
Salt marsh, shallow freshwater
marsh, wet meadows, and
flooded grassy vegetation. In
California, primarily found in
coastal and Bay-Delta
communities, but also in
Sierran foothills (Butte, Yuba,
Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado
counties).

Nesting: March–September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Song sparrow
"Modesto"
(Melospiza melodia
heermanni)
– – SSC
Resident in central and
southwest California, including
Central Valley; nests in marsh,
scrub habitat.

Nesting: April–June
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Santa Barbara song
sparrow
(Melospiza melodia
graminea)
– – BCC
Breeding habitat includes
dense shrubs and thickets of
giant coreopsis (Coreopsis
gigantea), grasslands with
scattered shrubs, ArtemisiaOpuntia grass associations, and dense grasslands.

Resident on California Channel
Islands (San Clemente, San
Miguel, Santa Cruz, Santa
Rosa, Anacapa) and Isla Los
Coronados, Baja California.;
nests February–July
Presumed Absent. Outside
of known historic range for
this species.

Double-crested
cormorant
(Nannopterum
auritum)
– – WL,
SJMSCP
Nests near ponds, lakes,
artificial impoundments, slowmoving rivers, lagoons,
estuaries, and open coastlines
and typically forages in
shallow water. Non-nesters are
found in many coastal and
inland waters.

Nesting: April–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
41 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Long-billed curlew
(Numenius
americanus)
– –
BCC,
WL,
SJMSCP
Breeds east of the Cascades in
Washington, Oregon,
northeastern California
(Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen
counties), east-central
California (Inyo County),
through Great Basin region
into Great Plains. Winters in
California, Texas, and
Louisiana. Wintering habitat
includes tidal mudflats and
estuaries, wet pastures, sandy
beaches, salt marsh, managed
wetlands, evaporation ponds,
sewage ponds, and grasslands.

Wintering: September–March
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable wintering or
breeding habitat within the
BSA for this species.

Black-crowned night
heron
(Nycticorax
nycticorax)
– – CNDDB,
SJMSCP
Colonial nester; Nests in trees,
usually above water, within
open shrub/grassland,
wetlands, riparian, urban
habitats, and in rocky crevices
on islands.

Nesting: March–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Nesting habitat requires close
proximity to accessible fish,
open nest site free of
mammalian predators, and
extended ice-free season. Nest
in large trees, snags, cliffs,
transmission/ communication
towers, artificial nest
platforms, channel
markers/buoys.

Nesting: April–September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
42 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
American white
pelican
(Pelecanus
erythrorhynchos)
– –
BCC,
SSC,
SJMSCP
Nests on isolated islands in
freshwater lakes and forages
on inland marshes, lakes,
rivers. Winters on coastal bays,
inlets, and estuaries, and rarely
inland.

Nesting: March–July
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting or
wintering habitat within the
BSA for this species.

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 in large expanses of
open ground; also found in
urban parklike settings.

Nesting: April–June
Moderate to High Potential
to Occur . There is suitable
nesting and foraging habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

White-faced ibis
(Plegadis chihi) – – WL,
SJMSCP
Colonial nester; Nests in
shallow marshes with islands
of emergent vegetation,
flooded shoals and mangrove
swamps.

Nesting: May–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Yellow warbler
(Setophaga petechia) – – SSC,
SJMSCP
Breeding range includes most
of California, except Central
Valley (isolated breeding
locales on Valley floor,
Stanislaus, Colusa, and Butte
counties), Sierra Nevada range
above tree line, and
southeastern deserts. Nesting
habitat includes riparian
vegetation near streams and
meadows. Winters in Mexico
south to South America.

Nesting: May–August
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 432025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA 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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

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
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable nesting habitat
within the BSA for this
species.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
44 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA 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
(WBWG 2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Presumed Absent. The trees
within the BSA do not
provide suitable maternity
roost habitat for this
species.

Ringtail
(Bassariscus astutus) – – CFP,
SJMSCP
Most often found in riparian
corridors in forested, shrubby
habitats. Dens in rock
outcrops, hollow trees and
snags at low to middle
elevations. Its range includes
the North and South Coast
Ranges, Sierra Nevada,
Cascades, and the
mountainous areas of the
Mojave Desert.

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. Outside
of know range and no
suitable habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 452025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Townsend's bigeared bat
(Corynorhinus
townsendii)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Occurs throughout the west
and is distributed from the
southern portion of British
Columbia south along the
Pacific coast to central Mexico
and east into the Great Plains,
with isolated populations
occurring in the central and
eastern United States. It has
been reported in a wide
variety of habitat types
ranging from sea level to
3,300 meters. Habitat
associations include:
coniferous forests, mixed
meso-phytic forests, deserts,
native prairies, riparian
communities, active
agricultural areas, and coastal
habitat types. Roosting can
occur within caves, mines,
buildings, rock crevices, trees.

Survey Period: April–
September
Presumed Absent The trees
within the BSA do not
provide suitable maternity
roost habitat for this
species.

Berkeley kangaroo
rat
(Dipodomys
heermanni
berkleyensis)
– – SJMSCP
Inhabits brushy and grassy
slopes and flats in the San
Francisco Bay area.

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable foraging or
burrowing habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Western mastiff bat
(Eumops perotis
californicus)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Primarily a cliff-dwelling
species, found in similar
crevices in large boulders and
buildings (WBWG 2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable roosting habitat
for this species within the
BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 462025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
Western red bat
(Lasiurus frantzii) – – SSC,
SJMSCP
Roosts in foliage of trees or
shrubs; Day roosts are
commonly in edge habitats
adjacent to streams or open
fields, in orchards, and
sometimes in urban areas.

There may be an association
with intact riparian habitat
(particularly willows,
cottonwoods, and sycamores)
(WBWG 2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Low Potential to Occur.

There is marginally day
roosting habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Fringed myotis
(Myotis thysanodes) – – SJMSCP
Desert scrub, mesic coniferous
forest, grassland, and sagegrass steppe habitats; roosts in crevices in buildings,
underground mines, rocks, cliff
faces, and bridges; hibernacula
include caves, mines and
buildings (WBWG 2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable roosting habitat
for this species within the
BSA.

Long-legged myotis
(Myotis volans) – – SJMSCP
Abandoned buildings, cracks
in the ground, cliff crevices,
exfoliating tree bark, and
hollows within snags as
summer day roosts; caves and
mine tunnels as hibernacula
(WBWG 2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Low Potential to Occur.

There is marginally suitable
day roosting habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Yuma myotis
(Myotis yumanensis) – – SJMSCP
Usually associated with
permanent sources of water,
typically rivers and streams;
occurs in riparian, arid
scrublands and deserts, and
forests; roosts in bridges,
buildings, cliff crevices, caves,
mines, and trees (WBWG
2025).

Survey Period: April–
September
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable roosting habitat
for this species within the
BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project
47 2025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA 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
(Cook 1992; Williams 1993).

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. There is
no riparian habitat for this
species within the BSA.

San Joaquin pocket
mouse
(Perognathus
inornatus)
– – SSC,
SJMSCP
Grassland, oak savanna and
arid scrubland in the southern
Sacramento Valley, Salinas
Valley, San Joaquin Valley and
adjacent foothills, south to the
Mojave Desert.

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable open foraging
or shrub habitat for this
species within the BSA..

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
Presumed Absent. riparian
habitat for this species
within the BSA..

American badger
(Taxidea taxus) – – SSC,
SJMSCP
Drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils.

Survey Period: Any season
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable foraging or
burrowing habitat for this
species within the BSA..

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 482025-144
Table 2. Special-Status Species Evaluation
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Habitat Description/
Species Ecology
Potential to Occur
within the BSA ESA CESA/
NPPA Other
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)

FE CT SJMSCP
Grasslands, sagebrush scrub.

Survey Period: April 15–July
15, September 1–December 1
Presumed Absent. There is
no suitable range, foraging,
or burrowing habitat for this
species within the BSA.

Notes: BSA = Biological Study Area; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CESA = California Endangered Species Act; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; CNPS = California Native Plant Society; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; DPS = Distinct Population Segment; ESA = Endangered Species Act; N/A = Not Applicable; NPPA = Native Plant Protection Act; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group Status Codes:
1A CRPR/Presumed extinct
1B CRPR/Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2A CRPR/Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B CRPR/Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 CRPR/Plants About Which More Information is Needed – A Review List 4 CRPR/Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List

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 (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) BCC USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern*
CC Candidate for CESA listing as Endangered or Threatened CE CESA- or NPPA-listed, Endangered
CFP California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species (§ 3511-birds, § 4700-mammals, §5050- reptiles/amphibians)
CNDDB Species that is tracked by CDFW's CNDDB but does not otherwise have any of the special-status designations listed herein
CR CESA- or NPPA-listed, Rare
CT CESA- or NPPA-listed, Threatened
Delisted Formally Delisted
FE ESA-listed, Endangered
FPT Formally Proposed for ESA listing as Threatened
FT ESA-listed, Threatened
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan–Covered Species SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL CDFW Watch List
Sources: Baldwin 2012; Beedy et al. 2023; CDFW 2023, 2025a; CNPS 2025; Cook 1992; Hughes 2020; Martin and Carlson 2020; Rosenfield et al. 2024; San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000; Shanks 2006; Stebbins and McGinnis 2012; Steenhof 2024; USFWS 2005, *2021; WBWG 2025; Williams 1993; Zika et al. 2015
*Plant species information is from the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025a), unless otherwise cited.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 492025-144

4.6.1 Plants
ECORP identified potential habitat for four special-status plant species during the site reconnaissance.

Further detail for these species are provided below.

4.6.1.1 Heartscale
Heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 1B.2 species and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is an herbaceous annual found within alkaline or saline sandy valley and foothill grasslands, meadows and seeps, and chenopod scrub communities. Heartscale flowers from April through October and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 0 to 1,835 feet above MSL. Heartscale is endemic to California; the current range of this species includes Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yolo counties; it is considered extirpated from San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties (CNPS 2025b).

There are no CNDDB records of heartscale occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the slightly saline soils (NRCS 2025) in the annual grassland within the BSA may provide marginally suitable habitat for this species. Heartscale has low potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.1.2 Big Tarplant
Big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 1B.1 species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in valley and foothill grassland, usually in clay soil. Big tarplant blooms from July through October and is known to occur from 100 to 1,655 feet above MSL. Big tarplant is endemic to California; the current range of the species includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Solano, and Stanislaus counties; it is considered extirpated from Solano County (CNPS 2025a).

There are no CNDDB records of big tarplant occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the annual grassland within the BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for this species due to disturbance from surrounding urban development. Big tarplant has low potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.1.3 Parry’s Rough Tarplant
Parry’s rough tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 4.2 species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in vernal pools and valley and foothill grassland with alkaline and vernally mesic soils, seeps, and sometimes roadsides. Parry’s rough tarplant blooms from May through October and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 0 to 330 feet above MSL. Parry’s rough tarplant is endemic to California; its current range includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Merced, Modoc, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties (CNPS 2025b).

There are no CNDDB records of Parry’s rough tarplant occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the annual grassland and ruderal/disturbed portions of the agricultural or SSJID easement within Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 502025-144
the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Parry’s rough tarplant has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.1.4 Showy Golden Madia
Showy golden madia (Madia radiata) is not listed pursuant to either the federal or California ESAs, but is designated as a CRPR 1B.1 species and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is an herbaceous annual that occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland. Showy golden madia blooms from March through May and is known to occur at elevations ranging from 80 to 3,985 feet above MSL. Showy golden madia is endemic to California; its current range includes Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus counties. It is considered to be extirpated in Contra Costa, Kings, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Joaquin counties (CNPS 2025b).

There are no CNDDB records of showy golden madia occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the annual grassland within the BSA provides marginally suitable habitat for this species. Showy golden madia has low potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.2 Invertebrates
ECORP identified no potential habitat for special-status invertebrate species during the site reconnaissance.

4.6.3 Amphibians
ECORP identified no potential habitat for special-status amphibian species during the site reconnaissance.

4.6.4 Reptiles
ECORP identified potential habitat for one special-status reptile species during the site reconnaissance.

Further details about this species are provided below.

4.6.4.1 Northwestern Pond Turtle
The northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) is proposed for listing as Threatened pursuant to the federal ESA, is considered an SSC by CDFW, and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. The range of the northwestern pond turtle in California extends from the Coast Ranges on the Oregon border southward to Marin County, throughout the lower elevations and foothills of the southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and within the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (Thomson et al. 2016). The elevation range for the species extends from near sea level to 4,690 feet (1,430 meters) (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

They can occur in a variety of waters including ponds, lakes, streams, reservoirs, rivers, settling ponds of wastewater treatment plants, and other permanent and ephemeral wetlands (Bury et al. 2012). However, in streams and other lotic features they generally require slack- or slow-water aquatic microhabitats (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Northwestern pond turtles also require basking areas such as logs, rocks, banks, and brush piles for thermoregulation (Bury et al. 2012). Nesting sites for pond turtles are typically Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 512025-144
located in annual grasslands adjacent to a watercourse with little slope and hard, dry soil (Ashton et al. 1997). Nesting habitat soils typically display high clay or silt fraction, with few nests located in sandy soils.

Nests are usually within 400m of a watercourse, with the majority being within 50m of the water’s edge (Holland 1994).

There is one CNDDB record of northwestern pond turtle occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a).Aquatic habitat is present just northwest of the BSA and the friable soil of the ditch provides marginal nesting habitat. Northwestern pond turtle has low potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5 Birds
ECORP identified potential habitat for nine special-status bird species. Further details of these species are provided below.

4.6.5.1 Cooper's Hawk
The Cooper’s hawk (Astur cooperii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs. However, it is a CDFW Watch List and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. Typical nesting and foraging habitats include riparian woodland, dense oak woodland, and other woodlands near water. Cooper’s hawks nest throughout California from Siskiyou County to San Diego County and includes the Central Valley (Rosenfield et al. 2024). Breeding occurs from March through July, with a peak from May through July.

There are no CNDDB records of Cooper’s hawk occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Cooper’s hawk has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.2 Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is not listed pursuant to the federal ESA but is currently a candidate for listing under the California ESA; in addition, it is designated as a BCC by USFWS, an SSC by CDFW, and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. Burrowing owls inhabit dry open rolling hills, grasslands, desert floors, and open bare ground with gullies and arroyos. They can also inhabit developed areas such as golf courses, cemeteries, roadsides within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, school campuses, and fairgrounds (Poulin et al. 2020). This species typically uses burrows created by fossorial mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) but may also use manmade structures such as concrete culverts or pipes; concrete, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath concrete or asphalt pavement (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2012). The breeding season typically occurs between February 1 and August 31 (CDFG 2012).

There are three CNDDB records of burrowing owl occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), and the banks of the ditch observed within the BSA provide marginally suitable habitat for this species.

Burrowing owls have low potential to occur within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 522025-144

4.6.5.3 Oak Titmouse
Oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) are not listed and protected under either state or federal ESAs but are considered a USFWS BCC. Oak titmouse breeding range includes southwestern Oregon south through California’s Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, western foothills of the Sierra Nevada, into Baja California; they are absent from the humid northwestern coastal region and the San Joaquin Valley (Cicero et al. 2020). They are found in dry oak or oak-pine woodlands but may also use scrub oaks or other brush near woodlands (Cicero et al. 2020). Nesting occurs during March through July.

There are no CNDDB records of oak titmouse occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Oak titmouse has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.4 Swainson's Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as a threatened species and are protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This migratory species nests throughout western North America (Canada, western U.S., and Mexico) and typically winters from South America, north to Mexico. However, a small population has been observed wintering in the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta (Bechard et al. 2020). In California, the nesting season for Swainson’s hawk ranges from mid-March to mid-August.

Swainson’s hawks build stick nests in trees in a variety of natural and human altered habitats including edges of riparian systems, oak woodland, agricultural landscapes, and urban areas. Natural foraging habitats include open grassland, and shrub steppe. As more lands were converted to agriculture, Swainson’s hawks have become associated with low-stature agricultural fields (e.g., alfalfa), irrigated pasture and livestock pastures. In the Central Valley, Swainson’s hawks typically feed on a combination of California vole (Microtus californicus), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), many passerine birds, and grasshoppers (Melanopulus species). Swainson’s hawks are opportunistic foragers and will readily forage in association with agricultural mowing, harvesting, discing, and irrigating (Estep 1989). The removal of vegetative cover by such farming activities results in more readily available prey items for this species.

There are 29 CNDDB records of Swainson’s hawk occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), and the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. Swainson’s hawk has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.5 Nuttall’s Woodpecker
The Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii) is not listed and protected under either state or federal ESAs but is considered a USFWS BCC. They are resident from Siskiyou County south to Baja California.

Nuttall’s woodpeckers nest in tree cavities primarily within oak woodlands, but also can be found in riparian woodlands (Lowther et al. 2020). Breeding occurs from April through July.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 532025-144
There are no CNDDB records of Nuttall’s woodpecker occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), however the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable habitat for this species. Nuttall’s woodpecker has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.6 White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, the species is fully protected pursuant to Section 3511 of the California Fish and Game Code and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is a common resident in the Central Valley and the entire length of the California coast, as well as all areas up to the Sierra Nevada foothills and southeastern deserts (Dunk 2020). In northern California, white-tailed kite nesting occurs from March through early August, with nesting activity peaking from March through June. Nesting occurs in trees within oak woodland, savannah, agricultural communities, and riparian areas adjacent to open areas (Dunk 2020).

There are no CNDDB records of white-tailed kite occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), but the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. White-tailed kite has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.7 Bullock’s Oriole
The Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs but is currently a BCC according to USFWS. In California, Bullock’s orioles are found throughout the state except the higher elevations of mountain ranges and the eastern deserts (Small 1994). They are found in riparian and oak woodlands where nests are built in deciduous trees, but may also use orchards, conifers, and eucalyptus trees (Flood et al. 2020). Nesting occurs from March through July.

There are no CNDDB records of Bullock’s oriole occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), but the taller trees within the vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. Bullock’s oriole has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.5.8 Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; but is considered an SSC by CDFW. Loggerhead shrikes nest throughout California except the northwestern corner, montane forests, and high deserts (Small 1994). Loggerhead shrikes nest in small trees and shrubs in open country with short vegetation such as pastures, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, agricultural fields, riparian areas, and open woodlands (Yosef 2020). The nesting season extends from March through July.

There is one CNDDB records of loggerhead shrike occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), but the limited size and level of disturbance within the BSA provides marginally suitable nesting habitat for this species. Loggerhead shrike has low potential to occur within the BSA.

Biological Resources Assessment
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

City of Manteca Central Trunk Sewer Project 542025-144

4.6.5.9 Yellow-Billed Magpie
The yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs but is considered a USFWS BCC. This endemic species is a yearlong resident of the Central Valley and Coast Ranges from San Francisco Bay to Santa Barbara County. Yellow-billed magpies build large, bulky nests in trees in a variety of open woodland habitats, typically near grassland, pastures or cropland. Nest building begins in late January to mid-February, which may take up to 6 to 8 weeks to complete, with eggs laid from April through May, and fledging from May through June (Koenig et al. 2022). The young leave the nest about 30 days after hatching (Koenig et al. 2022). Yellow-billed magpies are highly susceptible to West Nile Virus, which may have been the cause of death to thousands of magpies during 2004-2006 (Koenig et al. 2022).

There are no CNDDB records of yellow-headed magpie occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), but the taller trees vicinity of the BSA provides suitable nesting habitat for this species. Yellow-billed magpie has moderate to high potential to occur within the BSA.

4.6.6 Mammals
ECORP conducted a literature review (CDFW 2025; San Joaquin Council of Governments 2000; USFWS 2025a) and identified potential habitat for two special-status mammal species following the site reconnaissance. Further details of these species are provided below.

4.6.6.1 Western Red Bat
The western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) is not listed pursuant to either the California or federal ESAs; however, this species is considered an SSC by CDFW and an SJMSCP-Covered Species. This species is broadly distributed, its range extending from southern British Columbia in Canada through Argentina and Chile in South America and including much of the western U.S. This solitary species day roosts primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs in edge habitats bordering streams or open fields, in orchards, and occasionally urban areas. They are associated with intact riparian habitat, especially with cottonwoods, sycamores, oaks and willows. They feed on a variety of insects, and generally begin to forage 1 to 2 hours after sunset. This species is considered highly migratory; however, the timing of migration and the summer ranges of males and females may be different. Winter behavior of this species is poorly understood (Western Bat Working Group [WBWG] 2025).

There are no CNDDB records of western red bat occurring within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFW 2025a), but the trees within the BSA provides marginally suitable day roosting habitat for this species. Western red bats have low potential to occur within the BSA.

← All documents from this meeting