Agenda packet — Economic Development Committee, November 4, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

- 1 -
11/4/2024 4:00:00 PM
www.modestogov.com
AGENDA
City of Modesto

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

COUNCIL WORKSHOP
2001-40 Del Puerto Room.

Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th Street
Modesto, California
Monday, November 04, 2024 at 4:00 PM
Roll Call: Chris Ricci, Chair
Eric Alvarez, Vice-Chair
Sue Zwahlen, Member
Alternates: Nick Bavaro, Rosa Escutia-Braaton, Jeremiah Williams, David Wright Council has not delegated directive or final approval authority to the Committees.

Committee actions are recommendations to the full City Council, not final decisions on an issue. * Public Comment will only be in-person. Members of the public who wish to address the Committee, by providing public comment, during the meeting must do so in-person in the 2001-40 Del Puerto Room. As an alternative, members of the public may also provide written public comment submitted via email as indicated in the Submitting Comments by Email instructions on this agenda. Zoom will still be available for viewing and Wordly translation. *Members of the public will be allowed to provide public comment through Zoom if a Committee Member is participating remotely pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449. *Effective March 1, 2023, if a technical issue arises with Zoom or the phone dial-in option, the Committee meeting will continue unless the meeting is being held pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2449. Alternative viewing options are listed below, and the meeting is physically open to the public.
“Wordly” can translate into 25+ different languages! To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link https://attend.wordly.ai/join/RJDY-6364.
- 1 -
11/4/2024
- 2 -
11/4/2024 4:00:00 PM
"Wordly" puede traducir a más de 25 idiomas diferentes! Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace https://attend.wordly.ai/join/RJDY-6364.

THE MEETING CAN BE VIEWED BY ZOOM VIDEO

CONFERENCING OR TELEPHONE
Joining the Committee meeting via Zoom
The City of Modesto is now offering the ability to view Committee meetings via telephonic conferencing via “Zoom” video conferencing computer technology. The meeting may be accessed through the use of Zoom using the following options:
 Enter the following link into an Internet Browser
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86945970570,
 Enter the following link into an Internet Browser https://zoom.us/ and using the Webinar ID 869 4597 0570
 Passcode 84326
To use Zoom, please visit: https://zoom.us/ and either sign-up for a free Zoom account or continue as a guest. Once you have downloaded the app onto your mobile device, joined from your web browser, or downloaded the Zoom software on your computer you will be ready for the upcoming Committee meeting.

Joining the Committee meeting via Telephone
If you don’t have a smart phone or computer to access the meeting via Zoom, you can listen by phone, by calling 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) or 1-888-475-4499 (Toll Free) and enter the Webinar ID 869 4597 0570 Passcode 84326

PUBLIC COMMENTS IN PERSON
Three-minute time limit per speaker.

Only interested persons in the audience may present these matters.

Under State law, Committee Members may respond to matters being presented under this item only as follows:
a. Briefly respond to statements made or questions raised. b. Ask a question for clarification.
c. Provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. d. Request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting. e. Finally, a Committee Member or the Committee itself may take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.

SUBMITTING COMMENTS BY E-MAIL
Written comments may be submitted via email to: [email protected] (include Agenda Item Number in the subject line). All comments will be shared with the Committee - 2 -
11/4/2024
- 3 -
11/4/2024 4:00:00 PM
Members and placed in the record but will not be read aloud during the meeting. Written comments must be received two hours before the meeting.

This Agenda is on file in the City Clerk’s Office, Sixth Floor, 10th Street Place, Posting Board at entry of 10th Street Place, and is available on the City’s Web site at www.modestogov.com.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Clerk’s office during normal business hours. Such documents are also available online, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting, at the following website www.modestogov.com/councilmeetings In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990, the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), Government Code section 11135 and other applicable codes, the City of Modesto (“City”) will not discriminate against individuals on the basis of disability in the City’s services, programs, or activities. For more information, please visit the City of Modesto website at https://www.modestogov.com/865/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-ADA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (209) 577-5396. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting
Any and all of the following agenda items are subject to action by the Modesto City Council.

CONSENT ITEMS – ROLL CALL VOTE REQUIRED:

Information concerning the consent items listed below has been forwarded to each Committee Member prior to this meeting for study. Unless some member of the audience or Committee Member has a question concerning an item and asks that it be withdrawn from the consent list, the Committee approves the items at one time. The action taken by the Committee in approving consent items is set forth in the explanation of this individual item.

CONSENT
An item may be removed from consent and discussed at the request of an audience member or committee member.

Consent

1. Consider the summary vacation of Wagner Way (approximately 39,451 square feet) right-of-way, public utility easement, planting easement, and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: Not Applicable)
 Motion recommending the summary vacation of Wagner Way (approximately 39,451 square feet) right-of-way, public utility easement, planting easement, and forwarding to Council for approval.
- 3 -
11/4/2024
- 4 -
11/4/2024 4:00:00 PM
ENGINEERING SERVICES; Jaspreet Mangat, 209-577-5253,
[email protected]
Consent

2. Consider a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: Water Fund)  Motion recommending a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and forwarding to Council for approval.

UTILITIES; Jim Alves, 209-571-5557, [email protected]

NEW BUSINESS

3. Consider accepting applications for the future development of comprehensive planning districts referred to as Kiernan Business Park, Kiernan/McHenry, Kieran/Carver Corridor, College West, Hetch-Hetch Comprehensive Planning District Regional Commercial, and Hetch-Hetchy Comprehensive Planning District Village Residential and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: Not Applicable)  Motion recommending acceptance of applications for the future development of comprehensive planning districts referred to as Kiernan Business Park, Kiernan/McHenry, Kieran/Carver Corridor, College West, Hetch-Hetch Comprehensive Planning District Regional Commercial, and Hetch-Hetchy Comprehensive Planning District Village Residential and forwarding to Council for approval.

CED; Sean Rando, 209-577-5473, [email protected]

4. Consider a Modesto Forward Grant Agreement with the Modesto Improvement Partnership, Inc, (MIP) for Downtown Beautification not to exceed $700,000 and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: American Rescue Plan Act Funds)
 Motion recommending a Modesto Forward Grant Agreement with Modesto Improvement Partnership (DoMo) for Downtown Beautification not to exceed $700,000 in ARPA funding and forwarding to Council for approval.

CED; Trevin Barber, 209-571-5566, [email protected]

ADJOURNMENT
Posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on the bulletin board at Tenth Street Place on at by
date time signature
- 4 -
11/4/2024

CITY OF MODESTO

COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:

November 4, 2024
Date: October 15, 2024
TO: Economic Development Committee
Chris Ricci, Chair
Eric Alvarez, Vice-Chair
Mayor Zwahlen, Member
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Toby Wells, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer SUBJECT: Summary Vacation of Wagner Way
CONTACT: Jaspreet Mangat, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], 209-577-5253
DESCRIPTION:

Consider the summary vacation of Wagner Way (approximately 39,451 square feet) right-of-way, public utility easement, planting easement, and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: Not Applicable)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:

The recommended action supports the City’s 2020-2025 Strategic Goal “Ensure Safe, Efficient, and Reliable Infrastructure”.

BACKGROUND:

Kiernan Business Park Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on April 1, 1997, by Resolution No. 97-159. City Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Mana Development and Wagner Family Properties Vesting Tentative Parcel Map VTPM-07-007 on October 15, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-48 which was then recorded at the County Recorder’s Office as Parcel Map 56-PM-81 on September 11, 2012.

Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 078-018-021 was split into two parcels and created APN 078- 018-051 and APN 078-018-052 each approximately nine (9) acres and future Wagner Way was irrevocably offered for dedication to the City of Modesto per Document No. 2012-0113288 and Document No. 2012-0113289 on December 13, 2012. The Public Utility Easements were irrevocably offered for dedication per the Document No. 2012-0113285 and 2012-0113286. The Planting Easement was irrevocably offered for dedication as per the Document No. 2012-0113284 and 2012-0113287.
#1..
- 5 -
Economic Development Committee, November 4, 2024
Summary Vacation of Wagner Way

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

The property owner has applied to the City for Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM-24-002) which is in review with the City Staff. The preliminary review of the map requires Wagner Way to be vacated to construct the future improvements of the TSM 24-002. Wagner Way was reserved for future road construction, however the development plans for the property have now changed.

There are no City utilities or other easements in Wagner Way. Therefore, Staff recommends the summary vacation of Wagner Way and related easements. Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code - Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4 Article 1, Section 83311, the roadway is eligible for a summary vacation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the City caused by proposed action.

RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE ACTION:

Staff Recommendations:

Motion recommending the summary vacation of Wagner Way (approximately 39,451 square feet) right-of-way, public utility easement, planting easement, and forwarding to Council for approval.

Approved by:

Toby Wells, Director of Engineering Services
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Exhibit A & B - Legal Description of Wagner Way, Public Utility Easement and Planting Easement
1 “The legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a street or highway if both of the following conditions exist:
(a) For a period of five consecutive years, the street or highway has been impassable for vehicular travel. (b) No public money was expended for maintenance on the street or highway during such period.” #1..
- 6 -
#1..
- 7 -
#1..
- 8 -
#1..
- 9 -
#1..
- 10 -
#1..
- 11 -
#1..
- 12 -
Exhibit B
#1..
- 13 -
#1..
- 14 -
#1..
- 15 -

CITY OF MODESTO

COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:

November 4, 2024
Date: October 8, 2024
TO: Economic Development Committee
Chris Ricci, Chair
Eric Alvarez, Vice-Chair
Sue Zwahlen, Member
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: William Wong, Director of Utilities
SUBJECT: Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CONTACT: Jim Alves, Senior Civil Engineer, [email protected], 209-571-5557 DESCRIPTION:

Consider a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and forwarding to Council for approval. (Funding Source: Water Fund)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:

The recommended action supports the 2020-2025 City’s Strategic Plan Initiatives, Goal D:

Provide safe, efficient, and reliable infrastructure through proactive community investment, maintenance and sustainability efforts.

BACKGROUND:

Nitrate, Arsenic, and Uranium contamination has led to Utilities Operations Staff having to install costly treatment systems, inactivate and destroy potable water supply wells, and continues to threaten others. To help assure the long-term resilience of the City’s groundwater supplies, Utilities Engineering Staff has been actively exploring the implementation of groundwater recharge projects.

On June 12, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-231, Council accepted a preliminary award, and authorized entering into a funding agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board through the Proposition 1 Groundwater Planning Grant Program to fund the Nitrate/Arsenic/Uranium Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Project.

On June 12, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-232, Council approved an Agreement with Jacobson James & Associates for the preparation of a Wellfield Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
#2..
- 16 -
Economic Development Committee, November 4, 2024
Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 2 of 3 ends

On May 7, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-146, Council approved a First Amendment to the Agreement with Trihydro Corporation, formerly Jacobson James & Associates, for the preparation of a Wellfield Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.

DISCUSSION:

As proposed, in the Wellfield Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study completed on June 18, 2021, the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project will consist primarily of modifications to the existing wellfield pumping operations strategy to reduce contaminate levels in raw pumped ground water and of the construction of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Basins to increase the volume of uncontaminated surface water recharged into the aquifer system to reduce the level of contamination and improve groundwater quality over time.

MAR Basin Sites
Merle Avenue Existing Stormwater Retention Basin
Well 65 Existing Stormwater Retention Basin
Ustach Park Existing Stormwater Retention Basin
La Coste Lane - Parcel 1 North Fallowed Agricultural Land La Coste Lane - Parcel 2 South Fallowed Agricultural Land FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

Costs associated with the Trihydro Corporation Consultant Agreement are housed in the following Project and are reimbursable to the City through the State funded Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program – Planning and Implementation Grants.
101112 – Prop 1 Nitrate/Arsenic/Uranium
Agreement $2,136,398
First Amendment $26,172
Total $2,162,570
CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:

The California Environmental Quality Act requires that State and local agencies disclose and evaluate the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts.

A Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt the Final IS/MND, prepared by the Trihydro Corporation on behalf of the City, was circulated to all Stakeholders within the Project area as well as Public and State Agencies through the State Clearinghouse, a division of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

The Draft IS/MND was made available for public review for 30 days beginning on September 21, 2023, and ending on October 20, 2023. One comment letter was received from the Central Valley #2..
- 17 -
Economic Development Committee, November 4, 2024
Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 3 of 3 ends

Regional Water Quality Control Board, and it is included along with Utilities Engineering Staff’s response in the Final IS/MND.

The Final IS/MND was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Title 14, § 15000.

RECOMMENDED COMMITTEE ACTION:

Staff Recommendations:

Motion recommending a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and forwarding to Council for approval.

Approved by:

William Wong, Director of Utilities
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration & Appendix A-G #2..
- 18 -
Municipal Groundwater
Improvement Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by:

City of Modesto
Utilities Department, Water Services Division
1010 10th Street, 2nd Floor
Modesto, CA 95354
With technical support from:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
Trihydro Corporation
2501 Cherry Avenue, Suite 200
Signal Hill, CA 90755
November 2023 | 08444.00002.001
#2..
- 19 -
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL IS/MND......................................................................................1

1. Final IS/MND Contents..............................................................................................................1

2. IS/MND Process.........................................................................................................................1 B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................1 Appendix A: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Comment Letter Appendix B: Final Draft IS/MND
#2..
- 20 -
Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project
1 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL IS/MND

1. Final IS/MND Contents
This document constitutes the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project in City of Modesto, California, which consists of the following sections:

Section A, Introduction to the Final IS/MND: This section provides a description of the Final IS/MND contents and process.

Section B, Responses to Comments on the Draft IS/MND: This section provides the responses to comment letters on the Draft IS/MND that were received during the State Clearinghouse 30-day public review from September 21, 2023 to October 20, 2023. One comment letter was received on the Draft IS/MND from the following agencies, organizations, and individuals:
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The comment letter received during the public comment period is included in Appendix A of this Final IS/MND.

2. IS/MND Process
The State Clearinghouse public review period began on September 21, 2023 and concluded on October 20, 2023. All parties had at least 30 days to review the Draft IS/MND as required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. The Draft IS/MND was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2023090497), along with the required Notice of Completion (NOC), Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI-NOA), and Environmental Document Transmittal form. Hard copies of the Draft IS/MND were made available at Modesto City Hall and Stanislaus County Library and the Draft IS/MND was available on the City’s website at: https://modestogov.com/847/Water-Plans-Reports.

B. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
During the State Clearinghouse public review period commencing September 21, 2023 and ending October 20, 2023, one comment letter was received on the Draft IS/MND from the following agency:

A. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Provided below is a response to the comment letter that was received during the public review period.

The comment letter is listed and responded to, and the original comment letter is provided in Appendix A of this Final IS/MND.

A. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Lead Agency received a form letter from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) which provided general comments regarding the CVRWQCB’s regulatory jurisdiction over the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state. The comment does not state a specific concern or question regarding the environmental impact analysis in the IS/MND. The proposed project will comply #2..
- 21 -
Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project
2 with all applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, no further response to this comment is warranted.
#2..
- 22 -
CVRWQCB Comment Letter
Appendix A
#2..
- 23 -
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
20 October 2023
Jim Alves
City of Modesto
1010 Tenth Street, Suite 4600
Modesto, CA 95354
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, SCH#2023090497, STANISLAUS COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 21 September 2023 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project, located in Stanislaus County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of #2..
- 24 -
Municipal Groundwater - 2 - 20 October 2023
Improvement Project
Stanislaus County
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
#2..
- 25 -
Municipal Groundwater - 3 - 20 October 2023
Improvement Project
Stanislaus County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
#2..
- 26 -
Municipal Groundwater - 4 - 20 October 2023
Improvement Project
Stanislaus County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ #2..
- 27 -
Municipal Groundwater - 5 - 20 October 2023
Improvement Project
Stanislaus County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
#2..
- 28 -
#2..
- 29 -
#2..
- 30 -
#2..
- 31 -
#2..
- 32 -
Appendix B
Final Draft IS/MND
#2..
- 33 -
Municipal Groundwater
Improvement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by:

City of Modesto
Utilities Department, Water Services Division
1010 10th Street, 2nd Floor
Modesto, CA 95354
With technical support from:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
Trihydro Corporation
2501 Cherry Avenue, Suite 200
Signal Hill, CA 90755
September 2023
#2..
- 34 -
-
This page intentionally left blank
#2..
- 35 -
i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Background.......................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Project Setting.................................................................................................................................. 4

5.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 6

6.0 Required Approvals........................................................................................................................ 10

7.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.................................................................................. 11

8.0 Determination................................................................................................................................ 12

9.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................ 13 I. Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 14 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 16 III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 19 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 28 V. Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 39 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 48 VII. Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................. 51 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 56 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................................... 65 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 68 XI. Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................... 73 XII. Mineral Resources............................................................................................................ 74 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 76 XIV. Population and Housing.................................................................................................... 86 XV. Public Services................................................................................................................... 87 XVI. Recreation......................................................................................................................... 90 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 91 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 94 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................ 98 XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................... 102 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................ 104 #2..
- 36 -
ii
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page

10.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program........................................................................... 105

11.0 References ................................................................................................................................... 106

12.0 Preparers...................................................................................................................................... 111

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Figures
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Report C Biological Resources Assessment
D Cultural Resources Assessment
E Noise Analysis Report
F TCR Memo
G MMRP
LIST OF FIGURES (Appendix A)
No. Title
1 Regional Vicinity Map
2 Merle Avenue Basin Site Plan
3 Well 65 Basin Site Plan
4 Ustach Park Basin Site Plan
5 La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North & Parcel 2 South Basin Site Plan #2..
- 37 -
iii
Table of Contents (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Land Use Designation and Zoning Districts Overview ...................................................................10 2 Summary of Potential Permits and/or Approvals..........................................................................10 3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin – Attainment Status.........................................................................21 4 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................................25 5 Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions..............................................................27 6 Habitat Types and Acres By Mar Basin ..........................................................................................32 7 Previous Studies Conducted Within 0.25 Mile of the APE.............................................................40 8 Previously Recorded Cultural Resource Within 0.25 Mile of the APE ...........................................41 9 California Electricity Sources 2020.................................................................................................49 10 Soils Within the MAR Basins..........................................................................................................52 11 Construction GHG Emissions .........................................................................................................64 12 Operational GHG Emissions...........................................................................................................64 13 Noise Measurement Results..........................................................................................................77 14 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Sources................................................78 15 Exterior Noise Level Standards......................................................................................................79 16 Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Sources ..................................................................................80 17 Construction Equipment Noise Levels...........................................................................................82 18 Construction Noise.........................................................................................................................83 #2..
- 38 -
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A-2-10 General Agriculture, 10-acre minimum
AB Assembly Bill
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
Amsl above mean sea level
APE Area of Potential Effects
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
bcf/year billion cubic feet per year
BMP Best management practices
BPS best performance standards
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCIC Central Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Modesto
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
County Stanislaus County
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWA Clean Water Act
CY cubic yard
#2..
- 39 -
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EQ Zapp Earthquake Hazards Zone Application
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAAST Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GLO General Land Office
GWh gigawatt hours
GWP Global Warming Potential
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITP Incidental Take Permit
kWh kilowatt hours
LCL La Coste Lane
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge
MAX Modesto Area Express
MGD million gallons per day
MID Modesto Irrigation District
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRWTP Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
MU Mixed Use
#2..
- 40 -
vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSLU noise-sensitive land uses
NWI National Wetland Inventory
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P1 Parcel 1
P2 Parcel 2
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM10 coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
R-1 Low-Density Residential
RCNM Roadway Construction Road Model
RIFS Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLCP short-lived climate pollutants
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
#2..
- 41 -
vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
SP Specific Plan
SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad
SR State Route
StaRT Modesto Dial-A-Ride, Stanislaus Regional Transit
SUVs sport utility vehicles
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resource Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT vehicles miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
VR Village Residential
WEAP Workers Environmental Awareness Training
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
#2..
- 42 -
viii
This page intentionally left blank
#2..
- 43 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 1 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet

1. Project title: Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Modesto
Utilities Department, Water Services Division
1010 10 Street, 2nd Floor
Modesto, CA 95354

3. Contact person and phone number: Jim Alves, PE, Senior Civil Engineer (209) 571-5557

4. Project location: City of Modesto, Stanislaus County

5. General plan designation: Village Residential (VR); Mixed Use (MU)

6. Zoning: Specific Plan (SP); Low-Density Residential (R-1); General Agriculture, 10-acre minimum (A-2-10)

7. Description of project:

The proposed Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project (proposed project) would construct five Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) basins and associated water conveyance in the City of Modesto (City).

The five MAR basins would include: (1) Merle Avenue MAR Basin; (2) Well 65 MAR Basin; (3) Ustach Park MAR Basin; (4) La Coste Lane (LCL) Parcel 1 (P1) North MAR Basin; and (5) LCL Parcel 2 (P2) South MAR Basin. Water conveyance would include construction of above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structures, and pump stations to transport water to the MAR basins. The proposed project is intended to address non-point source groundwater contamination from arsenic, nitrate, and uranium in the City. The proposed project consists primarily of: (1) modification of water supply well field pumping operations, i.e., wellfield optimization, to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater; and (2) construction of MAR basins to increase the volume, i.e., recharge of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system.

8. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within City limits. The LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins are located outside City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). The five MAR basin site locations and their surrounding land uses are described in detail below.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The proposed Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is approximately 5.50 acres and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to Modesto Irrigation District’s (MID) Moulton Lateral Three. The site is #2..
- 44 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 2 surrounded by single-family residential homes to the north, east, and west and single-family residential homes and the MID Moulton Lateral Three to the south.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The proposed Well 65 MAR Basin Site is approximately 0.75 acre and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on APN 077-007-021. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral Three. The site is surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and an existing water tank to the west, Orchard Elementary School and single-family residential homes to the north, single-family residential homes to the east, and commercial development, single-family residential homes, and the MID Moulton Lateral Three to the south.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is approximately 3.00 acres and is located in the northeastern corner of the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane on APN 077-009-053. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The site is surrounded by Ustach Park and single-family residential homes to the north, Ustach Middle School to the west, and single-family residential homes to the east and south.

La Coste Lane MAR Sites
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is approximately 12.00 acres and is located north of La Coste Lane and west of Frazine Road. The site is located on APN 014-037-056. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing MID Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is approximately 7.00 acres and would be located south of La Coste Lane, east of Norseman Drive, and north of Garst Road. The site is located on APN 014-037-063. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands. The site is surrounded by the existing MID Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and the MID Lateral Two to the south.

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance #2..
- 45 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 3 10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Formal invitations to participate in tribal consultation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on the proposed project were sent by the City to two tribal representatives on April 3, 2023. The formal invitations sent to the representatives below are included in Attachment A within Appendix F.

The tribal representatives were given 30 days to request or decline consultation in writing for the proposed project. The formal invitations noted that if no response was received within 30 days that consultation would be considered closed. The representatives included:
• Randy Yonemura, Ione Bank of Miwok Indians
• Katherine Erolina Perez, Northern Valley Yokuts
As of August 4, 2023, no responses have been received and consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1 has been concluded. Therefore, on May 3, 2023, 30 days after formal invitations were mailed to tribal representatives, consultation was formally terminated.

2.0 Project Background
The Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project proposes to implement the Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Implementation Concept Proposal submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool [FAAST] No. 48098). The proposed project is the recommended alternative from a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIFS) completed in August 2021 for the City’s contiguous water service area, including the City and portions of Salida to the north and Ceres to the south.

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) addresses the construction of five MAR basins and associated water conveyance structures proposed by the project applicant, the City of Modesto. The Initial Study has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all State and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before they approve or implement those projects.

The Initial Study is a public document used by the decision-making Lead Agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The project is proposed by the City (project applicant), who will also act as the Lead Agency. The City will use the Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project has a significant effect on the environment. This Initial Study relies on CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15064.4 in its determination of the significance of the environmental impacts. Per Section 15064, the finding as to whether a project may have one or more significant impacts shall be based on substantial evidence in the record, and that controversy alone, without substantial evidence of a significant impact, does not trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The following technical reports, quantified analysis and/or surveys were used in preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated by reference:
#2..
- 46 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 4 • Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Report (HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc [HELIX) 2023).
• Biological Resources Evaluation (Trihydro Corporation 2023) • Cultural Resources Assessment (HELIX 2023)
• Noise Analysis Report (HELIX 2023)
• Tribal Cultural Resources Memo (HELIX 2023)

3.0 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency by addressing non-point source groundwater contamination from arsenic, nitrate, and uranium within the City. The proposed project consists primarily of: (1) modification of water supply well field pumping operations (i.e., wellfield optimization, to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater); and (2) construction of MAR basins to increase the volume (i.e., recharge) of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system.

The proposed project would address the City’s need to protect current groundwater supply from future contamination. Groundwater from the City’s supply wells account for almost 60 percent of the annual average water demand, with the other 40 percent being supplied from treated surface water provided by the MID. The groundwater supply is currently sourced from approximately 100 active wells throughout the City and is distributed through approximately 74,000 service connections. In 2020, 23 former City water supply wells, representing over 16 million gallons per day (MGD) of the system’s total groundwater production capacity (50 MGD), were inactivated, abandoned, destroyed, or removed from potable use due to contamination. The proposed project would improve groundwater quality and protect existing supply wells from future contamination and subsequent decommissioning.

4.0 Project Setting

4.1 Project Location
The proposed project is located in the City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, California. The five proposed MAR basins would include: Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site; Well 65 MAR Basin Site; Ustach Park MAR Basin Site; LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site; and, LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within City limits. The LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins are located outside City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). The MAR basin sites are located within Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19, Township 3 South, Range 9 and 10 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute “Riverbank Quadrangle”). Refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map (Note: all Figures are in Appendix A). The MAR basin site locations and their surrounding land uses are described below.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The proposed Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is approximately 5.50 acres and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on APN 085-004-006. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID #2..
- 47 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 5 Moulton Lateral Three. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes to the north, east, and west and single-family residential homes and the MID Moulton Lateral Three to the south.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Sites
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is approximately 12.00 acres and is located north of La Coste Lane and west of Frazine Road, on APN 014-037-056. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing MID Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is approximately 7.00 acres and is located south of La Coste Lane, east of Norseman Drive, and north of Garst Road, on APN 014-037-063. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands . The site is surrounded by the existing MID Tank and booster pump station, and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and the MID Lateral Two to the south.

4.2 Environmental Setting
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral Three. The site includes a gated, paved access driveway off Merle Avenue that runs south towards the basin. Existing block walls are located along the northern, eastern, and western boundaries of the site to provide visual screening to the surrounding single-family residential homes. An existing chain link fence is located along the southern boundary of the site, parallel to the MID Moulton Lateral Three. Concrete and asphalt road surfacing runs along the top bank of the existing basin and along the #2..
- 48 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 6 driveway ramp. Elevations of the bottom of the basin vary from a low of 70 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (in the southeast corner) to a high of 78 feet amsl (in the northeast corner).

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral Three. The parcel includes a gated, paved accessed driveway off Merle Avenue that runs south towards the existing basin. Existing chain link fencing is located along all boundaries of the site. Asphalt road surfacing runs along the top bank of the basin and along the driveway ramp. The ground surface elevations of the bottom of the basin vary from a low of 69 feet amsl (in the southeast corner) to a high of 71 feet amsl (near the mid-point of the east side of the bottom).

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The parcel includes a concrete surfaced road that extends partway around the perimeter of the existing basin, and an existing driveway ramp that leads to the southeastern corner of the basin. Existing chain link fencing is located along all boundaries of the site. Elevations on the bottom of the basin vary from 84 feet to 85 feet amsl.

LCL a Coste Lane MAR Basin Site
Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is comprised of City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands that formerly were irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. This parcel is adjacent to the MID Treated Water Storage Tank One (also known as the Terminal Reservoir or MID Water Tanks). Existing fencing is located around the MID Treated Water Storage Tank One, along the western site boundary. The site is relatively flat and has an elevation that ranges from 10- feet to 108 feet amsl.

Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is comprised of City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands . This parcel is adjacent to MID Water Storage Tank One (also known as Terminal Reservoir or MID Water Tanks).

Existing fencing is located along the eastern and western site boundaries, and an existing sidewalk is located along the northern and southern site boundaries. The site is relatively flat and has an elevation of 105 feet amsl.

5.0 Project Description
The proposed project would include the construction of five MAR basins in the City. The proposed project would construct conveyance structures to transport clean surface water to each of the developed MAR basins for infiltration into subsurface aquifers. Groundwater recharge using clean surface waters would improve long-term groundwater sustainability and resiliency. The MAR basins would be expected to operate for a minimum of 20 years (2025 through 2045). The basins’ water conveyance structures are described in more detail below. See Figures 2 through Figure 5 for site plans of the five MAR basins.
#2..
- 49 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 7 5.1 Water Conveyance
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue Site would include construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the existing storm drain manhole and move southeast until it reaches a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral Three.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 Site would include construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the existing storm drain manhole and move southeast until it reaches the proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral Three.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park Site would include construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site.

The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin at the existing outfall structure and move north along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park until it reaches Hillglen Avenue. The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed pump station located in the northeastern corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. The proposed pump station would deliver water from the existing MID pipeline to the Ustach Park MAR Basin.

An alternative water conveyance to the Ustach Park MAR Basin would include construction of a pipeline that moves northeast through the southern border of Ustach Park to the existing MID Cavil Drain, located along the western border of Ustach Park and Ustach Middle School, along Aria Way. This connection or tie-in to the MID Cavil Drain would provide an opportunity to reduce construction costs and schedule by shortening the conveyance distance and eliminating most of the right of way (ROW) roadwork to bury piping. No pump station would be required under this alternative.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site
Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North Site would include construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed above ground, 30-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southwestern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the proposed outfall structure and move southwest until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station off MID Lateral Two. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting the above-described 30-inch above ground pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the proposed outfall structure #2..
- 50 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 8 and move south until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

5.2 Access and Security
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue Site would be accessed via an existing gated, paved driveway off Merle Avenue. The site includes existing chain link fencing, existing cinder-block walls, and locked gates that would be used to prevent unauthorized entry.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 Site would be accessed via an existing gated, paved driveway off Merle Avenue. The paved driveway is an existing City park driveway. The site includes existing chain link fencing and locked gates that would be used to prevent unauthorized entry.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park Site would be accessed via an existing paved walkway off Bear Club Lane. The paved walkway is currently used for Ustach Park and storm drainage basin access. The site includes existing chain link fencing, driveway gates, and walkway gates that would be used to prevent unauthorized entry.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site
Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North Site would be accessed via Frazine Road. The site includes existing fencing along the western site boundary. The project proposes to install fencing and locked gates along the northern, eastern, and southern site boundaries to prevent unauthorized entry.

Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South Site would be accessed via an existing dirt path along Garst Road. The site proposes to install fencing and locked gates along the northern and southern site boundaries to prevent unauthorized entry.

5.3 Operation, Staff, and Maintenance
Periodic repairs and maintenance would be required during the proposed project operation.

Operational tasks associated with the MAR basins and conveyance structures would include the following:
• Operating the turnouts, pump stations, and meters at the applicable site; • Required repairs for proposed project components as needed; and • Providing periodic maintenance checks.
#2..
- 51 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 9 Staff that currently run the City’s water system and/or storm drainage system would perform the operation and maintenance (O&M) tasks required for the proposed project within their service areas. In the instance that existing staff would not be able to perform all tasks required for proposed project O&M, the City’s Water Division would increase staffing and/or equipment as practicable.

5.4 Construction Staging and Schedule
Staging
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site: The construction staging and materials storage area would be located southwest of the basin. Remnants of asphalt paving material exist in the area. • Well 65 MAR Basin Site: The construction staging and materials storage area would be located in a previously disturbed area, northwest of the basin.
• Ustach Park MAR Basin Site: The construction staging and materials storage area would be located in an area with an existing storm drainage pump station, southeast of the basin. • La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites: The construction staging and materials storage area would be located directly south of the LCL P2 South Site, in an area with existing fallowed agriculture.

Schedule
Construction of the proposed project would begin during the fourth quarter 2024 and would be anticipated to complete in second quarter 2025. Construction modeling assumes the longest anticipated schedule reported by the project applicant for the following MAR basins:
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Well 65 MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: demolition 3 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 3 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South: demolition 10 days; site preparation 10 days; grading 20 days; trenching (underground utilities) 25 days; and paving 10 days. Grading and trenching (underground utilities) would occur concurrently, and paving would begin directly after trenching (underground utilities) is complete.

5.5 Regulation of Urban Development
General Plan Land Use Designation
According to the City General Plan, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach PAR MAR Basin are designated as Village Residential (VR); the Well 65 MAR Basin site is designated as Mixed Use (MU). #2..
- 52 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 10 The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin are located outside designed City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). According to Land Use Element AL-4 in the City General Plan EIR, development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires discretionary approval shall be referred to the City for preliminary approval (City 2019b). According to the City General Plan, the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin are both designated as VR.

Zoning Designation
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are zoned Specific Plan (SP) and the Well 65 MAR Basin is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-1).

As previously mentioned, the LCL P2 South MAR Basins are located outside designed City limits but are located within the City General Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). However, the City zoning does not cover the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. According to Stanislaus County zoning map, the two basins are zoned General Agriculture, 10-acre minimum (A-2-10; County 2023a).

Table 1 outlines the land use designation and zoning district for the five APN’s associated with the proposed project.

Table 1: LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICTS OVERVIEW Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN)
2019 General Plan
Land Use Designation
City of Modesto
Zoning District
Stanislaus County
Zoning District Current Use
085-004-006 VR SP Not Applicable
(N/A)
Stormwater
retention basin
077-007-021 MU R-1 N/A Stormwater
retention basin
077-009-053 VR SP N/A Stormwater
retention basin
014-037-056 VR N/A A-2-10 City-owned fallowed
agricultural land
014-037-063 VR N/A A-2-10 City-owned fallowed
agricultural land

6.0 Required Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, for the proposed project. Table 2 summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to construction of the proposed project.

Additional local approvals and permits may also be required.

Table 2: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PERMITS AND/OR APPROVALS
Agency Type of Approval
California Division of Occupational Safety and
Health
Construction activities in compliance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health safety requirements
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate, Dust Control State Water Resources Control Board California Water Code Section 1211 Change in Point of Discharge
City of Modesto; Stanislaus County Grading Permit
#2..
- 53 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 11 7.0 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☒ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
#2..
- 54 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 12 8.0 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name For
#2..
- 55 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 13 9.0 Environmental Initial Study Checklist
The lead agency has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

B. “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the inclusion of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced.

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact that exceeds a stated significance threshold.

D. “No Impact” applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).

The explanation of each issue identifies the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. Where appropriate, the discussion identifies the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identifies where earlier analyses are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identifies which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describes the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. #2..
- 56 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 14 I. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City is located in Stanislaus County, which is located in central San Joaquin Valley, approximately 95 miles east of San Francisco and 80 miles south of Sacramento. The Tuolumne River runs along the southern edge of the City, and the Stanislaus River runs roughly parallel to the northern boundary of the City’s urban area (City 2019a). The City is intersected by State Route (SR) 99 along a north-south alignment and by SR 132 along an east–west alignment. There are no State-designated scenic highways in the City of Modesto (Caltrans 2023). In a larger context, the County is bounded by San Joaquin County to the north; Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties to the east; Merced County to the south; and Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to the west (City 2019a).

There are no designated scenic vistas within the City or directly beyond City limits. The region surrounding the City is visually characterized by the many agriculturally and industrially based elements that are seen along the SR 99 and by the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) routes that run northwest to southeast. The landform in the area is naturally quite flat, but parts of it have been leveled for agricultural production. Areas of topographic relief can be found on the valley floor near major waterways in the form of bluffs, terraced floodplains, and remnant channel beds (City 2019b).

Impact Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides an expansive view of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. According to the City General Plan Master EIR, there are no designed scenic vistas within the City or directly beyond City limits (City 2019b). The proposed project would construct a total of five MAR basins and water conveyance structures connecting those basins #2..
- 57 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 15 with existing surface water sources. Three of the proposed MAR basins would be constructed within existing stormwater retention basins, and the other two basins would be constructed on fallowed agricultural lands. Therefore, the construction of the MAR basins and associated water conveyance would have no impact on scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No impact. The City is intersected by SR 99 along a north–south alignment and by SR 132 along an east– west alignment. There are no officially designated State scenic highways within the City (Caltrans 2023).

Therefore, there would be no impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. 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 would construct five MAR basins with associated water conveyance structures. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on City-owned fallowed agricultural land. Water conveyance structures would include construction of above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structure, and pump stations in order to transport water to the MAR basins. Canal turnouts, pump stations, and pipelines are common in the irrigated agricultural land that surrounds the City of Modesto. Staging of construction equipment would temporarily alter the visual character of the site and surrounding areas; however, the staging areas would mainly be located in previously disturbed or open areas, and equipment staging would be limited to the short-term construction period for each site.

According to the City General Plan, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Ustach Park MAR Basin, LCL P1 North Basin, and the LCL P2 South Basin are designated as VR, while the Well 65 MAR Basin site is designated as MU. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are zoned SP, the Well 65 MAR Basin is zoned R-1, and the LCL P1 North Basin and LCL P2 South Basin are zoned by Stanislaus County as A-2-10. The MAR basin sites would comply with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning requirements regarding scenic quality for each location. The proposed MAR basins would not constitute a change of land use or zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the site and surrounding areas. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not introduce new lighting or create a new source of glare for sensitive receptors. An evening security light would operate at the LCL P2 South pump station. The pump station would be located in the southeastern portion of LCL P2 South in a remote location away from residential dwellings (approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling with a mature orchard in between). The pump station would be located in proximity to an existing elementary school which already utilizes artificial lighting. The outdoor lighting would be of sufficient intensity to allow safe access by City personnel to conduct evening O&M activities and to deter potential vandalism and would be consistent with existing artificial lighting in the vicinity. The City has adopted #2..
- 58 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 16 Design Guidelines for Commercial & Industrial Development that include standards for the design of outdoor lighting fixtures (City 2019b). These standards limit the size of fixtures and require that fixtures focus their light to avoid spilling onto nearby properties. Adherence to these design guidelines would reduce the potential for light and glare impacts from construction and implementation of the proposed project. With adherence to the City’s existing design guidelines, impacts to daytime or nighttime views in the area as a result of artificial lighting for the proposed project would be less than significant.

II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non- forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
As in other parts of the Central Valley, the City is located in the center of rich agricultural lands. This means that urban expansion almost inevitably results in conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.

Most of the agricultural land in the City General Plan Area is found outside the City’s corporate limits. A wide variety of crops are grown, and predominant among them are fruits and nuts, with almonds representing a major share (City 2019a).

According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland Mapper, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are all mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2023a). The LCL P1 North MAR Basin is mapped as Prime Farmland and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin is mapped as Vacant or Disturbed Land (DOC 2023a). The five MAR basins are not under a Williamson Act contract.
#2..
- 59 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 17 Impact Analysis
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Less than significant impact. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land and therefore would not convert existing farmland to a non-agricultural use. Additionally, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are all designed under the Baseline Development Area of the City (City 2019a). According to Agricultural Element AL-12 in the City General Plan EIR, if a project is within the Baseline Developed Area, it is considered that the project would have minimal effect on the conversion of agricultural lands, and no mitigation for that impact would be required (City 2019b).

The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin are located outside of designated City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence. According to Land Use Element AL-4 in the City General Plan EIR, development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires discretionary approval shall be referred to that City for preliminary approval (City 2019b). As the two MAR basins are within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence, the City would have authority for preliminary approval. According to the DOC Important Farmland Mapper, the LCL P1 North MAR Basin is mapped as Prime Farmland and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin is mapped as Vacant or Disturbed Land (DOC 2023a). As the LCL P2 South MAR Basin is mapped as Vacant or Disturbed Land, the basin would not convert existing farmland to non-agricultural use.

The proposed project would construct the LCL P1 North MAR Basin on City-owned fallowed agricultural land that was formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The City does not intend to use the land for agricultural purposes. Irrigation activities were terminated in 2019. Construction would include grading on the site to obtain the desired depth of the MAR basin. The proposed MAR basin site was removed from irrigated agricultural use before the Project was envisioned, and the MAR basin is expected to operate for a minimum of 20 years (2025 through 2045) pursuant to the SWRCB Proposition 1 grant agreement. However, continued MAR basin operation beyond 20 years is anticipated to maintain the groundwater quality (i.e., reduction of nitrate, arsenic, and uranium impacts).

During proposed project construction and operation, the undeveloped portions of each parcel would be maintained following existing City standards. Maintenance activities may include weed abatement, debris removal, and/or vector control. Undeveloped portions of the LCL P1 North and LCL P1 South parcels would not be impacted as a result of the proposed project and would maintain their existing agricultural capability. Upon termination of the proposed MAR basin operational period, the basins would return to their pre-MAR basin status (non-irrigated, fallow agricultural land) with the potential use for a future park site and/or stormwater retention/detention basin. Construction of the proposed MAR Basin would not result in an irreversible change to the existing agricultural capability of surrounding lands. Impacts would be less than significant. #2..
- 60 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 18 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less than significant impact . The proposed MAR basins are not located under a Williamson Act contract. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are zoned SP, and the Well 65 MAR Basin is zoned R-1. As previously mentioned, the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin are located within the City General Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). However, the City zoning does not cover the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. According to Stanislaus County zoning map, the two basins are zoned A-2-10 (County 2023a). Pursuant to guidelines in the Stanislaus County Zoning Code, the district regulations exist to support and enhance agriculture as the predominant land use in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. Implementation of the proposed project would improve groundwater quality for the City and surrounding areas, ultimately benefiting proximate agricultural practices reliant upon groundwater for irrigation.

The County Zoning Code General Provisions specifies that facilities for public utilities, including water wells, are permitted in A-2 districts provided they are connected to the approval of a use permit (County 2016). Additionally, Stanislaus County generally designates unincorporated lands within a city’s Sphere of Influence as designated Agriculture (A-2) until officially annexed by a city or special district. As the property is owned by the City pending formal annexation, located within the City’s Sphere of Influence and thereby subject to preliminary approval from the City for CUP and other use permitting requirements, a CUP would likely not be required (County 2015a). With authority for development and urban growth dependent on City approval, implementation of the proposed project would support the City’s continued growth and service the existing population. Therefore, all the MAR basin sites would comply with the City’s and County’s zoning requirements. As the proposed MAR basins would be located on City-owned land and would be built on lands that are already serving a recharge function and/or were a recipient of MID surface water, a CUP would not be required. The proposed MAR basins would not require a change of land use or zoning and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use upon formal annexation of the LCL P1 and P2 properties. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
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))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are zoned SP, and the Well 65 MAR Basin is zoned R-1. According to Stanislaus County zoning map, the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin are zoned A-2-10 (County 2023a).

The project site is not located in an area zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production.

The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest or timberlands. Additionally, According to the City General Plan EIR, there is no forest land or timberland within the General Plan Boundary (City 2019b). No impact would occur for questions c) and d). #2..
- 61 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 19 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?
Less than significant impact. No forest lands occur in the proposed project area. The proposed project would convert approximately 19 acres of zoned agricultural lands within Stanislaus County into two MAR Basins. This conversion would serve to improve groundwater quality within the City of Modesto’s Sphere of Influence and proximate unincorporated areas, dependent on groundwater for agricultural and domestic use. During proposed project construction and operation, the undeveloped portions of each parcel would be maintained following existing City standards. Maintenance activities may include weed abatement, debris removal, and/or vector control. Undeveloped portions of the LCL P1 North and LCL P1 South parcels would not be impacted as a result of the proposed project and would maintain their existing agricultural capability. Upon termination of the proposed MAR basin operational period, the basins would return to their pre-MAR basin status (non-irrigated, fallow agricultural land) with the potential use for a future park site and/or stormwater retention/detention basin.

The zoned agricultural lands are located within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence and, as such, are zoned A-2 by Stanislaus County until developed with City approval. Neither of the two parcels zoned A-2 are actively cultivated or would become actively cultivated in the future. While the proposed project would require development within designated farmland, implementation of the proposed project would stimulate and otherwise promote continuation of agricultural cultivation proximate to the City through improvement of groundwater quality. Aside from the construction of two MAR basins within farmland and water conveyance structures connecting those basins to proximate surface water supply, the proposed project would involve no other changes that could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact.

III. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ #2..
- 62 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 20 An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis Report was prepared by HELIX on May 15, 2023 (HELIX 2023a). The letter is included as Appendix B.

Environmental Setting
The City of Modesto lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and State laws in the project area. As required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), SJVAPCD has published various air quality planning documents, as discussed below, to address requirements to bring the SJVAB into compliance with the federal and state ambient air quality standards. The Air Quality Attainment Plans are incorporated into the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is subsequently submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that administrates the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1990.

The air pollution potential of the San Joaquin Valley is very high. The San Joaquin Valley has one of the most severe air pollution problems in the State and the Country. Surrounding elevated terrain in conjunction with temperature inversions frequently restrict lateral and vertical dilution of pollutants.

Abundant sunshine and warm temperatures in late spring, summer, and early fall are ideal conditions for the formation of ozone, where San Joaquin Valley frequently experiences unhealthy air pollution days. Low wind speeds, combined with low inversion layers in the winter, create a climate conducive to high PM10 concentrations (City 2018).

Regulatory Setting
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined and regulated by State and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources, including carbon monoxide (CO); reactive organic gases (ROGs), also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs); nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur dioxide (SO2); coarse particulate matter (PM10); fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and lead. Of these primary pollutants, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are criteria pollutants. ROGs and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The principal secondary criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with State and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The USEPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for criteria pollutants. As permitted by the Clean Air Act (CAA), California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air pollutant constituents.

The CARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The project site is located within the SJVAB and, as such, is in an area designated as “nonattainment” for certain pollutants that are regulated under #2..
- 63 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 21 the CAA. Table 3 lists the federal and State attainment status of the SJVAB for the criteria pollutants. As shown in Table 3, the SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; no designation/classification for lead; and in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards (SJVAPCD 2012).

Table 3: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM 10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Unclassified Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2012
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

TACs can cause long-term chronic health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe, and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals.

Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-bypollutant basis.

The Health and Safety Code (§39655[a]) defines TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” All substances that are listed as hazardous air pollutants pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Sec. 7412[b]) are designated as TACs. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
#2..
- 64 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 22 Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is 2.5 microns or less in diameter (CARB 2023).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a notable effect on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of the total known cancer risk related to air toxins in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2023).

Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Children and infants are considered more susceptible to health effects of air pollution due to their immature immune systems, developing organs, and higher breathing rates. As such, schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities.

The closest existing residential sensitive receptors to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 120 feet east and 100 feet west of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the site and Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east and 125 feet south of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basin Sites are single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 650 feet northwest of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

The nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 25 feet east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

Methodology and Assumptions
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, and GHG emissions for the project construction activities and long-term operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), #2..
- 65 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 23 Version 2022.1.1.12. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs, including PM10, PM2.5, ROGs, NOX, and CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, C, and D (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below.

Construction Assumptions
Construction of the proposed MAR basins would be anticipated to begin during the fourth quarter 2024 and be completed in by the second quarter 2025. The construction schedule assumptions have been pushed out by 10 to 11 months since project modeling was completed. The revised construction schedule would result in slightly lower pollutant emissions than shown in the modeling results due to phased implementation of CARB and USEPA engine emissions standards, resulting in older construction equipment assumed in the modeling being replaced by newer, lower emissions equipment. Construction modeling assumes the longest anticipated schedule reported by the project applicant for the following MAR basins:

Merle Avenue MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.

Well 65 MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.

Ustach Park MAR Basin: demolition 3 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 3 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.

LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South: demolition 10 days; site preparation 10 days; grading 20 days; trenching (underground utilities) 25 days; and paving 10 days. Grading and trenching (underground utilities) would occur concurrently, and paving would begin directly after trenching (underground utilities) is complete.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin: An estimated 1,412-cubic yards (CY) of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 1,412-CY of vegetation to be exported to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) approximately 15 miles off -site. Additionally, approximately 109 truckloads (or 218 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately one truckload of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.

Well 65 MAR Basin: An estimated 101 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 101-CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 6.5 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately eight #2..
- 66 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 24 truckloads (or 16 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during preparation, and approximately two truckloads of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.

Ustach Park MAR Basin: An estimated 645-CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 645- CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately eight miles off-site. Additionally, approximately 50 truckloads (or 100 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately two trucks of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.

LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins: An estimated 3,429-CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 3,429-CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 8.5 miles off-site.

Additionally, approximately 264 truckloads (or 528 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately 82 trucks of demolition debris would be hauled offsite during demolition.

Construction of the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would require grading. During grading, approximately 43,000 CY of cut/fill is expected to be spread on-site and would not require any export of soil. In accordance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibition, Rule 8021, Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earth Moving Activities, fugitive dust control measures, including the use of an on‐site water truck to wet down active grading areas and roads at least twice daily, are incorporated into the project design (SJVAPCD 2004).

Construction of the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would include the installation of pipelines along City streets and would therefore require paving repair. ROG emissions from asphalt repair and repainting of traffic lines were calculated using CalEEMod defaults.

Operational Assumptions
Operational tasks associated with the MAR basins would include operating the turnouts, pump stations, and meters at the applicable site, providing maintenance checks as needed, and seasonal vegetation management. Maintenance activities and vegetation management would be performed by existing City staff and were assumed to be similar to existing activities and would not result in new criteria pollutant or GHG emissions. Water provided for the MAR basins would be sourced from existing MID laterals and is not anticipated to result in new water/wastewater source GHG emissions over existing conditions. The only new operational emissions would be indirect GHG energy source emissions (resulting from electricity use) for the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins, as these basins would require energy usage to operate new pump stations. The pump stations would be required to transport water from the MID laterals to the MAR basins. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Well 65 MAR Basin would not require construction of new pump stations and therefore, operational energy source emissions were not calculated. Operational emissions resulting from energy use were based on estimates from the project engineer. Operational energy emissions assume the estimated electrical consumption for the following proposed MAR Basins:

Ustach Park MAR Basin: The MAR basin would require 13,899 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year of electricity.

LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South: The MAR basins would require 52,120 kWh per year of electricity. #2..
- 67 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 25 Although the alternative Ustach Park MAR Basin water conveyance connection to the Cavil Drain was not analyzed, the impacts from this alternative would be less than what was analyzed with the proposed ROW roadway pipe burying and proposed pump station. The Cavil Drain connection would shorten the conveyance distance and would not require a pump station; therefore, not generating operational energy source emissions.

Standards of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SJVAPCD has established significant thresholds to assess the impacts of projectrelated air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SJVAB. Table 4 presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. A project with emission rates and risk values below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant impact on air quality.

As set forth in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants (CO, TACs) are cumulatively significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects would exceed air quality standards.

Table 4: SJVAPCD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (tons per year)
Pollutant Construction Operation
ROG 10 10
NOX 10 10
CO 100 100
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
SOX 27 27
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs1 Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SJVAPCD 2015b
1 TACs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic)
Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. The SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for a project’s criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for both temporary construction-related emissions and long-term operationalrelated emissions. According to the SJVAPCD, these significant thresholds have been established to assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant air quality impact. A project with emissions lower than the thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the #2..
- 68 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 26 district’s air quality plans for attainment of the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015a). As discussed below, the project would not exceed the temporary construction-related or long-term operational-related thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. In addition, control measures in the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, including the 2016 Ozone Plan and the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards are based in part on growth projections in local planning documents such as the County and City General Plans. The proposed project would not require a change of General Plan land use designation and the project would not result in population or employment growth in the County or City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans and no impacts would be anticipated. 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. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; no designation/classification for lead; and in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards. The proposed project’s emissions of these criteria pollutants and precursors during construction and operation are evaluated below.

Construction Emissions
CalEEMod was used to quantify project-generated construction emissions, as discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above. Construction of the proposed MAR basins would be anticipated to begin during the fourth quarter 2024 and be completed in by the second quarter 2025. The construction schedule assumptions have been pushed out by 10 to 11 months since project modeling was completed. The revised construction schedule would result in slightly lower pollutant emissions than shown in the modeling results due to phased implementation of CARB and USEPA engine emissions standards, resulting in older construction equipment assumed in the modeling being replaced by newer, lower emissions equipment. Therefore, the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis, included in Appendix B, does not require revision as a result of the updated construction schedule assumptions. The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time.

As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of: (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; and/or, (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

The proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are compared to the SJVAPCD construction thresholds in Table 5. Table 4 presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds. Impacts related to construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant. #2..
- 69 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 27 Table 5: CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS MAR Basin Sites ROG
(tons/year)
NOX
(tons/year)
PM10
(tons/year)
PM2.5
(tons/year)
Merle Avenue MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Well 65 MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Ustach Park MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 2024 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2024 Total <0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1
Merle Avenue MAR Basin 2025 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Well 65 MAR Basin 2025 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Ustach Park MAR Basin 2025 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 2025 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 2025 Total 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1
SJVAPCD Thresholds 10 10 15 15
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Operational Emissions
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above, the only new operational emissions would be energy source emissions from the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins as these basins would require electricity to operate new pump stations. Criteria pollutant emissions from electricity use are limited to off-site emissions generated at the power plant(s) and are not included in the proposed project’s emissions inventory.

The proposed project’s maximum daily construction or operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The closest sensitive receptor to each MAR basin site is: single-family residential homes located 100 feet west of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site; single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the Well 65 MAR Basin Site; single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site; single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site; and Alice Stroud Elementary School located 25 feet east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long-duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are #2..
- 70 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 28 based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Construction of the proposed MAR basins is anticipated to take between one month and three months. In addition, concentrations of mobile source DPM emissions disperse rapidly and are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). Considering the short duration of proposed project construction, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations in the City and on the MAR Basin sites, it is not anticipated that construction of the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. The proposed project could produce odors during construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and VOC released during application of asphalt. The odor of these emissions is objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the proposed project site and therefore should not be at a level that would affect a substantial number of people. Any odors emitted during construction activities would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon completion of construction. As a result, impacts associated with temporary odors during construction are not considered significant.

The SJVAPCD has developed screening distances for common sources of operational odors, including Wastewater Treatment Facility; Sanitary Landfill; Transfer Station; Composting Facility; Petroleum Refinery; Asphalt Batch Plant; Chemical Manufacturing; Fiberglass Manufacturing; Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops); Food Processing Facility; Feed Lot/Dairy; and Rendering Plant (SJVAPCD 2015a). As the proposed project would consist of MAR basins, which do not have developed screening distances implemented by the SJVAPCD, operation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and no impact would occur.

IV. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
#2..
- 71 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 29 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared by Trihydro Corporation on July 28, 2023 (Trihydro 2023). The BRA is included as Appendix C.

Environmental Setting
Merle Avenue MAR Basin
At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the basin. Active vegetation management in the form of surface mowing conducted regularly by the City is evident. A maintained gravel path borders the perimeter of the basin, permitting access to all sides. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland associated with the wild oats and annual brome (Avena spp., Bromus spp.) grasslands herbaceous semi natural alliance. There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs, with cattail marshes (Typha angustifolia) observed near the wetted areas in the center of the detention basin. Animals observed include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Canada geese (Branta canadensis), ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos).

Well 65 MAR Basin
At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the large swale. Active vegetation management in the form of surface mowing conducted regularly by the City is evident. A paved driveway that leads down into the middle of the basin provides access. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland (wild oats and annual brome grasslands).

There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous #2..
- 72 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 30 perennial and annual grasses and forbs with cattail marshes observed in the wetted areas of the basin.

Animals observed include Canada geese and songbirds. There is a public park adjacent to the stormwater retention basin which is maintained as a recreation land for the public.

Ustach Park MAR Basin
At the time of the survey, standing water was observed within the large swale. Active vegetation management in the form of surface mowing conducted regularly by the City is evident. A paved driveway that leads down into the middle of the basin provides access. The dominant plant community identified on site is that of a highly disturbed urban grassland (wild oats and annual brome grasslands).

There are no trees or shrubs within the maintained areas and the site is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs with cattail marshes observed near the wet areas of the basin.

Animals observed include turtles (unknown species), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), mallards, Canada geese, and white moths. There is a public park adjacent to the stormwater basin which is maintained as a recreation land for the public.

La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South
The northern parcel historically supported an orchard which has since been razed. The understory is characterized as a highly disturbed urban grassland and is composed of predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs (wild oats and annual brome grasslands). The southern parcel contains an overgrown agricultural field that is predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs (wild oats and annual brome grasslands) and fiddleneck fields (Amsinka menziesii, tessellata, Phacelia spp.) herbaceous alliance. Ground nesting birds were observed here with the most common species being killdeer. A buried concrete pipe supplies irrigation water from east to west through the P1 North and surface flows (i.e., flood irrigation) were historically controlled by multiple irrigation valve boxes spaced periodically along the pipeline, which have since been closed and remain inactive.

However, the concrete irrigation pipe remains active and maintained by the City to supply irrigation water down slope. The concrete pipe and valve boxes are not included as part of the project and will remain in their current state. Irrigation canal MID Lateral Two runs parallel to the P2 South parcel but does not support any water dependent species within the parcel itself.

Methodology and Assumptions
Database and Literature Review
Prior to conducting field surveys, Trihydro initiated a query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2023a) and the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2023a) website to identify reported and potential occurrences of sensitive resources within the project area and adjoining U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Avena, Escalon, Oakdale, Salida, Riverbank, Waterford, Brush Lake, Ceres, and Denair). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023) online was also reviewed to provide additional information on rare plants known to occur in the area.

A review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023a) was conducted to identify the existing soil types within the project area in order to determine areas with suitable habitat for special-status plant species. The online USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper was also reviewed to identify potential waters and wetlands mapped within the project area (USFWS 2023b).
#2..
- 73 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 31 Vegetation and habitat types recorded during the survey were classified based on the CNPS A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) and the CDFW List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (CDFW 2019).

Critical Habitat Review
Critical habitat as defined by under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) refers to a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species which may include an area that is not currently occupied by a species but that will be needed for its recovery. The USFWS critical habitat map tool was reviewed to determine if critical habitat is present in the Project area (USFWS 2023a).

Field Surveys
Following the literature review, Trihydro biologist Georgia Hamer conducted field surveys of the MAR basin study areas associated with the project activity areas on April 18 and 19, 2023. The study areas include the project footprint and associated access and staging for each of the four proposed MARs.

The surveys were focused on identifying the presence of special-status and sensitive plant species, identifying signs of habitat utilization by common, special-status, and sensitive wildlife species, documenting habitat elements that may support special-status wildlife and plant species, and identifying habitat types within the study areas. All wildlife species observed, including their signs (e.g., scat, tracks, feathers, burrows), were recorded in field notes. Plant species observed within the study areas were identified to the lowest taxon to determine special-status or sensitive classification and documented.

Observations or evidence of special-status and sensitive species within the study areas and within the buffer were documented in field notes and via photographs, and their location recorded.

Existing Conditions
Watershed and Drainages
The City of Modesto is located at the confluence of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek, and south of the Stanislaus River. The Tuolumne River drains an 1,800-square-mile watershed, and Dry Creek drains an area of about 190 square miles. Dry Creek flows east to west and then north to south to drain into the Tuolumne River. La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 are directly south of Dry Creek. Merle Avenue and Well 65 are located directly north of the MID Moulton Lateral Three, which is one of the main canals flowing east to west through the City. All the existing MAR stormwater retention basins within the study areas are manmade features and are regularly maintained by the City. Standing water and emergent vegetation was observed at Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Ustach Park MAR Basin, and Well 65 MAR Basin at the lowest portion of the basins near the inlet culverts. Sources of the water in the stormwater retention basins include roadway runoff, urban development runoff, and stormwater. No direct connectivity to the MID Moulton Lateral Three irrigation canal from Well 65 occurs. A small irrigation ditch runs with a buried concrete pipe supplies irrigation water from east to west through the La Coste Lane P1 North parcel and was used to irrigate the almond orchard which has since been razed. The pipeline is a manufactured feature that was historically maintained by multiple valve boxes spaced periodically along the pipeline, which have since been closed. However, the pipeline is still used to irrigate orchards down slope from the project. Access along the pipeline is maintained by the City and is not included as part of the project.
#2..
- 74 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 32 A review of the NWI did not identify any wetland or aquatic habitats within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Ustach Park MAR Basin, or La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South Basin project survey areas. Based on the 2023 revised definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA; the 2023 Rule), these basins and the La Coste Lane P1 North irrigation ditch are not directly tied with a navigable water and are not adjacent to another established or permanent federally jurisdictional wetland with continuous surface connection, and therefore would not be considered aquatic features subject to federal jurisdiction. The stormwater retention basins and the La Coste Lane P1 North concrete pipeline would not be considered waters of the state.

Soils
The following soils are located within the study area: Dinuba fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (DmA), Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (HdA), Hanford fine sandy loam deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (HbsA), Madera sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, (Mda), Meikle clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (MkA), Modesto clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (MmA), and Snelling sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, (SnA).

Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities within the study areas were classified per the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Addition (MCV2; Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant communities within the survey area consisted of highly disturbed urban grassland composed of predominantly herbaceous perennial and annual grasses and forbs associated wild oats and annual brome grasslands, cattail marshes, and fiddleneck fields alliances. Habitat types and acreages by MAR basin are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: HABITAT TYPES AND ACRES BY MAR BASIN
MAR Basin Habitat Type Acres
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Annual Grassland 8.45
Cattail Marshes 0.35
Total 8.80
Well 65 MAR Basin Annual Grassland 1.63
Cattail Marshes 0.20
Developed 0.15
Total 1.98
Ustach Park MAR Basin Annual Grassland 1.57
Cattail Marshes 1.11
Developed 0.40
Total 3.08
La Coste Lane P1 North MAR Basin Annual Grassland 12.42 Cattail Marshes 0.12
Total 12.58
La Coste P2 Lane South MAR Basin Annual Grassland 5.05
Fiddleneck 1.95
Total 7.00
#2..
- 75 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 33 Special-Status Species
Special-Status Plant Species
Based on a query of the CNDDB, CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, and USFWS IPac; a total of 8 special-status plant species have been documented in the project vicinity.

Trihydro Biologist evaluated the listed species to identify which special-status plant species have the potential to occur on the project site. This analysis compared the known habitat requirements of those eight species to the project site’s existing conditions, elevation, and soils. In addition, a botanical survey was conducted during the appropriate bloom period to determine if any of the special status-species occurred within the project areas.

The only documented occurrences of a special-status plant species in the CNDDB within a 5-mile radius of the survey areas is prairie wedge grass (Sphenopholis obtusata), which is found in cismontane woodlands, meadows, and deep seeps with a range of 985 feet to 6,560 feet. The project is located below the elevation range and therefore this species has no potential to occur.

The habitats for the remaining special-status plant species including legenere (Legenere limosa), heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var. cordulata), subtle orache (Atriplex subtilis), beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), and Greenes tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei) were also evaluated; however, based on the soil types, elevations and range, these species have no potential to occur within the study areas. Additionally, a botanical survey confirmed no special-status plant species occur within the project areas.

Special-Status Animal Species
Based on a CNDDB and IPaC query, 27 sensitive wildlife species have been documented in the project vicinity. Because this list of species is considered regional, an analysis of the range and habitat preferences of those wildlife species was conducted by the Trihydro Biologist to identify which sensitive wildlife species have the potential to occur within the study areas. Additionally, a wildlife survey was conducted to determine the presence of any special-status animal species and if the project areas provide suitable habitat. Trihydro’s Biologist determined that the following five special-status animal species have the potential to occur within, or directly adjacent to the survey area: Swainsons hawk (Buteo swainsoni), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata).

Based on the literature review and field surveys conducted in April 2023, the study areas may provide suitable habitat to support several special-status wildlife species Swainson’s Hawk
There are no known or recorded Swainson’s hawk nests within or near the project sites or in the City, with the nearest recorded nest approximately 15 miles north (CDFW 2023a). While there is a low potential and it is unlikely for Swainson’s hawk to nest near any of the basins, suitable nesting trees occur adjacent to La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR basin, where the nearest documented CNDDB occurrence is approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the study area adjacent to Dry Creek.

Additionally, these areas provide potential foraging habitat. Therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur. Trees surrounding the other basins are smaller, ornamental trees that are maintained by the City or adjacent residents and do not provide suitable nesting habitat. #2..
- 76 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 34 Burrowing Owl
Suitable open grassland habitat and California ground squirrel burrows occur occurs within the study area (all basins). The nearest CNDDB occurrence documented approximately 3 miles north of Merle Avenue MAR basin. Therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

Crotch Bumble Bee
Food plants (Eschscholzia) are present and a CNDDB occurrence has been documented in the study area; however, the occurrence was documented in 1968. No recent occurrences of the species have been documented; therefore, the species has a moderate potential to occur at Merle Avenue basin, La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins.

Northern California Legless Lizard
Suitable sandy soils with soil moisture required by the species occurs at Ustach Park MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Merle Avenue MAR Basin; however, vegetation is dense. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within 5 miles of the study area. Therefore, the species has a low potential to occur.

Western Pond Turtle
Although suitable basking sites occur at Ustach Park MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Merle Avenue MAR Basin, suitable aquatic habitats within the study area are marginal. No CNDDB occurrences have been documented within 5 miles of the study area. An unknown species, mostly likely a box turtle or Red-eared slider, of turtle was observed in Ustach Park; however, the Western Pond Turtle has a low potential to occur given the marginal site conditions and no documented CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles.

Habitat Connectivity
Ephemeral creeks and open grasslands can provide wildlife movement corridors and are important in linking noncontiguous or fragmented wildlife habitats. There are no known or identified migration corridors within the study areas. There are no creeks directly within the project area; however, several of the study areas are near Dry Creek.

Impact Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Raptors, Migratory Birds, and Nesting Birds
The proposed project site supports foraging habitat for special-status bird species, in addition to common nesting birds which are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. The proposed project site supports ground nesting and burrowing habitat. No tree nesting habitat is present within the project site; however, tree nesting habitat may be present nearby. These species may be affected by equipment, noise, dust, and increased human presence. If any migratory bird #2..
- 77 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 35 (common species, raptors, or other special-status birds) nests in areas where direct disturbance would occur, work during the breeding season (typically February 1 to August 31) could result in the destruction or abandonment of nests, eggs, or young. Active nests could be removed, trampled, or crushed by project activities and use of access roads during project activities; in addition, the noise, vibration, and movement of equipment and personnel proximate to active nests could cause adults to abandon eggs or young. Indirect impacts could also result from noise and disturbance associated with proposed project activities, which could alter perching, foraging, and/or nesting behaviors.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-7 would reduce the potential for adverse effects to nesting bird species during project activities. Therefore, impacts to raptors, migratory birds, and nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation.

Special-Status Species
The proposed project has the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to special-status species including the crotch bumble bee, northern California legless lizard, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, and Swainson’s Hawk. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 through BIO 10 would reduce the potential for adverse effects to special-status species during project activities. Therefore, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: WEAP Training
Prior to initiation of proposed project construction activities including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project shall attend Workers Environmental Awareness Training (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the proposed project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of disturbance and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with the project. All employees shall sign a form documenting that they have attended WEAP training and understand the information presented to them.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptor Nests To avoid take of nesting birds, and raptor nests at any time of year (including inactive nests), vegetation disturbance, site access, and initial ground disturbance shall occur outside the nesting season, which is typically February 1 to August 31, if possible, to avoid birds that may be nesting within areas of disturbance during or just prior to project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Movement or Disturbance of Nests, Eggs, or Young of Birds Nests, eggs, or young of birds covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code shall not be moved or disturbed until the end of the nesting season or until young fledge, whichever is later, nor shall adult birds be killed, injured, or harassed at any time.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Nesting Bird Pre-Disturbance Survey If proposed project activities must begin within the bird breeding season, then no more than two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal, a nesting bird pre-disturbance #2..
- 78 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 36 survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within the disturbance footprint plus a 100-foot buffer.

Pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys shall be conducted during the time of day when birds are active and shall be of sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors onsite and within the designated vicinity. If no nests are observed no further mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Burrowing Owl Survey
Prior to proposed project construction activities, a burrowing owl survey will be conducted in areas where suitable burrowing habitat may be present (i.e., grassland habitat) during breeding season (March through August). At least two surveys should be conducted within two weeks of ground disturbance and should be conducted two hours before sunset to one hour after sunset, or one hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise. If proposed project activities occur overwinter or during the non-breeding season (typically December through January), then surveys should be conducted when the owls are likely to be present, typically near dusk or dawn, but not when temperature are cold or freezing, high winds, dense fog, or rain. If the presence of burrowing owls is confirmed, the following avoidance measures shall be implemented:
• Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting season (typically March through August) unless a qualified biologist verifies, through noninvasive methods, that either (1) the burrow is not being used for breeding; (2) a previously active nest has failed and the burrow is no longer active; or (3) all juveniles from the occupied burrow are foraging independently and capable of independent survival and the burrow is no longer an active nest burrow. Owls present after February 1 shall be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise.

Nest protection buffers described below shall remain in effect until August 31 or until the nest has failed or all juvenile owls are foraging independently, based on monitoring evidence as determined by a qualified biologist.
• Site-specific, no-disturbance buffer zones shall be established and maintained between proposed project activities and occupied burrows, using the distances recommended by CDFW. • Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season. If proposed project activities have the potential to impact active burrowing owl burrows, then a passive relocation or exclusion plan will be developed in coordination with and approved by CDFW. Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50-meters from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls.

Relocation of owls should only be implemented during the non-breeding season.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Survey Prior to proposed project construction activities during the nesting season at the La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR Basin sites, a Swainson’s Hawk nesting survey will be conducted in the immediate project area to determine presence. Surveys should be conducted in accordance with the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson's Hawk Nesting Surveys in California's Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2002). Surveys should be completed for two survey periods prior to the project’s initiation per the following survey dates and timing: Period I: January to March 20 (optional), all day, 1 survey; Period II: March 20 to April 5, sunrise to 1000 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period III: April 5 to April 20, sunrise 1200 and 1630 to sunset, 3 surveys; Period IV: surveys not recommended; Period V: June 10 to July 30, sunrise to 1200 and 1600 to sunset, 3 surveys. If a nest is #2..
- 79 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 37 identified within a half-mile of project activities, a monitoring plan detailing avoidance measures shall be prepared in coordination with CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Avoidance of Work within Active Bird Nests or Raptor Nests Work activities shall be avoided within 100 feet of active bird nests and 250 feet of active raptor nests until young birds have fledged and left the nest. Readily visible exclusion zones shall be established in areas where nests must be avoided. No ground disturbance shall occur within this exclusion area until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed, and all the young have fledged.

If exclusion zones are determined to be infeasible, a full-time qualified biological monitor must be onsite to monitor project activities within the buffer zones to ensure active nests and nesting birds are not impacted.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Special-Status Bumble Bee Pre-Disturbance Survey A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status bumble bees including crotch bumble bee shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to confirm no special-status bumble bees are present in the work area if construction activities are proposed within the colony active period, typically between April and August.

At least two on-site surveys shall take place prior to the MAR basin construction. Surveys would not be required during the 20-year project operational period. Ideally, each survey shall be spaced 2-4 weeks apart during the Colony Active Period to ensure that they cover a range of dates and account for variability in resource use by the candidate species and floral resource phenology within the site.

Separate surveys shall not be conducted on sequential days or in the same week as the species may not be using the site during those days. Surveys shall occur during the day (at least an hour after sunrise and at least two hours before sunset, though ideally between 0900 and 1300) on warm, but not hot, sunny days (65-90 degrees F), with low wind (less than 8 mph). A pre-disturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City, and CDFW, if a special-status bumble bee species is detected.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Special-Status Amphibians Pre-Disturbance Survey A pre-disturbance survey of the proposed project area for special-status amphibians including northern California legless lizard and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start of project activities to confirm no special-status amphibians are present in the work area. A pre-disturbance memo documenting observations shall be prepared and made available to the City.

Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Flagging and Avoidance of Special-Status Species If a special-status species is observed in the proposed project area, then those areas shall be flagged and avoided and CDFW shall be notified. Other avoidance measures may be determined or applied per specific species as identified in the WEAP training and/or a in coordination with CDFW. Observations of special-status species should be documented on California Natural Diversity Database forms and submitted to the CDFW upon completion of proposed project construction. #2..
- 80 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 38 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. CDFW evaluates the sensitivity of natural communities by using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology, the same system used to assign global and state rarity ranks for plant and animal species in the CNDDB. For rarity, the ranking involves the knowledge of range and distribution of a given type of vegetation, and the proportion of occurrences that are of good ecological integrity. Threat scope (typically assessed within a 20-year timeframe for vegetation) and severity are used to calculate an overall threat score, which is added to the overall rarity score for a single rank of 1 through 5. Evaluation is done at both the Global (full natural range within and outside of California) and State (within California) levels resulting in a single G (global) and S (state) rank ranging from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents.

Based on the sensitivity evaluation, the survey areas do not include any sensitive communities or USFWS designated critical habitat. Cattail marshes have G5-S5 rarity ranking and are not considered a sensitive natural community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. A review of the NWI did not identify any wetland or aquatic habitats within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Ustach Park MAR Basin, or La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR Basin project survey areas. Based on the 2023 revised definition of Waters of the United States under the CWA (the 2023 Rule), these basins and the La Coste Lane P1 North irrigation ditch are not directly tied with a navigable water and are not adjacent to another established or permanent federally jurisdictional wetland with continuous surface connection, and therefore would not be considered aquatic features subject to federal jurisdiction.

Additionally, the SWRCB State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material of Waters of the State states that wetlands are not waters of the sate if they are used for the detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program.

Based on the SWRCB definition, the stormwater retention basins and the La Coste Lane P1 North concrete pipe would not be considered waters of the State. Therefore, no impacts to State or federally protected wetlands would occur.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact. The proposed project would not require construction or installation near or within any streams that would impede migratory fish. Minor disturbance to grassland habitat may occur as a result of the proposed project; however, no effects on wildlife movement are expected to occur during construction or O&M activities because suitable corridors around the site would remain intact.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
#2..
- 81 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 39 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact. The City of Modesto General Plan Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation Element (Chapter VII) does not include a tree preservation policy (City 2019a). There are no trees located within the project sites of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, Ustach Park MAR Basin, and La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins. Suitable nesting trees occur adjacent to La Coste Lane P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins. Trees surrounding the other basins are smaller, ornamental trees that are maintained by the City or adjacent residents and do not provide suitable nesting habitat. As such, no trees on or adjacent to the MAR basins are proposed for removal.

Therefore, there would be no conflict with local tree policy or ordinance, and there would be no impact to biological resources as a result of the proposed project. 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? No impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the proposed project area. Therefore, no impacts would be anticipated.

V. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Cultural Resources Assessment (CRA) was prepared by HELIX on May 12, 2023 (HELIX 2023b). The CRA is included as Appendix D.

Area of Potential Effects
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project is defined as the geographic area where proposed project activities may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties of prehistoric or historic age, if any such properties exist. The approximately 28.25 acres of combined APE for this project includes the area of permanent impacts associated with the proposed project.

Archival Records Search
On March 23, 2023, an archival records search in support of the proposed project was conducted by the Central Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), #2..
- 82 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 40 located at California State University, Stanislaus. The records search addressed all portions of the APE plus a 0.25-mile radius around the APE (hereafter referred to as the study area). Sources of information examined through this records search included previous survey and cultural resources files; the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility; the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File; historical topographic maps; and historical aerial photographs.

Previous Studies
The CCIC records search identified six studies that have previously been conducted within 0.25 mile of the APE, but none of these studies included the current APE as part of their survey area. These studies are described briefly in Table 7.

Table 7: PREVIOUS STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF THE APE Report Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Includes
APE?
ST-00933 1980 Rondeau, M. F. A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed Oakdale-Sylvan Road Widening
Project, Stanislaus County, California
Caltrans
District 10
No
ST-01644 1980 JHK and
Associates
Historic Property Survey Report, Oakdale
Road and Sylvan Avenue Modesto
JHK and
Associates, for
Caltrans
District 10
No
ST-05072 2001 Homsey, J. Letter Report Regarding the Proposed Cricket Communications Wireless Facility
Referred to as Orchard School, Stanislaus
County, California (MOD-011-B, Merle
Avenue, APN 077-07-21)
ATC
Associates,
Inc.

No
ST-05783 2005 Billat, L. New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, FCC Form 620, Project Name: Beyer,
Number: CA-3237B, 2300 E. Briggsmore
Avenue, Modesto, Stanislaus County,
California
EarthTouch
Inc.

No
ST-05864 2005 Losee, C. Collocation Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, Cota Colima, FS-034-02, 1608
Wisdom Way, Modesto, Stanislaus
County
Archaeological
Resource
Technology
No
ST-08139 2014 Wills, Carrie D.
and Cher L.

Peterson
Cultural Resources Records Search and
Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless
Candidate West Basin, Hillglen Avenue at
Ustach Park, Modesto, Stanislaus County,
California
Michael
Brandman
Associates,
Inc. for EBI
Consulting
No
Previously Documents Resources
The CCIC records search identified one previously recorded cultural resource within a 0.25-mile radius of the APE, but no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the APE itself. The previously recorded cultural resource within a 0.25-mile radius of the APE is described in Table 8. #2..
- 83 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 41 Table 8: PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCE WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF THE APE Primary Trinomial Year Recorder Description In APE?
P-50-
002006
CA-STA000424H2014 Vallaire, Katie,
and Amanda
Rose of LSA
Associates, Inc.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (1996
to present); Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad, including railroad
line, ancillary buildings, and bridge
No
Resource P-50-002006, also known as the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad line, and associated ancillary buildings and bridge system, is located nearly 0.25 mile east of the La Coste Lane P1 North MAR Basin. When last recorded in 2014, this resource was found ineligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation through survey evaluation. Regardless, the activities associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to impact this resource.

Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Historic maps and historic aerial photographs were examined to provide an understanding of the APE’s historic period land use. Historic topographic maps analyzed included a General Land Office (GLO) Plat Map for Township 3 South Ranges 9 and 10 East from 1854, a Stanislaus County Map from 1906, and USGS Quadrangle Maps for Riverbank from 1953 and 1969. The 19th century GLO maps and 1906 Stanislaus County Map did not show any signs of development within the APE. The USGS Quadrangle Maps from 1953 and 1969 show the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites in use as orchards. These maps also depict a few small individual structures in the vicinity of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, which were likely ancillary structures associated with agricultural efforts in these areas. A few small structures were also seen in the vicinity of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site within the 1953 and 1969 quadrangle maps.

Historic aerial photographs from 1957, 1967, 1984, 1985, 1998, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 were examined for the five different areas within the proposed project’s broader APE. The results of the analyses of these photographs are described separately for each of the five proposed basin improvement locations in Appendix D.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search On March 23, 2023, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the APE. On March 30, 2023, HELIX received a response from the NAHC that indicated the SLF search returned negative results but that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources within the project vicinity. As a result, the letter recommended that HELIX reach out to 13 Native American tribal representatives who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project vicinity. The recommended points of contact with Native American Tribes included:
• Gloria Grimes, Chairperson, Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians • Debra Grimes, Cultural Resources Specialist, Calaveras Band of Mi-Wuk Indians • A representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe • A representative of the California Valley Miwok Tribe/Sheep Rancheria of Me-Wuk • Timothy Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe
#2..
- 84 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 42 • Katherine Perez, Chairperson, North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Sandra Chapman, Chairperson, Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation • Joey Garfield, Tribal Archaeologist, Tule River Indian Tribe • Neil Peyron, Chairperson, Tule River Indian Tribe
• Kerri Vera, Environmental Department, Tule River Indian Tribe • Steven Hutchason, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Wilton Rancheria • Jesus Tarango, Chairperson, Wilton Rancheria
• Dahlton Brown, Director of Administration, Wilton Rancheria • Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band On May 2, 2023, HELIX sent a letter to each of the tribal representatives listed above to request any information they may possess regarding cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. As of the submission of this report, HELIX has received only one response, an email from Venesa Kremer of the Wilton Rancheria Cultural Preservation Department, dated May 12, 2023. In her email, Vanesa suggested that the Wilton Rancheria does not have any site records to share, or concerns to share regarding the proposed project moving forward. However, she suggested that the proposed project implement mitigation measures for inadvertent discoveries that might be made during construction.

Fieldwork
Intensive Pedestrian Survey
On April 7 and 14, 2023, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Jentin Joe surveyed the proposed project’s APE where construction activities would be anticipated to occur. The surveyor used transects spaced 15-meters apart to conduct a systematic investigation of the APE. During the survey, the ground surface of the APE was examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, fire-affected rock, prehistoric ceramics), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a prehistoric cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations, wells) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). As the APE consists of five potential basin areas, the five areas are discussed separately below.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site area was surveyed on April 14, 2023. It was found to consist of a fenced in area with a graveled interior perimeter and steep slopes coming down off this graveled walkway that slopes downward towards the basin. The slopes and interior of the basin are covered in short grasses, which afforded HELIX’s surveyor between 20 to 40 percent ground surface visibility. Small standing pools were also observed in the center of the basin. The proposed staging area southwest of this basin was also examined. It was found to consist of a flat, vacant lot which has likely been graded in the past and is now covered with gravel. The proposed water conveyance route, which emanates from the southeastern corner of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, runs south for approximately 50 meters, and then runs east along the MID Moulton Lateral Three for approximately 169 meters, was also examined. These areas consisted of a cleared, graded, and graveled area on the northern border of the MID Moulton Lateral Three. No cultural resources were encountered in association with the survey of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site area, and the areas associated with the proposed project. #2..
- 85 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 43 Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 MAR Basin Site area was surveyed on April 14, 2023. The basin area was fenced in and has sloped edges on the interior of the fence line leading down to the basin. Most of the basin was covered in short grasses except for a graveled perimeter, paved driveway located in the southeastern corner of the basin, and center and bottom of the basin which consists of exposed dirt, weeds, and a pool of standing water. Roughly 30 to 60 percent of the ground surface was visible during the pedestrian survey.

Within the center of the basin is another small concrete framed culvert located toward the southwest and a concrete slab style drainage feature located towards the northern end. No cultural resources were encountered within the basin area. The associated laydown area located to the northwest of the basin was also examined and consisted of a cleared, graded, and graveled over area with a fenced in cell tower and water storage silo/pumpstation located to the adjacent southwest. The planned route of water conveyance from the southeastern corner of the Well 65 Mar Basin Site to the MID Moulton Lateral Three was also examined and found to consist of a small area of concrete (associated with the basin driveway) and a small stretch of the cleared, graded, and graveled area on the northern border of the MID Moulton Lateral Three. No cultural resources were found in association with this route.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
HELIX surveyors examined the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, which was found to consist of a fenced area with a fairly steep slope on all sides leading down to the basin itself. The basin and its sloped perimeter were found to be almost entirely covered in short grasses, affording roughly 30-60 percent visibility of the ground surface. The center of the basin contained weeds, many of which were dead, and small pools of standing water. A concrete driveway was also found emanating into the floor of the basin from the southeast of the basin. A concrete framed culvert is located in the northeast corner of the basin and likely used for water flow management associated with the basin. The Ustach Park Basin Laydown Yard, located to the adjacent southeast of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site was also examined and found to be an entirely paved over and fenced in area with no traces of cultural resources.

The proposed water conveyance route, which emanates from the northeastern corner of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, cuts through Ustach Park to the north, turns east along Hillglen Ave, then left (north) up Roselle Ave and terminates at the corner of Roselle Ave and Sylvan Ave, was also examined, as well as the proposed pump house location at the northeastern corner of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. No cultural resources were found along the route within Ustach Park, and the remainder of the conveyance route was found to lie within already paved roads, sidewalks, and/or developed rights of way. The pumphouse location was found to lie within a grassy field covered in knee high grasses offering 0 to 20 percent surface visibility. Within the location designated for the pump house, HELIX’s surveyor encountered a concrete slab with a metal pole. These elements appeared to be modern in design and may be associated with current water management in the area.

La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site
The proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site was also examined on April 14, 2023. The field’s landform is largely flat with berms bounding the southwest and southeast sides. At the time of survey, it was found to be covered in knee high (and in some places taller) grasses, affording HELIX’s surveyor limited visibility (0-20 percent). Despite these conditions, HELIX’s survey encountered a series of four drainage or irrigation maintenance features (a.k.a. irrigation valve boxes) cutting across the proposed basin area from west to east. This series of drainage/irrigation features is recorded as the “La #2..
- 86 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 44 Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site on the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms.

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1: Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 consists of an “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. From north to south, the cement walls measure 63 inches long, while the whole structure reaches 115 inches (9.58 feet) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum extends approximately 2 feet above the ground surface, although it is clear that they extend further beneath the surface. The two metal valves lie within the spaces of the “S” shaped walls. The metal adjustable valves are of identical design with 24-inch diameter bases and reach a height of 32 inches (2.66 feet).

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2: Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2 lies 134 feet to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1 and consists of an irregular series, almost a zig zag, of cement laid walls similar in height and construction materials to those found within Feature 1. Similar to Feature 1, Feature 2 also had two adjustable metal valves/water control elements of similar design and dimensions. Overall, the outer (more northern) wall associated with Feature 2 measured 3.42 feet (41 inches) from northwest to southeast, before cutting back due north for 6.42 feet (77 inches) then runs due east for 2.58 feet (31 inches), before cutting to the southeast for approximately 4 feet (48 inches). The inner (more southern) wall measures approximately 2.75 feet (33 inches) running from the southwest to the northeast, before cutting back to the southeast for another 2.75 feet (33 inches).

As was the case with Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, it is clear that the walls associated with this feature extend beneath the ground surface. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1961” which is presumably the structure’s construction date.

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3: Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3 lies 150 feet to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 2. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3 consists of another “S” shaped series of cement laid walls, running west to east, with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. From north to south, the cement walls measure approximately

5.67 feet (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 feet (109 inches) from west to east.

The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2 feet to 5 feet, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. Like Drainage/Irrigation Feature 1, Feature 3 also contains two metal adjustable valves, lying within the spaces of the “S” shaped walls. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is virtually identical to those found within Features 1 and 2), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top. Approximately 10 feet south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble. While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the feature. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1954” which is presumably the structure’s construction date.

Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4: Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4 lies 190 feet to the east of the eastern extent of Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3. Drainage/Irrigation Feature 4 consists of a reverse “S” shaped series of cement laid walls running west to east with two adjustable metal valves/water control elements. Similar to Drainage/Irrigation Feature 3, from north to south, the cement walls of Feature 4 measure approximately 5.67 feet (68 inches) long, while the whole structure reaches 9.08 feet (109 inches) from west to east. The height of these walls at their maximum above the ground surface ranges from 2 feet to 5 feet, and it is clear that they extend beneath the ground surface. The more western of the two valves is of a slightly different design than the more eastern of the two (which is #2..
- 87 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 45 virtually identical to those found within Features 1, 2, and 3), with the iron cross bar lying closer to the ground, and a shorter handle at the top. Approximately 10 feet south of Feature 3 lies a horizontally oriented pile of disarticulated cement rubble. While there is no direct evidence that this rubble is associated with the feature, some form of the relationship cannot be ruled out, as little more is known about the history of the feature. The top of the northwestern most wall of this feature contains an etched inscription of “1947” which is presumably the structure’s construction date.

In addition to the four drainage/irrigation features found within the central eastern portion of La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin, two additional drainage/irrigation features (irrigation valve boxes) were noted along the southern fence line of the northwestern most portion of La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, just adjacent north to the water treatment facility. These two features were found approximately 215 feet apart with their openings facing to the north. These features were somewhat similar in design to those associated with the Drainage/Irrigation Site in La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, though they were U-shaped in design and possess only one metallic irrigation valve each. These additional features were not found to possess any etchings that might suggest their date of construction, and the smooth cement contours and fully intact nature of these resources also suggest that they might be considerably more recent constructions than those recorded as part of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site. There does, however, remain the potential that these additional drainage features are associated with those recorded as part of the site.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site
The proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site was examined on April 14, 2023. At the time of survey, the field was found to be a flat parcel and overgrown with tall grasses and knee-high shrubs affording the surveyor relatively poor ground surface visibility (10-30 percent). No traces of cultural resources were encountered during the survey of this area. The proposed water conveyance route, intended to emanate from the southwestern corner of the proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, before running along the eastern side of the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, and connecting with a proposed water conveyance line which would emanate from the southeastern corner of the La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site, before following a route south to MID Lateral Two, just south of Garst Rd, was also examined, as was the proposed pump house area just to the north of the MID Lateral Two. The proposed pump house area is located just adjacent north of the MID Lateral Two in an area that has been cleared, graded, and graveled over. No cultural resources were found within any of the areas associated with the proposed La Coste Lane Parcel 2 MAR Basin Site area.

Impact Analysis
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. HELIX’s CCIC records search revealed that six cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within 0.25 mile of the APE, and that none of these studies overlapped with portions of the current APE. This record search also demonstrated that one previously recorded resource has been documented within 0.25 mile of the APE, P-50-002006 (CA-STA000424H) the Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railroad. This resource has been recommended as ineligible for listing in NRHP and CRHR and is not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project. #2..
- 88 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 46 On March 23, 2023, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their SLF for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project area. On March 30, 2023, HELIX received a response from the NAHC that indicated the SLF search returned negative results but that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources within the project vicinity. As a result, the letter recommended that HELIX reach out to 13 Native American tribal representatives who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the proposed project vicinity.

On May 2, 2023, HELIX sent a letter to each of the tribal representatives listed above to request any information they may possess regarding cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. As of the submission of this report, HELIX has received only one response, an email from Venesa Kremer of the Wilton Rancheria Cultural Preservation Department, dated May 12, 2023. In her email, Vanesa suggested that the Wilton Rancheria does not have any site records to share, or concerns to share regarding the project moving forward. However, she suggested that the proposed project implement mitigation measures for inadvertent discoveries that might be made during construction. Such measures coincide with the inadvertent discoveries plan recommended by HELIX. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources to a less than significant level.

On April 7, and 14, 2023, HELIX Staff Archaeologist Jentin Joe surveyed the project’s APE where construction activities are anticipated to occur. Using 15-meter transects, the ground surface of all five proposed basin areas (Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site) as well as the proposed locations for pump houses, water conveyances, and construction laydown areas for the five proposed basin improvement areas were thoroughly inspected.

No signs of cultural resources were encountered within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site and their construction laydown areas. However, within the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, HELIX’s surveyor encountered a series of four drainage or irrigation maintenance features cutting across the proposed basin area from west to east. This series of drainage/irrigation features was recorded as the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site on the appropriate DPR forms. A series of numbers etched into the cement walls on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th drainage/irrigation features (1961, 1954, and 1947, respectively) may well be construction dates for the features, suggesting that these drainage/irrigation features were built during the mid-20th century. From HELIX’s pedestrian investigation of these features, it was also clear that the features extended for some distance beneath the ground surface. A pile of cement rubble potentially associated with the drainage/irrigation features was also noted in the vicinity of Feature 3. In addition to these findings, two smaller and seemingly undated drainage/irrigation features were also located along the southern boundary of the northwestern extent of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site. Due to the presence of previously unrecorded resources within the La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features which likely date to the early to mid-20th century, and since these features clearly possess intact subsurface components and show signs of potentially consisting of additional, unrecorded components, HELIX recommends that the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site as culturally sensitive and advises against the demolition of these features until they are formally evaluated for eligibility for listing in the NRHP and CRHR by a qualified architectural historian, and recommended as ineligible for listing in either of the two registries. This recommendation is outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
#2..
- 89 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 47 In addition to the formal evaluation of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage Irrigation Features” site, HELIX also recommends that a Worker Awareness Training Program be conducted. This recommendation is outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-3.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 through CUL-3, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Accidental Discoveries of Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery. Cultural resources could consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts, or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resources cannot be avoided during the remainder of construction, the retained archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards, shall assess the resource, and provide appropriate management recommendations. If the discovery proves to be CRHR- or NRHP-eligible, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and shall be discussed in consultation with the Lead Agency.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Avoidance of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” Demolition, alteration of, or modifications to the potential resource shall be avoided, and project designs shall document that the potential resource is not impacted by the proposed project activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Worker Awareness Training Program All construction personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities shall be trained in the recognition of possible cultural resources and the protection of such resources. The training will inform all construction personnel of the procedures to be followed upon the discovery of archaeological materials, including Native American burials. Construction personnel will be instructed that cultural resources must be avoided and that all travel and construction activity must be confined to designated roads and areas.

The training will include a review of the local, state, and federal laws and regulations related to cultural resources, as well as instructions on the procedures to be implemented should unanticipated resources be encountered during construction, including stopping work in the vicinity of the find and contacting the appropriate environmental compliance specialist.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation. Although considered highly unlikely, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown human remains. In addition to the formal evaluation of the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage Irrigation Features” site, HELIX also recommends that Accidental Discovery of Human Remains be implemented for any proposed ground disturbing activities that would take place within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site. This recommendation is outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-4. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4, potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant. #2..
- 90 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 48 Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, PRC Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the specific location, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or their authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendent or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission;
• The descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

VI. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
#2..
- 91 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 49 Environmental Setting
California’s electricity needs are satisfied by a variety of entities, including investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers and community choice aggregators. In 2020, the California power mix totaled 272,576 gigawatt hours (GWh). In-State generation accounted for 51 percent of the State’s power mix. The remaining electricity came from out-of-State imports (CEC 2021a).

Table 9 provides a summary of California’s electricity sources as of 2020.

Table 9: CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY SOURCES 2020
Fuel Type Percent of
California Power
Coal 2.74
Large Hydro 12.21
Natural Gas 37.06
Nuclear 9.33
Oil 0.01
Other (Petroleum Coke/Waste Heat) 0.19
Renewables (Excluding Large Hydro) 33.09
Unspecified 5.36
Source: CEC 2021a
Natural gas provides the largest portion of the total in-State capacity and electricity generation in California, with nearly 45 percent of the natural gas burned in California used for electricity generation in a typical year. Much of the remainder is consumed in the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors for uses such as cooking, space heating, and as an alternative transportation fuel. In 2012, total natural gas demand in California for industrial, residential, commercial, and electric power generation was 2,313 billion cubic feet per year (bcf/year), up from 2,196 bcf/year in 2010 (CEC 2021b).

Transportation accounts for a major portion of California’s energy budget. Automobiles and trucks consume gasoline and diesel fuel, which are nonrenewable energy products derived from crude oil.

Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California, with 97 percent of all gasoline being consumed by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUV). In 2015, 15.1 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California (CEC 2021c). Diesel fuel is the second most consumed fuel in California, used by heavy-duty trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats, and farm and construction equipment. In 2015, 4.2-billion gallons of diesel were sold in California (CEC 2021d).

Energy, in the form of electricity and natural gas, is used in the City for lighting, heating, cooling, and various industrial applications. Electricity is generated through renewable sources (hydroelectricity and solar power) and also from burning natural gas (methane) and diesel fuel. Petroleum (gasoline and diesel) is utilized as a fuel for motor vehicles (City 2019b). The MID provides electricity to the proposed project area and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides gas to the project area. #2..
- 92 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 50 Impact Analysis
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? No impact. The proposed project includes construction and operation of five MAR basins. Energy consumed for proposed project construction would primarily consist of fuels in the form of diesel and gasoline. Fuel consumption would result from: the use of on-road and off-highway trucks for the transportation of construction materials and water; construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the proposed project site; and from the use of off-road construction equipment. While construction activities would consume petroleum-based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction.

Operational tasks associated with the MAR basins would include operating the turnouts, pump stations, and meters at the applicable site, and providing maintenance checks as needed. The only new operational emissions would be indirect GHG energy source emissions (resulting from electricity use) for the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins, as these basins would require energy usage to operate new pump stations. The pump stations would be required to transport water from the MID laterals to the MAR basins. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Well 65 MAR Basin would not require construction of new pump stations and therefore, operational energy source emissions were not calculated. Operational emissions resulting from energy use were based on estimates from the project engineer. Operational energy emissions assume the estimated electrical consumption for the following proposed MAR Basins:
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: The MAR basin would require 13,899 kWh per year of electricity; and, • LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South: The MAR basins would require 52,120 kWh per year of electricity.

Although the alternative Ustach Park MAR Basin water conveyance connection to the Cavil Drain was not analyzed, the impacts from this alternative would be less than what was analyzed with the proposed pump station located in northeastern corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue.

The Cavil Drain connection would shorten the conveyance distance and would not require a pump station; therefore, not generating operational energy source emissions.

As discussed in Section 9.VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the operational GHG energy emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD industrial operational GHG threshold. Therefore, the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project operation. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of proposed project construction and O&M.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No impact. See the discussion under question a) above. The proposed project would not result in a substantial new demand for energy resources nor conflict with or obstruct any State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no impact would occur. #2..
- 93 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 51 VII. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Setting
Tesla-Ortigalita Fault is the only active fault reported in Stanislaus County and is located approximately 20 miles west of the City. Other faults in the area include Greenville Fault, located approximately 35 miles northwest of the City; Calaveras and Concord Faults, located approximately 50 miles west of the City; Hayward Fault, located approximately 60 miles west of the City; and San Andreas Fault, located approximately 75 miles west of the City (City 2019b).

The City has not been evaluated by the State under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act; however, liquefaction is more likely to occur in sandy soils saturated with groundwater. Soils within the five MAR basins are outlined in Table 10.
#2..
- 94 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 52 Table 10: SOILS WITHIN THE MAR BASINS
Name of MAR Basin NRCS Soil Types
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Dinuba fine sandy loam, MLRA 17, 0 to 1 percent slopes (DmA) Hanford fine sandy loam, deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes (HbsA) Well 65 MAR Basin Hanford sandy loam, deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes (HdsA) Ustach Park MAR Basin Madera sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (MdA) Meikle clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes (MkA)
Modesto clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (MmA)
Snelling sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (SnA)
LCL P1 North MAR Basin Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (HdA) Terrace escarpments (Tx)
LCL P2 South MAR Basin Hanford fine sandy loam, moderately deep over silt, 0 to 1 percent slopes (HbpA)
Hanford sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (HdA)
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2023 The City is primarily situated on alluvial fan deposits of Pleistocene age, but limited areas in the southeastern portion of the City are within the active floodplains of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek and are underlain by younger (Holocene) alluvium. About 14 miles west of the City, the central portion of the Coast Ranges uplift is predominantly formed by exposed Franciscan Complex rocks of Jurassic through early Tertiary age. The range front to the west consists of a narrow belt of marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks of post-Franciscan Tertiary age (City 2019b).

Impact Analysis
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
No impact. Tesla-Ortigalita Fault is the only active fault reported in Stanislaus County and is located approximately 2 miles west of the City. Other faults in the area include Greenville Fault, located approximately 35 miles northwest of the City; Calaveras and Concord Faults, located approximately 50 miles west of the City; Hayward Fault, located approximately 60 miles west of the City; and San Andreas Fault, located approximately 75 miles west of the City (City 2019b).

According to the DOC Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp) Map, there are no known active faults crossing the MAR basin sites, and the MAR basin sites are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2023b). Therefore, ground rupture as a result of proposed project activities would be unlikely to occur, and no impacts would be anticipated. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No impact. There is always potential in California for seismic ground shaking; however, the proposed project would not construct new buildings, residences, or other aboveground structures that have the #2..
- 95 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 53 potential to be inhabitable or hazardous to humans or other structures in a ground-shaking event. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins with associated water conveyance structures. Water conveyance would include construction of above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structure and pump stations in order to transport water to the MAR basins. Pipelines and MAR Basins would be constructed following guidance from a geotechnical engineer and state construction requirements to reduce potential hazards resulting from strong seismic ground shaking throughout the life of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact to human life or property as a result of implementation of the proposed project would be anticipated. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear strains, which could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose to medium-dense sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent located within the top 40 feet are most susceptible to liquefaction and surface rupture or lateral spreading. Slope instability can occur as a result of seismic ground motions and/or in combination with weak soils and saturated conditions.

As noted above, the proposed project is not located within a delineated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known active faults that cross the proposed project sites (DOC 2023b). In considering the history of past earthquake activity in the region, the potential for ground lurching, differential settlement or lateral spreading occurring during or following seismic events near or on the sites is low.

The potential for liquefaction to occur in the City has not yet been evaluated by the State under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (City 2019b). However, much of the substrate in the planning area consists of young, unconsolidated alluvial and fluvial (river) deposits, and groundwater data from wells in the City show the depth to groundwater as ranging from approximately 48 feet to 55 feet, based on measurements taken in Spring 2022 (Todd Groundwater 2022). Such soil and groundwater conditions may present a liquefaction hazard in portions of the planning area. As the proposed project would not construct habitable structures, it is not expected that implementation of the proposed project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving liquefaction of soils or other ground failures. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
No impact. Landslides occur in the western portion of the County in the Diablo Range where geologic conditions are considered unstable (City 2019b). The City is located in the central portion of the County, east of the Diablo Range. The proposed project site is comprised of five MAR basins and associated water conveyance structure on relatively flat land. The proposed project would not require the development of any buildings, residences, or other aboveground features that could expose people or structures to landslides. Due to the natural topography of the proposed project area, the small scale of required construction and grading activities, and the preexisting developed condition of the surrounding area, no impacts would be anticipated to life or property as a result of the proposed project. #2..
- 96 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 54 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project would require surface disturbance.

The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands that are currently vacant.

According to the City General Plan EIR, soil within the General Plan Boundary typically has a slight erosion potential, and the overall erosion hazard in the City is considered low (City 2019b). However, wind or rain may cause erosion when soil is exposed during construction activities and when fields are left fallow. The proposed project would require development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under the California General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ (CGP). The SWPPP would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to reduce on-site erosion of disturbed soil, as outlined in Section 9.X Hydrology and Water Quality. While construction activities may increase erosive potential within the proposed project area, implementation of a SWPPP and other construction BMPs would reduce impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located on mapped marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks, developed through alluvial deposition during the Pleistocene-Holocene age (DOC 2015). Of the ten different mapped soil types located within the proposed MAR Basin sites, only one, the Madera sandy loam, is on the National Hydric Soils List for Northern Stanislaus County (NRCS 2023b).

Hydric soils are soils which show evidence of periodic and extended saturation, whether by surface or groundwater. Soil saturation and inundation over time can increase the natural risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Landslides are generally associated with sloped topography which, when combined with soil type and water content, lose their structural integrity as a result of one or multiple events. The proposed project is located on relatively flat ground and would not require the construction of steep slopes that would increase the area’s natural risk for landslides.

Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsequent collapse of a geologic unit or soil is associated with saturation of a soil to a level where the structural integrity of the soil is compromised. Liquefaction occurs when the soil structure fails and begins to take on the characteristics of a fluid. Lateral spreading occurs where liquefied soil is put under stress, such as building foundations or construction activities.

These changes in overall soil or geologic unit structural integrity and movement of mineral material have the potential to cause a collapse of a soil or geologic unit. As previously mentioned, one soil in the proposed project area has the potential for liquefaction. The proposed project would not construct any aboveground structures within the mapped Madera Sandy Loam; one MAR basin and the associated water conveyance system would be constructed. Due to the nature of the proposed project as a groundwater recharge project and anticipated length of construction and operation, implementation of the proposed project would require infiltration of large amounts of clean water into groundwater aquifers. However, as most of the MAR basins would be repurposed stormwater retention basins accustomed to holding large amounts of water, be constructed following advice and guidelines from #2..
- 97 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 55 geotechnical engineers, and be located on relatively flat ground, the proposed project would not cause a geologic unit or soil to become more unstable.

Land subsidence resulting from a reduction in subsurface pore space is often caused by depletion of groundwater or other subsurface fluid resources (USGS 2018). Increased supply well pumping can reduce groundwater levels if recharge rates are lower than rates of extraction. As the groundwater is removed, additional pore space within the mineral substrate is available and mineral material will compact that empty space over time as gravity acts on the material. As the land subsides to fill that empty space, there is less pore space available for water or gas storage. The proposed project location and the greater California Central Valley has a high potential for land subsidence due to the high demand for existing groundwater resources. The proposed project would increase groundwater stores in existing subsurface aquifers. Increase in groundwater storage would reduce or potentially improve effects of land subsidence within the City.

A portion of the proposed project would be located on a soil type that could have the potential for liquefaction. However, construction and O&M of the proposed project would be conducted following guidelines published by State and local governments and would follow direction from a geotechnical engineer to minimize potential hazards associated with the proposed project location. The proposed project would not construct aboveground structures that may have the potential to exacerbate geologic or soil unit instability and would have an overall positive impact on groundwater resources and current rates of land subsidence within the City and the surrounding valley. Therefore, impacts as a result of proposed project implementation would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. Expansive soils are earth materials that increase in volume when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out. When buildings are placed on expansive soils, foundations may rise each wet season and fall each dry season. Movement may vary under distinct parts of a building with the results that foundations crack, various structural portions of the building are distorted, and doors and windows are warped so that they do not function properly. In the City’s urban area, there is low exposure to this type of problem (City 2019a).

Information on the engineering properties of soils in the City is available in the Web Soil Survey compiled by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and were reviewed by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group for the Project. Where soils are clay-rich, there may be some potential for expansive soils. The Ustach MAR Basin site is the only site with some clay-rich soil (mapped within the existing basin but likely removed during construction). The proposed MAR basins would be designed to meet the requirements of a geotechnical engineering study conducted for the proposed project, including requirements to minimize impacts from expansive soils. Implementation of the proposed project would not construct additional housing, multi-level infrastructure, or other buildings that would have the potential for additional hazards relating to construction on expansive soils. Subsurface utility lines would be constructed following published guidance and recommendations by a geotechnical engineer to reduce the risk of line breakage resulting from expansive soils. This would reduce the potential for flooding, gas leaks, or other events that would have the potential to impact or otherwise risk human life or property. Therefore, impacts or risks to life or property from expansive soils would be less than significant.
#2..
- 98 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 56 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed; therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact with mitigation. No previous surveys conducted in the proposed project area have identified the proposed project site as sensitive for paleontological resources or other geologically sensitive resources, nor have testing or ground disturbing activities performed to date uncovered any paleontological resources or geologically sensitive resources. The proposed project would also be located within areas previously disturbed by development, existing stormwater or irrigation infrastructure, or historical agricultural practices. While the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources and other geologically sensitive resources is considered low, project-related ground disturbing activities could affect the integrity of a previously unknown paleontological or other geologically sensitive resource. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Paleontological Resources In the event paleontological or other geologically sensitive resources (such as fossils or fossil formations) are identified during any phase of project construction, all excavations within 100 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted until the find is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate representative at the City who shall coordinate with the paleontologist as to any necessary investigation of the find. If the find is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City shall implement those measures which may include avoidance, preservation in place, or other appropriate measures, as outlined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases. #2..
- 99 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 57 These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; deforestation; agricultural activity; and solid waste decomposition.

The GHGs defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, described below, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 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. Estimates of GHG emissions are commonly presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weigh each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). 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. GHG emissions quantities in this analysis are presented in metric tons (MT) of CO2e. For consistency with United Nations Standards, modeling, and reporting of GHGs in California and the U.S. use the GWPs defined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007): CO2 = 1; CH4 = 25; N2O = 298.

Regulatory Setting
GHG Reduction Regulations and Plans
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State and levels are described below. Implementation of California’s GHG reduction mandates is primarily under the authority of CARB at the State level, and under the authority of the SJVAPCD at the regional level.

Executive Order S-3-05: On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Orders are not laws and can only provide the governor’s direction to State agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.

Executive Order B-30-15: On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union.

California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 #2..
- 100 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 58 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions to 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 32: Signed into law by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a Statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 100: Approved by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 requires that all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers be procured from 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by the end of 2045.

Assembly Bill 1279: Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels. AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and an almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.

On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).
#2..
- 101 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 59 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to the project:
• Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009a), and
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009b).

This guidance and policy are the documents referenced in the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, adopted in March 2015 (SJVAPCD 2015a). Consistent with the District Guidance and District Policy above, SJVAPCD acknowledges the current absence of numerical thresholds, and recommends a tiered approach to establish the significance of the GHG impacts on the environment:
• If a project complies 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, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions;
• If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement best performance standards (BPS); and • If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business-as-usual.

The SJVAPCD adopted a CAP in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of BPS to reduce GHG emissions.

Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing BPS, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in project-specific (i.e., operational) GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact (SJVAPCD 2009a). Both the SJVAPCD CAP and the guidance for development project compliance are limited to achieving the State 2020 GHG reduction goals mandated by AB 32. The SJVAPCD CAP and the guidance for development project compliance do not address California’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals. Neither the City of Modesto nor Stanislaus County currently has a CAP or other GHG reduction plan which addresses post-2020 GHG reductions mandated by SB 32 and AB 1279.

Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB and the OEHHA have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015).
#2..
- 102 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 60 Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Children and infants are considered more susceptible to health effects of air pollution due to their immature immune systems, developing organs, and higher breathing rates. As such, schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities.

Methodology and Assumptions
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, and GHG emissions for the project construction activities and long-term operation were calculated using the CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1.12. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the CAPCOA in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs, including PM10, PM2.5, ROGs, NOX, and CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, C, and D (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below.

Construction Assumptions
Construction of the proposed MAR basins is anticipated to begin during the fourth quarter 2024 and be completed in the second quarter 2025. The construction schedule assumptions have been pushed out by 10 to 11 months since project modeling was completed. The revised construction schedule would result in slightly lower pollutant emissions than shown in the modeling results due to phased implementation of CARB and USEPA engine emissions standards, resulting in older construction equipment assumed in the modeling being replaced by newer, lower emissions equipment. Construction #2..
- 103 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 61 modeling assumes the longest anticipated schedule reported by the project applicant for the following MAR basins:
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Well 65 MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: demolition 3 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 3 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South: demolition 10 days; site preparation 10 days; grading 20 days; trenching (underground utilities) 25 days; and paving 10 days. Grading and trenching (underground utilities) would occur concurrently, and paving would begin directly after trenching (underground utilities) is complete.

Construction equipment assumptions for the proposed MAR basins were based on estimates from the project applicant and CalEEMod defaults. The estimated volume of vegetation that would either be exported off-site or spread on-site during site preparation and the number of dump truck loads that would remove debris during demolition were provided by the project engineer:
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin: An estimated 1,412 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 1,412-CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 15 miles off-site.

Additionally, approximately 109 truckloads (or 218 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately one truckload of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.
• Well 65 MAR Basin: An estimated 101-CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 101 CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 6.5 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately eight truckloads (or 16 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during preparation, and approximately two truckloads of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: An estimated 645 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 645 CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 8 miles off-site.

Additionally, approximately 50 truckloads (or 100 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately two trucks of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.
• LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins: An estimated 3,429 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 3,429-CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately

8.5 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately 264 truckloads (or 528 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately 82 trucks of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.

Construction of the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would require grading. During grading, approximately 43,000-CY of cut/fill is expected to be spread on-site and would not require any export of #2..
- 104 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 62 soil. In accordance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM10 Prohibition, Rule 8021, Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earth Moving Activities, fugitive dust control measures, including the use of an on‐site water truck to wet down active grading areas and roads at least twice daily, are incorporated into the project design (SJVAPCD 2004).

Although the alternative Ustach Park MAR Basin water conveyance connection to the Cavil Drain was not analyzed, the impacts from this alternative would be less than what was analyzed with the proposed ROW roadwork and pump station. The Cavil Drain connection would shorten the conveyance distance and would not require a pump station; therefore, not generating operational energy source emissions.

Standards of Significance
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the following criteria may be considered in establishing the significance of GHG emissions:
#2..
- 105 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 63 Would the project:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The SJVAPCD has adopted the guidance in Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy, Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of Best Performance Standards (BPS) to assess the significance of project specific GHG emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process. However, SJVAPCD’s adopted BPS are specifically directed at reducing GHG emissions from stationary sources; therefore, the adopted BPS would not generally be applicable to the proposed project as construction of MAR basins would not be a stationary source of emissions. The SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change.

In the event that a local air district’s guidance for addressing GHG impacts does not use numerical GHG emissions thresholds, at the lead agency’s discretion, GHG thresholds adopted by neighboring California air districts may be used to determine impacts. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has adopted a GHG threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year for a project’s construction emissions and a threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for operational emissions for industrial/stationary source projects (SMAQMD 2021). Both of these thresholds are based on an analysis of a 90 percent emissions capture rate—ensuring that 90 percent of emissions would be subject to further review and analysis of potential alternatives and mitigation measures. These thresholds have been established by the SMAQMD in an effort to meet statewide GHG emissions reduction goals and the justification for these thresholds established by SMAQMD is applicable for evaluating the significance of project GHG emissions.

Impact Analysis
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. GHG emissions would be generated by the proposed project during construction (vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, vendor trips, and worker commuting trips) and during long-term operation (energy use from the proposed pump stations).

GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as described in Methodology and Assumptions, above.

The results of the construction GHG emissions calculations are compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 11.
#2..
- 106 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 64 Table 11: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Year of Emissions Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2023 (All MAR basins) 82.3
2024 (All MAR basins) 87.8
SMAQMD Construction Threshold (per year) 1,100
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod
GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent The results of the operational GHG emissions calculations are compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 12.

Table 12: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Sources 2025 Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Energy: Ustach Park MAR Basin 3.1
Energy: LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 11.6
Total 14.7
SMAQMD Operational Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod
GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, the construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD construction GHG threshold or the SMAQMD industrial operational GHG threshold.

Therefore, GHG emissions from the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 requires further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045. The mandates of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 are implemented at the State level by the CARB’s Scoping Plan. Because the project’s operational year is post-2020, the proposed project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32 and AB 1279. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and transportation fuels, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the Statewide level; as such, compliance at the proposed project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.
#2..
- 107 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 65 As noted in question a) above, construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG thresholds, and therefore would not generate new GHG emissions. In addition, the proposed project’s only operational GHG emissions source would be from electricity use. As discussed in Regulatory Setting, SB 100 requires 100 percent of the electricity used in the state to be from renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2045. As a result, the project would not conflict with the GHG reduction objectives of the State’s Scoping Plan, including net zero GHG emissions by 2045, mandated by AB 1279, or the SJVAPCD’s Climate Change Action Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is within the Sylvan Union School District and the Empire Union School District.

The nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR #2..
- 108 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 66 Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 25 feet east of LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

The following databases were reviewed for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites: the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker tool (SWRCB 2023), California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor online tool (DTSC 2023); and the USEPA’s Superfund National Priorities List (USEPA 2023). Based on the results of the databases reviewed, no hazardous waste sites are on the proposed project site.

Federal and State laws include provisions for the safe handling of hazardous substances. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) administers requirements to ensure worker safety. Construction activity must also be in compliance with the California OSHA regulations (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970).

Impact Analysis
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. Based on reviewed databases including the Geotracker tool, the EnviroStor online tool, and the Superfund National Priorities List, the proposed MAR basin locations are not currently listed as containing hazardous materials. During proposed project construction, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, solvents, and other hazardous materials may be present on site. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, State, and federal regulations to minimize risk and exposure.

Additionally with implementation of the proposed project SWPPP and the associated BMPs, risks of hazardous materials spills would be reduced. Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment, and impacts would be less than significant for questions a) and b).
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 nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 25 feet east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

During proposed project construction, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other hazardous materials may be used. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to local, State, and federal regulations to #2..
- 109 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 67 minimize risk and exposure. The potential risk of exposure or impacts from transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials to schools and other nearby sensitive receptors would be minimized through implementation of these regulations. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No hazardous materials sites are located at the proposed project site based on review of EnviroStor (DTSC 2023), Geotracker (SWRCB 2023), and EPA Superfund Priority List (USEPA 2023). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on hazards to the public or environment.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The nearest public or public use airport is Modesto City-County Airport, located 3 to 4 miles south of the MAR basins. The Well 65 MAR Basin is located within the Modesto City-County Airport influence boundary (County 2016). However, the proposed project would not construct new buildings or structures that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins in the City. The Well 65 MAR Basin and the Merle Avenue MAR Basin would be located on the southern side of Merle Avenue. Merle Avenue is considered a residential/local street (City 2019b).

The Ustach Park MAR Basin would be located in the northeastern corner of the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane. The site would construct water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site.

The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin at the existing outfall structure and move north along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park until it reaches Hillglen Avenue. The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed pump station located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. Hillglen Avenue is considered a residential/local street and Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue are considered minor arterials (City 2019b).

An alternative water conveyance to the Ustach Park MAR Basin would include construction of a pipeline to the existing Cavil Drain to supply water for the Ustach Park MAR Basin. This connection or tie-in to the Cavil Drain would provide an opportunity to reduce construction costs and schedule by shortening the conveyance distance and eliminating most of the ROW roadwork to bury piping. No pump station would be required under this alternative. The Cavil Drain would be located along Aria Way, and along the western border of Ustach Park and Ustach Middle School. Aria Way is considered a residential/local street (City 2019b).
#2..
- 110 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 68 The LCL P1 North MAR Basin would be located on the northern side of La Coste Lane, and on the western side of Frazine Road. The LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be located on the southern side of La Coste Lane, the eastern side of Norseman Drive, and the northern side of Garst Road. La Coste Lane, Frazine Road, Norseman Drive, and Garst Road are all considered residential/local streets (City 2019a).

LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South would be located east of Claus Road, which is considered an expressway (City 2019a).

During proposed project construction, heavy construction-vehicle equipment could interfere with emergency access on Merle Avenue, Roselle Avenue, Sylvan Avenue, La Coste Lane, Frazine Road, Norseman Drive, Garst Road, and Claus Road. However, such trips would be brief and infrequent.

Additionally, a Project Management Plan would be prepared by the City prior to construction to reflect the specific construction schedule and actions and how temporary impacts related to proposed project construction would be dealt with. Therefore, with implementation of a Project Management Plan, the impact would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins with associated water conveyance structures in an urban area of the City. Water conveyance would include construction of above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structure and pump stations in order to transport water to the MAR basins. Due to the nature and location of the proposed project and the minimal above ground infrastructure involved, impacts associated with wildland fires would not be anticipated.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risks associated with wildland fires, and no impacts would occur.

X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
#2..
- 111 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 69 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 which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional resources of polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The City is located at the confluence of the Tuolumne River and Dry Creek, and south of the Stanislaus River. The Tuolumne River drains an 1,800-square-mile watershed, and Dry Creek drains an area of about 190-square miles. Dry Creek flows east to west and then north to south to drain into the Tuolumne River. The Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers are tributaries to the San Joaquin River, which flow into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The topography of the City is generally flat, with gently sloping lands from east to west toward the San Joaquin River, approximately ten miles west of City limits. The elevation in the downtown City area is approximately 100 feet amsl. Annual precipitation is approximately 12 inches per year and occurs mainly from October through May.

The City’s planning area lies at the northern end of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin and overlies two designated groundwater subbasins that are delineated by geographic and hydrologic features. The Turlock groundwater subbasin encompasses the area south of the Tuolumne River to the Merced River and from the San Joaquin River to the base of the Sierra Foothills. The Modesto groundwater subbasin extends north from the Tuolumne River to the Stanislaus River and east from the San Joaquin River to the base of the Sierra foothills. The Delta-Mendota subbasin underlies the outlying area of Grayson. The groundwater basins are recharged from streamflow infiltration, deep percolation of irrigation water, and rain. Large areas of the County are considered principal groundwater recharge areas, as well (City 2019b).

The City obtains a portion of its drinking water supplies from the Modesto Reservoir via the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant (MRWTP), which is owned and operated by the MID and groundwater aquifers that underlie the region. The City’s supply wells account for almost 60 percent of the annual #2..
- 112 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 70 average water demand, with the rest from treated surface water provided by the MID. The groundwater supply is sourced from approximately 100 active wells throughout the City and distributed through approximately 74,000 service connections. As of 2020, 23 of the City’s 100 water supply wells, representing over 16 MGD of the system’s total groundwater production capacity (50 MGD), were inactivated, abandoned, destroyed, or removed from potable use due to contamination.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps were reviewed for the proposed project’s proximity to a 100-year floodplain. The proposed project is on FEMA panel 06099C0340F and FEMA panel 06099C0345F effective 8/24/2021 (FEMA 2023). The proposed project is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

Impact Analysis
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to increase erosion during ground disturbance. The proposed MAR basins would require construction that would disturb greater than one acre of soil. Projects that disturb one acre of soil or more are required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) coverage under the NPDES CGP. Construction activities subject to the CGP include clearing, grading, and other ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The CGP requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD), which would include construction and operational BMPs to reduce on-site soil erosion and subsequent pollution of stormwater runoff, ultimately protecting California’s surface water resources. Development and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP, as well as construction and operational BMPs, would reduce the proposed project’s potential to violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Construction and implementation of the proposed project would recharge existing groundwater resources with clean surface waters, thereby improving overall groundwater quality and providing a positive impact on the City’s groundwater supply. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No impact. The proposed project is intended to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency by addressing non-point source groundwater contamination from arsenic, nitrate, and uranium in the City.

The proposed project consists primarily of (1) modification of water supply well field pumping operations, i.e., wellfield optimization, to reduce contaminant levels in raw pumped groundwater; and (2) construction of MAR basins to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system.

The proposed project would include the construction of five MAR basins in the City. The proposed MAR basins would be constructed to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency by increasing the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system thereby positively impacting groundwater resources within existing aquifers. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed project would impede sustainable groundwater management. Therefore, no impact would occur.
#2..
- 113 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 71 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 which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than significant impact. The overall erosion hazard in the City is considered low and the soil types in the project area are characterized as having a slight erosion hazard (City 2019b). Construction of the proposed project would occur on relatively flat land within the City. Construction has the potential to increase erosion in the proposed project area as a result of site preparation, demolition, and grading activities required to construct the MAR basins and associated water conveyance. A SWPPP, with construction and operational BMPs, would be implemented to avoid and minimize soil loss and erosion in conjunction with the proposed project’s final design and grading plan. The SWPPP would be consistent the City’s Stormwater Management Plan and would identify the selected stormwater management procedures, pollution control technologies, spill response procedures, and other procedures that would be used to minimize erosion, sediment production, and the release of pollutants to surface water during construction.

The proposed project would require construction of subsurface water conveyance pipelines and groundwater recharge basins which would not increase impervious surfaces within the proposed project area. No surface drainages or natural streams or rivers are located within the proposed project area which would be impacted by the proposed project construction and O&M activities. As part of the SWPPP development, surface runoff patterns would be analyzed to identify areas with higher erosive potential within the proposed project boundary. With implementation of the SWPPP and associated BMPs, erosion and siltation impacts resulting from proposed project construction would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional resources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would construct MAR basins in order to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency by addressing non-point source groundwater contamination.

The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin would convert City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands, that are currently vacant, to MAR basins. The proposed MAR basins would include pervious surfaces in order to allow water to percolate through the surface to increase the volume of uncontaminated water within the aquifer system. Implementation of the proposed project would not require construction or installation of additional impervious surfaces that would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding.

The area of impervious surface associated with the MAR basins would be limited to water conveyance structures including above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structure and pump stations in order to transport water to the MAR basins. Although the proposed project may result in slight changes to the existing drainage pattern, the project would not increase surface runoff during #2..
- 114 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 72 project operation as water would percolate through the MAR basin. Therefore, the proposed project would not require modification of the existing stormwater drainage system as stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed project would not be anticipated to exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems.

The proposed project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2023). As the proposed project is located outside of a mapped floodplain, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to impede or redirect flood flows. Due to the nature of the proposed project as a groundwater recharge and surface water retention facility, the MAR basins would contain surface water flows and stormwater runoff to serve as source waters for groundwater recharge. In the instance that flooding is experienced within the proposed project area, the MAR basins would retain flood waters, potentially reducing floodwater impacts to surrounding communities, and would utilize the water as a source for groundwater recharge, providing another benefit for surrounding communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact existing or future flood patterns within the proposed project area.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No impact. The proposed project site is not located within a tsunami or seiche zone and is not located within a FEMA special flood hazard area. Therefore, no impacts resulting from potential pollution of floodwaters within the proposed project area would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No impact. The Central Valley RWQCB adopted the most recent edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Central Valley Region in May 2018 (Central Valley RWQCB, 2018). As part of this Basin Plan, the Central Valley RWQCB identifies water quality standards and protections for surface water resources within the Basin Plan boundary. The most common impacts to surface water quality as a result of construction projects are through erosion and subsequent sedimentation of surface waters after storm events. To comply with surface water quality standards outlined in the Basin Plan, as well as with the NPDES program, the proposed project would develop and implement a SWPPP prior to initiation of construction activities. The site-specific SWPPP would implement BMPs to reduce erosion potential throughout proposed project construction thereby reducing potential degradation of proximate surface water resources and remaining consistent with goals outlined in the Basin Plan.

The City’s groundwater resources draw largely from the Modesto Subbasin, a groundwater aquifer identified as a high-priority basin by the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

This basin is managed by the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (STRGBA) Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) which published the Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in January 2022 in compliance with SGMA and previous state and regional groundwater policies. This plan identifies criteria and identifies need for groundwater recharge projects within the Modesto Subbasin GSP boundary and promotes implementation of Local Basin Management Objectives (BMO) for municipalities which identify specific goals relating to groundwater supply management. The City of Modesto has adopted BMOs discussed in the Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan. The overall sustainability goal for the Modesto Subbasin GSP is to provide a sustainable groundwater supply for the local community and economic vitality of the region.

This goal promotes the implementation of groundwater recharge projects within the Modesto Subbasin #2..
- 115 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 73 GSP boundary (STRGBA 2022). The proposed project would contribute to sustainable management of existing groundwater resources through implementation of groundwater recharge MAR basins.

Implementation of the proposed project would directly address the existing groundwater contamination through sourcing clean water for aquifer recharge. This action would support goals implemented by the Modesto Subbasin GSP and therefore have a net positive impact on groundwater sustainability. The proposed project would not obstruct implementation of or conflict with goals or guidelines implemented by the Modesto Subbasin GSP or the Central Valley RWQCB Basin Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

XI. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
General Plan Land Use Designation
According to the City General Plan, the Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are designated as VR; the Well 65 MAR Basin site is designated as MU.

The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin are located directly outside designed City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). According to Land Use Element AL-4 in the City General Plan EIR, development, other than agricultural uses and churches, which requires discretionary approval shall be referred to that City for preliminary approval (City 2019b). As the two MAR basins are within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence, the City would have authority for approval. According to the City General Plan, the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South Basin are both designated as VR.

Zoning Designation
The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Ustach Park MAR Basin are zoned SP, and the Well 65 MAR Basin is zoned R-1.

The LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins are located directly outside designed City limits but are located within the City General Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019a). However, the City zoning does not cover the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. According to Stanislaus County zoning map, the two basins are zoned A-2-10 (County 2023a). #2..
- 116 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 74 The R-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate lower-density residential development, including accessory structures and uses.

The SP zoning district is intended to permit various land uses including residential, industrial, and commercial development through Specific Plans, pursuant to Government Code Section 65450, et seq.

The intent of this is to implement policies regarding certain uses, standards, and development review processes adopted through the Specific Plan process.

The General Agriculture zoning district is intended to support and enhance agriculture as the predominant land use in the unincorporated areas of the County. The General Agriculture district regulation is also intended to protect open-space lands pursuant to Government Code Section 65910.

Impact Analysis
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins and associated water conveyance structures. . Construction of the MAR basins and associated water conveyance structures would not divide an existing community. No impact would occur.
b) Cause 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. As mentioned in question a), the proposed project would construct a total of five MAR basins, with three MAR basins being constructed on existing stormwater retention basins, and two basins being constructed on City-owned fallowed agricultural lands that are currently vacant.

The proposed project would require a grading permit for construction of the MAR basins. As the project would be located on City-owned land and would be built on lands that are already serving a recharge function and/or is already a recipient of MID surface way, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is not required. The proposed MAR basins would not constitute a change of land use and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

XII. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
#2..
- 117 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 75 Environmental Setting
The City does not contain any designated mineral resource zones under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA). The City is designated as MRZ-3a for sand and gravel (City 2019b). This designation indicates areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined significance. As of 1998, there were five active sand and gravel operations and one specialty sand mining operation in the City. However, no mining activity occurs in the City, and data from the U.S. Geological Survey regarding mineral production in California indicate that no new mines or expansions of existing mines were approved in the City between 1999 and 2006 (City 2019b).

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. It requires the California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) to classify California lands into MRZs (City 2019b). The MRZ classifications are defined as follows. • MRZ-1: areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. • MRZ-3: areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
• MRZ-4: areas where available information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ.

Impact Analysis
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No impact. As discussed above, there are no designated mineral resource zones in the City; however, the City is designated as MRZ-3a for sand and gravel (City 2019b). The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within City limits; however, these three MAR basins would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. Therefore, there would be no additional loss of availability of known mineral resources or recovery sites as a result of the proposed MAR basins.

The LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would be constructed directly outside City limits but within the City General Plan Boundary. No areas classified as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b) under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act—that is, areas where significant mineral deposits have been determined to occur within the City General Plan Boundary (City 2019b). Therefore, there would be no loss of availability of known mineral resources or recovery sites as a result of basin construction and installation.
#2..
- 118 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 76 Additionally, according to the DOC Mineral Land Classification Map, there are no known mineral resources within the MAR basin sites (DOC 2023c). Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.

XIII. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
A Noise Analysis Report was prepared by HELIX on May 18, 2023 (HELIX 2023c). The report is included as Appendix E.

Environmental Setting
Noise Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLU) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences, hospitals, schools, hotels, resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. Noise receptors (receivers) are individual locations that may be affected by noise.

The closest existing NSLUs to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 120 feet east and 100 feet west of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the site and Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east and 125 feet south of the site. The closest existing NSLUs to the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basin Sites are single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 650 feet northwest of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.
#2..
- 119 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 77 The nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and directly east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

The closest hospital to the five MAR basins is the Memorial Medical Center located approximately one mile west of the Well 65 MAR Basin; two miles west of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin; two miles southwest of the Ustach Park MAR Basin; and three miles northwest of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin.

Noise Survey
Site visits/noise surveys were on conducted on April 7 and April 13, 2023, which included five short-term (10 minute) ambient noise measurements. The measured noise levels and survey notes are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
M1
Date April 13, 2023
Time 9:13 a.m. – 9:23 a.m.

Location Merle Avenue Basin Site, southeast corner of the MAR basin Noise Level 50.9 dBA LEQ
Notes Traffic noise from East Briggsmore Avenue, across canal to the south M2
Date April 13, 2023
Time 2:29 p.m. – 2:39 p.m.

Location Well 65 Basin Site, north end of pipeline alignment, near the southeast corner of the MAR basin
Noise Level 58.4 dBA LEQ
Notes No streets visible. Dog barking at residence to the east.

M3
Date April 7, 2023
Time 1:37 p.m. – 1:47 p.m.

Location Ustach Park Basin Site, pumphouse site, northeast corner of the Sylvan Avenue/ Roselle Avenue intersection
Noise Level 61.7 dBA LEQ
Notes Primary noise from traffic on Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue M4
Date April 7, 2023
Time 2:29 p.m. – 2:39 p.m.

Location Ustach Park Basin Site, southeast corner of the MAR basin Noise Level 50.9 dBA LEQ
Notes
#2..
- 120 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 78 M5
Date April 7, 2023
Time 6:37 p.m. – 6:47 p.m.

Location La Coste Parcel 1 South Site, pump station location, south end of pipeline alignment, near the southeast corner of the MAR basin
Noise Level 46.9 dBA LEQ
Notes Measurement taken after end of school day for Alice Stroud Elementary School Regulatory Framework
Stanislaus County General Plan
Goal Two of the Stanislaus County General Plan Noise Element is to, “Protect the citizens of Stanislaus County from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise.” Policy Two states, “It is the policy of Stanislaus County to develop and implement effective measures to abate and avoid excessive noise exposure in the unincorporated areas of the County by requiring that effective noise mitigation measures be incorporated into the design of new noise generating and new noise sensitive land uses.” The following implementation measure would be applicable to the project (County 2015b):

2. New development of industrial, commercial, or other noise generating land uses will not be permitted if resulting noise levels exceed 60 LDN (or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) in noise-sensitive areas. Additionally, the development of new noise-generating land uses, which are not preempted from local noise regulation, will not be permitted if resulting noise levels will exceed the performance standards contained within Table IV-2 [Reproduced here as Table 14 in areas containing residential or other noise sensitive land uses]:

Table 14: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE – STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Daytime
(7:00 am – 10:00 pm)
Nighttime
(10:00 pm – 7:00 am)
Hourly LEQ dBA 55 45
Maximum level (LMAX) dBA 75 65
Source: County 2015b
Each of the noise level standards specified in Table 14 shall be reduced by five dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. The standards in Table 14 should be applied at a residential or other noise-sensitive land use and not on the property of a noise-generating land use. Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient levels.

Stanislaus County Noise Ordinance
The Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.46 of the Stanislaus County Code) establishes exterior noise level standards in order to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise in the County (County 2023b).

Section 10.46.050, Exterior noise level standards, of the Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance limits the creation of any noise that causes the exterior noise level when measured at any property to exceed the noise level standards as set below in Table 15. #2..
- 121 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 79 Table 15: EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Designated Noise Zone 7:00 am – 9:59 pm
(LMAX)
1 10:00 pm – 6:59 am
(LMAX)
1 Residential 50 45
Source: County Code Section 10.46.050
1 Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level as Measured on a Sound Level Meter (LMAX) Section 10.46.060, Specific noise source standards, E., Construction Equipment, of the Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance limits construction noise to 75 dBA between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. at the receiving property line of any property with a dwelling unit.

City of Modesto General Plan
The Environmental Resources, Open Space and Conservation chapter of the City of Modesto General Plan includes a Noise Element that provides noise level standards by land use type. The ambient noise environment in the city is influenced primarily by roadway traffic, intermittent railroad operations, and aircraft operations. The Noise Element applies to the city as a whole and identifies policies to minimize exposure to excessive noise sources. Table VII-2, Noise and Compatibility Matrix, in the City’s Noise Element, noise levels of 65 CNEL or below are considered normally acceptable for residential land use categories and noise levels of 70 CNEL or below are considered normally acceptable for schools (City 2019b).

The following policies identified in the Noise Element are relevant to the project (City of Modesto, 2019b):

3. Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive noise receptors are persons and facilities that could be adversely affected by noise. Sensitive receptors in Modesto include residences, hospitals, parks, churches, and schools. The following policies apply to development in all areas of the City.
a. Implement noise-reducing construction practices as conditions of approval where substantial construction-related noise impacts would be likely to occur, such as with extended periods of pile driving, or where construction is expected to continue or where sensitive receptors would be affected by construction noise. Conditions of approval may include, but are not limited to:
• Require construction equipment, including air compressors and pneumatic equipment to have properly maintained mufflers;
• Require impact tools to be equipped with shrouds or shields; • Require that the quietest equipment available be used; and, • Require selection of haul routes that affect the fewest number of people. #2..
- 122 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 80 f. For proposed non-transportation noise sources, reduce noise levels so as not to exceed the allowable noise exposure thresholds specified in Table V.3.9 [recreated here as Table 16] at the property line of residential or other noise-sensitive land uses.

Table 16: NOISE EXPOSURE – STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES
Daytime
(7:00 am – 10:00 pm)1
Nighttime
(10:00 pm – 7:00 am)1
Hourly LEQ dBA 55 45
Maximum level (LMAX) dBA 75 65
Source: City 2019b
1 Citywide, excluding downtown.
* Each of the noise level standards shall be reduced by five (5) dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. Where measured ambient noise levels exceed the standards, the standards shall be increased to the ambient levels. ** If the existing ambient noise level at the receiving use exceeds the thresholds, then the noise level standards shall be increased to account for the ambient noise level. g. For construction activities involving high-powered vibratory tools or pile driving within 200 feet of an existing structure, demonstrate that project construction would not exceed the Caltrans construction vibration thresholds to ensure that no damage to sensitive structures would occur.

City of Modesto Noise Ordinance
Title 4, Public Welfare, Safety, and Health, of the Modesto Code of Ordinance includes provisions to control the level and frequency of disturbing, excessive, offensive, or unusually loud noise that may jeopardize the health, welfare, or safety of citizens in the city. Sound-level limitations relevant to the Proposed Program are provided under Chapter 9, Noise Regulations, Section 4-9.103 prohibits the following (City 1991):
(a) The loud and raucous discharge into the open air of the steam of any steam equipment or exhaust from any stationary internal-combustion engine. (b) The loud and raucous operation or use of any of the following before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and State or federal holidays, when the prohibited time shall be before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.):
(1) A hammer, or any other device or implement used to pound or strike an object. (2) An impact wrench, or other tool or equipment powered by compressed air. (3) A hand-powered saw.
(4) Any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack blower, and lawn mower. Except as included in subsection (a)(6) of the Modesto Code of Ordinance, motor vehicles, powered by an internalcombustion engine and subject to the California Vehicle Code, are excluded from this prohibition.
#2..
- 123 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 81 (5) Any electrically powered (whether by alternating current electricity or by direct current electricity) tool or piece of equipment used for cutting, drilling, or shaping wood, plastic, metal, or other materials or objects, such as, but not limited to, a saw, drill, lathe, or router. (6) Any of the following: heavy equipment (such as, but not limited to, bulldozer, steam shovel, road grader, back hoe), ground drilling and boring equipment (such as, but not limited to, derrick or dredge), hydraulic crane and boom equipment, portable power generator or pump, pavement equipment (such as, but not limited to, pneumatic hammer, pavement breaker, tamper, compacting equipment), pile-driving equipment, vibrating roller, sand blaster, gunite machine, trencher, concrete truck, and hot kettle pump. (7) Any construction, demolition, excavation, erection, alteration, or repair activity.

Section 4-9.104 exempts the following from the provisions of the Modesto Code of Ordinance Chapter 9 (City 1991):

Activities on or in publicly owned property and facilities, or by public employees while in the authorized discharge of their responsibilities, are exempt provided that such activities have been authorized by the owner of such property or facilities or its agent or by the employing authority.

Methodology and Assumptions
Noise Modeling Software
Project construction noise was analyzed using the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Roadway Construction Noise Model ([RCNM]; USDOT 2008), which utilizes measurements of sound levels from standard construction equipment.

Construction Activities
Construction of the project MAR basins, pipelines, and pump stations would require the use of off-road construction equipment. Construction off-road equipment assumptions were provided by the project engineer for the following activities:
• Site Preparation – All Sites: Loader, grader, dozer, tractor, dump truck. • Demolition – All Sites: excavator, dump truck
• Grading – La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site: loader, grader, dozer, tractor. • Pipe Installation – All Sites: Crane, excavator, loader. • Paving – Ustach Park MAR Basin Site and La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site: paver, roller, dump truck.

The noise levels (measured at a distance of 50 feet) and typical operating time percentage of the project off-road construction equipment, as reported by the RCNM, is shown in Table 17. #2..
- 124 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 82 Table 17: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Equipment
Percent
Operating Time
Noise Level at
50 feet (dBA LEQ)
Crane 16 72.6
Dozer 40 77.7
Dump Truck 40 72.5
Excavator 40 76.7
Loader 40 75.1
Grader 40 81.0
Paver 50 74.2
Roller 20 73.0
Tractor 40 80.0
Source: RCNM (USDOT 2008)
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse impact if it would:
• Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a General Plan or noise ordinance; • Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; or 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 use airport or private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise.

For construction noise, per the City Municipal Code, operating of construction equipment or conducting construction activities before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays, are prohibited. Neither the City nor the County have adopted standards to determine the level at which temporary noise resulting from construction activities performed by a public agency would adversely affect nearby NSLUs. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recommended construction noise assessment criteria. Using option A, General Assessment, daytime construction noise received by a residential land use exceeding 90 dBA LEQ (1 hour) and nighttime construction noise received by a residential land use exceeding 80 dBA LEQ (1 hour), measured at the residential property line, would result in a significant impact (FTA 2018).

For operational noise, per the City General Plan, a significant noise impact would be identified where the operation of noise-generating land uses would create noise levels that exceed the noise and land use compatibility standards as established by the City of Modesto. Noise levels of 75 dBA or below are considered “normally acceptable” for most land use categories and “clearly unacceptable” at 75 dBA or greater (City 2019b).

The County Code, Section 10.46.070 established limits for acceptable vibrations. For work conducted in a public right-of-way or on public land and within 150 feet of any occupied building, vibrations exceeding 0.01 in/sec PPV would result in a significant impact. #2..
- 125 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 83 Impact Analysis
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact with mitigation.

Construction Noise
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above, construction of the MARs and pipelines would require the use of off-road construction equipment. Due to the nature of construction activity, the number and locations of operating equipment would vary throughout the construction period and throughout each workday. It would be highly unlikely that all anticipated construction equipment would operate concurrently in proximity to the same NSLU. The FTA recommends the potential impact of construction equipment noise be evaluated by assuming that the two noisiest pieces of equipment for a construction activity would be operating concurrently during an hour, potentially affecting the closest NSLU to that activity (FTA 2018).

As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, all MAR sites would require site preparation, demolition, and pipeline installation; the LCL MAR site would require grading; and the Ustach Park MAR and LCL MAR would require paving repair. Site preparation and grading would involve heavy equipment moving around each MAR site basin and off-street pipeline alignment. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for site preparation and grading would be a grader and a tractor which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 100 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. Demolition would require equipment to remove old concrete and asphalt, primarily in the pipeline alignment of each MAR site. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for demolition would be an excavator and a dump truck which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 25 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. Paving repair would involve heavy equipment moving around the on-street pipeline alignment for the Ustach Park MAR and LCL MAR site. The two noisiest pieces of equipment for paving repair would be a paver and a roller which were conservatively assumed to operate at an average distance of 25 feet from a residential or school NSLU over the course of one hour. The resulting combined noise of the noisiest construction equipment for each activity is compared to the FTA one-hour 90 dBA LEQ daytime standard for residential land uses in Table 18.

Table 18: CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Site/Activity/Equipment Average Distance
to NSLU (feet)
Combined Noise
(dBA LEQ)
Exceed FTA
90 dBA LEQ
standard?
All Sites/Site Preparation/Grader and Tractor 100 77.5 No All Sites/Demolition/Excavator and Dump Truck 25 84.1 No La Coste Lane MAR/Grading/Grader and Tractor 100 77.5 No All Sites/Pipeline Installation/Excavator and Loader 25 85.0 No the Ustach Park MAR and La Coste Lane MAR/Paving
Repair/Paver and Roller 25 82.7 No
Source: RCNM (USDOT 2008); FTA 2018
NSLU = Noise sensitive land use
#2..
- 126 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 84 As shown in Table 18, the calculated noise from construction equipment would not exceed the FTA residential one-hour daytime standard. As discussed in Regulatory Framework, above, per the Modesto Code of Ordinances, Section 4.9-103, construction activities are prohibited before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays. However, Section 4.9-104 exempts activities conducted on public land or by public employees from the provisions of the noise ordinance. Since the project would be conducted by the City (or by contractors for the City) on public land, nighttime construction activities would not be prohibited. The FTA residential one-hour nighttime standard is 80 dBA LEQ (FTA 2018). Some construction activities would exceed the FTA nighttime standard of 80 dBA LEQ and the impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would prohibit project construction from occurring during the nighttime hours specified in the noise ordinance Section 4.9-103. With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-1, project construction noise levels would not exceed the FTA daytime or nighttime standard, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operational Noise
Both the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL MAR Basin would require a new pump station. Each station would consist of two electric motor driven submersible low head lift pumps with 5 to 8 horsepower motors. Submersible electric pumps place the motors and impellers below grade and small pumps such as those proposed by the project produce very little noise at the surface.

The LCL MAR Basin pump station would be located near Garst Road and the MID Moulton Lateral Three at the southeast corner of the LCL P2, see Figure 5. The closest NSLUs to the LCL MAR Basin proposed pumpstation location would be the Alice Stroud Elementary School with recreation fields approximately 40 feet northeast of the pump station and classroom buildings approximately 400 feet east of the pump station. The Ustach Park MAR Basin pump station would be located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue. The closest NSLUs to the Ustach Park MAR Basin proposed pump station location would be a single-family home approximately 225 feet to the south.

Due to the below grade installation, low sound levels of small submersible pumps, and the distance to the closest NSLUs, operation of the pump stations would not result in noise levels exceeding the standards in either the City General Plan and noise ordinance or the County General Plan and noise ordinance.

Long term operation of the MARs and pump stations would require periodic maintenance checks using light duty trucks and seasonal vegetation management using powered equipment. However, periodic maintenance and vegetation management activities would be similar to activities already conducted on the MAR sites and canals by City and MID personnel and/or contactors and would not result in new noise sources or increases in ambient noise levels. Therefore, the long-term operational noise generated by the project would be less than significant.

Impact Conclusion
With incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to limit construction hours, short-term construction activity or long-term operation of the project would not result in the 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 County or City General Plans or noise ordinances. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
#2..
- 127 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 85 Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Hours
Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that operation of construction equipment on the project site, or project construction activities (including equipment staging), shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; or before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday, and State or federal holidays, are prohibited.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact with mitigation. A source of vibration during pavement repair following pipeline installation in public street would be a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller would primarily be used for aggregate and asphalt compaction as part of paving repair for the Ustach Park Basin and LCL pipeline alignments. Once operational, the proposed project would not be a source of groundborne vibrations. A large vibratory roller creates approximately 0.21 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). As discussed in Regulatory Framework, for construction activity in a public right-of-way or on public land and with 150 feet of any individual (e.g., within 150 feet of an occupied building), per the County Noise Ordinance Section 10.46.070, vibrations in excess of

0.01 in/sec PPV threshold would be significant. At a distance of 150 feet, a vibratory roller would create a PPV of 0.03 in/sec. This would exceed the County Ordinance standard of 0.01 in/sec, and the impact would be potentially significant.1 Mitigation Measure NOI-02 would require City personnel and/or contactors to ensure that vibratory rollers to be used for project construction would be used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operated within 150 feet of any occupied building. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, the project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Vibratory Roller
Prior to construction, the City shall ensure that all construction contracts and/or applicable construction documents specify that all vibratory rollers shall be used in static mode only (no vibrations) when operating within 150 feet of an occupied building.
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 closest airport to the project site is the Modesto City-County Airport, approximately

2.7 miles southwest of the LCL MAR Basin Site (the closest project site to the airport). Per the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, only the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is within the Modesto CityCounty Airport influence area and none of the project MAR sites are within the Modesto City-County Airport noise contours (60 or more CNEL; Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission 2016).

Therefore, although the project sites are subject to overflight by aircraft, people working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive levels of noise due to aircraft or airport operations, and no impact would occur.
1 Equipment PPV (in/sec) = Reference PPV * (25/D)n, where Reference PPV is PPV at 25 feet, D is distance from equipment to the receiver in feet, and n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through the ground); formula from Caltrans 2020. #2..
- 128 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 86 XIV. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The City is the largest incorporated city in Stanislaus County and accounts for approximately 40 percent of the County’s population. The California Department of Finance estimates the City’s population was 209,186 as of January 1, 2015. The population anticipated by the City’s General Plan and the City Master EIR is between 334,000 and 357,000 people by 2025. The estimated capacity within the City’s General Plan boundary is approximately 428,000 (City 2019b).

Impact Analysis
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins in order to improve groundwater supply quality and sustainability. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands that formerly were irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two and are currently vacant.

Construction of the proposed project is expected to use employees from the local employment force and would not require employees to relocate to the project area. Staff that currently run the City’s water system and/or storm drainage system would have the capabilities of managing the proposed projects’ operational and maintenance tasks, as they are similar to existing tasks within the same service territory. Operational tasks would be completed when water from MID is being delivered into the basins. This may require minimal increased staffing and/or equipment needs of the City’s Water Division as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a direct increase in population or the use of public facilities in the area but may require increased staffing needs for the City. The impact would be less than significant.
#2..
- 129 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 87 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins in the City. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands. The proposed basins and associated water conveyance infrastructure would not displace existing people or housing. No impact would occur.

XV. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The nearest fire station to the Well 65 MAR Basin is City Fire Department Station 3, located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the site. The nearest fire station to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, LCL P1 North MAR Basin, and LCL P2 South MAR Basin is City Fire Department Station 9, located approximately one mile southeast of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin and approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. The nearest fire station to the Ustach Park MAR Basin is City Fire Department Station 7, located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the site.

The nearest police station to the MAR basins is the City Police Department, located between 4 to 6 miles east of the five MAR basins.

The proposed project is within the Sylvan Union School District and the Empire Union School District.

The nearest school to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is Savage Middle School located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the site. The nearest school to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site is Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The nearest school to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is Ustach Middle School, located approximately 150 feet west of the site. #2..
- 130 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 88 The nearest school to the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is Alice Stroud Elementary School, located approximately 150 feet directly south of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site and 25 feet east of the LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site.

Existing parks within the vicinity of the proposed project area include Ustach Park, Sanders Community Park, Freedom Park, Orchard Park, and Sonoma Park. The nearest park to the Well 65 MAR Basin is Sonoma Park, located approximately 0.3 mile south of the site. The nearest park to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, LCL P1 North MAR Basin, and LCL P2 South MAR Basin is Freedom Park, located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, and approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. The nearest park to the Ustach Park MAR Basin is Ustach Park, located 20 feet north of the site.

Impact Analysis
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project currently receives services from the City Fire Department. The proposed project would not require construction of new buildings or structures that would create an increased demand for fire protection. The proposed project would construct MAR basins and their associated water conveyance including subterranean and/or above ground piping, canal turnouts, outfall structures, and pump stations. Due to the small amount of development currently located on the proposed project site, proposed improvements would not result in significant additional demand for fire protection services. Additionally, three out of the five MAR basins would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins, that already receive fire service from the City. As such, the proposed project would not result in the provision of or the need for new or physically altered protection facilities. The potential for a minor increase in demand for fire services may occur during construction or maintenance of the MAR basins. However, these minor public service demands would not overburden the City Fire Department. Therefore, the impact related to fire protection would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. Police services within the proposed project area would continue to be provided by the City Police Department. Proposed improvements, including the MAR basins and the water conveyance structures, would not result in additional demand for police protection services.

Additionally, three out of the five MAR basins would convert existing stormwater retention basins, that already receive police service from the City. As such, the proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. The potential for a minor increase in demand for services may occur for police protection if a crime or accident occurs during construction or maintenance of the MAR basins. However, these minor demands would not overburden the City Police Department. Therefore, the impact related to police protection would be less than significant.
#2..
- 131 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 89 c) Schools?
No impact. The proposed MAR basins and the associated water conveyance structures would not increase the number of residents in the City. Therefore, no new school facilities would be necessary to serve the proposed project. No impact would occur.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins and associated water conveyance structures. The proposed MAR basins would not increase demand for recreational and park facilities, as the project would not increase population. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on Cityowned, fallowed agricultural lands that formerly were irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two and are currently vacant.

The Ustach Park MAR Basin and associated water conveyance would be constructed on an existing stormwater retention basin site, located directly south of Ustach Park. A proposed 12-inch pipeline would be constructed along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park. The purpose of the pipeline would be to deliver water from the proposed pump station to the MAR basin. Construction of the proposed piping would be temporary, and the piping would be installed underground. An alternative water conveyance to the Ustach Park MAR Basin would include construction of a pipeline to the existing Cavil Drain, located west of the MAR basin, to supply water for the Ustach Park MAR Basin. Please refer to Section 9.XVI Recreation, for additional analysis of parks and recreational facilities. As a result, the impact would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project site is within the urban area of the City served by adequate police, fire, and emergency services. The proposed MAR basins and the associated water conveyance structures would not increase the number of residents in the City and would therefore not cause an increase in demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of parks and other public facilities. The impact would be less than significant.
#2..
- 132 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 90 XVI. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
In 2015, the City identified the following as parks that are developed or undeveloped: 764 acres of regional parks (346 acres developed and 418 acres undeveloped), 130 acres of community parks (91 acres developed and 39 acres undeveloped), 343 acres of neighborhood parks (328 acres developed and 15 acres undeveloped), 8 acres of developed miscellaneous parks (including tot lots and public squares), 11 community centers (6 developed and 5 undeveloped), one family aquatic center (undeveloped), 363 acres of golf courses (all developed), 12 acres of minor league professional baseball field complex (developed), and 208 acres of sports complex facilities (all undeveloped but planned as outlined in the Regional Sports Facility Study prepared for County and the City, adopted in March 2002) (City 2019b).

Existing parks within the vicinity of the project area include Ustach Park, Sanders Community Park, Freedom Park, Orchard Park, and Sonoma Park. The nearest park to the Well 65 MAR Basin is Sonoma Park, located approximately 0.3 mile south of the site. The nearest park to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, LCL P1 North MAR Basin, and LCL P2 South MAR Basin is Freedom Park, located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin, and approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. The nearest park to the Ustach Park MAR Basin is Ustach Park, located 20 feet north of the site.

Impact Analysis
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. As discussed in Section 9.XIV., Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce direct population growth. The proposed project would construct five MAR basins and associated water conveyance structures. Proposed project construction and operation would not result in a direct increase in population or demand for recreational facilities in Ustach Park and in the surrounding parks.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.
#2..
- 133 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 91 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The proposed project would not include the development of a new recreational facility and would not result in an expansion of an existing facility. Therefore, no impacts to the environment as a result of new or expanded recreational facilities would occur.

XVII. Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City categorizes roadways in its circulation network as freeways, expressways, arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets and are summarized as follows (City 2019b):
• Freeways. Intended for long range interregional travel. • Expressways. High-capacity travel corridors with limited access at 0.5- to 1-mile intervals depending on the expressway classification, with traffic signals at major intersections. • Arterial Streets. Immediate capacity travel corridors primarily intended to serve major movements between different land uses or different parts of the City. • Collector Streets. Connection between local streets and arterial streets. • Residential/Local Streets. Two-lane, low-volume streets with the exclusive function of providing access to properties and connecting higher-order roadways.

The City has four types of improved bikeways including Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV, summarized as follows (City 2019b):
• Class I. Paved bike paths that are separated from city streets. • Class II. Striped lanes on major city streets.
#2..
- 134 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 92 • Class III. On-street routes identified by “bicycle route” signs. • Class IV. Facilities are one- or two-way dedicated bicycle facilities physically separated from vehicle traffic lanes.

Bus service within the City includes the Modesto Area Express (MAX), Modesto Dial-A-Ride, Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT), and Greyhound. Train service includes Amtrak, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) connections (City 2019b). Railroad tracks and existing passenger rail move north–south along the eastern General Plan Boundary line. Railroad tracks within the City are also located along SR 99 and SR 132 (City 2019a).

Impact Analysis
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant impact. The Well 65 MAR Basin and the Merle Avenue MAR Basin would be located directly south of Merle Avenue. Merle Avenue is designated as a residential/local street (City 2019a).

The LCL P1 North MAR Basin would be located on the northern side of La Coste Lane, and on the western side of Frazine Road. The LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be located on the southern side of La Coste Lane, the eastern side of Norseman Drive, and the northern side of Garst Road. La Coste Lane, Frazine Road, Norseman Drive, and Garst Road are designated as residential/local streets (City 2019a).

LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be located east of Claus Road, which is designated as an expressway (City 2019a).

The Ustach Park MAR Basin would be located at the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane.

Both Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane are designated as residential/local streets (City 2019b). The Ustach Park MAR Basin would construct water conveyance to the MAR basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site. The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park and move north until it reaches Hillglen Avenue. The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed pump station located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. Hillglen Avenue is designated as a residential/local street and Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue are designated as minor arterials (City 2019b).

An alternative water conveyance to the Ustach Park MAR Basin would include construction of a pipeline to the existing Cavil Drain, located west of the MAR basin, to supply water for the Ustach Park MAR Basin. The Cavil Drain would be located along Aria Way, and along the western border of Ustach Park and Ustach Middle School. Aria Way is considered a residential/local street (City 2019b).

Construction along the expressway, Claus Road, and minor arterials, Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue, may result in temporary disturbance to traffic or lane closures. However, as mentioned in Section 9.IX., Hazards and Hazardous Materials, question f), a Project Management Plan would be prepared by the City prior to construction to reflect the specific project timeframes and actions and how temporary impacts related to project construction would be dealt with.

According to the City General Plan, Merle Avenue, Sylvan Avenue, and Roselle Avenue are Class II Bike Paths, and Claus Road is a Class I Bike Path. Railroad tracks and existing passenger rail are located #2..
- 135 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 93 approximately 1,000 feet east of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and LCL P2 South MAR Basin. As the proposed project does not propose new roadways or reconfiguration of existing roadways, the project would not conflict with existing bike paths, bus, and train service within the City. The Project Management Plan would ensure construction would not conflict with these services.

Therefore, with preparation and implementation of a Project Management Plan, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s circulation system. The impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than significant impact. According to the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, small land use projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact (OPR 2018).

Construction of the five MAR basins would be temporary and intermittent, and all construction waste would be hauled to a City-owned WWTP. The City owns and operates two WWTP, located on Sutter Avenue and Jennings Road. The Sutter Avenue WWTP treats approximately 20 million gallons of wastewater per day before traveling six miles of pipelines to the facility at Jennings Road that treats approximately 15 million of those gallons further to tertiary (recycled water) levels (City 2020). The five MAR basins are located between five and 6 miles northeast of the Sutter Avenue WWTP and are located between 11 and 12 miles northeast of the Jennings Road WWTP.

Construction of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin would require an estimated 109 dump truck round trips total (or 218 one-way trips) during the site preparation timeframe to a City owned WWTP, approximately 15 miles from the site, and would require one dump truck load during demolition to Gilton Resource Recovery, approximately 11 miles from the site.

Construction of the Well 65 MAR Basin would require an estimated eight dump truck round trips total (or 16 one-way trips) during the site preparation timeframe to a City owned WWTP, approximately

6.5 miles from the site, and would require two dump truck loads during demolition to Gilton Resource Recovery, approximately 6 miles from the site.

Construction of the Ustach Park MAR Basin would require an estimated 50 dump truck round trips total (or 100 one-way trips) during the site preparation timeframe to a City owned WWTP, approximately eight miles from the site, and would require approximately 82 dump truck loads during demolition to Gilton Resource Recovery, approximately six miles from the site.

Construction of the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would require an estimated 264 dump truck round trips total (or 528 one-way trips) during the site preparation timeframe to a City owned WWTP, approximately 8.5 miles from the sites, and would require approximately 82 dump truck loads during demolition to Gilton Resource Recovery, approximately 3.5 miles from the sites. Existing cut/fill would be balanced on-site during grading.

The total required dump truck trips during site preparation to a City owned WWTP would be 431 trips (or 862 one-way trips), and the total number of dump truck loads during demolition to Gilton Resource Recovery would be 167 trips. These trips represent the total number of dump truck trips required during the entire site preparation and demolition period. As construction of the MAR basins would be temporary and intermittent, the proposed project would not generate a significant increase in vehicles mile traveled (VMT), and impacts related to construction would be less than significant. #2..
- 136 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 94 During operation, occasional trips may be required by City employees for maintenance activities on an as-needed basis; however, operational trips would not exceed 110 trips per day and therefore, would not generate a significant increase in VMT. Therefore, impacts related to operation would be less than significant.
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. The proposed project does not propose new roadways or reconfiguration of existing roadways. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. During proposed project construction, heavy construction-vehicle equipment could interfere with emergency access on Merle Avenue, Roselle Avenue, Sylvan Avenue, La Coste Lane, Frazine Road, Norseman Drive, Garst Road, and Claus Road. However, such trips would be brief and infrequent. Additionally, a Project Management Plan would be prepared by the City prior to construction to reflect the specific project timeframes and actions and how temporary impacts to emergency access related to proposed project construction would be dealt with.

O&M activities for the MAR basins would require occasional trips by City employees for maintenance activities on an as-needed basis. Upon operation, the proposed project would not interfere with emergency vehicle access to the five MAR basins. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
#2..
- 137 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 95 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
A Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) Memorandum was prepared by HELIX on May 12, 2023 (HELIX 2023d).

The TCR Memo is included as Appendix F.

Environmental Setting
CEQA, as amended in 2014 by AB 52, requires that the City provide notice to any California Native American tribes that have requested notice of projects subject to CEQA review, and consult with tribes that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation. Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes. For the City, these include the following tribes that previously submitted general request letters, requesting such noticing:
• Randy Yonemura, Ione Bank of Miwok Indians
• Katherine Erolina Perez, Northern Valley Yokuts
The purpose of consultation is to identify TCRs that may be significantly impacted by the proposed project, and to allow the City to avoid or mitigate significant impacts prior to project approval and implementation. Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or,
b) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or,
c) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
#2..
- 138 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 96 Because the first two criteria also meet the definition of a Historical Resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as an Historical Resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators and can only be identified by a culturally affiliated tribe, which has been determined under State law to be the subject matter expert for TCRs.

CEQA requires that the City initiate consultation with tribes at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is required to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements summarized above, the City carried out, or attempted to carry out, tribal consultation for the project.

On April 3, the City sent Project notification letters to the two California Native American tribes named above that had previously submitted general consultation request letters pursuant to Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC. The letter provided each tribe with a brief description of the Project and its location, the contact information for the City’s authorized representative, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation. The formal invitations noted that if no response was received within 30 days that consultation would be considered closed.

As of August 4, 2023, no responses have been received from the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and Northern Valley Yokuts and consultation pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1 has been concluded.

Therefore, on May 3, 2023, 30 days after formal invitations were mailed to tribal representatives, consultation was formally terminated.

Impact Analysis
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)? Less than significant impact with mitigation. As discussed in Section V., Cultural Resources, HELIX’s CCIC records search revealed that six cultural resource studies have been previously conducted within

0.25 mile of the APE, and that none of these studies overlapped with portions of the current APE. This record search also demonstrated that one previously recorded resource has been documented within

0.25 mile of the APE, P-50-002006 (CA-STA-000424H) the Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railroad. This resource has been recommended as ineligible for listing in NRHP and CRHR and is not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project.

On March 23, 2023, HELIX requested that the NAHC conduct a search of their SLF for the presence of Native American sacred sites or human remains in the vicinity of the proposed project area. On March 30, 2023, HELIX received a response from the NAHC that indicated the SLF search returned negative results but that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources within the project vicinity. As a result, the letter recommended that HELIX reach out to 13 Native American tribal representatives who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the proposed project vicinity. On May 2, 2023, HELIX sent a letter to each of the tribal representatives listed above to request any information they may possess regarding cultural resources #2..
- 139 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 97 in the vicinity of the APE. As of the submission of this report, HELIX has received only one response, an email from Venesa Kremer of the Wilton Rancheria Cultural Preservation Department, dated May 12, 2023. In her email, Vanesa suggested that the Wilton Rancheria does not have any site records to share, or concerns to share regarding the project moving forward. However, she suggested that the proposed project implement mitigation measures for inadvertent discoveries that might be made during construction. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to inadvertent discoveries to a less than significant level.

No signs of cultural resources were encountered within the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site, Well 65 MAR Basin Site, Ustach Park MAR Basin Site, and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site and their construction laydown areas. However, within the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site, HELIX’s surveyor encountered a series of four drainage or irrigation maintenance features cutting across the proposed basin area from west to east. This series of drainage/irrigation features was recorded as the “La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features” site on the appropriate DPR forms. A series of numbers etched into the cement walls on the second, third, and fourth drainage/irrigation features (1961, 1954, and 1947, respectively) may well be construction dates for the features, suggesting that these drainage/irrigation features were built during the mid-20th century. From HELIX’s pedestrian investigation of these features, it was also clear that the features extended for some distance beneath the ground surface. A pile of cement rubble potentially associated with the drainage/irrigation features was also noted in the vicinity of Feature 3. In addition to these findings, two smaller and seemingly undated drainage/irrigation features were also located along the southern boundary of the northwestern extent of the La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site. Due to the presence of previously unrecorded resources within the La Coste Field 1 Drainage/Irrigation Features which likely date to the early to mid-20th century, and since these features clearly possess intact subsurface components and show signs of potentially consisting of additional, unrecorded components, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

From the conclusions from the records search, Sacred Lands File search, and the confirmations from the individual tribal members, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
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. Information about potential impacts to TCRs was drawn from the ethnographic context and the results of a records search conducted by HELIX with the CHRIS. In summary, the ethnographic information reviewed for the project, including ethnographic maps, does not identify any villages, occupational areas, or resource procurement locations in or around the current #2..
- 140 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 98 project area. The cultural resources records search did not reveal any Native American archaeological sites within or adjacent to the proposed project area.

As summarized in Appendix F, TCR Memo, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and Northern Valley Yokuts did not respond to the City’s notification letters, it is assumed that the proposed project would not have an impact on known TCRs. There exists a potential for the discovery of previously unknown TCRs during project construction, however. 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, would reduce that impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of TCRs If potentially significant TCRs are discovered during ground disturbing construction 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.

XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
#2..
- 141 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 99 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Environmental Setting
The City’s water system currently serves a population of approximately 260,000 people in California’s Central Valley. The City is currently the largest retail water supplier in Stanislaus County and has been providing potable water service to its urban area since 1895. The City’s existing water service area consists of one large contiguous service area (defined by the City’s current Sphere of Influence and includes Salida, portions of North Ceres, and several unincorporated Stanislaus County “islands” located within the City’s Sphere of Influence), and several smaller outlying service areas (including Grayson, Del Rio, Ceres [Walnut Manor], and portions of Turlock; City 2019b).

The City’s water system consists of a little over 900 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. A portion of the transmission mains traversing the City is owned and operated by the MID, and these transmission mains deliver treated surface water from the MRWTP through a series of turnouts that have the ability to control water supply into the City’s water distribution system.

Groundwater from the City’s supply wells accounts for nearly 60 percent of the annual average water demand, with the rest from treated surface water provided by the MID. The groundwater supply is sourced from approximately 100 active wells throughout the City and distributed through approximately 74,000 service connections. The City faces ongoing challenges with non-point source contamination in its drinking water aquifers. As of 2020, 23 of the City’s water supply wells, representing over 16 MGD of the system’s total groundwater production capacity (50 MGD), were inactivated, abandoned, destroyed, or removed from potable use due to arsenic, nitrate, and uranium contamination.

The City’s sanitary sewer system comprises more than 600 miles of wastewater collection system pipelines, ranging from six to 66 inches in diameter; 69 miles of trunk lines greater than 15 inches in diameter; an additional 15 miles of trunk lines connecting cannery food processors directly to land disposal (application) areas; and approximately 40 lift stations (also referred to as pump stations) used to pump wastewater against gravity where necessary. The Sutter WWTP provides processes such as screening, sedimentation, and grit removal. The resulting pretreated wastewater is transferred along

6.5 miles of 60-inch pipe to the Jennings WWTP (City 2019b).

Two private firms are currently engaged in the collection and transport of solid waste in the City of Modesto. Gilton Solid Waste Management and Bertolotti Disposal provide hauling and interim transfer stations for the City of Modesto’s waste disposal, transformation, and diversion streams. A third hauler, Bonzi Disposal, hauls industrial waste. The Gilton transfer station has a capacity of 1,200 tons per day, and Bertolotti Disposal has a permitted capacity of 1,300 tons per day (City 2019b). #2..
- 142 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 100
Electricity in the project area is provided by the Modesto Irrigation Districts, and natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Gasoline and diesel are provided by various private businesses (City 2019b).

Impact Analysis
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? 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 would construct five MAR basins and associated water conveyance infrastructure including above ground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall structure, and pump stations. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin would convert existing stormwater retention basins to MAR basins. The LCL P1 North MAR Basin and the LCL P2 South MAR Basin would be constructed on City-owned, fallowed agricultural lands , and are currently vacant.

For construction, it assumed that 50 percent of vegetated material will be too odorous to spread on site.

Consequently, this material will be taken to the City owned WWTP's existing lay down area and spread there. Specifically, the estimated volume (in cubic yards) of vegetated material that will be taken to the City owned WWTP for each MAR basin is as follows: 1,414 CY for Merle Avenue, 101 CY for Well 65, 645 CY for Ustach Park; and 3,429 CY for LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South.

The City owns and operates two WWTP, located at Sutter Avenue and Jennings Road. The Sutter Avenue WWTP treats approximately 20 million gallons of wastewater per day before traveling six miles of pipelines to the facility at Jennings Road that treats approximately 15 million of those gallons further to tertiary (recycled water) levels (City 2020). The existing City owned WWTP would have the capacity to serve the CY of cleared materials produced during construction of the MAR basins and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. In addition, the City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that is discussed in detail in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which identifies the necessary steps to take in the event of a water shortage which would address any unforeseen impacts as a result of the proposed project. As mentioned in Section 9.X, no additional stormwater infrastructure would be required as a result of the proposed project. Installation of a pump station would require a tie-in to existing electric infrastructure within the City and would be serviced through existing electrical infrastructure. No natural gas or telecommunication utilities are required for construction and O&M of the proposed project. No expansion to existing utilities would be required for implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant for question a) and c).
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than significant impact. The proposed MAR basins would receive water from proposed water conveyance features including aboveground and/or subterranean pipelines, canal turnouts, outfall #2..
- 143 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 101
structure, and pump stations. Water conveyance structures would be connected to MID-owned laterals, the MID Moulton Lateral Three and MID Lateral Two, and pump stations.

Water consumption in the City fluctuates seasonally with demand being lowest in the winter and highest in the summer. The City developed the 2015 UWMP that identifies existing and long-term water supply sources and describes the supply and conservation management programs for a 20 year planning timeframe (City 2015). Since the development of the 2015 UWMP, the City has implemented a number of improvements and maintenance programs in recent years to increase the system’s overall efficiency by reducing water system losses (the difference between the actual volume of water treated and delivered into the distribution system and the actual metered consumption). Such losses generally result from leaks in the distribution system, unauthorized connections or use, faulty meters, unmetered services, and system or street flushing (City 2019b). The 2015 UWMP indicates that the City’s normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year supplies are adequate to meet projected demand through 2040 with water conservation (City 2019b). Therefore, the impact regarding water supplies would be less than significant.
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? e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. Solid waste generated from construction of the proposed MAR basins would be taken to Gilton Resource Recovery Site. Any non-recoverable waste generated during construction would be taken to Fink Road Landfill. Any wet waste generated during construction would be taken to one of the two City owned WWTP.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin: Construction of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin would generate less than one ton of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin would be taken to Gilton Resource Recovery, located approximately 11 miles from the site. The operation of the MAR basin would not generate any solid waste.

Solid waste generated from construction would include the concrete canal lining to be cut and removed to allow construction of the new canal turnout in the MID Moulton Lateral Three, any concrete road surface in the basin to be cut and removed for the new pipeline, and portions of the storm drain manhole or pump structure to be cut into and removed for the new pipeline discharge.

Well 65 MAR Basin: Construction of the Well 65 MAR Basin would generate less than one ton of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction of the Well 65 MAR Basin would be taken to Gilton Resource Recovery, located approximately 6 miles from the site. The operation of the MAR basin would not generate any solid waste.

Solid waste generated from construction would include concrete canal lining to be cut and removed to allow construction of the new canal turnout in the MID Moulton Lateral Three, asphalt road surface in the basin to be cut and removed for the new pipeline, and portions of the storm drain manhole or pump structure to be cut into and removed for the new pipeline discharge.

Ustach Park MAR Basin: Construction of the Ustach Park MAR Basin would generate less than one ton of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction of the Ustach Park MAR Basin would be taken to #2..
- 144 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 102
Gilton Resource Recovery, located approximately 6 miles from the site. The operation of the MAR basin would not generate any solid waste.

Solid waste generated from construction would include curb, gutter, sidewalk, and road surfacing to be cut and removed for construction of the MID pipeline connection, pump station, and pipeline in Sylvan Avenue, Roselle Avenue, and Hillglen Avenue, and portions of the storm drain drop inlet cut into and removed for the pipeline discharge.

La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and Parcel 2 South MAR Basins: Construction of the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins would generate less than one ton of solid waste. Solid waste generated during construction of the LCL P1 North MAR Basin and P2 South MAR Basin would be taken to Gilton Resource Recovery, located approximately 3.5 miles from the sites. The operation of the MAR basin would not generate any solid waste.

Solid waste generated from construction would include demolition of the concrete liner in MID’s Lateral Two to allow the construction of a new turnout, and removal of asphalt paving where the pipeline is proposed to cross La Coste Lane.

All five MAR basins would each generate less than one ton of solid waste during construction and would generate no solid waste during operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess demand of State or local standards, negatively impact the provision of solid waste services, or conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes. The impact would be less than significant for questions d) and e).

XX. Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
#2..
- 145 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 103
Environmental Setting
The City is not mapped under a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), as defined by the California Department of Forestry (CAL FIRE 2023). The City and surrounding areas are within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), and the proposed project site and surrounding areas are primarily designated as “unzoned” or “moderate.” The City is located in the central portion of the County, east of the Diablo Range. The wildfire season in the County occurs between May and October each year and the highest fire hazard area is in the undeveloped western and eastern portions of the County.

Impact Analysis
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact. The City is not mapped under a FHSZ, as defined by the California Department of Forestry, and is not located within a state responsibility area (SRA)(CAL FIRE 2023).

Although the proposed project site is not located within an SRA, construction of the proposed project would have the potential to impact access for emergency services, such as fire. However, with implementation of a Project Management Plan, impacts would be reduced with input from the City. The proposed project would be located within managed areas that are periodically mowed by the City to manage vegetation leading to a reduction in wildfire risk. Access for each proposed MAR basin site would be accomplished using existing access routes and no additional utilities, access roads, or fuel breaks would be required. The proposed project would not require permanent staffing or include housing elements that would expose people to potential hazards associated with the new MAR basins.

Open spaces adjacent to the proposed project would continue to be managed following existing City protocols and implementation of the MAR basins and associated water conveyance systems would not exacerbate wildfire risk within the proposed project area. Therefore, with implementation of the Project Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant. #2..
- 146 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 104
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project 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 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?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Does the project 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 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? Less than significant impact with mitigation. As detailed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment and would not result in any of the impacts requiring a mandatory finding of significance provided that the mitigation measures identified herein are properly implemented and maintained as described in the Biological, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resource sections of this Initial Study. The mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and its identified mitigation measures as identified herein applicable to Biological, Cultural, and Tribal Cultural Resources, if properly implemented and maintained, would reduce the identified potential impacts to those resources to a level of less-than-significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present, and probable future projects)? Less than significant impact with mitigation. The majority of the proposed project impacts are related to construction. However, all impacts related to construction are temporary and short-term and would not cause a significant impact, as outlined in this Initial Study. The City of Modesto General Plan #2..
- 147 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 105
(City 2019a) and the City of Modesto General Plan EIR (City 2019b) analyze the potential for the City’s growth and identifies future growth-inducing, cumulative projects within City limits. As the City General Plan and General Plan EIR analyze future growth and development within the City, the proposed project impacts, mainly related to project construction, would not exacerbate, or cumulatively add to what was previously envisioned and analyzed within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of MAR basins under the proposed project would not result in a cumulative impact.

Key areas of concern that are discussed in the Initial Study include Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. However, impacts relating to these key areas of concern would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact, and no additional mitigation is required. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. As described herein, the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, which identifies construction noise reduction and vibratory roller measures, respectively, would reduce potential impacts associated with temporary noise increases to a level of less than significant.

10.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared by the City per Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and is presented in Appendix G. #2..
- 148 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 106

11.0 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scopingplan-documents. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-airquality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed March 30, 2023. 2023b. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed March 20, 2023. 2023c. Mines Online. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed March 20, 2023.
2015. Geologic Map of California. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.

Accessed August 18, 2023.

California Department of Fire and Forestry (CAL FIRE). 2023. FHSZ Viewer. Available at:
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed March 30, 2023.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Available at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed March 15, 2023. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5. Accessed June 2, 2023.
2023b. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June 6, 2023. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=213150&inline. 2019. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. November 2019. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed June 4, 2023. #2..
- 149 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 107
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. 2020 Total System Electric Generation. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-totalsystem-electric-generation. Accessed March 23, 2023. 2021b. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gasmarket/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california. Accessed March 23, 2023. 2021c. California Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/californiagasoline-data-facts-and-statistics. Accessed March 23, 2023. 2021d. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics. Accessed March 23, 2023.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Electronic Inventory of Endangered and Rare Plants.

Available at: www.cnps.org/. Accessed June 4, 2023.

City of Modesto. 2020. Wastewater Services. Available at: https://modestogov.com/522/WastewaterServices. Accessed March 21, 2023. 2019a. City of Modesto General Plan. Adopted March 5. Available at:
https://www.modestogov.com/2069/General-Plan. Accessed March 2023. 2019b. City of Modesto General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2014042081.

March. Available at: https://www.modestogov.com/2070/Master-Environmental-ImpactReport. Accessed March 2023. 2018. City of Modesto General Plan Update Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Available at: https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/15054/EIR-14- 001-DOC-AQ-GHG-Technical-Appendix-6-12-18-PDF?bidId=.
1991. City of Modesto Municipal Code, Title 4 - Public Welfare, Safety and Health, Chapter 9 – Noise Regulations. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/modesto/ codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT4PUWESAHE_CH9NORE.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2018. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Third Edition. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tularelakebp_201805.pdf.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Envirostor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed March 15, 2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. Available at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d48 79338b5529aa9cd&extent=-121.1243096093748,37.57358621974886,- 120.88261039062512,37.709515688955356. Accessed March 29, 2023. #2..
- 150 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 108
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Available at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual feeta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2023a. City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. May 19, 2023. 2023b. Cultural Resources Letter Report for the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project. May 12, 2023.
2023c. City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Noise and Vibration Assessment. May 24, 2023.
2023d. Tribal Consultation Record for Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and CEQA for the City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project, City of Modesto. May 19, 2023.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2023a. Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed March 30, 2023. 2023b. National Hydric Soils List for Northern Stanislaus County. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html. Accessed March 20, 2023.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2021. CEQA Guide Chapter 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Revised February. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINALDRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. 2015b. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-gamaqi-criteria-pollutant-thresholds-ofsignificance.pdf. 2012. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.
#2..
- 151 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 109
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (cont.) 2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 2009b. District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-09/2%20CCAP%20- %20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 2004. Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, And Other Earthmoving Activities. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/ currntrules/CLEAN%20VERSION%20OF%20RULE%208021.pdf.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Stanislaus County (County). 2023a. Assessor Map View Viewer: Stanislaus County GIS. Available at:
https://stancounty-gis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=c125dbcc5d1844b8986241b6465aabee. Accessed March 30, 2023. 2023b. Stanislaus County Noise Control Ordinance. Available at:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/stanislaus_county_ca/pub/county_code/item/title_10- chapter_10_46.
2016. Zoning Ordinance. Available at: https://www.stancounty.com/planning/forms/zoningordinance.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2023. 2015a. General Plan Agricultural Element. Available at:
https://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/gp-chapter7.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2023.
2015b. General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
https://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/gp/current/gp-chapter4.pdf.

Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016. Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available at: https://www.stancounty.com/planning/agenda-aluc/ALUCP.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2023.

Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association: Groundwater Sustainability Agency (STRGBA). 2023. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development. Available at:
https://www.strgba.org/Home/GSP. Accessed August 18, 2023. 2022. Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Available at:
https://www.strgba.org/Content/Documents/Documents/Modesto%20Subbasin%20GSP%2020 220130.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2023.
#2..
- 152 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 110
State Water Resources Control Board. 2023. Geotracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Modesto. Accessed March 15, 2023.

Trihydro Corporation, Inc. 2023. City of Modesto Proposition 1 Project: Biological Resources Assessment.

July 28, 2023.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model version 1.1. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Superfund National Priorities List. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=33cebcdfdd1b4c3a8b51d416956c 41f1. Accessed March 15, 2023.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC).

Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed: May 31, 2023. 2023b. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.

Accessed May 31, 2023.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Land Subsidence. Available at: https://www.usgs.gov/specialtopics/water-science-school/science/land-subsidence. Accessed August 18, 2023. #2..
- 153 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 111

12.0 Preparers
List of Preparers
City of Modesto
Jim Alves, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
Trihydro Corporation
Dave Dirkin, PG, Project Manager
Phil Burkhalter, PE, Civil Engineer
Jameson Honeycutt, Senior Planner
Margaret Caligaris, Environmental Compliance and Permitting Specialist Georgia Hamer, Field Biologist
Galen Pelzmann, Field Biologist
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Robert Edgerton, AICP CEP, Principal Planner
Julia Pano, Environmental Planner
Martin Rolph, Air Quality/Noise Specialist
Ben Siegal, Senior Archaeologist
Jentin Joe, Staff Archaeologist
Greg Davis, Reviewing Biologist
Lika Loechler, GIS Specialist
#2..
- 154 -
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project IS/MND 112
This page intentionally left blank
#2..
- 155 -
Figures
Appendix A
#2..
- 156 -
Ceres
Modesto
Riverbank
Airport
Bystrom
Empire
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/3/2023 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Calaveras
Santa Merced
Clara
Tuolumne San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merle Ave
MAR Basin
USGS 7.5 Min. Riverbank Quad
Township 3S, Range 10E, Section 19
Township 3S, Range 9E, Section 11, 13, & 14
Approximate Location:
-120.9359137 37.6689545
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone III (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage:

Ustach Park MAR Basin ± 3.00 Acres
Well 65 MAR Basin ± 0.75 Acre
Merle Avenue MAR Basin ± 5.5 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin ± 12.00 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin ± 7.00 Acres
0 1 Miles
Study Area
Well 65
MAR Basin
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 2 South MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 1 North MAR Basin
Milnes Rd
Claus Rd
E Briggsmore Ave
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Scenic Dr
#2..
- 157 -
Allan Adale Dr
Linnea Ln
N
ewh
a
m
p
t
o
n
W
a
y
Ma�sse Ln
E Briggsmore Ave
Figure 2
Merle Avenue Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 200 Feet
Merle Avenue
MAR Basin
Merle Ave Basin
Staging Area
Merle Ave Conveyance
Moulton Lateral - L3
#2..
- 158 -
Beatrice Ln
Woo
d
wind
W
a
y
Woodfield Dr
Figure 3
Well 65 Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 100 Feet
Well 65
MAR Basin
Well 65 Basin
Staging Area
Moulton Lateral - L3
Well 65 Conveyance
#2..
- 159 -
Figure 4
Ustach Park Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/30/2023 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Kodiak Dr
Sylvan Ave
Hillglen Ave
McReynolds Ave
Roselle Ave
Medinah Way
0 400 Feet
Pump Sta�on
Ustach Conveyance
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
Ustach Park Basin
Staging Area
Ustach Conveyance
Alterna�ve
Cavil Drain MID
Conveyance
#2..
- 160 -
Frazine Rd
Figure 5
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 250 Feet
Conveyance
Pump Sta�on
Lateral 2
La Coste Lane Parcel 1
North MAR Basin
La Coste Lane Parcel 2
South MAR Basin
Norseman
Dr
La Coste Ln
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Staging Area
#2..
- 161 -
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Analysis Report
Appendix B
#2..
- 162 -
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 130
Folsom, CA 95630
916.435.1205 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com/
May 19, 2023 Project 08444.00002.001
Dave Dirkin, P.E.

Trihydro Corporation
9083 Foothills Boulevard, Suite 370
Roseville, CA 95747
Subject: City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
Dear Mr. Dirkin:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) assessed the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project (project). Analysis within this report was prepared to support impact analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations).

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located in the City of Modesto (City), Stanislaus County, California. The five proposed managed aquifer recharge (MAR) basins would include: Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site; Well 65 MAR Basin Site; Ustach Park MAR Basin Site; La Coste Lane (LCL) Parcel 1 (P1) North MAR Basin Site; and LCL Parcel 2 (P2) South MAR Basin Site. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin, Well 65 MAR Basin, and Ustach Park MAR Basin are located within City limits. The La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and Parcel 2 South MAR Basins are located outside City limits; however, the two basins are located within the City General Plan Boundary and Sphere of Influence (City 2019). The sites are located within Sections 11, 13, 14, and 19, Township 3 South, Range 9 and 10 East (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute “Riverbank Quadrangle”). Refer to Figure 1: Regional Vicinity Map, included in Attachment A to this report, for locations of all five MAR basins. The MAR basin site locations and their surrounding land uses are described below.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The proposed Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site is 5.50 acres and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 085-004-006. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes to the north, east, and west and single-family residential homes and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south. #2..
- 163 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 2 of 20
May 19, 2023
Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The proposed Well 65 MAR Basin Site is 0.75 acre and is located directly south of Merle Avenue on APN 077-007-021. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin adjacent to MID Moulton Lateral. The site is surrounded by Orchard Elementary School and an existing water tank to the west, Orchard Elementary School and single-family residential homes to the north, single-family residential homes to the east, and commercial development, single-family residential homes, and the MID Moulton Lateral to the south.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park MAR Basin Site is 3.00 acres and is located in the northeastern corner of the intersection of Kodiak Drive and Bear Club Lane on APN 077-009-053. The site is an existing stormwater retention basin. The site is surrounded by Ustach Park and single-family residential homes to the north, Ustach Middle School to the west, and single-family residential homes to the east and south.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Sites
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North MAR Basin Site is 12.00 acres and is located north of La Coste Lane and west of Frazine Road, on APN 014-037-056. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by single-family residential homes and agricultural fields to the north and east, the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station and open space to the west, and Alice Stroud Elementary School and open space to the south.

La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South MAR Basin Site is 7.00 acres and is located south of La Coste Lane, east of Norseman Drive, and north of Garst Road, on APN 014-037-063. The site is comprised of fallowed agricultural lands that were formerly irrigated with water from MID Lateral Two. The site is surrounded by the existing LCL Tank and booster pump station and open space to the north, agricultural fields to the west, Alice Stroud Elementary School to the east, and agricultural fields, Dan Gonsalves Stadium, and the MID Lateral Two to the south.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would construct and operate five MAR basins in the City. The project would use clean surface water for the MAR basins to improve groundwater sustainability and resiliency. The MAR basins are expected to operate for 20 years (2025 through 2045). The basins’ water conveyance structures are described in more detail below. See Figures 2 through 5 in Attachment A for site plans of the five MAR basins.

Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site
The Merle Avenue Site would include the construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the #2..
- 164 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 3 of 20
May 19, 2023
site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the existing storm drain manhole and move southeast along until it reaches a proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral.

Well 65 MAR Basin Site
The Well 65 Site would include the construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing storm drain manhole located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would at the existing storm drain manhole and move southeast until it reaches the proposed canal turnout off the MID Moulton Lateral.

Ustach Park MAR Basin Site
The Ustach Park Site would include the construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed 12-inch pipeline to an existing outfall structure located on the northeastern corner of the site.

The proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline would begin at the existing outfall structure and move north along the eastern boundary of Ustach Park until it reaches Hillglen Avenue. The pipeline would then move east along Hillglen Avenue until it reaches Roselle Avenue. The pipeline would then move north along Roselle Avenue until it reaches the proposed pump station located in the northwestern corner of the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. The proposed pump station would deliver water from the existing MID pipeline to the Ustach Park MAR Basin.

La Coste Lane MAR Basin Site
Parcel 1 North
The LCL P1 North Site would include the construction of water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed above ground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southwestern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the proposed outfall structure and move southwest until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station off MID Lateral Two. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

Parcel 2 South
The LCL P2 South Site would include the construction of a water conveyance to the basin by connecting a proposed above ground, 12-inch pipeline to a proposed outfall structure located on the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed pipeline would begin at the proposed outfall structure, and move south until it reaches the proposed turnout and pump station off the MID Lateral Two. The pump station would deliver water from the MID Lateral Two.

AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
The City of Modesto lies within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and State laws in the project area. As required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), SJVAPCD has published various air quality planning documents, as discussed below, to address requirements to bring the SJVAB into compliance with the federal and state ambient air quality standards. The Air Quality Attainment Plans are incorporated into the State Implementation Plan (SIP), #2..
- 165 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 4 of 20
May 19, 2023
which is subsequently submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal agency that administrates the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1990.

Regulatory Setting
Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are defined and regulated by State and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the public and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources, including carbon monoxide (CO); reactive organic gases (ROGs), also known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs); nitrogen oxides (NOX); sulfur dioxide (SO2); coarse particulate matter (PM10); fine particulate matter (PM2.5); and lead. Of these primary pollutants, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead are criteria pollutants. ROGs and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The principal secondary criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The project site is located within the SJVAB and, as such, is in an area designated as “nonattainment” for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA. Table 1, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin – Attainment Status, lists the federal and State attainment status of the SJVAB for the criteria pollutants. As shown in Table 1, the SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; no designation/classification for lead; and in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards (SJVAPCD 2012). #2..
- 166 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 5 of 20
May 19, 2023
Table 1
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards
Ozone – One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone – Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM 10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM 2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Unclassified Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2012
The SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain State and Federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The SJVAPCD’s air quality plans include control measures to reduce emissions and emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants (and to evaluate how well different control methods have worked). In June 2016, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard to map strategies for attainment of the updated NAAQS 8-hour ozone standard (SJVAPCD 2016). In November 2018, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards to address the federal standards for each of those years (SJVAPCD 2018).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

The Health and Safety Code (§39655[a]) defines TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” All substances that are listed as hazardous air pollutants pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the CAA (42 United States Code Sec. 7412[b]) are designated as TACs. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
#2..
- 167 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 6 of 20
May 19, 2023
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is referred to as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2023).

Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a notable effect on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of the total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2023).

Greenhouse Gases
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by atmospheric gases.

These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting sunlight in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHG Reduction Regulations and Plans
The primary GHG reduction regulatory legislation and plans (applicable to the project) at the State and levels are described below. Implementation of California’s GHG reduction mandates is primarily under the authority of CARB at the State level, and under the authority of the SJVAPCD at the regional level.

Executive Order S-3-05: On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by #2..
- 168 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 7 of 20
May 19, 2023
2050. Executive Orders are not laws and can only provide the governor’s direction to State agencies to act within their authority to reinforce existing laws.

California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions to 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050.

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan: The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least once every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and clearly making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived #2..
- 169 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 8 of 20
May 19, 2023
climate pollutants (SLCPs). The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in SLCPs; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the following guidance documents applicable to the project:
• Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009a), and
• District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency (SJVAPCD 2009b).

1. If a project complies 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, then the project would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions;

2. If a project does not comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or mitigation program, then it would be required to implement best performance standards (BPS); and

3. If a project is not implementing BPS, then it should demonstrate that its GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, compared to business-as-usual.

The SJVAPCD adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CAP) in 2008 and issued guidance for development project compliance with the plan in 2009. The guidance adopted an approach that relies on the use of BPS to reduce GHG emissions. Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. For projects not implementing BPS, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in project-specific (i.e., operational) GHG emissions from business-as-usual conditions is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact (SJVAPCD 2009a). Both the SJVAPCD CAP and the guidance for development project compliance are limited to achieving the State 2020 GHG reduction goals mandated by AB 32. The SJVAPCD CAP and the guidance for development project compliance do not address California’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals. Neither #2..
- 170 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 9 of 20
May 19, 2023
the City of Modesto nor Stanislaus County currently has a CAP or other GHG reduction plan which addresses post-2020 GHG reductions mandated by SB 32 and AB 1279.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005; OEHHA 2015).

The closest existing residential sensitive receptors to the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 120 feet east and 100 feet west of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the Well 65 MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the site and Orchard Elementary School located approximately 300 feet northwest of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site are single-family residential homes located 25 feet east and 125 feet south of the site. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the LCL Parcel 1 North and LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Sites are single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site and 650 feet northwest of the LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Criteria pollutant and precursor emissions, and GHG emissions for the project construction activities and long-term operation were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1.1.12. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air districts. CalEEMod allows for the use of #2..
- 171 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 10 of 20
May 19, 2023
default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory) provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions, and/or user-defined inputs. The model calculates emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, and GHGs, including PM10, PM2.5, ROGs, NOX, and CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, C, and D (CAPCOA 2022). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. The CalEEMod output files are included in Attachment B to this report.

Construction Assumptions
Construction of the proposed MAR basins is anticipated to begin as early as December 2023 and be completed in May 2024. Construction modeling assumes the longest anticipated schedule reported by the project applicant for the following MAR basins:
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Well 65 MAR Basin: demolition 5 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 5 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: demolition 3 days; site preparation 5 days; paving 3 days; and trenching (underground utilities) 10 days.
• La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South: demolition 10 days; site preparation 10 days; grading 20 days; trenching (underground utilities) 25 days; and paving 10 days. Grading and trenching (underground utilities) would occur concurrently, and paving would begin directly after trenching (underground utilities) is complete.

Construction equipment assumptions for the proposed MAR basins were based on estimates from the project applicant and CalEEMod defaults. See Attachment B for a full list of equipment used during construction of each MAR basin. The estimated volume of vegetation that would either be exported offsite or spread on-site during site preparation and the number of dump truck loads that would remove debris during demolition were provided by the project engineer:
• Merle Avenue MAR Basin: An estimated 1,412 cubic yards (CY) of vegetation to be spread onsite, and an estimated 1,412 CY of vegetation to be exported to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) approximately 15 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately 109 truckloads (or 218 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately one truckload of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition. • Well 65 MAR Basin: An estimated 101 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 101 CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 6.5 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately eight truckloads (or 16 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during preparation, and approximately two truckloads of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.
#2..
- 172 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 11 of 20
May 19, 2023
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: An estimated 645 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 645 CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately eight miles off-site.

Additionally, approximately 50 truckloads (or 100 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately 2 trucks of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.
• La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basins: An estimated 3,429 CY of vegetation to be spread on-site, and an estimated 3,429 CY of vegetation to be exported to a WWTP approximately 8.5 miles off-site. Additionally, approximately 264 truckloads (or 528 one-way trips) of other cleared materials would be exported during site preparation, and approximately 82 trucks of demolition debris would be hauled off-site during demolition.

Operational Assumptions
Operational tasks associated with the MAR basins would include operating the turnouts, pump stations, and meters at the applicable site, providing maintenance checks as needed, and seasonal vegetation management. Maintenance activities and vegetation management would be performed by existing City staff and were assumed to be similar to existing activities and would not result in new criteria pollutant or GHG emissions. Water provided for the MAR basins would be sourced from existing MID laterals and is not anticipated to result in new water/wastewater source GHG emissions over existing conditions. The only new operational emissions would be indirect GHG energy source emissions (resulting from electricity use) for the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL P1 North and LCL P2 South MAR Basins, as these basins would require energy usage to operate new pump stations. The pump stations would be required to transport water from the MID laterals to the MAR basins. The Merle Avenue MAR Basin and Well 65 MAR Basin would not require construction of new pump stations, and therefore, operational energy source emissions were not calculated. Operational emissions resulting from energy use were based on estimates from the project engineer. Operational energy emissions assume the estimated electrical consumption for the following proposed MAR Basins:
• Ustach Park MAR Basin: The MAR basin would require 13,899 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year of electricity.
• La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North and La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South: The MAR basins would require 52,120 kWh per year of electricity.
#2..
- 173 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 12 of 20
May 19, 2023

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Air Quality
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant air quality environmental impact if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; or

2. 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; or

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SJVAPCD has established significant thresholds to assess the impacts of projectrelated air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SJVAB. Table 2, SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. A project with emission rates and risk values below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant impact on air quality.

Table 2

SJVAPCD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Mass Daily Thresholds (tons per year)
Pollutant Construction Operation
ROG 10 10
NOX 10 10
CO 100 100
PM10 15 15
PM2.5 15 15
SOX 27 27
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs1 Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: SJVAPCD 2015b 1 TACs (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) As set forth in the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. Impacts of local pollutants (CO, TACs) are cumulatively #2..
- 174 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 13 of 20
May 19, 2023
significant when modeling shows that the combined emissions from the project and other existing and planned projects would exceed air quality standards.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a project in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts. According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following criteria may be considered in establishing the significance of GHG emissions:

Would the project:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The SJVAPCD has adopted the guidance in Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the policy, Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of Best Performance Standards (BPS) to assess the significance of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process. However, SJVAPCD’s adopted BPS are specifically directed at reducing GHG emissions from stationary sources; therefore, the adopted BPS would not generally be applicable to the proposed project as construction of MAR basins would not be a stationary source of emissions. The SJVAPCD guidance does not limit a lead agency’s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
(1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Table 2, the SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for a project’s criteria pollutant and precursor emissions for both temporary constructionrelated emissions and long-term operational-related emissions. According to the SJVAPCD, these significant thresholds have been established to assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant air quality impact. A project with emissions lower than the thresholds would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the district’s air quality plans for attainment of the applicable NAAQS and CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015a). As discussed below, the project would not exceed the temporary construction-related or long-term operational-related thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and precursor emissions. In addition, control measures in the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, including the 2016 Ozone Plan and the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards are based in part on growth projections in local planning documents such as the County and City General Plans. The project would not require a change of General Plan land use designation and the project would not result in population or employment growth in the County or City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans and the impact would be less than significant.
(2) 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. The SJVAB is designated as attainment for PM10; attainment/unclassified for CO, NO2, SO2; no designation/classification for lead; and in nonattainment for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 with respect to State air quality standards. The project’s emissions of these criteria pollutants and precursors during construction and operation are evaluated below.

Construction Emissions
CalEEMod was used to quantify project-generated construction emissions, as discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above. The model output sheets are included in Attachment B. Construction of the proposed MAR basins is anticipated to begin as early as December 2023 and be completed in May 2024.

The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of: (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod; and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).

The project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are compared to the SJVAPCD construction thresholds in Table 3, Construction Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Table 2, SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including #2..
- 176 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 15 of 20
May 19, 2023
thresholds for construction and operational emissions and maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project’s construction period emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds. Impacts related to constructiongenerated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be less than significant.

Table 3

CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS MAR Basin Sites ROG
(tons/year)
NOX
(tons/year)
PM10
(tons/year)
PM2.5
(tons/year)
Merle Avenue MAR Basin 2023 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Well 65 MAR Basin 2023 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Ustach Park MAR Basin 2023 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 2023 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2023 Total <0.1 0.4 0.1 <0.1
Merle Avenue MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Well 65 MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Ustach Park MAR Basin 2024 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 2024 <0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 2024 Total 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1
SJVAPCD Thresholds 10 10 15 15
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B).

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter.

Operational Emissions
As discussed in Methodology and Assumptions, above, the only new operational emissions would be energy source emissions from the Ustach Park MAR Basin and the LCL Parcel 1 North and LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basins as these basins would require electricity to operate new pump stations. Criteria pollutant emissions from electricity use are limited to off-site emissions generated at the power plant(s) and are not included in the project’s emissions inventory. GHG emissions resulting from project electricity use are discussed below.

The project’s maximum daily construction or operational emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and the impact would be less than significant.
(3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed in Sensitive Receptors, above, the closest sensitive receptor to each MAR basin site is: single-family residential homes located 100 feet west of the Merle Avenue MAR Basin Site; single-family residential homes located 25 feet east of the Well 65 MAR Basin Site; singlefamily residential homes located 25 feet east of the Ustach Park MAR Basin Site; single-family residential homes located 50 feet east of the LCL Parcel 1 North MAR Basin Site; and Alice Stroud Elementary School located 25 feet east of the LCL Parcel 2 South MAR Basin Site. #2..
- 177 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 16 of 20
May 19, 2023
The dose (of TAC) to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.

Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has to the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed quantity of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long-duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Construction of the proposed MAR basins is anticipated to take between one month and three months. In addition, concentrations of mobile source DPM emissions disperse rapidly and are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). Considering the short duration of project construction, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur at various locations in the City and on the project sites, it is not anticipated that construction of the project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations.

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant.
(4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and VOC released during application of asphalt. The odor of these emissions is objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level that would affect a substantial number of people. Any odors emitted during construction activities would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the facility maintenance. As a result, impacts associated with temporary odors during construction are not considered significant.

The SJVAPCD has developed screening distances for common sources of operational odors, including Wastewater Treatment Facility; Sanitary Landfill; Transfer Station; Composting Facility; Petroleum Refinery; Asphalt Batch Plant; Chemical Manufacturing; Fiberglass Manufacturing; Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shops); Food Processing Facility; Feed Lot/Dairy; and Rendering Plant (SJVAPCD 2015a). As the project would consist of MAR basins, operation of the project would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction or operation of the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant. #2..
- 178 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 17 of 20
May 19, 2023

GHG EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS
(1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. GHG emissions would be generated by the project during construction (vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, vendor trips, and worker commuting trips) and during long-term operation (energy use from the proposed pump stations).

GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as described in Methodology and Assumptions, above.

The results of the construction GHG emissions calculations are compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 4, Construction GHG Emissions.

Table 4

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B).

The results of the operational GHG emissions calculations are compared to the SMAQMD threshold in Table 5, Operational GHG Emissions.

Table 5

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Attachment B).

GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.

As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, the construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD construction GHG threshold or the SMAQMD industrial operational GHG threshold.

Therefore, GHG emissions from the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant.

Year of Emissions Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2023 (All MAR basins) 82.3
2024 (All MAR basins) 87.8
SMAQMD Construction Threshold (per year) 1,100
Exceed Threshold? No
Emission Sources 2025 Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Energy: Ustach Park MAR Basin 3.1
Energy: LCL P1 North and P2 South MAR Basins 11.6
Total 14.7
SMAQMD Operational Threshold 10,000
Exceed Threshold? No
#2..
- 179 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 18 of 20
May 19, 2023
(2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 requires further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 1279 requires the State to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045. The mandates of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 are implemented at the State level by the CARB’s Scoping Plan. Because the project’s operational year is post-2020, the project aims to reach the quantitative goals set by SB 32 and AB 1279.

Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and transportation fuels, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the Statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations. As noted in question ‘(1)’ above, construction and operational GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG thresholds, and therefore, would not generate new GHG emissions. In addition, the project’s only operational GHG emissions source would be from electricity use. As discussed in Regulatory Setting, SB 100 requires 100 percent of the electricity used in the state to be from renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2045. As a result, the project would not conflict with the GHG reduction objectives of the State’s Scoping Plan, including net zero GHG emissions by 2045, mandated by AB 1279, or the SJVAPCD’s Climate Change Action Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

SUMMARY
As described above, emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SJVAPCD construction and operational thresholds. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs or odors. Additionally, GHG emissions would be below the SMAQMD construction threshold and the SMAQMD industrial operational threshold. Therefore, impacts to air quality and GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Sincerely,
Martin Rolph Julia Pano
Air Quality Specialist Environmental Planner
Attachments:

Attachment A: Figures
Attachment B: CalEEMod Output
#2..
- 180 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 19 of 20
May 19, 2023

REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User's Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

City of Modesto (City). City of Modesto. 2019. City of Modesto General Plan. Adopted March 5. Available at: https://www.modestogov.com/2069/General-Plan. Accessed March 2023. 2018. City of Modesto General Plan Update Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Available at: https://www.modestogov.com/DocumentCenter/View/15054/EIR-14- 001-DOC-AQ-GHG-Technical-Appendix-6-12-18-PDF?bidId=.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. CEQA Guide Chapter 6:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Revised February. Available at:
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHG2-26-2021.pdf.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-planadopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012-PM2.5-Standards.pdf. 2016. 2016 Ozone Plane. June 16. Available at: http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/OzonePlan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. 2015a. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. #2..
- 181 -
Letter to Mr. Dave Dirkin Page 20 of 20
May 19, 2023
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (cont.) 2015b. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-gamaqi-criteria-pollutant-thresholds-ofsignificance.pdf. 2012. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.
2009a. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17- 09/3%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20LU%20Guidance%20-%20Dec%2017%202009.pdf. 2009b. District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/12-17-
09/2%20CCAP%20-%20FINAL%20District%20Policy%20CEQA%20GHG%20-%20Dec%2017%2020

09.pdf.
2004. Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, And Other Earthmoving Activities. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/CLEAN%20VERSION%20OF%20RULE%208021.pdf. #2..
- 182 -
Attachment A
Figures
#2..
- 183 -
Ceres
Modesto
Riverbank
Airport
Bystrom
Empire
Figure 1
Regional Vicinity Map
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/3/2023 Source: Base Map Layers (Esri, USGS, NGA, NASA)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Calaveras
Santa Merced
Clara
Tuolumne San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merle Ave
MAR Basin
USGS 7.5 Min. Riverbank Quad
Township 3S, Range 10E, Section 19
Township 3S, Range 9E, Section 11, 13, & 14
Approximate Location:
-120.9359137 37.6689545
NAD 1983 State Plane CA Zone III (US Feet)
Approximate Acreage:

Ustach Park MAR Basin ± 3.00 Acres
Well 65 MAR Basin ± 0.75 Acre
Merle Avenue MAR Basin ± 5.5 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North MAR Basin ± 12.00 Acres
La Coste Lane Parcel 2 South MAR Basin ± 7.00 Acres
0 1 Miles
Study Area
Well 65
MAR Basin
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 2 South MAR Basin
La Coste Lane
Parcel 1 North MAR Basin
Milnes Rd
Claus Rd
E Briggsmore Ave
Claribel Rd
Oakdale Rd
Scenic Dr
#2..
- 184 -
Allan Adale Dr
Linnea Ln
N
ewham
p
t
o
n WayMa�sse Ln
E Briggsmore Ave
Figure 2
Merle Avenue Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 200 Feet
Merle Avenue
MAR Basin
Merle Ave Basin
Staging Area
Merle Ave Conveyance
Moulton Lateral - L3
#2..
- 185 -
Beatrice Ln
Woodwind
Way
Woodfield Dr
Figure 3
Well 65 Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 100 Feet
Well 65
MAR Basin
Well 65 Basin
Staging Area
Moulton Lateral - L3
Well 65 Conveyance
#2..
- 186 -
Figure 4
Ustach Park Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project Kodiak Dr
Roselle Ave
Hillglen Ave
Medinah Way
McReynolds Ave
Sylvan Ave
Bear Cub Ln
0 350 Feet
Pump Sta�on
Ustach Conveyance
Ustach Park
MAR Basin
Ustach Park Basin
Staging Area
#2..
- 187 -
Frazine Rd
Figure 5
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Site Plan
T:\PROJECTS\T\TrihydroCorporation_08444\00002_ModestoMunicipalGroundwaterCleanup\Map\Modesto Municipal Groundwater Cleanup.aprx 5/15/2023 Source: Aerial Imagery (Maxar, 6/18/2021)
City of Modesto Municipal Groundwater Improvement Project 0 250 Feet
Conveyance
Pump Sta�on
Lateral 2
La Coste Lane Parcel 1
North MAR Basin
La Coste Lane Parcel 2
South MAR Basin
Norseman
Dr
La Coste Ln
La Coste Lane Parcel 1 North
and Parcel 2 South Basin Staging Area
#2..
- 188 -
Attachment B
CalEEMod Output
#2..
- 189 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
1 / 26
Merle Avenue MAR Basin 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

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Trenching (2023) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
#2..
- 190 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
2 / 26

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

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 #2..
- 191 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
3 / 26

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

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
#2..
- 192 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
4 / 26

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
#2..
- 193 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
5 / 26

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Merle Avenue MAR Basin
Construction Start Date 12/1/2023
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location Modesto, CA, USA
County Stanislaus
City Modesto
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2258
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.12

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

14.0 Acre 14.0 0.00 0.00 — — —
#2..
- 194 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
6 / 26

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.13 2.59 27.0 22.4 0.06 1.23 6.05 7.28 1.14 2.84 3.98 — 5,812 5,812 0.20 0.41 0.16 5,938 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.07 0.64 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.05 173 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 28.7

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 3.13 2.59 27.0 22.4 0.06 1.23 6.05 7.28 1.14 2.84 3.98 — 5,812 5,812 0.20 0.41 0.16 5,938 #2..
- 195 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
7 / 26
2024 0.33 0.27 3.01 3.86 0.01 0.14 0.10 0.23 0.13 0.03 0.15 — 807 807 0.03 0.04 0.02 820 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.08 0.07 0.64 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 171 171 0.01 0.01 0.05 173 2024 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 28.7 2024 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.86

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.43 0.36 2.91 2.62 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,218 1,218 0.05 0.01 — 1,223 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.7 #2..
- 196 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
8 / 26
Demolitio — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.76 2.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.77 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.1 38.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.3 16.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.1 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 #2..
- 197 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
9 / 26

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.93 2.46 23.5 20.8 0.03 1.19 — 1.19 1.09 — 1.09 — 3,306 3,306 0.13 0.03 — 3,317 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.33 5.33 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.28 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.50 7.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.52 #2..
- 198 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
10 / 26
Dust — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 116 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.06 3.36 0.86 0.03 0.04 0.61 0.65 0.04 0.17 0.21 — 2,392 2,392 0.05 0.37 0.15 2,505 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.61 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.8 32.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 34.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.42 5.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.68

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 199 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
11 / 26
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 2.65 3.51 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 540 540 0.02 < 0.005 — 541 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.39 7.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.42 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.23 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.8 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 241 #2..
- 200 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
12 / 26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16 3.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.30 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Trenching (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.08 0.91 7.97 8.41 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 2,367 2,367 0.10 0.02 — 2,375 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.9 64.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #2..
- 201 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
13 / 26
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 96.6 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 234 234 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 244 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 2.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.73 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.40 6.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.70 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.11 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated #2..
- 202 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
14 / 26
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) #2..
- 203 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
15 / 26
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 204 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
16 / 26
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 12/8/2023 12/14/2023 5.00 5.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2023 12/7/2023 5.00 5.00 — Paving Paving 1/2/2024 1/8/2024 5.00 5.00 —
Underground Utilities Trenching 12/15/2023 12/28/2023 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 120 0.40 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 #2..
- 205 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
17 / 26
Underground Utilities Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Underground Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Underground Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Underground Utilities Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38

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 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.40 11.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 43.6 15.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Utilities — — — —
Underground Utilities Worker 12.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
#2..
- 206 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
18 / 26
Underground Utilities Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

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 (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 —
Site Preparation 0.00 1,412 7.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.0

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
#2..
- 207 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
19 / 26
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 14.0 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
#2..
- 208 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
20 / 26

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 21.3 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
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
#2..
- 209 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
21 / 26
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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 70.3
#2..
- 210 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
22 / 26
AQ-PM 57.6
AQ-DPM 94.7
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 90.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 43.9
Traffic 23.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.9
Groundwater 78.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 72.2
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.6
Cardio-vascular 74.1
Low Birth Weights 32.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.9
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 37.0
Poverty 92.3
Unemployment 95.0

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
#2..
- 211 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
23 / 26
Economic—
Above Poverty 12.92185294
Employed 0.744257667
Median HI 2.592069806
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 13.25548569
Transportation—
Auto Access 1.809316053
Active commuting 84.55023739
Social—
2-parent households 15.23161812
Voting 4.529706147
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 36.81509047
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.91761838
Supermarket access 36.84075452
Tree canopy 87.64275632
Housing—
Homeownership 6.069549596
Housing habitability 41.46028487
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 93.25035288 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.89067112
Uncrowded housing 37.03323495
Health Outcomes—
#2..
- 212 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
24 / 26
Insured adults 27.96099063
Arthritis 14.6
Asthma ER Admissions 11.9
High Blood Pressure 13.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 13.4
Coronary Heart Disease 6.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 3.4
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.6
Cognitively Disabled 0.8
Physically Disabled 1.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.0
Mental Health Not Good 14.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 10.6
Pedestrian Injuries 99.6
Physical Health Not Good 16.1
Stroke 10.1
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 25.3
Current Smoker 6.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 47.4
#2..
- 213 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
25 / 26
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 68.5
Foreign-born 6.7
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 31.4
Traffic Density 23.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 85.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 94.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 1.00 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
#2..
- 214 -
Merle Avenue MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
26 / 26

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule based on information provided by project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment per project engineer. Off-Highway Truck=water truck.

Construction: Trips and VMT Hauling distances per project engineer. #2..
- 215 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
1 / 26
Well 65 MAR Basin 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

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Trenching (2023) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
#2..
- 216 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
2 / 26

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

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 #2..
- 217 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
3 / 26

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

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
#2..
- 218 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
4 / 26

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
#2..
- 219 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
5 / 26

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Well 65 MAR Basin
Construction Start Date 12/1/2023
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location Modesto, CA, USA
County Stanislaus
City Modesto
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2258
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.12

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

3.30 Acre 3.30 0.00 0.00 — — —
#2..
- 220 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
6 / 26

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.02 2.54 23.7 21.5 0.03 1.19 5.45 6.64 1.09 2.68 3.77 — 3,500 3,500 0.14 0.06 0.03 3,517 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.07 0.59 0.59 < 0.005 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.06 — 139 139 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 140 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 23.1 23.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.1 38.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 19.3 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 #2..
- 222 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
9 / 26

2.93 2.46 23.5 20.8 0.03 1.19 — 1.19 1.09 — 1.09 — 3,306 3,306 0.13 0.03 — 3,317 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.32 5.32 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

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

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.50 7.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.52 #2..
- 223 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
10 / 26
Dust — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 116 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 79.5 79.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 83.3 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.61 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 224 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
11 / 26
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 2.65 3.51 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 540 540 0.02 < 0.005 — 541 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.22 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.23 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.3 37.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.8 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 241 #2..
- 225 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
12 / 26
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16 3.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.30 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.08 0.91 7.97 8.41 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 2,367 2,367 0.10 0.02 — 2,375 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.9 64.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #2..
- 226 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
13 / 26
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 96.6 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 234 234 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 244 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 2.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.73 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.40 6.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.70 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.11 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated #2..
- 227 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
15 / 26
Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 228 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
16 / 26
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

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 Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 120 0.40 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 #2..
- 229 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
17 / 26
Underground Utilities Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Underground Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Underground Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Underground Utilities Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38

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 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.80 6.00 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 15.0 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 3.20 6.50 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Utilities — — — —
Underground Utilities Worker 12.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
#2..
- 230 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
18 / 26
Underground Utilities Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

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 (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.0 —
Site Preparation 0.00 101 7.50 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.30

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
#2..
- 231 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
19 / 26
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 3.30 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
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)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
#2..
- 232 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
20 / 26

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
#2..
- 233 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
22 / 26
AQ-PM 57.6
AQ-DPM 94.7
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 90.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 43.9
Traffic 23.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.9
Groundwater 78.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 72.2
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.6
Cardio-vascular 74.1
Low Birth Weights 32.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.9
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 37.0
Poverty 92.3
Unemployment 95.0

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
#2..
- 234 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
23 / 26
Economic—
Above Poverty 12.92185294
Employed 0.744257667
Median HI 2.592069806
Education—
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 13.25548569
Transportation—
Auto Access 1.809316053
Active commuting 84.55023739
Social—
2-parent households 15.23161812
Voting 4.529706147
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 36.81509047
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.91761838
Supermarket access 36.84075452
Tree canopy 87.64275632
Housing—
Homeownership 6.069549596
Housing habitability 41.46028487
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 93.25035288 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.89067112
Uncrowded housing 37.03323495
Health Outcomes—
#2..
- 235 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
24 / 26
Insured adults 27.96099063
Arthritis 14.6
Asthma ER Admissions 11.9
High Blood Pressure 13.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 13.4
Coronary Heart Disease 6.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 3.4
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.6
Cognitively Disabled 0.8
Physically Disabled 1.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.0
Mental Health Not Good 14.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 10.6
Pedestrian Injuries 99.6
Physical Health Not Good 16.1
Stroke 10.1
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 25.3
Current Smoker 6.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 47.4
#2..
- 236 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
25 / 26
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 68.5
Foreign-born 6.7
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 31.4
Traffic Density 23.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 85.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.4

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
#2..
- 237 -
Well 65 MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
26 / 26

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule based on information provided by project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment per project engineer. Off-Highway Truck=water truck Construction: Trips and VMT Trip length provided by project engineer. #2..
- 238 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
1 / 41
Ustach Park MAR Basin 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated
#2..
- 239 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
2 / 41

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
#2..
- 240 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
3 / 41

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
#2..
- 241 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
4 / 41

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
#2..
- 242 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
5 / 41

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
#2..
- 243 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
6 / 41

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
#2..
- 244 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
7 / 41

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Ustach Park MAR Basin
Construction Start Date 12/1/2023
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location Modesto, CA, USA
County Stanislaus
City Modesto
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2258
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.13

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
#2..
- 245 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
8 / 41
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

2.80 Acre 2.80 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

10.8 1000sqft 0.25 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 1.45 15.1 13.8 0.03 0.65 2.76 3.42 0.60 1.37 1.97 — 2,691 2,691 0.11 0.11 0.04 2,711 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 81.5 81.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 82.1 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.6

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 246 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
9 / 41
Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.74 1.45 15.1 13.8 0.03 0.65 2.76 3.42 0.60 1.37 1.97 — 2,619 2,619 0.10 0.11 0.04 2,655 2024 1.11 0.93 7.68 9.05 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.47 0.29 0.04 0.33 — 2,691 2,691 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,711 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.03 0.02 0.23 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 46.4 46.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 46.9 2024 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 81.5 81.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 82.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 7.67 7.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.76 2024 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.6

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.09 #2..
- 247 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
10 / 41

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 18.6 #2..
- 248 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
11 / 41
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.09

3. Construction Emissions Details

0.43 0.36 2.91 2.62 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,218 1,218 0.05 0.01 — 1,223 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.0 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.0 #2..
- 249 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
12 / 41
Demolitio — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.66 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.66 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.1 38.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.1 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 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 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 #2..
- 250 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
13 / 41

1.66 1.40 14.1 13.1 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 1,959 1,959 0.08 0.02 — 1,965 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.46 #2..
- 251 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
14 / 41
Dust — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 57.1 57.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 57.9 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 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.02 0.97 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 603 603 0.02 0.09 0.04 631 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.81 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.25 8.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.65 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.43

3.5. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 252 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
15 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 0.36 3.34 4.27 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 — 646 646 0.03 0.01 — 648 Paving — 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.31 5.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.33 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 55.9 55.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 56.8 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 241 #2..
- 253 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
16 / 41
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.48 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.98 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.04 0.87 7.29 8.37 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 — 2,367 2,367 0.10 0.02 — 2,375 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.02 0.20 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.8 64.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #2..
- 254 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
17 / 41
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.2 93.2 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 94.6 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 231 231 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 241 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.63 2.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.68 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.31 6.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.61 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
#2..
- 255 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
18 / 41
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2. Energy
#2..
- 256 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
19 / 41

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 #2..
- 257 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
20 / 41

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 #2..
- 258 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
21 / 41

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 259 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
22 / 41
Architect — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 #2..
- 260 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
23 / 41
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
#2..
- 261 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
24 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

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

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) #2..
- 262 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
25 / 41
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 263 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
26 / 41

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 264 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
27 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 265 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
28 / 41
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
#2..
- 266 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
29 / 41
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 12/8/2023 12/12/2023 5.00 3.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 12/1/2023 12/7/2023 5.00 5.00 — Paving Paving 1/16/2024 1/18/2024 5.00 3.00 —
Underground Utilities Trenching 1/2/2024 1/15/2024 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Demolition Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Underground Utilities Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Underground Utilities Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 250 0.38 Underground Utilities Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Underground Utilities Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Underground Utilities Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
#2..
- 267 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
30 / 41
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 5.00 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.67 6.00 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 20.0 8.00 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 7.50 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Underground Utilities — — — —
Underground Utilities Worker 12.5 10.8 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Underground Utilities Vendor 10.0 7.17 HHDT,MHDT
Underground Utilities Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Underground Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
#2..
- 268 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
31 / 41
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

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.80 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.25 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2023 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
2024 0.00 478 0.03 < 0.005
#2..
- 269 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
32 / 41

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
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)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,966

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) #2..
- 270 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
33 / 41
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 13,899 488 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 488 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor #2..
- 271 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
34 / 41

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration
#2..
- 272 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
35 / 41

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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
#2..
- 273 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
36 / 41
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The 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
#2..
- 274 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
37 / 41

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 70.3
AQ-PM 57.6
AQ-DPM 94.7
Drinking Water 97.8
Lead Risk Housing 90.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 43.9
Traffic 23.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 85.9
Groundwater 78.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 51.7
Impaired Water Bodies 72.2
Solid Waste 59.2
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.6
Cardio-vascular 74.1
Low Birth Weights 32.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 69.9
Housing 87.2
Linguistic 37.0
Poverty 92.3
#2..
- 275 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
38 / 41
Unemployment 95.0

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 12.92185294
Employed 0.744257667
Median HI 2.592069806
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 22.22507378
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 13.25548569
Transportation —
Auto Access 1.809316053
Active commuting 84.55023739
Social —
2-parent households 15.23161812
Voting 4.529706147
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 36.81509047
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 93.91761838
Supermarket access 36.84075452
Tree canopy 87.64275632
Housing —
Homeownership 6.069549596
#2..
- 276 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
39 / 41
Housing habitability 41.46028487
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 93.25035288 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.89067112
Uncrowded housing 37.03323495
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 27.96099063
Arthritis 14.6
Asthma ER Admissions 11.9
High Blood Pressure 13.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 38.7
Asthma 13.4
Coronary Heart Disease 6.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 3.4
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.6
Cognitively Disabled 0.8
Physically Disabled 1.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.0
Mental Health Not Good 14.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 14.8
Obesity 10.6
Pedestrian Injuries 99.6
Physical Health Not Good 16.1
Stroke 10.1
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 25.3
Current Smoker 6.0
#2..
- 277 -
Ustach Park MAR Basin Detailed Report, 5/18/2023
40 / 41
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 24.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 47.4
Elderly 29.3
English Speaking 68.5
Foreign-born 6.7
Outdoor Workers 11.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 31.4
Traffic Density 23.5
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 85.3
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 10.4

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule based on information provided by applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment per project engineer. Off-Highway Trucks=water trucks.

Construction: Trips and VMT Hauling distances per project engineer.

Operations: Energy Use Estimated electricity use for lift station.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Based on information provided by project applicant. #2..
- 279 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
1 / 42
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Paving (2024) - Unmitigated
#2..
- 280 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
2 / 42

3.9. Trenching (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
#2..
- 281 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
3 / 42

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
#2..
- 282 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
4 / 42

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

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
#2..
- 283 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
5 / 42

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
#2..
- 284 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
6 / 42

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
#2..
- 285 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
7 / 42

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins
Construction Start Date 12/1/2023
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.10
Precipitation (days) 29.2
Location Modesto, CA, USA
County Stanislaus
City Modesto
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2258
EDFZ 15
Electric Utility Modesto Irrigation District
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.12

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
#2..
- 286 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
8 / 42
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

19.5 Acre 19.5 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.19 3.53 31.6 31.5 0.06 1.48 5.65 7.13 1.37 2.73 4.10 — 6,643 6,643 0.27 0.15 0.06 6,688 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25 0.21 1.91 1.93 < 0.005 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.08 0.15 0.23 — 422 422 0.02 0.01 0.07 426 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 70.5

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 287 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
9 / 42
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
2023 3.08 2.58 25.2 22.2 0.04 1.20 5.62 6.82 1.10 2.73 3.83 — 4,172 4,172 0.17 0.15 0.06 4,221 2024 4.19 3.53 31.6 31.5 0.06 1.48 5.65 7.13 1.37 2.73 4.10 — 6,643 6,643 0.27 0.13 0.06 6,688 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.09 0.08 0.75 0.67 < 0.005 0.03 0.18 0.22 0.03 0.08 0.11 — 135 135 0.01 0.01 0.03 137 2024 0.25 0.21 1.91 1.93 < 0.005 0.09 0.31 0.40 0.08 0.15 0.23 — 422 422 0.02 0.01 0.07 426 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 22.6 2024 0.05 0.04 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 70.5

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.6 #2..
- 288 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
10 / 42

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 69.9 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.6 69.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 69.9 #2..
- 289 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
11 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.5 11.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 11.6

3. Construction Emissions Details

0.27 0.23 1.70 1.78 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 475 475 0.02 < 0.005 — 476 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.95 0.95 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.0 13.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.0 #2..
- 290 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
12 / 42
Demolitio — — — — — — 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.15 2.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.16 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.1 38.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 38.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 0.01 0.51 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 241 241 0.01 0.04 0.01 252 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.08 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.58 6.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.90 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 #2..
- 291 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
13 / 42

2.93 2.46 23.5 20.8 0.03 1.19 — 1.19 1.09 — 1.09 — 3,306 3,306 0.13 0.03 — 3,317 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.34 5.34 — 2.65 2.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.07 0.64 0.57 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 90.6 90.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 90.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.0 15.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.0 #2..
- 292 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
14 / 42
Dust — — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 116 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.07 0.04 1.61 0.70 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 752 752 0.03 0.12 0.04 788 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.23 3.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6 20.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.41 3.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.57

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
#2..
- 293 -
LCL P1 and P2 MAR Basins Detailed Report, 5/5/2023
15 / 42
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

Economic Development CommitteeNovember 4, 2024

Economic Development Committee
November 4, 2024