Agenda, closed session, second session — City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority, May 27, 2025 (part 3 of 6)

Q: Is Merit the only chemical acceptable to the City for this application? A: Refer to Addendum Number 1. All trees are to receive insecticide treatment annually. In this section, the term ‘merit’ is used as landscaping work to be performed on the listed plants, and not as a type of insecticide to be used.

Q: How many applications per year does the City require? A: Refer to Addendum Number 1. Applications of insecticide are to be performed annually.

Q: Is the work to be performed by a QAC and/or a QAL? Will the City please clarify the current State of California regulatory requirements?
A: As outlined in the Request for Proposals under the section titled Compliance with Regulations, the selected contractor is required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local safety regulations, including but not limited to:
● OSHA standards and workplace safety regulations
● Cal/OSHA requirements for equipment operation and hazard communication ● Maintenance and availability of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all chemicals used
It is the City of Riverbank’s expectation that proposers, as field-level experts providing landscaping services in California, are familiar with and adhere to current regulatory requirements, including any licensing requirements such as QAC (Qualified Applicator Certificate) and/or QAL (Qualified Applicator License) where applicable.

If proposers have specific questions or require clarification regarding California pesticide regulations or licensing, they are encouraged to contact the California Department of Pesticide Regulation directly.

Page 3 ends

Q: iii – Fertilization – please specify type of fertilizer, rate, and frequency of application so all bidders are working from the same quantifiable basis.

A: The City of Riverbank elects to defer to the professional judgment of the proposer regarding the type of fertilizer, application rate, and frequency. As field-level experts, proposers are best equipped to determine the appropriate products and application schedules necessary to maintain healthy, aesthetically pleasing turf and landscape areas.

Q: iv – Mowing – is the contractor required to mow twice per week during both the weekly and bi-weekly period?
A: The contractor is required to mow twice per week during the in-season period and once per week during the offseason. Season dates are outlined in Addendum Number 1 under Item 4:

Sports Complex: Turf Maintenance.

Q: v – Overseeding – this specification is too vague based on what has been done in the past.

For instance, does this cover both sides of the field, or just one; what seed mix does the City require; are other amendments required with the seed; at what rate is the seed to be installed; and what will be the time frame for seeding and length of time the field will not be in use? The current work being done on the field is more extensive than simply overseeding. Please clarify.

A: The City of Riverbank elects to rely on the professional judgment of the contractor regarding the scope and method of overseeding, as they are the field-level experts best equipped to determine appropriate practices based on site conditions and best management standards.

Contractors should use their expertise to recommend the seed mix, application rate, amendments (if any), and timing, including estimated field downtime required for successful establishment. To satisfy current customers of the facility while ensuring that the overseeding is successful, one of the two fields will receive the care annually.

Page 4 ends

Q: Is the work of this paragraph to be done on a time and material basis or does the City expect the Contractor to include money in the bid for this work? A: The City of Riverbank expects the contractor to include the cost of this work in their bid. The intent is to maintain usable and visually pleasing fields throughout the term of the contract.

Contractors should use their professional judgment to determine the level of service and associated costs necessary to meet this expectation and include it as part of their overall proposal.

Q: If money is to be included, there is no objective way to determine how much remedial work will be needed. Please clarify the City’s intention for this portion of work.

A: The City of Riverbank understands that the extent of remedial work may vary due to a number of factors. However, the City’s intention is for contractors to include in their bid a reasonable allowance for remedial work based on their professional judgment and experience maintaining similar turf and field conditions.

The goal is to ensure fields remain usable and visually pleasing throughout the year. If conditions arise that fall outside the scope of typical remedial maintenance, the City is open to addressing those situations on a case-by-case basis, which may include consideration for time and materials if deemed necessary and pre-approved by City staff.

Q: If seed or sod has to be installed to remediate wear areas, will the City restrict access to the repaired areas until the seed or sod has been established? A: Yes, if seed or sod is installed to remediate wear areas, the City of Riverbank will coordinate to restrict access to the repaired areas as needed to allow for proper establishment. The City understands the importance of protecting newly restored turf and will work with the contractor to determine appropriate timeframes for closure and signage, based on the type of remediation and site conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDUM
All proposers must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by signing below and including this form with their submitted proposal.

I acknowledge receipt of Addendum Number 2: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PARK

LANDSCAPING SERVICES FOR NON-LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICT PARKS AND FACILITIES for the City of Riverbank.

Company Name:_______________________________________________________________ Authorized Representative:______________________________________________________ Signature:____________________________________________________________________ Date:________________________________________________________________________

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

Page 1 of 3 ends

Item 11.1 – CC/LRA – 05/27/2025

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.1
SECTION 11: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: May 27, 2025
Subject: Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. Council Reaffirmation of Resolution 2025-019 Adopting the Addendum to Initial Study (IS)/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) document prepared for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (previously adopted MND) subsequent to the public comment period required by State Water Resources Control Board.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Cody Bridgewater, Public Works Director

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends the re-affirmation of Resolution No. 2025-019 adopting the addendum to the Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) based on the findings in the Addendum to the MND for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project subsequent to the public comment period required by State Water Resources Control Board.

SUMMARY
The City of Riverbank (City) is proposing to implement the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (Project). The City and its consultant team previously prepared three California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents: an Initial Study (IS), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

The IS/MND and MMRP were adopted by the City Council in 2022. Since this time minor changes to the project including the routing of recycled water pipeline and fill and borrow areas within the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) boundary have occurred. An addendum to the IS/MND was prepared to cover these changes and address potential environmental impacts caused by the changes.

The CEQA addendum was adopted by City Council on March 25, 2025. Following this adoption, based on consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), it was determined that although it is not a CEQA requirement, the SWRCB requires a public comment period for addendums. The addendum was posted to the State

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item 11.1 – CC/LRA – 05/27/2025
Clearinghouse for public comments from April 22, 2025 through May 6, 2025. One comment letter was received during this time from the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). Responses to the comments provided in this letter were prepared and require no changes to the CEQA addendum. The response to comments is included as Exhibit A.

ANALYSIS
The action being presented to City Council today is to re-affirm the adoption the addendum to the IS/ MND and MMRP for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. The City has concluded that an addendum to the previously approved 2022 IS/MND is the appropriate document under CEQA for the project. The analysis of the addendum concludes that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previously approved document. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental document have occurred, and thus, an addendum to the 2022 IS/MND is appropriate to satisfy CEQA requirements for the proposed project changes. The SWRCB public comment period requirement has been fulfilled and all comments received have been addressed.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project would result in potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, but incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the original IS/MND reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. No changes to these impacts occur based on the changes to the project description as defined in the addendum.

Environmental impacts associated with the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project were evaluated in the IS/MND that was prepared for the Project, which is available at www.riverbank.org. The project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities and service systems and wildfire. The project would have potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources, but with implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the MND, these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

PUBLIC NOTICE
On April 22, 2025, the City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Intent to Adopt Addendum on the State Clearinghouse website and posted the NOA on the City website.

Additionally, the NOA was emailed to the interested parties list that was used to circulate the original IS/MND. The public comment period was from April 22, 2025 through May 6, 2025.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item 11.1 – CC/LRA – 05/27/2025

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution 2025-
Exhibit A – Addendum Response to Comment (RTC) Memo
Exhibit B - Addendum to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, February 2025

Page 1 of 3 ends

CC/LRA- 05/27/2025
CC Resolution 2025-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2025-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, RE-AFFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 2025-019

ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE

RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT SUBSEQUENT TO

THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD REQUIRED BY STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD.

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank (City) is the lead agency for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, the Project includes upgrade and expansion of the City of Riverbank’s existing wastewater treatment plant to serve planned growth in the City through the year 2050 and produce high quality (disinfected tertiary treated) recycled water for distribution to nearby landowners for irrigation of orchards; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate the environmental effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND was circulated for public review from September 21, 2022 through October 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that significant environmental effects on various resources would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND was adopted by the City on December 13, 2022; and WHEREAS, there have been minor modifications to the project since adoption of the IS/MND in 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an addendum to the IS/MND to address these changes; and
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that an addendum to the previously approved 2022 IS/MND is the appropriate document under CEQA for the project; and ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 3 ends

CC/LRA- 05/27/2025
CC Resolution 2025-
WHEREAS, the addendum was circulated for public comment from April 22, 2025 through May 6, 2025; and
WHEREAS, comments received during this period has been addressed and are attached hereto as Exhibit A,
WHEREAS, the addendum to the IS/MND, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is incorporated into the original IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and
WHEREAS, the addendum concludes that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previously approved document; and
WHEREAS, all other legal perquisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK HEREBY:

1. The Riverbank City Council has independently considered the addendum to the IS/MND (attached hereto as Exhibit B) and has considered the information contained therein prior to acting on the proposed Project.

2. The Riverbank City Council finds that the changes to the project addressed by the addendum do not require any major revisions to the IS/MND due to new or substantially more severe significant effects on the environment.

3. The Riverbank City Council hereby find that the addendum to IS/MND was prepared and considered in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete MND in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Riverbank City Council.

4. The Riverbank City Council finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

5. The Riverbank City Council hereby adopts the addendum to the IS/MND for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project.

Page 3 of 3 ends

CC/LRA- 05/27/2025
CC Resolution 2025-

6. The City of Riverbank City Clerk’s Office, located at 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367, shall be the custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May, 2025; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Addendum Response to Comment (RTC) Memo
Exhibit B - Addendum to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project, February 2025 Memo
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.7301
Date: May 15, 2025
To: Cody Bridgewater, City of Riverbank
From: Kirsten Burrowes, Ascent Environmental
Subject: Response to comments for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Addendum SCH No. 2022090345

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum has been prepared for the City of Riverbank (City), as lead agency, in support of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (project). It has been prepared to respond to comments received on the draft addendum for the project. This document will also be used by the CEQA lead agency (i.e., the City), to ensure that it has met its requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve the project, as modified, and adopt the addendum. It may also be used by other State, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2022, the City adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. The 2022 IS/MND evaluated upgrades to the existing City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system (i.e., Pipelines A, A1, A2, and B) to serve nearby agricultural users.

In September 2024, the 2022 project was updated and now includes a modified disturbance area, including a new route for recycled water Pipeline B. The previously approved project considered the disturbance of areas P-2, P-3, T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, construction staging areas within the southwestern portion of the site, and areas along Henry Road and north of Henry Road for installation of Pipeline B. The currently proposed project would no longer involve disturbance of area T-4; P-9 would instead be excavated for borrow and fill material to construct the treatment facilities. Additionally, Pipeline B would be routed south of Henry Road, within the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park, to maintain full-time access to the WWTP.

Construction activities would last approximately 30 months and would involve similar amounts of earthmoving activity as well as use of construction equipment identified and analyzed in the 2022 IS/MND.

EXHIBIT A
Response to Comments Memo
May 15, 2025

Page 2 ends

CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
On April 22, 2025, the City released the draft addendum for a 15-day public review and comment period. The public review requirement, including notification procedures and review period, were determined in coordination with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and in accordance with the State Revolving Fund requirements, as stated in Section II.C. of the SWRCB’s State Environmental Review Process (SWRCB 2017). The draft addendum was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to reviewing agencies and posted on the City website. A notice of intent to adopt the addendum for the project was distributed to a project-specific mailing list.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
One comment letter from the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG, Inc.), was received during the public review period for the draft addendum, which concluded on April 6, 2025. The individual comments and the responses thereto are provided below.

Letter 1 SJGOC, Inc., Laurel Boyd
April 22, 2025
Comment 1-1
SJCOG, Inc. has reviewed the application referral for the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt an Addendum for the Riverbank Regional Water Project. This project includes the modified disturbance areas within the wastewater treatment plant as well as a new route for recycled water Pipeline B. Pipeline B would be routed south of Henry Road, within the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park, to maintain full-time access to the wastewater treatment plant.

Construction activities and duration would be similar to what was identified and analyzed in the 2022 IS/MND. The project site is located north of the Stanislaus River and south of the City of Escalon (APN: 247-250-22, -04, 247-260- 02, 249-060-12).

Response 1-1
The comment summarizes the elements of the modified project and is noted.

Comment 1-2
San Joaquin County is a signatory to San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP satisfies requirements of both the state and federal endangered species acts, and ensures that the impacts are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measure are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP. Although participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary, Local Jurisdiction/Lead Agencies should be aware that if project applicants choose against participating in the SJMSCP, they will be required to provide alternative mitigation in an amount and kind equal to that provided in the SJMSCP.

This Project is subject to the SJMSCP. This can be up to a 90 day process and it is recommended that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible. It is also recommended that the project applicant obtain an information package. http://www.sjcog.org
Please contact SJMSCP staff regarding completing the following steps to satisfy SJMSCP requirements:
 Schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre-construction survey prior to any ground disturbance  SJMSCP Incidental take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:

Response to Comments Memo
May 15, 2025

Page 3 ends

1. Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) will be issued to the project and must be signed by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbance but no later than six (6) months from receipt of the ITMMs. If ITMMs are not signed within six months, the applicant must reapply for SJMSCP Coverage. Upon receipt of signed ITMMs from project applicant, SJCOG, Inc. staff will sign the ITMMs. This is the effective date of the ITMMs.

2. Under no circumstance shall ground disturbance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs.

3. Upon issuance of fully executed ITMMs and prior to any ground disturbance, the project applicant must:
a. Post a bond for payment of the applicable SJMSCP fee covering the entirety of the project acreage being covered (the bond should be valid for no longer than a 6 month period); or b. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP fee for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or c. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or d. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits.

4. Within 6 months from the effective date of the ITMMs or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant must:
a. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or b. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or c. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits.

Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigation fee shall subject the bond to be called.  Receive your Certificate of Payment and release the required permit It should be noted that if this project has any potential impacts to waters of the United States [pursuant to Section 404 Clean Water Act], it will require the project to seek voluntary coverage through the unmapped process under the SJMSCP which could take up to 90 days. It may be prudent to obtain a preliminary wetlands map from a qualified consultant. If waters of the United States are confirmed on the project site, the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would have regulatory authority over those mapped areas [pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act respectively] and permits would be required from each of these resource agencies prior to grading the project site.

If you have any questions, please call (209) 235-0574.

Response 1-2
The City is in the process of determining precise locations of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle habitat (i.e., Elderberry bushes) and refining project design details with the objective of avoiding all potential indirect and direct impacts. While this process is ongoing, the City maintains steady coordination with the SWRCB, as a responsible agency, and understands that if indirect and direct impacts cannot be avoided through project design adjustments, that the City would seek participation in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and comply with SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization measures and mitigation requirements.

Response to Comments Memo
May 15, 2025

Page 4 ends

Comment 1-3
TO: Local Jurisdiction: Community Development Department, Planning Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, Survey Department, Transportation Department, Other:

FROM: Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc.

DO NOT AUTHORIZE SITE DISTURBANCE

DO NOT ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT
DO NOT ISSUE __________ FOR THIS PROJECT
The landowner/developer for this site has requested coverage pursuant to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). In accordance with that agreement, the Applicant has agreed to:
1) SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:

2. Under no circumstance shall ground disturbance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs.

Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigation fee shall subject the bond to be called.

Project Title: NOA and Intent to Adopt Addendum to Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Assessor Parcel #s: 247-250-22, -04, 247-260-02, 249-060-12 T _______, R______, Section(s): _____
Local Jurisdiction Contact: Cody Bridgewater
The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measures are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP.

Response 1-3
The comment letter includes a SJMSCP Hold form which would halt project activities until SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization measures and mitigation requirements are achieved. The form is acknowledged. Please see Response 1- 2, above.

Response to Comments Memo
May 15, 2025

Page 5 ends

REFERENCES
State Water Resources Control Board. 2017 (April). State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program – Appendix I: State Environmental Review Process. Accessed May 8, 2025. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/docs/policy0513/appendix_i_envgui de.pdf
SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

ADDENDUM TO THE
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
February 2025

EXHIBIT B
20210199.01
Addendum to the
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
February 2025
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 ADDENDUM TO THE RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT IS/MND ................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Background and Revised Project Description .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................................................................................7

1.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................13

1.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................14

1.6 References..............................................................................................................................................................................14

APPENDICES
Appendix A 2022 IS/MND
Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix C Biological Resources Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Previously Approved Project............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Proposed Project.................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Ascent
City of Riverbank
ii Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 1 1 ADDENDUM TO THE RIVERBANK REGIONAL

RECYCLED WATER PROJECT IS/MND
At the request of the City of Riverbank (City), Ascent has prepared this evaluation of the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with updates to the approved 2022 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (2022 project). This evaluation assesses whether the potential impacts of the current project are within the scope of analysis and adequately addressed by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the 2022 project (State Clearinghouse No. 2022090345) (Appendix A). This analysis determines whether new or different impacts would occur because of changes to the proposed project design and changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken since the prior IS/MND analysis), pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Based on the analysis contained in this memorandum, the City has determined that an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the project consistent with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Riverbank is located on the south side of the Stanislaus River along State Route 108 in Stanislaus County, 94 miles east of San Francisco, 75 miles south of Sacramento, 100 miles north of Fresno, and 108 miles west of Yosemite National Park. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River, in unincorporated San Joaquin County, at 23865 Santa Fe Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 247-260-02, 247- 250-04, and 247-250-22). The project location is shown in Figure 1.

Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the northern bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the Riverbank WWTP; agricultural lands surround the remainder of the project area. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area east of the WWTP.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2022, the City adopted the IS/MND for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project. The 2022 IS/MND evaluated upgrades to the existing City WWTP, including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system (i.e., Pipelines A, A1, A2, and B) to serve nearby agricultural users.

In September 2024, the 2022 project was updated and now includes a modified disturbance area (proposed project), including a new route for recycled water Pipeline B. As shown in Figure 2, the previously approved project considered the disturbance of areas P-2, P-3, T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, construction staging areas within the southwestern portion of the site, and areas along Henry Road and north of Henry Road for installation of Pipeline B. The currently proposed project would no longer involve disturbance of area T-4; P-9 would instead be excavated for borrow and fill material to construct the treatment facilities. Additionally, Pipeline B would be routed south of Henry Road, within the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park, to maintain full-time access to the WWTP (Figure 3).

Ascent
City of Riverbank
2 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 1 Project Location
Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 3 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2 Previously Approved Project

Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 5 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3 Proposed Project

Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 7

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines as an analytical tool, the following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the project in the context of the 2022 IS/MND to determine if those impacts are sufficiently covered, or if additional analysis is necessary. All mitigation measures referenced in this section are included in Appendix B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

1.3.1 Aesthetics
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would result in the same level of construction activities as previously analyzed. While temporary construction activities would be visible within portions of the park, the project would not permanently introduce any project features or components that would alter the visual quality or nature of the project area such that different or more severe aesthetic impacts would result.

The potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics and associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur.

Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. Project construction and operation would occur within developed areas, including existing private roadways and within areas of the WWTP facility, as analyzed in the 2022 IS/MND. The WWTP and proposed alignment of Pipeline B is not located within any designated Farmland or Williamson Act-enrolled lands (DOC 2024a; DOC 2024b). No forestry resources exist within the project site.

As a result, the potential environmental impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.3 Air Quality
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to air quality would be less than significant and that the project would not conflict with or obstruct an applicable air quality management plan nor result in increased criteria air pollutants or other emissions that would adversely affect sensitive receptors. The project as revised would result in similar construction activity, equipment, and level of construction-generated emissions as previously evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND. Because of this, the current project would also not result in a significant air quality impact. As previously described, construction activities associated with Pipeline B would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in long-term exposure to sensitive receptors (i.e., park users).

As a result, the potential environmental impacts related to air quality associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
8 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND

1.3.4 Biological Resources
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts to state or federally protected wetlands, or to adopted conservation plans would occur. Impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, to the movement of native resident or migratory species, movement corridors, or nursery sites, and to local policies or ordinances were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to special-status species would be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 through 6, presented below. These mitigation measures would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.
 Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.  Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Pond Turtle.  Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, Coopers Hawk, Osprey, and Whitetailed Kite.  Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Other Special-Status Birds.  Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Common Raptors and Other Nesting Birds.  Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Red Bat Roosts.

Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. An updated Biological Resources Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation Report were prepared in January 2025 (see Appendix C). A biological resources reconnaissance-level survey conducted within the modified disturbance areas on December 9th, 2024, identified additional elderberry shrubs proximate to the modified disturbance area. These additional elderberry shrubs are located within Jacob Meyers Park, and to the west of Jacob Meyers Park, and south of the WWTP. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would continue to be implemented during project activities. The December 2024 survey did not identify any additional special-status species or sensitive biological resources that were not addressed by the 2022 IS/MND, and Mitigation Measures 3.4-2 through 3.4-6 would continue to be implemented during project activities.

The potential environmental impacts related to biological resources associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.5 Cultural Resources
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to historical resources and human remains would be less than significant. Impacts related to archaeological resources were determined to be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, presented below, which would require preservation and proper curation of potential cultural materials, if discovered. This mitigation measure would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.
 Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological Resource Discoveries.

Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. An updated cultural resources survey was conducted within the modified disturbance areas on December 9th, 2024; the updated cultural resources memo was prepared in February 2025. Results of the survey and report did not reveal any new cultural resources within the project site. While the proposed alignment of Pipeline B would be located under a portion of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track piers, this is consistent with the previously approved project; the new alignment is located further south than the approved alignment. The proposed project would not result in any adverse changes to the railroad track and supporting structures. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would continue to be implemented during project construction activities.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 9 The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.6 Energy
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to energy would be less than significant. The project would result in similar construction activity, equipment, and level of construction-generated emissions as previously evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND. As a result, the project’s energy consumption through construction and operation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Project construction and operation would continue to be subject to state and local requirements and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The potential environmental impacts related to energy associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.7 Geology and Soils
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to use of septic or alternative wastewater systems, nor seismic hazards involving rupture of known earthquake fault and landslides would occur. Impacts related to seismic hazards involving ground shaking and liquefaction, erosion, and unstable and expansive soils were determined to be less than significant. Impacts related to paleontological and geologic features were determined to be less-than-significant with incorporation of the mitigation measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3, presented below, which would require paleontological design review, preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, conducting paleontological monitoring, and in the event paleontological resources are discovered, providing data retrieval, fossil collection and processing, and curation as appropriate. These mitigation measures would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.
 Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist to Conduct Project Design Review.  Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prepare Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan.  Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring.

Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. No changes related to seismic activity, ground shaking, ground failure, landslides, or soil have occurred. The project would not require septic systems or alternative wastewater systems.

The potential environmental impacts related to geology and soils associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would be less than significant. Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would result in similar construction activity, equipment, and level of construction-generated emissions as previously evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND. As a result, the project would not directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions such that significant environmental impact would occur, nor conflict with any application plan, policy, or regulations related to GHG emission reduction.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
10 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND The potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to hazardous emissions or materials within 0.25 mile of schools, safety hazards or noise within 2 miles of an airport, or exposure to significant risks involving wildland fires would occur. Impacts related to the handling and/or accident conditions involving hazardous materials, hazardous materials and waste sites, and interference with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans were determined to be less than significant. As described above, implementation of the project would involve similar levels of construction activities and modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park.

The project would continue to comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations and waste discharge requirements related to WWTP operations. No new hazardous materials and/or waste sites exist within the project vicinity (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024a). A former leaking underground storage tank site (i.e., former gas station with identified petroleum contamination) located at 23659 South Santa Fe Road has completed cleanup and the case has been considered closed as of August 2024 (SWRCB 2024b). During project construction, temporary traffic controls would continue to be implemented to maintain roadway and park access; all roadways would be repaved and returned to pre-project conditions once construction activities are completed.

The potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would result in similar construction activities considered with the previously approved project and would not result in any substantial changes to surface water or groundwater quality and supply, drainage patterns or flood flows, or conflicts with water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plans beyond those anticipated in the 2022 IS/MND.

The potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.11 Land Use and Planning
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to land use and planning would occur. The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would not result in any land use changes or conflicts, nor result in physical division of an established community.

The potential environmental impacts related to land use and planning associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 11

1.3.12 Mineral Resources
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to mineral resources would occur. The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project does not include any mineral resource extraction and therefore would not result in the loss of known mineral resources or a mineral resource site.

The potential environmental impacts related to mineral resources associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.13 Noise and Vibration
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impact related to exposure of excessive noise levels within the vicinity of an airport or airport land use plan would occur. Impacts related to generation of ambient noise levels and groundborne vibration and noise levels were determined to be less than significant. Implementation of the project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. As previously described, the project would result in similar construction activity and equipment considered with the previously approved project. Therefore, project construction activities would result in similar duration, as well as type and number of construction equipment operating at similar levels of intensity as previously contemplated. Potential increases in shortand long-term noise and vibration exposure of sensitive receivers would be similar to those evaluated in the 2022 IS/MND.

The potential environmental impacts related to noise and vibration associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.14 Population and Housing
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impact related to displacement of existing people or housing would occur, while impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth were determined to be less than significant. Project implementation would involve similar levels of construction as previously contemplated in the 2022 IS/MND associated with modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would not generate demand for temporary construction-related employment or population growth beyond what was considered in the 2022 IS/MND, nor would the project result in displacement of any people or housing.

The potential environmental impacts related to population and housing associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.15 Public Services
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to public services would be less than significant. The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park; construction activities, duration, and equipment would be similar to that contemplated for the previously approved project. As described above, the project would not generate demand for population growth beyond what was considered in the 2022 IS/MND. Additionally, temporary traffic controls would continue to be implemented to maintain roadway and park access, including access for emergency vehicles. No new physical impacts requiring new physically altered governmental facilities would occur.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
12 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND The potential environmental impacts related to public services associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.16 Recreation
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to recreation would occur. The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. As discussed above, temporary traffic controls would continue to be implemented during project construction activities to maintain roadway and park access; all roadways would be repaved and returned to pre-project conditions once construction activities are completed. The project would not result in increased use of recreational facilities nor include new or expanded recreational facilities. Access to existing recreational facilities (i.e., Jacob Myers Park) would be maintained.

The potential environmental impacts related to recreation associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.17 Transportation
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to conflicts with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system as well as conflicts with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) would be less than significant. Impacts related to transportation hazards and emergency access were determined to be less-thansignificant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1, presented below, which would require preparation and implementation of a temporary traffic control plan prior to and during project construction activities. This mitigation measure would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.  Mitigation Measure 3.17-1: Prepare and Implement a Temporary Traffic Control Plan.

The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. Temporary traffic controls would continue to be implemented during construction activities to appropriately maintain access within the project area; all roadways would be repaved and returned to pre-project conditions once construction activities are completed.

The potential environmental impacts related to transportation associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2022 IS/MND identified that no California Native American Tribe(s) had requested consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b) and determined that impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.18-1. Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 would require appropriate treatment and proper care of significant tribal cultural resources, if discovered. This mitigation measure would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved.  Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Protect Unanticipated Discoveries of Potential Tribal Cultural Resources.

The project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. Continued implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 would ensure that any tribal cultural resources, if discovered during project construction activities, would be appropriately treated. Therefore, the potential environmental impacts related to tribal cultural resources associated with implementation of the project are adequately Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 13 addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Because the addendum will not result in an additional certification, the AB 52 procedures specified in PRC Sections 21080.3. 1(d) and 21080.3.2 do not apply and no additional tribal consultation under AB 52 is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.19 Utilities and Services Systems
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would occur; impacts related to new or expanded utilities, water supplies, and solid waste were determined to be less than significant. The project would involve modified disturbance areas, however, would involve similar construction activities, duration, and equipment to those contemplated with the previously approved project. No new utility infrastructure would be introduced beyond what was considered in the previously approved project. As previously described, Pipeline B would be routed south of Henry Road, within the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. The project would continue to be adequately served by the City’s existing and future water source for water supplies and the Manteca Landfill for solid waste generation; the project would comply with regulations and requirements related to solid waste.

The potential environmental impacts related to utilities and service systems associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.3.20 Wildfire
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to exacerbation of wildfire risks or exposure to post-fire conditions would occur; impacts related to emergency response and evacuation plans were determined to be less than significant. The project site is located within the Local Responsibility Area for fire protection and is not within a designated fire hazard severity zone (CALFIRE 2025). Project implementation would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park. Construction activities, duration, and equipment would be similar to those contemplated with the previously approved project. As previously discussed, temporary traffic controls would be implemented during project construction activities to ensure adequate access (including emergency vehicle access) is maintained in the project area. Once construction is completed, all roadways would be restored to pre-project conditions.

The potential environmental impacts related to wildfire associated with implementation of the project are adequately addressed by the 2022 IS/MND and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project would result in modified disturbance areas within the WWTP (area P-9) and along the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park for installation of Pipeline B. Construction activities, equipment, and duration would be similar to what was evaluated in the previously approved project. Mitigation measures presented in the analysis above would remain applicable to reduce any potential biological resource, cultural resource, paleontological, transportation, and/or tribal cultural resource impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the project would not result in cumulative impacts beyond those previously analyzed.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
14 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND

1.5 CONCLUSION
As described throughout this document, the proposed project would involve modified disturbance areas within the WWTP and the northern boundary of Jacob Myers Park; construction activities, equipment, and level of construction would be similar to what was contemplated in the 2022 IS/MND. The project would continue to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations identified in Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist,” and Chapter 4, “Compliance with Federal Regulations,” of the 2022 IS/MND (see Appendix A).

Based on the analysis presented above, the City has concluded that an addendum to the previously approved 2022 IS/MND is the appropriate document under CEQA for the project. In summary, the analysis concludes that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the previously approved document. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent environmental document have occurred, and thus, an addendum to the 2022 IS/MND is appropriate to satisfy CEQA requirements for the proposed project changes.

1.6 REFERENCES
California Department of Fire Protection. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. Accessed February 9, 2025.

City of Riverbank. 2022. Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Department of Conservation. 2024a. California Important Farmland Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed December 18, 2024. ———. 2024b. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. Accessed Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. Envirostor Database. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=38330005. Accessed December 18, 2024.

DOC. See Department of Conservation.

DTSC. See Department of Toxic Substances Control.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024a. Geotracker Database. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?global_id=T0607302824. Accessed December 18, 2024. ———. 2024b. Geotracker Database: Barrera’s Market LUST Cleanup Site. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000013865. Accessed December 18, 2024.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Appendix A
2022 IS/MND
Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Appendix C
Biological Resources Report and
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

ADDENDUM TO THE
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
February 2025
20210199.01
Addendum to the
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
February 2025
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 ADDENDUM TO THE RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT IS/MND ........................................... 1

1.1 Project Location.................................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Background and Revised Project Description............................................................................................1

1.3 Environmental Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................7

1.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................................................13

1.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................14

1.6 References.........................................................................................................................................................................14

APPENDICES
Appendix A 2022 IS/MND
Appendix B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix C Biological Resources Report and Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Previously Approved Project ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Ascent
City of Riverbank
ii Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 1 1 ADDENDUM TO THE RIVERBANK REGIONAL

Ascent
City of Riverbank
2 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 1 Project Location
Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 3 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2 Previously Approved Project
Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 5 Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 3 Proposed Project
Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 7

1.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The 2022 IS/MND determined that no impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
8 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND

1.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The 2022 IS/MND determined that impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Ascent
City of Riverbank
Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND 11

Ascent
City of Riverbank
14 Addendum to the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project IS/MND

City of Riverbank. 2022. Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

DOC. See Department of Conservation.

DTSC. See Department of Toxic Substances Control.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Appendix A
2022 IS/MND
September 2022

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Riverbank Regional Recycled
Water Project
PREPARED FOR:

City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
209.869.7128

Page 1 of 1 ends

City of Riverbank
Public Works Department
2901 High Street, Riverbank, CA 95367
Office (209) 869-7128 FAX (209) 869-7045
PUBLISH DATE: September 21, 2022 LEGAL
DEPT: Public Works

CITY OF RIVERBANK

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
The City of Riverbank has prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). Based on the Initial Study, the City has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the City has incorporated mitigation measures into the project that would avoid significant effects or reduce the effects to an insignificant level. A public hearing for the proposed project to consider adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers at 6707 3rd Street, Suite B, Riverbank, CA 95367. Copies of the IS/MND are available for public review at www.riverbank.org, and at City of Riverbank City Hall, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, 95367.

PROJECT LOCATION: The City of Riverbank is located on the south side of the Stanislaus River along State Highway 108 in Stanislaus County 94 miles east of San Francisco, 75 miles south of Sacramento, 100 miles north of Fresno, and 108 miles west of Yosemite National Park. The project site is located at the Riverbank Wastewater Treatment Plant on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Riverbank proposes to upgrade and expand its existing wastewater treatment plant to produce high quality (disinfected tertiary treated) recycled water for use on nearby agricultural lands. The project would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities and a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, installation of a recycled water distribution system, and expansion of treatment capacity to serve planned growth in the City through the year 2050. The City proposes to distribute the recycled water to two adjacent land owners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the project for irrigation of walnut orchards.

MITIGATION MEASURES: The City has incorporated mitigation measures into the project for potentially significant project impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The City of Riverbank will accept public and agency comments on the IS/MND during a 30-day public review period starting on September 21, 2022, and closing on October 20, 2022.

Written comments will be accepted up until 5:00 pm on October 20, 2022. Comments may be delivered via e-mail to [email protected], or by postal service or hand delivery to the City of Riverbank, Public Works Department, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367, Attn: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works.

PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing to consider adopting the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the project is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6707 Third Street, Suite B, Riverbank, CA 95367.

Meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any person requiring special assistance to participate in the meeting should notify the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or [email protected] at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting. 20210199.01
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
209.869.7128
Contact: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.444.7301
Contact: Andrea L. Shephard, PhD, Senior Project Manager [email protected]
September 2022
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................... VI MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidance.................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of this Document .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Public Review Process.................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Document Organization ............................................................................................................................................. 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Background and Overview .......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-3

2.4 Existing Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities ............................................................................................. 2-3

2.5 Existing Water Pollution Control Requirements ................................................................................................. 2-4

2.6 Proposed Project.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.7 Project Construction .................................................................................................................................................. 2-21

2.8 Project Operations..................................................................................................................................................... 2-26

2.9 Required Permits and Project Approvals............................................................................................................ 2-27 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 3-28

3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-54

3.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-59

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 3-66

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................ 3-73

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 3-85

3.11 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................................................................... 3-100

3.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................................................... 3-103

3.13 Noise............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-105

3.14 Population and Housing......................................................................................................................................... 3-117

3.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-120

3.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-123

3.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-126

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 3-132

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................................ 3-136

3.20 Wildfire........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-150

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................................................... 3-156 4 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act...................................................................................................... 4-1 Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
ii Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.2 Clean Air Act...................................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Coastal Barrier Resources Act .................................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.4 Coastal Zone Management Act............................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 Endangered Species Act............................................................................................................................................ 4-4

4.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.7 Farmland Protection Policy Act................................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.8 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act........................................................................................................................4-10

4.9 Floodplain Management ..........................................................................................................................................4-10

4.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act................................................................ 4-11

4.11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act......................................................................................................................................... 4-11

4.12 National Historic Preservation Act.........................................................................................................................4-12

4.13 Protection of Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................4-12

4.14 Rivers and Harbors Act..............................................................................................................................................4-13

4.15 Safe Drinking Water Act and Sole Source Aquifer Protection.......................................................................4-13

4.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.......................................................................................................................................4-13 5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6 REPORT PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................................................. 6-1 Appendices
Appendix A – Project Construction Assumptions
Appendix B – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Modeling Assumptions and Results Appendix C – Botanical and Wildlife Species Evaluated for the Potential to Occur on the Project Site Appendix D – Noise Modeling Assumptions and Results
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Location............................................................................................................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2 Riverbank WWTP – Existing Site Layout................................................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 Proposed Project.......................................................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-4 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Upgrades .............................................................................................................2-15 Figure 2-5 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Process Flow Diagram......................................................................................2-17 Figure 3.4-1 Project Features and Land Cover...........................................................................................................................3-31 Figure 3.10-1 Flood Zones.................................................................................................................................................................3-93 Tables
Table 2-1 Pond Freeboard Requirements................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 2-2 Potential Recycled Water Use Areas ...................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-3 Projected Flows and Loads by 2050...................................................................................................................... 2-11 Table 2-4 Proposed WWTP and Associated Storage and Distribution Facility Improvements...............................2-12 Table 2-5 Project Construction Sequence and Durations..................................................................................................2-21 Table 2-6 Monthly Crop Irrigation Volume per Acre..........................................................................................................2-26 Table 2-7 Irrigation Delivery at 1.6 mgd and 2.29 mgd of Recycled Water Production ..........................................2-27 Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iii Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................................3-16 Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants .......................................................................................3-17 Table 3.3-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors.................3-24 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Operations-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors....................3-25 Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species Known or with the Potential to Occur in the Project Site ..................................3-34 Table 3.7 1 Soil Types in the Areas of Ground Disturbance.................................................................................................3-61 Table 3.8-1 Summary of Construction-Generated GHG Emissions ...................................................................................3-70 Table 3.8-2 Summary of Operational GHG Emissions............................................................................................................3-71 Table 3.13-1 FICON Significance of Change in Noise Exposure......................................................................................... 3-105 Table 3.13-2 FTA Indoor Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Vibration Assessment .................. 3-106 Table 3.13-3 FTA Construction Damage Vibration Criteria.................................................................................................. 3-106 Table 3.13-4 County of San Joaquin Acceptable Noise Levels by Land Use................................................................... 3-107 Table 3.13-5 San Joaquin County Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Source (Part II)....... 3-108 Table 3.13-6 [City of Riverbank] Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Noise Sources at Noise-Sensitive Land Uses ............................................................................................................................... 3-109 Table 3.13-7 [City of Riverbank] Performance Standards for New Projects Affected By, or Including, NonTransportation Noise Sources...............................................................................................................................3-110 Table 3.13-8 [City of Riverbank] Noise Level Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Noise Sources..........................................................................................................................................................................3-111 Table 3.13-9 Existing Noise Levels at Nearby Sensitive Receptors .....................................................................................3-112 Table 3.13-10 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment ...................................................................................3-113 Table 3.13-11 Estimated Temporary Noise Levels During Selected Construction Phase...............................................3-113 Table 4-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................................................. 4-2 Table 4-2 De Minimis Thresholds for Determining Applicability of General Conformity Requirements for Federal Actions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors................... 4-3 Table 4-4 Environmental Justice Study Area........................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-5 Demographics of the Environmental Justice Study Area, San Joaquin County, and Stanislaus County............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-7 Table 4-6 Income and Poverty Status in the Environmental Justice Study Area, San Joaquin County, and Stanislaus County ................................................................................................................................................ 4-8 City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
AAQA ambient air quality analysis
AB Assembly Bill
ADWF average dry weather flow
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
AFY acre-feet per year
Alquist-Priolo Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AWMP agricultural water management plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins BAU business-as-usual
bgs below the ground surface
BMP best management practice
BOD biological oxygen demand
BPS Best Performance Standards
CAA federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFÉ corporate average fuel economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCaIC Central California Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration v CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Riverbank
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability CWA Clean Water Act
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
cy cubic yard
DAF dissolved air flotation
dBA A-weighted decibels
DDW State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water diesel PM particulate matter exhaust from diesel engines District South San Joaquin Irrigation District
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOT US Department of Transportation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EGU electric generating unit
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA federal Endangered Species Act
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FPP Farmland Protection Program
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FR Federal Register
List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
vi Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FTA Federal Transit Administration
gal gallon
General Order Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW) GHG greenhouse gas
GMF granular media filtration
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GSA groundwater sustainability agency
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCP habitat conservation plan
Hot Spots Act Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 hp horsepower
HRA health risk assessment
IEPR integrated energy policy report
IFI Important Farmlands Inventory
in/sec inches per second
IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration
kWh kilowatt hours
lb/day pounds per day
Leq hourly equivalent sound level
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LHMP local hazard mitigation plan
Lmax maximum instantaneous levels
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgal million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MID Modesto Irrigation District
mL milliliters
MPN most probable number
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MTCO2e million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vii NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
O3 ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCC Public Contract Code
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
project Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB regional water quality control board
SB Senate Bill
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
viii Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SNMP Salt and Nitrate Management Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOX oxides of sulfur
SR State Routes
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSJID South San Joaquin Irrigation District
SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAC toxic air contaminant
TMDL total maximum daily load
tpy tons per year
TSS total suspended solids
TTC temporary traffic control
Unified Program Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UV ultraviolet light
VdB vibration decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQO Water Quality Objective
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT: RIVERBANK REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF RIVERBANK
Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for approval of the project. The City of Riverbank (City) is the CEQA lead agency because it is responsible for implementation and operation of the Riverbank Regional Recycle Water Project (project).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The project includes upgrades to the existing Riverbank Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County. Project improvements would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users. To support these facility improvements, the project would include interconnecting piping, utility and backup power supply improvements, and site grading and drainage improvements. In addition, new electrical and controls buildings, as well as shop and maintenance buildings, would be constructed at the site to support the expanded WWTP. Upon completion, the proposed facilities would treat up to 2.29 million gallons per day average dry weather flow and produce and deliver up to approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year of Title 22 recycled water at an approximate maximum rate of 4,350 gallons per minute. These improvements are needed to meet the requirements for Title 22 unrestricted recycled water use, provide wastewater treatment adequate to treat City wastewater flows and loads projected by 2050, provide for expandable recycled water treatment and storage capacity, and produce and distribute recycled water to the potential agricultural use areas.

FINDINGS
An Initial Study has been prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. The conclusion is supported by the following findings:

1. The project would have no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, and recreation.

2. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities and service systems and wildfire.

3. Mitigation is required to reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, transportation, and tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.

The City shall implement the following mitigation measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the environmental impacts of the project to a less-thansignificant level.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle To avoid and minimize project impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 Indirect impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be minimized by implementing the following:
 All elderberry shrubs to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced or flagged as close to construction limits as possible.
 A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be maintained to avoid direct impacts that could damage or kill the plant.  A qualified biologist will provide training for all contractors, work crews, and any onsite personnel on the status of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, its host plant and habitat, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non-compliance.  A qualified biologist will inspect the work area prior to commencement of construction and will monitor the work area at project-appropriate intervals to assure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented.  Project activities, such as truck traffic or other use of machinery, will not create excessive dust on the project site, such that the growth or vigor of elderberry shrubs is adversely affected. Enforcement of a speed-limit and watering dirt roadways are potential methods to minimize excessive dust creation.  Herbicides will not be used within the dripline of any elderberry shrub. Insecticides will not be used within 98 feet of any elderberry shrub. All chemicals will be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method. Mechanical weed removal within the dripline of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August – February) and will avoid damaging the elderberry.  Following completion of construction, affected areas will be returned to pre-project conditions.  If avoidance of elderberry shrubs is not feasible, the health and vigor of the shrubs could be damaged, which could result in death or injury to valley elderberry longhorn beetles. The City will obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA to obtain take coverage and implement required conservation and minimization measures. No elderberry shrub will be trimmed or removed until authorization has been issued. Conservation and minimization measures will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
 Elderberry shrubs that would be directly impacted will be transplanted to a USFWS approved mitigation site during the dormant period for elderberry shrubs (November 1 through February 15).  If elderberry shrubs without evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least three new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.  If elderberry shrubs with evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least six new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from construction and operation of the project by implementing construction setbacks from elderberry shrubs, and protecting shrubs from indirect impacts or transplanting shrubs and providing compensation for removal of shrubs consistent with the SJMSCP, or conservation measures developed in consultation with USFWS. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects on the viability of the species, and the impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Pond Turtle To avoid potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). All mitigation listed below will be limited to construction within 0.3 mile of suitable aquatic habitat:
 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of commencing work in aquatic habitat suitable for the species. If no pond turtles are observed, no further mitigation is necessary.
 During draining of the existing water storage ponds within the WWTP associated with construction of the project, a qualified biologist shall be present to monitor for presence of western pond turtles. If pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate pond turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities (i.e., Stanislaus River).  If nesting areas for pond turtles are identified on the project site, a no-disturbance buffer area of 300 feet shall be established around the nesting site (which may be immediately adjacent to the river or extend up to 400 feet away from the river in uplands). These buffers shall be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before nesting periods have ended. (The period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November.)
Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on western pond turtle from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to western pond turtle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  If an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a 0.25-mile no-disturbance buffer will be established. If an occupied Cooper’s hawk, osprey, or white-tailed kite nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the nest. All project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.
 If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree becomes occupied during construction activities, then all construction activities shall remain a distance of two times the dripline of the tree, measured from the nest, and the nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around occupied nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP or conservation measures developed in consultation with CDFW. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and whitetailed kite to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of the local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Other Special-Status Birds To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler nests; burrowing owl burrows; black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret and tricolored blackbird colonies, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for special-status birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If no black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies, or other special-status nesting birds are found, no further mitigation is required.  If active black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from colonial nesting areas for these species, which shall be established and maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests. This setback applies whenever construction or other ground-disturbing activities must begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied. Setbacks shall be marked by brightly colored temporary fencing.  If active burrowing owl burrows or California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nests are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from the California horned lark nest, 250 feet from the burrowing owl burrow, or 100 feet from the loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nest as applicable, during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive means that the birds have not begun egg laying, or Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 that juveniles from the occupied burrows or nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. For burrowing owls, once the fledglings are capable of independent survival the owls may be evicted using passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on specialstatus birds from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around active nests consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status birds to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org.

Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of specialstatus birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Common Raptors and Other Nesting Birds The City will implement the following measures to avoid impacts to common raptors and other common nesting birds.  A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within suitable nesting habitat for common raptors and other nesting birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If occupied nests are identified during the preconstruction survey, the qualified biologist shall determine and establish an appropriate no-disturbance buffer based on bird species; listing status; and other factors, including distance from construction activity, type and duration of construction, and whether the nest is within the line of sight of construction activity. The size of the buffer may be adjusted if the qualified biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of nests through pre-construction surveys and non-disturbance buffers around active nests. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of common raptors and other nesting birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Red Bat Roosts To avoid and minimize impacts to special-status bat roosts, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 Within 14 days prior to initiating work, a qualified bat biologist will inspect the portions of the project site where ground disturbance would occur (i.e., north access road, distribution pipeline alignment, WWTP) and adjacent areas (within 250 feet) for bat roosts (mature trees in the riparian woodland, and mixed oak woodland portions of the project site). Surveys will consist of a daytime pedestrian survey looking for evidence of bat use (e.g., guano) and/or an evening emergence survey to note the presence or absence of bats within potential roosts. If no bat roosts are found, then no further mitigation will be required.  If evidence of bat use is observed, the number and species of bats using the roost will be determined. Acoustic bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts if needed to determine the species of roosting bats, but are not required.

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
6 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  If an active western red bat maternity roost is detected, an avoidance buffer of 250-feet will be maintained from May 1 until young are flying (typically through August).  If roosts of western red bat are determined to be present within the project site and within 250 feet of construction, work may be performed within a 250-foot buffer of the roost outside of the breeding season (May 1 through August 31) when the daytime temperature is 50 degrees Fahrenheit or greater.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological Resource Discoveries In the event that a prehistoric archeological site (such as any unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell) or a historicperiod archaeological site (such as concentrated deposits of bottles or bricks, amethyst glass, or other historic refuse), is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the geographically and culturally affiliated Native American group shall be notified and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the California Register of Historical Resources standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed.

If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring implementation of preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.

Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist to Conduct Project Design Review Prior to completion of project design and the beginning of construction, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the project plans and all geotechnical reports to determine whether construction activities would affect native sediments containing sensitive paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist will provide Ascent Environmental Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 these findings in writing and provide recommendations for paleontological monitoring during construction, if necessary. If the project would not disturb native soils, no further action would be necessary.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prepare Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Plan In the event that construction activities occur in native sediments identified as being sensitive for paleontological resources, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The PMP will be prepared prior to construction and will include requirements for paleontological resource monitoring to inspect exposed rock units during active excavations within geologically sensitive sediments.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Conduct Paleontological Monitoring In the event that construction activities occur in native sediments identified as being sensitive for paleontological resources, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist prior to construction to monitor grading and trenching activities during construction of the project. The paleontological monitor will have authority to temporarily divert ground-disturbing activities away from exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data. If potentially significant paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the contractor will stop all work within 60 feet of the discovery until the paleontological monitor can remove the fossils and retrieve associated data. If fossils are collected, they will be transported to a paleontological laboratory for processing where they will be prepared to the point of identification, identified by qualified experts, and listed in a database to facilitate analysis. If discovered, significant specimens will be deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3, the City would avoid and minimize the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site by implementing paleontological design review, preparing a PMP, conducting paleontological monitoring, and in the event paleontological resources are discovered, by providing data retrieval, fossil collection and processing, and curation as appropriate. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on potentially significant paleontological resources, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Transportation
Mitigation Measure 3.17-1: Prepare and Implement a Temporary Traffic Control Plan Before project construction is begun in any existing public roadway rights-of-way, the City of Riverbank shall coordinate with the agency with jurisdictional control of the affected roadway (e.g., County of San Joaquin) to determine the required process, permits, and approvals. Additionally, the construction coordinator shall prepare a temporary traffic control (TTC) plan in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and to the satisfaction of the appropriate agency. The TTC plan shall be subject to review by all affected agencies and, at a minimum, shall:
 describe the proposed work zone (e.g., include a site plan and vicinity map showing right-of-way lines, the centerline, the edge of pavements, the curb, the gutter, the sidewalk, and all existing utilities);  describe the type of work and location clearly (e.g., dimensions relative to the right-of-way, centerline, edge of pavement);
 describe detours and/or lane closures if applicable;
 identify the need for flag-persons where warranted;
 describe appropriate tapers and lengths, signs, and spacing;  describe appropriate channelization devices and spacing;  identify work hours/work days;
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Ascent Environmental City of Riverbank
8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  identify proposed speed limit changes if applicable;
 describe roadways affected by the work;
 describe trucks, including the number and size of trucks per day, expected arrival/departure times, and truck circulation patterns;
 identify all staging areas; and
 ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access to all surrounding parcels and properties is maintained at all times.

Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 would reduce temporary traffic hazards associated with project construction by requiring coordination between the City and San Joaquin County, which has jurisdiction over an affected roadway, and requiring that the construction contractor prepare and implement a TTC plan that meets with the approval of that agency. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1, the project would not substantially increase traffic hazards and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measure 3.17-1: Prepare and Implement a Temporary Traffic Control Plan Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 shall be implemented, as described above.

Significance after Mitigation
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.17-1 would reduce temporary impacts associated with emergency access by requiring the construction contractor to prepare and implement a TTC plan that meets with the approval of San Joaquin County, the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadways, and ensures that adequate emergency vehicle access to all surrounding parcels and properties is maintained at all times. Therefore, the potentially significant impact on emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Protect Unanticipated Discoveries of Potential Tribal Cultural Resources If any suspected tribal cultural resources, including midden soil, artifacts, chipped stone, exotic rock (nonnative), or unusual amounts of baked clay, shell, or bone, are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all work shall cease within 100 feet of the find. Appropriate tribal representative(s) shall be immediately notified and shall determine whether the find is a tribal cultural resource (pursuant to PRC Section 21074). If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, the appropriate tribal representative(s) will make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment, as necessary. If the find is determined not to be a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074, construction may proceed.

Preservation in place is the preferred alternative under CEQA and the tribes’ protocols, and every effort must be made to preserve the resources in place, including through project redesign. Culturally appropriate treatment may be, but is not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of cultural objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, or returning objects to a location within the project vicinity where they will not be subject to future impacts. Tribes do not consider curation of tribal cultural resources to be appropriate or respectful and request that materials not be permanently curated unless approved by the tribal representative. Treatment that preserves or restores the cultural character and integrity of a tribal cultural resource may include tribal monitoring, culturally appropriate recovery of cultural objects, and reburial of cultural objects or cultural soil (soils containing and surrounding the discovery).

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.18-1 would reduce impacts on tribal cultural resources by requiring appropriate treatment and proper care of significant tribal cultural resources, in the case of a discovery. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION
This initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Riverbank (City) to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from implementing the Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project (project). Chapter 2, “Project Description,” presents the detailed project information.

1.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDANCE
This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). An IS is prepared by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]) and thus to determine the appropriate environmental document. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a public agency shall prepare a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration when: (a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level. In this circumstance, the lead agency prepares a written statement describing its reasons for concluding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). By contrast, an EIR is required when the project may have a significant environmental impact that cannot clearly be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adopting mitigation or by making revisions to the project design.

As described in the environmental checklist (Chapter 3), with mitigation incorporated, implementing the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, an IS/Proposed MND is the appropriate document for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. This IS/Proposed MND conforms to these requirements and to the content requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071.

Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility for approving the project. The City is the CEQA lead agency because it has primary responsibility for approving and carrying out the project.

The project may receive financial assistance from the federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. This program is administered nationally by the US Environmental Protection Agency, and in certain instances, the administration has been delegated to the states. In California, administration of the CWSRF program has been delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). In turn, SWRCB requires that all projects being considered under the CWSRF program must comply with CEQA and certain federal environmental protection laws. SWRCB refers to these requirements collectively as “CEQAPlus.” Therefore, this IS/Proposed MND has been prepared in accordance with the State Environmental Review Process for the State Water Resources Control Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SWRCB 2017), and its content is expanded beyond the typical requirements of an IS to include additional CEQA-Plus information in the IS analysis and associated appendices. (See Chapter 4, “Compliance with Federal Regulations,” for a complete list of federal laws addressed in compliance with CWSRF program requirements.) SWRCB, as a responsible agency for the project, will consider this CEQA document before any CWSRF loan authorization.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects. An MND, which requires inclusion of an IS, is a public document used by the decision-making lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If the agency finds that the project as proposed may have a significant adverse impact on the environment but that the impact would be clearly reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of specific mitigation measures, an MND shall be prepared.

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
1-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This IS/Proposed MND is a public information document that describes the project, existing environmental setting at the project site, and potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of the project. It is intended to inform the public and decision makers of the project’s compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and CWSRF program requirements.

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
This IS/Proposed MND is being made available to the public for review and comment at www.riverbank.org. It will be available for a 30-day public review period from Wednesday, September 21, 2022, to Thursday, October 20, 2022.

Supporting documentation referenced in this document is available for review at:

City of Riverbank
City Hall
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Comments should be addressed to:

Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works
City of Riverbank
Public Works Department
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
E-mail comments may be addressed to [email protected] and must be received by 5:00 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2022.

If you wish to mail written comments, they must be postmarked no later than Thursday, October 20, 2022.

After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, the City may (1) adopt the MND and approve the project, (2) undertake additional environmental studies, or (3) abandon the project. If the project is approved and funded, the project proponent may proceed with the project.

1.4 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/Proposed MND is organized as follows:
 Mitigated negative declaration: The proposed MND identifies the project and lead agency, and briefly summarizes the proposed project and findings of the IS.  Chapter 1, “Introduction”: This chapter introduces the environmental review process and describes the purpose and organization of this IS/Proposed MND.
 Chapter 2, “Project Description”: This chapter provides the project background; identifies the basic project objectives; provides a detailed description of the project, including construction and operations; and identifies potential required permits and approvals.
 Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist”: This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines for the different issues whether project actions would result in no impact, a less-than-significant impact, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or a potentially significant impact. If any impacts were determined to be potentially significant, an EIR would be required.

For this project, however, none of the impacts were determined to be potentially significant.  Chapter 4, “Compliance with Federal Regulations”: This chapter provides a discussion of compliance with federal executive orders and regulations required for CEQA-Plus compliance.  Chapter 5, “References”: This chapter lists the references used to prepare this IS/Proposed MND.  Chapter 6, “Report Preparers”: This chapter identifies the individuals who prepared this IS/Proposed MND.

City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Riverbank (City) is proposing to expand capacity at its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) to accommodate future growth. The existing WWTP treats effluent to an equivalent secondary level and discharges the treated effluent to land on the WWTP site where it is disposed through percolation and evaporation. There are no existing water rights for reuse of the treated effluent. The treatment capacity of the WWTP is currently limited to approximately 1.8 million gallons per day (mgd) and capacity of the existing disposal ponds is limited.

Wastewater flows to the Riverbank WWTP are projected to increase up to approximately 6 mgd at city buildout. To accommodate growth, the WWTP facilities would need to be expanded, which would require consideration of a new permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The existing process of effluent disposal through percolation to groundwater would also likely be subject to regulation under the newly enacted Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability program as included in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan) through the Salt and Nitrate Control Program Basin Plan Amendments (CVRWQCB 2019, 2020). Although the WWTP is not located in a Priority 1 groundwater basin, it is likely to be subject to the nitrogen management requirements of this program in the near future. In addition, further improvements to the treatment method may be required based on water quality requirements. Therefore, new and/or expanded means of treatment and effluent disposal, including reuse, are needed to accommodate future growth in the city.

The WWTP, which is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, is surrounded by agricultural lands to the north, east, and west. A significant cone of depression that exists within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin east of Stockton has led to the overall decline in groundwater levels in the subbasin north of the WWTP site. The project, which involves upgrade and expansion of the Riverbank WWTP to accommodate growth in the city through 2050 and produce disinfected tertiary recycled water, would create a source of high-quality irrigation water that could contribute to greater water balance in the subbasin by replacing some of the groundwater that would otherwise be used for irrigation.

The project involves upgrades to the existing city WWTP, including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a recycled water distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The city of Riverbank is located on the south side of the Stanislaus River along State Route 108 in Stanislaus County, 94 miles east of San Francisco, 75 miles south of Sacramento, 100 miles north of Fresno, and 108 miles west of Yosemite National Park. The City WWTP is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 247-260-02, 247-250-04, and 247-250-22). Agricultural lands that would receive recycled water in the near term are located adjacent to the WWTP. The project location is shown in Figure 2-1.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-1 Project Location
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-3

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project has the following objectives:
 Provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve projected population growth in the city of Riverbank over a 30-year planning horizon.
 Maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater from the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin for irrigation.
 Produce treated wastewater that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water under the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 to achieve a high degree of grower acceptability.  Provide a scalable recycled water delivery system that may be expanded in the future as the availability of and demand for recycled water increases.
 Provide efficient and cost-effective wastewater services to the city of Riverbank.

2.4 EXISTING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
This section describes the city’s existing wastewater characteristics, treatment process, and treatment facilities.

2.4.1 Existing Flows and Loads
The City WWTP serves the approximately 2,485-acre city of Riverbank, the population of which in 2021 was approximately 25,243 people (City of Riverbank 2022).

Influent to the WWTP includes flows from currently and historically active industrial discharges and domestic wastewater sources. The largest industrial dischargers include Compass Foods, Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Local Redevelopment Authority, and Stanislaus Cheese. Domestic wastewater sources include residential, institutional, public facility, and commercial sources. Unit wastewater generation rates in the city range from 55 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 63 gpcd. (KSN 2022a)
Influent wastewater flows (flows into the plant) from the city are affected by seasonal events. During the wet season, infiltration and inflow (I/I) (e.g., rainfall and groundwater seeping through cracks into sewer pipes or through other utility access points) increase influent to the plant; during dry-period flows, occurring predominantly in July, August, and September, flows are lower. Recent annual average flows have ranged from 1.49 million mgd to 1.61 mgd (KSN 2022a).

Seasonal increases in wastewater flows resulting from I/I typically occur in the months of December through March, but with occasional increases in influent flows occurring as late as May. Seasonal peak flows typically occur during very heavy rain periods, resulting in peak influent flows reaching more than 4.0 mgd. During the winter season, peak day influent flows frequently reach 2.3 to more than 3.0 mgd (KSN 2022a).

Annual average influent concentrations of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), which range from 236 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 428 mg/L and from 144 mg/L to 340 mg/L, respectively, are generally consistent with wastewater strength associated with a mixture of primarily residential flows with some commercial and industrial contribution (KSN 2022a).

2.4.2 Existing Treatment Facilities
Existing facilities at the City’s 150-acre WWTP consist of a headworks system, two aerated treatment ponds, two polishing ponds, eight evaporation/percolation ponds, 13 groundwater monitoring wells, and associated piping and mechanical components. Figure 2-2 shows the layout of the existing WWTP. Flow is gravity fed through the system and controlled with system valving/piping. The WWTP is operated and maintained by one supervisor and two maintenance workers. Most of the WWTP facilities were constructed before the 1990s, and upgrades were made to the ponds in the early 2010s and to the aeration system in the mid-2010s (KSN and BC 2022).

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A trestle over the Stanislaus River connects the City’s sewer system to the WWTP. The collection system consists of 66 miles of gravity pipe and 10 sewer pump stations. The current average wastewater flow into the facility is approximately 1.6 mgd.

The headworks of the facility includes two parallel influent channels, each about 2.5 feet wide by 3 feet deep. One of the channels is equipped with a grinder, mechanical screen, screenings compactor, and Parshall flume with bubbler tube for flow metering. The second channel is equipped with a manual bar rack used as a bypass of the grinder and screen. The bypass channel is used during peak influent conditions (high rainfall events), when instantaneous inflow can exceed the Parshall flume’s ability to reliably measure flows above 7 mgd. Because of the uncertainty of measurement in peak flows, it is anticipated that current peak wet weather flows may reach as high as 10 mgd. A composite autosampler is used to sample WWTP influent for water quality monitoring.

From the headworks, wastewater is directed to ponds T-1 and T-2 for treatment (see Figure 2-2). These ponds operate in series as completely mixed aerated treatment ponds using the Biolac aeration system, which consists of four blowers, and numerous fine-bubble diffusers (tube assemblies) attached to moving chains that facilitate mixing and aeration of the wastewater. Each pond has a synthetic lining and was designed for a hydraulic retention time of

7.72 days (15.4 days total).

Effluent from the aerated ponds flows from pond T-2 to polishing ponds T-3 or T-4, and then the effluent from ponds T-3 and T-4 is disposed of by percolation and evaporation in ponds P-2 through P-9 (see Figure 2-2). Ponds T-3 and T-4 are equipped with mechanical surface aerators. Pond T-3 has three 75-horsepower (hp) aerators, and T4 has two 75-hp aerators. Effluent from pond T-3 is conveyed to pond T-4 and then flows into pond P-2, from which it is diverted to ponds P-3 through P-9 from various points within pond P-2 (see Figure 2-2). The City uses ponds P-2 and P-4 through P-7 as the primary means of disposal, and ponds P-3, P-8, and P-9 are used for supplemental disposal and storage during high-flow periods. Percolation through the pond bottom makes up the majority of treated wastewater disposal. Evaporation into the atmosphere is estimated to account for 15 percent of the monthly disposal volume in summer and less than 2 percent in winter.

2.5 EXISTING WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
Current discharge requirements for the WWTP are prescribed under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Order No. 94-100 and the associated monitoring and reporting program, which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB, on April 22, 1994. A summary of applicable WDRs is provided below.

As defined in the WDRs, the WWTP is prohibited from the following actions:
 discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses;  bypass or overflow of untreated or partially treated waste; and  discharge of waste classified as “hazardous” or “designated,” as defined in Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 2521(a) and 2522(a) of the CCR.

The following additional discharge specifications are listed in the WDRs:
 The monthly average dry weather discharge flow shall not exceed 7.9 mgd.  Objectionable odors originating at the facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the property.  Dissolved oxygen content in the upper 1 foot of wastewater in ponds shall not be less than 1.0 mg/L.  Treatment facilities shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout related to floods with a 100-year return frequency.
 Ponds shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate allowable wastewater flow and design seasonal precipitation (based on a 100-year return period) and ancillary inflow and infiltration during the nonirrigation season.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-5 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-2 Riverbank WWTP – Existing Site Layout
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-7 The WDRs specify freeboard requirements for the treatment and disposal ponds (i.e., vertical distance between the maximum normal water elevation in the pond and the top of the berm); however, since the adoption date of the WDRs, ponds have been renamed and their functions have been modified. The same freeboard requirements apply to each location despite changes in name or function. Table 2-1 describes the freeboard requirements listed in the WDRs and the modifications made to each pond.

Table 2-1 Pond Freeboard Requirements
Pond Listed in WDRs (1994) Minimum Freeboard Pond Modification Since Adoption of WDRs Summer Pond No. 1 1 foot Converted to percolation pond P-2 Summer Aeration Cell 2 feet Converted to aerated treatment pond T-4 Summer Pond No. 2 2 feet Converted to percolation pond P-6 Summer Pond No. 3 2 feet Converted to percolation pond P-5 Winter Pond 2 feet Converted to aerated treatment pond T-3 South Levee of Domestic Percolation Ponds 2 feet Converted to two Biolac treatment ponds (T-1 and T-2) and two percolation ponds (P-3 and P-4)
Note: Freeboard is the vertical distance between the maximum normal water elevation in the pond and the top of the berm.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

The groundwater limitations contained in the WDRs state that discharge from the WWTP shall not cause underlying groundwater to:
 be degraded;
 contain chemicals, heavy metals, or trace elements in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses or exceed maximum contaminant levels specified in 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 15;  exceed a most probable number (MPN) of total coliform organisms of 2.2/100 milliliters (mL) over any 7-day period;
 exceed concentrations of radionuclides specified in 22 CCR, Division 4, Chapter 15;  contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses; or
 contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect agricultural use.

The following applicable sludge disposal requirements are specified in the WDRs:
 Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes shall be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with Chapter 15, Division 3, Title 23, of the CCR and approved by the executive officer.  Use and disposal of sewage shall comply with existing federal and state laws and regulations, including permitting requirements and technical standards included in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 503.

The WWTP is in compliance with the WDRs, with the following exceptions:
 Nitrate and ammonia concentrations in groundwater sampled from several interior monitoring wells dominated by effluent exceed recommended groundwater limitations.  Dissolved oxygen in ponds T-1 and T-2 periodically fall below the 1.0 mg/L limit.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.6 PROPOSED PROJECT

2.6.1 Regulatory Framework
The California Water Code establishes SWRCB and RWQCBs and grants them the power to permit and approve recycled water programs. The RWQCBs issue permits for water reuse applications. These permits specify the requirements for water recycling, including treatment, monitoring, reporting, and effluent water quality. Water quality criteria are enforced using WDRs, water reclamation requirements, or other appropriate permits issued by the RWQCB. The RWQCB works with SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) to verify that reuse projects meet the criteria in CCR Title 22 before issuing a discharge permit. CCR Title 22, which establishes the guidelines for permitting and implementing recycled water programs and focuses on public health protection, is administered by DDW. Before approval of a recycled water project, a Title 22 engineering report must be developed and submitted to DDW for review and approval.

To meet the needs of recycled water users and provide for a high degree of grower acceptability, production of disinfected tertiary recycled water is proposed. Disinfected tertiary recycled water, also sometimes referred to as “Title 22 unrestricted recycled water,” is wastewater that has been oxidized, filtered, and disinfected such that secondary effluent total coliform has a median concentration of ≤2.2 MPN/100 mL; has an average turbidity of 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or less (or 0.2 NTU for microfiltration); and includes either a chlorine disinfection process that provides a contact time value of at least 450 milligrams-minutes per liter always, with a modal contact time of no less than 90 minutes, or a disinfection process that is demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque-forming units of F-specific bacteriophage MS2 or polio virus.

2.6.2 Recycled Water Use Area
The City has identified two landowners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the proposed project for irrigation of walnut orchards on agricultural lands adjacent to the WWTP. These potential recycled water use areas occupy portions of or all of six parcels, as summarized in Table 2-2, and encompass a total of approximately 690 acres (ac) (Figure 2-3).

Table 2-2 Potential Recycled Water Use Areas
Landowner/Recycled Water Use Area Assessor’s Parcel Number Reuse Area (acres) Beard’s Quality Nut Company (Use Area A)
247-220-35 0.54
247-250-21 440.00
Barton Ranch, Inc. (Use Area B)
249-070-08 94.15
249-070-14 2.34
249-070-34 71.87
249-070-45 81.18
Source: Data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-9 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-3 Proposed Project
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-11

2.6.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the northern bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the Riverbank WWTP, and agricultural lands border the remainder of the project area. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area east of the WWTP. Of the crops grown in the surrounding area, nut crops make up the largest percent. Almonds and walnuts account for approximately 56 percent and 22 percent of the crops grown in the surrounding area, respectively. Irrigation of crops in this area is typically through micro sprinklers or drip irrigation.

2.6.4 Projected Wastewater Flows and Loads
Future growth in the city is managed under the policies of the City’s General Plan and under adopted zoning. Future city wastewater flows and loads to the WWTP are expected to increase as a result of infill development and new development within the City’s sphere of influence. No new significant industrial discharges are known to be planned.

For purposes of the proposed project, future flows and loads to the City’s WWTP are based on future population growth projected to 2050 rather than at buildout of the city, which is expected to occur well beyond the proposed 30-year planning horizon. In 2050, the city’s population is estimated to reach approximately 36,766 (KSN and BC 2022: Table 12). Based on this population projection, wastewater flows in 2050 are projected to be 2.29 mgd with flow and loading characteristics, as summarized in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 Projected Flows and Loads by 2050
Wastewater Characteristic Unit Planning Criteria
Flows
ADWF mgd 2.29
Peak month peaking factor Unitless 1.2
Peak day peaking factor Unitless 3.0
Loads
BOD
Average BOD daily load lbs/d 6,650
BOD peak month peaking factor Unitless 1.4
BOD peak day peaking factor Unitless 3.1
TSS
Average TSS daily load lbs/day 6,100
TSS peak month peaking factor1 Unitless 1.4
TSS peak day peaking factor1 Unitless 3.1
Nitrogen
TKN load2 lbs/day 1,070
TKN peak month peaking factor3 Unitless 1.4
TKN peak day peaking factor3 Unitless 3.1
Notes: ADWF = average dry weather flow; BOD = biological oxygen demand; lbs/d = pounds per day; mgd = million gallons per day; TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen; TSS = total suspended solids.
1 Peaking factors for TSS based on BOD peaking factors. 2 Because of limited nitrogen data, a unit TKN load factor of 0.029 pound per capita per day was assumed based on a typical ratio of TKN/BOD of 0.21. 3 Peaking factors for TKN assumed based on BOD peaking factors.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-12 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

2.6.5 Project Features
To meet the requirements for Title 22 unrestricted recycled water use, provide wastewater treatment adequate to treat wastewater flows and loads projected by 2050, provide for expandable recycled water treatment and storage capacity, and produce and distribute recycled water to the potential use areas, the proposed project would include improvements to the WWTP and construction of recycled water storage and distribution facilities (see Figure 2-3).

The facilities described below and summarized in Table 2-4 are proposed to treat up to 2.29 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) and produce and deliver approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year (AFY) of Title 22 recycled water at a rate of 4,350 gallons per minute (gpm).

Table 2-4 Proposed WWTP and Associated Storage and Distribution Facility Improvements Facility Upgrades
Primary treatment and flow equalization facilities
Upgraded grinders (2)
Upgraded screening equipment (2)
New vactor truck1 receiving station platform
New anoxic basin splitter
Modified emergency storage and overflow basins (ponds T1 and P3, respectively) New plant and storm drain pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby) Secondary treatment system and solids handling
Pond T2 demolished and filled for secondary treatment space New oxidation ditch effluent splitter (1)
New mechanical aerators (2 per train, 4 total)
New anoxic basins (2)
New oxidation ditches (2)
New secondary effluent splitter (1)
New secondary clarifiers (2)
New RAS/WAS pump stations (3 duty, 2 standby)
New secondary scum pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby)
Pond T3 partially converted to WAS storage basin and partially demolished and filled for tertiary treatment space
New sludge feed pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby)
New polymer and screw press facility (1)
New interim solids storage area
Tertiary treatment and disinfection system
New filter feed pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby)
New DAF units (2)
New rapid mix basins (2)
New 3,500-gal coagulant storage tank and pump (1)
New flocculation basins (2)
New granular media filters (1 duty, 1 standby)
New UV reactors (2)
New 12,500-gal coagulant tank and metering pumps (4)
New 5,000-gal hypochlorite storage tank and pump (1)
New plant water pump stations (2 duty, 2 standby)
Secondary effluent seasonal storage Ponds T4 and P2 converted to seasonal storage basins (2) New secondary effluent return pump stations (1 duty, 1 standby) Recycled water storage and distribution system New 900,000-gal recycled water storage tank (1) New recycled water pump stations (2 duty, 1 standby)
Notes: DAF = dissolved air flotation; gal = gallon; RAS = return activated sludge; UV = ultraviolet light; WAS = waste activated sludge. 1 Vactor trucks suction sludge, solids, and liquids during maintenance of the sewer collection system and transport this material to the wastewater treatment plant for processing.

Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-13 To support the facility improvements listed in Table 2-4, the project would include interconnecting piping, utility and backup power supply improvements, and site grading and drainage improvements. In addition, to support the expanded WWTP, a new electrical and controls building, as well as shop and maintenance buildings, would be constructed at the site.

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADES
Improvements to the Riverbank WWTP to upgrade the level of treatment and expand treatment capacity to accommodate growth projected to occur by 2050 would include headworks facility upgrades to provide reliable grinding and screening capacity; upgrades to the wastewater treatment process to provide oxidation, biological nutrient removal, filtration, and disinfection; and construction of other buildings and structures to support operation of the WWTP. A site layout for the upgraded WWTP is shown in Figure 2-4, and a process flow diagram is shown in Figure 2-5. Conveyance of flows through the secondary process would continue to be gravity fed, similar to existing facilities, with treated water supplied to the tertiary facilities via pumping.

The proposed WWTP upgrades are modular in design and laid out in a fashion to accommodate expansion in the future beyond the 2050 planning horizon. However, the proposed facilities are not sized beyond the capacity needed to treat the projected 2.29-mgd flow, which is based on the projected population of 36,766 by 2050.

Primary Treatment and Flow Equalization
Because the existing headworks facility has additional capacity in its bypass channel and provides the desired level of primary treatment under average flow conditions, a full overhaul of the facility would not be required. Instead, an upgrade to existing equipment and addition of new grinding and screening equipment in the bypass channel are proposed. These upgrades would provide redundancy to allow for one channel to be taken offline during low-flow periods for maintenance, as well as provide increased grinding/screening capacity for peak influent flows. In addition, inclusion of a vactor receiving station for disposal of trucked-in waste is proposed to be included in the upgraded headworks facility to allow the City to manage wastes collected from maintenance of the collection system using vactor trucks capable of suctioning sludge, solids, and liquid. This station would be located downstream of the screening process.

Existing lined pond T-1 would be converted from a treatment pond to an emergency storage pond for emergency and flow equalization storage, and existing lined pond P-3 would be converted to serve as an overflow basin into which high flows from pond T-1 could be diverted for temporary storage and then later pumped back to pond T-1 and returned to the influent channel or through the secondary treatment facilities splitter box.

Secondary Treatment Facilities
Following screening, the WWTP influent would receive secondary treatment before percolation or further treatment for reuse. To meet secondary treatment requirements, removal of total BOD and TSS is required. The existing treatment ponds system is not able to remove TSS and cannot provide adequate aeration for the projected increase in flows and loadings to meet anticipated water quality requirements. In addition, the treatment pond system cannot consistently control nitrogen at the level expected to meet requirements of the Salt and Nitrate Control Program Basin Plan Amendments. Therefore, improvements to the secondary treatment facilities would include solids separation and additional aeration capacity and biological nutrient removal. To achieve this, the existing treatment pond system would be demolished and replaced with an oxidation ditch that would include at least two trains, each with anoxic submersible mixers to provide mixing in the anoxic zones, and aerators to provide oxygen for BOD removal and ammonia conversion. Two secondary clarifiers would also be added to separate and return solids to the oxidation ditch. This design would provide redundancy for worst-case conditions (maximum month loading, cold temperature, and peak flows). The system could also be operated with either one secondary clarifier or the oxidation ditch out of service.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-14 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Tertiary Treatment and Disinfection Facilities
To meet the requirements of disinfected tertiary recycled water for unrestricted reuse, the secondary effluent would be tertiary treated and then disinfected. The proposed facilities would be sized to treat 2.29 mgd ADWF (1,600 gpm), the WWTP’s permitted average dry weather flow, which, in concert with continued use of the existing disposal ponds, is expected to be adequate to serve growth in the city through 2050.

The tertiary treatment and disinfection process would include pretreatment by coagulation/flocculation followed by granular media filtration (GMF) and then ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. Because of the potential for growth of algae in the seasonal storage ponds, a secondary effluent pretreatment system consisting of dissolved air flotation (DAF) units may be installed and used before tertiary treatment when effluent from seasonal storage is being treated.

The following discussion provides further information on the proposed tertiary treatment and disinfection process and facilities.

DAF Rapid Treatment System
Fouling of granular media caused by algal solids formed when algae is mixed with coagulant is a common issue encountered when storage pond water is treated through GMF. Although secondary effluent from the oxidation ditch would be the primary source of effluent to be treated to tertiary levels, as influent flows increase, some secondary effluent stored in pond T-4 or P-2 could be returned to the tertiary treatment system to supplement the supply of recycled water. To reduce or control the amount of GMF solids loading caused by the formation of algal solids, two 50-foot-long-by-13-foot-wide-by-10-foot-high DAF units capable of handling 1,600 gpm may be installed upstream of the tertiary treatment facilities. Motorized valves would be used to either deliver secondary effluent directly to the tertiary process or direct it through the DAF units before tertiary treatment. (Bypassing of the DAF units would occur when seasonal storage pond effluent is not being returned to the tertiary treatment system.) Coagulant injection to the DAF units would be fed from pumps in the chemical feed system installed in the tertiary facility. Solids produced by the DAF units would be pumped to the waste activated sludge storage basin.

Pretreatment System – GMF Rapid Mixing and Flocculation A rapid mix and flocculation system would be installed upstream of the filters to enhance filtration performance.

Secondary effluent would be pumped to a rapid mix basin. A chemical feed system would be used to inject coagulant (e.g., alum or PACl [polyaluminum chlorohydrate]) into the rapid mix tank where flow would be flash-mixed to begin the coagulation process. Flow would leave the rapid mix basin and enter the flocculation tank. Each flocculation tank would provide a minimum of 15 minutes of hydraulic retention time at 1,600 gpm to achieve proper coagulation and flocculation. Because of the size of the flocculation basins and the simplicity of their mechanical parts and because it is anticipated that flocculation would be required only intermittently, redundant flocculation tanks are not proposed at the buildout condition. Each tank would have a dedicated mixer. Flow would discharge from each individual flocculation tank into a common header that could distribute flow to the filters.

The chemical addition system would consist of one 12,500-gallon (gal) coagulant storage tank and four pumps (two duty, two standby) to convey chemicals to the rapid mix and flocculation basins and the DAF units separately. A bypass around the rapid mix and flocculation system would be provided to allow water to be sent directly to the filters when water quality (turbidity) does not require pretreatment before filtration.

Filtration
Following pretreatment, particulate matter would be filtered from the secondary effluent using a GMF system. The filtration system would produce filtered effluent with a turbidity that does not exceed any of the following standards in compliance with Title 22 regulations for tertiary recycled water:
 an average turbidity of 2 NTUs within a 24-hour period,  5 NTUs, more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period (e.g., 72 minutes within a 24-hour period), or  10 NTUs at any time (diversion of wastewater is required if turbidity exceeds 10 NTUs).

The GMF system would consist of four deep-bed anthracite/sand filters (three duty, one standby) with a capacity of 1,600 gpm and backwashing equipment constructed downstream of the mixing and flocculation system.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-15 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-4 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Upgrades
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-17 Source: Data provided by KSN in 2022; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-5 Riverbank WWTP – Proposed Process Flow Diagram Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-19 During filtration, secondary effluent would be pumped to the top of the filter basins containing sand and support gravel. Solids would be captured on the sand as it flows through the filter bed, and then the filtered water would be collected from each filter and conveyed to the disinfection system for further treatment.

A backwash cycle would be installed and initiated to periodically clean the filters using the tertiary treated effluent when solids accumulation on the media increases head loss across the filter to a threshold value. The backwash facilities would recycle filter backwash water to the headworks.

Turbidity meters would also be installed after the filtration process and before disinfection. The turbidity meters would continuously log data and be capable of retaining data history.

Disinfection System
Following tertiary treatment, the effluent would be disinfected using a UV disinfection system. The UV system would include low-pressure high-output lamps with automatic sleeve cleaning. Filter unit effluent would be routed through a connecting pipe and into a common UV influent channel. Water levels in the UV open-channel system would be controlled using a level control structure, which keeps the UV equipment continually submerged. Flows from the UV channels would be conveyed to a common effluent channel/pipeline and on to storage and distribution.

A programmable logic controller would adjust the UV dose based on a validated UV dose equation to maintain UV dose delivery at or above the required reduction equivalent dose set point without overdosing through “dose pacing.” An ultraviolet transmittance meter would be installed postfiltration, and a flowmeter would be included to allow UV dose pacing.

A davit crane or roof crane would be used to allow removal of UV banks from service in the open-channel system.

Walkways with a minimum width of 3 feet would be provided on both sides and between the UV channels to facilitate maintenance.

Hypochlorite Chemical Addition System
Before the tertiary treated disinfected effluent is stored in the proposed on-site recycled water storage tank described below, facilities would be provided to allow injection of sodium hypochlorite into the recycled water to provide a chlorine residual sufficient to prevent any biological growth in the recycled water storage tank. The chemical addition system would likely consist of one 5,000-gal sodium hypochlorite storage tank and one pump to inject chemicals into the tertiary treated and disinfected effluent.

Backup Power
To ensure continued operation of the secondary treatment system during power outages, two approximately 450- kilowatt (kW) diesel backup generators would be installed; each generator would handle one of the two secondary treatment trains (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). A third 450-kW diesel backup generator could also be installed to power auxiliary operations and the tertiary treatment system during power outages (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022).

The installation of these generators may be integrated such that any one of the three generators could provide power to the secondary, tertiary, or auxiliary systems as deemed necessary by the WWTP staff at the time. To recharge the battery, burn off excess moisture, and help to keep the system lubricated, the backup generators would be test-run monthly for at least 30 minutes.

Other Buildings and Structures
To support operation of the WWTP, a new, approximately 1,000-square-foot air-conditioned electrical building and approximately 5,000-square-foot air-conditioned shop maintenance building would also be constructed near the entrance to the WWTP (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022).

Other improvements to support operation of the treatment facilities would include:
 upgrades to the MID and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company electrical services to the site;  site paving, grading, and drainage to provide for access to the facilities and contain site drainage to be discharged to the site disposal ponds;
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-20 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  radio communications equipment to provide for integration of the WWTP systems with the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, including communication and control to the remote recycled water turnouts;
 facilities for the storage, treatment, and dewatering of process biosolids; and  incidental fencing, gate replacement/improvement, and access road repaving to support new facilities.

RECYCLED WATER STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
Improvements to recycled water storage and distribution facilities would include construction of a recycled water distribution pump station, reconfiguration of existing percolation ponds to provide seasonal storage, installation of two recycled water storage tanks to provide operational storage, and construction of distribution pipelines and turnouts to serve nearby agricultural fields. Operational storage of recycled water is required for direct delivery to landowners in the use area to meet variability of recycled water demands and provide for controlled delivery of recycled water for internal plant use and off-site agricultural use under variable recycled water demands. Operational storage also provides for a source of water for GMF backwash.

Seasonal storage, through modification of ponds T-4 and P-2, would be integrated into the ongoing percolation disposal operation and would augment availability of secondary effluent for tertiary treatment during peak irrigation months, normally June, July, and August.

The proposed recycled water storage and distribution facilities are described below, and the planned layout of facilities on the WWTP site is shown in Figure 2-4. The planned distribution pipeline alignments are shown in Figure 2-3.

Seasonal Storage Ponds
Wastewater flows into the WWTP year-round, and recycled water demands are highest during the summer months.

During periods of low recycled water demand, the City proposes to divert treated effluent before the tertiary treatment process and store and/or dispose of the secondary treated effluent on-site at the WWTP.

Based on projected wastewater flows by 2050 (2.29 mgd), water balance calculations assuming a 1-in-100-year precipitation event, average evaporation rates, and continued use of most of the City’s percolation ponds, the estimated amount of on-site seasonal storage that would be required is approximately 155 million gallons (mgal) (KSN 2022b). The project includes modifying ponds T-4 and P-2 to provide seasonal storage for up to an estimated 85 mgal of secondary effluent that would be either discharged to the on-site percolation disposal ponds or pumped to the tertiary treatment system to supplement the production of recycled water during summer months.

Recycled Water Storage Tanks
One belowground prestressed concrete 900,000-gal storage tank would be installed on the WWTP site to store recycled water needed to meet irrigation demands. Piping connecting the UV reactors and hypochlorite injection system to the recycled water storage tank would convey tertiary effluent to the tank.

Recycled Water Distribution Pump Station
The recycled water distribution pump station would have three approximately 75-hp pumps (two duty, one standby) with room to add one additional pump in the future. The pumps would have a combined delivery rate of 2,900 gpm and would operate an average of 12 hours per day. Within the same pump station area, there would be two other pump systems to serve the plant water system.

Two pumps (one duty, one standby) would provide backwash water at a rate potentially up to 3,200 gpm to the GMF and are expected to operate only 2 hours per day when recycled water is being produced. The other set of two pumps (one duty, one standby) would provide approximately 765 gpm of plant water to the treatment system for various uses, such as washdown, spray systems, and scum control. The plant water pumps would operate up to approximately 6 hours per day.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-21 Recycled Water Distribution Pipelines and Turnouts
Recycled water from the WWTP would be pumped to individual landowners in the use area through approximately 5,400–6,300 linear feet of newly constructed pipelines (expected to range in size from 12 inches to 18 inches in diameter) that would deliver pressurized irrigation water to the agricultural users. The point of connection to the recycled water user’s site would be an aboveground turnout either on the City’s property or on the agricultural properties. The turnouts would include valves, a flow meter, pressure instruments, a control panel, and radio communication facilities to communicate with the WWTP SCADA system. Recycled water users would connect their existing irrigation systems to the recycled water distribution system at the turnout (see Figure 2-3). The pipelines would provide pressurized filtered water to the designated points-of-connection within the end user’s existing irrigation system.

The pipeline route to agricultural property east of the WWTP is shown in Figure 2-3. Two potential routes for the pipeline that would deliver recycled water to assessor’s parcel number 247-250-21 to the northwest have been identified and are shown in Figure 2-3. Both of these routes are evaluated at a project level in this document; however, only one pipeline would be constructed to serve the property to the northwest.

2.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

2.7.1 Construction Schedule and Sequencing
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in October 2024 and last approximately 27 months, ending in December 2026. For purposes of the analysis in this IS/MND, it is assumed that construction would occur in the approximate sequence shown in Table 2-5. For all components, construction would typically be limited to those hours consistent with the noise ordinance of the jurisdiction in which the construction would occur (i.e., City of Riverbank or San Joaquin County). Typical work hours would be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the fall, winter, and spring months and 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. during the summer months. Extended work hours and days per week may be required to meet project milestones.

Table 2-5 Project Construction Sequence and Durations
Construction Phase Estimated
Start Date
Estimated
End Date
Duration
(weeks)
Mobilization 10/1/2024 10/7/2024 1
Haul road construction 10/7/2024 10/22/2024 2
Oonds T-2, T-3, and T-4 dewatering 10/7/2024 11/6/2024 4 Utility locating/potholing 10/7/2024 10/21/2024 2
Ponds T-2, T-3, and T-4 demolition 11/6/2024 11/26/2024 3 Sludge handling (move from T-4 to P-3) 12/1/2024 12/21/2024 3 Mass excavation 12/21/2024 1/20/2025 4
Rough grading 1/20/2025 2/4/2025 2
Pipeline excavation, lay, and backfill (deep) 2/4/2025 3/6/2025 4 Oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin construction 3/6/2025 11/26/2025 38 Oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin backfilling 11/26/2025 12/10/2025 2 Underground electrical installation for oxidation ditches 1 and 2 and anoxic basin 12/10/2025 12/24/2025 2 Clarifiers 1 and 2 construction 3/6/2025 9/22/2025 29
Clarifiers 1 and 2 backfilling 9/22/2025 10/2/2025 1
Sludge handling equipment and solids storage construction 9/22/2025 12/6/2025 11 Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-22 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Construction Phase Estimated
Start Date
Estimated
End Date
Duration
(weeks)
Splitter structures and pump stations construction (primary and secondary treatment) 9/22/2025 12/6/2025 11 Splitter structures and pump stations backfilling (primary and secondary treatment) 12/6/2025 12/20/2025 2 Process piping pump stations and splitter structures installation (secondary treatment) 12/20/2025 3/5/2026 11 Underground electrical installation for clarifiers 1 and 2, splitter structures, pump stations, and solids handling
12/20/2025 2/18/2026 9
Electrical building, generator pad, and shop/maintenance building construction 2/1/2026 10/9/2026 36 Miscellaneous above-grade equipment pads/equipment construction 3/1/2026 4/30/2026 9 Recycled water storage tank 1 construction 8/1/2025 3/9/2026 31 Recycled water storage tank 1 backfilling 3/9/2026 3/19/2026 1 Process piping tertiary pump stations and splitter structures installation 3/19/2026 4/18/2026 4 Distribution pipeline A and A1 or A2 construction 4/18/2026 5/6/2026 3 Distribution pipeline B construction 4/18/2022 5/6/2022 3 Tertiary treatment facility construction 4/18/2026 10/15/2026 26 Ultraviolet light disinfection facility construction 7/18/2026 10/16/2026 13 Control structures, pump stations, and miscellaneous construction (tertiary treatment and disinfection)
5/1/2025 7/20/2025 11
Underground electrical installation for tertiary and disinfection area 10/16/2025 11/25/2025 6 Fine grading and site paving 9/1/2026 11/15/2026 11
Dewatered sludge off-hauling 10/1/2026 10/31/2026 4
Demobilization 11/15/2026 11/30/2026 2
Source: Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022.

2.7.2 Construction Equipment, Staging Areas, and Import/Export The estimated type and quantity of construction equipment, materials, and haul trips and the volume of earthmoving required to construct the proposed project are summarized in Appendix A. Staging of equipment and materials during construction would occur at the WWTP site, as shown in Figure 2-3, but may also occur adjacent to the roadways in existing public utility easements or at other previously disturbed sites if they are present close to the project site.

A total of approximately 964 round-trip haul trips using 14-cubic-yard (cy) dump trucks would be required to import subgrade and paving materials to the site from up to 20 miles away, and another 1,420 round-trip haul trips using 9- cy concrete trucks would be required to import concrete from up to 20 miles away for structures and slabs.

Approximately 4,750 loads using 27-cy dump trucks would be transported across 0.5 mile from pond T-4 to pond T-2 and/or T-3 for general earth cut-and-fill transport on-site. In addition, approximately 890 loads using 27-cy dump trucks containing dried secondary sludge from pond T-4 would be exported from the site approximately 20 miles to the Forward Landfill in Manteca, California. Another 30 loads using 27-cy dump trucks would be needed to export the pond T-2 liner to the landfill.

2.7.3 Construction Methods and Labor Force
This section summarizes the proposed methods that would be used and the number of workers anticipated during peak construction of each major project activity.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-23

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINT AND ROAD
Access to the WWTP site is limited because of a constrained access point. The entrance to the WWTP has an overhead rail crossing that creates height and width limitations for transportation of construction materials and equipment. In addition, existing WWTP operations that use this access point would need to continue uninterrupted use through the expected 27-month construction timeline. Therefore, a temporary access point and road would be required to support the transportation of construction materials and equipment.

The proposed temporary access point would be located northwest of the project site, off Burwood Road. An approximately 9,000-foot-long temporary access road would be constructed between the access point and the WWTP site on a combination of private farm roads and existing WWTP roads, both currently unimproved.

Improvements would include fine grading followed by placement of aggregate base rock on the existing roads.

The temporary construction access road would be maintained throughout the construction timeline. This road would be watered as necessary to prevent fugitive dust caused by vehicular traffic.

Encroachment permits for the temporary access point would be acquired as required by San Joaquin County.

Temporary easements would be obtained from individual property owners as required for the temporary construction access point and the portion of the road on private property.

POND DEWATERING AND DEMOLITION
Construction of the major facilities would be completed in the areas of existing wastewater treatment ponds T-2 and T-3. Earthen material would be excavated from pond T-4 for fill to construct the proposed treatment facilities at the location of ponds T-2 and T-3. To accommodate construction, ponds T-2, T-3, and T-4 would be dewatered, existing improvements slated for removal in these ponds would be demolished, and the accumulated sludge would be removed. Then the surfaces would be prepped for fill and construction as necessary. In ponds T-2 and T-3, aeration equipment, conveyance facilities, and the liner would be demolished and disposed of. Pond T-4 does not contain treatment improvements and would require limited demolition. With construction slated to start in fall 2024, pond T4 would be dewatered as part of normal WWTP operations by operations staff (before construction), starting in early summer 2024 to allow sludge material in the pond to dry enough for removal. Trash pumps would be used to dewater the ponds slated for improvement, and the dewatering water would be discharged to other ponds on-site for disposal. After the water has been drained from the ponds, low ground pressure (LGP) dozers would be used to windrow the sludge for further drying and pick up by transport equipment. The sludge material would be transported out of the respective ponds using a combination of pumps, scrapers, and dozers and stockpiled for further drying in existing pond P-3. To support this transport, a motor grader would maintain the haul road on the site, and a water truck would be employed to control dust. The stockpiled sludge material would be allowed to dry and then would be transported to a disposal facility permitted to take the material as daily cover.

MASS EXCAVATION AND ROUGH GRADING
Excavation (cut of approximately 128,200 cy) from pond T-4 would commence following dewatering, demolition, and sludge removal from the ponds. Excavated material would be transported to ponds T-2 and T-3 to meet specific fill grades for construction elevations. Most excavated material from pond T-4 would be stockpiled on-site in the construction staging area to be used as future fill in the staged construction fill operations associated with the secondary and tertiary treatment facilities. The mass excavation would require aeration of the existing soil to further dry the cut material to be used as fill within ponds T-2 and T-3. This aeration and conditioning would continue until the soil is within 3 percent of optimum moisture content for compaction purposes. The aeration would be accomplished using LGP dozers to rip the pond bottom. After the pond bottom is ripped and dried, the material would be windrowed for pickup by scrapers for transport to ponds T-2 and T-3 as fill. A motor grader would maintain the haul road on the site, and a water truck would be employed to control dust. Material to be stockpiled on-site would be excavated and transported in the same manner, except moisture conditioning and drying would not be as critical.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-24 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rough grading would coincide with mass excavation and would entail prepping surfaces for additional excavation and to receive fill for construction of the major structures, oxidation ditches, clarifiers, and tank. The open-cut and sloping method of excavation would be used to allow safe excavations for construction of major facilities without the need for shoring. The material produced from these excavations, depending on the moisture content, would be incorporated into the mass excavation, cut-and-fill process with the remainder stockpiled at the north end of existing pond T-2 for future use as backfill material at the secondary treatment process area.

FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Treatment facilities construction would begin following the rough grading operations. Concrete would be the primary building material used to construct the treatment facilities. Construction would likely start with secondary treatment facilities. It is expected that one concrete crew would construct the oxidation ditches, and another concrete crew would construct the clarifiers concurrently. Before concrete work for the clarifiers is initiated, the deep piping/clarifier influent piping would be set in place and backfilled. After concrete walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled. The backfill operations of the open-cut excavations with sloped sides for the oxidation ditches and the clarifiers would create the area necessary to construct the various splitter structures and pump structures in the secondary treatment facilities. The concrete crews associated with oxidation ditches and the clarifiers would then split off. One crew would move to the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities, and the other crew would move to the tertiary treatment facility and initiate concrete construction of the recycled water storage tank.

The construction of the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities would require open-cut excavations with sloped sides similar to those created for the oxidation ditches and clarifiers. After the walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled.

Following the vertical concrete work for the various pump stations and splitter structures at the secondary treatment facilities, process and drainage piping connecting the structures would be initiated. After the piping is installed, it would be backfilled to near finished grade in the area to establish the subgrade.

After the subgrade is established in the secondary treatment facility area, the electrical duct banks would be installed between respective electrical buildings and equipment loads (e.g., pumps, aerators, and monitoring devices).

For the tertiary facilities, which would consist of storage, pumping, DAF, filtration, and disinfection facilities, excavations would vary in depth to accommodate the different base elevations for each component. The storage and pumping structures would be constructed at much lower elevations than the filtration and disinfection facilities and would require open-cut side-sloped excavations that encroach on the filtration and disinfection facilities. Following excavation for and before concrete work, deep piping would be installed between the tank and pump station. After the walls are completed for these structures, they would be backfilled. Process piping connecting the structures would be installed during the backfilling process and up to the elevation necessary for the disinfection facility.

Following vertical concrete construction of the disinfection facility, construction of the filtration facility, which would be at subgrade, would commence.

Following subgrade establishment in the tertiary treatment facility area, the electrical duct banks would be installed between respective electrical buildings and the equipment loads e.g., pumps, aerators, and monitoring devices).

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
The project would also involve construction of two buildings: a shop maintenance building and an electrical building.

These structures would be air-conditioned, have concrete foundations and at-grade pads, and be standard metal or concrete masonry unit buildings. Initial construction would employ the concrete crew coming from the splitter and pump structures at the secondary treatment area to set forms to outline the building footprints and allow for the respective trades to install electrical and plumbing. Vertical construction would start following the concrete work and coincide with electrical, plumbing, and finishes respective of the office, lab, and maintenance areas.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-25

PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION
Open-cut construction is the proposed option for installing all pipelines, manholes, air vents, and turnouts on the WWTP site, along existing roadways, and on private lands. Generally, the open-cut trench would be up to approximately 4 feet wide and up to 12 feet deep, depending on the pipe size, existing utility locations, and pipe bedding requirements. Shoring may be required to provide trench stability.

Open-cut construction would occur within private, unpaved farm roads adjacent to reuse areas and is not anticipated to affect cultivated areas. However, temporary and permanent easements would be obtained from individual growers as needed and coordinated to avoid the need to remove crops.

Open-cut construction would involve cutting and removing pavement in a couple of locations where paved roadways need to be crossed (i.e., entrance to Jacob Myers Park and the Riverbank WWTP, and the crossing along Santa Fe Road). Asphalt would be cut using large saw blades mounted on a special cart that would be pushed by a construction laborer. The asphalt would be lifted in large chunks and slabs from the cut area by a front-end loader or backhoe into a dump truck for off-hauling. Upon completion of pipeline installation, affected roadways would be repaved in accordance with the requirements of the affected jurisdiction.

Affected roadway segments may be closed temporarily during pipeline installation activities. Traffic control operations would be noticed at the location of the temporary traffic restrictions a week in advance of any roadwork that would impede the flow of traffic (i.e., closes the road, closes a traffic lane, or closes the road shoulder).

Based on recent groundwater monitoring data, shallow groundwater in the project area is substantially lower than the expected bottom elevations of the trench excavations. Therefore, it is not expected that continuous groundwater dewatering would be required. However, if incidental perched groundwater is encountered or if rainfall occurs during trenching and installation, then the water would be removed from the trench using temporary sump pumps, and the removed water would be disposed of at the WWTP using the percolation ponds.

The use of heavy equipment for excavation likely would involve continuous use of an excavator to fill dump trucks that would make intermittent trips to the stockpile area on the WWTP site. Typically, two or more dump trucks are used to allow continuous offloading from the excavator. In addition, dump trucks hauling material from off-site sources for pipeline bedding and backfill would make semicontinuous trips to the site as pipe is being installed. A front-end loader would be used to lift pipe segments from a flat-bed delivery truck and position the pipe in the trench. In publicly accessible areas, temporary trench plates would be installed over the trench at the end of each workday.

During open trenching, excavated trench materials would be sidecast within approved work areas and reused as appropriate for backfill. Excess material would be either stockpiled or used on the WWTP site for general site fill and finish grading.

FINE GRADING AND PAVING SITE
Fine grading of the project site would commence at the sludge storage facility and secondary treatment facility area to establish the subgrade for improved roadway access to the structures to support operations and maintenance and to provide finish-grading of areas to be landscaped. The progression would then move east toward the electrical building and shop maintenance building area, headworks, and tertiary facility. Finally, surfaces at the existing treatment plant facility improvements would be restored. Following fine grading of the site, paving would commence.

Paving would be a combination of concrete and asphalt concrete. Concrete would be used at the sludge storage area and as a skirt for most all the structures. Asphalt concrete would be used for access roads to and between the major structures to support vehicular and crane access.

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-26 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE
Throughout the project construction, the workforce is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 53 workers per day. The average number of workers on-site would be approximately 28 over the 566 total working days of the project. Overlap between the beginning of construction for the tertiary treatment facilities and the completion of the secondary treatment facilities would result in a maximum total workforce of approximately 53 workers for a period of approximately 1 week.

2.8 PROJECT OPERATIONS
Wastewater flows into the WWTP year-round. The highest demand for recycled water for irrigation is in the summer months, when rainfall is lowest and crops are in peak production. During the winter months, when irrigation demand is low, the WWTP would produce effluent treated to secondary standards, and instead of receiving further treatment and being distributed off-site for beneficial reuse, the secondary effluent would be diverted and stored in a seasonal storage pond (T-4 or P-2) and/or disposed of on-site in the existing percolation ponds at the WWTP if storage in the seasonal storage ponds is exceeded. During summer, when irrigation demand is high, secondary treated effluent stored in the seasonal storage pond would be returned to the headworks for further treatment along with influent from the city to produce tertiary treated disinfected effluent.

Following treatment and disinfection, the recycled water would be conveyed to the on-site 900,000-gal recycled water storage tank. Before the recycled water enters the storage tank, it would be injected with sodium hypochlorite to provide a chlorine residual sufficient to prevent any biological growth in the tank. During the irrigation season, the storage tank would provide up to 5.75 hours of storage at 1.6-mgd ADWF. The combined 1.8 mgal of storage that would be constructed at buildout of the system would provide approximately 6.9 hours of storage at 2.29-mgd ADWF. Delivery of recycled water to the landowners would be accomplished by the recycled water pump station and would occur when the landowners call or otherwise contact the WWTP staff, typically 24 hours to 1 week in advance.

Walnuts are currently grown in the proposed use areas. Table 2-6 summarizes the required monthly crop irrigation volume per acre for nut orchards, such as walnut orchards, based on evapotranspiration less average monthly precipitation. July is expected to have the largest volume demand for recycled water (1.79 mgal, or 5.51 acre-feet) per acre. Peak irrigation delivery rates may vary depending on the irrigation schedule demands that the individual growers require for their crops.

Table 2-6 Monthly Crop Irrigation Volume per Acre
Irrigation Volume Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Crop demand (mgal) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.26 0.23 Crop demand (af) 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.59 0.59 0.74 0.79 0.69 Notes: af = acre-feet; mgal = million gallons.

Source: KSN 2022b.

Based on the current flows, the WWTP has the potential to produce approximately 1.6 mgd, or 2,500 AFY, of Title 22 recycled water at a peak irrigation flow rate of 2,610 gpm. This amount would be sufficient to irrigate a 30-acre block of agricultural land in the proposed use area once every 7 days, or a total of 210 ac (KSN and BC 2022). At the proposed recycled water production rate of 2.29 mgd anticipated by 2050, the WWTP could produce and deliver up to 2,500 AFY of Title 22 recycled water at a peak irrigation flow rate of 4,350 gpm, enough to irrigate a 50-acre block once every 7 days, or a total of 350 ac (KSN 2022b). More frequent irrigation is not proposed, because it would reduce overall crop demand, thereby reducing daily recycled water delivery requirements below WWTP capacity.

Irrigation of a larger area is also not proposed, because the demand for recycled water associated with a larger irrigation area would exceed the production capacity of the WWTP, which would require the addition of substantially more recycled water storage or an additional source of water.

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-27 Table 2-7 summarizes potential irrigation delivery parameters for the use area at 1.6 and 2.29 mgd of recycled water production.

Table 2-7 Irrigation Delivery at 1.6 mgd and 2.29 mgd of Recycled Water Production Parameter Unit At 16. Mgd ADWF At 2.29 mgd ADWF
Total irrigated area ac 210 350
Peak daily irrigation area ac 30 50
Irrigation efficiency % 85 85
Day between irrigation Days 7 7
Irrigation duration hrs 11 11
Peak irrigation flow rate gpm 2,610 4,350
Notes: ac = acres; ADWF = average dry weather flow; hrs = hours; gpm = gallons per minute; mgd = million gallons per day; % = percent.

Source: KSN and BC 2022.

The WWTP may require a total of four operators for normal WWTP operations. Routine maintenance performed by the operators would involve scheduling and performing pump, valve, aerator, UV system, and monitoring equipment repairs at the maintenance shop.

Energy demand associated with the proposed project after it is completed would increase because of the need to incorporate additional pumps and pumping stations to serve the secondary, tertiary, solids handling, storm drainage, and recycled water delivery systems at the upgraded WWTP and the recycled water distribution system. Energy demand would also increase over time as flows to the WWTP increase and recycled water use expands to offset irrigation demand within a larger portion of the proposed reuse areas. In the first year of operation at a recycled water production rate of 1.6 mgd, the estimated energy demand may be 6,632,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh), and in the future, at a recycled water production rate of 2.29 mgd, the estimated energy demand may reach 9,620,000 kWh (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). To provide enough reliable power to maintain treatment efficacy in the event of a power outage, three 450-kW diesel generators are planned for installation, as described in Section 2.6.5 above.

Modesto Irrigation District (MID) provides electricity to the equipment at the WWTP. The project would not require offsite modifications to MID infrastructure or upsizing of off-site power systems or supplies to meet the project’s energy demands. However, the City would initiate review with MID to determine whether the project would require on-site upgrades to meet the expanded WWTP power needs, such as relocating power poles, upsizing an existing transformer, or constructing a new transformer within the project site.

2.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND PROJECT APPROVALS
In addition to having primary responsibility for project approval and implementation, the City, as the lead agency under CEQA, has the principal responsibility for ensuring that CEQA requirements and all other applicable regulations are met. The following responsible agencies may have permitting approval or review authority over the project, or portions thereof, and their potential required permits or approvals:
 Central Valley RWQCB—Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act waste discharge requirements for discharge of construction dewatering water and treated wastewater to land  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District—authority to construct; Title V permit to operate; air quality management plan consistency determination
 San Joaquin County—coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan for potential impacts on biological resources pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act; flood hazard development permit; roadway easement; encroachment permit Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
2-28 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  State Office of Historic Preservation—National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance; concurrence with effect determination
 SWRCB—approval of SRF financing; DDW approval under General Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW for recycled water use consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria (CCR Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3); CCR Title 22 Engineering Report approval; Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit for general construction
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Riddell, Director of Public Works, 209.869.7128

4. Project Location: 23865 Santa Fe Road, Riverbank, CA, San Joaquin County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Riverbank, 6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367

6. General Plan Designation: Riverbank GP: Civic (C); San Joaquin County GP: Public (P/F) and General Agriculture (AG-40)

7. Zoning: Public Facility (P-F)

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The City of Riverbank proposes to upgrade and expand its existing wastewater treatment plant to produce disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for distribution to nearby agricultural landowners. The project would include construction of new preliminary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities and a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing treatment and percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, installation of a recycled water distribution system, and expansion of capacity to serve planned growth in the city through the year 2050. The City proposes to distribute the recycled water to two land owners that have expressed interest in receiving recycled water from the project for irrigation of walnut orchards.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The land surrounding the project site is primarily agricultural. Of the crops grown in the surrounding agricultural area, nut crops make up the largest percent. The project site is bordered by agricultural lands to the west, north, and east. The Stanislaus River runs beyond the southern border of the project site. Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the north bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area east of the project site.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) State Water Resources Control Board, State Office of Historic Preservation, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin County.

11. 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.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.

Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

See Section 3.18, “Tribal Cultural Resources,” below.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-2 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Where checked below, the topic with a potentially significant impact will be addressed in an environmental impact report.

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 None None with Mitigation Incorporated
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-3 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

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

Signature Date
Marisela H. Garcia City Manager
Printed Name Title
City of Riverbank
Agency
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-4 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources 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 will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “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.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. 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. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state 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 Measures Incorporated,” describe 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.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-5

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), 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) 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
points.) 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?

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to aesthetics, light, and glare are applicable to the project.

STATE
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 2) contains various building standards derived and adapted from the International Building Code, authorized by the California legislature, that address California building issues, including several that are applicable to the visual condition of a site (especially at night). They include standards for outdoor lighting intended to improve energy efficiency, minimize light pollution and nighttime glare, and provide design solutions to shield and control outdoor lighting fixtures.

California Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 and is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The goal of this program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view (Caltrans 2022).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-6 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The primary scenic resources within San Joaquin County (when visibility conditions permit) consist of views of the Delta and the agriculturally rich valley floor, as well as panoramic views of the Coastal ranges and the Sierra. Because of the flatness of most of San Joaquin County’s terrain and often poor air quality, most scenic views are limited to near and medium range as provided by viewpoints such as public recreation areas and roadways. San Joaquin County has designated 26 local roadways within the County as local scenic routes. Interstate 5 and State Routes (SR) 4 and 99 are all County-designated scenic roadways. Interstates 5 and 580 are designated as state scenic highways.

The following policies from the Community Development and the Natural and Cultural Resources Elements of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to aesthetics with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy LU-3.10 - Visual Access: The County shall encourage new development to maintain views of hillsides, creeks, and other distinctive natural areas by regulating building orientation, height, and bulk.  Policy NCR-7.1. Scenic Roadways: The County shall protect the visual character of designated scenic roadways.  Policy NCR-7.2. Views from Public Lands and Roadways: The County shall ensure that views of waterways, hilltops, and oak groves from public land and public roadways are protected, and public access is provided to them whenever possible.
 Policy NCR-7.4. Visually Complementary Development: The County shall require new development adjacent to scenic resources to be sited and designed to visually complement those resources, except in MR-Z designated areas.
 Policy NCR-7.7. Reducing Light Pollution: The County shall encourage project designs, lighting configurations, and operational practices that reduce light pollution and preserve views of the night sky.  Policy NCR-7.8. Underground Utility Lines: The County shall require all new electric and communication distribution facilities adjacent to scenic routes to be placed underground, whenever feasible. Where overhead utility lines are unavoidable, every effort should be made to reduce the visual impact through elements of design.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The Community Character and Design Element of the City’s General Plan emphasizes how development should relate to the user, visual characteristics, and how buildings and other improvements should function in the greater context of the community. The Community Character and Design Element is the basis for the aesthetic regulation of public and private land and structures.

The following policies from the Community Character and Design Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to aesthetics with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy DESIGN-11.2: The City will require the use of durable, high quality building materials to lower maintenance and replacement needs and ensure the aesthetic appeal of new development.  Policy DESIGN-14.3: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and bulk retail complexes occurs, the City will require aesthetic and landscaping improvements of facades and entry features oriented to the street that will strengthen the identity of Riverbank.  Policy DESIGN-14.4: When new development, re-development, or maintenance of industrial and bulk retail complexes occurs adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, the City will require landscaping improvements that will maintain or strengthen existing aesthetic qualities and environmental functions.  Policy DESIGN-15.4: The City will require and pursue the preservation and enhancement of public access to riverfront recreation / natural areas while protecting sensitive habitats.  Policy DESIGN-16.1: Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests shall retain and enhance scenic views of Stanislaus River.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-7  Policy DESIGN-16.2: The City will encourage the preservation of healthy, attractive native vegetation during land development. Where this is not possible, the City will require site landscaping that uses appropriate native plant materials.
 Policy DESIGN-17.1: The City will support development standards that minimize environmental impacts of development through an appropriate balance of regulations and incentives. Incentives could be tied to compliance with criteria applied throughout the development process.  Policy DESIGN-17.2: Lighting in development projects shall include low, pedestrian scaled, ornamental street lights, and shall otherwise design lighting as to prevent glare and spillover onto adjacent properties and to prevent any glare that could affect motorists or bicyclists.  Policy DESIGN-18-1: The City will promote safe and sustainable energy collection and distribution systems that draw from renewable energy sources.
 Policy DESIGN-18.2: The City will encourage passive and natural lighting systems in architectural design to conserve electricity.
 Policy DESIGN-18.3: The City will encourage building-site orientation, articulated windows, roof overhangs, appropriate insulation materials and techniques, and other architectural features that allow for improved passive interior climate control.
 Policy DESIGN-18.4: The City will ensure that municipal buildings are LEEDTM certified and promote LEEDTM certification of multi-family, commercial, and industrial properties.  Policy DESIGN-19.1: The City will establish site design criteria for allowing natural hydrological systems to function with minimum or no modification.
 Policy DESIGN-19.2: The City will promote the use of rain gardens, open ditches or swales, and pervious driveways and parking areas in site design to maximize infiltration of storm water and minimize runoff into environmentally critical areas.
 Policy DESIGN-19.3: The City will promote inclusion of passive rainwater collection systems in site and architectural design for non-potable water (gray-water) storage and use, thereby saving potable (drinking) water for ingestion.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, aesthetic impacts may occur.

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County at 23865 Santa Fe Road, adjacent to the City of Riverbank, California. The City of Riverbank is located in Stanislaus County, which is in the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley in central California. The Stanislaus River forms the boundary between Stanislaus County to the south and San Joaquin County to the north. The Stanislaus River is one of multiple rivers in the San Joaquin Valley that flow west from the Sierra Nevada into the San Joaquin River (City of Riverbank 2009).

Although the project site is located across the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County, it is still owned and operated by the City of Riverbank.

As discussed in Section 2, “Project Description,” existing facilities at the 150-acre WWTP consist of a headworks system, two aerated treatment ponds, two polishing ponds, eight evaporation/percolation ponds, 13 groundwater monitoring wells, and associated piping and mechanical components. Figure 2-2 in Section 2, “Project Description,” depicts the layout of the existing WWTP.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-8 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The land surrounding the project site is primarily agricultural. Of the crops grown in the surrounding agricultural area, nut crops make up the largest percent. Almonds and walnuts account for approximately 56 percent and 22 percent of the crops grown in the surrounding area, respectively. The project site is bordered by agricultural lands to the west, north, and east. The Stanislaus River runs beyond the southern border of the project site. Jacob Myers Park, a regional park along the north bank of the river, is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site. A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway railroad track runs through the project area to the east of the project site.

The nearest sensitive viewers include visitors at Jacob Myers Park and the persons living in the residences located to the south of the Stanislaus River across River Cove Drive and to the east of the project site. Although the topography is primarily flat, the residences to the south and to the east do not have direct views of the Riverbank WWTP due to the general distance from the project site (over 500 feet) and the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP.

STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS AND SCENIC RESOURCES
A highway may be designated as “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view.

There are no eligible or officially designated state scenic highways located near the project site (Caltrans 2018).

Interstate 5, as it passes through Stanislaus County, is a designated scenic highway, and is located approximately 23 miles southwest of the project site. According to the City’s General Plan, the Stanislaus River is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views (City of Riverbank 2009).

3.1.3 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-significant impact. A scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. The project site is located in a primarily agricultural area. Although the project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River, which, according to the City of Riverbank General Plan, is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views, implementation of the project would not alter views of this scenic resource due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. Views of the project area from publicly available locations around the site would not substantially change. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and this impact would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. No designated state scenic highways are within the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans 2018). The nearest designated state scenic highway is Interstate 5, as it passes through Stanislaus County, and is located approximately 23 miles southwest of the project site. Although the project site is located on the north side of the Stanislaus River, which, according to the City of Riverbank General Plan, is identified as a community asset that provides natural beauty and function and is considered a scenic resource offering scenic views, implementation of the project would not alter views of this scenic resource due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway and no impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-9 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 points.) 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 project site is primarily surrounded by agricultural lands. Although the project would include construction of new facilities within the existing WWTP, the addition of like buildings and facilities to an already developed site would not substantially change the existing views of the site. Furthermore, the proposed facilities would not be visible to persons living in the nearby residences located to the east of the project site or to the south (across Stanislaus River and River Cove Drive), or to persons visiting Jacobs Myers Park (which is located along the southern border of the potential use areas and the project site).

The project would not substantially change the visual character of the site because the project would be located at the already developed WWTP site. The new pipelines would be underground, and the two proposed structures at the WWTP site would be standard metal buildings and would not alter views due to the riparian area buffer surrounding the existing Riverbank WWTP. The project would be visually consistent with the existing WWTP and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-significant impact. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours and would not require nighttime lighting. Construction equipment is unlikely to have reflective surfaces and would not be a substantial source of glare in the area. The project would include construction of two buildings: a 5,000-square-foot airconditioned shop maintenance building, and a 1,000-square-foot air-conditioned electrical building, as well as installation of pipelines, manholes, air vents, and turnouts within the WWTP site, along existing roadways and within private lands. The two structures would be constructed near the entrance to the WWTP and would have concrete foundations and at-grade pads, and be standard metal buildings, which are not highly reflective (Whittlesey, pers. comm., 2022). These project features would not be a substantial source of glare in the area. The new pipelines would be underground. In order to facilitate operation, the new facilities would have limited lighting which would be shielded and downcast to prevent light pollution on surrounding residences and the night sky. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-10 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

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?

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
United States Department of Agriculture
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, forestry, and food. The USDA aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, assist rural communities, and address hunger in the United States. While local agricultural operations may interface with USDA programs, data resources, requirements, and procedures, federal regulations do not typically influence or have permitting authority over local land use projects under CEQA review.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-11 The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the USDA, is the agency primarily responsible for the implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs’ contribution to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local and private programs designed to protect farmland. NRCS provides technical assistance to federal agencies, state, and local governments, and tribes or non-profit organizations that desire to develop farmland protection programs and policies.

The FPPA also established the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) and the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA). The LESA system ranks lands for suitability and inclusion in the FPP. LESA evaluates several factors, including soil potential for agricultural uses, location, market access, and adjacent land uses. The LESA system has spawned many variations, including the California LESA model, which is used in California’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), described below.

STATE
Land Conservation Act of 1965
Agricultural preserve contracts are executed through procedures enabled by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. A contract may be entered into for property with agricultural, recreational and open space uses in return for decreased property taxes. The County Agricultural Preserve Rules of Procedure require certain minimum parcel sizes and land use restrictions applicable to agricultural preserve lands under their respective contracts. The minimum length of Williamson Act contracts is ten years. Because the contract term automatically renews on each anniversary date (unless certain steps are taken), the actual contract length is essentially indefinite. To be eligible for Williamson Act designation, a minimum 100 acres of non-prime land is typically required, and that land must be used to produce an agricultural commodity that is plant or animal and is produced in California for commercial purposes.

California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Within the California Natural Resources Agency, the California Department of Conservation (DOC) provides services and information that promote informed land-use decisions and sound management of the state’s natural resources.

As noted above, DOC manages the FMMP, which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland.

The developed maps are called the Important Farmlands Inventory (IFI). The IFI categorizes land based on the productive capabilities of the land. There are many factors that determine the agricultural value of land, including the suitability of soils for agricultural use, whether soils are irrigated, the depth of soil, water-holding capacity, and physical and chemical characteristics. To categorize soil capabilities under the FMMP, two soil classification systems are used: the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index (which takes into account other factors as well, such as slope and texture). The FMMP data is updated every 2 years.

FMMP rates the production potential of agricultural land according to the following classifications:
 Prime Farmland. Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. These are Class I and Class II soils.  Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.  Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops.

This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-12 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.  Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.  Urban and Built-Up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.  Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas, not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
 Water. This is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.

California Public Resources Code
Agricultural and forestry lands within California are defined by the California Public Resources Code (PRC) as follows:
 Section 21060.1(a) defines “agricultural land” as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the USDA land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California.  Section 21060.1(b) states the following: In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specified in subdivision (a), “agricultural land” means land that meets the requirements of “prime agricultural land” as defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code.
 Section 21095 amended CEQA to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology, the LESA Model, to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Public Health and Safety, Natural and Cultural Resources, and Community Development Elements of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to agriculture with respect to the project:
 Policy PHS-6.3. GHG Reduction Strategies: The County shall promote greenhouse gas emission reductions by encouraging efficient farming methods (e.g., no-till farming, crop rotation, cover cropping); supporting the installation of renewable energy technologies; and protecting grasslands, open space, oak woodlands, riparian forest and farmlands from conversion to urban uses.
 Policy NCR-5.6. Energy Facilities on Prime Farmland: The County shall discourage the placement of energy facilities on Prime Farmland.
 Policy LU-1.7. Farmland Preservation: The County shall consider information from the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program when designating future growth areas in order to preserve prime farmland and limit the premature conversion of agricultural lands.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-13 City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policies from the Economic Development, Public Services and Facilities, and Conservation and Open Space Elements of the City’s General Plan are relevant to agriculture with respect to the project:
 Policy ED-6.1: Acknowledging the significant agricultural economy in Stanislaus County, the City will continue to accommodate industries that serve the agricultural trade and have supplier relationships with primary farming activity in Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.
 Policy PUBLIC-3.3: The City will not induce urban growth by providing wastewater facilities to areas outside the Planning Area or areas not planned for urban development, such as areas designated for agriculture or open space.
 Policy CONS-3.1: The City will prepare a comprehensive Sustainable Agricultural Strategy intended to conserve agricultural production in the Stanislaus River Watershed, herein defined as the area within Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County between the Tuolumne and Calaveras Rivers, attributable to implementation of the 2025 General Plan. This strategy should provide flexibility so that it can be tied to land-use and regional agricultural preservation policies, and is intended to be funded on a fair-share basis by those projects that have a significant impact on the conversion of Important Farmlands, a non-renewable resource, to urban use. In determining a level of significance, it is the intent of the City to use quantifiable, measurable inputs and if a project has a significant impact on Farmland resources, then the project will mitigate for this impact.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is located across the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin County but is owned and operated by the City of Riverbank, which is in Stanislaus County. According to the City of Riverbank General Plan, the land use classification for the project site is Civic (C) (City of Riverbank 2009) and according to the San Joaquin County General Plan, the project site land use is designated Public Facility (P/F) (San Joaquin County 2017a). No areas of the project site have active Williamson Act contracts, however, two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 24724010 and APN 24726001) located immediately north of the project site are under Williamson Act contracts (SJV Gateway 2015).

FARMLAND
The project site is mapped by the DOC as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018). The land to the south and to the east of the project site is mapped as Farmland of Local Importance, the land immediately to the west of the project site is mapped as Farmland of Statewide Importance, and the land immediately to the north of the project site is mapped as Prime Farmland (DOC 2018).

EXISTING FORESTRY RESOURCES
Forestry resources include forest land, timberland, and timberland production zones. Definitions used for these categories are those found in the PRC and California Government Code. Forest land is defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forestry resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits (PRC Section 12220[g]). Timberland is land, other than land owned by the federal government or land that is designated as experimental forest, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products (PRC Section 4526). Timberland production zones are areas that have been devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).

Based on these definitions, lands within the project site are not considered forestry or timber-production lands nor are they designated as forestland.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-14 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.2.3 Discussion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018).

Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), to non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. There are no areas within the project site that are under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract and no impact would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site and surrounding land uses are not designated as forest or timber-production lands; therefore, no forestry resources could be affected by project implementation. There would be no conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land and no impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site and surrounding land uses are not designated as forest or timber-production lands; therefore, no forestry resources could be affected by project implementation. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2018).

Project construction and operation would occur within existing developed uses, including under existing private roadways and at the existing WWTP facility. Therefore, the project would not involve 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, and no impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-15

3.3 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance
determinations?
Yes No
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
non-attainment 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?

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting
Air quality in the project area is regulated through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the air basin are discussed below.

FEDERAL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates draw primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970.

The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990. EPA’s air quality efforts address both criteria air pollutants and precursors and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). EPA regulations concerning criteria air pollutants and precursors and HAPs are presented in greater detail below.

Criteria Air Pollutants
The CAA required EPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (42 United States Code Section 7409). As shown in Table 3.3-1, EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. Table 3.3-2 summarizes the sources of these criteria air pollutants and their health effects. The primary standards protect the public health, and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-16 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CAA also requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS.

The CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. Individual SIPs are modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California (CAAQS)1,2
National (NAAQS)3
Primary2,4 Secondary2,5
Ozone (O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – Same as primary standard 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137147 μg/m3) Carbon monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Same as primary standard 8-hour 9.0 ppm6 (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1,300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10)
Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 — Same as primary standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead 6
Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3)
No
national
standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
Vinyl chloride 6 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3)
Visibility-reducing
particles
8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per km
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 3 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 4 National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-17 5 National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
6 The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. This allows for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million.

Source: CARB 2016.

Table 3.3-2 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight. ROG
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
Increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
Permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
Permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines
Coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cyanosis, chest
pain, rapid heartbeat, death
Chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10), Fine
particulate matter
(PM2.5)
Fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
Breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature
death
Alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead Metal processing Reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
Numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
1 Acute health effects refer to immediate illnesses caused by short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants at fairly high concentrations. An example of an acute health effect includes fatality resulting from short-term exposure to carbon monoxide levels in excess of 1,200 parts per million. 2 Chronic health effects refer to cumulative effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. An example of a chronic health effect includes the development of cancer from prolonged exposure to particulate matter at concentrations above the national ambient air quality standards.

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases.

Source: EPA 2018.

Hazardous Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, HAPs, are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term 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), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-18 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3.3-1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.

EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for air toxics to limit emissions.

STATE
California Air Resources Board
CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (Table 3.3-1).

Criteria Air Pollutants
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS.

Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standardsetting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources. The CCAA also provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect emission sources.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Hot Spots Act) (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs.

Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified approximately 200 TACs. Particulate matter (PM) exhaust from diesel engines (diesel PM) was added to CARB’s list of TACs in 1998.

After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology for toxics to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

AB 617 of 2017 aims to help protect air quality and public health in communities around industries subject to the state’s cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions. AB 617 imposes a new state-mandated local program to address non-vehicular sources (e.g., refineries, manufacturing facilities) of criteria air pollutants and TACs. The bill requires CARB to identify high-pollution areas and directs air districts to focus air quality improvement efforts through adoption of community emission reduction programs within these identified areas. Currently, air districts review individual sources and impose emissions limits on emitters based on best available control technology, pollutant type, and proximity to nearby existing land uses. This bill addresses the cumulative and additive nature of air pollutant health effects by requiring community-wide air quality assessment and emission reduction planning.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-19 CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportationrelated mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators).

Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan and other regulatory programs, it is estimated that emissions of diesel PM will be less than half of those in 2010 by 2035 (CARB 2022a). Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Criteria Air Pollutants
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the primary agency responsible for planning to meet the NAAQS and CAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), in which the project site is located. SJVAPCD works with CARB and EPA to maintain the region’s portion of the SIP for ozone and PM2.5. The SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and state will comply with the federal CAA requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. The SJVAB has been designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 in addition to CAAQS for PM10 (EPA 2022; CARB 2022a).

SJVAPCD also enforces air quality regulations, educates the public about air quality, and implements a number of programs to provide incentives for the replacement or retrofit of older diesel engines and to influence land use development in the SJVAB.

All projects are subject to adopted SJVAPCD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the project may include but are not limited to the following:
 Regulation VIII—Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions: Rules 8011–8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust and dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, and landfill operations.

Compliance with Regulation VIII does not constitute mitigation because it is already required by law (SJVAPCD 2015). Thus, compliance is assumed in this analysis.
 Rule 2010—Permits Required: This rule applies to anyone who plans to or does operate, construct, alter, or replace any source operation that may emit air contaminants or may reduce the emission of air contaminants.

The project would be subject to SJVAPCD permitting requirements for stationary sources such as back-up generators.
 Rule 2201—New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule: This rule applies to all new stationary sources and all modifications of existing stationary sources. Stationary sources are subject to SJVAPCD permit requirements if, after construction, they emit or may emit one or more affected pollutant. This rule requires the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize potential emissions from new and modified equipment and processes. Specific to the project, the BACT for emergency diesel-fired engines, including backup generators, requires engines greater than 50 horsepower (hp) to be in compliance with emission limits that are equivalent to the EPA Tier 4 final standards (for all permits requested after April 29, 2022) (SJVAPCD 2022).  Rule 2550—Federally Mandated Preconstruction Review for Major Sources of Air Toxics: This rule applies to applications to construct or reconstruct a major air toxics source.  Rule 3135—Dust Control Plan Fee: This rule requires applicants to submit a fee in addition to a dust control plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover SJVAPCD’s cost for reviewing such plans and conducting compliance inspections.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-20 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Rule 4002—National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: This rule applies to all sources of HAPs and requires them to comply with the standards, criteria, and requirements set forth therein.  Rule 4101—Visible Emissions: This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.  Rule 4102—Nuisance: This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. If such emissions create a public nuisance, the owner/operator could be in violation and be subject to enforcement action by SJVAPCD.
 Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings: This rule limits volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings by specifying storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements for architectural coatings.  Rule 9510—Indirect Source Review: This rule is intended to reduce or mitigate emissions of NOX and PM10 from the construction- and operation-related emissions of new land use development in the SJVAPCD. This rule requires specific percentage reductions in estimated onsite construction and operation emissions, and/or payment of a prescribed off-site mitigation fee for required reductions that cannot be met on the project site.

Construction emissions of NOX and PM10 exhaust must be reduced by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively.

Operational emissions of NOX and PM10 must be reduced by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The rule applies to commercial development projects of 2,000 square feet and larger, so the project would be subject to Rule 9510. Per Section 4.4.3 of Rule 9510, any project whose primary functions are subject to Rules 2010 and 2201 is exempted from Rule 9510. The provisions of Rule 9510 are described in more detail in the analysis of environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

In addition, if modeled construction- or operation-related emissions for a project exceed SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors then SJVAPCD recommends implementing mitigation to reduce these emissions. As a form of mitigation, a project proponent may enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement with SJVAPCD to reduce the project-related impact on air quality to a less-than-significant level. A Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides poundfor-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that funds and implements emission reduction projects (SJVAPCD 2015).

Toxic Air Contaminants
At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (“Permits Required”), Rule 2201 (“New and Modified Stationary Source Review”), and Rule 2550 (“Federally Mandated Preconstruction Review for Major Sources of Air Toxics”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SJVAPCD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air toxics control measures. SJVAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through multiple programs. SJVAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people, or facilities that generally house people (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.

Odors
Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and SJVAPCD. SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (“Nuisance”) regulates odorous emissions.

San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
San Joaquin County General Plan, Community Development Element, includes goals and policies to accommodate new growth while encouraging a majority of growth to occur within incorporated cities. The following policies from the Community Development Element are relevant to air quality with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy LU-1.2. Accommodating Future Growth: The County shall ensure that the General Plan designates sufficient land for urban development to accommodate projected population and employment growth.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-21 The Public Health and Safety Element of the San Joaquin General Plan includes the following applicable to policies:
 Policy PHS-5.1 Air Quality Monitoring The County shall participate in programs to monitor harmful air contaminants to determine their impacts.
 Policy PHS-5.2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Coordination The County shall coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) during the review of new development projects which have the potential for causing adverse air quality impacts.  Policy PHS-5.3 Cross-Jurisdictional Air Quality Issues The County shall coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies to address cross-jurisdictional and regional transportation and air quality issues.  Policy PHS-5.4 Innovative Mitigation Measures The County shall encourage innovative mitigation measures and project redesign to reduce air quality impacts by coordinating with the SJVAPCD, project applicants, and other interested parties.
 Policy PHS-5.5 Air District Best Performance Standards The County shall consider the Best Performance Standards adopted by SJVAPCD during the review of new development proposals.  Policy PHS-5.6 Toxic Air Contaminants The County shall require effective buffers between residential areas and other sensitive receptors and non-residential land uses, such as highways, trucking centers, gasoline dispensing facilities, and dry cleaners, that generate toxic air contaminants.  Policy PHS-5.7 TAC Exposure Reduction Measures for New Development The County shall require new development projects to implement all applicable best management practices that will reduce exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing and convalescent facilities) to toxic air contaminants.
 Policy PHS-5.8 Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions The County shall strive to minimize motor vehicle emissions through land use and transportation strategies, as well as by promotion of alternative fuels.  Policy PHS-5.9 Particulate Emissions from Construction The County shall support SJVAPCD efforts to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.10 Particulate Emissions from County Roads The County shall require PM10 and PM2.5 emission reductions on County-maintained roads to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.11 Paving Materials The County shall require all access roads, driveways, and parking areas serving new commercial and industrial development to be constructed with materials that minimize particulate emissions and are appropriate to the scale and intensity of use.
 Policy PHS-5.12 Agricultural Best Management Practices The County shall encourage agricultural operations to incorporate Best Management Practices, such as: paving roads; screening cropland with windbreaks; limiting tilling, grading, and pesticide use on high-wind days; and changing harvesting equipment to minimize air quality hazards from pesticides and reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions consistent with State and Federal regulations.  Policy PHS-5.13 Industrial Best Management Practices The County shall require industrial facilities to incorporate economically feasible Best Management Practices and control technology to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions consistent with State and Federal regulations.
 Policy PHS-5.14 Energy Consumption Reduction The County shall encourage new development to incorporate green building practices and reduce air quality impacts from energy consumption.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The City of Riverbank General Plan, Air Quality Element, addresses the City’s goals, policies, and implementation strategies for maintaining and improving air quality during and after the buildout of the General Plan. The overarching air quality goal is to minimize Riverbank's contribution to existing and potential future air quality Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-22 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration problems, whether experienced locally, regionally, or globally. The following policies from the Air Quality Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to the project:
 Policy AIR-2.1: The City of Riverbank, in coordination with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, will require approved projects, plans, and subdivisions to reduce particulate emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible.  Policy AIR-3.1: The City will provide adequate sites for industrial development, while minimizing the health risks to people resulting from industrial toxic or hazardous air pollutant emissions.  Policy AIR-3.3: The City of Riverbank will ensure that industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities that may produce toxic or hazardous air pollutants are located at an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors.

The following policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan also are relevant to air quality with respect to the project:
 Policy PUBLIC-3.1: The City will require that wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities meet or exceed local, State, and federal standard
 Policy PUBLIC-3.2 The City will identify and utilize, as feasible, best environmental practices and technologies for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment.

3.3.2 Environmental Setting
San Joaquin County, and the rest of the SJVAB, is designated as nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone (CARB 2020). Ozone is a secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight. The county is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS for PM10 and attainment for the NAAQS for PM10; and the county is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS for PM2.5 (CARB 2020).

The thresholds of significance listed below were adopted by SJVAPCD for evaluating emissions generated during the construction and operational phase of a project (SJVAPCD 2015).

Ozone Precursors
 ROG: 10 tons per year (tpy)
 NOX: 10 tpy
Particulate Matter
 PM10 and PM2.5: 15 tpy
Carbon Monoxide
 CO: 100 tpy
Oxides of Sulfur
 Oxides of sulfur (SOX): 27 tpy
Toxic Air Contaminants
 If the project would be considered significant if the project would expose the public to substantial levels of TACs so that the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual equals or exceeds 20 in 1 million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index that equals or exceeds 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual for non-carcinogens.

Odor Impacts
 If the project would result in sensitive receptors being located closer than the screening level distances designated by SJVAPCD for specific facility types (e.g., landfill, wastewater treatment plant, chemical manufacturing plant).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-23  In addition, if emissions of any of these criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, CO, SOX) would exceed a screening criterion of 100 pounds per day (lb/day), SJVAPCD requires site-specific ambient air quality analysis (AAQA) to determine whether the project would result in a localized exceedance or cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of a NAAQS or CAAQS (SJVAPCD 2015: 93–94).

These SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are based on SJVAPCD New Source Review (NSR) offset requirements for stationary sources. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD offset requirements are a major component of SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Thus, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are considered to not conflict or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD’s air quality plan.

3.3.3 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-significant impact. SJVAPCD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions, which are based on NSR offset requirements for stationary sources. Stationary sources in the SJVAPCD are subject to some of the toughest regulatory requirements in the nation. Emission reductions achieved through implementation of SJVAPCD offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Thus, for purposes of CEQA analysis, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to not conflict or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plan (SJVAPCD 2015: 65).

As noted under item b) below, the project would not result in a significant increase in short-term construction or long-term operational emissions because the proposed additions to the existing project site would not introduce levels of emissions which exceed SJVAPCD thresholds. Additionally, the project would maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater which would help provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve projected population growth in the City of Riverbank over a 30-year planning horizon. Thus, the project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of SJVAPCD’s air quality plan. This impact would be less than significant. 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. As discussed above, San Joaquin County and the rest of the SJVAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 and with respect to the CAAQS for PM10.

Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the adverse air quality in the SJVAB on a cumulative basis.

By its very nature, air pollution throughout the SJVAB is a cumulative impact. A project’s individual emissions can contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. As explained in SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015), and consistent with CEQA, if a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If project-related emissions do not exceed the identified significance thresholds, including SJVAPCD’s mass emission thresholds of 10 tpy for ROG or NOX, 15 tpy for PM10 and PM2.5, 100 tpy for CO, and 27 tpy for SOX, its emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts. Additionally, if project emissions exceed a screening criterion of 100 lb/day for each of these criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5, CO, SOX), then a site-specific AAQA would be required.

Construction would include upgrades to the existing City WWTP, including new secondary and tertiary treatment and disinfection facilities, construction of a recycled water storage tank, reconfiguration of existing percolation ponds to provide additional seasonal recycled water storage, and installation of a distribution system to initially serve nearby agricultural users. Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in October 2024 and last approximately 27 months, ending in December 2026. The estimated type and quantity of construction equipment, materials, haul trips, and the earthmoving volumes were provided by the project applicant and are summarized in Appendix A. Sources of Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-24 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration construction emissions include equipment exhaust, delivery truck and haul truck vehicle exhaust, construction worker commute vehicles, and fugitive dust associated with earth movement. Emissions were estimated using a combination of emission factors and methodologies published and recommended by CARB and other agencies, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 and CARB’s EMFAC2021 model. Implementation of feasible control measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction are regulated through mandatory compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. Compliance is assumed in this analysis.

Once constructed, operational emission sources would be associated with routine maintenance performed by four operators (workers) and pumps to pump the additional water demand. Moreover, there would be occasional maintenance and delivery trips to bring in materials, as well as haul trucks to transport biosolids to land application sites.

For purposes of analysis, it was assumed there would be 24 material delivery trips and 16 biosolids haul trips per year per the project applicant. The new pumps would be electrically powered and would require 6,632,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in the first year of operation (assumed to be 2027), and 9,620,000 kWh at a future date (assumed to be 2050).

Construction- and operations-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were summed at the daily and annual time scale for comparison with SJVAPCD’s daily screening criteria and annual thresholds of significance.

Modeling outputs are provided in Appendix B.

As shown in Table 3.3-3, construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, would not exceed the annual mass emission thresholds during any year of construction nor would peak daily emissions exceed the daily screening criteria on the maximum day of construction. Thus, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated by project construction would not contribute to the nonattainment status of the SJVAB for any criteria air pollutants, and no site-specific ambient air quality modeling is required. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-3 Summary of Construction-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction Source Emissions

ROG NOX
PM10 PM2.5 CO SOX
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
2024 0.1 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.003
2025 0.2 1.6 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.004
2026 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.004
SJVAPCD Mass Emission Threshold (tons/year) 10 10 15 15 100 27 Exceed Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lb/day) 7 5051 20 5 71 <1
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO X = oxides of sulfur; tpy = tons per year.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed assumptions and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

As shown in Table 3.3-4, operations-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, SOX, would not exceed the annual mass emission thresholds nor would daily emissions exceed the daily screening criteria. Thus, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated by project operations would not contribute to the nonattainment status of the SJVAB for any criteria air pollutants, and no site-specific ambient air quality modeling is required. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-25 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Operations-Generated Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Operational Source Emissions

ROG NOX
PM10 PM2.5 CO SOX
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Area Sources 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile Sources 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.05 <0.01
Stationary Sources 0.02 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01
Total Annual Emissions 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.11 <0.01
SJVAPCD Mass Emission Threshold 10 10 15 15 100 27
Exceed Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lb/day)
Area Sources 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile Sources 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.29 <0.01
Stationary Sources 0.13 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.33 <0.01
Total Daily Emissions 0.31 0.41 0.09 0.04 0.62 <0.01
SJVAPCD Screening Criteria (lb/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceed Screening Criteria? No No No No No No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SO X = oxides of sulfur; tpy = tons per year.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed assumptions and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Less-than-significant impact. The closest sensitive receptors to the project area are the residential land uses across the Stanislaus River, along River Cove Drive, approximately 615 feet (188 meters) south of the southern edge of the project area, and the residential land uses along Santa Fe Road, approximately 645 feet (197 meters) east of the eastern edge of the project area. Other nearby land uses are predominately agricultural uses and open space. As discussed in b) above, the project would not result in regional (e.g., ROG, NOX, PM10) or local (e.g., CO) emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors that would exceed applicable SJVAPCD-adopted thresholds of significance. Thus, project-generated emissions of criteria air pollutant and precursors would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Less-than-significant impact. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., diesel PM) were identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (OEHHA 2003). Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term projectgenerated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, excavation, and paving. Based on the construction analysis presented above and summarized in Table 3.3-1, daily and annual exhaust emissions of PM10, considered a surrogate for diesel PM, would be less than one lb/day during construction. Emissions would occur over most of the 150-acre WWTP area.

Considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, the relatively low level of diesel PM emissions that would be generated during project construction, and the relatively short duration of construction activities, constructionrelated TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-26 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The project would include three 450-kW (or 603 hp) diesel backup generators, which are included to provide reliable power to maintain treatment efficacy in the event of a power outage. The backup generators would be test-run monthly for a period of at least 30 minutes. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed each monthly test-run would last one hour. As noted above, SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires all backup diesel generators greater than 50 horsepower to be installed after April 29, 2022, to be equipped with engines in compliance with Tier 4 final emission limits.

Generators permitted as part of the project would be subject to this rule and associated BACT requirements.

To determine whether emissions from backup generator testing activities would be potentially significant, the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Risk Screening Tool was used to screen for long-term cancer and chronic hazards (there are no acute risk factors for diesel PM). This tool calculates potential health risk impacts from exposure to TACs associated with the operation of stationary equipment or industrial processes. The annual and maximum daily pounds of TAC emissions are the inputs to determine the maximum cancer, chronic, and acute risk impacts to receptors at different receptor distances.

Based on SJVAPCD’s guidance in using its Prioritization Risk Screening Tool, if a cancer prioritization score exceeds a cancer risk value of 10 at the nearest residential receptor, the project (or facility) is considered high priority, and a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) is required.) Following the use of the Prioritization Risk Screening Tool, the prioritization score from operation of the backup generator at the nearest sensitive receptor (188 meters or approximately 615 feet) is estimated to be 4.0 without BACT, and 0.27 with BACT, assuming each generator is tested 12 hours per year, which is well below SJVAPCD’s prioritization screen score of 10, thus not warranting the preparation of a quantitative operational HRA. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk. This impact would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Less-than-significant impact. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels at nearby sensitive land uses, such as residential units, hospitals, schools, and childcare facilities. SJVAPCD provides a screening methodology to determine whether CO emissions generated by traffic at congested intersections have the potential to exceed, or contribute to an exceedance of, the 8-hour CAAQS of 9.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3
) or the 1-hour CAAQS of 20 μg/m3. SJVAPCD has established that if neither of the following criteria are met at all intersections affected by the project, the project would result in no potential to create a violation of the CO standard:
 A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F; or  A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity.

As noted in Section 3.17, “Transportation”, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has replaced congestion as the metric for determining transportation impacts (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3). Congestion-related metrics, such as LOS, are no longer analyzed in most CEQA documents. Regardless, the project is primarily a construction project that would result in minor operational traffic changes relative to baseline conditions. Construction worker and truck activity would be minimal and temporary and would not add vehicles to nearby roadways that would potentially create a violation of the CO standard. Once operational, the project may increase maintenance-related trips longterm due to the increase in size and number of facilities associated with implementation of the project, but these trips would be minimal and would not result in traffic that could create a violation of the CO standard Therefore, neither of SVJAPCD-recommended criteria would be met to result in a potential for a CO hotspot and this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-27 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-significant impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors.

Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they may still be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

SJVAPCD provides odor screening guidance, which can be used as a screening tool to qualitatively assess a project’s potential to adversely affect area receptors. If the project would result in sensitive receptors being located closer than the screening level distances, a more detailed analysis should be provided. The project is an expansion of the existing WWTP. Based on SJVAPCD, the screening distance for this type of facility is 2 miles. The closest sensitive receptor is 615 feet (or 0.12 miles) away. Thus, the screening criteria is not met, and further analysis is required.

As described in Section 2, “Project Description”, the project site is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements, which states that objectionable odors originating at the facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the property.

Consistency with Waste Discharge Requirements will ensure that the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, since the Waste Discharge Requirements prohibit objectionable odors originating at the facility to be perceivable beyond the limits of the property. Therefore, while the project is closer than the recommended screening distance, these requirements would ensure that objectionable odors are not perceived at sensitive receptors beyond the property line.

Additionally, construction associated with the project could expose existing nearby residents to odorous emissions from diesel equipment. However, such emissions would be short-term in nature and would dissipate rapidly with increasing distance from the source.

Implementation of the project would not involve the construction or operation of any major odor sources, and no new sensitive receptors would be introduced by the project. Thus, the project would not result in the exposure of residences or other sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-28 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

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 the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the 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?

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 United States Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.) regulates the taking of species listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any person from “taking” an endangered or threatened fish or wildlife species. “Take” is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include substantial habitat modification that could result in take. Section 10 regulates incidental take if a non-federal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting or funding the action; an application for an incidental take permit under Section 10 would require preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP), which can take many years to prepare, or enrollment in an existing HCP such as the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). If a project would result in take of a federally listed species and there is a federal nexus through federal funding or permitting by a federal agency, the federal lead agency is required to initiate federal interagency cooperation, and Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-29 Section 7 could provide take authorization. In some circumstances the federal lead agency can delegate the responsibility for Section 7 to a non-federal agency such as the State Water Resources Control Board.

STATE
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the state as candidate, threatened, or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species, but the CESA definition of take does not include “harm” or “harass,” like the federal ESA definition does. Authorization for take of state-listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 2081 incidental take permit.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5
Section 3503 of the CFGC states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.

Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Projects typically comply with this requirement to avoid take by implementing pre-construction nest surveys and nesting period restrictions if nests are found.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan An HCP is a federal planning document that is prepared pursuant to Section 10 of ESA. An approved HCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under ESA during development activities. A natural community conservation plan (NCCP) is a state planning document administered by CDFW. An approved NCCP within a defined plan area allows for the incidental take of species and habitat that are otherwise protected under CESA during growth and development activities.

The SJMSCP, which is an HCP and an NCCP, in accordance with ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permits, provides compensation for the conversion of open space to non-open space uses that affect the plant, fish, and wildlife species covered by the plan, hereinafter referred to as “SJMSCP Covered Species.” Participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary; however, the City of Riverbank General Plan (Policy CONS-4.3) requires compliance with the SJMSCP for projects within San Joaquin County, for covered activities as applicable (i.e., when take authorization is required).

The 97 SJMSCP Covered Species include 25 state-listed and/or federally listed species: 27 plants (six listed), four fish (two listed), four amphibians (one listed), four reptiles (one listed), 33 birds (seven listed), 15 mammals (three listed), and 10 invertebrates (five listed).

The SJMSCP is administered by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of members of the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), CDFW, and USFWS. Development project applicants are given the option of participating in the SJMSCP to streamline compliance with required local, state, and federal laws regarding biological resources and typically avoid having to approach each agency independently. According to the SJMSCP, adoption and implementation by local planning jurisdictions provide full compensation and mitigation for impacts on plants, fish, and wildlife. Adoption and implementation of the SJMSCP also secures compliance pursuant to state and federal laws, such as CEQA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The SJMSCP is intended to support issuance of CFGC Section 2081 incidental take permits and incidental take permits under Section 10 of the ESA for species covered under the SJMSCP.

Applicants pay mitigation fees on a per-acre basis, as established by the Joint Powers Authority, according to the measures needed to mitigate impacts on the various habitats and biological resources covered by the SJMSCP.

Development occurring on land that has been classified under the SJMSCP as “no-pay” would not be required to pay a fee. This category usually refers to already urbanized land and infill development areas.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-30 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances
Chapter 9-1505 of the San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances requires permits for the removal of native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical trees; and requires design constraints, and protection measures be implemented for trees that are retained within the construction zone of a project.

San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the San Joaquin General Plan are relevant to biological resources with respect to the project:
 Policy NCR-2.1 Protect Significant Biological and Ecological Resources: The County shall protect significant biological and ecological resources including: wetlands; riparian areas; vernal pools; significant oak woodlands and heritage trees; and rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats.  Policy NCR-2.2 Collaboration for Species Protection: The County shall collaborate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife during the review of new development proposals to identify methods to protect listed species.
 Policy NCR-2.3 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan: The County shall continue to implement the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan to mitigate biological impacts resulting from open space land conversion. (RDR/PSP/IGC)  Policy NCR-2.8 Natural Open Space Buffer: The County shall require a natural open space buffer to be maintained along any natural waterway to provide nesting and foraging habitat and to protect waterway quality.  Policy NCR-2.9 Protect Fisheries: The County shall encourage and support efforts to protect fisheries, including:
 reducing the level of pesticides and fertilizers and other harmful substances in agricultural and urban runoff,  designing and timing waterway projects to protect fish populations, and  operating water projects to provide adequate flows for spawning of anadromous fish.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policy from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (City of Riverbank 2009) is relevant to biological resources with respect to the project:
 Policy CONS-4.3: The City will require compliance with the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan for projects to expand Jacob Myers Park, or other projects within San Joaquin County as applicable.

3.4.2 Environmental Setting

LAND COVER WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
The land cover within the project site is mostly cultivated agricultural land consisting of walnut and almond orchards.

The existing WWTP and storage ponds are mostly unvegetated, with isolated trees and low-growing herbaceous cover and barren disturbed areas. Natural land cover types within the project site include California annual grassland, valley oak (Quercus lobata) woodland, and box elder (Acer negundo) forest and woodland (Figure 3.4-1). Small areas of Fremont cottonwood forest (Populus fremontii) and elderberry (Sambucus nigra) land cover types were also mapped in the project area on the river side edge of Recycled Water Area B.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-31 Source: Data provided by Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck in 2022; adapted by Ascent in 2022.

Figure 3.4-1 Project Features and Land Cover
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-33

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special-status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:
 officially listed by California (under CESA) or the federal government (under ESA) as endangered, threatened, or rare;
 a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CCR Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines;  species identified by CDFW as species of special concern;  species listed as fully protected under the CFGC;
 species afforded protection under local planning documents, such as SJMSCP; and  taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CDFW system includes five rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern; the three that are considered special-status for the purpose of this report are summarized as follows:
 CRPR 1A Plants presumed to be extinct in California;
 CRPR 1B – Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; and  CRPR 2 Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under ESA or CESA, but that are considered to be declining at a rate that could result in listing, or that historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes or for relocation to protect livestock.

A list of special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area was developed through a review of relevant databases and other available information. The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2022) and CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2022a) were reviewed for specific information on documented observations of special-status species previously recorded in the project site and vicinity. A search of the CNDDB and CNPS was conducted for the following US Geological Survey 7.5’ quadrangles surrounding the project area: Riverbank, Waterford, Oakdale, Escalon, Brush Lake, Ceres, Denair, Avena, and Salida. In addition, an official species list was received for the project from the USFWS IpaC database.

The determination of the probability that any species may occur in the project site was determined based on the range of the species, distance to documented occurrences, suitable habitat within the project site, and other factors.

The full list of botanical and animal species evaluated for the potential to occur within the project site are shown in Appendix C. The special-status species with the potential to occur within the project site are shown in Table 3.4-1.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-34 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species Known or with the Potential to Occur in the Project Site Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2

Invertebrates
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
T SJMSCP: Yes Riparian scrub. Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in association with
blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp.

Caerulea). Prefers to lay eggs in
elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some
preference shown for “stressed”
elderberries.

Could occur: Riparian habitat associated with
the Stanislaus River is located directly
adjacent to the project area. Numerous
elderberry shrubs were observed during the
reconnaissance surveys located within 165
feet of the disturbance footprint. The species
was documented to occur historically along
the north bank of the Stanislaus River
adjacent to the WWTP (CNDDB 2022a).

Fish
Green sturgeon
southern distinct
population segment
Acipenser medirostris
FT SJMSCP: Yes Aquatic, Klamath/North coast flowing
waters, Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. These are the most marine species
of sturgeon. Abundance increases
northward of Point Conception. Spawns in
the Sacramento, Klamath, and Trinity
Rivers. Spawns at temperatures between
8-14 degrees C. Preferred spawning
substrate is large cobble, but can range
from clean sand to bedrock.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for green
sturgeon; however, the species may be
present within the Stanislaus River directly
adjacent to the eastern application area.

Chinook salmon –
Central Valley fall /
late fall-run
Evolutionary
Significant Unit
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
SSC SJMSCP: No Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters.

Populations spawning in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers and their
tributaries.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for Chinook
salmon; however, the species may be present
within the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to
the eastern application area.

Hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
SC SJMSCP: No Aquatic. Klamath/North coast flowing
waters, Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. Low to mid-elevation streams in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage.

Also present in the Russian River. Clear,
deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder
bottoms and slow water velocity. Not
found where exotic centrarchids
predominate.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for hardhead;
however, the species may be present within
the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to the
eastern application area.

Steelhead – Central
Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 11
T SJMSCP: No Aquatic. Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing
waters. Populations in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin rivers and their
tributaries.

Could Occur: There are no aquatic features
within the project area suitable for steelhead;
however, the species may be present within
the Stanislaus River directly adjacent to the
eastern application area.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-35 Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2

Amphibians and
Reptiles

Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
SC SJMSCP: Yes A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy
open fields) upland habitat up to 0.3 mile
from water for egg-laying.

Could Occur: Riparian vegetation adjacent to
the project area, as well as undisturbed
portions of the WWTP and application areas,
may be used by western pond turtle as
upland habitat. Unidentified turtles were seen
using the existing treatment ponds during the
site visit on May 17, 2022. Nearest
documented occurrence is approximately 7
miles from the project area (CNDDB 2022a).

Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipter cooperi
SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, riparian forest,
riparian woodland, upper montane
coniferous forest. Woodland, chiefly of
open, interrupted, or marginal type. Nest
sites mainly in riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on
river floodplains; also, live oaks.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipter striatus
SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian
woodland. Ponderosa pine, black oak,
riparian deciduous, mixed conifer, and
Jeffrey pine habitats. Prefers riparian
areas. North-facing slopes with plucking
perches are critical requirements. Nests
usually within 275 feet of water.

Could occur: Riparian habitat adjacent to
project area is suitable foraging habitat for
the species. Project is outside of the breeding
range of the species.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
T SJMSCP: Yes Freshwater marsh, swamp, and wetland.

Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely
endemic to California. Requires open
water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few
kilometers of the colony.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species; however, no nesting
habitat is present within the project area, and
the orchards within the project area are not
likely to support foraging tricolored blackbird.

Great egret
Ardea albus
SJMSCP: Yes Brackish marsh, estuary, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, riparian forest, and
wetlands. Colonial nester in large trees.

Rookery sites located near marshes, tideflats, irrigated pastures, and margins of rivers and lakes.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
SJMSCP: Yes Brackish marsh, estuary, freshwater marsh,
marsh and swamp, riparian forest, and
wetlands. Colonial nester in tall trees,
cliffsides, and sequestered spots on
marshes. Rookery sites in close proximity
to foraging areas: marshes, lake margins,
tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet
meadows.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-36 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SC SJMSCP: Yes Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and
valley and foothill grassland. Open, dry
annual or perennial grasslands, deserts
and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals,
most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Could Occur: The project area includes lowgrowing open grassland and open ruderal habitats containing ground squirrel burrows
that may provide suitable burrows for this
species.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T SJMSCP: Yes Great Basin grassland, riparian forest,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Breeds in grasslands with
scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian
areas, savannahs, and agricultural or
ranch lands with groves or lines of trees.

Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas
such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain
fields supporting rodent populations.

Known to Occur: Large riparian and other
trees within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species. Swainson’s hawks were observed
nesting in oak trees just north of the WWTP
along the railroad right of way in 2003
(CNDDB 2022a).

Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia
brewsteri
SC SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Riparian plant associations in
close proximity to water. Also nests in
montane shrubbery in open conifer
forests in Cascade Range and Sierra
Nevada. Frequently found nesting and
foraging in willow shrubs and thickets,
and in other riparian plants including
cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP SJMSCP: Yes Forages in grasslands and agricultural
fields; nests in riparian zones, oak
woodlands, and isolated trees.

Could Occur: Large riparian and other trees
within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species.

California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
SJMSCP: Yes A common to abundant resident in a
variety of open habitats, usually where
trees and large shrubs are absent. Found
from grasslands along the coast and
deserts near sea level to alpine dwarfshrub habitat above treeline.

Could occur: Grassland adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Merlin
Falco columbarius
SJMSCP: Yes Estuary, Great Basin grassland, valley and
foothill grassland. Seacoast, tidal
estuaries, open woodlands, savannas,
edges of grasslands and deserts, farms
and ranches. Clumps of trees or
windbreaks are required for roosting in
open country.

Could occur: Grassland and oak woodlands
within the project area are potentially suitable
foraging habitat for this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-37 Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2

Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
SC SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland. Summer resident; inhabits
riparian thickets of willow and other
brushy tangles near watercourses. Nests
in low, dense riparian, consisting of
willow, blackberry, wild grape; forages
and nests within 10 feet of ground.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SJMSCP: Yes Broken woodlands, savanna, pinyonjuniper, Joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oases, scrub and
washes. Prefers open country for hunting,
with perches for scanning, and fairly
dense shrubs and brush for nesting.

Could occur: Riparian forest adjacent to the
project area is potentially suitable nesting
habitat for this species.

Black-crowned night
heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
SJMSCP: Yes Marsh and swamp, riparian forest, riparian
woodland, and wetlands. Colonial nester,
usually in trees, occasionally in tule
patches. Rookery sites located adjacent to
foraging areas: lake margins, mudbordered bays, marshy spots.

Could occur: Riparian trees adjacent to the
project area may provide potential nesting
habitat for this species.

Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
SJMSCP: Yes Riparian forest. Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams. Large nests built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a
good fish-producing body of water.

Could occur: Large riparian and other trees
within and adjacent to the project area
provide potential nesting habitat for this
species, which may forage within the
Stanislaus River.

Mammals
Townsend’s big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
SC SJMSCP: Yes Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral,
chenopod scrub, Great Basin grassland,
Great Basin scrub, Joshua tree woodland,
lower montane coniferous forest, meadow
& seep, Mojavean desert scrub, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, Sonoran desert
scrub. Throughout California in a wide
variety of habitats. Most common in
mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites
limiting. Extremely sensitive to human
disturbance.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species, which has been recorded to
occur upstream along the Stanislaus River
near Knights Ferry (CNDDB 2022a). However,
the project area does not likely support roosts
for Townsends’ big-eared bat because
structures in the area that may provide
suitable shelter are subject to regular human
disturbance.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
SC SJMSCP: Yes Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Many
open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including
conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Roosts in
crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, trees,
and tunnels.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species. There is a historical record of
the species approximately 5.5 miles east of
the project area, and more recent occurrences
upstream along the Stanislaus River (CNDDB
2022a). While there is no roosting habitat
within the project area, the railroad bridge
over the Stanislaus River near the project area
may support roosts of this species.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-38 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Species Status 1
Habitat Potential for Occurrence 3
Federal State Other2

Yuma myotis bat
Myotis yumanensis
SJMSCP: Yes Lower montane coniferous forest, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, upper montane
coniferous forest. Optimal habitats are
open forests and woodlands with sources
of water over which to feed. Distribution
is closely tied to bodies of water.

Maternity colonies in caves, mines,
buildings, or crevices.

Could occur: The project area and adjacent
riparian corridor may provide foraging habitat
for this species. While there is no roosting
habitat within the project area, the railroad
bridge over the Stanislaus River near the
project area may support roosts of this
species.

Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
SC SJMSCP: Yes Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian
woodland. Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40
feet above ground, from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests. Prefers
habitat edges and mosaics with trees that
are protected from above and open
below with open areas for foraging.

Could Occur: Riparian trees adjacent to the
project area, as well as large oaks within the
application areas, may provide roosting
habitat for this species.

Notes: ESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act; SJMSCP = San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan; DPS= Distinct Population Segment 1 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

T Threatened (legally protected)
State:

SC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) T Threatened (legally protected
2 Other
SJMSCP = species covered by the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan 3 Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Could occur: Suitable habitat is available in the project site; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Known to occur: The species, or evidence of its presence, has been reported by others within the project site.

Sources: CNDDB 2022a; SJCOG 2000.

SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Based on the land covers present (Figure 3.4-1) and the reconnaissance surveys conducted on May 17 and July 8, 2022, the following vegetation alliances were identified within the project site:
 Acer negundo (61.440.00) Box-elder forest and woodland (S3)  Populus fremontii (61.130.00) Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (S3)  Quercus lobata (71.040.00) Valley oak woodland and forest (S3) These vegetation alliances have a state rarity ranking of S3 and are therefore considered sensitive natural communities under CEQA.

POTENTIALLY JURISDICTIONAL AQUATIC RESOURCES
Based on the aquatic resources delineation report for the project (Ascent Environmental 2022a), no potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States and/or state are located within 50 feet of the access road, pipeline alignment, or within the existing WWTP site.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-39

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

Special-Status Wildlife
Twelve special-status wildlife species are known to occur or could occur within or adjacent to the project site (Table

3.4-1). The potential for the project to result in impacts to each of these species is disclosed below.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle is listed under ESA as threatened and is a SJMSCP covered species. Critical habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle does not occur within the project area. The species was documented to occur between the existing WWTP and the Stanislaus River in 1991 (CNDDB 2022a). Blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea) is the obligate larval host plant for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (USFWS 2017a) and elderberry plants with exit holes indicating valley elderberry longhorn beetle activity have been documented within Jacob Myers Park directly adjacent to the project area (River Partners 2007). Blue elderberry is an important component of riparian ecosystems in California. It can be found as an overstory plant or understory plant within these communities. In addition to riparian habitat, elderberry shrubs may be found in historic floodplain, floodplain terraces, along canals and ditches, and other areas where shrub roots can access subsurface water (USFWS 2017a).

During the reconnaissance-level biological surveys, elderberry shrubs were observed within the project impact footprint along pipeline A2, and directly adjacent to pipeline A and the WWTP facility.. Although elderberry shrubs were noted during the reconnaissance surveys, these surveys did not constitute protocol-level surveys for the presence of elderberry shrubs that could provide habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle. However, these elderberry shrubs are within 2,526 feet of other elderberry shrubs and the known occurrence in Jacob Myers Park, which increases the likelihood that these shrubs are occupied (USFWS 2017a).

While elderberry shrubs may occur in or adjacent to the application areas, there would be no project related ground disturbance in these areas where shrubs are located. Furthermore, any impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle from recycled water application would be discountable because recycled water would be applied at agronomic rates similar to current irrigation practices. However, there are elderberry shrubs within pipeline alignment A1 and adjacent to the disturbance footprint of pipeline alignment A and the WWTP facility, and adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from constriction activities may occur. Potential adverse effects from the construction of pipeline A 1 include damage or killing of elderberry shrubs as the result of direct removal, cutting of roots, changes in hydrology, or construction dust. Construction of other portions of the project (e.g., pipeline alignment A and the WWTP facility), while not likely to result in direct removal of shrubs or roots, could still have indirect effects on elderberry shrubs (i.e., changes in hydrology and construction dust). The damage or death of elderberry shrubs would reduce habitat and may result in death of individual valley elderberry longhorn beetle if these shrubs are occupied. Therefore, project construction, and associated ground disturbance and dust, could result in damage or removal of elderberry shrubs, and injury or death of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which would be a substantial adverse effect on the species and a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle To avoid and minimize project impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-40 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Indirect impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle will be minimized by implementing the following:
 All elderberry shrubs to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced or flagged as close to construction limits as possible.
 A minimum avoidance area of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant will be maintained to avoid direct impacts that could damage or kill the plant.  A qualified biologist will provide training for all contractors, work crews, and any onsite personnel on the status of valley elderberry longhorn beetle, its host plant and habitat, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non-compliance.
 A qualified biologist will inspect the work area prior to commencement of construction and will monitor the work area at project-appropriate intervals to assure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented.  Project activities, such as truck traffic or other use of machinery, will not create excessive dust on the project site, such that the growth or vigor of elderberry shrubs is adversely affected. Enforcement of a speed-limit and watering dirt roadways are potential methods to minimize excessive dust creation.  Herbicides will not be used within the dripline of any elderberry shrub. Insecticides will not be used within 98 feet of any elderberry shrub. All chemicals will be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method. Mechanical weed removal within the dripline of any elderberry shrub will be limited to the season when adults are not active (August – February) and will avoid damaging the elderberry.  Following completion of construction, affected areas will be returned to pre-project conditions.  If avoidance of elderberry shrubs is not feasible, the health and vigor of the shrubs could be damaged, which could result in death or injury to valley elderberry longhorn beetles. The City will obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA to obtain take coverage and implement required conservation and minimization measures. No elderberry shrub will be trimmed or removed until authorization has been issued. Conservation and minimization measures will include, but may not be limited to, the following:
 Elderberry shrubs that would be directly impacted will be transplanted to a USFWS approved mitigation site during the dormant period for elderberry shrubs (November 1 through February 15).  If elderberry shrubs without evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least three new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.  If elderberry shrubs with evidence of valley elderberry longhorn beetle exit holes cannot be transplanted, the City will provide compensation within SJMSCP Preserves or other USFWS approved mitigation site at a ratio of at least six new plants for each stem 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on valley elderberry longhorn beetle from construction and operation of the project by implementing construction setbacks from elderberry shrubs, and protecting shrubs from indirect impacts or transplanting shrubs and providing compensation for removal of shrubs consistent with the SJMSCP, or conservation measures developed in consultation with USFWS. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the SJMSCP, dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to valley elderberry longhorn beetle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, the project would not result in Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-41 substantial adverse effects on the viability of the species, and the impact to valley elderberry longhorn beetle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Fish Species
The Stanislaus River, which is adjacent to the project area, provides suitable habitat for the Central Valley distinct population segment of steelhead, and southern distinct population segment of green sturgeon which are listed under the ESA as threatened. In addition, the river may also provide suitable habitat for Chinook salmon – Central Valley fall / late fall-run Evolutionary Significant Unit and hardhead, CDFW species of special concern.

The construction of project features including WWTP modifications, pond modifications, storage tank, pump station, distribution pipelines, access route, and staging areas would not occur within the Stanislaus River, its associated riparian vegetation, or waters that drain to the river. Although the proposed access road crosses over a canal that previously may have drained to the river, the canal is no longer operational and does not convey water, and no work is proposed within the canal. For this reason, adverse direct effects on special-status fishes are not anticipated to occur as a result of project construction.

Ground disturbance would occur no closer than approximately 200 feet from the Stanislaus River and as such no vibration impacts that would adversely affect special-status fishes would occur. While construction is anticipated to occur during the normal rainy season for the project region, the project would employ water quality best management practices (BMPs) to control runoff from ground disturbing activities. Therefore, construction of the project is not likely to result in contaminated runoff to the Stanislaus River, or any waterbody that drains into the Stanislaus River and construction related indirect effects to habitat for special-status fishes is not anticipated. As discussed in Section 2.3, the application of recycled water would occur at current application rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river. Therefore, no direct impacts to special-status fishes would occur, and indirect impacts would be insignificant or discountable. The project is not likely to have a substantial adverse effect on Chinook salmon – Central Valley fall / late fall-run Evolutionary Significant Unit or hardhead and is not likely to adversely affect the Central Valley distinct population segment of steelhead or green sturgeon. The project would have no impact on special-status fish species.

Steelhead Critical Habitat
The Stanislaus River is designated critical habitat for the Central Valley distinct population segment (DPS) of steelhead (NOAA 2002, 2022). The physical and biological features that are essential for conservation of Central Valley steelhead that occur within the portion of the Stanislaus River adjacent to the project site are:

Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival; and Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.

As discussed above, the project would not occur within the Stanislaus River and would therefore not have any direct effects on steelhead critical habitat or physical and biological features that are essential for conservation of the species.

In addition, due to the distance from critical habitat, construction activities are not likely to result in vibration impacts, and through the use of water quality BMPs contaminated runoff to critical habitat would be avoided to the extent that any effect would be discountable. In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river.

Therefore, the project is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for steelhead, and the project would have no impact on critical habitat for steelhead.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-42 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is a CDFW species of special concern and a covered species under the SJMSCP. The construction of project features including WWTP improvements, pond modifications, storage tank, pump station, distribution pipelines, access routes, and staging areas would not occur within the Stanislaus River, its associated riparian vegetation, or waters that drain to the river. In addition, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and is not anticipated to result in run-off to the Stanislaus River or waters that drain to the river. Therefore, the project would not result in adverse impacts to aquatic habitat for western pond turtle. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the Stanislaus River, portions of the project site (within 0.3 mile of the river) with uncompacted soils may be used as upland nesting habitat by western pond turtles. The construction of the project would not result in a reduction of upland habitat, because modifications to access roads would occur within the existing road footprint, and modifications to the WWTP and staging areas would occur within the footprint of the existing facility, which do not provide upland habitat. In addition, where the access road and pipeline work areas overlap with natural habitats, the disturbance would be temporary and restored to previously existing conditions after construction.

However, because the project site overlaps with upland habitat, the construction of the project could therefore result in turtles being crushed by construction equipment. In addition, turtles could be trapped within the open trench during construction of the distribution pipelines, and western pond turtle nests could be destroyed. The death of western pond turtles and destruction of nests would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of this species; therefore, the impact of the project on western pond turtle would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Western Pond Turtle To avoid potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). All mitigation listed below will be limited to construction within 0.3 mile of suitable aquatic habitat:
 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of commencing work in aquatic habitat suitable for the species. If no pond turtles are observed, no further mitigation is necessary.
 During draining of the existing water storage ponds within the WWTP associated with construction of the project, a qualified biologist shall be present to monitor for presence of western pond turtles. If pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate pond turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities (i.e., Stanislaus River).  If nesting areas for pond turtles are identified on the project site, a no-disturbance buffer area of 300 feet shall be established around the nesting site (which may be immediately adjacent to the river or extend up to 400 feet away from the river in uplands). These buffers shall be indicated by temporary fencing if construction has or will begin before nesting periods have ended. (The period from egg laying to emergence of hatchlings is normally April to November.)
Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on western pond turtle from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org.. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2, the project would not have a Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-43 substantial adverse effect on the viability of local or regional populations of the species, and the impact to western pond turtle would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Swainson’s Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Merlin, Osprey, and White-Tailed Kite The project area contains suitable foraging habitat for merlin, but is not within the breeding range of the species. The project contains suitable foraging habitat and potential nesting trees for Swainson’s hawk, which is listed as threatened under CESA and covered under the SJMSCP. In addition, a Swainson’s hawk nest was documented just outside of the project site, along the railroad alignment in 2003. The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site contain oaks in some locations that could be suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite; however, the application of the recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project are anticipated. No tree removal is anticipated as part of the project, and the project would not remove potential roosts or foraging habitat for merlin. However, potentially suitable nesting trees for Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite are located on the project site and within 0.25 mile of the project site. If construction occurs between February 15 and September 15, construction noise and human disturbance from construction activities could result in nest abandonment, or loss of eggs and young, which would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of the species. Therefore, the project would have a potentially significant impact on Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, Osprey, and white-tailed kite, .

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, Coopers Hawk, Osprey, and White-tailed Kite To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, the City may obtain approval from the San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with CDFW and obtain take authorization for Swainson’s hawk under CFGC Section 2081, and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 If project activity will commence between February 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist will be retained to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests on and within 0.5 mile of the project site no more than 14 days and no less than 7 days before work begins.
 If an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a 0.25-mile no-disturbance buffer will be established. If an occupied Cooper’s hawk, osprey, or white-tailed kite nest is identified during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the nest. All project activities will be avoided within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active or that the young have fully fledged.
 If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree becomes occupied during construction activities, then all construction activities shall remain a distance of two times the dripline of the tree, measured from the nest, and the nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If construction activities cause the nesting bird to vocalize, make defensive flights at intruders, get up from a brooding position, or fly off the nest, then the no-disturbance buffer shall be increased until the agitated behavior ceases.

Significance after Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around occupied nesting sites consistent with the SJMSCP or conservation measures developed in consultation with CDFW. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and whitetailed kite to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-3, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of the local or regional populations of the species, Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-44 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the impact to Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, osprey, and white-tailed kite would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Other Special-Status Bird Species
Loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, yellow warbler, and burrowing owl are CDFW species of special concern, and tricolored blackbird is listed as threatened under CESA. All five species are covered species under the SJMSCP.

California horned lark, black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, and snowy egret are also SJMCP covered species.

Yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler, may nest within the riparian habitat adjacent to the project site, which also may contain tricolored blackbird, black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, and great egret, snowy egret colonies. Although, no colonies have been documented in this area. Loggerhead shrike may nest within the shrub savannah adjacent to the project area. Burrowing owls nest in burrows that have been constructed by ground squirrels and other similar human-created structures (e.g., unused pipe openings) that occur within barren areas or habitats with low growing vegetation. Ground squirrel burrows were observed within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline work areas during the reconnaissance survey on May 17, 2022. California horned lark nests in grasslands, and although the grassland within the project site is likely too small to support nesting larks, the grasslands adjacent to the project site may be suitable for this species.

The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site are less than 25 feet from suitable riparian habitat in some locations; however, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project on these species are anticipated. The majority of construction activities would occur greater than 100 feet from suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler and no direct or indirect impacts to these species from these activities are anticipated. However, the improvements to the access road would occur within 100 feet of loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler habitat, and indirect impacts could result from this activity. Construction and staging activities would occur within 500 feet of potential tricolored blackbird, blackcrowned night heron and snowy egret habitat and indirect impacts from construction and staging activities within this distance to riparian habitat could result in disturbance of a nesting colony and loss of eggs and young. Similarly, construction activities may occur within 100 feet of California horned lark nests and burrowing owl burrows, which could result in the disturbance of nesting activities, or destruction of nests and loss of eggs and young. The disturbance of special-status bird nests, if nests occur within or adjacent to the project site, would be a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Other Special-Status Birds To avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler nests; burrowing owl burrows; black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret and tricolored blackbird colonies, the City may obtain approval from San Joaquin County Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP and will implement the following measures consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a):
 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–August 31) within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat for special-status birds, including shrubs, riparian vegetation, trees, and barren areas within the WWTP, access road, and pipeline alignment. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.  If no black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies, or other special-status nesting birds are found, no further mitigation is required.  If active black-crowned night heron, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or tricolored blackbird colonies are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from colonial nesting areas for these species, which shall be established and maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests. This setback applies whenever Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-45 construction or other ground-disturbing activities must begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied. Setbacks shall be marked by brightly colored temporary fencing.  If active burrowing owl burrows or California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nests are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a setback of 500 feet from the California horned lark nest, 250 feet from the burrowing owl burrow, or 100 feet from the loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, or yellow warbler nest as applicable, during the nesting season (February 1–August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive means that the birds have not begun egg laying, or that juveniles from the occupied burrows or nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. For burrowing owls, once the fledglings are capable of independent survival the owls may be evicted using passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, the City would avoid and minimize adverse effects on specialstatus birds from construction and operation of the project by implementing preconstruction surveys and buffers around active nests consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status birds to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at:
www.sjcog.org. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of special-status birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Common Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
While common raptors and other nesting birds do not fit the criteria for special-status species as defined in this analysis, it is standard for public entities such as the City to analyze project impacts to common raptors and other common nesting birds protected under CFGC Section 3503 and Section 3503.5 and under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Construction of the project could result in the disturbance or destruction of nests of common raptors and other nesting birds that may nest within the project site and may result in loss of eggs and young. The loss of nests could be a substantial adverse effect on the local populations of these species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-5, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of nests through pre-construction surveys and non-disturbance buffers around active nests. Therefore, the project would not Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-46 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of common raptors and other nesting birds, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Special-Status Bat Species
The project site contains suitable foraging habitat for the CDFW species of special-concern Townsend’s big-eared bat, and western mastiff bat, as well as the Yuma myotis bat. However, roosting habitat for these species is not present in the project site. The project would not have any adverse effect on foraging by Townsend’s big-eared bat, or western mastiff bat because operations would not result in a reduction of irrigation or agricultural production, and the new facilities would be placed within the existing WWTP site.

Western red bat, a CDFW species of special-concern and SJMSCP covered species, not only may forage in the project site, but the large oaks and riparian trees within and adjacent to the project site may provide suitable roosting habitat for this species. The recycled water use area portions of the overall project site contain trees suitable for roosting by western red bat in some locations; however, the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts from operations of the project are anticipated. While no tree removal is anticipated, western red bats roost within the foliage of large trees and tree trimming could result in direct impacts, including injury or death. Indirect impacts from noise and vibration could also result in the loss of roosts, injury, or death of western red bat if tree trimming, grading, trenching or other construction activities take place within 250 feet of suitable roosts during roosting season (March 1 through August 31). The loss of western red bat roosts would result in a substantial adverse effect on the local and regional population of this species. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Significance after Mitigation
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-6, the City would avoid and minimize disturbance of western red bat roosts by implementing preconstruction surveys and avoidance buffers consistent with the SJMSCP. Pursuant to the Final EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), dated November 15, 2000, and certified by the San Joaquin Council of Governments on December 7, 2000, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP is expected to reduce project-related impacts to special-status bats to a less-than-significant level (SJCOG 2000b). That document is hereby incorporated by reference and is available for review during regular business hours at the San Joaquin Council of Governments Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-47 (555 E. Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202) or online at: www.sjcog.org.. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on local or regional population viability of western red bat, and the impact would be clearly reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-than-significant impact. Valley oak woodland, Fremont cottonwood forest, and box elder forest and woodland are the only sensitive natural communities in the project site (Figure 3.4-1). With the exception of small areas of valley oak woodland located within the proposed pipeline alignment and along the access road, these sensitive natural communities occur within the recycled water use areas of the project. No impacts to these communities are anticipated from project operations because the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as existing conditions. Although the branches of oak trees may be trimmed along the access road if required for the passage of vehicles, no tree removal or conversion of the valley oak woodland is anticipated. For these reasons the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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. No potentially jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the United States and/or state are located within 50 feet of the access road, pipeline alignment, or within the existing WWTP. Furthermore, no indirect effects on state or federally protected wetlands would occur because the project would employ water quality BMPs to control runoff from ground disturbing activities, and the application of recycled water would occur at agronomic rates and using methods that are the same as under existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands.

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?
Less-than-significant impact. There are no documented native wildlife nursery sites within or adjacent to the project site. The project is located within a documented wildlife corridor (CNDDB 2022b), and the project site may also be used for local movement between the Stanislaus River and adjacent uplands. The project would not construct any linear features (e.g., fences, roads) that would be a barrier to wildlife movement through the site. The improvements to the access road would not increase the width of this existing road or result in any changes that would affect wildlife movement. Construction activities would likely result in temporary impacts to wildlife movement through the site, due to construction noise, equipment use, and the presence of workers. However, construction activities would occur during daylight hours (Section 2.7.1, Construction Schedule and Sequencing), while most wildlife movement through the area would occur between dusk and dawn. For these reasons the project would not substantially interfere 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; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-than-significant impact. Chapter 9-1505.3 of the San Joaquin County Code of Ordinances requires permits for the removal of native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical trees. Native oak trees are present within the project site; however, no tree removal is anticipated as part of the project. In addition, the City will comply with all of the applicable development constraints (Chapter 9-1505.5) protecting native oak trees, heritage oak trees, or historical Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-48 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration trees, including but not limited to, no grade changes within 6 feet of the drip line, no trenching within the protected zone, and the installation of fencing to protect trees from construction activities. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and this impact would be less than significant.
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. The project is located within the plan area of the SJMSCP (Section 3.7.1), which is an HCP/NCCP, and meets the definition of a covered activity under the SJMSCP (SJCOG 2000a). The project does not occur within or adjacent to any existing SJMSCP preserves (SJCOG 2022), and therefore, would have no direct or indirect effect on any preserve. As described in section 3.4.1, “Regulatory Setting,” the City of Riverbank General Plan (Policy CONS4.3) (City of Riverbank 2009) requires compliance with the SJMSCP for covered activities within San Joaquin County as applicable. However, participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary and the project site is unmapped. Therefore, the City could either apply for and obtain approval from the San Joaquin Council of Governments Habitat Technical Advisory Committee and Board of Directors for project coverage under the SJMSCP or consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA for take authorization for valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The mitigation measures proposed above for special-status species are consistent with the avoidance and minimization measures in the SJMSCP, as applicable.

Therefore, no conflict with the SJMSCP would occur regardless if the project is covered by the SJMSCP; there would be no impact.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-49

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 establishes the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and defines federal criteria for determining the historical significance of archaeological sites, historic buildings, and other resources. To be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one of the following four historical significance criteria (delineated at 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 60.4) and must also possess sufficient deposition, and architectural or historic integrity to retain the ability to convey the resource’s historic significance.

Those resources determined to meet these criteria are eligible for listing in the NRHP and are termed “historic properties.” A resource may be eligible for NRHP listing at the local, state, or national level of significance.

A resource is eligible for NRHP inclusion if it possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and it:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or  Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
 Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several and usually most aspects that demonstrate integrity, and generally would retain most aspects of that integrity. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. A resource that lacks integrity or does not meet one of the NRHP criteria is not considered a historic property under federal law, and effects to such a resource are not considered significant under the NHPA.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-50 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration STATE
California Register of Historical Resources
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant in the context of California’s history. It is a statewide program with a scope and with criteria for inclusion similar to those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.

A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria:

Criterion 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Criterion 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]) as a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR, included in a local register, identified as significant in a historical resource survey, or considered by the lead agency to be historically significant.

CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are determined to be those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Public Resources Code, Section 5097
PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed if human remains are unexpectedly discovered on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the code states:

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-51 No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to cultural resources with respect to the project:
 Policy NCR-6.2. No Destruction of Resources: The County shall ensure that no significant architectural, historical, archeological, or cultural resources are knowingly destroyed through County action.  Policy NCR-6.5. Protect Archeological and Historical Resources: The County shall protect significant archeological and historical resources by requiring an archeological report be prepared by a qualified cultural resource specialist prior to the issuance of any discretionary permit or approval in areas determined to contain significant historic or prehistoric archeological artifacts that could be disturbed by project construction.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to cultural resources with respect to the project:
 Policy CONS-2.1: Approved projects, plans, and subdivision requests shall incorporate all available measures, with a preference for avoidance, to reduce or eliminate impacts to known and unknown archaeological and paleontological resources.
 Policy CONS-2.2: All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected permanently from urban development, wherever possible.
 Policy CONS-2.3: The City shall restrict the circulation of cultural resource locational information to prevent potential site vandalism.
 Policy CONS-2.4: The City shall not knowingly approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without first consulting with the Central California Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and, if necessary, consulting with a qualified professional archaeologist regarding the significance of the site. Implementation of this policy shall be guided by Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA guidelines.
 Policy CONS-2.5: As guided by State law, in the event of the inadvertent discovery of previously unknown archaeological sites during excavation or construction, all construction affecting the site shall cease and the contractor shall contact the appropriate City agency. If Native American human remains are discovered, the City shall work with local Native American representatives to ensure that the remains and associated artifacts are treated in a respectful and dignified manner.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting
On April 19, 2022, a CHRIS records search was conducted by the Central California Information Center (CCaIC), at California State University Stanislaus (File No.: 12161LN) to determine whether prehistoric archaeological, historicperiod archaeological, or built-environment historical resources have been previously recorded within the project area, the extent to which the project area has been previously surveyed, and the number and type of cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area. When additional acreage was added to the project site, a Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-52 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration second records search was conducted to include the additional areas and a one-quarter-mile radius on June 8, 2022 (File No.: 12204LN).

Combined, the records searches identified only one previously recorded historical resource within the project site, the Stanislaus River Bridge, and one informal resource, a verbal report of an approximate location of a Native American burial. The records search also found that 10 previous cultural resources surveys have been conducted which included portions of the project site. No new resources or investigations were identified as a result of the June 8, 2022, records search that were not already identified in the April 19, 2022, search. A pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on April 28, 2022, which resulted in the identification of no built-environment features or archaeological sites (Ascent Environmental 2022b).

3.5.3 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant. The Stanislaus River Bridge (P-39-000564/P-50-001735) is a NRHP- and CRHR-eligible historical resource. Although this bridge is located within the project site, project activities (specifically Pipeline B) would be limited to the roadway beneath the bridge. No part of the project would demolish, relocate, or alter the bridge, or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Because the bridge would not be altered, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the impact to historical resources would be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Although the CCaIC records searches did not reveal any previously identified archaeological resources, project-related ground-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protect Unanticipated Archaeological Resource Discoveries In the event that a prehistoric archeological site (such as any unusual amounts of stone, bone, or shell) or a historicperiod archaeological site (such as concentrated deposits of bottles or bricks, amethyst glass, or other historic refuse), is uncovered during grading or other construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. The City will be notified of the potential find and a qualified archeologist shall be retained to investigate its significance. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the geographically and culturally affiliated Native American group shall be notified and Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 shall be implemented. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and evaluated for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, construction may proceed. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the City to follow accepted professional standards such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. If artifacts are recovered from significant historic archaeological resources, they shall be housed at a qualified curation facility. The results of the identification, evaluation, and/or data recovery program for any unanticipated discoveries shall be presented in a professional-quality report that details all methods and findings, evaluates the nature and significance of the resources, and analyzes and interprets the results.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-53 Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring implementation of preservation options and proper curation if significant artifacts are recovered.
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less-than-significant impact. There potentially was once a burial within the project site. The burial site was officially documented in 1991 based on verbal information from 1971; the burial was excavated, and all materials removed in 1971. The 1991 documentation does not include a precise location, however the general location given was partially inside the project site, but outside the area of disturbance as shown in Figure 2-3.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the county coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the NAHC shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

Compliance with HSC Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-54 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.6 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

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?

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (e.g., EPA’s EnergyStar™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the CCR sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the state provides rebates and tax credits for installing renewable energy systems, and its Flex Your Power program promotes conservation in multiple areas. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use planning and related to the use of renewable energy sources.

FEDERAL
Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. The EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. The EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in the EPAct. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the EPAct to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce US dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. It also increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel by 2022, which represents a nearly fivefold increase over 2007 levels. It also reduces US demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-55 STATE
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1974 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The creation of the act occurred in response to the state legislature’s review of studies projecting an increase in statewide energy demand, which would potentially encourage the development of power plants in environmentally sensitive areas. The act introduced state policy for siting power plants to reduce potential environmental impacts and sought to reduce demand for these facilities by directing CEC to develop statewide energy conservation measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary uses of energy. Conservation measures recommended establishing design standards for energy conservation in buildings, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). These standards are updated regularly and remain in effect today. The act additionally directed CEC to cooperate with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the California Natural Resources Agency, and other interested parties in ensuring that a discussion of the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy is included in all EIRs required for local projects.

State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, and conservation; public health and safety; and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 2008 update, which calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assisting public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs, as well as encouraging urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access (CEC 2008).

The 2008 update has been supplemented by the 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which includes three goals to drive energy efficiency: doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030, removing and reducing barriers to energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the buildings sector (CEC 2019).

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to “conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety” (PRC Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in preparation of the first integrated energy policy report (IEPR).

CEC adopts an IEPR every 2 years and an update every other year. The most recent IEPR is the 2021 IEPR. The 2021 IEPR provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the state, outlining strategies and recommendations to further the state’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally responsible energy sources. The 2021 IEPR covers a broad range of topics, including building decarbonization, energy efficiency, challenges with decarbonizing California’s gas system, quantifying the benefits of the Clean Transportation Program, and the California Energy Demand Forecast (CEC 2021b).

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of instate production. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-56 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation to public health and environmental quality.

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The state has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewable energy to produce electricity for consumers. California utilities are required to generate 52 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent zero-carbon by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). More detail about these regulations is provided in Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Legislation Associated with Greenhouse Gas Reduction
The state has passed legislation that aims to reduce GHG emissions. The legislation often has an added benefit of reducing energy consumption. SB 32 requires a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 sets a long-term target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, while EO B-55-18 establishes a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” While EO S-3-05 and EO B-55-18 have not yet been codified in law, the EO directs CARB to ensure future Climate Change Scoping Plans (discussed below) identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. Implementation of the state’s legislation associated with GHG reduction will have the co-benefit of reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuel and making land use development and transportation systems more energy efficient. More details about legislation associated with GHG reduction are provided in the regulatory setting of Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
LOCAL
The City’s General Plan contains goals and policies pertaining to the City’s energy demand and consumption; however, these policies do not pertain to the project because those goals and policies pertain mostly to energy efficiency and renewable energy associated with land use development.

3.6.2 Environmental Setting

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS USE
Electric and natural gas services are provided to the City through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. Over one-third of energy commodities consumed in California is natural gas. In 2021, the statewide electrical power mix was approximately 38 percent natural gas, 14 percent solar, 11 percent wind, 9 percent nuclear, and 9 percent large hydroelectric, with the remaining associated with geothermal, biomass, and other sources (CEC 2022). In 2020, (the most recent power content is available by utility through CEC), 30.6 percent of the electricity PG&E provided its customers was generated by eligible (as defined by CEC) renewable energy resources (i.e., biomass combustion, geothermal, small-scale hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 10 percent by large-scale hydroelectric resources, 16 percent by natural gas, and 43 percent by renewable (CEC 2021a). The contribution of instate and out-of-state power plants depends on the precipitation that occurred in the previous year, the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available, and other factors. The proportion of PG&E-delivered electricity generated from eligible renewable energy sources is anticipated to increase over the next three decades to comply with the SB 100 goals described in Section 3.8.

ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION
In 2020, the transportation sector was the largest end-user of energy in the state, totaling 34.0 percent, followed by the industrial sector at 24.6 percent, the residential sector at 21.8 percent, and the commercial sector at 19.6 percent Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-57 (EIA 2022). On-road vehicles use about 90 percent of the petroleum consumed in California. Caltrans projected that 495 million gallons of gasoline and diesel were consumed in San Joaquin County in 2015, an increase of approximately 55 million gallons of fuel from 2010 levels (Caltrans 2008).

ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists and climatologists have produced substantial evidence that the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles, power plants, industrial facilities, residences, and commercial facilities has led to an increase of the earth’s temperature (IPCC 2014; OPR et al. 2019). For an analysis of GHG production and the project’s contribution to climate change, refer to Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”

3.6.3 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-significant impact. Appendix F and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the energy implications of a project. CEQA requires implementation of mitigation measures to prevent or reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy. Neither the law nor the State CEQA Guidelines establish thresholds that define when energy consumption is considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks. An estimated 7,824 gallons of gasoline and 90,044 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix B for a summary of construction calculations). Consumption of diesel fuel would occur primarily from the haul truck trips to and from the project site, as well as the operation of heavy-duty equipment, such as tractors, dozers, and scrapers. The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or to substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Gasoline and diesel would be consumed during construction for heavy-duty equipment operation, trucks deliveries, material hauling, and worker commute trips. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction-related energy demand associated with the project. Nonrenewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region. Moreover, this one-time energy expenditure would facilitate the project’s objectives to provide efficient and cost-effective wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and to maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation. Therefore, construction energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The majority of operational energy would be associated with electricity consumption to power the new pumps, fuel associated testing of the emergency backup diesel generators, and for transportation associated with routine maintenance trips. Building energy would be minimal and associated only with electrical and controls building as well as shop and maintenance buildings. The pumps would consume an estimated 4,624 megawatt-hours (MWh) in the first year and 6,332 MWh at peak flows in 2050. The emergency backup diesel generators would be tested monthly and would consume an estimated 1,080 gallons of diesel per year. Additionally, the four operators (workers), 24 material delivery trips annually, and 16 biosolids haul trips annually would consume 1,1145 gallons of diesel per year.

However, these sources of energy consumption would support the project’s objective of providing efficient and costeffective wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and to maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation. As such, the project would reduce the need for additional groundwater pumping and would provide recycled water to support City-wide growth. Fuel and energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to that associated with groundwater pumping and building additional wastewater treatment plants elsewhere. For these reasons, the project’s energy consumption through construction, operation, or transportation would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-58 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
Less-than-significant impact. As stated previously, implementing the project would result in an efficient and costeffective use of energy to provide wastewater treatment capacity to serve planned population growth in the City through 2050 and maximize production and use of recycled water to offset use of groundwater for irrigation.

Construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment, the transport of equipment and materials using on-road haul trucks, and minor amounts associated with construction worker commute trips.

Operational energy would be associated with electricity consumption to power the new pumps, fuel associated testing of the emergency backup diesel generators, and for transportation associated with routine maintenance trips.

Energy would be consumed during project construction (approximately 7,824 gallons of gasoline and 90,044 gallons of diesel); however, this one-time energy expenditure would not impede or conflict with an applicable renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. Applicable plans, such as the statewide Climate Change Scoping Plan (including the adopted 2017 Scoping Plan and the draft 2022 Scoping Plan) and the push to make the electrical grid entirely renewable and carbon-free, address renewable energy and energy efficiency from an operational perspective with the understanding that construction-related energy consumption is inherently short term. Energy consumption during operations (4,624 MWh in the first year, 6,332 MWh at peak flows, 1,080 gallons of diesel per year associated with the emergency backup generators, 1,145 gallons of diesel per year associated with routine maintenance trips) would support wastewater treatment and recycled water production, which would not impede implementation of state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-59

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

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
California Geological Survey 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, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.7.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
In October 1977, the US Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The mission of NEHRP includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improved building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improved mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. The NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the lead agency of the program and assigns several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-60 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration STATE
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Alquist-Priolo Act) (PRC Sections 2621–2630) intends to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes by regulating construction in active fault corridors and by prohibiting the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The act defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal support to terms such as “active” and “inactive,” and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in earthquake fault zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across these zones is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as within the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Bryant and Hart 2007). Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The intention of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690–2699.6) is to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. Whereas the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The act’s provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped seismic hazard zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development.

California Building Code
The CBC (CCR Title 24) is based on the International Building Code. The CBC has been modified from the International Building Code for California conditions to include more detailed or more stringent regulations. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, whereas Chapter 18A regulates construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. Appendix J of the CBC regulates drainage and erosion control during grading activities. The CBC contains a provision that provides for a preliminary soil report to be prepared to identify “the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects” (CBC Chapter 18 Section 1803.1.1.1).

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The Public Health and Safety Element of the County’s General Plan provides guidance for how to protect County residents, workers, visitors, and properties from unreasonable risks associated with natural and human-made hazards.

The following policies from the Public Health and Safety Element are relevant to geology and soils with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy PHS-3.1. Consider Geologic Hazards for New Development: The County shall consider the risk to human safety and property from seismic and geologic hazards in designating the location and intensity for new development and the conditions under which that development may occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-61  Policy PHS-3.4. Liquefaction Studies: The County shall require proposals for new development in areas determined by the County to have high liquefaction potential to include detailed site-specific liquefaction studies.  Policy PHS-3.5. Subsidence or Liquefaction: The County shall require that all proposed structures, utilities, or public facilities within County-recognized areas of near-surface subsidence or liquefaction be located and constructed in a manner that minimizes or eliminates potential damage.  Policy PHS-3.7. Erosion Control: The County shall encourage the planting of vegetation to decrease loss of soil by erosion.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies hazards that are to be considered in the development of future land uses, including geologic hazards. The following policies from the Safety Element are relevant to geology and soils with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy SAFE-1.1: The City will ensure that approved development projects and public investments are consistent with the information provided in the Stanislaus County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.  Policy SAFE-1.2: The City will continue to enforce State of California Building Standards Commission uniform codes, such as the California Building Code and California Fire Code with adopted Fire District amendments.  Policy SAFE-1.11: Proposed developments located within river bluff areas and other areas prone to geologic and soil limitations require a detailed geotechnical study prepared by an independent qualified geologist approved by the City. Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests shall incorporate measures to reduce risks identified in the geotechnical study, to the City’s satisfaction.

3.7.2 Environmental Setting

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project area is underlain by Pleistocene to Holocene-age alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits (CGS 2015).

Table 3.7-1 includes a summary of the soil types within the areas of ground disturbance and their characteristics.

Table 3.7-1 Soil Types in the Areas of Ground Disturbance Soil Type Description
Percent of
Disturbance
Area
Permeability
Surface
Runoff
Potential
Erosion
Hazard
Shrink-Swell
Potential
Columbia fine sandy loam,
channeled, partially drained,
0 to 2 percent slopes,
frequently flooded
Very deep, somewhat poorly drained,
nearly level soil on flood plains 3% Moderately
rapid Slow Moderate Low
Columbia fine sandy loam,
drained, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Very deep, somewhat poorly drained,
nearly level soil on flood plains <1% Moderately
rapid Slow Slight Low
Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Very deep, somewhat excessively
drained, nearly level soil on dunes 3% Rapid Slow Slight (water), Severe (wind) Low Grangeville fine sandy loam,
partially drained, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Very deep, somewhat poorly drained,
nearly level soil on flood plains 2% Moderately
rapid Slow Slight Low
Honcut sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Very deep, well drained, nearly level soil
on alluvial fans 2% Moderately
rapid Slow
Slight (water),
Moderate
(wind)
Low
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-62 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Soil Type Description
Percent of
Disturbance
Area
Permeability
Surface
Runoff
Potential
Erosion
Hazard
Shrink-Swell
Potential
Merritt silty clay loam,
partially drained, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Very deep, poorly drained, nearly level
soil on flood plains <1% Moderately
slow Slow Slight Moderate
Pits, gravel
Open excavations from which soil and
underlying material have been removed
and other material that supports few or
no plants have been exposed
1% Varies Varies Varies Varies
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Very deep, somewhat excessively
drained, nearly level soil on flood plains
and elongated channel remnants
<1% Rapid Slow Slight (water),
Severe (wind) Low
Water Water 88% Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Source: NRCS 1988.

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The potential for geologic hazards to occur in the project area are summarized as follows:
 Seismic Ground Shaking: Faults are considered to be active if there has been evidence of seismic activity within the last 11,000 years. Although there are no active faults within San Joaquin County, there are several active faults in proximity to the county that have potential to result in seismic ground shaking in the project area. The closest active fault is the Marsh Creek-Greenville fault, approximately 37 miles west of the project area. Other nearby active faults include the Concord, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas Faults (CGS 2021).  Surface Rupture: Surface rupture is the visible offset of the ground surface when an earthquake rupture along a fault affects the Earth’s surface. Based on mapping by the California Geological Survey (CGS), the project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone (CGS 2021). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the project area is considered low.
 Liquefaction: Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine- to mediumgrained, cohesionless soils. Effects of severe liquefaction can include sand boils, excessive settlement, bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading. The project area has not been evaluated by CGS for liquefaction hazards (CGS 2021).
 Landslides: The project area has not been evaluated by CGS for seismic landslide hazards (CGS 2021). Because there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project area, the potential for landslides is considered low.  Settlement: Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). These settlements occur primarily within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reduction in volume during and shortly after an earthquake event. The project area has not been evaluated for the potential for settlement.  Lateral Spreading: Lateral spreading is the finite, lateral movement of gently to steeply sloping, saturated soil deposits caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction. The project area has not been evaluated for the potential for lateral spreading.
 Subsidence: Regional ground subsidence generally occurs due to rapid and intensive removal of subterranean fluids, such as water or oil. Due to historical groundwater use and excessive pumping, considerable land subsidence has been observed throughout the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin County 2017a). The project area has not been evaluated for the potential for subsidence.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-63  Expansive Soils: Expansive soils contain large amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink with the loss of water. Foundations and structures constructed on these soils can be subject to uplifting forces caused by the swelling, potentially resulting in heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade. As shown in Table 3.7-1, soil types in the areas of ground disturbance have a low to moderate shrink-swell potential.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
According to the Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan, most paleontological specimens from San Joaquin County have been found in rock formations in the foothills of the Diablo Mountain Range. However, remains of extinct animals such as mammoth, could be found anywhere in the county, especially along watercourses such as the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (San Joaquin County 2017a).

3.7.3 Discussion
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 California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
No Impact. As stated in Section 3.7.2, the project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone (CGS 2021). Therefore, the project would have no impact related to earthquake fault rupture. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the project area is not within an active fault zone, but is in proximity to several active faults that may cause strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The project would include improvements to the WWTP and construction of recycled water storage and distribution facilities. These facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC, which includes standards intended to protect structures from earthquake-related hazards and seismic activity. The construction and operation of the project would not exacerbate existing seismic conditions. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the project area is in a seismically-active region. Therefore, there is potential for seismic-related ground failure to occur within the project area. A site-specific geotechnical study meeting the requirements of the CBC would be required before project-related permits are issued. The geotechnical study would identify potential risks, including liquefaction potential, and recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Because the project would comply with CBC requirements, impacts related to seismicrelated ground failure would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project area and the potential for landslides to occur on-site or off-site is considered low. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to landslides.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-64 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-significant impact. As shown in Table 3.14-1, the erosion potential for soils in the areas of ground disturbance range from slight to severe. Project construction would involve ground disturbing activities, including trenching and minor grading, which have potential to cause soil erosion and contaminate nearby surface water, in particular the Stanislaus River. Because construction activities would disturb approximately 78.88 acres of land, the City would be required to file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley RWQCB to be covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Construction General Permit) (refer to Section 3.10.2 for additional information about the NPDES Program). As a requirement of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the City would prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and implement associated BMPs that are specifically designed to reduce the amount of soil disturbance, erosion and sediment transport into receiving waters, and pollutants in site runoff during construction. Following construction, all areas of bare soil would be landscaped or paved to prevent soil erosion. Project operations would not involve ground disturbance. Therefore, project-related erosion 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. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project area and the potential for landslides to occur on-site or off-site is considered low. The project area has not been evaluated for the potential for other geologic hazards, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; however, seismic ground shaking in the region could also contribute to instability of soils and geologic units, depending on soil and groundwater conditions within the project area. Additionally, subsidence has been observed in the San Joaquin Valley due to declining groundwater levels. Because dewatering may be required during excavation activities, subsurface soil compaction and subsequent sinking or settling of the ground surface have potential to occur within the project area. A site-specific geotechnical evaluation meeting the requirements of the CBC would be required before project-related permits are issued. The geotechnical study would identify potential risks, including potential for settlement, lateral spreading, and subsidence, and recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Because the project would comply with CBC requirements, impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.2, soil types in the disturbance area have a low to moderate shrink-swell potential. As described previously, a site-specific geotechnical study meeting the requirements of the CBC would be required before project-related permits are issued. The geotechnical study would identify potential risks and recommendations to reduce seismic, geologic, and soils hazards. Because the project would comply with CBC requirements, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, the project would have no impact related to soil suitability for use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-65 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The disturbance area encompasses 78.88 acres of land that has been previously disturbed by development of agricultural and public facility land uses and is predominately underlain by fill materials. Therefore, the project site is not anticipated to be underlain by unique geologic features.

Additionally, the project would require excavation to a maximum depth of 12 feet for trenching and installing pipelines. Based on this excavation depth and previous disturbance, paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered. However, intact paleontological resources may be present below the original layer of fill material. In the event that intact paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during construction, ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the project, such as grading during site preparation and excavation to install treatment facilities, have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist to Conduct Project Design Review Prior to completion of project design and the beginning of construction, the City of Riverbank shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the project plans and all geotechnical reports to determine whether construction activities would affect native sediments containing sensitive paleontological resources. The qualified paleontologist will provide these findings in writing and provide recommendations for paleontological monitoring during construction, if necessary. If the project would not disturb native soils, no further action would be necessary.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-66 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

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?

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
In Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 US 497 (2007), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA and that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. In 2010, EPA started to address GHG emissions from stationary sources through its New Source Review permitting program, including operating permits for “major sources” issued under Title V of the CAA.

In October 2012, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on behalf of the US Department of Transportation (DOT), issued final rules to further reduce GHG emissions and improve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond (77 Federal Register [FR] 62624).

These rules would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 FR 62630).

However, on April 2, 2018, the EPA administrator announced a final determination that the current standards should be revised. On August 2, 2018, DOT and EPA proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule), which would amend existing CAFE standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks by increasing the stringency of the standards by 1.5 percent per year from models 2021 through 2026 (NHTSA 2020).

The CAA grants California the ability to enact and enforce more strict fuel economy standards through the acquisition of an EPA-issued waiver. Each time California adopts a new vehicle emission standard, the state applies to EPA for a preemption waiver for those standards. However, Part One of the SAFE Rule, which became effective on November 26, 2019, revokes California’s existing waiver to implement its own vehicle emission standard and also established a standard to be adopted and enforced nationwide (84 FR 51310). At the time of preparing this environmental document, the implications of the SAFE Rule on California’s future emissions are contingent upon a variety of unknown factors, including legal challenges by California and other states to the revocation of California’s waiver.

In June 2019, EPA, under the authority of CAA Section 111(d), issued the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which provides guidance to states on establishing emissions performance standards for coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs).

Under this rule, states are required to submit plans to EPA that demonstrate the use of specifically listed retrofit technologies and operating practices to achieve CO2 emission reductions through heat rate improvement (HRI). HRI is a measurement of power plant efficiency that EPA determined as part of this rulemaking to be the best system of emission reductions for CO2 generated from coal-fired EGUs (EPA 2019).

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-67 STATE
Statewide GHG Emission Targets and Climate Change Scoping Plan Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the state government for approximately two decades.

GHG emission targets established by the state legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). Executive Order S3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-55- 18 calls for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. These targets are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the United States to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (°C), the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and faster rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 °C (United Nations 2015).

California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), prepared by CARB, outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017). It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high GWP, and recycling and waste). The 2022 Draft Scoping Plan Update (2022 Scoping Plan Update) assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The proposed 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s longterm climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022b). The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update and associated environmental documentation were released for public review on May 10, 2022. The comment period ended June 24, 2022.

Legislation Associated with Electricity Generation
The state has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers.

California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011), 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018), 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018), and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018).

LOCAL
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
SJVAPCD is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in all of San Joaquin County. Its role is discussed further in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.” SJVAPCD also recommends methods for analyzing project-generated GHGs in CEQA analyses and offers multiple potential GHG reduction measures for land use development projects.

SJVAPCD developed thresholds of significance to provide a uniform scale to measure the significance of GHG emissions from land use and stationary source projects in compliance with CEQA and AB 32. SJVAPCD’s goals in developing GHG thresholds include ease of implementation, use of standard analysis tools, and emissions mitigation consistent with AB 32. However, since the passage of SB 32, which mandates a statewide emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, SJVAPCD has not developed new thresholds in compliance with this target.

San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Public Health and Safety Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to greenhouse gas emissions with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy PHS-6.1 Municipal GHG Reduction Targets The County shall reduce GHG emissions from County facilities and activities by 15 percent below 2007 levels by 2020, and shall strive to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent and 80 percent below reduced 2020 levels by 2035 and 2050, respectively.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-68 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Policy PHS-6.2 Community GHG Reduction Targets The County shall reduce community greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and shall strive to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent and 80 percent below reduced 2020 levels by 2035 and 2050, respectively.  Policy PHS-6.3 GHG Reduction Strategies The County shall promote greenhouse gas emission reductions by encouraging efficient farming methods (e.g., no-till farming, crop rotation, cover cropping); supporting the installation of renewable energy technologies; and protecting grasslands, open space, oak woodlands, riparian forest and farmlands from conversion to urban uses.
 Policy PHS-6.4 Methane Digesters The County shall encourage large dairies to capture methane through use of manure digester systems to generate an alternative source of energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and serve as a source of profit for agricultural operations.  Policy PHS-6.5 Diversion, Recycling, and Reuse The County shall achieve a 75 percent diversion of landfilled waste based on 1990 levels by 2020, and shall achieve a diversion rate of 90 percent by 2035.  Policy PHS-6.6 Business-related GHG Reduction Strategies The County shall encourage all businesses to help reduce GHG emissions by: replacing high mileage fleet vehicles with more efficient and/or alternative fuel vehicles; increasing the energy efficiency of facilities; transitioning toward the use of renewable energy instead of non-renewable energy sources; adopting purchasing practices that promote emissions reductions and reusable materials; and increasing recycling.
 Policy PHS-6.7 New Development The County shall require new development to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction and operational GHG emissions.  Policy PHS-6.8 Agricultural Equipment and Emissions The County shall implement the following measures pertaining to agricultural equipment and emissions reductions:
 Support SJVAPCD programs to fund equipment upgrades, retrofits, and replacement through the Carl Moyer heavy-duty vehicle and equipment program or other funding mechanisms (e.g., Rule 9510).  Work with SJVAPCD and stakeholders to identify practical and feasible options for fuel-efficient agricultural equipment.
 Work with agricultural organizations and stakeholders to provide workshops and presentations and outreach materials focused on promoting fuel efficient farm equipment and operations and encourage participation in the Carl Moyer incentive program.
 Policy PHS-6.9 Public Awareness The County shall support public awareness about climate change and encourage County residents and businesses to become involved in activities and lifestyle changes that will aid in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through alternative energy use, energy and water conservation, waste reduction and recycling, and other sustainable practices.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2005
The following policies from the Air Quality Element, Conservation and Open Space, and Public Services and Facilities Elements of the City’s General Plan are relevant to greenhouse gas emissions with respect to the project:
 Policy AIR-1.11: The City acknowledges the following facts: carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas from future development in Riverbank; global increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel combustion and land use changes; anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas concentrations cause climate change; and, the economic, social, and environmental consequences of climate change are catastrophic. The City will monitor and comply with relevant local, regional, statewide, and federal legislation and regulation designed to address climate change.  Policy CONS-6.6: The City will encourage the use of recycled water for appropriate use, including but not limited to outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, fire hydrants, and commercial and industrial processes.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-69  Policy PUBLIC-3.1: The City will require that wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities meet or exceed local, State, and federal standards, as addressed in the City’s Sewer Collection System Master Plan.  Policy PUBLIC-3.2 The City will identify and utilize, as feasible, best environmental practices and technologies for wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment.

3.8.2 Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. GHGs are responsible for “trapping” solar radiation in the earth’s atmosphere, a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (IPCC 2014: 3, 5). By adoption of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and SB 97, the State of California has acknowledged that the effects of GHG emissions cause adverse environmental impacts.

Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Although the emissions of one single project, would not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change.

Guidance published by OPR does not include a quantitative threshold of significance to use for assessing a project’s GHG emissions under CEQA. Moreover, ARB has not established such a threshold or recommended a method for setting a threshold for project-level analysis. In the absence of a consistent statewide threshold, a threshold of significance for analyzing the project’s GHG emissions was developed. The issue of setting a GHG threshold is complex and dynamic, especially in light of the 2016 California Supreme Court decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (referred to as the Newhall Ranch decision hereafter). The California Supreme Court ruling also highlighted the need for the threshold to be tailored to the specific project type, its location, and the surrounding setting. Therefore, the threshold used to analyze the project is specific to the analysis herein and the SJVAPCD retains the ability to develop and/or use different thresholds of significance for other projects in its capacity as lead agency and recognizing the need for the individual threshold to be tailored and specific to individual projects.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and relevant portions of Appendix G recommend that a lead agency consider a project’s consistency with relevant, adopted plans and discuss any inconsistencies with applicable regional plans, including plans to reduce GHG emissions. SJVAPCD policy provides for a tiered approach in assessing significance of project-specific GHG emission increases, as shown below.  Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported by a CEQA-compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency. Projects complying with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation program would not be required to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS).
 Projects implementing BPS would not require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-70 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Projects not implementing BPS would require quantification of project-specific GHG emissions and demonstration that project-specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29 percent, and compared to business-as-usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in the 2017 Scoping Plan. Projects achieving at least a 29 percent GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less-thansignificant individual and cumulative impact for GHGs.

3.8.3 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less-than-significant impact. Construction-related activities that would generate GHGs include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the project site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, excavators). Project construction would include various phases over a 27-month construction timeline. Construction equipment and the number of truck trips would vary by phase, and are based on construction phasing and equipment inventory provided by the project applicant. A detailed description of construction modeling methodology is provided above in Section 3.3.3.

Total construction emissions for each year of construction are summarized in Table 3.8-1. Additional details on the modeling assumptions, inputs, and outputs are provided in Appendix B.

Table 3.8-1 Summary of Construction-Generated GHG Emissions Construction Year Emissions (MTCO2e)
2024 309
2025 363
2026 336
Total 1,008
Notes: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent Refer to Appendix B for detailed s and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

As shown, construction activities would result in maximum annual emissions of 363 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. SJVAPCD has not adopted a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions. However, this level of one-time GHG emissions is considered nominal relative to the 1,100-MTCO2e/year threshold recommended by many air districts in California for land use projects, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

For the most part, operational emission estimates are based on the same approach as described in Section 3.3.3.

However, the GHG analysis includes modeling for both the first year of operation (2027) and the future growth year (2050) to account for the anticipated increase in wastewater flows and associated increase in pump-related electricity consumption. Over time, the electric grid increasingly results in lower carbon output as the electrical utilities increase their renewable portfolio mix consistent with the state’s renewable portfolio standard and SB 100. This analysis accounts for the increase in renewable energy and associated decrease in carbon intensity in electricity delivered to power the pumps. Additionally, water consumption, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation are based on model defaults for 6,000 square feet of light industrial uses (which is equal to the size of the treatment and maintenance buildings).

Total estimated operational emissions for both 2027 and 2050 are summarized in Table 3.8-2. As shown, emissions in 2027 are primarily associated with pump electricity consumption, with smaller amounts associated with mobile (delivery and biosolids hauling) and stationary (backup generator testing). As shown, emissions in 2050 are expected Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-71 to drop substantially, as the electrical grid is expected to be carbon-free, and trucks associated with deliveries and hauling are expected to become even cleaner due to implementation of CARB rules related to truck fuel efficiency and electrification. As shown, emissions would be low in 2027, and would be much lower in 2045, demonstrating substantial progress toward carbon neutrality consistent with statewide planning efforts.

Table 3.8-2 Summary of Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MTCO2e)
2027 2050
Area Sources <1 <1
Mobile Sources 12 10
Stationary Sources 11 11
Electricity 432 0
Water and Wastewater 3 2
Solid Waste 3 3
Total Operational Emissions 460 25
Notes: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent Refer to Appendix B for detailed s and modeling output files.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Overall, operation of the project is not expected to result in a significant impact on the environment. Emissions would be below the numerical thresholds that have been adopted (1,100 MTCO2e/year by BAAQMD and SMAQMD).

Moreover, while not quantified herein, the project would increase the use of recycled water for irrigation, which would reduce the need for depletion of groundwater sources.

Because project-related construction and operational GHGs would be less than adopted thresholds, and long-term operational GHG emissions would demonstrate substantial progress towards carbon neutrality, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. This 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. The City has not developed a plan for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

However, both the City of Riverbank General Plan and San Joaquin County General Plan contain various policies and implementation strategies that aim to reduce emissions associated with both air quality and GHGs. For example, in the City’s General Plan, Policy CONS-6.6 states that the City will encourage the use of recycled water for appropriate use, including but not limited to outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, fire hydrants, and commercial and industrial processes. Recycled water reduces energy required to convey, treat, and distribute water, thereby reducing electricity consumption and associated GHG emissions. The Natural and Cultural Resources (NCR) Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan includes numerous goals and policies related to water conservation and groundwater, stating specifically that groundwater recharge and prevention of overdraft are increasingly important strategies. Policies NCR-3.1 and NCR-3.2 direct the County to ensure that substantial groundwater recharge areas are maintained and that the development of groundwater recharge projects of all scales to increase groundwater supplies shall be encouraged. The project is consistent with these goals and policies because the project would contribute to greater water balance by replacing some of the groundwater that would otherwise be used for irrigation. Furthermore, production of recycled water would potentially reduce the use of on-site percolation basins, leading to potentially improved groundwater conditions underlying the project area (see more details in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality”). The project would support the City’s and Country’s goals of preserving water resources. Additionally, the Local Action portion of the CARB Scoping Plan states that projects should develop a plan requiring water recycling, and greywater and rainwater reuse, and provide funding for incentives and other program delivery Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-72 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mechanisms, where feasible. The project is consistent with these applicable policies and plans because it would produce and distribute high-quality recycled water for agricultural irrigation that helps to reduce energy consumption associated with irrigation water. Operational emission sources would be minimal, and the project would be consistent with the General Plan and statewide strategies in the Scoping Plan because the operational uses would support the City’s and County’s goals of incorporating water recycling and reducing groundwater depletion. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-73

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

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/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard 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?

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
EPA has primary responsibility for enforcing and implementing federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable regulations are contained mainly in CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC 6901 et seq.) established a federal regulatory program for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances. Under RCRA, EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-74 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration disposal of hazardous substances. RCRA was amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, which banned the disposal of hazardous waste on land and strengthened EPA’s reporting requirements.  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980: Also called the Superfund Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.) provided broad federal authority and created a trust fund for addressing releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment. EPA is responsible for compiling the National Priorities List for known or threatened release sites of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants (commonly referred to as “Superfund sites”). EPA provides oversight of, and supervision for, Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.
 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Also called SARA Title III or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (Public Law 99- 499; USC Title 42, Chapter 116) imposes hazardous materials planning requirements to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release.
 Clean Air Act: Regulations under the CCA (42 USC 7401 et seq., as amended) are designed to prevent accidental releases of hazardous materials. The regulations require facilities that store a threshold quantity or greater of regulated substances to develop a risk management plan that includes hazard assessments and response programs to prevent accidental releases of listed chemicals.

Transport of Hazardous Materials
DOT regulates the transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United States, addressed in 49 USC 5101 et seq. (formerly the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 USC 1801 et seq.), regulates intrastate and interstate transport by rail car, aircraft, motor vehicle, and vessel and includes requirements related to the appropriate packaging and labeling of the hazardous material for transit. There are registration requirements for individuals that offer and accept hazardous wastes, and hazardous materials must be properly classed, described, packaged, marked, and labeled. Hazardous materials transport regulations are enforced by the Federal Highway Administration, the US Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Worker Safety Requirements The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal standards for implementation of workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures for handling hazardous substances and addressing other potential industrial hazards. OSHA also establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program. The Hazard Communication Standard (CFR Title 29, Part 1910) requires that workers be informed of the hazards associated with the materials they handle. Workers must be trained in safe handling of hazardous materials, use of emergency response equipment, and building emergency response plans and procedures. Containers must be labeled appropriately, and material safety data sheets must be available in the workplace.

STATE
The Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act (HSC Section 25100 et seq.) is the seminal hazardous waste control law in California. It establishes standards for regulating the generation, handling, processing, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The hazardous waste control program is administered by California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and local Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). Within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), DTSC is primarily responsible for regulating the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Act; enforcement is delegated Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-75 to local jurisdictions. Regulations implementing the Hazardous Waste Control Act list hazardous chemicals and common substances that may be hazardous; establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous substances; prescribe hazardous substances management; establish permit requirements for the treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous substances; and identify hazardous substances prohibited from landfills.

These regulations apply to the protection of human health and the environment during construction.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program CalEPA has adopted regulations implementing the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program). The six program elements of the Unified Program are hazardous waste generation and onsite treatment, underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks, hazardous material release response plans and inventories, risk management and prevention programs, and Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The program is implemented at the local level by a local agency, referred to as the CUPA, which is responsible for consolidating the administration of the six program elements within its jurisdiction. Although the project proponent and owner is the City of Riverbank, which is located in Stanislaus County, since the project site is located in San Joaquin County, the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department is the CUPA pursuant to HSC Section 25180; San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors Resolution R-95-760 and San Joaquin County Ordinance No. 4432.

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including CalEPA, the California Highway Patrol, the CDFW, and regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs).

California Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) The provisions of California Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” (after the legislator who authored the law). The Cortese List is a planning document used by state and local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The list, or a site’s presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies in California, such as the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), also must provide additional release information.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires CalEPA to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. However, because this statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities that are no longer being implemented, and in some cases, the information to be included in the Cortese List does not exist.

Further, although Government Code Section 65962.5 makes reference to the preparation of a “list,” many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since 1992, and this information is now largely available on the internet sites of the responsible organizations. A centralized list is no longer compiled.

California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law requires preparation of hazardous materials Business Plans and disclosure of hazardous materials inventories. Such plans must include an inventory of hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, and an emergency response plan, and they must establish emergency response procedures that include employee training (HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1). The business plan program is administered by the California Emergency Management Agency.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The goal of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5) is to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequences of any releases of extremely hazardous materials. Any business that handles regulated substances (chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-76 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive, including ammonia, chlorine gas, hydrogen, nitric acid, and propane) must prepare a risk management plan. The risk management plan is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The plan must provide safety information, hazard data, operating procedures, and training and maintenance requirements. The list of regulated substances is found in Article 8, Section 2770.5 of the program regulations.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the NPDES program, RWQCBs have the authority to require proper management of hazardous materials during project construction. For a detailed description of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the NPDES program, and the role of the RWQCBs, see Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”
SWRCB adopted the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit in August 1999. The state requires that projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction file a notice of intent with the appropriate RWQCB to be covered under this permit. Construction activities subject to the General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The plan must identify BMPs designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off‐site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.

Waste Discharge Requirements
Pursuant to 27 CCR, Section 2005 et seq., SWRCB has established regulations addressing the treatment, storage, processing, and/or disposal of waste. For given sites, like the existing WWTP, the RWQCB approves site-specific requirements and monitoring responsibilities related to on-site operations that are intended to insure the maintenance of acceptable water quality within the region and prevent the potential release of hazardous materials via surface waters and groundwater. As noted in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” current discharge requirements for the WWTP are prescribed under WDR Order No. 94-100 and the associated Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP), which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB on April 22, 1994.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Worker Safety Requirements The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Cal/OSHA regulations for the use of hazardous materials in the workplace (CCR Title 8) require safety training, available safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. Cal/OSHA enforces regulations on hazard communication programs and mandates specific training and information requirements. These requirements include procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, providing hazard information about hazardous substances and their handling, and preparing health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. Employers must make material safety data sheets available to employees and document employee information and training programs.

California State Aeronautics Act
At the state level, Caltrans’ Division of Aeronautics administers FAA regulations (Stats. 1951, Ch. 764; Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq.). The division issues permits for public-use airports. In addition, the Division of Aeronautics administers noise regulation and land use planning laws, which regulate the operational activities and provides for the integration of aviation planning on a regional basis. There are no airports located near the project site therefore the project is located outside of any airports’ safety zones and any noise contours set forth in such airport land use compatibility plans.

California Building Code
The CBC (CCR Title 24 Part 2)) contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-77 health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment. The CBC is based on the International Building Code, but has been amended for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is contained within CCR Title 24. The CFC establishes requirements for development design to safeguard public health, safety and general welfare from the hazards of fire. This includes standards on building design, materials, fire flow, and other suppression provisions. The CFC also regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The CFC and the CBC use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect life and provide fire safety. These measures may include applying construction standards, requiring separation between structures and property lines, and using specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every 3 years.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The following policies from the Public Health and Safety Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials with respect to the project:
 Policy PHS-1.3. Emergency Operations Plans: The County shall maintain and implement the following emergency and hazard mitigation plans to provide emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities to the community:
 Emergency Operations Plan,
 Mountain House Community Emergency Operations Plan,
 Multi-Hazard Functional Plan,
 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and
 Flood Safety Plan and Contingency Mapping.
 Policy PHS-1.4. Emergency Preparedness Exercises: The County shall coordinate with local and regional agencies to conduct emergency and disaster preparedness exercises to test operational and emergency plans.  Policy PHS-1.8. Emergency Operations Center: The County shall continue to maintain the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) as the single point for centralized management and coordination of emergency response and recovery operations during a disaster or emergency.
 Policy PHS-1.10. Emergency Vehicles Access: The County shall require all new developments to provide, and existing developments to maintain, adequate primary and alternative access for emergency vehicles.  Policy PHS-4.1. Community Wildfire Protection Plan: The County shall maintain and implement the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as a mechanism for community input and identification of areas with high fire hazard risk.
 Policy PHS-4.2. Residential Densities in High Hazard Areas: The County shall restrict development to rural residential densities or lower and require on-site fire suppression measures in areas with high or extreme wildfire hazards.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-78 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Policy PHS-4.3. Fire Prevention Measures: The County shall implement State recommendations for fire prevention in Fire Hazard Severity Zones and require new and/or existing development to provide clearance around structures, use fire-resistant ground cover, build with fire-resistant roofing materials, participate in fuel load reduction, and take other appropriate measures.
 Policy PHS-4.4. Clear Zones: The County shall require clear zones and regular weed abatement around residential structures in high fire hazard areas and assist property owners in identifying how clear zones should be maintained.
 Policy PHS-4.5. Vegetation and Fuel Management: The County shall require new development in high fire-hazard areas to have fire-resistant vegetation, cleared fire breaks separating communities or clusters of structures from native vegetation, or a long-term comprehensive vegetation and fuel management program consistent with State codes 4290 and 4291 for wildland fire interface and vegetation management.  Policy PHS-4.6. Fire Protection Coordination: The County shall encourage well-organized and efficient coordination among fire agencies, CalFire, and the County.  Policy PHS-7.1. Minimize Hazardous Materials and Wastes: The County shall discourage the use of hazardous materials and the creation of hazardous wastes.
 Policy PHS-7.2. Avoid Contamination of Resources: The County shall strive to ensure that hazardous materials and wastes do not contaminate air, water, or soil resources.  Policy PHS-7.3. Control Hazardous Materials: The County shall require the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes to comply with local, State, and Federal safety standards.  Policy PHS-7.4. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan: The County shall maintain and implement the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
 Policy PHS-7.5. Locate Hazardous Materials Away from Populated Areas: To the extent feasible, the County shall require proposed activities and land uses that use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials or wastes to be located away from existing and planned populated areas.  Policy PHS-7.6. Require Hazardous Materials Management Plans: The County shall require businesses that use or store materials and wastes on-site to prepare Hazardous Materials Management Plans (Business Plans) that map and inventory all hazardous materials and contain contingency plans for accidents, designate an individual or individuals as emergency coordinator(s), and ensure that all employees understand the potential for accidents and the appropriate response. Plans must follow the requirements for Federal, State, and/or local defined special flood hazard areas.
 Policy PHS-7.7. County Hazardous Materials Area Plan: The County shall maintain and implement the County Hazardous Materials Area Plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of hazardous material within the unincorporated County.
 Policy PHS-7.8. Consistency with Hazardous Waste Management Plan: The County shall require all new development to be consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (CHWMP). Any proposed hazardous waste facility, or expansion of an existing hazardous waste facility, shall be consistent with the CHWMP.
 Policy PHS-7.9. Require Disclosure of Hazardous Materials and Waste: The County shall require public disclosure of hazardous materials and wastes for existing and proposed businesses.  Policy PHS-7.11. Hazardous Materials Transportation Routes: The County shall continue to maintain route designations for hazardous materials transport within San Joaquin County.  Policy PHS-7.12. Hazardous Liquids Storage Tanks: The County shall maintain and implement hazardous material regulations for the storage of hazardous liquids in underground or aboveground storage tanks.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-79  Policy PHS-7.13. Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities: The County shall provide areas for hazardous waste disposal facilities sufficient to meet the needs of county residents and businesses.  Policy PHS-7.14. Legislative Support: The County shall support legislation that would further reduce public risks associated with hazardous materials, reduce hazardous waste generation, aid in cleanup, or provide assistance for hazardous materials management.
 Policy PHS-7.15. Site Cleanup Support: The County shall support programs and funding for determination of sites contaminated with hazardous materials and for site cleanup.  Policy PHS-7.16. Hazardous Waste Property Designations: When known, the County shall refer contaminated sites to the appropriate lead agency with established authority/jurisdiction for the required assessment and cleanup activities.
 Policy PHS-8.1. Land Use Compatibility: The County shall prohibit land uses within unincorporated areas that interfere with the safe operation of aircraft or that would expose people to hazards from the operation of aircraft.

San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan
The San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services (OES) is the single coordinating center for major emergency activities. The San Joaquin County OES prepared the San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), which establishes a systematic and synchronized process to facilitate emergency preparedness, promote hazard mitigation, and coordinate emergency response and disaster recovery activities and actions. The EOP identifies the primary responsibilities of San Joaquin County government before, during, and after emergencies and major disasters, while recognizing the significant roles of federal, tribal, state, and other local government agencies, as well as the private sector, and non-governmental organizations/private nonprofits. The primary objective of the EOP is to coordinate the personnel, facilities, and other resources of the County into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency, disaster, or planned event (San Joaquin County 2022).

The EOP accomplishes the following (San Joaquin County 2022):
 Establishes a County emergency management structure, which will coordinate and support on-scene responses, including maintenance of situational awareness, facilitation of effective communication between operations centers at various levels of government, maintain continuity of government, and interaction with public information sources.
 Establishes the overall operational concepts associated with the management of incidents, emergencies, crises, disasters, and catastrophes at the County and operational area levels.  Provides a flexible platform for planning and response to all hazards, incidents, events, and emergencies believed to be important to the operational area. It is applicable to a wide variety of anticipated incident events including floods, droughts, earthquakes, and public health issues.

San Joaquin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan – Revised 2017 The local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) is intended to provide strategies for the County and other local jurisdictions to identify and implement mitigation actions for reducing damages from various potential natural and technological disasters. The goals, actions, and strategies contained in the San Joaquin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan document are only for the unincorporated areas of the County (San Joaquin County 2017b).

San Joaquin County Municipal Code
Title 4 Division 8 of the San Joaquin County Municipal Code outlines the handling of and regulations of hazardous materials in the County.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The following policies from the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials with respect to the project:

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-80 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Policy CIRC-4.1: The City will work with relevant public agencies and the railroad to appropriately regulate the movement of truck traffic and hazardous materials throughout the City.  Policy CIRC-4.4: The City will support the development and implementation of a quick-response emergency services program for railroad corridors and continue to support the County’s Hazardous Materials Team.

The following policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials with respect to the project:
 Policy PUBLIC-7.1: The City will ensure that adequate fire flow pressure is available in relation to structure size, design, requirements for construction, and/or built-in fire protection systems. Maintenance of adequate fire flows includes factors such as adequate storage, system gridding, hydrant spacing, and spacing and sizing of water mains, as specified in the City’s Water Master Plan.
 Policy PUBLIC-7.2: For new development, the City will require a minimum fire flow pressure of 1,500 GPM (sustainable for at least two hours) for residential use. For new development, the City will require a minimum fire flow pressure of approximately 3,600 GPM (sustainable for longer periods) for larger residences and for other building types, depending on the particular use and structure characteristics, and in coordination with the fire service provider.
 Policy PUBLIC-7.3: The City will require that fire stations be located to ensure the appropriate level of service (including adequate response time per Policy Public 7.5), community compatibility, and efficiency, including the location of such facilities relative existing and planned public parks, libraries, and other activity centers.  Policy PUBLIC-7.4: The City will coordinate with fire protection providers, including through reciprocity arrangements, to ensure equipment, staffing, and facilities for emergency medical services, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials emergency response, and other relevant needs, as appropriate. The City will ensure consistency with National Fire Protection Association and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District response requirements.
 Policy PUBLIC-7.5: The City will coordinate with fire protection providers to [provide] an emergency response system capable of achieving the following standards in 95% of all cases: first fire emergency response unit within six minutes of dispatch; full alarm assignment within 10 minutes of dispatch; second alarm assignment within 15 minutes of dispatch; and an Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating of Class 2 for areas within the City.  Policy PUBLIC-7.6: The City will work with property owners in existing developed portions of the City to achieve a minimum fire flow pressure of 1,500 GPM (sustainable for at least two hours) for residential use and approximately 3,600 GPM (sustainable for longer periods) for larger residences and for other building types, depending on the particular use and structure characteristics, and in coordination with the fire service provider.

The following policies from the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials with respect to the project:
 Policy SAFE-1.2: The City will continue to enforce State of California Building Standards Commission uniform codes, such as the California Building Code and California Fire Code with adopted Fire District amendments.  Policy SAFE-1.3: The City will encourage the retrofitting of older buildings to current safety standards, and require compliance to recommendations of the fire and law enforcement service providers and the State Building Standards Commission uniform codes in coordination with major remodeling or additions.  Policy SAFE-1.4: The City will require set backs, ignition resistant building materials, or other measures to reduce exposure to potential wildfires in areas designated for natural open space preservation, in coordination with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection recommendations and Maintenance of Defensible Space Measures, as appropriate.
 Policy SAFE-1.5: Approved plans, projects, and subdivision requests will ensure adequate fire flow per City and Fire District standards. The installation of automatic fire sprinklers may, at the discretion of the City and the Fire Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-81 Chief, allow for a reduction in the required fire flow, while still complying with the California Fire Code requirements.
 Policy SAFE-1.8: The City will require that hazardous materials are used, stored, transported, and disposed in a safe manner and in compliance with local, State, and federal safety standards.  Policy SAFE-1.10: The City will review development requests and require that any airborne, waterborne, windborne, and other hazardous materials issues are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated to ensure against any risk relative to any nearby planned or existing land uses and their users.  Policy SAFE-2.1: The City will require development and maintenance of a road system that provides adequate access for emergency equipment.
 Policy SAFE-2.2: The City will consult with fire protection service providers in reviewing development proposals.

Development proposals will include City conditions that respond to concerns of fire protection service providers.  Policy SAFE-2.3: The City will improve fire flow in existing developed areas of the City, as feasible, to meet standards presented in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan and relevant City Master Plans.
 Policy SAFE-2.4: The City will coordinate with the County Office of Emergency Services to identify evacuation routes and operational plans to be used in case of dam failure, flood disaster, and wildfire for any new growth areas in addition to any updates required to serve the existing developed City.

3.9.2 Environmental Setting
The project site consists mostly of disturbed land which currently, and historically, has been used for the existing WWTP. The WWTP treats and disposes the wastewater (sewage) collected from within the City of Riverbank. The WWTP is located north of Riverbank across the Stanislaus River and borders the north side of Jacob Myers Park.

The majority of the WWTP facilities were constructed before the 1990s, with upgrades to the aeration system in the late-2010’s (KSN and BC 2022). The existing facilities at the WWTP consist of a headworks system, two aerated treatment ponds, two polishing ponds, eight evaporation/percolation ponds, 13 groundwater monitoring wells, and associated piping and mechanical components.

DOCUMENTED SITES OF CONTAMINATION
The project site is not listed as a hazardous waste and substances site maintained by CalEPA pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2022). It is also not currently on the Cortese List of hazardous waste and substance sites or SWRCB’s list of open, active leaking UST sites, based on a review of the agency databases (SWRCB 2022). However, since the project site is a wastewater treatment facility , it is identified as a site subject to WDRs, as noted on the SWRCB’s GeoTracker website.

As discussed in Section 2.0, “Project Description,” the WWTP is in compliance with applicable WDRs, with the following exceptions:
 Nitrate and ammonia concentrations in groundwater sampled from several interior monitoring wells dominated by effluent exceed recommended groundwater limitations.  Dissolved oxygen in ponds T-1 and T-2 periodically fall below the 1.0 mg/L limit.  The City is currently implementing measures consistent with the WDRs and MRP, which were adopted for the site on April 22, 1994, to reduce nitrate and ammonia concentrations, and increase oxygen concentrations at the site to within the limits established by the WDRs.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-82 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and petroleum products are a subset of the goods routinely shipped along the transportation corridors in the project area. In California, unless specifically exempted, it is unlawful for any person to transport hazardous wastes unless the person holds a valid registration issued by DTSC. DTSC maintains a list of active registered hazardous waste transporters throughout California, and the California Department of Public Health regulates the haulers of hazardous waste.

Current operations at the WWTP include the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials related to wastewater treatment. Hazardous chemicals are stored in designated hazardous materials storage or containment areas on-site, depending on the nature of the chemical., All chemicals used for wastewater treatment are stored according to local, state, and federal regulations.

SCHOOLS
Children are particularly susceptible to long-term effects from emissions of hazardous materials. Therefore, locations where children spend extended periods, such as schools, are sensitive to hazardous air emissions and accidental release associated with the handling of extremely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. This risk is considered substantial where the potential release is within 0.25 mile of the school. No existing or proposed schools are within

0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Cardozo Middle School located approximately 0.8 mile southeast of the project site.

AIRPORTS AND AIRSTRIPS
There are no active public airports or private airstrips within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest public airport to the project site is Oakdale Airport, located approximately 8 miles east of the project site.

3.9.3 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less-than-significant impact. Construction of the project could temporarily increase the transport of materials generally regarded as hazardous materials that are typically used in construction activities. It is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other similarly related materials would be brought onto the project site, and used and stored there during the construction period. The types and quantities of materials to be used for construction of the project could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment if not properly handled. Operation of the WWTP would continue to involve hazardous materials. The transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials could potentially expose and adversely affect workers, the public, or the environment as a result of improper handling or use, accident, environmentally unsound disposal methods, fire, explosion, or other emergencies, resulting in adverse health or environmental effects.

State agencies regulating hazardous materials are Cal/EPA and the Office of Emergency Services. The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans enforce regulations for hazardous materials transport. Within Cal/EPA, DTSC has primary regulatory authority to enforce hazardous materials regulations. State hazardous waste regulations are contained primarily in CCR Title 22. The Cal/OSHA has developed rules and regulations regarding worker safety around hazardous and toxic substances. Because the City and its contractors would implement and comply with these regulations during construction and operation of the project, the potential for significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be minimal, and this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-83 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less-than-significant impact. As discussed above, there are no existing hazardous materials sites located within or near the project site. During project construction and operation, project-related activities may involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The City is required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in relation to construction and operation of the WWTP. These regulations are specifically designed to protect the public health and the environment, including through the prevention of accident conditions, and must be adhered to during project construction and operation.

Although the existing WWTP is currently in compliance with applicable WDRs (apart from the nitrate and ammonia concentrations in groundwater sampled from several interior monitoring wells dominated by effluent which exceed recommended groundwater limitations, and the dissolved oxygen in ponds T-1 and T-2 which periodically fall below the 1.0 mg/L limit), the continued compliance with the WDRs and MRP (discussed in Section 2.0, “Project Description”) would achieve the concentration limitations outlined in the regulations. Furthermore, as part of the project, WWTP operations would be subject to amended WDRs, including monitoring responsibilities and potential corrective actions, for the discharge of treated wastewater to land, as described in Section 2.9 of the Project Description, “Required Permits and Project Approvals.” Compliance with the amended WDRs and other applicable regulations would ensure that the potential for accident conditions would be minimized and addressed appropriately as part of regulatory compliance. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. There are no existing schools within one-quarter mile radius of the project site. The nearest existing school to the project site is Cardozo Middle School, located approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the project site.

Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less-than-significant impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires that DTSC compile and maintain a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action, land designated as hazardous waste property, or hazardous waste disposals on public land. This list is known as the Cortese List, which can be accessed on CalEPA’s website. As described above, the project site and surrounding area are not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). The project site is a wastewater treatment facility and is identified on the SWRCB’s GeoTracker website as a WDRs site and is not identified as a hazardous materials site. Thus, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, and this impact would be less that significant. 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 airport to the project site is Oakdale Airport, located approximately 8 miles east of the project site. The project site is not located within the airport land use plan for this airport, or any other airport, nor is it located in a restricted airport zone. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-84 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-significant impact. San Joaquin County has an EOP and a LHMP, which address emergencies and evacuation within the County. Access to the WWTP site (as discussed in Section 2.0, “Project Description”) is limited and a temporary access point and road would be required to support the transportation of construction materials and equipment during project construction. The proposed temporary access point would be located northwest of the project site off Burwood Road. The approximately 9,000-foot-long temporary access road would be constructed between the access point and the WWTP site on a combination of private farm roads and existing WWTP roads, both currently unimproved. Improvements would include fine grading followed by placement of aggregate base rock on the existing roads. The temporary construction access road would be maintained throughout the construction timeline. Watering of this road would be required to prevent fugitive dust caused by vehicular traffic as necessary.

Encroachment permits for the temporary access point would be acquired as required by San Joaquin County. As part of this encroachment permit application, the project applicant would be required to prepare and implement a traffic control plan, which would require temporary traffic controls during construction. Although affected roadway segments may be closed temporarily during pipeline installation activities, traffic control operations would be noticed at the location of the temporary traffic restrictions a week in advance of any road work that impedes the flow of traffic (i.e. closes the road, closes a traffic lane, or closes the road shoulder). All roadways would be repaved and returned to pre-project conditions upon completion of project construction. Once operational, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, this 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 project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) nor is it on land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2022). The project would involve improvements to the existing WWTP which includes increasing its existing capacity in order to accommodate the planned growth and expansion of the City through 2050, as envisioned in the City’s General Plan. Project development would be required by law to incorporate the CBC, the CFC with adopted Fire District amendments, and other applicable state and local fire safety requirements. In addition, the City of Riverbank and San Joaquin County General Plan policies listed in Section 3.9.1, “Regulatory Setting” would ensure people and structures would not be exposed to significant risk of loss of injury involving wildland fires. Furthermore, the project does not include any residential components. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. For additional information and analysis related to wildland fire hazards, refer to Section 3.20, “Wildfire.”
Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-85

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
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 on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
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?

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
EPA is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by EPA as well as the states. Various elements of the CWA address water quality. These are discussed below.

CWA Water Quality Criteria/Standards
Pursuant to federal law, EPA has published water quality regulations under Title 40 of the CFR. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the act, water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and criteria that Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-86 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. As described in the discussion of state regulations below, SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs have designated authority in California to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

CWA Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that do not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the state develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. The TMDL is the amount of the pollutant that the water body can receive and still comply with water quality objectives. The TMDL is also a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. In California, implementation of TMDLs is achieved through water quality control plans, known as Basin Plans, of the RWQCBs.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges including point source waste discharges and nonpoint source stormwater runoff. Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. “Nonpoint source” pollution originates over a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint source pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff and is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program: discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The goal of the NPDES nonpoint source regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable. The RWQCBs in California are responsible for implementing the NPDES permit system.

National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.

FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that delineate the regulatory floodplain to assist local governments with the land use planning and floodplain management decisions needed to meet the requirements of NFIP. Floodplains are divided into flood hazard areas, which are areas designated per their potential for flooding, as delineated on FIRMs. Special Flood Hazard Areas are the areas identified as having a one percent chance of flooding in each year (otherwise known as the 100-year flood). In general, the NFIP mandates that development is not to proceed within the regulatory 100-year floodplain, if the development is expected to increase flood elevation by 1 foot or more.

STATE
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act) California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter-Cologne Act grants SWRCB and each of the nine RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the CWA. The applicable RWQCB for the project is the Central Valley RWQCB. Both the SWRCB and the Central Valley RWQCB have the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-87 sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substances, sewage, or oil or petroleum products.

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (known as a “Basin Plan”) for its region. The project area is within the Central Valley RWQCB’s jurisdiction and would be required to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan includes a comprehensive list of waterbodies within the region and detailed language about the components of applicable Water Quality Objectives (WQOs). The Basin Plan recognizes natural water quality, existing and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems associated with human activities throughout the region. Through the Basin Plan, the Central Valley RWQCB executes its regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of TMDLs, and to ensure compliance with surface WQOs. The Basin Plan includes both narrative, and numerical WQOs designed to provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in all its principal streams and tributaries. The Central Valley RWQCB also administers the adoption of WDRs, manages groundwater quality, and adopts projects within its boundaries under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit).

Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 94-100
Current discharge requirements for the WWTP are prescribed under WDR Order No. 94-100 and the associated MRP, which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB, on 22 April 1994. A summary of applicable WDRs is provided in Section 2.5, “Existing Water Pollution Control Requirements.” NPDES Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity SWRCB adopted the statewide NPDES Construction General Permit in August 1999. The state requires that projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction file a Notice of Intent with the applicable RWQCB to be covered under this permit. Construction activities subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include BMPs designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off‐site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.

Title 22 of California’s Code of Regulations
CCR Title 22 refers to state guidelines for how treated and recycled water is discharged and used. CCR Title 22 lists the specific uses allowed with the following types of recycled water: (1) disinfected tertiary recycled water (such as irrigating parks), (2) disinfected secondary recycled water (such as irrigating animal feed and other unprocessed crops), and (3) undisinfected secondary recycled water (such as industrial uses). Other allowed uses of the disinfected recycled water include irrigation of food crops and residential landscaping, supply of recreational impoundments for unrestricted body contact, air conditioning, commercial laundry, decorative fountains, and flushing toilets in commercial buildings. SWRCB governs the permitting of recycled water projects, develops uniform water recycling criteria and reviews and approves Title 22 engineering reports for recycled water use. Wastewater treatment standards are set and enforced by the state’s nine RWQCBs in consultation with the California Department of Public Health.

California Water Code
The California Water Code is enforced by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The mission of DWR is “to manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies, to benefit the state’s people, and to protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environments.” DWR is responsible for promoting California’s general welfare by ensuring beneficial water use and development statewide.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-88 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Groundwater Management
Groundwater management is outlined in the California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.75, Chapters 1-5, Sections 10750 through 10755.4. The Groundwater Management Act was first introduced in 1992 as AB 3030, and has since been modified by SB 1938 in 2002, AB 359 in 2011, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) in 2014. The intent of these Acts is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing a Groundwater Management Plan.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) became law on January 1, 2015, and applies to all groundwater basins in the state (Water Code Section 10720.3). By enacting SGMA, the legislature intended to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater within their jurisdiction (Water Code Section 10720.1).

Pursuant to SGMA, any local agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities within a groundwater basin may elect to be a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for that basin (Water Code Section 10723). The project area is within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, which has been designated under SGMA as a high priority basin. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, which is the GSA for the subbasin, adopted the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin GSP in November 2019. The 2019 GSP was subsequently revised in June 2022 to address deficiencies identified by DWR.

Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use
SWRCB adopted Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW) (General Order) on June 7, 2016. The General Order establishes standard conditions for recycled water use and conditionally delegates authority to an Administrator to manage a Water Recycling Program and issue Water Recycling Permits to recycled water users. Only treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses can be permitted, such as landscape irrigation, crop irrigation, dust control, industrial/commercial cooling, and decorative fountains. Potable reuse activities are not authorized under this General Order.

LOCAL
San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan
The Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the County’s General Plan is intended to support the balanced management and conservation of the County’s natural resources, including water resources. The following policies from the Natural and Cultural Resources Element are relevant to hydrology and water quality with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy NCR-3.1. Preserve Groundwater Recharge Areas: The County shall strive to ensure that substantial groundwater recharge areas are maintained as open space.  Policy NCR-3.2. Groundwater Recharge Projects: The County shall encourage the development of groundwater recharge projects of all scales within the County and cities to increase groundwater supplies.  Policy NCR-3.5. Low Impact Development: The County shall require new development to minimize or eliminate stormwater quality and hydro-modification impacts through site design, source controls, runoff reduction measures, best management practices (BMPs), and Low Impact Development (LID).  The Public Health and Safety Element of the County’s General Plan provides guidance for how to protect County residents, workers, visitors, and properties from unreasonable risks associated with natural and manmade hazards, including flood hazards. The following policies from the Public Health and Safety Element are relevant to hydrology and water quality with respect to the project (San Joaquin County 2017a):
 Policy PHS-2.1. Restrict Uses in Designated Floodways: The County shall restrict uses in designated floodways except those that do not adversely affect flood elevations or velocities, and are tolerant of occasional flooding in accordance with the County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-89  Policy PHS-2.3. Evaluation of Flood Protection for New Development: The County shall require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of new development projects to determine whether the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding, and shall approve such development consistent with applicable State and Federal laws.
 Policy PHS-2.7. Preservation of Floodway and Floodplains: The County shall preserve floodways and floodplains for non-urban uses in an effort to maintain existing flood carrying capacities, except that development may be allowed in floodplains with mitigation measures that are in conformance with the County’s floodplain management ordinance.

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability To address the extensive salt and nitrate impairments in the Central Valley, the Central Valley RWQCB initiated a collaborative stakeholder initiative, known as Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CVSALTS), in 2006. The CV-SALTS initiative was tasked to develop a Central Valley-wide Salt and Nitrate Management Plan (SNMP). Stakeholder membership in CV-SALTS included representatives from the Central Valley RWQCB, SWRCB, agriculture, municipalities, industry, water supply, environmental justice, state and federal regulatory agencies, and the public. The final SNMP was accepted by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2017 and provided a regulatory and programmatic approach for the management of salts and nitrate in groundwater and surface water in the Central Valley. The SNMP goals are (1) to ensure a safe drinking water supply; (2) to achieve balanced salt and nitrate loadings; and (3) to implement long-term and managed aquifer restoration programs where reasonable, feasible, and practicable. The SNMP was used to develop a Central Valley-wide Salt and Nitrate Control Program, which established a prioritized Nitrate Control Program for discharges to groundwater and a phased Salt Control Program for discharges to surface water and groundwater.

The Central Valley-wide Salt and Nitrate Control Program was incorporated into proposed amendments for the Basin Plan to address salt and nitrate impairments in the Central Valley. On May 31, 2018, the Central Valley RWQCB adopted Resolution R5-2018-0034 amending the Basin Plan to include the Central Valley-wide Salt and Nitrate Control Program. The approved amendments contained new policies, new regulatory tools (or strategies), and recommended clarification to existing policies to facilitate the Central Valley RWQCB’s efforts to achieve the salt and nitrate management goals.

City of Riverbank General Plan 2005-2025
The Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies hazards that are to be considered in the development of future land uses, including hazards related to flood zones. The following policies from the Safety Element are relevant to hydrology and water quality with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy SAFE-1.6: The City will not allow the development of housing in the 100-year floodplain, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City may permit placement of non-residential improvements within the 100-year floodplain under a very limited set of circumstances. Any development project that includes structures or disturbances of natural features within the 100-year floodplain shall prove that the proposal does not:
 Create danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by excavation, fill, roads, or intended use.
 Create difficult emergency vehicle access in times of flood.  Create a safety hazard due to the unexpected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
 Create excessive costs in providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public facilities.
 Interfere with the existing waterflow capacity of the floodway.  Substantially increase erosion and/or sedimentation.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-90 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration  Contribute to the deterioration of any watercourse or the quality of water in any body of water.  Policy SAFE-1.7: The City will require any public facilities in the 100-year flood zones to be flood-proofed to a point at or above the base flood level elevation from the Stanislaus River.

The Public Services and Facilities Element evaluates existing sewer, water, storm drainage, and other utility facilities.

The following policies from the Public Services and Facilities Element are relevant to hydrology and water quality with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy PUBLIC-4.5: New development shall be designed to control surface runoff discharges to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and the receiving water limitations assigned by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
 Policy PUBLIC-4.6: The City will establish, and new development shall implement nonpoint source pollution control measures and programs designed to reduce and control the discharge of pollutants into the City's storm drains and river.
 Policy PUBLIC-4.7: The City will require minimization of the amount of new impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment and, where feasible, maximize onsite infiltration of stormwater runoff.
 Policy PUBLIC-4.8: The City will encourage pollution prevention methods, supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close to possible to the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport or urban runoff and pollutants off-site.

The Conservation and Open Space Element addresses the management of natural resources, including water pollution and groundwater supplies. The following policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element are relevant to hydrology and water quality with respect to the project (City of Riverbank 2009):
 Policy CONS-4.2: Approved projects, plans, and subdivisions shall provide for collection, conveyance, treatment, detention, and other stormwater management measures in a way that does not decrease water quality or alter hydrology in the Stanislaus River or associated groundwater recharge areas.  Policy CONS-6.6: The City will encourage the use of recycled water for appropriate use, including but not limited to outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, fire hydrants, and commercial and industrial processes.  Policy CONS-6.7: The City will require mitigation measures, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as a part of approved projects, plans, and subdivisions to address the quality and quantity of urban runoff, including that attributable to soil erosion.

3.10.2 Environmental Setting

SURFACE WATERS
The project area is in the San Joaquin River Basin, which encompasses 15,880 square miles and includes the entire area drained by the San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River Basin is bordered by the Coast Range mountains to the west, the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Sacramento River Basin to the north, and the Tulare Basin to the south. Major surface waters in this watershed are the San Joaquin River and its larger tributaries, which include Calaveras River, Mokelumne River, and Stanislaus River (Central Valley RWQCB 2019).

The project area is adjacent to the Stanislaus River. The Basin Plan does not list beneficial uses for the Stanislaus River.

The Stanislaus River, Lower segment is listed as a Category 5 waterbody segment on the 2018 303(d) list for the following pollutants: group A pesticides, mercury, water temperature, toxicity, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon (SWRCB 2021: Appendix A). Category 5 refers to water segments where water quality standards are not met and a TMDL is required, but not yet completed, for at least one of the listed pollutants.

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-91

GROUNDWATER
Regional Groundwater Hydrology
The project area is in the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin is defined by the area of unconsolidated to semi consolidated sedimentary deposits that are bounded by the Mokelumne River on the north and northwest, the San Joaquin River on the west, the Stanislaus River on the south, and consolidated bedrock on the east. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin is drained by the San Joaquin River and several of its major tributaries, including the Stanislaus, Calaveras, and Mokelumne rivers. The San Joaquin River flows northward into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ultimately discharges into the San Francisco Bay.

In addition to project construction occurring within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, the project would accommodate planned growth in the City of Riverbank which is located south of the Stanislaus River in the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin. Because the City’s water is supplied from groundwater wells, planned growth would result in increased groundwater withdrawals in the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin. However, effects of growth on the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin are addressed in the City of Riverbank General Plan EIR. Therefore, no further discussion of impacts on the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin is included in this section.

Groundwater Elevations and Depth
Groundwater elevations in the study area are between 60 to 80 feet above mean sea level. However, the groundwater elevation in the region has been observed to be declining at a rate of 0.4 feet per year (City of Riverbank 2022). The depth to groundwater at the project site is approximately 20 to 25 feet below the ground surface (bgs).

Groundwater Supplies
According to DWR, the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is subject to critical conditions of overdraft (DWR 2020).

Overdraft conditions occur when groundwater discharge exceeds recharge, resulting in a net reduction in groundwater stored in the aquifer. Groundwater level trends indicated a principal cone of depression in the area east of the City of Stockton, which is caused by excess water demand. This demand has led to an annual overdraft rate between 70,000 to 80,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) within the subbasin. Generally, wells located farther away from the main cone of depression near recharge sources, such as the Stanislaus River, are expected to show a less dramatic water level decline than other wells (City of Riverbank 2022).

To address declining groundwater levels and overdraft conditions in the subbasin, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority, which is the GSA for the subbasin, adopted the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin GSP. The GSP identifies future projects and management actions intended to replace groundwater use (offset) or supplement groundwater supplies (recharge) to meet current and future demands. Planned projects identified in the GSA include direct and in-lieu recharge (i.e., the use of surface water or recycled water supplies for applications where groundwater is currently used), intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse. The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority anticipates that these projects will provide enough water to meet the estimated pumping offset and/or recharge need of 16,000 AFY (ESJGA 2022).

Groundwater Quality
The Basin Plan designated the beneficial uses of underlying groundwater as municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial supply. Groundwater quality in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is generally sufficient to meet beneficial uses; however, several constituents of concern are either currently impacting groundwater use or have the potential to impact groundwater use in the future. The primary naturally occurring water quality constituents of concern above maximum containment levels are salinity and arsenic, while primary water quality constituents related to human activity include nitrates, salinity, and various point-source contaminants (City of Riverbank 2022).

Stormwater runoff from the existing WWTP is stored for future use or discharged to on-site percolation ponds.

Treated wastewater from the WWTP is not discharged to surface water, but is allowed to percolate to groundwater or Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Riverbank
3-92 Riverbank Regional Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaporate to the atmosphere. Current discharge requirements for the WWTP are prescribed under WDR Order No. 94-100 and the associated MRP, which was adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB on April 22, 1994. Based on sampling of groundwater below the WWTP, the WWTP is in compliance with the WDRs, with exceptions related to groundwater and dissolved oxygen. Specifically, concentrations of nitrate and ammonia in several groundwater monitoring wells that are dominated by effluent were found to exceed recommended groundwater limitations.

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing AuthorityMay 27, 2025

City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
May 27, 2025