santa barbara county department of public works · and 14 sludge drying beds would be required when...

Santa Barbara County

Department of Public Works Resource Recovery and Waste Management

PROJECT PROPONENT: Laguna County Sanitation District

620 Foster Road

Santa Maria, California 93455

Contact: Martin Wilder - (805) 739-8755

PREPARED BY:

Padre Associates, Inc.

1861 Knoll Drive

Ventura, California 93003

Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration 13NGD-00000-00001

Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant

Sludge Drying Beds Upgrade Project

June 10, 2013

Project site

Treatment Plant

LCSD Trea tmen t P lan t S ludge Beds Upgrade June 10 , 2013 M i t i ga ted Nega t i ve Dec la ra t ion Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Objectives ....................................................................................... 1

1.3 Project Components .................................................................................... 1

1.4 Construction Methods ................................................................................. 2

1.5 Public Comments ........................................................................................ 3

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................ 3

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................. 4

3.1 Physical Setting ........................................................................................... 4

3.2 Environmental Baseline ............................................................................... 4

3.3 Cumulative Projects .................................................................................... 4

4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST .......................................... 6

4.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources ....................................................................... 6

4.2 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................ 8

4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................... 9

4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................... 13

4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 20

4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................... 23

4.7 Fire Protection ............................................................................................. 24

4.8 Geologic Processes .................................................................................... 25

4.9 Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset ............................................................. 28

4.10 Historic Resources ...................................................................................... 31

4.11 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 32

4.12 Noise ........................................................................................................... 34

4.13 Public Facilities ............................................................................................ 35

4.14 Recreation ................................................................................................... 36

4.15 Transportation/Circulation ........................................................................... 37

4.16 Water Resources/Flooding .......................................................................... 39

LCSD Trea tmen t P lan t S ludge Beds Upgrade June 10 , 2013 M i t i ga ted Nega t i ve Dec la ra t ion Page i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Section Page

5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES .................................................................................... 43

5.1 County Departments Consulted .................................................................. 43

5.2 Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................... 43

5.3 Other Sources ............................................................................................. 43

5.4 References .................................................................................................. 44

6.0 PROJECT-SPECIFIC AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT SUMMARY ........................... 46

6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................. 46

6.2 Significant Mitigable Impacts ....................................................................... 46

7.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE....................................................... 47

8.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 48

9.0 INITIAL REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION, ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS ................................. 49

9.1 Land Use Development Code ..................................................................... 49

9.2 Land Use Element ....................................................................................... 49

9.3 Agricultural Element .................................................................................... 51

9.4 Orcutt Community Plan ............................................................................... 51

10.0 RECOMMENDATION BY LEAD AGENCY STAFF ................................................. 52

11.0 DETERMINATION BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEARING OFFICER ........................... 53

12.0 ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................... 53

TABLES

Table Page

1. Special-Status Plant Species of the Project Area ................................................... 14

2. Special-Status Wildlife Species of the Project Area ................................................ 16

APPENDICIES

A Response to Comments

LCSD Trea tmen t P lan t S ludge Dry ing Beds Upgrade June 10 , 2013 M i t i ga ted Nega t i ve Dec la ra t i on Page 1

1.0 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Laguna County Sanitation District (District) provides municipal wastewater collection, treatment and disposal for the unincorporated community of Orcutt and unincorporated portions of the city of Santa Maria as well as some incorporated areas of the city of Santa Maria. The District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) is located at the western terminus of Dutard Road (see Figures 1 and 2).

Currently, bio-solids (sewage sludge) from the primary and secondary clarifiers are stabilized in an anaerobic digester and pumped to drying beds comprised of rectangular areas surrounded by earthen berms. Bio-gas generated by the digester is cleaned to remove siloxane and hydrogen sulfide, and combusted in micro-turbines and/or a boiler to generate hot water to maintain the digester temperature at approximately 96 oF.

The drying beds are located in the northern portion of the Plant (see Figure 2). The sludge is allowed to air dry, with excess water retained within the sludge drying beds. When the moisture content of the sludge is sufficiently reduced, the sludge is transported to a regional composting facility (Engel & Gray) on Ray Road in Santa Maria for the production of soil amendments. Sludge production is currently approximately 575 tons per year, based on an influent (wastewater) rate of 2.1 million gallons per day. Sludge production is anticipated to increase to approximately 1,370 tons per year, based on an influent rate of 5.0 million gallons per day by 2030.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the project are to:

1. Reduce the risk of groundwater contamination from percolation of sludge liquids to the underlying groundwater aquifer; and

2. Improve sludge handling under current and future wastewater flows.

1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The existing un-lined central sludge drying beds would be replaced with 14 concrete-lined beds at the same location (see Figure 3). The project footprint would be approximately 4.0 acres, within the existing 24 acre Wastewater Treatment Plant. Each new sludge bed would be would be 32 feet wide and 162 feet long. A 2.5 foot-tall concrete wall would be located parallel to each sludge bed to contain the sludge. A 12 foot-wide ramp would be located on the ends of each sludge bed, and would contain the sludge inlets. A below-grade, concrete-lined channel would be provided in the center of each sludge bed to capture decanted wastewater draining from the wet sludge. A 6 inch diameter perforated polyvinyl chloride pipe would be placed in the drain channel of each sludge bed and backfilled with pea gravel.


Drained and decanted wastewater from each of the 14 sludge drying beds would be collected in a common manifold and drained by gravity to a small lift station to be constructed near the northwest corner of Pond A. The lift station would be equipped with submersible pumps to transport the wastewater to the Plant inlet (head-works) for treatment. A buried wastewater pipeline (approximately 930 feet-long) would be constructed along the east side of the existing storage basin to connect the lift station to the plant head-works.

Each sludge bed would be filled and allowed to drain for approximately two months, and then the dried sludge would be removed from the site. It is anticipated that eight sludge drying beds would be required for current wastewater flows (approximately 2.1 million gallons per day), and 14 sludge drying beds would be required when wastewater flows increase to approximately 3.7 million gallons per day (current plant capacity). The proposed design provides additional space for five additional sludge drying beds to be added in the future, to accommodate wastewater flows up to 5.0 million gallons per day.

1.4 CONSTRUCTION METHODS

The existing sludge drying beds and associated berms would be leveled using a tracked tractor (dozer). A dozer, wheeled loaders, a motor grader and backhoe would be used to conduct fine grading to produce the building pads and trenches for the proposed sludge drying beds, drainage channels, sludge pipelines, decanted wastewater pipelines and lift station. Earthwork volumes would be approximately 15,000 cubic yards of cut and 9,000 cubic yards of fill. The 6,000 cubic yard excess would be used to fill two remaining sludge beds (just southeast of the site), with the remainder hauled to the existing soil stockpile north of the Plant.

Heavy-duty trucks, wheeled loaders and rollers would be used to transport and spread the aggregate base for the sludge drying beds. Concrete trucks, forms and hand tools would be used to transport and apply the concrete for the sludge drying beds and lift station. It is anticipated that construction of the new sludge drying beds and associated facilities would require approximately 110 working days (about five months), and be conducted in summer to fall 2013. Construction work would be conducted from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Sludge produced during the construction period would be dried at the existing sludge beds located west of the project site (see Figure 3 of the MND), which would not be displaced by the project. As an alternative, temporary sludge drying equipment (e.g., belt press) may be used. The drying equipment would be located within the Plant footprint.


1.5 PUBLIC COMMENTS

In compliance with Section 15073 of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Laguna County Sanitation District accepted written comments on the adequacy of the information contained in the Draft MND during the public review period ending March 4, 2013.

Comment letters were received from the following parties:

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; and

California Department of Fish and Game.

Section 15074(b) of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, requires the decision-making body to consider comments received on the MND when approving the project. Copies of the comment letters and full responses are provided as Appendix A. Changes to the Draft MND are provided in underline and strike-out mode.

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (plant) is located at the western terminus of Dutard Road (see Figure 2), on Assessor’s Parcel Nos. (APNs) 113-240-005 and 113-240-013 (20.0 and 157.57 acres, respectively). The plant (and project site) is located within the Third Supervisorial District.

The following Table provides a summary of project site land use information.

Comprehensive Plan Designation A-II-100 (rural)

Orcutt Community Plan Serves the Orcutt community, but the site is located outside the Plan boundaries

Zoning District, Ordinance AG-II-100 (agriculture, 100 acres minimum parcel size, LUDCI

Site Size (both parcels) 177.57 acres (project footprint 4.0 acres)

Present Use & Development Wastewater treatment (sludge drying beds)

Surrounding Uses/Zoning North: LCSD Solar Facility/AG-II-100 South: LCSD recycled water ponds/AG-II-100 East: LCSD spray disposal area/AG-II-100 West: LCSD sludge drying beds/AG-II-100

Access Dutard Road, via Black Road

Public Services Water Supply: Plant provides recycled water, project does not require water Sewage: Project would not generate wastewater Fire: Santa Barbara County Fire Department (Station 21)


3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 PHYSICAL SETTING

The 4.0 acre project site is a relatively level area at an elevation of approximately 130 feet above mean sea level, located within the District’s approximately 24 acre plant. The plant includes tanks, vessels, buildings, ponds and ancillary facilities to treat municipal wastewater from the District’s service area. The District’s newly completed photo-voltaic solar energy facility is located immediately north of the site. Fallow agricultural land to the east of the site has been used intermittently for disposal of recycled water (treated wastewater).

Vegetation of the project site is limited to weedy species that colonize the margins of the existing earthen sludge drying beds. Orcutt/Solomon Creek is located immediately west of the plant, approximately 330 feet west of the project site. Orcutt/Solomon Creek is known to support the threatened California red-legged frog. The project site is located within designated Critical Habitat (Unit 1) for the endangered California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County population).

The only roadway in proximity to the project site is Dutard Road, which provides access to the plant from Black Road. An unpaved access road extends north from Dutard Road along the eastern perimeter of the plant to the solar energy facility. Soils of the project site have been mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as Corralitos loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes. However, soils of the site have been altered by historic and ongoing use as sludge drying beds.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The environmental baseline from which the project’s impacts are compared consists of the current physical conditions at the site, existing sludge drying beds.

3.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an Initial Study to identify any cumulative significant effects on the environment. The following list of other recently approved projects and projects under review is provided to allow a determination of the project's contribution to potential cumulative impacts.

Santa Maria Valley. Based on the June 27, 2012 cumulative projects list maintained by Santa Barbara County, there are 41 recently approved projects or projects under review in the unincorporated Santa Maria Valley including a total of 32 residential units, 29,102 square feet of commercial land uses, 18,964 square feet of industrial land uses and 1,421,560 square feet of agricultural development. The largest cumulative project in the immediate vicinity of the subject project site is the North County Jail, to be constructed 1.9 miles to the north-northeast.

Orcutt Old Town and Orcutt Community Plan. Based on the June 27, 2012 cumulative projects list maintained by Santa Barbara County, there are 45 recently approved projects or projects under review including a total of 1,804 residential units and 570,370 square feet of commercial land uses. The largest cumulative project in the immediate vicinity of the subject project site is the Rice Ranch Development (725 residential units), currently under construction approximately 5.0 miles to the southeast.


City of Santa Maria. Major projects under review by the City include the Downtown Specific Plan, Enos Rancho General Plan Amendment, Union Valley Parkway Interchange and the Santa Maria Integrated Waste Management Facility. Each of these projects is located at least 4 miles from the subject project site.

Laguna County Sanitation District Phase 2 Recycled Water Distribution Pipeline. This project involves installation of approximately 10,500 feet of buried 12-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride pipe between the Dutard Road/Black Road intersection and the Rancho Maria Golf Course. The Phase 2 Recycled Water Distribution Pipeline has been approved and is waiting on grant funding. Pipeline construction is unlikely to be initiated prior to 2014.

Santa Maria Energy Oil Drilling Production Plan and Phase 3 Recycled Water Pipeline. This project is currently under review by Santa Barbara County and includes development of 136 oil wells within the Careaga Lease (Orcutt Oil Field) and an eight mile-long Phase 3 recycled water pipeline extending from the District’s Phase 1 pipeline at the eastern terminus of Dutard Road to the Careaga Lease. The District’s recycled water would be used to support steam injection oil recovery operations by Santa Maria Energy. The Phase 3 recycled water pipeline would begin approximately 1.6 miles east of the subject project site. Pipeline construction is likely to be initiated in 2014.

Black Road Bridge Replacement. Replacement of the Black Road Bridge over Orcutt/Solomon Creek (bridge no. 51C-031) is included in the County’s current Capital Improvement Program and engineering design work is ongoing. Bridge 51C-031 is located approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the subject project site. Bridge replacement activities are likely to be initiated in 2014.


4.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST

The following checklist indicates the potential level of impact and is abbreviated as follows:

Potentially Significant Impact: A fair argument can be made, based on the substantial evidence in the file, that an effect may be potentially significant.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact.

Less than Significant Impact: An impact is considered adverse but does not exceed a significance threshold.

No Impact: There is adequate supporting documentation that the impact does not apply to the subject project.

Reviewed Under Previous Document: The analysis contained in a previously adopted/certified environmental document adequately addresses this issue and is summarized in the discussion below. The discussion should include reference to the previous documents, a citation of the page or pages where the information is found, and identification of mitigation measures incorporated from those previous documents.

4.1 AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES

Will the proposal result in: Potentially Significant

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Less than Significant No Impact

Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

X

b. Change to the visual character of an area? X

c. Glare or night lighting which may affect adjoining areas? X

d. Visually incompatible structures? X

Setting:

The project site is located in an area designated as “moderate” scenic value by the Open Space Element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan. The nearest scenic highway is State Highway 1, which has been designated a Category 6 scenic corridor by the Comprehensive Plan, meaning “moderately scenic, major capacity, secondary distribution route”. The project site is not visible from State Highway 1, Black Road or the Tanglewood community located approximate 0.8 miles to the east, due to intervening topography.


The County’s Visual Aesthetics Impact Guidelines classify coastal and mountainous areas, the urban fringe, and travel corridors as “especially important” visual resources. A project may have the potential to create a significantly adverse aesthetic impact if (among other potential effects) it would impact important visual resources, obstruct public views, remove significant amounts of vegetation, substantially alter the natural character of the landscape, or involve extensive grading visible from public areas. The Guidelines address public, but not private views.

Impact Discussion:

a. The project facilities would not obstruct any scenic vistas and would not be visible to the public.

b. The proposed sludge drying beds are a direct replacement and would be consistent with the rural character of the area. No change to the visual character of the area would occur.

c. The proposed sludge drying beds would not be reflective and would not be provided with night lighting. Therefore, glare impacts are not expected.

d. The proposed concrete-lined sludge drying beds would be at-grade and visually consistent with the surrounding plant.

Implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in any substantial change in the aesthetic character of the area since the site would not be visible from public viewing locations and the sludge drying beds would be compatible in appearance with the surrounding plant facilities.

Cumulative Impacts:

Other projects proposed in the immediate project area would consist of below-ground pipelines and would also not contribute to aesthetic impacts. The proposed Black Road Bridge replacement and North County Jail may involve adverse aesthetics impacts to motorists using Black Road. However, the subject project site is not visible from Black Road and would not incrementally contribute to these potential cumulative impacts. Thus, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable effect on aesthetic/visual resources.

Mitigation and Residual Impact:

No mitigation is required. Residual aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.


4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use, impair agricultural land productivity (whether prime or non-prime) or conflict with agricultural preserve programs?

X

b. An effect upon any unique or other farmland of State or Local Importance? X

Setting:

A 2010 Important Farmland map for the project area was obtained from the California Department of Conservation. The plant, including the project site has been designated “urban or built-up land”. However, fallow farmland located immediately north and east of the plant has been designated as prime farmland. The entire project site has been used for sludge drying beds since before 2002. Cultivation of crops at the project site has not occurred since about 1988.

Impact Discussion:

a. The project would not result in the conversion of farmland. No change in land use would occur, such that the project would be compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

b. No lands designated as unique farmland, Statewide importance farmland or local importance farmland occurs at the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Cumulative Impacts:

Other projects in the Santa Maria Valley would result in conversion (to residential or commercial land uses) or redevelopment of agricultural lands as wineries, nurseries and associated uses. The proposed project would not have any adverse impacts to agricultural lands; therefore, it would not incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.


No mitigation is required. Residual agricultural resources impacts would be less than significant.


4.3 AIR QUALITY



with Mitigation


No Impact

Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. The violation of any ambient air quality standard, a substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation including, CO hotspots, or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (emissions from direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)?

X

b. The creation of objectionable smoke, ash or odors? X

c. Extensive dust generation? X

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

d. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 10,000 metric tons of CO2 per year from stationary sources during long-term operations?

X

e. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,100 metric tons of CO2 per year OR 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year per service population (residents + employees) from other than stationary sources during long-term operations?

X

f. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 6.6 metric tons of CO2 per year per service population (residents + employees) for plans (general plans, community plans, etc.)

X

Setting:

The project site is located in Santa Barbara County within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) which encompasses three counties: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura. The Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB periodically fails to meet air quality standards and is a designated “non-attainment” area for the State 8-hour ozone standard and State particulate matter (PM10) standard.

Air pollution control is administered on three governmental levels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has jurisdiction under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Clean Air Act, and the Santa Barbara County Air Quality Pollution District (SBCAPCD) shares responsibility with the CARB for ensuring that all State and Federal ambient air quality standards are attained within the Santa Barbara County portion of the SCCAB.


The SBCAPCD adopted the 2007 Clean Air Plan in August 2007. This Plan addresses maintenance of the Federal 8-hour ozone standard and attainment of the State 1-hour ozone standard. Overall, air quality in Santa Barbara County is improving, as the number of County exceedances of the State 1-hour ozone standard has declined from 37 days in 1990 to three or less in recent years. The Clean Air Plan was revised in 2010 to include updated baseline emission inventories, updated future emissions estimates and new sections on greenhouse gases and transportation/land use. Recent air quality data indicates the County has attained the State 1-hour ozone standard.

Chapter 5 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (as amended in 2008) addresses the subject of air quality. Long-term thresholds identified in the Manual state that a proposed project will not have a significant impact on air quality if operation of the project will:

Emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger (55 pounds per day NOx and ROC, 80 pounds per day PM10) for offsets for any pollutant;

Emit less than 25 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or reactive organic compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only;

Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (except ozone);

Not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD Board; and

Be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans.

No quantitative thresholds have been established for short-term impacts associated with construction activities. However, the County’s Grading Ordinance requires standard dust control conditions for all projects involving grading activities. Long-term/operational emissions thresholds have been established to address mobile emissions (i.e., motor vehicle emissions) and stationary source emissions (i.e., stationary boilers, engines, paints, solvents, and chemical or industrial processing operations that release pollutants).

Impact Discussion:

a. Short-Term. The proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions as a result of construction activities; primarily exhaust emissions from heavy-duty trucks, worker vehicles and heavy equipment. Peak day emissions would occur during rough grading (leveling existing sludge drying beds) and result in about 87.8 pounds NOx and 7.7 pounds ROC, based on one dozer and two wheeled loaders operating and 10 one-way vehicle trips. Due to their small magnitude and duration, project construction emissions are considered a less than significant air quality impact.


Long-Term. The proposed project is limited to installation and operation of sludge drying beds at an existing wastewater treatment plant. The proposed sludge drying beds would be a direct replacement for existing sludge drying beds. Operational activities such as turning sludge piles with backhoes to improve drying of sludge would not increase over existing conditions. Therefore, no increase in long-term emissions is anticipated.

b. The exhaust of diesel-powered construction equipment and trucks may be considered as odorous by sensitive individuals. However, the nearest residences (Tanglewood community) are located approximately 0.8 miles to the east. In addition, these residences are located near Black Road which supports diesel truck traffic. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase diesel exhaust odors at these residences.

The existing sludge drying beds may generate odors, typically associated with reduced sulfur and nitrogen compounds such as sulfides, amines and ammonia. The potential for odors is likely to be greatest when the sludge is first discharged to the beds from the anaerobic digester and when the sludge piles are “stirred” to promote drying. The District has never received odor complaints concerning the plant, and the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in odors from sludge drying operations.

c. Short-term site preparation activities (earthwork) may generate dust that is carried off-site. However, these activities would be small in magnitude and occur in an agricultural area where dust generation is common and acceptable. In addition, no development is located nearby. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

d. The County’s methodology to address Global Climate Change in CEQA documents is evolving. The County completed the first phase (Climate Action Study) of its climate action strategy in September 2011. The Climate Action Study provides a County-wide GHG inventory and an evaluation of potential emission reduction measures. The second phase of the County’s climate action strategy is an Energy and Climate Action Plan, which is currently in preparation. The Plan will provide programmatic CEQA mitigation for impacts from GHG emissions from projects in Santa Barbara County. Until these measures become available and significance thresholds applicable to GHG emissions are developed and formally adopted, the County will follow an interim approach to evaluating GHG emissions. This interim approach will look to criteria adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which are reflected in the air quality checklist above.

The project involves direct replacement of existing sludge drying beds, and would not result in any long-term changes in plant operations or increase vehicle emissions. The project would not result in any greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources during long-term operation or from non-stationary sources during long-term operation, and would not contribute to climate change (excluding short-term construction activities).

e. See d. above.


f. The project does not involve any new land use plans or amendments to the General Plan.

Cumulative Impacts:

The County’s Environmental Thresholds were developed, in part, to define the point at which a project’s contribution to a regionally significant impact constitutes a significant effect at the project level. The project has been found not to exceed the significance criteria for air quality. According to the Thresholds Manual, with regards to cumulative air quality impacts, for projects that do not have significant ozone precursor emissions or localized pollutant impacts, emissions have been taken into account in the Clean Air Plan growth projections and therefore, cumulative impacts may be considered to be insignificant. Therefore, the project’s contribution to regionally significant air pollutant emissions, including GHGs, is not cumulatively considerable, and its cumulative effect is less than significant.


No mitigation is required. Residual air quality impacts would be less than significant.


4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

Flora

a. A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare or threatened plant community? X

b. A reduction in the numbers or restriction in the range of any unique, rare or threatened species of plants?

X

c. A reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of native vegetation (including brush removal for fire prevention and flood control improvements)?

X

d. An impact on non-native vegetation whether naturalized or horticultural if of habitat value?

X

e. The loss of healthy native specimen trees? X

f. Introduction of herbicides, pesticides, animal life, human habitation, non-native plants or other factors that would change or hamper the existing habitat?

X

Fauna

g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of animals?

X

h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?

X

i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?

X

j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species?

X

k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife?

X


Setting:

Vegetation. Vegetation at the project site is limited to weedy species that survive periodic ground disturbance associated with sludge handling at the plant. Primarily, non-native annual grasses colonizing the berms between the existing sludge drying beds.

Special-Status Plant Species. Special-status plant species are defined as either listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal or California Endangered Species Acts, or rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, or considered to be rare or of scientific interest (but not formally listed) by Santa Barbara County, resource agencies, professional organizations (e.g., Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society [CNPS], The Wildlife Society), and the scientific community.

The literature search conducted for this impact analysis indicates that 12 special-status plant species have been reported within two miles of the project site. Table 1 lists these species, their current status, and the nearest known location relative to the project site. No special-status plant species or suitable habitat for such species were observed within or adjacent to the project site (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013).

Table 1. Special-Status Plant Species of the Project Area

Species Status Nearest Location Potential to Occur

at Project Site

Blochman’s groundsel (Senecio blochmaniae)

List 4.2, E

Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)

Very low, no suitable habitat

Curly-leaved monardella (Monardella undulata)

List 4.2 Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


Eastwood’s spineflower (Chorizanthe angustifolia var. eastwoodiae)

E Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


Large-flowered linanthus (Leptosiphon [Linanthus] grandiflorus)

List 4.2 About one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995) Very low, no suitable habitat

Purisima manzanita (Arctostaphylos purissima)

List 1B Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


San Luis Obispo wallflower (Erysimum capitatum ssp. lompocense)

List 4.2 Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


Sand mesa manzanita (Arctostaphylos rudis)

List 1B, E

Sandhill chaparral: one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


Wooly marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus)

LC-W Vernal pools: about one mile to the east (Rindlaub et al., 1995)



Table 1. Continued

Species Status Nearest Location Potential to Occur

at Project Site

Water starwort (Callitriche marginata)



Waterwort (Elatine brachysperma)



Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae)

List 1B Two miles to the south-southeast (LFR Levine-Fricke, 2005)


Kellogg’s horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea)

List 1B Two miles to the south-southeast (LFR Levine-Fricke, 2005)


Status Codes: E Endemic to the Santa Barbara County region (Wiskowski, 1988) List 1B Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere (California Native Plant Society) List 4 Plants of limited distribution, a watch list (California Native Plant Society) LC-W Local concern-wetlands (Wiskowski, 1988)

Wildlife. The project area is currently or has historically been under cultivation or used for wastewater treatment. Wildlife at the project site is limited to transients that forage on weedy vegetation that grows on berms surrounding the existing sludge drying beds. These species may include lizards, snakes, birds and small mammals. Orcutt/Solomon Creek is located approximately 330 feet west of the project site and provides aquatic habitat for amphibians, including Pacific chorus frog (Pseudoacris regilla). California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is known to occur in the District’s treated wastewater reservoir located north of the project site. Seasonal pools occur north of the site and along Black Road south of Dutard Road, and support California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and possibly western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii).

Special-Status Wildlife Species. The potential for special-status wildlife species to occur in the vicinity of the project site was determined by review of sight records from other environmental documents and range maps including Storrer Environmental Services (2013), Rincon Consultants (2008), Hunt & Associates (2000), Padre Associates (2000), Zeiner et al. (1988, 1990a, 1990b), and Lehman (1994). The literature search included biological studies completed for the North County Jail EIR, Orcutt Community Plan EIR, Rancho Maria Estates Specific Plan EIR and Santa Maria Airport Business Park Specific Plan EIR. Table 2 lists special-status wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the project site for at least a portion of their life cycle.


Table 2. Special-Status Wildlife Species of the Project Region

Species Status Nearest Reported Location Potential to Occur at Project

Site

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

FT Santa Maria Airport property, 3 miles to the east (Rincon, 2007b)

None-low: no vernal pools or other surface water present

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)

SA Rancho Maria Golf Course, 1.8 miles to the southeast (Meade, 1999)

None: no trees or nectar sources on-site

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii)

FT, CSC

Seasonal pond (GUAD-3), 1,500 feet to the north-northwest (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013)

Low: species may forage in adjacent Orcutt/Solomon Creek, but no suitable habitat on-site

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

FE, ST Seasonal pond (GUAD-3), 1,500 feet to the north-northwest (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013)

Low: species may cross the Plant site during migration, and could occupy small mammal burrows near project site

Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii)

CSC 0.5 miles to the southeast (Hunt & Associates, 2000)

Low: species may cross site during migration, no suitable breeding habitat on-site

Southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida)

CSC Orcutt/Solomon Creek, 0.9 miles to the southeast (Hunt & Associates, 2000)

None: no aquatic habitat on-site

Silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra)

CSC Sandy hills, 0.9 miles to the northwest (Hunt & Associates, 2000)

None-Low: no suitable habitat on-site

Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum ssp. frontale)

CSC Dune scrub, 2.0 miles to the northwest (Hunt & Associates, 2000)


Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

CSC Betteravia Road, 2.5 miles to the northeast (CNDDB, 2012)


Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

WL Rancho Maria Golf Course, 1.8 miles to the southeast (LFR Levine-Fricke, 2005)


White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)

FP Rancho Maria Golf Course, 1.9 miles to the southeast (LFR Levine-Fricke, 2005)


California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)

WL Key Site 22, 0.9 miles to the southeast (Rindlaub et al., 1995)


Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

CSC Key Site 22, 0.9 miles to the southeast (Rindlaub et al., 1995)



Table 2. Continued

Species Status Nearest Reported Location Potential to Occur at Project

Site

American badger (Taxidea taxus)

CSC Black Road, 0.7 miles to the east (CNDDB, 2012)


Status Codes: CSC California Species of Special Concern (CDFW) FP Fully protected (Fish and Game Code) FE Federal Endangered (USFWS) FT Federal Threatened (USFWS) SA Special animal (CDFW) ST State Threatened (CDFW) WL Watch list (CDFW)

Impact Discussion:

a. A sensitive plant community (arroyo willow riparian forest) occurs within the adjacent Orcutt/Solomon Creek, but is located outside the plant boundary and would not be adversely affected by the construction and operation of upgraded sludge drying beds at the project site.

b. Based on the highly disturbed nature of the project site and lack of suitable habitat, special-status plant species are not anticipated to be present, and would not be adversely affected by the construction and operation of upgraded sludge drying beds at the project site.

c. Native vegetation does not occur at the project site, and would not be adversely affected.

d. Non-native vegetation affected by the proposed project would be limited to non-native weedy herbaceous species, which has minimal habitat value.

e. No trees would be removed as part of the proposed project.

f. No chemicals, animals, human habitation or invasive plants would be associated with project implementation.

g. California Tiger Salamander (CTS). The project site is located within 1.5 miles of 12 known or potential breeding ponds for this species. The closest known breeding pond is known as the reservoir pool (labeled GUAD-3 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service [USFWS]), located approximately 1,500 feet north-northwest of the project site. This species is well documented in the project area, and spends much of its time in upland retreats (typically small mammal burrows) mostly located within 2,200 feet of breeding ponds. Ground squirrel burrows have been observed within the earthen berms separating the existing sludge beds. These berms are partially scraped each time the sludge beds are emptied by heavy equipment, and graded and reformed every few years. However, ground squirrels continue to excavate burrows in the berms.


Numerous field surveys and burrow inspections conducted over the past 12 years for other District projects in the area (soil stockpile, water storage tank, Orcutt Trunk Sewer, Phase 1 Recycled Water Pipeline) have not detected CTS in upland retreats (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013).

Although the small mammal burrows at the in the project site area represent potential upland retreats for CTS, movement corridors between upland and aquatic habitats are not direct. There are obstacles and barriers to movement between the proposed project site and known and potential CTS breeding ponds in the area. These include surfaced (public) and un-surfaced (private) roadways, infrastructure associated with the plant, intensively-cultivated agricultural fields, and Orcutt/Solomon Creek. The creek channel presents the most substantial barrier to CTS movement for animals originating in the closest known or potential breeding pond, GUAD-3.

The project site has virtually no value as upland habitat for CTS, since existing sludge handling operations prevent establishment and/or eliminate small mammal burrows which could provide upland retreats. In addition, the results of previous surveys of the project vicinity suggest that potential for occurrence of CTS at the project site is very low. However, due to the large number of known and potential breeding ponds in proximity to the project site, the potential exists for CTS to be present during construction of the proposed upgraded sludge drying beds. If present, construction activities could cause disturbance or mortality to individual CTS. Therefore, prior to commencing construction, the District plans to demonstrate absence of CTS in the immediate project area by completing an upland habitat survey as defined in “Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander”. If absence is not determined, the District would proceed with consultation and acquisition of permits under Federal and State Endangered Species Acts.

California Red-legged Frog (CRLF). This species is known from five locations in proximity to the project site, including GUAD-3, Orcutt/Solomon Creek near Black Road and the treated wastewater reservoir north of the site (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013). CRLF are known to inhabit Orcutt/Solomon Creek and nearby natural and artificial ponds. A field survey of the project site conducted on December 30, 2012 did not detect this species (Storrer Environmental Services, 2013). CRLF restrict their activities to aquatic habitats, except during periods of overland dispersal. The proposed project site does not support breeding habitat for CRLF. Upland habitat value is limited by regular disturbance that occurs through periodic mowing and disking. Their occurrence near the project site would be limited to the stream corridor, except during episodic periods of overland dispersal, and could be adversely affected during project construction activities.

Western Spadefoot Toad. This species breeds in seasonal ponds, but spends much of the dry season underground. Although breeding habitat (seasonal ponds) does not occur at the project site, this species could be present during the dry season.


h. Due to poor habitat quality (weedy herbaceous species) and periodic disturbance (sludge handling), the project-related loss of habitat is not expected to result in a reduction in diversity or substantial reduction in numbers of wildlife.

i. Project-related habitat loss would be minimal due to poor habitat quality, and existing fish and wildlife habitat in Orcutt/Solomon Creek is located outside the work area and would not be affected. Therefore, the deterioration of fish and wildlife habitat is considered a less than significant impact.

j. Orcutt/Solomon Creek may be used as a corridor by wildlife moving through the area as it provides nearly continuous habitat and cover. The proposed project would not result in any barriers to wildlife movement in Orcutt/Solomon Creek, or other potential corridors.

k. The project would not include any additional fencing or lighting around the facility. No change in land use is proposed, the project would not hinder normal wildlife activity.

Cumulative Impacts:

As noted in the Section 3.3, several other projects are proposed in the immediate project area that may adversely affect CRLF and/or CTS, including the North County Jail, Phase 2 and 3 recycled water distribution pipelines, and the Black Road Bridge replacement project. Although the incremental contribution would be minimal, the project may contribute to significant cumulative impacts to these species.


The following mitigation measures would be implemented are recommended to minimize or avoid potential for impacts to CTS, CRLF and spadefoot toad:

BIO-1. Construction activities shall not occur during the rainy season (October through April), which corresponds to the period of seasonal overland migration and dispersal of CTS, CRLF and spadefoot toad.

BIO-2. All areas subject to temporary and permanent disturbance shall be clearly marked with stakes and flagging prior to construction.

BIO-3. Within two weeks of the start of construction, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey with emphasis on identification of small mammal burrows that could be occupied by CTS.

BIO-4. For those burrows with interiors not visible to the human eye, a USFWS-approved biologist shall examine the interior with a fiber optic, video, or infra-red scope. If CTS are found, the animals shall not be moved and USFWS and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) shall should be contacted. Work shall not continue until the issue of CTS occurrence is resolved and approval is given by USFWS and CDFW.


BIO-5. Following examination of burrows and verification of non-occupancy by CTS (see BIO-4), each burrow shall be carefully hand-excavated by a USFWS-approved biologist, then backfilled. If CTS are found during excavation, USFWS and CDFW should be contacted immediately and no work should proceed until approval is given by USFWS and CDFW.

BIO-6. A USFWS-approved biologist shall monitor the initial clearing and grading of the project sites to search for CTS and CRLF. If CTS or CRLF are found, work should be stopped and USFWS and CDFW contacted. Work should not begin again until approval is given by USFWS and CDFW.

Plan Requirements/Timing: These measures shall be specified in the project bid documents and construction plans.

MONITORING: The District shall ensure these measures are fully implemented and documented.

Residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

Archaeological Resources

a. Disruption, alteration, destruction, or adverse effect on a recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological site (note site number below)?

X

b. Disruption or removal of human remains? X

c. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or sabotaging archaeological resources?

X

d. Ground disturbances in an area with potential cultural resource sensitivity based on the location of known historic or prehistoric sites?

X

Ethnic Resources

e. Disruption of or adverse effects upon a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic group?

X

f. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or sabotaging ethnic, sacred, or ceremonial places?

X




with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

g. The potential to conflict with or restrict existing religious, sacred, or educational uses of the area?

X

Setting:

Regional Prehistoric Overview. Southern California’s prehistory begins with Paleo-Indian period, currently thought to span roughly 12,000 to 8,000 Before Present (B.P.) (Moratto, 1984). The few known Paleo-Indian sites are comprised almost entirely of flaked stone tools including scrapers, choppers and large projectile points. The Early Period (8000 to 3350 B.P.) is represented by a marked increase in the number of sites, and a new technology in the form of handstones and millingstones, which indicates a shift to a primarily seed processing subsistence economy. The Middle Period (3350 to 800 B.P.) is marked by a shift in the economic/subsistence focus from plant gathering and the use of hard seeds, to a more generalized hunting- gathering adaptation, with an increased focus on acorns. The Late Period (800 B.P. to contact) was a period of localization, specialization and adaptation. Late Period sites have produced a large variety of material goods including small finely chipped projectile points, bone tools, stone, shell and bone ornaments, steatite bowls and objects, and shell beads that may have acted as currency (King, 1990).

Regional Ethnographic Overview. The project area lies within the historic territory of the Native American Indian group known as the Chumash. The Chumash occupied the region from San Luis Obispo County to Malibu Canyon on the coast, and inland as far as the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, and the four northern Channel Islands (Grant, 1978). The Chumash are subdivided into factions based on distinct dialects. The Purisimeño occupied the Santa Maria Valley.

Chumash society developed over the course of some 9,000 years and achieved a level of social, political and economic complexity not ordinarily associated with hunting and gathering groups (Greenwood, 1972). The prehistoric Chumash are believed to have maintained one of the most elaborate bead money systems in the world, as well as one of the most complex non-agricultural societies (King, 1990).

The Chumash aboriginal way of life ended with Spanish colonization. As neophytes brought into the mission system, they were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers and exposed to diseases to which they had no resistance. By the end of the Mission Period in 1834, the Chumash population had been decimated by disease and declining birthrates. Population loss as a result of disease and economic deprivation continued into the next century.

Today many people claim their Chumash heritage in Santa Barbara County. In general, they place high value on objects and places associated with their past history, especially burials, grave goods, and archaeological sites.


Record Search. A cultural resources record search was conducted for the proposed project at the Central Coast Information Center by Conejo Archaeological Consultants (2013). Eleven archaeological surveys have been recorded within a 0.5 mile radius of the project site. Two archaeological sites (CA-SBA-2711 and -2714) were identified within 0.5 miles of the project site.

Native American Consultation. A total of 23 Native American contacts (provided by the Native American Heritage Commission) were mailed a project description letter by Conejo Archaeological Consultants on December 28, 2012. Two responses were received: 1) Patrick Tumamait indicated he was not aware of any specific cultural resources in the project area; 2) Freddy Romero requested that the Santa Ynez Elders be notified if Native American cultural resources are exposed during project construction.

Impact Discussion:

a. No archaeological sites have been reported in close proximity to the project site. In any case, project-related ground disturbance would be limited to areas periodically disturbed as a result of existing sludge handling operations since before 2002. Prior to its current use as sludge drying beds, the project site was cultivated and tilled periodically for over 100 years. Therefore, disruption or alteration of archaeological resources is not anticipated.

b. Project-related ground disturbance would be limited to areas periodically disturbed as a result of existing sludge handling operations. Therefore, disruption or removal of human remains is not anticipated.

c. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population or increased access to archaeological sites. Therefore, an increased potential for trespassing, vandalism or sabotage is not anticipated.

d. No disruption or other adverse effects to known or potential archaeological sites are anticipated. However, mitigation is provided to address the unlikely discovery of pre-historic artifacts during project construction.

e. No ethnic, sacred or ceremonial places occur in the vicinity of the project; therefore, no adverse effects are expected.

f. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population or increased access to ethnic, sacred or ceremonial places. Therefore, an increased potential for trespassing, vandalism or sabotage is not expected.

g. The District is unaware of any existing religious, sacred or educational uses of the project site and vicinity. Installation and operation of upgraded sludge drying beds would not preclude such uses of adjacent lands.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not impact cultural resources, it would not contribute to cumulative cultural resource impacts.



The following measure is recommended in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during project construction:

ARC-1: Standard Discovery.

In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find pursuant to Phase 2 investigations of the County Archaeological Guidelines. If the find is determined to significant, the site shall be subject to a Phase 3 mitigation program consistent with the County Archaeological Guidelines. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material.

If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission.

Plan Requirements/Timing: This condition shall be specified in the project bid documents and construction plans.

MONITORING: The District shall ensure this Condition is included in the bid documents and construction plans.


4.6 ENERGY



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Substantial increase in demand, especially during peak periods, upon existing sources of energy?

X

b. Requirement for the development or extension of new sources of energy? X

Setting:

The District’s facilities are within the service area of, and currently served by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. The plant’s electrical demand is estimated between 3.0 and 3.5 million kWh annually. The recently completed photo-voltaic solar energy facility located immediately north of the plant provides about 60 percent of the plant’s annual electricity demand.


Impact Discussion:

a. The project would include a small lift station with submersible pumps to transport wastewater water from the proposed sludge drying beds to the plant head-works. This lift station would consume electricity and would increase the plant’s electrical demand by a very small amount. However, much of the power needs of the plant are met by a renewable source (solar), and the project-related electrical demand increase would be very small. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for energy.

b. The project would not require or induce new energy development or extension of existing sources of energy.

Cumulative Impacts:

Most of the other projects listed in Section 3.3 would require energy, including electricity and/or natural gas. The electrical demand associated with the proposed project would be minimal and supplied (at least in part) from a renewable source (solar). Therefore, the incremental electrical demand of the project would not be considered a substantial contribution to cumulative energy impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.7 FIRE PROTECTION



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Introduction of development into an existing high fire hazard area? X

b. Project-caused high fire hazard? X

c. Introduction of development into an area without adequate water pressure, fire hydrants or adequate access for fire fighting?

X

d. Introduction of development that will hamper fire prevention techniques such as controlled burns or backfiring in high fire hazard areas?

X

e. Development of structures beyond safe Fire Dept. response time? X


Setting:

Fire protection service to the plant is provided by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. The closest fire station is Station 21 located at 335 Union Avenue in Orcutt (3.7 miles southeast of the project site). The project site is located in a designated high fire hazard area. However, the project site is used to dry sludge such that the moisture content of the soil is high, and fire hazard is expected to be low.

Impact Discussion:

a. The proposed project does not include any development or habitable structures, and would not directly or indirectly lead to new development.

b. The proposed project does not involve any flammable materials or ignition sources, and would be located in a low fire hazard area. Adequate access is available for fire response, adequate fire water supplies are on-site, and fire protection services are located nearby. No increase in fire hazard is anticipated.

c. The proposed project does not include any development or habitable structures.

d. The proposed project does not include any development or habitable structures, and would not hamper fire prevention activities.

e. The proposed project does not involve any structures requiring fire protection.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not require fire protection and would not adversely affect fire protection of other land uses, it would not contribute to cumulative fire safety impacts within the County.


No mitigation is required. Residual impacts would be less than significant.

4.9 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, soil creep, mudslides, ground failure (including expansive, compressible, collapsible soils), or similar hazards?

X

b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil by cuts, fills, or extensive grading?

X

c. Permanent changes in topography? X

d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features?

X




with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X

f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or dunes, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or the bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake?

X

g. The placement of septic disposal systems in impermeable soils with severe constraints to disposal of liquid effluent?

X

h. Extraction of mineral or ore? X

i. Excessive grading on slopes of over 20%? X

j. Sand or gravel removal or loss of topsoil? X

k. Vibrations, from short-term construction or long-term operation, which may affect adjoining areas?

X

l. Excessive spoils, tailings or over-burden? X

Setting:

The project site is located in the Santa Maria basin, a transitional area between the Coast Ranges geomorphic province to the north and the Transverse Ranges to the south. The onshore Santa Maria basin is a northwest oriented structural basin that could have been formed by a large tectonic depression originating during the Miocene as a result of extension related to the San Andreas Fault System. The project site is likely at the easterly end of a lacustrine plain formed within the former bed of the Guadalupe Lake. The Lake formed over the axis of the Santa Maria syncline and was subsequently drained as part of agricultural operations.

The surface geology of the surrounding area consists of sediments of alluvium, stabilized dune sand deposits, and the Orcutt Formation. The near surface soil encountered within alluvium likely contains units of sediment and organic material that were deposited within the former limits of Guadalupe Lake. Based on project-specific site explorations, data review, and the mapped surficial geology, it appears that the site is underlain by a relatively thin layer of artificial fill that overlies alluvium. The Orcutt Formation likely underlies the alluvium, and has been encountered in other explorations near the project site at depths of approximately 40 feet below the ground surface and is exposed along the hillsides north of the plant (Fugro, 2012).


Impact Discussion:

a. Based on the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in an area assigned low problem ratings for liquefaction, slope stability, tsunami, expansive soils, soil creep, and compressible-collapsible soils and a moderate problem rating (lowest rating) for seismic-tectonic. The project site is nearly level, such that landslides and slope stability is not an issue. The immediate project area has been assigned a low-moderate overall geologic problems index. Based on soil borings at the project site, relatively loose to medium dense sandy soils are considered potentially liquefiable and subject to settlement under the design earthquake (Fugro, 2012). However, the sludge bed foundation design and concrete reinforcement specifications would comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report to minimize liquefaction and settlement. Overall, the proposed project would not include any habitable structures; therefore, no persons would be exposed to geologic hazards.

b. Earthwork associated with the proposed project would be limited to leveling the existing sludge drying beds and shallow trenching, no extensive grading, cuts or fills would occur.

c. The ground surface would be generally restored following earthwork, with no substantial permanent change in topography.

d. Based on the Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, no Areas of Special Geologic Interest occur in the project area. A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology data base indicates vertebrate fossils (mako shark, tiger shark, great white shark, baleen whales) have been found in the Careaga Formation in the Orcutt area. Project-related earthwork would not affect the Careaga Formation. Overall, no impacts to unique geologic, paleontologic, or physical features would occur.

e. The project does not involve hillside grading or other components that would increase soil erosion.

f. The project would not modify the channel of Orcutt/Solomon Creek, or involve any changes in erosion and siltation. Storm run-off from the sludge drying beds would be captured in the drain channels and pumped to the plant head-works for treatment.

g. The proposed project would not involve any new demand for sewage treatment or result in the placement of septic systems.

h. The proposed project does not involve the extraction or processing of minerals or ore.

i. No grading of slopes is proposed.

j. No removal of topsoil is proposed.


k. A small amount of vibration would be generated by heavy equipment during site preparation activities, but is not anticipated to be detected at the nearest residences. Due to the small scale and short duration of vibration-generating activities, and the lack of persons affected, no vibration impacts are anticipated.

l. Site preparation grading would be generally balanced, but some importation of load bearing soils may be required. No spoils piles would be generated and any material excavated would be used on-site, deposited in the District’s existing soil stockpile or provided to local farmers as an agricultural soil amendment.

Cumulative Impacts:

As noted in the Section 3.3, several other construction projects are proposed in the immediate project area, including the North County Jail, Phase 2 and 3 recycled water distribution pipelines, and the Black Road Bridge replacement project. It is unlikely that project-related construction activities would coincide with construction of these other projects. In addition, as noted above only minor grading (limited in scope and duration) would occur in association with the proposed project. Therefore, the incremental contribution would be very small and isolated in space and time from other projects, and would not substantially contribute to cumulative geologic impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual geologic impacts would be less than significant.

4.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. In the known history of this property, have there been any past uses, storage or discharge of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel or oil stored in underground tanks, pesticides, solvents or other chemicals)?

X

b. The use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic materials? X

c. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (e.g., oil, gas, biocides, bacteria, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?

X

d. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?

X

e. The creation of a potential public health hazard? X




with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

f. Public safety hazards (e.g., due to development near chemical or industrial activity, producing oil wells, toxic disposal sites, etc.)?

X

g. Exposure to hazards from oil or gas pipelines or oil well facilities? X

h. The contamination of a public water supply? X

Setting:

The project area is rural/agricultural with only a few scattered residences. The only public commercial land use in the area is the Rancho Maria Golf Course. No industrial land uses are located in immediate area. The project site is located in the northern portion of the existing plant, and was in agricultural production prior to 1988, including but not limited to sugar beets, broccoli and strawberries. Due to the long history of agriculture in the project area, some accumulation of historic pesticides may have occurred. Based on review of the GeoTracker (State Water Resources Control Board) and ENVIROSTOR (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) data bases, no hazardous materials sites are located in proximity to the project site.

The project site has been used for sludge drying for over 10 years, and soils comprising the unlined sludge drying beds are likely to have accumulated trace metals contained in wastewater treated at the plant, such as cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, zinc and lead.

Impact Discussion:

a. Project construction may affect agricultural soils with potential historic pesticide (primarily DDT and breakdown products) contamination. However, soil disturbance would be limited to areas that are periodically disturbed by existing sludge handling operations. Irrigation, tilling, disking and soil erosion over the past 40 years since DDT was banned is expected to have virtually removed this pesticide (if originally present) from the site. Due to the low potential for exposure of hazardous pesticides, this impact is considered less than significant.

Excavation and associated earthwork associated with construction of the proposed sludge drying beds may involve removal of soils with trace metal contamination. Off-site export of these soils may result in exposure of the public to hazardous contaminant levels, and is considered a potentially significant impact.

b. Excluding fuels used by construction equipment and vehicles, the project does not involve the use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic materials. Equipment and vehicles associated with the project would be fueled (if needed) from a maintenance vehicle located away from drainages and residences. No storage of fuel is proposed at or near the project site.


c. No risk of explosion is expected as a result of project-related activities.

d. The proposed project would not interfere with roadway traffic, or any emergency response plan.

e. The proposed project would not involve the use of any materials or cause any condition that may result in a public health hazard.

f. The proposed project does not include any new development near hazardous materials sites.

g. The project area does not include any oil or gas pipelines or well facilities.

h. The proposed project does not include any activities that would affect public water supplies.


The following mitigation measure is recommended to identify contaminated soils and dispose of them properly:

HM-1: Trace Metals. Soils comprising the existing sludge drying beds shall be buried on-site. If on-site burial is not feasible, representative soil samples shall be tested for compliance with Federal standards (40 CFR 503.13, Table 1) for land application of bio-solids and State standards for bio-solids compost (CCR Title 14, Section 17686.2). Soils found in compliance with Federal and State standards shall be used as an agricultural soil amendment OR treated as sludge and transported off-site for composting. Soils exceeding Federal and/or State standards shall be mixed with clean soil to reduce metals concentrations below Federal and State standards, or transported off-site as hazardous waste for proper disposal.

If soils testing identifies hydrocarbon contamination, the APCD shall be contacted to identify permit requirements.

Plan Requirements/Timing: This condition shall be specified in the project bid documents and construction plans.

MONITORING: The District shall ensure this Condition is included in the bid documents and construction plans.



4.11 HISTORIC RESOURCES



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts on a structure or property at least 50 years old and/or of historic or cultural significance to the community, state or nation?

X

b. Beneficial impacts to an historic resource by providing rehabilitation, protection in a conservation/open easement, etc.?

X

Setting:

The written historic period for the Santa Maria Valley can be divided into three main periods: the Spanish Legacy (1769-1821), the Mexican Period (1821-1848), and the American Period (1848-present). Land grants first appeared in the project region after the end of the Mexican War in 1821. The project site is located within the historic boundaries of the Rancho Punta de La Laguna, which encompassed 26,646 acres and was granted to Luis Arellanes and Emilio Miguel Ortega in 1844 (Cowan, 1977).

Starting in 1848, the Californio (Mexican resident) economy and prevalence in the area gradually declined due to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Lands Act of 1851, which required verification of all Spanish-Mexican claims by the U.S. government. During the early American Period, cattle ranching and agricultural production continued to be the primary economic focus in the project region.

At the turn of the century, oil exploration and production became another important economic component in the Santa Maria Valley and resulted in growth of Santa Maria and the founding of Orcutt. Agriculture and oil remained the basis for the region’s economy throughout the first half of the Twentieth Century.

In the late fifties with the building of Camp Cooke (Vandenberg Air Force Base), many people moved to the area bringing a new boom to the economy. Many subdivision projects were undertaken in Santa Maria and Orcutt in the 1950s and 1960s to meet housing needs for the base population. Based on the 2010 census, the estimated population of the area is 145,373, which includes the City of Santa Maria, the City of Guadalupe, and the communities of Orcutt, Vandenberg Village and Vandenberg Air Force Base. Vandenberg Air Force Base, agriculture and oil production continue to be the three primary components of the Santa Maria Valley’s economy.

Two historic sites (CA-SBA-2730H and -2743H) were identified within a one-half mile radius of the project site. No historic resources have been recorded at the project site.

Impact Discussion:

a. No structure or property greater than 50 years old or of historic significance would be affected by the proposed project.


b. No rehabilitation or protection of historic resources is proposed.

Cumulative Impacts:

Since the project would not result in any substantial change in the historic character of the site, it would not contribute to any cumulative effect on the region’s historic resources.


No mitigation is required. Residual historic resources impacts would be less than significant.

4.12 LAND USE



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Structures and/or land use incompatible with existing land use? X

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c. The induction of substantial growth or concentration of population? X

d. The extension of sewer trunk lines or access roads with capacity to serve new development beyond this proposed project?

X

e. Loss of existing affordable dwellings through demolition, conversion or removal?

X

f. Displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

g. Displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

h. The loss of a substantial amount of open space? X




with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

i. An economic or social effect that would result in a physical change? (i.e. Closure of a freeway ramp results in isolation of an area, businesses located in the vicinity close, neighborhood degenerates, and buildings deteriorate. Or, if construction of new freeway divides an existing community, the construction would be the physical change, but the economic/social effect on the community would be the basis for determining that the physical change would be significant.)

X

j. Conflicts with adopted airport safety zones? X

Setting:

The four acre project site consists of existing sludge drying beds within the existing plant on assessor’s parcel nos. 113-240-005 (20.0 acres) and 113-240-013 (157.57 acres). The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is A-II-100, and zoning is AG-II-100 (agriculture, 100 acre minimum parcel size). Surrounding land uses (excluding the Wastewater Treatment Plant site) are also zoned for agriculture. The nearest development (Tanglewood community) is located on the east side of Black Road, approximately 0.8 miles to the east.

Impact Discussion:

a. No change in land use would occur, the proposed concrete-lined sludge drying beds would be constructed at the location of existing sludge drying beds. The proposed project does not involve any habitable structures, and is entirely compatible with surrounding land uses.

b. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable plans and policies.

c. The project would not remove an impediment to growth or extend infrastructure into undeveloped areas, or otherwise induce population growth.

d. The proposed project does not involve any change to the District’s sewage collection system and would not change the service area boundaries.

e. The proposed project would not displace any dwellings or persons.

f. See e.

g. See e.

h. No loss of open space would occur as a result of the proposed project.

i. No physical change in the local community would occur as a result of the proposed project.


j. The project site is located approximately two miles west of the Santa Maria Airport. The project would not be located within or conflict with any airport safety zones.

Cumulative Impacts:

Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any land use conflicts, displace individuals, divide an existing community, or induce growth. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative land use impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual land use impacts would be less than significant.

4.13 NOISE



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Long-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding County thresholds (e.g. locating noise sensitive uses next to an airport)?

X

b. Short-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding County thresholds? X

c. Project-generated substantial increase in the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas (either day or night)?

X

Setting:

Noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site are limited to residences of the Tanglewood community located approximately 0.8 miles to the east.

Impact Discussion:

a. The proposed project involves the replacement of existing sludge drying beds, no substantial change in sludge handling operations (and related noise) would occur. However, the proposed small lift station would be a new source of noise at the plant. The net increase in overall plant noise associated with adding the lift station would not be detectable due to the large number of other noise sources (pumps, motors, blowers and water sprays). In any case, the nearest residences are located too far away (0.8 miles) to detect any project-related increase in ambient noise levels. Overall, long-term noise impacts associated with project implementation are considered less than significant.

b. Use of heavy equipment for site preparation would generate noise. However, construction activities within 1,600 feet of residences are considered to generally result in a potentially significant impact (County of Santa Barbara, 2008). The nearest residences are located too far away (0.8 miles) to be significantly affected by any construction-related increase in ambient noise levels.


c. See a. and b. above.

Cumulative Impacts:

Project-related construction activities are not expected to overlap with other local projects (North County Jail, Phase 2 or 3 pipelines, Black Road Bridge replacement); therefore, the project would not incrementally contribute to cumulative construction noise impacts. The net noise increase associated with operation of the new sludge drying beds is not anticipated to be detectable, and would not contribute to cumulative long-term noise impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual noise impacts would be less than significant.

4.14 PUBLIC FACILITIES



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. A need for new or altered police protection and/or health care services? X

b. Student generation exceeding school capacity? X

c. Significant amounts of solid waste or breach any national, state, or local standards or thresholds relating to solid waste disposal and generation (including recycling facilities and existing landfill capacity)?

X

d. A need for new or altered sewer system facilities (sewer lines, lift-stations, etc.)? X

e. The construction of new storm drainage or water quality control facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

Impact Discussion:

a. The proposed project does not include any facilities that would require police protection or health care services.

b. The project does not include any residential land uses, and would not generate demand for school capacity.


c. Construction of the proposed project may generate excess earth material. However, if suitable, this material would be placed in the District’s existing soil stockpile north of the plant or provided to local farmers for use as a soil amendment. Soils found to be contaminated by long-term contact with sludge may be considered hazardous and transported to a Class I landfill for disposal (see Section 4.9). However, the amount of materials deposited in landfills would be less than the County’s 350 ton significance threshold.

d. The proposed project does not include any residential development, and would not generate demand for sewage collection or related facilities. However, the project includes the installation and operation of a lift station within the plant to handle additional wastewater generated by more efficient sludge drying beds. The proposed project would not involve any new development or otherwise generate a need for new sewage facilities.

e. The proposed project would not require the construction of any storm drain or water quality control facilities. Storm run-off from the proposed concrete-lined sludge drying beds would remain on-site, no new drainage facilities would be required.

Cumulative Impacts:

Most of the other projects listed in Section 3.3 would require public services, including police protection, health care, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment and storm drain systems. The solid waste disposal impact of the proposed project would be minimal and temporary (construction period only). Therefore, the incremental solid waste disposal demand of the project would not be considered a substantial contribution to cumulative public services impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual public facility impacts would be less than significant.

4.15 RECREATION



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Conflict with established recreational uses of the area? X

b. Conflict with biking, equestrian and hiking trails? X

c. Substantial impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities (e.g., overuse of an area with constraints on numbers of people, vehicles, animals, etc. which might safely use the area)?

X


Setting:

Recreational facilities in the immediate area are limited to the Rancho Maria Golf Course, located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the project site. Highway 1 in the project area is considered a Class 3 bikeway in the Orcutt Community Plan.

Impact Discussion:

a. Project-related activities would be limited to replacement of existing wastewater treatment facilities and would not conflict with any established recreational uses.

b. The project is not located in the vicinity of any trails; roadside bike lanes are addressed under Transportation (section 4.15).

c. The project does not include residential land uses; therefore, it would not generate demand for recreational facilities or result in associated overuse.

Cumulative Impacts:

Many of the other projects listed in Section 3.3 involve new residential development which would generate a demand for recreational facilities and could result in overuse of existing facilities. The proposed project would not incrementally contribute to these potential cumulative recreation impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual recreation impacts would be less than significant.

4.17 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:



with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement (daily, peak-hour, etc.) in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?

X

b. A need for private or public road maintenance, or need for new road(s)? X

c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X

d. Substantial impact upon existing transit systems (e.g. bus service) or alteration of present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?

X

e. Alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X

f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians (including short-term construction and long-term operational)?

X

g. Inadequate sight distance? X




with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

h. Inadequate ingress/egress? X

i. Inadequate general road capacity? X

j. Inadequate emergency access? X

k. Impacts to the Congestion Management Plan system? X

Setting:

The project site would accessed from Black Road, via Highway 1 or Betteravia Road. Traffic volumes are estimated at about 1,100 average daily trips on Black Road and 2,400 average daily trips on Highway 1 (Rincon Consultants, 2007a). The Black Road/Highway 1 intersection currently operates at Level of Service B during p.m. peak hour (Rincon Consultants, 2007a). Highway 1 in the project area is considered a Class 3 bikeway in the Orcutt Community Plan.

Impact Discussion:

a. Worker and materials transportation associated with project short-term construction would generate a maximum of 15 round trips per day (5 heavy-duty truck, 10 light-duty vehicles) during the five month construction period. This level of vehicular movement would not substantially increase volume to capacity ratios at affected intersections or roadway segments.

b. The proposed project would not generate a need for roadway maintenance or a new road.

c. Parking facilities do not occur in the project area. The project would not generate parking demand. Construction worker parking would be handled at the Wastewater Treatment Plant site.

d. The proposed project would not create a demand for transit or interfere with the existing transit system or circulation of people and goods.

e. The proposed project would not affect waterborne or rail traffic, and is not located in either clear zones or approach zones of any airport.

f. The proposed project would not involve any work on public roadways or result in any traffic hazards. Project-related vehicle trips associated with construction would occur on Highway 1, including worker vehicles and heavy-duty trucks transporting construction materials. However, this traffic would not result in any hazards to motor vehicles or bicyclists using Highway 1.

g. The proposed project would not affect roadway sight distance.

h. The proposed project would not affect ingress/egress to and from Black Road. Access to all land uses would be maintained during the construction period.


i. The proposed project would not affect roadway capacity.

j. The proposed project would not involve any work on public roadways, and would not affect emergency access to residences served by Black Road.

k. Roadways and intersection in the Orcutt area operate at acceptable levels of service and are not subject to Congestion Management Plan requirements.

Cumulative Impacts:

Many of the other projects listed in Section 3.3 involve new residential and/or commercial development which would generate vehicle trips, potentially increasing parking demand, increasing traffic congestion and resulting in traffic hazards. The proposed project would not incrementally contribute to these potential cumulative transportation impacts.


No mitigation is required. Residual transportation impacts would be less than significant.

4.18 WATER RESOURCES/FLOODING:



with Mitigation


No Impact/ Beneficial

Reviewed Under

Previous Document

a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?

X

b. Changes in percolation rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?

X

c. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X

d. Discharge into surface waters or alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water pollution?

X

e. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters, or need for private or public flood control projects?

X

f. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding (placement of project in 100 year flood plain), accelerated runoff or tsunamis?

X

g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X

h. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or recharge interference?

X




with Mitigation


No Impact/ Beneficial

Reviewed Under

Previous Document

i. Overdraft or overcommitment of any groundwater basin? Or, a significant increase in the existing overdraft or overcommitment of any groundwater basin?

X

j. The substantial degradation of groundwater quality including saltwater intrusion?

X

k. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?

X

Setting:

Surface Waters. The project site is located approximately 330 feet east of Orcutt/Solomon Creek. The Orcutt/Solomon Creek watershed encompasses approximately 18.5 square miles. A stream gauge is located immediately upstream of the Black Road bridge, and indicates Orcutt/Solomon Creek is perennial with a monthly mean flow rate of 4.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) in January (highest month) and 0.13 cfs in September (lowest month) over the period of 1983 through 2011. The highest peak storm flow recorded at this location is 2,100 cfs on March 5, 2001.

Regional Groundwater. The project site lies within the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin, which comprises 288 square miles in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. In 2010, groundwater supplied 98,650 acre-feet of the region’s water demand of 109,100 acre-feet. Imported water from the State Water Project supplied the balance.

Groundwater levels declined from historically high to historically low levels from the 1920’s to the late 1960’s. Since then, groundwater levels have fluctuated over alternating 5 to 15 year periods. From 2002 through 2008, groundwater levels in both shallow and deep zones have gradually declined (Luhdorff and Scalmanini, 2009). Water quality concerns in the Basin are elevated total dissolved solids and nitrate concentrations. Assessment of hydrogeologic conditions in 2010 showed groundwater levels and general mineral quality in the shallow and deep aquifer zones to be within historic levels (Luhdorff and Scalmanini, 2011).

Floodplain. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain (Zone A) generated by Orcutt/Solomon Creek as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map no. 06083C0170F, effective September 30, 2005. Zone A is an unstudied floodplain where floodway and floodplain elevations have not been established.


Water Quality Regulation. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has developed a Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region (Basin Plan) (1994) to protect the water quality of surface and groundwaters of the region. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, sets narrative and numerical objectives to protect beneficial uses and describes implementation programs. Beneficial uses are processes, habitats, organisms or features that require water and are considered worthy of protection. Beneficial uses identified for Orcutt/Solomon Creek in the Water Quality Control Plan include municipal water supply, agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, water contact recreation, non-water contact recreation, cold freshwater habitat, rare species habitat, estuarine habitat, freshwater replenishment and commercial/sport fishing.

Orcutt/Solomon Creek has been designated as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act because it fails to support beneficial uses due to elevated levels of ammonia, boron, chlopyrifos, chloride, DDT, diazinon, dieldrin, fecal coliform, nitrate, sediment toxicity, sodium, water temperature and unknown toxicity.

Site-Specific Groundwater Conditions. Groundwater, wet soils and seepage were encountered at depths ranging between 5 and 10 feet below the existing ground surface during borings conducted on July 31, 2012 (Fugro, 2012). The wet soil conditions appear to be associated with perched water above fine grained alluvial soils. The perched water is likely related to infiltration of effluent from the existing unlined sludge drying beds and adjacent wastewater storage and treatment ponds, infiltration from Orcutt/Solomon Creek, local irrigation, rainfall and storm runoff. Groundwater was encountered below the fine grained alluvial soil layer at depths ranging from approximately 20 to 24 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater conditions appear to vary seasonally, with rainfall, and with storage levels in the unlined ponds and drying beds at the plant (Fugro, 2012).

Impact Discussion:

a. The project would not involve any impacts to Orcutt/Solomon Creek, or result in changes in the current, course or direction of surface waters.

b. Currently, surface water run-off from the project site is fully contained on-site with some percolation, which appears to contribute to perched water observed in soil borings at the site. It is unclear if percolation of storm run-off and wastewater contained in wet sludge is reaching the groundwater aquifer beneath fine grained alluvial soils near the ground surface. The proposed project would involve replacing the earthen sludge drying beds with concrete-lined beds which would prevent percolation of wastewater associated with the sludge, and capture storm run-off and direct it to the plant head-works for treatment. Overall, the proposed project would reduce the potential for groundwater contamination by wastewater, which is considered a beneficial impact.

c. The project would result in the termination of percolation of rainfall and wastewater at the project site, which may reduce subsurface inputs to Orcutt/Solomon Creek. Due to the small contribution of these waters to flows in Orcutt/Solomon Creek, this impact is considered less than significant.


d. The project would not involve any discharge to surface waters.

e. The project site is not located within the floodway of Orcutt/Solomon Creek and would not affect the course or flow of floodwaters. Therefore, no new flood control facilities would be required.

f. The proposed project does not include any habitable structures and would not increase the exposure of persons or private property to water-related hazards. However, the proposed project would result in placement of materials (aggregate base, concrete, pipelines, lift station) within the 100-year floodplain, which could affect flood water elevations. These materials would be direct replacements for existing sludge drying beds (to be removed), with only a very small increase in volume. The proposed project facilities would be resistant to flood damage. Overall, the potential increase in the 100 year flood elevation is anticipated to be less than one foot.

g. The proposed project would not affect groundwater flow as groundwater recharge from Orcutt/Solomon Creek and surrounding farmlands would not be affected.

h. The project does not involve extraction of groundwater, excavation of aquifers or interference with recharge. Currently, any potential groundwater recharge associated with the existing unlined sludge drying beds is prevented by a layer of fine-grained alluvial soils. Therefore, the proposed concrete-lined sludge drying beds would not reduce groundwater recharge.

i. The project would not involve extraction or consumption of groundwater from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.

j. Data collected from coastal monitoring wells indicate seawater intrusion has not occurred in the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (Santa Barbara County Public Works, 2012). The project does not involve any discharge or groundwater extraction, and would not affect groundwater quality.

k. The project would not require water and would not affect public water supplies.

Cumulative Impacts:

Most of the other projects listed in Section 3.3 would affect rainfall percolation rates, involve changes to the volume or quality of surface water run-off, and/or increased groundwater use. The proposed project would not substantially contribute to these impacts.

Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts:

No mitigation is required. Residual water resources impacts would be less than significant.


5.0 INFORMATION SOURCES

5.1 COUNTY DEPARTMENTS CONSULTED

Public Works Department

5.2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CHECK THOSE SOURCES USED):

X Seismic Safety/Safety Element X Conservation Element

X Open Space Element X Noise Element

Coastal Plan and Maps X Circulation Element

ERME X Agricultural Element

5.3 OTHER SOURCES (CHECK THOSE SOURCES USED):

X Field work Ag Preserve maps

Calculations Flood Control maps

X Project plans X Other technical references

Traffic studies (reports, survey, etc.)

Records Planning files, maps, reports

Grading plans X Zoning maps

Elevation, architectural renderings X Soils maps/reports (Fugro, 2012)

X Published geological map/reports plant maps

X Topographical maps X Archaeological maps and reports

X Important Farmland Maps X FEMA Floodplain maps

X Environmental Thresholds & Guidelines Manual


5.4 REFERENCES

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2012. RAREFIND3 output for the Guadalupe and Santa Maria 7.5 minute quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan.

Conejo Archaeological Consultants. 2013. Letter report to Padre Associates dated January 9, 2013 summarizing the cultural resources record search.

Cowan, R.G. 1977. Ranchos of California, A List of Spanish Concession 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846.

Dibblee, T.W. Jr. 1994. Geologic Map of the Santa Maria and Twitchell Dam Quadrangles (Dibblee Foundation Map #DF-51).

Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2012. Geotechnical Report; Laguna County Sanitation District Sludge Drying Beds, Dutard Road, Orcutt, California. Prepared for Santa Barbara County.

Grant, C. 1978. Chumash: Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, California, Vol. 8. Edited by Robert F. Heizer, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Greenwood, R. 1972. 9,000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7.

Hunt & Associates. 2000. Evaluation of Existing Operations and Proposed Upgrades on California Tiger Salamanders, California Red-legged Frogs, and Other Sensitive Wildlife Resources, Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant, Santa Maria Valley, Santa Barbara County.

King, C. 1990. The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in the Social Maintenance of the Santa Barbara Channel Islands Region Before A.D. 1804. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York.

Lehman, P. 1994. The Birds of Santa Barbara County, California. Vertebrate Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara.

LFR Levine-Fricke. 2005. Rancho Maria Estates, Santa Maria, California, Sensitive Species and Habitat Survey.

Luhdorff and Scalamanini Consulting Engineers. 2009. 2008 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition, Santa Maria Valley Management Area.

Luhdorff and Scalamanini Consulting Engineers. 2011. 2010 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition, Santa Maria Valley Management Area.

Meade, D. 1999. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Santa Barbara County, California. Althouse and Meade Biological and Environmental Services. Paso Robles, CA.


Moratto, M. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Rincon Consultants. 2007a. Rancho Maria Estates Specific Plan Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Santa Barbara County.

Rincon Consultants. 2007b. Santa Maria Airport Business Park Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Santa Maria.

Rincon Consultants. 2008. New County Jail Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for Santa Barbara County.

Rindlaub, Katherine, Lawrence Hunt and John Storrer. 1995. Biological Resources Assessment for Selected Key Sites within the Orcutt Planning Area. Prepared for the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department.

Santa Barbara County. 1979 (updated 1991). Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan; Seismic Safety and Safety Element.

Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department. 1994. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element Groundwater Resources Section.

Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department. 1997. Orcutt Community Plan, Board of Supervisors Final.

Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department. 2008. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

Santa Barbara County Public Works. 2012. 2011 Santa Barbara County Groundwater Report.

Santa Barbara Natural History Museum. 2000. Checklist of Amphibians and Reptiles of the Tri-Counties.

Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soil Survey of Northern Santa Barbara County.

Storrer Environmental Services. 2013. Biological Assessment, Laguna County Sanitation District Sludge Drying Beds Upgrade Project, Santa Maria, CA.

VJS Biological Consulting. 2005. Final Report Rancho Maria Estates Drift Fence Study 2004-2005 for California Tiger Salamander. Prepared for LFR Levine-Fricke.

Wiskowski, T. 1988. Sensitive Plants of Santa Barbara County. Prepared for the Resource Management Department, County of Santa Barbara.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr. and K. Mayer. 1988. California's Wildlife, Volume I, Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990a. California's Wildlife, Volume II, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990b. California's Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.


6.0 PROJECT SPECIFIC (SHORT- AND LONG-TERM) IMPACT SUMMARY

6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

None identified.

6.2 SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE IMPACTS

Potentially significant but mitigable impacts identified are limited to biological resources, cultural resources and hazardous materials.

Biological Resources. Although California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog and western spadefoot toad are unlikely to occur at the project site, these species are known from nearby the project site and could occur during migration away from aquatic breeding sites. Project-related construction activities have the potential to significantly impact these species.

Cultural Resources. Although no archaeological sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the potential exists for discovery of unreported cultural materials during project construction.

Hazardous Materials. Excavation and associated earthwork associated with construction of the proposed sludge drying beds may involve removal of soils with trace metal contamination. Off-site export of these soils may result in exposure of the public to hazardous contaminant levels.


7.0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially Significant


with Mitigation


Reviewed Under

Previous Document

1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or significantly increase energy consumption, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

X

3. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.)

X

4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

5. Is there disagreement supported by facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and/or expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect which would warrant investigation in an EIR?

X

Discussion

1. The project is unlikely to adversely affect biological resources or result in substantial increases of greenhouse gas emissions or energy consumption. Although no archaeological sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the potential exists for discovery of unreported cultural materials during project construction. Mitigation has been provided to prevent significant impacts.

2. The project would achieve long-term environmental goals; reducing the potential for groundwater aquifer contamination.


3. The project may contribute to cumulative impacts, but its incremental contribution would not be substantial or result cumulatively significant impacts.

4. Excavation and associated earthwork associated with construction of the proposed sludge drying beds may involve removal of soils with trace metal contamination. Off-site export of these soils may result in exposure of the public to hazardous contaminant levels. Mitigation has been provided to prevent significant impacts.

5. There is no evidence of disagreement, supported by facts, that the project requires analysis in an EIR.

8.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

No significant, adverse unmitigable impacts were identified; therefore, project alternatives were not considered.


9.0 INITIAL REVIEW OF PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION, ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Potentially applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized below. The proposed project, with mitigation, would be consistent with all existing land use and development policies.

9.1 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT CODE

Pursuant to the County Land Use Development Code Section 35.10-G.1.b, within the unincorporated Inland areas of the County, the provisions of the County Development Code do not apply to development by the County or any district of which the Board is the governing body. The Laguna County Sanitation District is a dependent special district created pursuant to Section 4700 et. seq. of the California Health and Safety Code and addressed in Chapter 29 of the Santa Barbara County Code. The County Board of Supervisors acts as the ex-officio Board of Directors. Therefore, the project is exempt from the provision of the Land Use Development Code.

9.2 LAND USE ELEMENT

Hillside and Watershed Protection Policies

1. Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain. Excessive cut and fills, or hillside grading is not proposed.

2. All developments shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space. Alteration of existing topography would be minimized, and no trees or other vegetation would be removed.

7. Degradation of the water quality of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or wetlands shall not result from development of the site. Pollutants, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, and other harmful waste, shall not be discharged into or alongside coastal streams or wetlands either during or after construction. Discharge to surface water or groundwater is not proposed.

Streams & Creeks Policies

1. All permitted construction and grading within stream corridors shall be carried out in such a manner as to minimize impacts from increased run-off, sedimentation, biochemical degradation or thermal pollution. The project would avoid the Orcutt/Solomon Creek stream corridor.


Flood Hazard Policies

1. All development, including construction, excavation, and grading, except for flood control projects and non-structural agricultural uses, shall be prohibited in the floodway unless offsetting improvements in accordance with federal regulations are provided. If the proposed development falls within the floodway fringe, development may be permitted, provided creek setback requirements are met and finished floor elevations are two feet above the projected 100-year flood elevation, and the other requirements regarding materials and utilities as specified in the Flood Plain Management Ordinance are in compliance. The project is a permitted use within the floodplain.

2. Permitted development shall not cause or contribute to flood hazards or lead to expenditure of public funds for flood control works, i.e., dams, stream channelizations, etc. Flood control facilities would not be required to provide flood protection for the proposed project.

Visual Resource Policies

2. In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places. The proposed sludge drying beds are a direct replacement for existing sludge drying beds and are consistent with the visual environment.

3. In areas designated as urban on the land use plan maps and in designated rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and character of the existing community. Clustered development, varied circulation patterns, and diverse housing types shall be encouraged. The proposed project is not located within a community.

Public Facilities Policies

1.a. The development of public facilities necessary to provide public services is appropriate within the defined Rural and Inner-Rural Areas. The proposed project would upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities to serve the community of Orcutt and adjacent areas.


9.3 AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT

Policy II.D. Conversion of highly productive agricultural lands whether urban or rural, shall be discouraged. The County shall support programs which encourage the retention of highly productive agricultural lands. The project does not involve conversion of agricultural lands.

Policy III.A. Expansion of urban development into active agricultural areas outside of urban limits is to be discouraged, as long as infill development is available. The project does not involve expansion into agricultural lands.

9.4 ORCUTT COMMUNITY PLAN

OCP WW-O-4: District to use all feasible methods of water conservation and reclamation. Water draining from the improved concrete-lined sludge drying beds would be piped to the plant head-works for treatment and use as recycled water.


10.0 RECOMMENDATION BY LEAD AGENCY STAFF

On the basis of the Initial Study, staff:

____ Finds that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt and WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, recommends that a Notice of Exemption be prepared.

____ Finds that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, recommends that a Negative Declaration (ND) be prepared.

X Finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures incorporated into the REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION would successfully mitigate the potentially significant impacts. Staff recommends the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND finding is based on the assumption that mitigation measures will be acceptable to the applicant; if not acceptable a revised Initial Study finding for the preparation of an EIR may result.

Finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends that an EIR be prepared.

Finds that from existing documents (previous EIRs, etc.) that a subsequent document (containing updated and site-specific information, etc.) pursuant to CEQA Sections 15162/15163/15164 should be prepared.

Potentially significant unavoidable adverse impact areas: None

With Public Hearing X Without Public Hearing

PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: None

PROJECT EVALUATOR: Matt Ingamells, Padre Associates DATE: January 23, 2013

Project No. 1202-2311January 2013

REGIONAL LOCATION MAPFIGURE 1

Sludge Bed Upgrade

CUYAMA

CARPINTERIA

ORCUTT

LOMPOC

PROJECTSITE

LOS ALAMOS

SOLVANG

NIPOMO

ARROYO GRANDE

LAKE CACHUMA

BUELLTON

SANTA BARBARAGOLETA

NEW CUYAMA

SANTA MARIA

OCEANO

246246

1011

246

154

101

1

192101

154

166

33

101

1

166

135

166

� � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � ��

� � � � �

� � � �

� � � � �

� � � � �

� � � �

� � � � �

� �

� � � � �

� � � �

� �

� � � � �

� � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � �

��

��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � �

� � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � �

� � � �

� � � � � � �

� � � � ��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

! � " � � # � $ � � %� & ' � ( ) � � & * � � $ � $ + $ % � �

� � � � � � � " " & " � � $ � � $

APPENDIX A

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Laguna County San i ta t i on D is t r i c t S ludge Dry ing Beds Upgrade Comments on the Proposed MND

APPENDIX A

COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Party Date

Eric Gage, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District February 25, 2013

Martin Potter, California Department of Fish & Wildlife March 4, 2013

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Text Box

6.

mingamells

Text Box

7.

mingamells

Text Box

8.

mingamells

Text Box

9.

mingamells

Text Box

10.


Commenter: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District

Date: February 25, 2013

Response:

1. Construction activities are described in Section 1.4 of the Initial Study. The following grading quantities have been added to the Final MND:

Cut: 15,000 cubic yards

Fill: 9,000 cubic yards

Excess: 4,000 cubic yards, with 2,000 cubic yards used to fill the east sludge beds (southeast of project site) and 4,000 cubic yards hauled to the existing storage pile north of the Plant.

2. Sludge produced during the construction period will be dried at the existing sludge beds located west of the project site (see Figure 3 of the MND), which will not be displaced by the project. If needed, temporary sludge beds would be constructed adjacent to the existing beds within the Plant footprint. This information has been added to the Final MND.

3. The Final MND has been revised to note the 2010 update to the County’s Clean Air Plan.

4. The Final MND has been revised to include the ROC and PM10 offsets daily trigger from the APCD’s New Source Review Rule which have been adopted by the County as thresholds of significance.

5. The Plant has been designed to minimize odor generation, including the use of anaerobic digestion to contain potential odors in a vessel. As discussed on page 10 of the MND, the project would not result in operational changes that would increase odors. In addition, the Plant does not have a history of odor complaints. The APCD document referred in this comment does not provide any guidance regarding odors from sludge drying.

6. Due to the small amount of proposed earthwork and agricultural setting of the project, dust generation is not anticipated to result in impacts to local residents. Therefore, mitigation measures are not needed. However, standard dust control measures for public works projects have been included in the project’s plans and specifications.

7. Implementation of the standard dust control measures for public works projects included in the project’s plans and specifications would result in compliance with APCD Rule 345.

8. The project would utilize construction contractors that comply with State law with regard to registration of portable equipment, in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulations, and diesel equipment and truck idling. Recommended measures listed in Attachment B of the comment letter would be implemented if feasible, but are not required as no significant impacts were identified.

9. Text has been added to Mitigation Measure HM-1 of the MND, requiring APCD notification if contaminated soils are found.

10. See the response to Comment 8 regarding idling.

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Text Box

1.

mingamells

Text Box

2.

mingamells

Text Box

3.

mingamells

Line

mingamells

Text Box

3.


Commenter: California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW)

Date: March 4, 2013

Response:

1. As a part of historic and ongoing sludge management, the earthen berms between the existing sludge beds are partially scraped each time the sludge beds are emptied by heavy equipment, and graded and reformed every few years. However, ground squirrels continue to excavate burrows in the berms. This information has been added to the Final MND. It is unclear how long these burrows remain intact, and their suitability as a potential upland refuge for adult California tiger salamander (CTS). An adult CTS would need to travel from breeding pool SAMA-3 approximately 4,300 feet to avoid Orcutt/Solomon Creek and cross intensely cultivated row crop fields to reach the project site. Field studies indicate that 95 percent of CTS travel 2,200 feet or less between breeding pools and dry season upland habitat. The potential for CTS to occur at the project site is considered very low for the following reasons:

The distance to the project site from SAMA-3 is near the limit of CTS migration ability;

Intervening cultivated fields are an impediment to CTS migration;

Burrows at the project site are relatively ephemeral and may not be suitable for CTS; and

Numerous surveys of upland habitats in the project area and pre-construction inspection of burrows for other LCSD projects in the immediate proximity of the sludge bed site have not found CTS.

Although the probability of CTS occurring at the project site is considered very low, impacts were identified as potentially significant, and mitigation measures were included in the Draft MND to avoid impacts to CTS, should they occur at the project site, such as avoiding the CTS migration period, conducting pre-construction surveys, inspecting and excavating burrows that could harbor CTS, and stopping work and coordinating with USFWS. As CTS is also listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, the mitigation measures have been modified to include coordination with the CDFW.

2. The District understands that Section 2080 of the Fish & Game Code prohibits take of a State-listed species, and a permit is required from CDFW to authorize take of CTS incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. Based on the comment letter, CDFW is concerned that a take may occur. Prior to commencing construction, the District plans to demonstrate absence of CTS in the immediate project area by completing an upland habitat survey as defined in “Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander”.


3. The Final MND addresses all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed project. In the unlikely event that CTS are found during the upland habitat survey and CDFW feels a take could occur, the District would apply for an incidental take permit. The permit would include avoidance and minimization measures already identified in the MND, and relocation of individuals and compensatory mitigation (establishment of an easement or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank) for potential habitat loss and impacts to individual CTS to meet the State’s incidental permit standard of “fully mitigated”. Should this event occur, the MND may require revision and possibly recirculation for public comment to serve at the CEQA document for CDFW’s issuance of an incidental take permit.

santa barbara county department of public works · and 14 sludge drying beds would be required when...

Documents