Post on 23-Mar-2020
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-1 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.12 UTILITIES
This section addresses the potential for the Proposed Project to result in impacts to utilities. Utilities
analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include wastewater (Section 4.12.1); solid waste
(Section 4.12.2); electric utilities (Section 4.12.3). As discussed in the Initial Study (IS; Appendix C),
effects to water supply utilities and stormwater drainage facilities are not required to be discussed in this
EIR. See Section 4.11, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed discussion of potential impacts to
hydrology and water quality from the operation of on-site groundwater wells and on-site wastewater
treatment and disposal facilities under the Proposed Project.
4.12.1 WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Following an overview of the environmental setting in Section 4.12.1.1 and the relevant regulatory setting
in Section 4.12.1.2, project-related impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in
Sections 4.12.1.3 and 4.12.1.4, respectively.
4.12.1.1 Environmental Setting
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
The City of Mt. Shasta’s (City’s) sewer system conveys wastewater from its 11,714-acre service area to a
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) owned and operated by the City. Under existing conditions, the
facilities within the project site are connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system through an existing
sewer line in the southwest corner of the central project site. A sewer system capacity analysis was
completed for the segments of the pipelines that convey wastewater from the project site to the WWTP,
which are shown in Figure 4.12-1; the capacity analysis is included as Attachment A to Appendix L. As
described therein, the existing system has one section of 12-inch diameter pipe that reaches capacity at
1.96 million gallons per day (mgd) and is, therefore, undersized for the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of
3.86 mgd at that section1. The limiting sewer pipe section is located on South Old Stage Road, South of
Ream Road, between Manholes 13A and A15. The location of the limiting pipeline is shown on Figure 3-
13.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
The WWTP is located at the southern terminus of Grant Road, just south of the City limits and west of
Interstate 5 (I-5), three miles south of the project site. Originally constructed in 1976, the WWTP was
designed for average dry-weather flows (ADWF) of 0.7 mgd and PWWF of 2.8 mgd. With subsequent
improvements, the dry-weather design capacity is now 0.75 mgd and the wet-weather capacity is 3.56
1 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b). However, as noted in Appendix L,
the PWWF at the limiting sewer pipe section is approximately 3.86 mgd (CH2M Hill, 2016d). It should be noted that the limiting sewer pipe is located downstream of where two sewer systems combine before flowing to the WWTP; therefore, the PWWF of each individual system upstream of the limiting sewer pipe would be less than 3.86 mgd.
§̈¦5
§̈¦5
UV89
Old Stage RdLake St
Pine St
Lassen Ln
Ream
Ave
Moun tSh as ta Blvd
Everitt Memoria l Hwy
Chestnut St
Azale
a Dr
Wash
ington
Dr
Mccloud AveAlpine St
Mount S hasta Mt Lassen Hwy
Mount Shasta Blvd
Moun
t Sha
sta B
lvd
Ski Village Dr
Figure 4.12-1Mt. Shasta Sewer System
SOURCE: CH2mHill, 8/2015; USDA aerial photograph, 7/7/2014; AES, 11/2/2016 Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537
LEGEND
Project SiteMain Sewer SystemAnalyzed Sewer System
0 1,100 2,200
Feet
!¢ÐNORTH
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-3 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
mgd (City of Mt. Shasta, 2015). The WWTP currently receives an ADWF of approximately 0.7 mgd2 and
a PWWF of up to approximately 3.5 mgd (PACE Engineering, 2016b). Treatment at the WWTP currently
consists of processing influent though a series of six lagoons followed by clarification, filtration, and
disinfection. Treated effluent is discharged at one of three locations depending on the time of year,
effluent quality, Sacramento River flow rate, and economics. The WWTP can discharge 0.7 mgd to the
leach fields, 0.8 mgd to the golf course, and 0.8 mgd to the Sacramento River (Boyer, 2016). The WWTP
has 4.8 million gallons (MG) of buffer storage that are used during wet weather events, this buffer storage
is planned to be decreased to 1.6 MG with the planned WWTP improvements. There are two distinct time
periods that dictate to which of the three locations effluent can be discharged:
Recreation season (June 15 to September 14) - Treated effluent is discharged at the Mt. Shasta
Resort Golf Course (golf course) unless effluent quality standards cannot be met or if irrigation
water is not needed at the golf course. In those cases, treated effluent is pumped to a leach field
located east of the I-5/Highway 89 interchange.
Non-recreation season (November 16 to April 14) - Treated effluent is discharged to the
Sacramento River. Discharge must meet or exceed a 20 to 1 dilution ratio of river water to
effluent, and a maximum average dry weather flow of 0.8 mgd may be discharged. However, if
river flows exceed 400 cubic feet per second (cfs), discharge is allowed only if a higher standard
of treatment is met. If a higher quality effluent cannot be achieved, the effluent is discharged to
the leach field.
Discharges from the WWTP are currently regulated by Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Order No.
R5-2012-086 and Time Schedule Order No. R5-2012-0087 issued by the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) in October 2012. The requirements include limitations and provisions
for wastewater discharge, including more stringent limits on ammonia, copper, zinc, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH levels. Some of these new limits require
improvements to the treatment and discharge facilities at the WWTP. The impacts of improving the
WWTP to meet CVRWQCB treatment discharge requirements have been previously addressed in the
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in November 2015 (SCH# 2015112045).
A notice of determination stating that the State-Mandated Wastewater Treatment and Outfall
Improvement Project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of
mitigation was filed in May 2016. The 2015 IS/MND is incorporated by reference, as described within
Section 1.4 of this EIR.
In addition to improving the WWTP to meet CVRWQCB treatment discharge requirements, the 2015
IS/MND evaluated the improvements needed to increase the treatment and disposal capacity of the
WWTP to be able to serve anticipated growth through 2039 under two scenarios: population growth within
2 The City’s ADWF for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 was 0.72, 0.7, 0.67, 0.62, and 0.58 mgd, respectively. However, in 2006, the ADWF was 0.8 mgd. The gradual reduction in ADWF can be attributed to a number of circumstances, including economic and climatological conditions. Gradual ADWF reduction between 2010 and 2015 is attributable to drought conditions and subsequent water conservation efforts by the City. The ADWF for 2016 is not available due to flow meter failure at the POTW headworks. Drought conditions have lowered area water tables in wet areas where many sewer mains reside, thereby reducing the summertime infiltration/inflow (I&I) component that has, historically, been present during ADWF conditions. Based on the available flow data and presumed impact from current drought conditions, it is estimated the current ADWF is 0.7 mgd.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-4 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
the service area and population growth plus anticipated treatment and disposal demands from the
Proposed Project. Based on the respective growth rates of properties served within and outside the City
limits, the 2015 IS/MND estimated that a capacity of 0.9 mgd would be required to serve anticipated
growth through 2039. The 2015 IS/MND stated that the Proposed Project, at full production (two bottling
lines), could contribute up to 0.15 mgd to the City’s WWTP. Accordingly, the 2015 IS/MND determined
that if the City were to issue a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge to CGWC, as discussed in
Section 3.5.8.3 under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, the planned treatment and disposal
capacity would need to be increased from 0.9 mgd to 1.05 mgd to serve the anticipated 2039 demand.
The planned improvements to the WWTP to comply with CVRWQCB requirements and increase the
capacity of the treatment facility to meet future demand are shown on Figure 3-16 and include:
replacement of the existing treatment lagoon system with a new treatment facility using a different
treatment process, lined emergency retention basin in place of the northeastern-most lagoon,
replacement of the energy dissipater and trust block at the existing tank site, installation of a replacement
17-foot long river diffuser at the existing outfall, improvements to the existing access road to the outfall,
and creation of a footpath from the access road to the outfall. Improvements to the WWTP have been
approved by the City and are anticipated to occur between April 2019 and October 2021, over two years
(PACE Engineering, 2016b). The 2015 IS/MND notes that it is the City’s intent, following California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approvals, to improve the WWTP to meet the new discharge
requirements and provide a capacity of 0.9 mgd. The 2015 IS/MND stated that further improvements to
increase the capacity to 1.05 mgd would be made only following separate approval for connection of the
bottling facility to the City’s wastewater system and receipt of financial assurance from Crystal Geyser
that they would cover the cost of the expansion. The potential effects from connection of the Proposed
Project to the City’s system are analyzed in this EIR.
4.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing surface water quality protection.
The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant
discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.
These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. Pollutants regulated under
the CWA include priority pollutants, including various toxic pollutants; conventional pollutants, such as
BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; and non-conventional pollutants, including any
pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority. The CWA regulates both direct and indirect
discharges (USEPA, 2016c).
Federal Anti-degradation Policy
The federal Anti-degradation Policy is part of the CWA (Section 303[d]) and is designed to protect water
quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the
following primary provisions: (1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-5 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
uses shall be maintained and protected; (2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to
support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state
finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development;
and (3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national
and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that
water quality shall be maintained and protected.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, Section 402 of the CWA,
controls direct discharges into navigable waters. Direct discharges or point source discharges are from
sources such as pipes and sewers. NPDES permits, issued by either the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) or an authorized state/tribe, contain industry-specific, technology-based,
and/or water-quality-based limits, and establish pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. The
USEPA has authorized 40 states to administer the NPDES program, including California. A facility that
intends to discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a permit before initiating a discharge. A permit
applicant must provide quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in the
facility's effluent and the permit will then set forth the conditions and effluent limitations under which a
facility may make a discharge (USEPA, 2016c).
General Pretreatment Requirements
Another type of discharge that is regulated by the CWA is discharge that goes to a Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW). POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and industrial
facilities and transport it via a collection system to the treatment plant. Here, the POTW removes and/or
inactivate harmful organisms and other contaminants from the sewage so it can be discharged safely into
the receiving stream. Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic sewage only. However, POTWs
also receive wastewater from industrial (non-domestic) users. The General Pretreatment Regulations
establish responsibilities of federal, state, and local government, industry and the public to implement
Pretreatment Standards to protect municipal WWTPs from damage that may occur when hazardous,
toxic, or other wastes are discharged into a sewer system and to protect the quality of sludge generated
by these plants. Discharges to a POTW are regulated primarily by the POTW itself, rather than the
state/tribe or USEPA (USEPA, 2016c), but are subject to State and Federal laws as well as guidelines
established by the USEPA.
State and Regional
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to preserve,
enhance, and restore the quality of the State’s water resources. The act established the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) as the
principal State agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. Under the act,
water quality policy is established, water quality standards are enforced for both surface water and
groundwater, and the discharges of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources are regulated. The act
authorizes the SWRCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines for long-range resource
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-6 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of
recycled water (CalEPA, 2011).
State Water Quality Control Board
Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the SWRCB allocates water rights, adjudicates water right
disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the
nine RWQCBs located in the major watersheds of the state. The joint authority of water allocation and
water quality protection enables the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters
(CalEPA, 2012).
The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues NPDES permits to cities and counties
through RWQCBs. The project site is located in a portion of the state that is regulated by the Central
Valley RWQCB.
CVRWQCB
The CVRWQCB provides planning, monitoring, and enforcement techniques for surface and groundwater
quality in the Central Valley region of California. The primary duty of the CVRWQCB is to protect the
quality of the waters in the region for all beneficial uses. This duty is implemented by formulating and
adopting water quality plans for specific groundwater or surface water basins and by prescribing and
enforcing requirements on all agricultural, domestic, and industrial waste discharges (CalEPA, 2012).
Waste Discharge Requirements Program
In general, the WDR Program (sometimes also referred to as the "Non Chapter 15 [Non 15] Program")
regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of
discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for
each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes
classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes
the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27. Several SWRCB
programs are administered under the WDRs Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled
water programs (CalEPA, 2012).
The CVRWQCB typically requires a WDR permit for any facility or person discharging or proposing to
discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer
system. Those discharging pollutants (or proposing to discharge pollutants) into surface waters, must
obtain an NPDES permit from the CVRWQCB. The NPDES permit serves as the WDR permit. For other
types of discharges, such as those affecting groundwater or in a diffused manner (e.g., erosion from soil
disturbance or waste discharges to land) a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the CVRWQCB
in order to obtain a WDR permit (CalEPA, 2012).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Reduction Program
A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge, or diversion of untreated or
partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-7 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oil, and grease. SSOs pollute surface and
ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and
aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. To provide a consistent, statewide regulatory approach to
address SSOs, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water
Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Order) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer Order
requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer
system management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database. All
public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that is comprised of more than one mile of
pipes or sewer lines, which conveys wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility, must apply for
coverage under the Sanitary Sewer Order (CalEPA, 2012).
Local
Siskiyou County General Plan
The County General Plan and Land Use Policies do not contain any standards or other applicable policies
relevant to the impacts of the Proposed Project related to wastewater utilities.
Siskiyou County Code
Title 5, Chapter 2 of the County of Siskiyou County Code sets various requirements for sewage disposal.
Specifically, it establishes the provisions to which the Siskiyou County Health Officer can issue permits for
and inspect private sewage disposal systems in Siskiyou County (County), including sewage disposal and
treatment systems for industrial uses. The Proposed Project would have to comply with these standards
as enforced by the County.
City of Mt. Shasta General Plan
Although the Proposed Project is not within the jurisdiction of the City, it is within the service area for and
is currently served by the City’s WWTP. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element provides policies
concerning wastewater management. The following General Plan goals, policies, and implementation
measures are relevant to the City’s provision of wastewater services to the Proposed Project.
Wastewater Management Goal LU-16: Maintain a wastewater collection system and treatment plant that
serves the need of the community.
Policy LU-16.1: Ensure that the growth of the community does not outstrip the capacity of the wastewater
collection system and treatment facility.
Implementation Measure LU-16.1(a): Using the provision of connection fees, ensure that
funds are collected to meet long-term capital improvement program needs.
Implementation Measure LU-16.1(b): If the City has compelling information that indicates
that the wastewater treatment and/or collection system does not have adequate capacity
to accommodate additional connections, including capacity during peak flow periods, the
City shall utilize and sustain moratoriums or other restricting policies to ensure that new
connections do not result in adverse environmental impacts or violations of management
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-8 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
standards until the capacity of the system can be expanded or otherwise determined to
be adequate.
City of Mt. Shasta Code
Chapter 13.56 of the City’s Code sets forth regulations regarding industrial wastewater discharges to
provide procedures for complying with requirements placed upon the City by other regulatory agencies.
Specifically, this chapter includes the procedures and requirements for obtaining a City permit for
industrial wastewater discharge. As set forth in Section 13.56.280(c), industrial wastewater can only be
discharged to the City’s sewer system if CGWC has complied with all applicable requirements of Chapter
13.56 and furnished to the City all requested information and if the Director of Public Works determines
that there is adequate capacity in the City’s facilities to convey, treat, and dispose of the wastewaters.
Under Section 13.56.350, the City may require that an industrial wastewater pretreatment system or
device treat industrial flows prior to discharge to the sewer when it is necessary to restrict or prevent the
discharge to the sewer of certain waste constituents, to distribute more equally over a longer time period
any peak discharges of industrial wastewaters, or to accomplish any pretreatment result required by the
Director of Public Works.
4.12.1.3 Impacts
Method of Analysis
Evaluation of potential wastewater service impacts was based on comparing the current capacity and
approved expansion of the City’s sewer system and WWTP to the amount of wastewater that would be
conveyed to the City’s WWTP under each of the four wastewater treatment options described in Section
3.5.8.3. The analysis was based in part on information from the Technical Memorandum regarding the
Crystal Geyser Onsite Wastewater Treatment (CH2M Hill, 2016a; Appendix D), the Technical
Memorandum regarding Mt. Shasta Sewer Improvements for Crystal Geyser Capacity Needs (CH2M Hill,
2016d; Appendix L), Technical Memorandum regarding effluent-groundwater mixing simulations for
Wastewater Treatment Option 3 (Geosyntec, 2016; Appendix H), and the 2015 IS/MND for
improvements to the City’s WWTP, which is incorporated by reference as described within Section 1.4 of
this EIR. A detailed discussion of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from the on-site
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities under the Proposed Project is provided in Section 4.11,
Hydrology and Water Quality. The baseline from which environmental impacts associated with
wastewater is measured consists of the environmental setting described above, which is based on
conditions in 2016. Under baseline conditions, the Plant facilities are non-operational and are considered
to generate no wastewater flows.
Off-site sewer improvements inherently would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or result in
the construction or expansion of other wastewater conveyance facilities or wastewater treatment facilities.
Therefore, the off-site sewer improvements are not discussed in the impact analysis below. The
environmental effects from the installation of the off-site sewer improvements under Options P1 and P2
are discussed as appropriate in the other impact areas of this EIR.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-9 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-Mandated Wastewater Treatment and
Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Impact 4.12-4, below. Environmental effects from the
proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in Section 4.12.3, Impact 4.12-7.
Thresholds of Significance
Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with wastewater systems were developed
based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact
to wastewater systems if it would:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB;
Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Project Impacts
IMPACT 4.12-1 EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE
APPLICABLE RWQCB
Significance Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures None Required
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
Domestic Wastewater - All Options
As described in Section 3.5.8.3, the domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project from
faucets, drinking fountains, sinks, bathrooms, etc., would be discharged into the City’s sewer system
under each of the wastewater treatment options. Operation of the Plant at full production (two bottling
lines) would increase the amount of wastewater produced within the area by approximately 600 gallons
per day (gpd) over baseline conditions (see Section 4.0). Wastewater treatment requirements for the
domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be based on all applicable State and
federal regulations and policies including the WDRs issued to the City by the CVRWQCB (see Section
4.12.1.1), which include limitations on effluent discharge to receiving waters. In general, effluent
discharge requirements include specifications for adequate disinfection treatment and limitations on
radioactivity, pollutant concentrations, sediments, pH, temperature, and toxicity to meet current tertiary
treatment standards prior to discharge.
The domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would not contain harmful levels of toxins
that are regulated by the CVRWQCB (such as large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and
other chemicals that are typical and require separate permitting for agricultural and industrial uses) and all
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-10 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the CVRWQCB. Therefore, the
domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB and no mitigation is required.
Industrial Wastewater Treated and Discharged to the City’s WWTP - Options 1 and 2
As described in Section 3.5.8.3, process and rinse wastewater would be discharged into the City’s sewer
system under Wastewater Treatment Option 1 and industrial process wastewater would be discharged
into the City’s sewer system under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2. Pursuant to Chapter 13.56 of
the City’s Code, CGWC has submitted an application for a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge
from the City and the City has issued a draft of the permit, which is included as Appendix I. As required
by the City’s Code, the draft permit includes conditions and sampling and testing protocols for the
Proposed Project that are designed to ensure that the City’s WWTP will be able to comply with the
requirements set forth in the WDR Order (No. R5-2012-086) and Time Schedule Order (No. R5-2012-
0087) issued to the City by the CVRWQCB. These conditions are listed in detail in the draft Permit
(Appendix I) and include, but are not limited to, the effluent limitations summarized in Table 4.12-1.
Compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge would be monitored and enforced by the
City which may suspend or revoke the permit in accordance with provisions outlined in Section 13.56.300
and 13.56.310 of the City’s Code should CGWC fail to meet the permit requirements. Should new
requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would inhibit the
WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a Permit for
Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, compliance with the
Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge, once issued by the City, would ensure that the Proposed
Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of
the CVRWQCB and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 4.12-1
DRAFT INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter Units Daily Maximum Monthly Average Limitation Basis
BOD lbs/day 100 40 WWTP Design Criteria
TSS lbs/day 70 58 WWTP Design Criteria
Arsenic (T) µg/L 8.24 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Cadmium (T) µg/L 1.62 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Chromium (T) µg/L 46.9 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Copper (T) µg/L 6.54 n/a NPDES Limit
Cyanide (T) µg/L 17.7 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Lead (T) µg/L 46.9 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Mercury (T) µg/L 3.68 n/a CTR Chronic Limit
Nickel (T) µg/L 80.8 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Zinc (T) µg/L 7.12 n/a NPDES Limit
pH (Min. – Max.) S.U. 6.5-8.5 n/a NPDES Limit
TKN as N lbs/day as N 8.01 n/a WWTP Design Criteria
UVT (Min.) % 55% n/a WWTP Design Criteria
Flow (Total industrial flow) GPD 24,000 n/a Request by Discharger
Source: Weklych, 2016f.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-11 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Industrial Wastewater Discharged on the Project Site - Options 2, 3, and 4
As described in Section 3.5.8.3, industrial rinse wastewater would be disposed of on site under
Wastewater Treatment Options 2, 3 and 4; and industrial process wastewater would be disposed of on
site under Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4. Industrial rinse wastewater discharged this way would
have to comply with either the existing WDR Order No. 5-01-233 (Wastewater Treatment Option 2) or a
modified WDR order issued by the CVRWQCB (Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4). The following
analysis describes how each wastewater treatment option would comply with wastewater treatment
requirements established by the CVRWQCB.
Wastewater Treatment Option 2
Under Wastewater Treatment Option 2, industrial rinse water would be discharged into the Plant’s on-site
leach field located south of the plant building. As described in Section 3.3, the existing on-site leach field
was designed to accommodate 72,000 gpd and is currently permitted by the CVRWQCB for the
discharge of industrial rinse water under WDR Order 5-01-233. Since the Proposed Project at full
production (two bottling lines) would generate a maximum of 50,000 gallons per production day (gppd) of
industrial rinse water, no expansion of the leach field or modification to the applicable WDR is expected to
be required under Wastewater Treatment Option 2. During the operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC
would continue to submit technical and monitoring reports pursuant to the conditions of WDR Order 5-01-
233 to ensure compliance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB under Wastewater
Treatment Option 2 and no mitigation is required.
Wastewater Treatment Option 3
Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would only occur during the production of sparkling water and flavored
water. Under Wastewater Treatment Option 3, industrial rinse wastewater would be sent to the on-site
leach field, as described under Wastewater Treatment Option 2, while industrial process wastewater from
the production of sparkling water would flow to a series of two below grade concrete holding tanks and
then sent to the pH neutralization system to treat the pH of the flow stream to acceptable pH limits before
being discharged to the existing leach field system. Because the industrial process wastewater proposed
to be discharged to a leach field under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would be from a different
wastewater source and have different water quality than what is currently permitted, Wastewater
Treatment Option 3 would require a new or modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB. As described in
Section 4.8.4 and Appendix H, the estimated concentration of constituents in the industrial process
wastewater from the production of sparkling and flavored water is much less than the California MCL for
drinking water and, while it is anticipated that there will be slight rise in several background constituents in
the shallow groundwater aquifer, the constituents are still well within drinking water standards. During the
operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC would be required to submit technical and monitoring reports
pursuant to the conditions of the modified WDR order to ensure compliance. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of
the CVRWQCB under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 and no mitigation is required.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-12 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Wastewater Treatment Option 4
Under Wastewater Treatment Option 4, industrial rinse water from the production of sparkling and
flavored water, juice beverages, and teas would be discharged into the Plant’s on-site leach field, as
described in Wastewater Treatment Option 2, while industrial process wastewater would be treated on
site before being discharged into the Plant’s existing on-site leach field, which would be expanded to
accommodate additional flows, or into the proposed on-site irrigation system. Because the water
proposed to be discharged to a leach field under Wastewater Treatment Option 4 would be from a
different wastewater source and have different water quality than what is currently permitted, Wastewater
Treatment Option 4 would require a new or modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB. The wastewater
treatment system (WWTS), described in Section 3.5.8.3 and Appendix C, was designed based on
wastewater flow rates and characterization during each production run (sparkling water, tea, and juice) as
well as expected effluent requirements, which were based on groundwater quality located below the
existing leach field (see Table 4.8-2). Therefore, the proposed WWTS would treat industrial process
water to the same level or better than the groundwater quality located below the existing leach field.
During the operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC would be required to submit technical and
monitoring reports pursuant to the conditions of new or modified WDR order to ensure compliance.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater
treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB under Wastewater Treatment Option 4 and no mitigation is
required.
IMPACT 4.12-2
REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Significance Proposed Project Wastewater Options 1 and 2 –Significant
Proposed Project Wastewater Options 3 and 4 – Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1: Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
A sewer system capacity analysis was completed for segments of the City’s sewer system that conveys
wastewater from the project site to the WWTP (Figure 4.12-1) and is included as Attachment A to
Appendix L. The capacity analysis determined whether any pipelines should be considered for upsizing
based on their post-project capacity. If any pipelines had a post-project capacity of over 100 percent (i.e.
no capacity available for the Proposed Project and/or future connections), then they would be identified
as needing to be upsized as a result of the Proposed Project. The analysis was completed for existing
conditions3 and three wastewater discharge scenarios: Scenario 1 addition of 50,000 gpd (0.05 mgd),
Scenario 2 addition of 70,000 gpd (0.07 mgd), and Scenario 3 addition of 100,000 gpd (0.1 mgd). Table
3 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b).
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-13 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.12-2 summarizes the results of the analysis. As described in Section 4.12.1.1, there was one section
of pipe that was determined to be undersized for the PWWF experienced at that section.
TABLE 4.12-2
SUMMARY OF SEWER REPLACEMENT FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SCENARIOS
Flow Scenario Number of Pipes over
100% Capacity
Existing 1
Scenario 1 (0.05 mgd) 1
Scenario 2 (0.07 mgd) 2
Scenario 3 (0.1 mgd) 3
Notes: mgd = million gallons per day Source: CH2M Hill, 2015a.
As described in Section 3.5.8, domestic wastewater generated at the Plant would be conveyed through
the City’s sewer system under all wastewater treatment options, industrial process wastewater would be
conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, and industrial rinse wastewater would be
conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Option 1. A summary of wastewater generation rates is
summarized in Table 3-1. The following discussion analyzes the potential impacts to wastewater
conveyance facilities from each of the wastewater treatment options based on the results of the sewer
system capacity analysis included as Attachment A to Appendix L.
Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2
Initial Phase (one bottling line)
Considering that industrial process and industrial rinse wastewater peak discharge rates would not occur
on the same day, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater
Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be approximately 54,300 gpd (0.05 mgd) during the initial phase (one
bottling line). As shown in Table 4.12-2, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition
of the 0.05 mgd flow under Scenario 1, there are no additional segments of the sewer system that would
need to be upsized as a result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to by
undersized under existing conditions. A description of two options for implementing this improvement
(Options P1 and P2) is provided in Section 3.7. As described therein, the addition of an additional 12-
inch sewer pipe section under Option P1 or the addition of dual 18-inch sewer pipes under Option P2
would accommodate additional flows from the Proposed Project; therefore, potential environmental
effects that could occur as result of constructing this off-site improvement are addressed in this EIR,
including Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources; and Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations. The addition of the proposed 12-inch sewer pipe
section (under Option P1) or dual 18-inch sewer pipe sections (under Option P2) would increase the
combined capacity of that section to 4.92 mgd and 15.96 mgd, respectively, which would allow for
conveyance of the current PWWF at that section (3.86 mgd) as well as the wastewater flows generated
under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during the initial phase (0.05 mgd); therefore, the impact
from the operation of one bottling line is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Although not
required to mitigate the impact from the operation of the Proposed Project during the initial phase,
Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit the maximum daily discharge from the Proposed Project to
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-14 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02 mgd) thereby further reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the
capacity of the City’s sewer conveyance system.
Full Production (two bottling lines)
Considering that industrial process and industrial rinse wastewater peak discharge rates would not occur
on the same day, the most water that could be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater
Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production (two bottling lines).
As shown in Table 4.12-2, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition of the 0.1 mgd
flow under Scenario 3, there are two additional pipeline segments that would need to be upsized as a
result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to by undersized under existing
conditions. As described above, the Proposed Project includes the addition of an additional 12-inch
sewer pipe section under Option P1 and the addition of two 18-inch sewer pipe sections under Option P2
at the segment that was determined to be undersized under existing conditions to accommodate the flows
under the initial phase. The installation of the 12-inch sewer pipe section (under Option P1) or dual 18-
inch sewer pipe sections (under Option P2) would increase the combined capacity of that section to 4.92
mgd and 15.96 mgd, respectively, which would allow for conveyance of the current PWWF at that section
(3.86 mgd) as well as the wastewater flows generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2
during full production; therefore, the impact is less than significant.
The upsizing of the other two additional segments could cause significant environmental effects and are,
therefore, a potentially significant effect. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater
flow discharges to 0.02 mgd through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed
area of the project site south of the Plant thereby eliminating the need for the upsizing of the other two
segments and reducing the impact to less than significant. Potential impacts from the implementation
of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.
Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4
As shown in Table 3-1, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under
Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4 would be 600 gpd during full production (two bottling lines). As
described above, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition of the 50,000 gpd (0.05
mgd) flow under Scenario 1, there are no additional segments of the sewer system that would need to be
upsized as a result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to be undersized
under existing conditions. Therefore, the comparatively minimal increase generated by Wastewater
Treatment Options 3 and 4 would also not require any additional expansions to the City’s sewer system
beyond what is currently needed under existing conditions. The additional wastewater flows under
Options 3 and 4 to this segment of 0.0006 mgd represent only 0.016 percent of the current PWWF at the
failing pipeline segment of 3.86 mgd, and thus would not measurably increase impacts over existing
conditions. Therefore, Options 3 and 4 for wastewater treatment would not require off-site improvements
to sewer conveyance facilities and this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-15 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
IMPACT 4.12-3
REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD
CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR REQUIRE
SEWER SERVICE THAT MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE BY THE
AREA’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROVIDER
Significance Proposed Project Wastewater Options 1 and 2: Significant
Proposed Project Wastewater Options 3 and 4: Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1: Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
As described in Section 4.12.1.1, the ADWF design capacity of the City’s WWTP is 0.75 mgd and the
PWWF is 3.56 mgd (City of Mt. Shasta, 2015). The WWTP currently manages an ADWF of 0.7 mgd and
a PWWF of up to 3.5 mgd (PACE Engineering, 2016b), resulting in an available dry-weather capacity of
0.05 mgd (0.75 mgd – 0.7 mgd) and an available wet-weather capacity of 0.06 mgd (3.56 mgd – 3.5
mgd). On June 1, 2017, the WWTP’s interim effluent ammonia, copper, and zinc limits will expire. At that
time the WWTP’s wet weather capacity may be limited to the 1.0 mgd capacity due to capacity limitations
in the clarification and filtration processes as well as the 4.8 MG of buffer storage that would be used to
hold wastewater until it could be treated by the WWTP.
As described in Section 3.5.8, domestic wastewater generated at the Plant would be conveyed through
the City’s sewer system under all wastewater treatment options, industrial process wastewater would be
conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, and industrial rinse wastewater would be
conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Option 1. A summary of wastewater generation rates is
summarized in Table 3-1. The following discussion analyzes the potential impacts to wastewater
treatment facilities from each of the wastewater treatment options.
Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2
Initial Phase (one bottling line)
Considering that industrial process and industrial rinse wastewater peak discharge rates would not occur
on the same day, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater
Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be approximately 54,300 gpd (0.05 mgd) during the initial phase (one
bottling line). Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 mgd and 0.06
mgd, respectively, the wastewater flows generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during
the initial phase would require the remaining available capacity at the WWTP, this would be a significant
impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater flow discharges to 0.02 mgd
through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed area of the project site south of
the Plant thereby reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the WWTP’s current capacity. Potential
impacts from the implementation of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-16 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Should new requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would
inhibit the WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a
Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 and compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater
Discharge, once issued by the City, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB.
Full Production (two bottling lines)
Considering that industrial process and industrial rinse wastewater peak discharge rates would not occur
on the same day, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater
Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production (two bottling lines).
Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 mgd and 0.06 mgd,
respectively, there is not currently sufficient capacity at the WWTP to accommodate wastewater flows
generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during full production (0.10 mgd), this would be
a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater flow discharges to 0.02
mgd through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed area of the project site
south of the Plant thereby reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the WWTP’s current capacity.
Potential impacts from the implementation of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.
Should new requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would
inhibit the WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a
Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 and compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater
Discharge, once issued by the City, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB.
Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4
As shown in Table 3-1, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under
Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4 would be 600 gpd (0.0006 mgd) during full production (two
bottling lines). Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 and 0.06 mgd,
respectively, there is currently sufficient capacity at the WWTP to accommodate wastewater flows
generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4; therefore, the impact is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-17 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT 4.12-4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
Significance Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures None Required
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
The cumulative setting includes the anticipated growth within the WWTP service area through 2039.
Implementation of the Proposed Project, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, approved,
and reasonably foreseeable development within these service areas, would cumulatively increase
demand for wastewater services. Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 were conservatively selected
for this cumulative analysis because, as described above, all other scenarios would have a lesser impact
on the City’s sewer system and WWTP.
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
As described in Impact 4.12-2, the Proposed Project includes increasing the capacity of a sewer pipe
section that is over 100 percent capacity under existing conditions4 and the existing plus 50,000 gpd (0.05
mgd) scenario (Scenario 1). This improvement would be installed by the 2039 cumulative year. With the
proposed sewer line improvement (Option P1 or P2), no additional sewer pipeline segments would need
to be upsized until conditions meet the existing plus 70,000 gpd (0.07 mgd) scenario (Scenario 2). With
the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, the maximum daily discharge from the Proposed
Project under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be limited to approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02
mgd); therefore, if cumulative development added 0.05 mgd (0.07 mgd – 0.02 mgd), at least one segment
of the City’s sewer system that conveys wastewater from the project site to the WWTP would need
upsizing. As noted in Section 5.0, there is minimal growth anticipated in the City and no reasonably
foreseeable projects that would add 0.05 mgd to the City’s sewer system during PWWF; therefore, even
under Wastewater Options 1 and 2, which would discharge the most wastewater to the City’s sewer
system, it is not anticipated that additional upsizing of the City’s sewer system would need to occur.
Should a project be proposed in the future that would add significant flows to the City’s sewer system,
that project would need to pay into the City’s fee program and additional environmental review would
need to occur if triggered by CEQA. The City’s sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
anticipated growth within the WWTP service area; therefore, the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Wastewater Treatment
As described in Section 4.12.1.1, the 2015 IS/MND, evaluated the improvements needed to increase the
treatment and disposal capacity of the WWTP to be able to serve anticipated growth through 2039 under
two scenarios: population growth within the service area and population growth plus anticipated treatment
and disposal demands from the Proposed Project. Based on the respective growth rates of properties
4 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b).
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-18 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
served within and outside the city limits, the 2015 IS/MND estimated that a capacity of 0.9 mgd would be
required to serve anticipated growth through 2039. The 2015 IS/MND stated that the Proposed Project,
at full production (two bottling lines), could contribute up to 0.15 mgd to the City’s WWTP. Accordingly,
the 2015 IS/MND determined that if the City were to serve the Proposed Project, the planned treatment
and disposal capacity would need to be increased from 0.9 mgd to 1.05 mgd to serve the anticipated
2039 demand. The potential impacts of expanding the dry-weather capacity of the WWTP up to 1.05
mgd were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND, which is incorporated into this EIR by reference as
described within Section 1.4 of this EIR. A summary of the conclusions of the 2015 IS/MND is provided
below:
Aesthetics: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-
than-significant impact on aesthetics and that no mitigation was necessary.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and that
no mitigation was necessary.
Air Quality: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-
than-significant impact on air quality and that no mitigation was necessary.
Biological Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would
have a potentially significant impact on certain biological resources. Mitigation was provided to
reduce impacts related to species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species;
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; and/or the movement of native, migratory,
or wildlife species through natural habitat, corridors, and nursery sites to less than significant.
The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-than-significant
impact on federally protected wetlands and that no mitigation was necessary
Cultural Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have
a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Mitigation was provided to reduce impacts
related to the discovery of undocumented historical resources, archaeological resources, and/or
human remains to less than significant. The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on paleontological resources and that no
mitigation was necessary
Geology and Soils: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a
less-than-significant impact on geology and soils and that no mitigation was necessary.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and that no mitigation
was necessary.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials and that
no mitigation was necessary.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on hydrology and water quality and that no mitigation
was necessary.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-19 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Land Use and Planning: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would
have no impact on land use and planning and that no mitigation was necessary.
Mineral Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have
no impact on mineral resources and that no mitigation was necessary.
Noise: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on noise and that no mitigation was necessary.
Population and Housing: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing and that no mitigation was
necessary.
Public Services: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have no
impact on public services and that no mitigation was necessary.
Recreation: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have no impact
on recreation and that no mitigation was necessary.
Transportation and Circulation: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on transportation and that no mitigation was necessary.
Utilities and Service Systems: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project
would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation was provided to
reduce adverse impacts related to the environmental effects of constructing new wastewater
treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities to less than significant. The 2015
IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have less-than-significant or no impact
on other utilities and service systems and that no mitigation was necessary.
Mandatory Findings of Significance: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement
Project would have a potentially significant impact related to possible effects on special-status
wildlife species, encroachment into the Sacramento River, temporary loss of riparian habitat,
disturbance of nesting migratory birds, disturbance of subsurface cultural resources, increased
soil erosion and water quality degradation, increased air emissions, and temporarily increased
noise levels. Mitigation was provided to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The
2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have less-than-significant
cumulatively considerable impacts and less-than-significant impact on human beings and that no
mitigation was necessary.
As described in Impact 4.12-3, the most wastewater that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system
under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production
(two bottling lines), which is approximately 67 percent of the amount of daily discharge anticipated from
the Proposed Project in the 2015 IS/MND. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, the
maximum daily discharge from the Proposed Project under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would
be limited to approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02 mgd), which is approximately 13 percent of the amount of
daily discharge anticipated from the Proposed Project in the 2015 IS/MND. Therefore, the planned 1.05-
mgd WWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth within the WWTP
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-20 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
service area through 2039 as well as wastewater flows generated under the Proposed Project. As
concluded within the 2015 IS/MND, the majority of impacts from construction and operation of expansion
of the WWTP would be less than significant, or could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with
mitigation identified in the 2015 IS/MND; therefore, cumulative impacts associated with expansion of the
City’s WWTP would be less than significant.
4.12.1.4 Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12-1 Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows
Crystal Geyser will meter all wastewater discharges to the City’s sewer system so that
maximum daily flows will not exceed 24,000 gpd at any time. Wastewater discharges will
be metered through the installation of an underground holding tank within the disturbed
area of the project site south of the Plant. Flow metering will be conducted continuously
using an industrial sewer discharge magnetic flow meter and recorded daily pursuant to
the Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Depending on the timing of flow
contributions from the Plant relative to the timing of the WWTP expansion and
infrastructure improvements, the City may elect to adjust or eliminate the permitted
maximum daily flow of the Plant in the future.
4.12.2 SOLID WASTE
Following an overview of the environmental setting in Section 4.12.2.1 and the relevant regulatory setting
in Section 4.12.2.2, project-related impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in
Sections 4.12.2.3 and 4.12.2.4, respectively.
4.12.2.1 Environmental Setting
Solid Waste Facilities
Siskiyou County General Services operates and funds five transfer stations throughout its borders. The
project site is located within the service area of the Black Butte Transfer Station which transfers solid
waste to the Dry Creek Landfill in southern Oregon. Additionally, recycling services have been provided
to the area by the Siskiyou Opportunity Center.
Rouge Disposal and Recycling and Dry Creek Landfill
Dry Creek Landfill is a regional facility, operated by Rouge Disposal and Recycling that accepts waste
from five counties in California and Oregon. On average the landfill accepts 900 tons of solid waste per
day (Rouge Disposal & Recycling, 2016). Under existing permits, the landfill may accept 972 tons of solid
waste per day until the year 2056 (County of Siskiyou, 2016e). The landfill’s total capacity is 76,500,000
tons, of which it currently has 5,850,000 tons of waste in place, and the landfill receives an annual inflow
of 460,000 tons. At this rate the landfill has more than 150 years of capacity (Fortier, 2016). Rouge
Disposal and Recycling does not offer trash or recycling pick-up in the County, but coordinates with
transfer stations operated Siskiyou County General Services and accepts direct hauling.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-21 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Siskiyou County General Services Black Butte Transfer Station
On-site pick up is provided by the City within City limits; however, properties in the unincorporated area,
such as the Proposed Project, need to contract with a waste removal service. John Smith Sanitation
serves the surrounding rural areas and could provide waste services (County of Siskiyou, 2015). The
Black Butte Transfer Station is located at 3710 Springhill Road, Mt. Shasta, approximately 2.3 miles north
by road from the Proposed Project. The Black Butte Transfer Station accepts: garbage, tires,
construction debris, appliances, furniture, electronic waste, used oil, scrap metal, batteries, and light
bulbs (County of Siskiyou, 2015; Cal Recycle 2016a). The facility has a maximum permitted throughput
of 100 tons per day (Cal Recycle, 2016b). The transfer station’s daily throughput can vary significantly
and reaches capacity fewer than 10 times a year. When capacity is reached, additional waste is sent to
other transfer stations in the area, the closest of which is in Yreka (Akana, 2016).
Siskiyou Opportunity Center
The Siskiyou Opportunity Center provides support services that assist individuals with disabilities to
obtain an earned income, function independently, and maximize their highest level of vocational potential
(Siskiyou Opportunity Center, 2016). As part of their programs, the center has picked up and sorted
recyclables for the Weed, Dunsmuir, and Mt. Shasta Blue Bag programs. However, the Siskiyou
Opportunity center does not currently accept plastic because of the low reimbursement for plastics not
sufficient to compensate for the cost of picking up and sorting.
4.12.2.2 Regulatory Framework
State
California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the
State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective
January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid
waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s
AB 939 plan will be integrated with each city’s plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source
reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the
State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), enacted
January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid
waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s
AB 939 plan will be integrated with each city’s plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source
reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.
Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991
The Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327), enacted in 1991, requires jurisdictions to
adopt ordinances that require development projects to provide adequate storage areas for collection and
removal of recyclable materials.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-22 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Assembly Bill 341
AB 341, enacted in 2011, states that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid
waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. The bill also requires that a
business, defined to include a commercial or public entity that generates more than 4 cubic yards of
commercial solid waste per week or is a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more arrange for
recycling services, on and after July 1, 2012. Jurisdictions, on and after July 1, 2012, are required to
implement a commercial solid waste recycling program to meet this requirement.
Local
Siskiyou County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency
Siskiyou County Community Development Department enforces State solid waste statutes and
regulations within the County through permitting, inspection, and enforcement at solid waste operations
and facilities such as landfills/disposal sites (active and closed), including sites for disposal of
construction/demolition debris and inert materials; transfer stations, including materials recovery facilities;
and composting facilities (CalRecycle, 2016a).
4.12.2.3 Impacts
Method of Analysis
This section identifies any impacts associated with solid waste that could occur from construction,
operation, and/or maintenance of the Proposed Project resulting from all modifications undertaken and
proposed by CGWC to operate the proposed bottling facilities. This includes all facilities installed by
CGWC as shown on Figure 3-4. The existing environmental setting (2016) forms the baseline from
which impacts associated with prior construction activities, proposed construction activities, and operation
are measured. This is a conservative analysis because the capacity of the Dry Creek Land Fill was
greater in 2013, when CGWC purchased the property, than June 2016. Evaluation of potential solid
waste impacts was based on comparisons between the anticipated amount of solid waste generated by
the Proposed Project, which is estimated based on similar facilities, and the available capacity of the solid
waste service providers. The baseline from which environmental impacts associated with solid waste is
measured consists of the environmental setting described above, which is based on conditions in 2016.
Under baseline conditions, the Plant facilities are non-operational and are considered to generate no solid
waste.
The potential for visual impacts resulting from off-site sewer improvements in South Old Stage Road is
addressed below. The potential for environmental impacts from the off-site improvements described in
Section 3.7 that would serve the Proposed Project, but would occur with or without the Proposed Project,
is analyzed in Section 4.12, Utilities. Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-
Mandated Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Section 4.12.1,
Impact 4.12-4. Environmental effects from the proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in
Section 4.12.3, Impact 4.12-7.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-23 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Thresholds of Significance
Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with solid waste were developed based on
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to solid
waste if it would:
Be served by a landfill without sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs in compliance with all applicable laws.
Project Impacts
IMPACT 4.12-5
BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PERMITTED
CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL NEEDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE
LAWS
Significance Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-2: Recycle Employee and Process Waste
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
Proposed Project – Previous Construction Activities
Improvements to the project site by CGWC, which occurred from February 2015 to February 2016,
followed BMPs listed in Section 3.5.11. Past construction included landscaping, water storage tanks,
concrete pads, cooling towers, transformers, juice unloading station, CO2 and nitrogen tank, vaporizers,
propane tank, and equipment installed within the existing plant building, as shown in Figure 3-4. The
construction recycling rate achieved for the portion of construction that occurred between 2013 and June
2016 was 75 percent (Harris, 2016). Therefore, construction waste was relatively insignificant when
compared to the capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that accepted the solid waste and a less-than-
significant impact occurred.
Proposed Project – Future Construction Activities (All Options for Wastewater Treatment)
Construction of the Proposed Project includes: the installation of additional equipment, construction of the
caretaker’s residence, expanded leachfield, on-site wastewater treatment facilities, recycled water lines,
and off-site sewer upgrades. Future construction is anticipated to meet the 75 percent diversion rate by
CGWC continuing to follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) protocols, including
those listed in Section 3.5.11. Construction waste is relatively insignificant when compared to the
capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that would be accepting the solid waste; therefore, a less-than-
significant impact would occur.
Proposed Project Operation
The Proposed Project would generate 12 cubic yards of solid waste, including recyclables, weekly based
on the generation rate of the Plant under Dannon’s operations (CVRWQCB, 2001). This is a
conservative estimate due to the improvements of plastic bottles utilizing designs that require less plastic
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-24 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
(i.e. thinner plastic bottles). Using a waste volume to weight conversion of 320 pounds per cubic yard
(including a mix of glass, metals, food, paper, and plastic) the Plant would generate approximately 100
tons of waste annually (approximately 0.27 tons per day) (Cal Recycle, 2015a). Additionally, under
Wastewater Treatment Option 4, the operation of the WWTS would produce up to an additional 15.6 tons
of dewatered solids annually (approximately 0.04 tons per day). The Plant would recycle plastics,
corrugated paper, and paper waste which would result in considerable waste reductions (CGWC, 2015;
Harris, 2016).
CGWC will secure recycling hauling contracts through either John Smith Sanitation or the Siskiyou
Opportunity Center. Solid waste from the project site would be transported to a local transfer station and
subsequently disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill in southern Oregon. The nearest transfer station is
Black Butte, however the County operates additional transfer stations in Yreka, Tulelake, and Happy
Camp.
As discussed above, the Black Butte Transfer Station is permitted for a throughput of 100 tons a day.
While the throughput does not regularly approach this level, the transfer station does reach capacity six to
eight times annually and cannot accept additional waste. In those cases trash or recycling can be
disposed of at another transfer station, such as the Yreka transfer station (Akana, 2016). The Proposed
Project would produce approximately 0.32 tons a day of solid waste and recyclables, which is less than
one percent of the daily throughput at the Black Butte Transfer Station. Additionally, as discussed above,
the Dry Creek Landfill has capacity to serve the current waste stream until 2166. Given the 50 percent
diversion rate required by State law, the Proposed Project would generate 65.6 tons annually of non-
recycled solid waste – less than 0.007 percent of the current annual waste flow to the Dry Creek Landfill.
Due to the ample capacity at the Dry Creek Landfill and the level of solid waste and recyclables
generated in relation to the typical throughput at the Black Butte Transfer Station, the impact will be less
than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would further reduce the impact on solid waste disposal
facilities by decreasing the solid waste being disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill from the Proposed
Project.
Off-Site Sewer Improvements
Construction waste generated by the construction of the off-site sewer improvements would be temporary
and relatively insignificant when compared to the capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that would be
accepting the solid waste; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-25 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT 4.12-6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO SOLID WASTE
Significance Potentially Significant
Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-2: Recycle Employee and Process Waste
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
The cumulative setting for solid waste service includes the service areas for the Black Butte Transfer
Station.
All solid waste, including recyclables, would most often be sent through the Black Butte Transfer Station.
As described in Section 4.12.2.1 the transfer station has a permitted throughput of 100 tons per day, and
once this throughput is reached, the transfer station must cease operations for the day. Although the
Proposed Project’s waste is less than one percent of permitted throughput, the transfer station currently
does meet its permitted capacity on occasion. Buildout of communities in the Black Butte Transfer
Station’s service area including the City of Weed, City of Mt. Shasta, and unincorporated County land, in
addition to the Proposed Project, may necessitate additional personnel or equipment at the transfer
station. The Proposed Project, and additional residential development would fund such improvements
through property related fees.
At current operation, the Dry Creek Landfill will have adequate capacity until 2166. The County is not
currently meeting the 50 percent diversion reduction as required by AB 939, resulting in a higher
proportion of solid waste being sent to the Dry Creek Landfill (County of Siskiyou, 2013). Given the
County’s low recycling rate, limited recycling centers and landfills in the County this impact is potentially
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 will decrease the solid waste being disposed
of at the Dry Creek Landfill from the Proposed Project by 75 percent; therefore, the Proposed Project’s
contribution to the County’s diversion rate and the cumulative impact would be reduced to less than
cumulatively considerable by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-2.
4.12.2.4 Mitigation Measures
MM 4.12-2 Recycle Employee and Process Waste
CGWC shall recycle at least 75 percent of solid waste generated on site and not being
utilized in commercial products (approximately 9 cubic yards per week). This recycling
rate will be encouraged with recycling measures that may include, but would not limited
to:
a) place recycling bins in areas of high employee traffic (e.g. lunch room) alongside
instructional signs describing the type of waste that should be recycled;
b) place appropriately sized recycling receptacles near unloading and unpacking
areas where high volumes of process recyclables are generated;
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-26 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
c) regularly empty the all recycling bins so that recyclables are not diverted into the
solid waste stream; and
d) provide information on both employee and process recycling as part of employee
training and orientation.
4.12.3 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
Following an overview of the environmental setting in Section 4.12.3.1 and the relevant regulatory setting
in Section 4.12.3.2, project-related impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in
Sections 4.12.3.3 and 4.12.3.4, respectively.
4.12.3.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the service area of PacifiCorp for electricity. A general description of
PacifiCorp is provided in Section 4.13.2. The project site and vicinity is served by PacifiCorp’s Mt.
Shasta Substation, located at 404 South Old Stage Road in an unincorporated part of Siskiyou County,
California, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site. The existing Mt. Shasta Substation contains
two transformers: a 12.5 megavolt ampere (MVA) and a 3.75 MVA. The 12.5 MVA, 69 kV to 12.5 kV
transformer (T-3521) delivers electricity to approximately 4,156 customers while the 3.75 MVA, 69kV to
4.16 kV transformer bank serves approximately 703. The Mt. Shasta Substation is in a deteriorated
condition, consisting of wood pole construction that has been susceptible to wood rot and damage by
birds boring holes into the poles and cross members. It is anticipated that over the next few years the
substation could reach the end of its useful life (PacifiCorp, 2015).
PacifiCorp has projected that the additional load from the general growth in the Mt. Shasta region would
exceed the summer guideline rating for the Mt. Shasta Substation and accelerate the T-3521 transformer
loss of life beyond acceptable industry standards. This projected exceedance would put those customers
served by this transformer at risk of an extended outage during equipment failure. The 3.75 MVA
transformer bank is not at risk of overloading at this time. Given the deteriorated condition of the Mt.
Shasta substation and the fact that the existing Mt. Shasta Substation property is not large enough to
accommodate the necessary equipment required to meet the additional electrical capacity demand,
PacifiCorp has initiated proceedings with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a new
substation and associated transmission upgrades, including a service addition and transmission upgrade
that would result in additional power to meet current and future projected demand. The proposed
substation would be called Lassen Substation and is proposed to be located 504 South Old Stage Road,
approximately 275 feet east of the current Mt. Shasta Substation site (PacifiCorp, 2015).
The CPUC completed a Draft IS/MND in November 2016 (PacifiCorp, 2016b). In compliance with CPUC
guidelines, the 2016 IS/MND evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the
construction and operation of the Lassen Substation Project, which includes measures adopted by the
applicant as project features to reduce project-related environmental impacts referred to applicant
proposed measures (APM), as well as provides mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-
significant level (PacifiCorp, 2016b). The IS/MND is incorporated into this EIR by reference as described
within Section 1.4 of this EIR. Once CPUC proceedings are completed, the actual construction of the
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-27 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
substation and transmission upgrades will depend on the internal priorities of PacifiCorp in its system-
wide improvements.
4.12.3.2 Regulatory Framework
State
California Public Utilities Commission
The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail
transit, and passenger transportation companies, in addition to authorizing video franchises. The CPUC
grants operating authority, regulates service standards, sets rates, and monitors utility operations for
safety, environmental stewardship, and public interest.
CPUC Rates and Funding
Customer rates will be based on the CPUC’s determination of how much revenue the utility reasonably
requires to operate. Funding for the installation of natural gas and electric facilities comes from charges
to ratepayers in accordance with the Electric & Gas Tariff currently on file with the CPUC. New
development is required to ensure a clear and acceptable route is provided for the installation of these
facilities (i.e., rights-of-way, adequate tree clearances, clear of any environmental issues).
Title 24 (California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code)
The California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], California’s
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), provides energy conservation
standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. The
provisions of the California Energy Code apply to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and
water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances; they also give guidance on construction
techniques to maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of
building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation
for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings.
The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the CCR; CalGreen) is intended to
improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings
through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact
and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: planning and design,
energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and
environmental quality. In addition, CalGreen encourages local governments to adopt more stringent
voluntary provisions, known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions, to further reduce air pollutant emissions,
improve energy efficiency, and conserve natural resources. If a local government adopts one of the tiers,
the provisions become mandates for all new construction within that jurisdiction.
The 2016 Title 24 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2016 update of the Title 24
standards improve upon the current 2013 standards, which had an effective date beginning July 1, 2014.
The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards include improvements for attics,
walls, water heating, and lighting. The 2016 Standards also include changes made throughout all of its
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-28 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
sections to improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language (CEC, 2015b).
Compliance with Title 24 standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process.
Local
Siskiyou County General Plan (SCGP)
The County of Siskiyou General Plan Energy Element (1993) includes goals and policies regarding
electrical utilities as detailed below:
Goal Thorough and expeditious evaluation of energy facility proposals; siting of such facilities
in a timely, orderly, and environmentally-sound manner; and assurance of the compatible
and environmentally-sound operation, maintenance, and eventual abandonment of such
facilities.
Policy 30 Proponent applications for energy facility projects shall contain comprehensive
information in sufficient detail to enable the County to conduct a thorough analysis of the
project. At a minimum, information shall include descriptions of all project phases
(resource or fuel supply confirmation, construction, operations, maintenance,
abandonment); the facility's physical and performance characteristics; environmental
effects of all project phases; and a project cost/benefit analysis that includes a County
fiscal component.
Policy 31 Energy facilities shall only be approved if in compliance with all applicable provisions of
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and construction shall start only after all
applicable federal, state, and local permits have been obtained and permit conditions
satisfied.
Policy 32 In the absence of compelling or contravening considerations, energy facilities should not
be sited in sensitive natural resource areas, including: unstable geologic or soil areas;
floodplains; wetlands; habitat of fish or wildlife species of rare, threatened, endangered,
or special concern status; known paleontological, archeological, ethnographic, or
historical sites; or designated scenic areas. If siting in such areas is unavoidable, it shall
be limited to the smallest possible portion of the energy facility in question, and shall be
mitigated in accordance with CEQA.
Policy 33 Wherever possible, increased demand for energy transmission shall be accommodated
with existing transmission facilities. Where new capacity is necessary, priority shall be
given to upgrading or reconstruction of existing facilities, followed by new construction
along existing transmission or other utility corridors. Any new transmission facilities shall
be sited so as to minimize interference with surrounding land-uses, and in ways that
minimize their visual impacts.
Policy 34 The operation of energy facilities shall not violate, or threaten to violate, applicable
environmental standards, including noise, wastes, pollutant discharges, or electronic
discharges or interference.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-29 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Policy 35 The siting and operation of energy facilities shall be accomplished so as not to exceed
the carrying capacity of affected public infrastructure, including but not limited to roads
and highways, water and wastewater systems, public safety services, and schools.
Where applicable, the actual cost of public improvements directly necessitated by a
specific energy facility shall be paid by the facility developer.
Policy 36 Energy facilities shall minimize the generation of wastes and allow for their recycling
whenever practical. Wastes shall only be transported and disposed in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations.
Policy 37 Energy facilities shall prepare and periodically update emergency plans for reasonably
foreseeable accidents and emergency incidents, and such plans shall be coordinated
with local public safety agencies.
Policy 38 If and when abandoned, energy facility sites shall be reclaimed according to a plan that
restores and preserves land values for subsequent and surrounding uses.
4.12.3.3 Impacts
Method of Analysis
Evaluation of potential impacts on electrical utilities resulting from the Proposed Project was based on
capacity of infrastructure that could provide services to the Proposed Project, review of California Energy
Commission policies, State standards, and review of goals and policies identified in the Siskiyou General
Plan. Because the development of the Lassen Substation Project is needed to serve growth in the
service area for PacifiCorp as well as the Proposed Project, the analysis provided below is considered a
cumulative discussion. The analysis focuses on the environmental effects associated with the provision
of electrical services to the project site.
Off-site sewer improvements inherently would not require substantial energy from local electrical utilities.
Therefore, the off-site sewer improvements are not discussed in the impact analysis below. The
environmental effects from the installation of the off-site sewer improvements are discussed as
appropriate in the other impact areas of this EIR.
The potential for environmental impacts from the off-site improvements described in Section 3.7 that
would serve the Proposed Project, but would occur with or without the Proposed Project, is analyzed in
Section 4.12, Utilities. Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-Mandated
Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Section 4.12.1, Impact 4.12-4.
Environmental effects from the proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in Section 4.12.3,
Impact 4.12-7.
Thresholds of Significance
Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with electrical utilities were developed
based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact
if it would:
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-30 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered electrical
utilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain performance objectives.
Cumulative Impacts
IMPACT 4.12-7
RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR ALTERED ELECTRICAL
UTILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR ANY OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICES
Significance Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures None Required
Significance After
Mitigation Less than Significant
As described in Section 3.5.10, the energy demand generated by the Proposed Project under each of the
wastewater treatment options would be approximately 4.2 megawatts (MW) during the initial phase (one
bottling line) and approximately 5.7 MW during full production (two bottling lines)5.
The Plant is currently provided electricity though an existing connection with utilities operated by
PacifiCorp. As described in Section 4.12.3.1, the existing PacifiCorp Mt. Shasta Substation is in a
deteriorated condition and may reach the end of its useful life within a few years. However,
approximately 3.2 MW of capacity is currently available to serve the Proposed Project (Mendenhall,
2016). Since the current capacity of the existing PacifiCorp Mt. Shasta Substation is not sufficient to
serve the energy demands of the initial phase of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project has been
designed to include the installation of three propane fuel generators with a total capacity of approximately
1.1 MW that would be used to supplement the electrical power needed for plant operations. With the
existing capacity of PacifiCorp (3.2 MW) and the inclusion of the generators as part of the Proposed
Project (1.1 MW), no off-site electrical utilities improvements are required to meet the initial demands of
the Plant during the initial phase (4.2 MW) and no environmental impacts from the construction or
operation of new or altered electrical utilities would occur as a result.
In order to meet the demands of full production, the Proposed Project would require approximately 1.5
MW of additional power supplies. As described in Section 4.12.3.1, PacifiCorp has projected that the
additional load from the general growth in the Mt. Shasta region would exceed the summer guideline
rating for the Mt. Shasta Substation and accelerate the T-3521 transformer loss of life beyond acceptable
industry standards. Given the deteriorated condition of the Mt. Shasta substation and the fact that the
existing Mt. Shasta Substation property is not large enough to accommodate the necessary equipment
required to meet the additional electrical capacity demand, PacifiCorp has initiated proceedings with the
5 Under Wastewater Treatment Option 4, the WWTS would add 0.0375 MW to the total project demands; due to rounding, this amount does not increase the approximate overall power demands of the facility of 5.6 MW.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-31 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
CPUC for the Lassen Substation Project that consists of a new substation and associated transmission
upgrades, including a service addition and transmission upgrade that would result in additional power to
meet current and future projected demand, including the Proposed Project. The Lassen Substation
Project is currently the subject of environmental review under CEQA by the CPUC. However, the
potential impacts of the Lassen Substation Project were addressed 2016 IS/MND which is incorporated
into this EIR by reference as described within Section 1.4 of this EIR and summarized below:
Aesthetics: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on aesthetics and that no mitigation was necessary.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and that
no mitigation was necessary.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen
Substation Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions and that no mitigation was necessary.
Biological Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a
potentially significant impact on biological resources. Mitigation was provided to prevent adverse
impacts related to special status species.
Cultural Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no
impact on cultural resources and that no mitigation was necessary.
Geology and Soils: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a
less-than-significant impact on geology and soils and that no mitigation was necessary.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project
would have a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation was
provided to prevent adverse impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project
would have a potentially significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation was
provided to prevent adverse impacts to water quality.
Land Use and Planning: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on land use and planning and that no mitigation was
necessary.
Mineral Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no
impact on mineral resources and that no mitigation was necessary.
Noise: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-than-
significant impact on noise and that no mitigation was necessary.
Population and Housing: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing and that no mitigation was
necessary.
4.12 Utilities
AES 4.12-32 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Public Services: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-
than-significant impact on public services and that no mitigation was necessary.
Recreation: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no impact
on recreation and that no mitigation was necessary.
Transportation: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-
than-significant impact on transportation and that no mitigation was necessary.
Utilities and Service Systems: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on utilities and service systems and that no mitigation
was necessary.
Mandatory Findings of Significance: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation
Project would have a less-than-significant impact under the mandatory findings of significance.
Although the proposed substation and associated transmission and distribution line upgrades would be
constructed with or without the Proposed Project to serve the entire area load (PacifiCorp, 2016b), the
Proposed Project would contribute to the demand at the Lassen Substation, and the second phase of the
Proposed Project could not move forward without the proposed improvements. With the implementation
of PacifiCorp’s proposed APMs and mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and associated with
biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality identified in the
2016 IS/MND, impacts from the Lassen Substation Project would be less than significant. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or
altered electrical utilities in order to maintain performance objectives. This impact is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
4.12.3.4 Mitigation Measures
As described above, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to electrical
utilities; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.