VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT Requa Interceptor... · the CEQA Plus process initiated to obtain federal...

VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT

Requa Interceptor Project

Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by:

November 10, 2015

Valley Sanitary District Requa Interceptor Project Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Valley Sanitary District i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Initial Study

1. Project title ........................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead agency name and address ....................................................................................... 1

3. Contact person and phone number ................................................................................. 1

4. Project location ................................................................................................................... 1

5. Project sponsor’s name and address ............................................................................... 1

6. General plan designation .................................................................................................. 1

7. Zoning .................................................................................................................................. 1

8. Description of project ........................................................................................................ 3

9. Surrounding land uses and setting .................................................................................. 5

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required ....................................................... 5

Environmental Factors Affected ........................................................................................................... 6

Determination .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Environmental Checklist ........................................................................................................................ 8

Discussion

I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 8

II. Agricultural and Forest Resources ........................................................................ 9

III. Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 11

IV. Biological Resources .............................................................................................. 14

V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 18

VI. Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 21

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 23

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 25

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 27

X. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 30

XI. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 31

XII. Noise ........................................................................................................................ 32

XIII. Population and Housing ....................................................................................... 38

XIV. Public Services ........................................................................................................ 39

XV. Recreation ............................................................................................................... 40


Valley Sanitary District ii

XVI. Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................... 40

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................... 42

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................... 44

References ................................................................................................................................. 46

List of Figures

Figure 1: Requa Interceptor Proposed Alignment .............................................................. 2

List of Tables

Table 1: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................ 11

Table 2: Estimated Maximum Construction Emissions .................................................. 13

Table 3: Estimated Emissions of Green House Gases ...................................................... 25

Table 4: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................. 35

Table 5: Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ........................ 37

Appendices

Appendices A‐C provided on compact disk

Appendix D – Response to Comments


Valley Sanitary District 1

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project title:

Valley Sanitary District Requa Interceptor Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

Valley Sanitary District

45500 Van Buren Street

Indio, CA 92201

3. Contact person and phone number:

Joseph Glowitz, PE, MBA, PMP

General Manager


(760) 238‐5400

4. Project location:

The project is located within existing public right of way (ROW), including Madison

Street, Avenue 46, Aladdin Street, Shadow Palms Avenue/Requa Avenue, Indio

Boulevard, Golf Center Parkway, Citrus Avenue, Avenue 45, and Van Buren Street. The

project area is generally bordered by residential, commercial and industrial land uses as

well as vacant land. Valley Sanitary District (VSD) currently provides wastewater

conveyance and treatment services for approximately 82,000 residents as well as

commercial and industrial generators within the City of Indio, California as well as the

City of Coachella, portions of the City of La Quinta and areas within unincorporated

Riverside County. The Requa Interceptor project would improve service capacity within

the existing VSD system. The project location is shown in Figure 1.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:


45500 Van Buren Street

Indio, CA 92201

6. General Plan designation:

Street corridors not designated in the General Plan. VSD Wastewater Reclamation Facility

is designated Public. UPRR yard designated Manufacturing; parcels near eastern terminus

are designated Industrial.

FIGURE 1



7. Zoning:

Street corridors are not provided a zoning designation. VSD Wastewater Reclamation

Facility is zoned Public. UPRR yard zoned Manufacturing; parcels near eastern terminus

zoned Industrial Processing.

8. Description of project:

Project Understanding

The proposed Requa Interceptor project would construct 4.2 miles of new gravity flow sewer

pipeline and related utility improvements designed to collect and convey sanitary sewer flows

within existing public right of way (ROW) through central Indio, California, to the existing Valley

Sanitary District Water Reclamation Plant located at 45‐500 Van Buren Street. This capital

improvement project is being proposed by the Valley Sanitary District (VSD) to relieve capacity

within the existing collector pipelines and increase capacity to accommodate future development

along Avenue 46 and Highway 111 and along Requa Avenue generally between Madison Street

to the west and Van Buren Street to the east.

The proposed project was initially evaluated per the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA) in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (approved October 23,

2007 (SCH 2007091026). Minor modifications to the project were subsequently made and the

project was reevaluated relative to applicable laws and CEQA thresholds of significance in the

Valley Sanitary District | Requa Avenue Sewer Interceptor Project Addendum to IS/MND in August,

2014. Since completion of the August 2014 Addendum, new information regarding potential

environmental impacts was identified during preparation of technical reports associated with

the CEQA Plus process initiated to obtain federal funding through the State Water Resources

Control Board. Thus, VSD elected to prepare and circulate this Initial Study to provide

interested parties an opportunity review all current information available regarding the

proposed project.

The project is located within existing public ROW, including Madison Street, Avenue 46,

Aladdin Street, Shadow Palms Avenue/Requa Avenue, Indio Boulevard, Golf Center Parkway,

Citrus Avenue, Avenue 45, and Van Buren Street. The project area is generally bordered by

residential, commercial and industrial land uses as well as vacant land. The project would be

constructed using open trench methods with the exception of the segments crossing the All

American Canal and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Construction of these segments would

require the use of jack and bore methods to install the pipeline under the canal and railroad.

Each segment of the pipeline is summarized from west to east as follows:

Install a 10” gravity sewer pipeline beginning at the Shields Road/Avenue 46 intersection east

within the Avenue 46 ROW to Indian River Road. This segment would connect and upsize two

existing sewer pipelines to intercept additional flow.



Install a new 24” gravity sewer pipeline beginning at the Madison Street and Highway 111

intersection extending north within the ROW of Madison Street to the intersection of Avenue

46. The pipeline would then continue east within the ROW of Avenue 46 to the intersection of

Aladdin Street. Approximately 500 feet west of Madison Street, jack and bore construction

methods would be used to install the pipeline under the All American canal.

Install a new 24” gravity sewer pipeline from the Aladdin Street/Avenue 46 intersection north

to the Aladdin Street/Shadow Palm Avenue intersection. From this intersection, the pipeline

would extend east within the Requa Avenue corridor to Monroe Street. From Monroe Street to

Fargo Street, the pipeline would remain in the Requa Avenue corridor but increase to 30” in

size.

Install a new 30” gravity sewer pipeline from Fargo Street east under Indio Boulevard and the

Union Pacific Railroad Yard. From this point the pipeline continues along the southern

boundary of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 611‐340‐041 to Citrus Avenue, continues east then

northeast and cut across a portion of APN 611‐391‐045 and continue along the northern

boundary of APN 611‐391‐014 (City of Indio Mulligan Dog Park) to the intersection with

Avenue 45. The pipeline would then turn south in the ROW of Avenue 45/Van Buren Street,

cross Van Buren Street in an open trench and into the VSD plant.

Construction Methods

The proposed project would be constructed using an open trench method primarily within

existing roadway corridors. The trench would be excavated to a depth of 15‐18 feet on average

and a width of 7 feet. The construction limits would be limited to the roadway width – gutter to

gutter ‐ to accommodate variations in the final alignment. However, no more than one half the

road corridor would be disturbed. Asphalt and soil excavated from the trench would be hauled

to a staging area. Soil would be sifted and stored in piles for use as pipeline bedding material

and backfill. Asphalt would be ground and used as road base prior to placement of a new

asphalt concrete road surface as segments are completed.

For construction under the All American Canal and Union Pacific Railroad, bore and jack

entrance pits would be excavated on one side of each crossing to a depth of approximately 27

feet below grade; exit pits would be located on the opposite side at the same depth. The pipeline

segment would be installed, covered and then connected to the new pipeline when the

trenching crews reach that location.

Construction is expected to begin in early 2016 and take approximately 18 months to complete.



9. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The project has a west/east alignment and is located generally in the central portion of the City

of Indio. Land uses vary but are predominantly residential and institutional along Avenue 46,

Aladdin and Requa Avenue west of Monroe Street. East of Monroe Street, land uses are a

mixture of residential, commercial and vacant properties. The area east of Indio Boulevard is

generally light industrial. The VSD site is comprised of approximately 100 acres and contains

numerous buildings, tanks, piping and pumping infrastructure associated with wastewater

reclamation operations.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:

No other agency approvals are required.



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,

involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless

Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest

Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology/Water

Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of

Significance



DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially

significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2)

has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on

attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze

only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been

avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including

revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing

further is required.

Signature Date

______________________________

Printed Name



ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic

resources, including, but not limited

to, trees, rock outcroppings, and

historic buildings within a state scenic

highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing

visual character or quality of the site

and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial

light or glare which would adversely

affect day or nighttime views in the

area?

a) The City of Indio General Plan (1994) includes provides planning and policy guidance for

development within the City. No specific visual features are noted in the General Plan nor does

it include policy guidance referencing the protection or preservation of visual resources within

the City.

The project alignment is located within existing street corridors, the All American Canal, the

UPRR yard and the VSD wastewater reclamation facility as described in Section 9 above. Views

of the alignment are consistent with an urbanized area containing multiple land uses.

Construction of the project would result in a temporary disturbances associated with excavation

and installation of the pipeline. All disturbed areas would be returned to preconstruction

conditions as segments of the project are completed. The project would have no change to the

existing visual environment. No scenic views or resources would be affected. Thus, no impact

to scenic vistas would occur.



b) There are three designated state scenic highways in Riverside County as defined by the

California Department of Transportation. The nearest state‐designated scenic highway to the

study area is the segment of State Route 74 (SR‐74) from the San Bernardino National Forest

boundary to Highway 111 in the City of Palm Desert approximately 14 miles west of Indio. As

noted, the project site is flat and comprised primarily of paved roadway. There are no trees,

rock outcroppings, historic structures or other visually prominent features that would be

affected by the project. No impact to these resources would occur as a result of the proposed

project.

c) The project corridor is part of an urban street system that includes the All American Canal,

UPRR yard and light industrial uses in proximity to the eastern end of the project. Project

construction would temporarily change the visual appearance of the corridor. However, the

corridor does not have any distinctive visual characteristics; thus, project development would

not substantially degrade the visual character of the site or surrounding areas. Impacts would

be temporary and less than significant.

d) Street lighting occurs throughout the corridor. The proposed project is a new subsurface

sewer line interceptor and does not include any new lighting. Temporary lighting used to

illuminate the construction area and equipment lights may be required. This light source would

be terminated at the completion of construction.

As noted, all improvements would be located subsurface. No new sources of glare would be

constructed. Temporary light/glare impacts would be less than significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, Farmland of Statewide

Importance (Farmland), as shown on

the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring

Program of the California Resources

Agency, to non‐agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for

agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or

cause rezoning of, forest land (as



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST

RESOURCES ‐‐ Would the project:

defined in Public Resources Code

Section 12220(g)), timberland (as

defined by Public Resources Code

Section 4526), or timberland zoned

Timberland Production (as defined by

Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or

conversion of forest land to non‐forest

use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing

environment which, due to their

location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to non‐

agricultural use?

a) The project would be constructed within existing street corridors and within light industrial

areas. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be

affected by project implementation. No impact would occur under this threshold.

b) The project corridor does not contain lands enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. The

proposed project would not conflict with any zoning designations designed to promote

agriculture. No impact would occur under this threshold.

c‐e) Neither the project corridor or surrounding lands are used for timber production. A date

palm operation appears to have operated along Requa Avenue east of Rubidoux Street. This site

is abandoned; however, all project related improvements in this area would occur in the street

corridor. The project would not conflict with any zoning designations designed to preserve

timber or agricultural resources. No impact would occur under this threshold.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

III. AIR QUALITY ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct

implementation of the applicable air

quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or

contribute substantially to an existing

or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable

net increase of any criteria pollutant

for which the project region is non‐

attainment under an applicable

federal or state ambient air quality

standard (including releasing

emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a

substantial number of people?

The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of

the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A significant adverse air quality

impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes with progress toward

the attainment of the ozone standard by generating emissions that equal or exceed the

established long term quantitative thresholds for pollutants, or exceed a state or federal ambient

air quality standard for any criteria pollutant. Table 1 shows the significance thresholds that

have been recommended by the SCAQMD for projects within the South Coast Air Basin.

Table 1

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Mass Daily Thresholds

Pollutant Construction Operation

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day



Table 1

SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Mass Daily Thresholds

Particulate Matter 10 (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day

Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day

SOx No standard 150 lbs/day

CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day

a Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, unless

otherwise stated. b Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.

lbs/day = pounds per day

In response to the comment letter provided by the State Water Resources Control Board, federal de minimis levels for air emissions have been added to the Initial Study. The de minimis level is the minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed for various criteria pollutants depending on the attainment status of the air basin where the project is

located. These thresholds are provided in 40 CFR 93 § 153 and shown below.

Ozone (VOC and NOx) – 25 tons per year Carbon Monoxide, NO2, SO2 – 100 tons per year PM10 – 100 tons per year PM2.5 – 100 tons per year

The construction emissions associated with development of the proposed project were calculated using the CalEEMOD Version 2013.2.2 (2013) software (see Appendix A). The construction emissions were compared to emission thresholds referenced in Table 1 and de minimis thresholds referenced above. The construction activities associated with development would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction would require the use of equipment to excavate the trench, install the pipe, backfill and repave the corridor as well as haul material to and from the staging area. Post‐construction, the project would have no emissions though

periodic maintenance inspections would occur similar to what is ongoing within the overall

service area.

According to SCAQMD Guidelines, to be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP), a project must conform to the local General Plan and must not result in or contribute

to an exceedance of the County’s projected population growth forecast. The 2012 AQMP, the

most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city General Plans and the

Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan

socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing and employment growth.

The proposed project does not include residential development that would result in population



growth in excess of forecasts for Riverside County. The project would not conflict with the City

of Indio General Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP.

b‐c) As discussed project operation would require periodic maintenance; however, it is assumed

that maintenance would be performed by VSD staff working in the service area. The sewer line

interceptor would not generate air pollutant emissions. Project construction would generate

temporary air pollutant emissions. Thus, only construction emissions associated with the

proposed project are discussed below.

Construction Emissions

Construction vehicles and equipment traveling within the project area and site preparation

activities have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) through the exposure of

soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. Project related construction activities would also

emit ozone precursors (oxides of nitrogen (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROG)) as well as

carbon monoxide (CO). The majority of construction‐related emissions would result from site

preparation and the use of heavy duty construction equipment.

CalEEMod calculates construction emissions during the various phases of project construction,

including site preparation, excavation/grading and paving. As indicated in Table 2, maximum

daily emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD construction

thresholds or the Federal de minimis thresholds. Therefore, construction impacts would be less

than significant.

Operational Emissions

No operational emissions would be associated with the proposed project. No impact would occur

under this threshold.



Table 2

Estimated Maximum Construction Emissions (lbs/day)

Air Emissions2

ROG/VOC NOx SOx CO PM10 PM2.5

Overall Construction Maximum

Daily Emissions1 3.9 37.4

0.03 25 8.4 5.3

SCAQMD Pollutant Thresholds3 75 100 No

standard 550 150 55

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Annual Construction Emissions 0.5 4.8 .004 3.25 1.1 .69

Federal de minimis Threshold4 25 25 100 100 100 100

Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No

Source: CalEEMod calculations, see Appendix A.

1. Maximum daily emissions represent the worse‐case scenario. Maximum daily emissions

would not occur each day of the construction period.

2. Summer emissions are reported as they are the highest emissions.

3. SCAQMD thresholds provided in lbs/day

4. Federal de minimis thresholds provided in tons/year

d) Sensitive receptors are located along the majority of the corridor west of the UPRR yard. As

shown in Table 2, project construction would not exceed SCAQMD pollutant thresholds. Project

operation would not generate pollutants. The project would require periodic maintenance visits

by VSD staff. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

e) The proposed project would be an underground sewer line interceptor. Odor control

measures currently used by VSD throughout the service area would be implemented to avoid

or minimize odors associated with use of the pipeline. Odor impacts would be less than

significant.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ‐‐

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect,

either directly or through habitat

modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or

special status species in local or

regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on

any riparian habitat or other sensitive

natural community identified in local

or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on

federally protected wetlands as

defined by Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (including, but not limited

to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)

through direct removal, filling,

hydrological interruption, or other

means?

d) Interfere substantially with the

movement of any native resident or

migratory fish or wildlife species or

with established native resident or

migratory wildlife corridors, or

impede the use of native wildlife

nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ‐‐

Would the project:

resources, such as a tree preservation

policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an

adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,

Natural Community Conservation

Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation

plan?

a.) A Biological Assessment Report (August, 2015) was performed for the proposed project to

evaluated potential impacts to plants, animals and related habitat (see Appendix B). In

summary, the project area is characterized as highly disturbed in association with existing

development. Vegetation consists mostly of ornamental trees and shrubs in association with

development and non‐native grasses and weedy annuals in association with disturbed open

areas. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Coachella Valley Multiple

Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) were consulted to determine the sensitive

species that could potentially occur in the project area or vicinity, including any federally

listed endangered or threatened species. No special status species were observed; however,

habitat occurs in the study area that may support the Burrowing Owl and migratory bird

species as discussed below.

Burrowing Owl

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularis, BUOW) is a ground‐dwelling owl that ranges throughout

the western United States, Canada, and Mexico. The BUOW is a small (approximately 9 to 11

inches in height) pale brown owl with white‐colored “eyebrows” and throat, yellow eyes, a

short stubby tail, and long legs. Males are generally larger and more lightly colored than

females.

They are found in a variety of habitats with low‐growing vegetation, including open, dry

grasslands, uncultivated agricultural lands, and desert habitats. BUOW may also be seen

along the margins of airports and golf courses, as well as in vacant urban lots. They are

commonly seen perching on fence posts, debris or rock piles, artificial berms, or on mounds



just outside of their burrows. Unlike most other owls, BUOW nest in natural or artificial

burrows in the ground.

Although BUOW is capable of excavating its own burrows in soft soils, they typically inhabit

abandoned burrows of small burrowing mammals. BUOW has also been associated with

man‐made structures such as cement culverts, suitably sized debris piles, and other artificial

burrows. In southern California BUOW is often observed in association with abandoned

California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows in areas of suitable habitat.

Although BUOW is migratory throughout much of its range, in central and southern

California this species is predominantly non‐migratory. BUOW exhibit high site fidelity and

will often reuse a site for nesting, perching, and/or foraging activities year after year. No

BUOW, occupied burrows, or evidence of recent burrowing owl activity or sign (pellets, scat,

feathers, tracks, etc.) were observed within the project area during habitat evaluation. Two

California ground squirrels were observed on the westernmost abandoned date palm farm

along Highway 111, between Shields Road and Madison Street, and small rodent burrows

were found at this location; however, no evidence of large bird activity (scat or other sign)

was observed in association with these rodent burrows.

Based on the present survey result, a focused BUOW survey is not recommended; however,

due to the presence of potential habitat within the proposed APE, potentially significant

impacts to this species may occur during construction. With implementation of Measure BIO‐

1, impact to BUOW would be reduced to less than significant.

Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703‐711) is an international treaty that

makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in

50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed

by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds,

their nests, or eggs. The MBTA requires that project‐related disturbance at active nesting

territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (February 1

through August 31). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive

effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) or loss of habitat upon which the birds

depend could be considered “take” and constitute a violation of the MBTA.

Migratory birds include common, sensitive and listed species. Trees and shrubbery suitable

for nesting by birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are present within and along

the project corridor. Because potential habitat is present within the proposed area of potential

effect and project construction will occur within the nesting cycle, potentially significant

impacts to migratory bird species may occur. With implementation of Measure BIO‐1, impact

to migratory birds would be reduced to less than significant.



BIO‐1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. To avoid the destruction of

active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected

by MBTA, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14

days prior to the scheduled construction in areas adjacent to trees

suitable for nesting. In the event that active nests are discovered, a

suitable buffer should be established around such active nests and no

construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has

determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g. the nestlings have

fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing

activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has

confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have

fledged the nest. Survey results shall be presented in a letter report

and submitted to VSD. Nesting bird surveys are not required for

construction activities occurring between September 1 and January 31.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is a habitat area essential to the conservation of a listed species, though the area

need not actually be occupied by the species at the time it is designated. This is a specific term

and designation within the US Endangered Species Act. With certain exceptions, critical habitat

must be designated for all threatened species and endangered species under the Endangered

Species Act, with certain specified exceptions. Based on maps viewed through the US Fish and

Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Portal, the proposed project site is not within or adjacent to

designated critical habitat. No impact to designated critical habitats would occur.

b and c) The project corridor has been disturbed as a result of prior development activity. Based

on the findings in Biological Assessment Report (August 2015), the project corridor does not

contain riparian vegetation One potentially jurisdictional wetland resource, the All American

Canal does occur within the study area. However, the project would install the pipeline under

the canal rather than cause any direct impacts to this resource. Because such resources are not

present within the project area or would not be affected by construction, no impact to these

resources would occur.

d) The project site is highly disturbed and comprised of street corridors and light industrial

properties located within an urbanized area. These areas are not typically used for as migratory

or movement corridors; however, post‐construction, the project area would be returned to

existing conditions. The project would not impede the movement of animals through the area.

No impact to wildlife movement corridors would occur with project implementation.

e‐f) The area affected by construction contains numerous street trees; however, these trees

would not be removed as part of the project. Thus, project implementation would not conflict

with policies regarding tree preservation. The project site is located within the boundaries of the



Coachella Valley MSHCP; however, it is not located in a conservation area nor are species

protected under the MSHCP found in the project area. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ‐‐

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of a historical

resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in

the significance of an archaeological

resource as defined in §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or

unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains,

including those interred outside of

formal cemeteries?

The background information and impact evaluation provided herein are based on data in the

Cultural Resources Assessment for the Requa Avenue Sewer Interceptor Project, August 2015

(Appendix C). The proposed study area for the assessment was defined as an Area of Potential

Effect (APE) which considers the length of the proposed sewer alignment with a buffer extending

to the limits of the existing City Right‐of‐Way (ROW) for Shields Road, Avenue 46, Madison

Street, Aladdin Street, Shadow Palm Avenue/Requa Avenue, Citrus Avenue, Commerce Street,

Enterprise Way, Van Buren Street, and Avenue 45. For those portions of the project where the

sewer line interceptor is located in areas without ROW information, a corridor measuring up to

approximately 125 feet in width was used to account for potential variances in the alignment.

This corridor considers an approximate standard road width (24 to 25 feet) with a buffer of up to

50 feet on either side. The APE also considers the areas identified for temporary equipment

staging and material stockpiling. In the staging area locations, the entirety of the associated parcel

was included in the APE to provide a buffer for staging area activities. Vertical impacts associated with the project vary throughout the project corridor. A typical vertical impact would measure

between 15 and 18 feet in depth though several segments would be deeper. Two of the four jack

and bore pits would be up to 28 feet deep. The APE considers the horizontal and vertical extent

of the project with a buffer and measures approximately 107.50 acres. The APE has been assessed

through existing literature searches, records reviews, and a pedestrian survey.



A cultural resources records search was completed on April 22, 2015; May 6, 2015; and June 30,

2015, at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside.

The records search was conducted for the APE and all lands found within 0.50 mile. The results

indicated that the APE has been addressed by 11 previous studies, indicating that approximately

75 percent of the APE has been previously addressed by surveys or records searches. Including

these studies, a total of 41 cultural resources reports have been prepared for the lands located

within a 0.50 mile radius of the APE. Approximately 60 percent of the surrounding properties

have been surveyed or researched via records searches. As a result of these studies, a total of 51

cultural resources have been recorded within a 0.50 mile radius, including six prehistoric

resources and two historic resources, within or partially within the APE.

a) The Coachella Canal (Record 33‐5705) extends for a total 123.5 miles and connects Drop

1 of the All‐American Canal to the Salton Sea. The entirety of the Coachella Canal has

been previously evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(NHRP) and recommended eligible for the NRHP. In addition, the canal was found to be

eligible for the NRHP as part of a District that includes the Imperial Dam and Desilting

Works, the All‐American Canal, and the Coachella Canal.

The Union Pacific Rail Road‐Southern Pacific Railroad (Record 33‐9498/CA‐RIV‐6381H)

is a railroad alignment connecting the Los Angeles area to Yuma, Arizona. As an

extensive linear resource, segments have been evaluated for inclusion in NRHP or the

California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Two small segments of the resource,

located to the southeast of the APE, were determined to lack integrity and the ability to

contribute to the overall significance of the resource if it was found eligible. The segment

located within the APE has not been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.

Using jack and bore construction methods, the proposed sewer line interceptor would be

installed under the Coachella Canal and UPRR Yard. Thus, the Cultural Resource

Assessment concluded that No impact would occur to these resources as a result of

project implementation.

b) One recorded prehistoric site, CA‐RIV‐676 is located north of the segment between Golf

Center Parkway and Citrus Avenue. The mapped site boundary overlapped the northern

most boundary of the APE within this area; however, the actual pipeline alignment would

not directly affect the resource. Surface evidence of this site was not observed within the

APE during the pedestrian survey. However, this site is known to exhibit a subsurface

component and the portion of the site located within the APE has not been tested for the

presence of intact, subsurface deposits. As such, it may yield information important to

prehistory. For this reason, the portion of this resource located within the APE was

assumed eligible for the NRHP and CRHR in the context of this study. This

recommendation also renders the site a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. In response

to comments from the State Water Resources Control Board regarding CA‐RIV‐676, the

APE map referencing this area in the Cultural Resources Assessment for the Requa Avenue

Sewer Interceptor Project, August 2015, was revised to shift the APE south and out of the



recorded site boundary. To avoid potential direct impacts to unknown cultural resources,

no construction activities would occur within or in proximity to CA‐RIV‐676. However,

given the potential presence of subsurface deposits, impacts may be potentially significant

unless mitigation is incorporated. With implementation of mitigation measures CR‐1 and

CR‐2, impacts to these resources would be less than significant.

CR‐1 To avoid or minimize potential impacts to subsurface resources associated with

CA‐RIV‐676, an Avoidance and Monitoring Plan will be prepared to identify

specific actions that would be implemented during construction within

proximity to this recorded resource to address discoveries.

CR‐2: In the event that construction unearths any archaeological site indicators (as

described below), work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery until a

qualified archaeologist has been retained to inspect it. If the project archaeologist

determines that a potentially significant resource will be impacted by additional

construction activities, it will be the responsibility of the project sponsor to

submit a plan for evaluative testing to the Director of Planning, County of

Riverside, to demonstrate that the project area contains a resource eligible for

inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources.

Archaeological site indicators include but are not limited to the following:

Darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature,

Evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire affected earth or rock),

Concentrations of bone, stone or fresh water shellfish, and

Artifacts of these materials.

c) Construction of the project would not impact, either directly or indirectly, any known unique

paleontological resource or unique geologic features. Given the construction history and depth

of previous disturbance, the potential for locating undiscovered paleontological or geological

resources is remote. However, with implementation of mitigation measure CR‐1 and CR‐2, a

less than significant impact to paleontological resources would occur.

d) The potential for encountering human remains at the project site is low. No known burial

sites have been identified within the project site or in the vicinity nor was any evidence of this

found during preparation of the Cultural Resource Assessment. In addition, California Health

and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code § 5097.98, and § 15064.5 of the California Code

of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that, if human

remains are encountered during excavation, all work must halt, and the County Coroner must

be notified (Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code). The coroner will

determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of the

supervising archaeologist, determines that the remains are prehistoric, the coroner will contact

the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for



designating the most likely descendant (MLD) responsible for the ultimate disposition of the

remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The MLD should make

his/her recommendations within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This

recommendation may include A) the non‐destructive removal and analysis of human remains

and items associated with Native American human remains; (B) preservation of Native

American human remains and associated items in place; (C) relinquishment of Native American

human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment; or (D) other culturally

appropriate treatment. Section 7052 of the Health & Safety Code also states that disturbance of

Native American cemeteries is a felony. With adherence to these existing regulations, impacts

would be less than significant.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS –

Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to

potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or

death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake

fault, as delineated on the most

recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake

Fault Zoning Map issued by the

State Geologist for the area or

based on other substantial

evidence of a known fault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic‐related ground failure,

including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or

the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil

that is unstable as a result of the

project, and potentially result in on‐ or

off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,

subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS –

Would the project:

d) Be located on expansive soil, as

defined in Table 1‐B of the Uniform

Building Code, creating substantial

risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately

supporting the use of septic tanks or

alternative wastewater disposal

systems where sewers are not

available for the disposal of

wastewater?

a (i‐ii) The nearest active fault are strands of the San Andreas Fault, Coachella Valley segment,

located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project corridor and VSD reclamation facility.

This fault segment extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Salton Sea (Earth Consultants

International, August, 2000). The project corridor is not located within the boundaries of an

Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972

(California Department of Conservation, website visited December 3, 2014). There are no

known active or potentially active faults traversing the area and the risk of ground rupture

resulting from fault displacement beneath the site is low.

During the life of the proposed improvements, the corridor will likely experience moderate to

occasionally high ground shaking from known faults, as well as background shaking from other

seismically active areas of the Southern California region. However, compliance with

recommendations in Section 4.0 of the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Requa Avenue Sewer

Interceptor Project (HDR Engineering, March 2014), would minimize potentially adverse impacts

associated with geological conditions including ground shaking

Impacts would be less than significant.

a (iii) Groundwater levels within the corridor are expected to be 100 feet or more below the

surface (HDR Engineering, March 2014). Project excavation would be as deep as 18 feet;

however, this is above the depth of known groundwater. The potential for encountering

groundwater and related impacts associated with liquefaction at the subject site is considered

low; however temporary dewatering and localized perched groundwater conditions could be

encountered during construction of the interceptor line and construction of the jack and bore



pits. If this were to occur, a dewatering plan would be prepared to address this issue. Impacts


a (iv) The project site is generally flat. No existing slopes would be disturbed during

construction of the proposed project; thus, the potential for landslide is low. Trenches greater

than 5 feet in depth should be laid back or shored to meet Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) requirements (HDR Engineering, March 2014). Impacts would be less

than significant.

b) Based on the borings performed for this project, the onsite soils are generally alluvial

consisting of fine sands with varying amounts of silts and occasionally trace of clays. From the

surface to 25 feet deep, the soils are loose to dense. Below this depth, soils are generally dense to

very dense (HDR Engineering, March 2014).

As referenced, the corridor is flat which limits erosion potential. The corridor is greater than one

acre in size; thus, the project would be subject to State Water Resources Control Board General

Construction Permit during construction to minimize soil erosion. For additional information,

see Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. With implementation of Best Management Practices

(BMPs) specified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the

project, soil erosion hazard impacts would be less than significant.

c, d) Land subsidence is defined as the sinking or settling of land to a lower level. Causes can

include: (1) earth movements; (2) lowering of ground water level; (3) removal of underlying

supporting materials by mining or solution of solids, either artificially or from natural causes;

(4) compaction caused by wetting (hydrocompaction); (5) oxidation of organic matter in soils; or

(6) added load on the land surface. The new sewer line interceptor would be installed on

compacted bedding material and then covered with compacted backfill as specified in the

geotechnical report. The roadbed and pavement would be installed above the backfill. No

evidence of subsidence is present within the study area; thus, assuming construction occurs

consistent with engineering recommendations, the potential for subsidence at the subject site is

considered low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

e) The proposed project does not include any improvements that would require the use of septic

systems. No impact would occur.



Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs),

analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHG include water vapor,

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2Ox), fluorinated gases, and ozone. GHGs

are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are

emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by‐products

of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off‐gassing associated with agricultural

practices and landfills. Man‐made GHGs, many of which have greater heat‐absorption potential

than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC),

and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s

temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34°

C cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the

consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the

concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring

concentrations (Cal EPA, 2006).

Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include feasible

mitigation of GHG emissions and analysis of the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA

Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in

CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative

thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.

The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project‐

specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate

change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is

cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,

either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the

environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan,

policy, or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases?



individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other

current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355).

Potential GHG impacts are evaluated per the SCAQMD’s recommended/preferred option

threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons CO2E per year. GHG emissions associated

with the project’s construction period and long term operational emissions were estimated

using CalEEMod (see Appendix D).

a) Construction activities would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The project‐related

construction emissions are confined to the 18 month construction window. Consistent with

GHG methodology, emissions were amortized over a 30‐year period to determine the annual

construction‐related GHG emissions over the life of the project. The proposed project would

generate approximately 275 metric tons of GHG emissions annually during 2016 and 196 metric

tons in 2017. Amortized over 30 years, the project would generate 15.7 metric tons as shown in

Table 3 below.

Table 3

Estimated Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions

(metric tons CO2E)

2016 275

2017 196

Total 471

Construction (amortized over

30 years) 15.7

Sources: Emissions reported are from CalEEMod mitigated

construction and operational data. See Appendix A for calculations.

The proposed project’s emissions would be lower than SCAQMD’s proposed 3,000 metric tons

per year threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) The proposed project is the installation of a sewer line interceptor. The project does not

include residential, commercial, or industrial development that would generate ongoing

operational GHG emissions. No impact would occur.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS ‐ Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of

hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the

public or the environment through

reasonably foreseeable upset and

accident conditions involving the

release of hazardous materials into the

environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle

hazardous or acutely hazardous

materials, substances, or waste within

¼ mile of an existing or proposed

school?

d) Be located on a site which is included

on a list of hazardous material sites

compiled pursuant to Government

Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,

would it create a significant hazard to

the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport

land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project result in a

safety hazard for people residing or

working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project

result in a safety hazard for people

residing or working in the project

area?



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS ‐ Would the project:

g) Impair implementation of or

physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury, or death

involving wildland fires, including

where wildlands are adjacent to

urbanized areas or where residences

are intermixed with wildlands?

a‐c) The proposed project would require the use of diesel fuel to operate the equipment and

trucks; however, a fueling service would be used rather than having fuel stored on‐site during

construction. The project is a sewer line interceptor. It does not include manufacturing or other

activities that would involve the routine use, handling, storage, or transport of hazardous

materials. Indio High School is located at the southeast corner of Avenue 46 and Clinton Street.

The nearest school to the VSD reclamation facility is the Armistad Continuation High School

located approximately one mile northwest of the site. No impact would occur.

d) Based on a review of available databases listing known hazard sites (Geotracker, Envirostar),

there is no evidence of hazardous environmental conditions within the construction corridor. A

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared in 2014 for the All American Canal

crossing. No evidence of hazards or hazardous materials occurring within proximity to the

canal was identified. The proposed project does not involve residential or commercial

development, and upon completion of project construction, the site would be returned to

existing conditions. No impact would occur.

e, f) Thermal Airport, is located 13 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project is

not located within the Thermal Airport land use boundary, within 2 miles of a public use

airport in proximity to a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

g) The proposed project would temporarily result in lane closures to accommodate construction;

however, as segments of the project are completed, the streets would be repaired and reopened.

A traffic control plan would be prepared and provided to the City of Indio for review and

consultation with emergency service providers regarding project actions that could impact



evacuation routes or otherwise impair emergency vehicle routing or evacuation during

emergencies. Impacts would be less than significant.

h) The project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated in maps prepared

by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Riverside County, 2007). The

proposed project does not involve residential or commercial development that would draw

people to the area, and upon completion of project construction, the corridor would be returned

to existing conditions. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater

supplies or interfere substantially

with groundwater recharge such that

there would be a net deficit in aquifer

volume or a lowering or the local

groundwater table level (e.g., the

production rate of pre‐existing nearby

wells would drop to a level which

would not support existing land uses

or planned uses for which permits

have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the

course of a stream or river, in a

manner which would result in

substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or

off‐site?

d) Substantially alter the existing

drainage pattern of the site or area,

including the alteration of the course

of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY – Would the project:

runoff in a manner which would

result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water

which would exceed the capacity of

existing or planned stormwater

drainage systems or provide

substantial additional sources of

polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade

water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100‐year flood

hazard area as mapped on a federal

Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood

Insurance Rate Map or other flood

hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard

area structures which would impede

or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a

significant risk of loss, injury, or death

involving flooding, including flooding

as a result of the failure of a levee or

dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or

mudflow?

a, c‐f) The project area is comprised of paved road corridors and disturbed areas adjacent to the

UPRR yard and in proximity to the existing VSD facility. Project implementation would result

in the installation of a new sewer line interceptor pipeline. Project implementation would

cumulatively affect approximately 100 acres; thus, the project would be required to comply with

the 2009 General Construction Permit (Department of Water Resources). The project would

require filing a Notice of Intent with DWR and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to



avoid or minimize erosion and discharge impacts associated with the proposed project. The

project would replace the existing ground cover (i.e., pavement or soil) and not create more

impervious area than what occurs under existing conditions. Thus, post‐construction, runoff

quantities would be unchanged. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) The project would be unoccupied and would not require potable water service. Project

construction would not increase the amount of impervious surface; thus, groundwater recharge

potential would not be affected. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater or

interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur.

g, h, i) The segment of the alignment near the eastern terminus and on the VSD reclamation

facility site is located within Zone X (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C2254G,

August, 2008) adjacent to the Whitewater Stormwater Channel. The chance of annual flooding

within Zone X is less than 0.2%. The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood

flows. The project does not include a residential component; thus, no housing would be

constructed. The project site is not located in a dam inundation zone. Project implementation

would not expose people or structures to flood hazard from severe storm events or dam failure.

No impact would occur.

j) Seiches are oscillations of the surface of inland bodies of water that vary in period from a few

minutes to several hours. Seismic excitations can induce such oscillations. Tsunamis are large

sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The project is located

well inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not subject to tsunami hazard. The nearest inland

body of water are the aeration ponds located on the VSD reclamation facility site. Sufficient

freeboard exists such that if oscillations were to occur, they would likely be contained within

the pond structure. The project site is generally flat. This area would not be subject to a

mudflow hazard. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ‐‐

Would the proposal:

a) Physically divide an established

community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use

plan, policy, or regulation of an

agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including, but not limited to

the general plan, specific plan, local



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ‐‐

Would the proposal:

coastal program, or zoning ordinance)

adopted for the purpose of avoiding

or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with an applicable habitat

conservation plan or natural

community conservation plan?

a) The proposed project would install a new sewer line interceptor with public street corridors

and under the All American Canal and UPRR yard. The corridor is mostly developed with

residential, commercial, light industrial and institutional uses. All construction would occur

within street corridors or disturbed areas and all improvements would be located below

ground. The project would not physically divide an existing community. No impact would

occur.

b) The proposed project is subject to goals and policies within the City of Indio General Plan.

The City of Indio General Plan contains language supporting the development of infrastructure

as needed to serve current and future populations. The Requa Interceptor project is one element

of the overall capital facilities program being implemented by VSD to address demand for

wastewater conveyance infrastructure. The proposed project would not conflict with any policy

of the applicable planning documents. No impact would occur per this threshold.

c) The project site is not located within a Coachella Valley MSHCP conservation area or other

Natural Community Conservation Plan (see Section IV, Biological Resources). No impact

would occur under this threshold.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ‐‐

Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a

known mineral resource that would

be of value to the region and the



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ‐‐

Would the project:

residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a

locally important mineral resource

recovery site delineated on a local

general plan, specific plan, or other

land use plan?

a, b) The City of Indio General Plan EIR (1994) shows the project corridor is not within a

mapped Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ). The proposed project would not require excavation of

mineral resources nor would construction result in the loss of availability of any known

regional or local mineral resources. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XII. NOISE – Would the project result

in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation

of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or

noise ordinance, or applicable

standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation

of excessive groundborne vibration or

groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in

ambient noise levels above levels

existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic

increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XII. NOISE – Would the project result

in:

e) For a project located within an airport

land use plan or, where such a plan

has not been adopted, within two

miles of a public airport or public use

airport, would the project expose

people residing or working in the

project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a

private airstrip, would the project

expose people residing or working in

the project area to excessive noise?

Noise levels (or volume) are generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A‐weighted sound

pressure level (dBA). The A‐weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels

consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around

4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100

Hertz).

Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest

detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero

sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent

to an increase of 3 dB, and a sound that is 10 dB less than the ambient sound level has no effect

on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater

than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community

noise levels is noticeable, while 1‐2 dB changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban

areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40‐50 dBA, while those along arterial streets are

in the 50‐60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60‐65 dBA range, and ambient

noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.

In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is

important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance

or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise

metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq).

The Leq is defined as the single steady A‐weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of

energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the



average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one‐hour period.

The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to

be more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. Two commonly used noise

metrics – the Day‐Night average level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)

recognize this fact by weighting hourly Leq over a 24‐hour period. The Ldn is a 24‐hour average

noise level that adds 10 dB to actual nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noise levels to account for

the greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. The CNEL is identical to the Ldn, except

it also adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM).

Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of

room surfaces is called ground borne noise. Ground borne vibration is almost exclusively a

concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Ground‐borne

vibration related to human annoyance is generally related to velocity levels expressed in

vibration decibels (VdB). However, construction‐related groundborne vibration in relation to its

potential for building damage can also be measured in inches per second (in/sec) peak particle

velocity (PPV) (Federal Transit Administration, May 2006). Based on the FTA’s Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment and the California Department of Transportation’s 1992

Transportation‐Related Earthborne Vibration, Technical Advisory, vibration levels decrease by 6 VdB

with every doubling of distance.

Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities

associated with those uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and parks are

most sensitive to noise intrusion; and therefore, have more stringent noise exposure targets than

commercial or industrial uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance. Sensitive

land uses generally should not be subjected to noise levels that would be considered intrusive

in character. Therefore, the location, hours of operation, type of use, and extent of development

warrant close analysis in an effort to ensure that noise sensitive receptors are not substantially

affected by noise.

Noise Standards

Federal Noise Policies. There are no federal noise requirements or regulations that apply

directly to the City of Indio. However, there are federal regulations that influence the audible

landscape, especially for projects where federal funding is involved. For example, the FHWA

requires abatement of highway traffic noise for highway projects through rules in the Code of

Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 772), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA). Each agency recommends thorough noise and vibration

assessments through comprehensive guidelines for any highway, mass transit, or high‐speed

railroad projects that would pass by residential areas.

Federal Vibration Policies. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published

guidelines for assessing the impacts of groundborne vibration associated with construction

activities, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects. The FTA



measure of the threshold of architectural damage for non‐engineered timber and mason

buildings (e.g., residential units) is 0.2 in/sec PPV. The threshold of perception of vibration is

0.01 in/sec PPV (Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and the Environment, 2006).

State Noise Policies. Title 24, Section 3501 et. seq. of the California Code of Regulations

codifies California Noise Insulation Standards. This code section uses the Community Noise

Equivalency Level (CNEL) as its primary noise evaluation measurement. The CNEL

measurement assesses noise variation during different times of the day for the purposes of

averaging noise over a 24‐hour period. Essentially, CNEL takes average sound levels at an

observation point and adds a weighted penalty to those sounds that occur during the evening

and nighttime hours. An interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL is often considered the desirable

noise exposure level for single‐family residential units. An exterior noise level of 65 dBA is

generally considered an acceptable level for residential and other noise‐sensitive land uses.

State Vibration Policies. There are no state standards for traffic‐related vibrations.

California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) position is that highway traffic and

construction vibrations generally pose no threat to buildings and structures. For continuous (or

steady‐state) vibrations; however, Caltrans considers the architectural damage risk level to be

somewhere between 0.2 and 2.0 inches/second (California Department of Transportation, 2002).

City of Indio Noise Standards. The City of Indio Municipal Code Section 95C.08(C)

limits the use of construction equipment between as follows:

(1) Pacific Standard Time.

(a) Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

(b) Saturday, 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

(c) Sunday, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

(d) Government Holidays, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

(2) Pacific Daylight Time.

(a) Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

(b) Saturday, 7:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m.

(c) Sunday, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

(d) Government Holidays, 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

a, d) Temporary, construction‐related noise would occur over the duration of project

construction. The noise levels associated with the operation of common construction equipment

are shown in Table 4. The noise levels are provided for reference purposes; not all equipment

shown would be used for the proposed project. Noise levels are expected to occur within the

ranges shown.

Table 4

Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels



Type of Equipment

Range of Maximum

Sound Levels

Measured (dBA at 50

feet)

Maximum Sound

Levels for Analysis

(dBA at 50 feet)

Pile Driver 12,000 to

18,000 ft‐lb/blow 81–96 93

Rock Drills 83–99 96

Jack Hammers 75–85 82

Pneumatic Tools 78–88 85

Pumps 74–84 80

Scrapers 83–91 87

Haul Trucks 83–94 88

Cranes 79‐86 82

Portable Generators 71‐87 80

Rollers 75‐82 80

Dozers 77–90 85

Tractors 77–82 80

Front‐End Loaders 77–90 86

Hydraulic Backhoe 81‐90 86

Hydraulic

Excavators 81–90 86

Graders 79–89 86

Air Compressors 76–89 86

Trucks 81–87 86

Trencher 73‐80 80

Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing

Plants, 1987.

dBA = A‐weighted decibels, ft‐lb/blow = foot‐pounds per blow

Construction equipment associated with the proposed project would include concrete saws,

backhoes, loaders, concrete trucks, pavers and rollers. A concrete/rock crusher may be used on a

staging site to process excavated material for use as pipeline bedding and backfill. Rock

crushers generate noise levels in the range of 87 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. A



doubling of sound energy yields an increase of three decibels, so multiple pieces of equipment

operating together may cause relatively small increases in dBA above the decibel levels

associated with one piece of such equipment. Assuming three such pieces of construction

equipment operating at one time in the construction area, the worst‐case combined noise level

during the site preparation phase of construction is an estimated 93 dBA at a distance of 50 feet

from the active construction area. There are residential areas along the corridor that could

experience temporary noise levels within this range. However, the City of Indio code exempts

construction projects from noise standards, provided that the project complies with

construction hour restrictions referenced above. The proposed project would comply with the

limitation on hours of construction activity; thus, noise impacts during the construction phase


The proposed project does not include noise generating equipment. Periodic maintenance visits

would occur; however, that would be consistent with current activities throughout the VSD

service area. Impacts would be less than significant.

b) Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings,

structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is

generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling

of windows from truck pass‐bys. This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic

energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated.

Typically, groundborne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as

distance from the source of the vibration as vibration rapidly diminishes in amplitude with

distance from the source. In the U.S., the ground motion caused by vibration is measured as

particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A

vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and

distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible

groundborne vibration in the vicinity of the proposed project are construction equipment and

heavy duty vehicle traffic. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is

barely perceptible.The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical

background vibration velocity, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage

can occur in fragile buildings.

Construction activity would be temporary and any vibrations would likely not persist for long

periods. Assuming vibration levels would be simlar to those associated with a loaded truck,

typical groundborne vibration levels would be 86 VdB at 25 feet, 80 VdB at 50 feet, and 74 Vdb

at 100 feet, based on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration

Impact Assessment (May 2006) as shown in Table 5.



Table 5

Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction

Equipment

Approximate VdB

Equipment 25 Feet 50

Feet

100

Feet

Large Bulldozer 87 81 75

Loaded Trucks 86 80 74

Small Bulldozer 58 52 46

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006

Construction activity along the corridor with the potential to cause groundborne vibration

would be temporary in duration and occur within the timeframe designated in the City of Indio

Municipal Code. Therefore, project construction would not involve any vibration sources that

would expose people to excessive or prolonged groundborne vibration or groundborne noise

levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) Post construction, the proposed project would not generate new traffic or require the use of

noise‐generating equipment. With the completion of construction activities, ambient noise

levels would not change as a result of project operation. No impact would occur under this

threshold.

e‐f) The project site is located approximately 13 miles northwest of Thermal Airport and outside

the boundaries of any airport land use plan. No private airstrips are located in proximity to the

project site. The project would not result in the construction of residential uses that could be

adversely affected by airport noise. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth

in an area, either directly (for

example, by proposing new homes

and businesses) or indirectly (for

example, through extension of roads



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING —

Would the project:

or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of

existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing

elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of

people, necessitating the construction

of replacement housing elsewhere?

a) The proposed project is a new sewer line interceptor. The project would serve existing and

anticipated demand within the VSD service area. The project area is currently developed; thus,

the project would not induce population growth directly through the development of new

residential occupancies or indirectly through the extension of utility infrastructure to a currently

unserved area. Therefore the project would result in no impact related to population growth.

b, c) The project site is currently vacant and part of a wastewater reclamation. Project

implementation not result in the removal of existing housing or the displacement of residents.




Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial

adverse physical impacts associated

with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental

facilities, or the need for new or

physically altered governmental

facilities, the construction of which

could cause significant environmental

impacts, in order to maintain

acceptable service ratios, response

times or other performance objectives

for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

a (i‐v) The project would not induce population growth directly through the development of

new residential occupancies or indirectly through the extension of utility infrastructure to a

currently unserved area. The sewer line interceptor would address existing and future demand

for wastewater conveyance services. Demand for public services would not change as a result of

project construction and operation. Thus, the project would not require the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable levels of service. No impact

would occur.



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XV. RECREATION ‐‐

a) Would the project increase the use of

existing neighborhood and regional

parks or other recreational facilities

such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facility would

occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational

facilities or require the construction or

expansion of recreational facilities

which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?

a‐b) The project would not increase demand for recreational facilities such that the deterioration

of such facilities would be accelerated. Further, the project would not require the construction

or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the

environment. No impact would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC ‐‐

Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan,

ordinance or policy establishing a

measure of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system,

taking into account all modes of

transportation, including mass transit

and non‐motorized travel and

relevant components of the circulation

system, including but not limited to

intersections, streets, highways, and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC ‐‐

Would the project:

paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion

management program, including, but

not limited to level of service

standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards

established by the county congestion

management agency for designated

roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic

patterns, including either an increase

in traffic levels or a change in location

that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to

a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or

dangerous intersections) or

incompatible use (e.g., farm

equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency

access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,

or programs regarding public transit,

bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or

otherwise substantially decrease the

performance or safety of such

facilities?

a‐b) Project construction would temporarily impede traffic within the street corridors. Post‐

construction, the project would not generate traffic with the exception of periodic maintenance

visits that occur throughout the service area. A traffic control plan would be prepared by the

contractor and submitted to VSD and the City of Indio for review and approval. The purpose of

the traffic control plan is to identify measures that would be implemented to address street/lane

closures, identify construction haul routes and detour routes if needed. No additional trips



would be required to operate and maintain the project. A less than significant impact would

occur under this threshold.

c) Thermal Airport is located approximately 13 miles southeast of Indio. The proposed project

would not change any air traffic patterns, increase the number of flights, impose any additional

safety risks for airport operations, or necessitate a change in location for the airfield. No impact

would occur.

d) The proposed project would not require any road improvements. Thus, it would not result in

design features that would increase hazards. No impact would occur.

e) The proposed project would not alter emergency access routes. The traffic control plan would

identify measures to ensure emergency access is maintained during construction. Post

construction, no project‐related activity would impair emergency access to the area. No impact

would occur.

f) The project would be an underground sewer line interceptor. It would not generate demand

for public transit services or impair the use of non‐vehicular transportation facilities. No impact

would occur.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE

SYSTEMS ‐‐ Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment

requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control

Board?

b) Require or result in the construction

of new water or wastewater treatment

facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which

could cause significant environmental

effects?

c) Require or result in the construction

of new storm water drainage facilities

or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?



Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE

SYSTEMS ‐‐ Would the project:

d) Have sufficient water supplies

available to serve the project from

existing entitlements and resources, or

are new or expanded entitlements

needed?

e) Result in a determination by the

wastewater treatment provider which

serves or may serve the project that it

has adequate capacity to serve the

project’s projected demand in

addition to the provider’s existing

commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate

the project’s solid waste disposal

needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations related to

solid waste?

a‐b, e) The project would convey wastewater to the existing VSD reclamation facility. The

project would not create additional demand on existing facilities such that wastewater

treatment standards would be exceeded or new or expanded facilities required. No impact

would occur.

c) As discussed in Section IX above, the proposed project would not increase the amount of

impermeable surfaces within the project site. Construction would occur within existing paved

street corridors. All stormwater runoff would be managed consistent the 2009 DWR General

Construction Permit and SWPPP BMPs. Where soils are disturbed to accommodate jack and

bore construction, they would replace and compact. No additional impervious areas would

result from the proposed project. No impact would occur.

d) No potable water would be required; thus, no new water entitlements would be necessary.




f) The proposed project would generate minimal construction/demolition waste (CDW). It is

presumed that waste would be comprised of excavation materials that can’t be reused and

general construction debris. However, as noted in the project description, it is anticipated that

most of the material excavated would be recycled and included as pipeline bedding and

backfill. The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 mandates that all

cities and counties in California reduce solid waste disposed at landfills generated within their

jurisdictions by 50%. CDW associated with the proposed project will be recycled to the extent

practicable with the remainder sent to a landfill. This would ensure compliance with the 50%

reduction goal set by CIWMA. A less than significant impact would occur under this

threshold.

g) The applicant and project contractor will comply with all local, state, and federal

requirements for integrated waste management (e.g., recycling, green waste) and solid waste

disposal as required by the CIWMA of 1989. No impact would occur under this threshold.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Potentially

Significant

Unless

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE —

a) Does the project have the potential to

substantially reduce the habitat of a

fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or

wildlife population to drop below

self‐ sustaining levels, eliminate a

plant or animal community, reduce

the number or restrict the range of a

rare or endangered plant or animal or

eliminate important examples of the

major periods of California history or

prehistory?

b) Does the project have the potential to

achieve short‐term environmental

goals to the disadvantage of long‐term

environmental goals?

c) Does the project have impacts that are

individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable? (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the

incremental effects of a project are



considerable when viewed in

connection with the effects of past

projects, the effects of other current

projects, and the effects of probable

future projects)?

d) Does the project have environmental

effects which will cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

a) Construction activities would occur within paved road corridors and light industrial areas.

Removal of ruderal vegetation species would be required in some areas prior to construction.

Although the project area is not anticipated to contain any known paleontological or

archaeological resources, it may contain previously undetected subsurface archaeological

resources. Mitigation measures have been identified (Mitigation Measures CR‐1 and CR‐2) to

mitigate any impacts associated with the discovery of previously undetected subsurface

cultural resources during excavation activities. Adherence to these measures would reduce

cultural impacts to less than significant. After mitigation, potential impacts of the project on

these resources would be less than significant.

b) The proposed project would construct a new sewer line interceptor to better accommodate

existing and future wastewater conveyance requirements. The project would not interfere with

state’s long‐term environmental goals. No impact would occur.

c) As presented in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections I through XVII, the project

would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after

mitigation with respect to all environmental issues. Based on the limited scope of direct physical

impacts to the environment associated with the proposed project, the impacts are project‐

specific in nature. Consequently, the project along with other cumulative projects would result

in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to all environmental issues.

d) In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous

materials, and noise impacts. As presented in the discussion of the related environmental

checklist sections, the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact with

respect to these environmental issues. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant

impact on human beings.



REFERENCES

Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, 1987. California Emission Estimator Model, 2013. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and Department of Toxic Substances

Control. Envirostar database. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). January 2008. CEQA &

Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). April 20, 2007. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate

Climate Change in California. California Department of Conservation, website visited December 3, 2014 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Riverside County West Fire Hazard

Severity Map, November, 2007. California Department of Transportation Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Materials Office.

2004. Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Prepared by Jones and Stokes).

California Department of Transportation, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, website

visited November 29, 2014. California Department of Transportation’s 1992 Transportation-Related Earthborne Vibration,

Technical Advisory, California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and

Legislature, April 3, 2006 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan website visited November 28,

2014. Coachella Valley Water District website visited December 3, 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C2254G,

August, 2008. Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May

2006)



HDR Engineering, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Requa Interceptor Design Project, March,

2014. L&L Environmental, Inc., Biological Assessment Report for the Requa Avenue Interceptor

Project, August, 2015. L&L Environmental, Inc., Cultural Resource Assessment for the Requa Avenue Interceptor

Project, August, 2015. Natural Hazards Mapping, Analysis and Mitigation: A Technical Background Report in

Support of the Safety Element of the New Riverside County General Plan, Earth Consultants International, August, 2000.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2007. Air Quality Management

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat Portal.

APPENDICES A THROUGH C

PROVIDED ON COMPACT DISK

APPENDIX D:

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Valley Sanitary District Requa Interceptor Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration


RESPONSES to COMMENTS on the DRAFT IS‐MND

This section includes the comments received during circulation of the Draft Initial Study and

Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS‐MND) prepared for the Requa Interceptor Project and

responses to those comments. Corrections or additional text discussed in the responses to

comments are also shown in the text of the Final IS‐MND in strikethrough (for deleted text) and

underline (for added text) format. (Additional minor clarifications and corrections to typographical

errors not based on responses to comments may also be shown in strikeout/underline format in the

Final IS‐MND. None of these changes introduce significant new information or affect the

conclusions of the IS‐MND.)

The IS‐MND was circulated for a public review period that began on September 14, 2015 and

concluded on October 13, 2015. Valley Sanitary District received 1 comment letter on the Draft

IS‐MND. The commenter and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appears are

listed below.

Letter No. and Commenter Page No.

1. State Water Resources Control Board 3

The comment letters and responses follow. Each comment letter has been numbered

sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The

responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the

number assigned to each issue (Response 1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the

first issue raised in comment Letter 1).

Valley Sanitary District Requa Interceptor Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration


Letter 1

COMMENTER: State Water Resources Control Board

DATE: October 13, 2015

Response 1.1

The southern boundary of CA‐RIV‐676 and the northern APE boundary initially developed for

the proposed project overlapped within the project segment generally located between Golf

Center Parkway and Citrus Avenue. In response to comments received from the State Water

Board (SWB) Cultural Resource Officer (CRO) subsequent to review of the CEQA‐Plus Cultural

Resource Assessment for the Requa Avenue Sewer Interceptor Project, August 2015, submitted under

a separate environmental review process, the APE map referencing this area was revised to shift

the APE south and out of the recorded site boundary. To avoid potential direct impacts to

unknown cultural resources, no construction activities would occur within or in proximity to

CA‐RIV‐676. However, given the potential presence of subsurface deposits, impacts may be

potentially significant unless mitigation measures CR‐1 and CR‐2, provided in the Initial Study

and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, are incorporated.

Response 1.2

Project‐related air emissions were estimated and compared to applicable South Coast Air

Quality Management District thresholds. The findings are presented in Tables 1 and 2 of the

Draft Initial Study. The federal de minimis thresholds have been added to Section III of the Initial

Study along with total emissions calculated for each pollutant. As shown, the federal de minimis

thresholds have not been exceeded; thus, an air quality conformity analysis is not required.

Response 1.3

The species lists used to support documentation provided in the Biological Assessment are

summarized in Appendix A of the Biological Assessment for the Requa Avenue Interceptor Project.

This document was provided as Appendix B to the Draft Initial Study. Because of the linear

nature of the project, a typical record search was not performed. Rather, California Natural

Diversity Database (CNDDB) shapefile data and Coachella Valley Multi‐Habitat Conservation

Plan (CVMHCP) ʺmodeledʺ potential habitat were reviewed in ArcView. Based on the findings,

a table called ʺSpecies to Evaluate Requaʺ was created which summarizes the species and the

source information. A CNDDB record search was performed for a 10 mile radius around the

corridor. Both the “Species to Evaluate Requa” and CNDDB table were requested by the SWB

as part of the separate CEQA‐Plus process and provided for review.

VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT Requa Interceptor... · the CEQA Plus process initiated to obtain federal...

Documents

Transcript of VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT Requa Interceptor... · the CEQA Plus process initiated to obtain federal...