Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-105~ NHS ~ `" ~ ~ c` e "1.,~ ` ~~; i ~ ~ ~r ~+ ~ ~ i { ~, C, 4 ~t_~ 3 ~"~ ' .~~_~-,~. O1-105 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHICO URBAN AREA NITRATE COMPLIANCE PLAN TO SUPPORT A STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN APPLICATION TO THE STATE WATER RF,SOURCES CONTROL BOARD WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Prohibition Order No. 90-126 on April 27, 1990 in order to limit the development density of septic systems and protect the groundwater of the Chico Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) accepted the proposed Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Plan) on May 16, 2000 as the County's official response to Prohibition Order No. 90-126; and WHEREAS, the Board directed that the proposed Plan, as it is implemented, supersede the Nitrate Action Plan which was originally adopted in October 1988; and WHEREAS, the Board designated the proposed Plan as the basis for preparing a State Revolving Fund loan application and relevant grant applications that support the financing and installation of sewers as part of the nitrate compliance program; and. WHEREAS, the State Revolving Fund loan program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board; and WHEREAS, the Board directed that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to evaluate potential environmental effects of proposed waste water collection facilities and nitrate compliance program; and WHEREAS, the EIR was circulated to applicable federal, state, and local agencies, and interested public and private entities; notice was provided in a newspaper of general circulation; and a public meeting was held to receive additional oral and written comments; WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to make and issue certain findings where an Environmental Impact Report identifies one or more significant effects of a project; WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the Board considered the EIR, found that the report had been prepared in compliance with CEQA and certified that the report represented the independent judgment and analysis of the Board; and WHEREAS, the EIR has identified several significant environmental effects of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, AS FOLLOWS: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR., and that all feasible mitigation measures in the EIR have been imposed, as follows: The Board finds that all feasible mitigation measures in the Final Environmental Impact Report have been imposed. Impact 3 1-2 Changes to Surface Water Disehar~e The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 will mitigate the impacts on surface water discharge to a less than significant level. Impact 3 2-I Impacts to Surface Water Quality due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 will mitigate the impacts on surface water quality due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 ~-3 Impacts to Surface Water Quality due to Storm Water Runoff The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4,2-1 and 4.2-2 will mitigate the impacts on surface water quality due to storm water runoff to a less than significant level. Impact 3 2-4 Accidental Releases of Contaminants The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 will mitigate the impacts due to accidental releases of contaminants to a less than significant level. 2 Impact 3.3-2 Air Quality Impacts due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 will mitigate air quality impacts due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3.5-1 Soil Erosion_due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation measure 4.5-1 will mitigate the impacts due to soil erosion to a Less than significant level. Impact 3 6-1 Loss of Vegetation and Heritage Trees The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.6-1, 4.6-2 and 4.6-3 will mitigate the impacts of loss of vegetation and heritage trees to a less than significant level. Impact 3 7-1 Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Habitat The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 will mitigate impacts on fish and wildlife habitat to a less than significant level. Impact 3.8-1 Impacts on Scenic Vistas The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 will mitigate impacts on scenic vistas to a less than significant level. Impact 3 l~-1 Impacts on Identified Cultural Resources The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 and 4.12-3 will mitigate impacts on identified cultural resources to a less than significant level. Impact 3 12-2 Impacts on Unidentified Cultural Resources The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required m, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 3 Specifically, Mitigation Measures 4.12-2 and 4.12-3 will mitigate impacts on unidentified cultural resources to a less than significant level. Imnact 3.16-1 Short-Term Traffic Impacts due __o Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.16-1 will mitigate short-term traffic impacts due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 16-2 Short-Term Disniption of Access due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.16-1 will reduce impacts of short-term disruption of access due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact x.16-3 Short-term Increase in Construction-Related Traffic The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.16-1 will reduce impacts of a short-term increase in construction-related traffic to a less than significant level. Impact 3 17-1 Short-term Conflicts with Existing Gas and Electric Facilities due to Construction The Board finds that construction of an underground sewer pipeline, lift stations and related facilities may result in short-term conflicts with existing gas and electric facilities. Pacific Gas and Electric Company has both gas and underground electric facilities throughout the project area. Pacific Gas and Electric Company will require a minimum of three-month lead-time to prepare engineering relocation plans and schedule construction crews to accommodate the project. Given the long-term nature of the proposed project, the necessary lead-time is not considered a significant impact. Disruption of gas or electrical service through accidental excavation of pipelines or conduits is a potentially significant impact. The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will lessen identified significant effects on existing gas and electric facilities. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.17-1 will reduce impacts on existing gas and electric facilities. However, due to safety hazards associated with accidental excavation of gas lines and temporary disruptions of electrical service, impacts cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant because there is no feasible way of assuring that no impact will occur. This impact remains significant and is potentially unavoidable. As a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required, and is included in the Board's findings below. 4 Impact 3.17-2 Short-term Impacts on Telephone Service due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.17-2 will reduce short-term impacts on telephone service due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 17-3 Short-term Impacts on Water Service due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.17-3 will reduce short-term impacts on water service due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3.1.7-4 Short-term Impacts on Solid Waste Pickup due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.17-4 will reduce short-terns impacts on solid waste pickup due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 18-1 Accidental Soil Contamination due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.18-1 will reduce impacts of accidental soil contamination due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3.18-2 Short-term Delays in Law Enforcement Response due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.18-2 will reduce impacts of short-term delays in law enforcement response due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 18-3 Short-term Delays in Fire Response due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.18-3 will reduce impacts of short-term delays in fire response due to construction to a less than significant level. Impact 3 18-4 Short-term Delays in Emergency Medical Response due to Construction The Board finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 5 Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.18-4 will reduce impacts of short-term delays in emergency medical response due to construction to a less than significant level. (2) The Board rejects the following alternatives as infeasible: (A) The Board rejects the alternative of land application of septage from abandoned septic tanks. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the accumulation of certain metals and toxic organic compounds in the soil and vegetation where septage is applied. Although potential for groundwater contamination by land treatment disposal of septage can be minimized by proper siting, design, and management techniques, due to the relatively high groundwater in Butte County and the regulatory permitting process required to land apply septage, this alternative is rejected as infeasible. (B) The Board rejects the alternative of co-composting septage from abandoned septic tanks. Co-composting can have advantages over other sludge management alternatives, including lower energy requirements and capital investment than incineration; a more manageable product than land application; and a more productive, beneficial use of sludge than landfilling. Until Butte County or one of the local wastewater agencies permits and constructs a sludge co-compacting facility, this alternative is not deemed feasible. (C} The Board rejects the alternative of disposal of septage from abandoned septic tanks at the Chico Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). The Chico WPCP currently does not accept septage. septage disposal at the Chico WPCP facility as a result of abandonment of septic tanks for this project is not considered likely. A variation of this alternative is to pump septage directly from the abandoned septic tanks into the newly installed sewer collection system. This approach reduces tank truck costs and reduces the additional demand on County septage facilities. However, introducing a high solids, high strength waste stream to a gravity sewer collection system has a number of disadvantages. These include the potential for solids collecting in the pipelines, potential for increased odors, and the build up of oils and greases. This approach is not recommended, and this alternative is rejected as infeasible. (D) The "No Project" alternative would allow the continued use of on-site septic systems on all properties, resulting in the continuing degradation of groundwater and violation of Prohibition Order No. 90-126. The "No Project" alternative is considered infeasible because it does not reduce documented nitrate impacts to groundwater quality. (E) The use of advanced treatment and disposal systems as an upgrade to an existing septic tank and leach field was evaluated for the Chico Urban Area. Examples of these systems include intermittent sand filters (ISF), recirculating gravel filters (RGF), recirculating trickling filters (RTF), and aerobic treatment units (ATU). Sand filters are determined to not be a viable solution for widespread treatment and disposal in the Chico Urban Area based upon capital cost, operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements, size of each unit, and the inconsistent results in removing nitrogen from septic tank effluent. For this project, RTFs are determined not to be a viable solution for 6 treatment and disposal based upon cost, relatively high operation and maintenance requirements, size of each unit, and the inconsistent results showing nitrate removal from septic tank effluent. The use of composting toilets for treatment of household wastewater was recommended by a local environmental organization, but is rejected as a strategy to implement as a municipal or large-scale solution. The main disadvantage of this alternative is that by not capturing other components of wastewater (laundry, kitchen, commercial, and other household sources high in nitrogen concentrations), this approach. will not be effective in reducing nitrate contamination in Chico Urban Area groundwater. In addition, current plumbing codes, building codes, and State housing law do not provide for residential composting toilets. {F) A decentralized collection and treatment system alternative was evaluated. This evaluation addressed the potential of collection and treatment of wastewater from approximately 800 parcels in the Chapman-Mulberry area. The proposed treatment system consisted of a modified activated sludge system with secondary effluent disposal to Little Chico Creek or via subsurface land application. Complications of this alternative include environmental and land use considerations, operation, maintenance, and ownership of the facility, and the discharge location of treated effluent. In addition, existing sewer mains that flow to the Chico WPCP are in close proximity to the area, allowing for easy connection to existing sewer infrastructure. This alternative is rejected as infeasible due to casts of installing a collection system, acquisition of land, development of the treatment plant, and potential odor, noise, and visual impacts to the residential neighborhood, as well as the increased complexity of the project, which would increase the difficulty of maintaining State-mandated and project timelines. (G) Construction of a wastewater collection system in which all property owners either upgrade or replace their existing septic tank and connect to a septic tank effluent pumping/septic tank effluent gravity {STEPISTEG) system, with eventual discharge to the City's existing trunk sewer system, was evaluated. Although initial construction costs for alternative collection systems such as STEPISTEG systems are si,~iificantly less than initial costs of conventional gravity collection, ongoing costs to operate, service and maintain these systems are higher. In addition to the initial cost of the pumps, the associated power and maintenance expenses must be considered. STEPISTEG systems are also projected to have a significantly shorter life expectancy than conventional systems. The use of a STEP/STEG collection system for every parcel in the project area is deemed infeasible based on high operation and maintenance costs, difficult logistics of maintaining public facilities on private property, and lack of public acceptance, {H) Siting and construction of a ne~v County-owned wastewater treatment plant was evaluated. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate disposallreuse and treatment alternatives for the areas north of Lindo Channel. The conceptual location for the new wastewater treatment plant would be a 20-acre site along Mud Creek to the north of Beil Road. Several disposal and/or reuse options of wastewater effluent from the new wastewater treatment plant were evaluated. This alternative is rejected as infeasible because of high costs associated with installing sewer interceptor lines to deliver the wastewater, and because it would require construction of a new wastewater treatment 7 plant with discharge either to the Sacramento River or one of its tributaries (Mud Creek). In addition, this alternative has become less feasible because approximately 3,000 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) have been eliminated from this area due to construction of the East Lassen Avenue sewer trunk line. (3) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Board finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh its acknowledged environmental consequences. As such, a statement of overriding considerations is hereby adopted. The Board hereby finds and declares, based upon substantial evidence in the entire record, that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan outweigh the project's acknowledged environmental impacts. The Findings of the Board set forth in Sections 6(A) and 6(B) above identify the environmental impacts of the project, as well as feasible mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the project. In addition, the Findings reject certain project alternatives as infeasible. For that environmental impact which remains individually significant after the imposition of feasible mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. Environmental and Public Health and Safety Benefits: The Board hereby finds that the environmental and public health and safety benefits of the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan outweigh its unmitigated environmental impact for the following reasons; As stated in Chapter 1 0 of the Final Environmental Impact Report: Federal and State water quality standards indicate that nitrate concentration levels of 45 mgil or more are considered a threat to drinking water and public health. The discharge from individual septic systems has been cited by the Regional Board as the primary source of groundwater nitrate contamination that exceeds drinking water standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Health Services. Nitrate levels that exceed the standard have been established as a threat to the public health and are subject to regulation. High nitrate levels were first discovered in private wells in the Chico Urban Area in 1989. As noted in the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan, scientific studies provide a basis for the regulation of nitrate in drinking water. Methemoglobinemia (blue-baby syndrome), possible carcinogenic effects, and other health concerns support the basis for regulation of nitrate and its precursors. There is also concern that the use of septic tanks and leach fields may be contributing toxic organic compounds to the groundwater. Studies have shown that compounds such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic solvents were present in the septic tanks from single-family homes in significant 8 concentrations. There is already a serious problem in groundwater in the Chico Urban Area due to perchloroethylene (PCE), principally due to waste disposal from dry cleaners. The presence of high nitrates in groundwater in the Chico Urban Area, coupled with the linkage to septic sources, suggests that many shallow groundwater wells are receiving a substantial portion of recycled wastewater in their water supply. Under the appropriate conditions in the property owner's leach field, most, if not all, disease-causing organisms should be removed before the wastewater reaches any wells. However, the potential for transmission of disease-causing bacteria or viruses is always present. This is especially true at the density of systems that are currently present in the Chico Urban Area, coupled with the fact that septic systems often are subject to conditions not addressed in typical designs. The effluent currently reaching groundwater would not be allowed to be used for groundwater recharge under current California regulations for reclaimed water {California Code of Regulations Title 22), although that is essentially what is occurring in the Chico Urban Area. The Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Plan) was prepared in response to the contamination of groundwater in the Chico Urban Area {CUA} by nitrate, a form of nitrogen, and the subsequent issuance of Prohibition Order No. 90-126 adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) on April 27, 1990. The source of nitrate contamination to the shallow aquifer beneath the Chico Urban Area was determined to result from the use by residents of on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal. Based on field studies conducted in the Chico Urban Area, residential developments with a housing density equivalent of approximately four or more dwelling units per acre are estimated to contribute wastewater nitrate loadings that slightly exceed the nitrate maximum contaminant level to groundwater. Approximately 65 percent of the 12,000 parcels affected by Prohibition Order No. 90-126 are located within areas with a residential density of four or more dwelling units per acre and are recommended to be connected to the City of Chico sewer system...These areas represent unincorporated portions of the Chico Urban Area, as well as some areas within city limits, and include single family dwelling units, apartment complexes, mobile home parks, and some commercial uses. The Plan was prepared as a structured response to the Regional Board. At its May 16, 2000 meeting, the Butte County Board of Supervisors accepted the Plan as the County's official response to the Regional Board's Prohibition Order No. 90-126...The Ground Water Nitrate Stur~v Final Report was completed in 1994 by Dames and Moore (now URS). Nitrate concentrations in wells ranged from background levels of 10 milligrams per liter (mgll) to mare than 100 mg/1 m the Chico Urban Area. The results of the technical program are generally consistent with previous studies. Nitrate concentrations are greatest down gradient from the areas of highest septic tank usage, and an evaluation of all potential nitrate sources strongly supports the conclusion that septic tank discharge is the primary source of ground water nitrate in the Chico Urban Area. The results of the technical program provide the scientific basis for the designation of areas that must be sewered to eliminate their nitrate discharge to groundwater, as well as those areas where existing on-site systems may continue to operate. 9 According to the Plan, it is imperative that the State, County, and City of Chico maintain a cooperative and focused effort to mitigate and solve the public health threat to groundwater nitrate contamination beneath the Chico Urban Area. In order to respond effectively to Prohibition Order No. 90-126, and to protect and improve the quality of groundwater, to reduce the overall nitrate loading in the Chico Urban Area to a level that will not cause or perpetuate an excessive level of groundwater nitrate, and to protect the health and safety of its residents, the Board finds that the environmental and public health and safety benefits of the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan outweigh the impact related to shart-term conflicts with existing gas lines during construction. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors as follows: (4} The Baard hereby adopts and approves the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan dated May 2000, and in connection with such approval is required to make certain findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. (5) The Board adopts the mitigation measures as presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report and as set forth above. (6} The Board adopts, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program as set forth in Chapter Four of the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February, 2001. (7} The Board certifies that the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be obtained from the Butte County Administrative Office, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this 25`h day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Dolan, Haux, Yamaguchi and Chair Jasiassen NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None _~~ 4 - U JOSIASSEN, Chair, u to County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ('lerk of Lhc 13oa.rd of SuFx~rvisors f ,. ~ t,~ ! ; ~ is Y~ Deputy `~ [, K:~admin'ad`.e~csal 14\nitrateResolution.doc 10