SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT REVERSE FLOW

Transcription

1 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT REVERSE FLOW Draft Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2014 Prepared by: B1 - TK1

2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Regulatory Information 1-1 Document Format PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 Project Objectives and Project Description 2-3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYLSIS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location and Vicinity Map 2-12 Figure 2 Other Associated Facilities 2-13 Figure 3 Check Structure 15 & 18 Zoning 2-14 Figure 4 Check Structures 20 & 22 Zoning 2-15 Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan 2-16 Figure 6 Check Structure 15 & 18 Soils Map 2-17 Figure 7 Check Structure 20 & 22 Soils Map 2-18 Figure 8 Check Structure 15 Topo Map 2-19 Figure 9 Check Structure 18 Topo Map 2-20 Figure 10 Check Structure 20 Topo Map 2-21 Figure 11 Check Structure 22 Topo Map 2-22 Figure 12 Check 15 and 18 FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 3-46 Figure 13 Check 20 and 22 FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 3-47 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Maximum Operational Roundtrips Generated 2-5 Table 2 Best Management Practices for Construction Activities 2-7 Santa Clara Valley Water District TOC -1

4 Table of Contents Table 3 SJVAPSD Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants 3-11 Table 4 SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measure 3-13 Table 5 Proposed Project Installation Emissions 3-16 Table 6 Proposed Project Operational Emissions 3-17 Table 7 List of Special Status Species 3-22 Table 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4-2 APPENDICES A CalEEMod Output Files B Operational Engine Emission Calculations C - Cultural Resource Records Search RS# Santa Clara Valley Water District TOC -2

5 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7 Chapter 1-Introduction CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from the installation and operation of the SCVWD California Aqueduct (Aqueduct) Reverse Flow Project (proposed project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section et.seq. and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 (Chapter 3, Section et seq.), known as the CEQA Guidelines. The SCVWD is the CEQA lead agency for this proposed project. The proposed project proposes to install a temporary reverse flow pumping systems at up to four check structures; one each at Check Structure 22, Check Structure 20, Check Structure 18, and Check Structure 15 along the California Aqueduct, in Kings and Fresno Counties, to facilitate the reverse flow of 18,000 acre-feet (AF). The proposed project is described in detail in Chapter 2-Project Description. All facilities and water conveyance agreements required to implement the SCVWD California Aqueduct Reverse Flow Project will be covered by this IS/MND. Regulatory Information In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) is a document prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15063(b)(1) states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the proposed project either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment. Subsequently, CEQA Guidelines Section states that a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either: a) The IS shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The IS identified potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur is prepared, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. Document Format This IS/MND contains five chapters, and two technical appendices. Chapter 1 - Introduction, provides an overview of the proposed project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Chapter 2 - Project Description, provides a detailed description of the proposed project, its objectives and identifiable components. Chapter 3 - Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist and contains the environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. Santa Clara Valley Water District 1-1

8 Chapter 1-Introduction In Chapter 3, the Environmental impacts are separated into the following categories: Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, and no feasible mitigation measures can be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Less Than Significant After Mitigation Incorporated. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure(s), and briefly explain how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced). Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the proposed project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and no mitigation measures are required. No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. No Impact answers do not require a detailed explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency, which show that the impact does not apply to the specific project (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis.) If the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given issue area, the relevant section provides a brief discussion of the reasons why no impacts are expected. If the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on a resource, the issue area discussion provides a description of potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures and/or permit requirements that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. Chapter 4 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), provides the proposed mitigation measures, their implementation timeline, and the person or agency responsible for monitoring and reporting on implementation. Chapter 5 - List of Preparers, provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of the IS/MND. The CalEEMod Output Files and the Cultural Resources Records Search are provided as technical appendices at the end of this document. Santa Clara Valley Water District 1-2

9 Chapter 1-Introduction Acronyms Used in this Document AB32 Assembly Bill 32 ACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers ACT National Historic Preservation Act AE20 Agriculture Exclusive 20 acre AG40 General Agriculture 40 acre AF Acre Feet/Foot APN Assessors Parcel Number ARB Air Resources Board AST Aboveground Storage Tank BMPs Best Management Practices cfs cubic-foot-per-second CalARP California Accidental Release Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Caltrans California Department of Transportation Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CH 4 Methane CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CNDDB California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Service CO Carbon Monoxide CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CVP Central Valley Project DOC California Department of Conservation DWR Department of Water Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FCAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendment FCSSE Five County Seismic Safety Element FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps Santa Clara Valley Water District 1-3

10 Chapter 1-Introduction FESA FMMP FPPA FRA FRPP FTA GAMAQI GHG H 2 S HCP HMIS HMMP HWG HWMP IFM IS IS/MND LESA LOS MBTA MLD MND MMRP MP MRZ NAAQS ND NEHRP NEPA NFPA NOAA NO 2 NO X NPDS NPPA NRCS O 3 ONC Pb PG&E PM 10 PM 25 Federal Endangered Species Act Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Farmland Protection Policy Act Federal Railroad Administration Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program Federal Transportation Administration Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts Greenhouse Gases Hydrogen Sulfide Habitat Conservation Plan Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Hazardous Materials Management Plans Hazardous Waste Generator Hazardous Waste management Program Important Farmland Maps Initial Study Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Assessment Model Level of Service Migratory Bird Treaty Act Most Likely Descendant Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mile Post Mineral Resource Zones National Ambient Air Quality Standards Negative Declaration National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program National Environmental Policy Act National Fire Protection Agency National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Oxide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System California Native Plant Protection Agency Natural Resources Conversation Service Ozone Office of Noise Control Lead Pacific Gas & Electric Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter Particulate Matter less than 25 microns in diameter Santa Clara Valley Water District 1-4

11 Chapter 1-Introduction PPV RCRA RMS SAAQS SCVWD SJVAB SJVAPCD SMARA SO 2 SWRCB SWP SWPPP UBC USACE USDA USEPA USFWS UST USGS VERA VOC WSRA Peak Particle Velocity Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Root Mean Squared State Ambient Air Quality Standards Santa Clara Valley Water District San Joaquin Valley Air Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Sulfur Dioxide State Water Resources Control Board State Water Project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Uniform Building Code United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Fish and Wildlife Services Underground Storage Tank United States Geological Survey Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement Volatile Organic Compounds Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Santa Clara Valley Water District 1-5

12 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

14 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15 Chapter 2-Project Description 1. Project Title: CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Santa Clara Valley Water District California Aqueduct Reverse Flow Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Proponent Santa Clara Valley Water District Elise Latedjou-Durand, Environmental Planner, (408) Devin Mody, Senior Engineer, (408) CEQA Consultant Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 130 North Garden Street Visalia, California Dawn E. Marple, Project Manager (559) Project Location: The proposed project is located at check structures 15, 18, 20 and 22 along the California Aqueduct (Aqueduct), in the Central San Joaquin Valley (see Figure 1). The proposed project sites (each of the check structures) are on properties owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and/or United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Check Structure 15 (MP ) is in Fresno County and is found within the Chaney Ranch United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, and lies within Township 14 South, Range 13 East, Section 17, M.D.B. & M, situated west of South Fairfax Avenue and north of Jensen Avenue (see Figure 8.). Check Structure 18 (MP ) is in Fresno County and is found within the Harris Ranch United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, and lies within Township 18 South, Range 16 East, Section 34, M.D.B. & M, situated east of State Route 145 and north of West Ford Avenue (see Figure 9.). It is located approximately 32.7 miles south of Check Structure Mile Posts are measured from the start of the California Aqueduct at the Clifton Court Forebay Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-1

16 Chapter 2-Project Description Check Structure 20 (MP ) is in Kings County and is found within the La Cima United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, and lies within Township 21 South, Range 18 East, Section 18, M.D.B. & M, situated southeast of Avenal Cutoff Road and north of Omaha Avenue (see Figure 10.). It is located approximately 18.4 miles south of Check Structure 18. Check Structure 22 (MP ) is in Kings County and is found within the Avenal Gap United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, and lies within Township 24 South, Range 19 East, Section 11, M.D.B. & M, situated east of 25 th Avenue and west of Interstate 5 (see Figure 11.) It is located approximately miles south of Check Structure Latitude and Longitude: Check Structure 15: , Check Structure 18: , Check Structure 20: , Check Structure 22: , General Plan Designation: The proposed project lies within the existing Right of Way of the California Aqueduct, owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and/or United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and as such a formal County General Plan Land Use Designation does not apply. 7. Zoning: The proposed project lies within the existing Right of Way of the California Aqueduct, and as such the County zoning designations do not apply. Zoning of the surrounding property can be seen in Figures 3 and Description of Project: Background The purpose of the proposed project is to convey water previously banked to address impacts of the severe drought. The conveyance will occur by utilizing temporary pumps to be installed at the four check structures to essentially reverse the flow of the California Aqueduct (Aqueduct) between check structures 22 and 15. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has previously banked Central Valley Project (CVP) water and State Water Project (SWP) water with the Semitropic Water Storage District (Semitropic). This is accomplished via a banking agreement that provides for at least 31,500 AF of banked water to be pumped into the Aqueduct in any year (later referred to as pump-in capacity.). Under normal operations, previously banked water is pumped into the Aqueduct and used by downstream SWP water users, and in exchange, SCVWD is delivered an equal amount of SWP water supply through the South Bay Aqueduct or San Felipe Division (hereinafter referred to as normal operations). However, in critically dry years such as 2014, limited supplies in the SWP may result in Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-2

17 Chapter 2-Project Description insufficient capacity within the SWP for exchanges, in which case SCVWD would not receive sufficient supplies from Semitropic to meet its needs. Project Objectives and Project Description SCVWD proposes to install a temporary reverse flow pumping system within DWR and/or Reclamation right-of-way to enable delivery of a portion of SCVWD s banking withdrawals. Temporary pumps would be installed at up to four existing check structures (Check Structures 22, 20, 18, and 15) along the Aqueduct 2. Of the 31,500 AF that would be pumped into the Aqueduct from Semitropic on behalf of SCVWD pursuant to the SCVWD/Semitropic banking agreement, approximately 18,000 AF 3 would be conveyed northerly for the purposes of the proposed project and made available to Reclamation as CVP supply and/or DWR as SWP supply, and in return, SCVWD would receive similar amount of exchange water, as described below. CVP exchange CVP water would be pumped through metered discharge piping around the sides of the existing control gates at up to four check structures (22, 20, 18, and/or 15), and delivered to CVP contractors north of check structure 20 (and south of Dos Amigos Pumping Plant) to meet scheduled demands 4. Reclamation would deliver an equal amount less potential conveyance losses, if any, of CVP supply to SCVWD in San Luis Reservoir or O Neill Forebay, depending upon conditions at the time of exchange (see Figure 2); SWP exchange SWP water would be pumped through metered discharge piping around the sides of the existing control gate at one check structure (22) and delivered to SWP contractors between check structures 25 and 20 to meet scheduled demands. DWR would deliver an equal amount less potential conveyance losses, if any, of SWP supply to SCVWD via the South Bay Aqueduct and/or in San Luis Reservoir or O Neill Forebay, depending upon conditions at the time of exchange (see Figure 2). Semitropic would pump into the Aqueduct north of Check Structure 25. In the case where CVP exchange would occur, starting at Check Structure 22, the pumps at each Structure (22, 20, 18 and/or 15) would sequentially lift water from the downstream pool, until the water reaches the Dos Amigos outlet upstream of Check Structure 14. If solely an SWP exchange is to be carried out, only the temporary pump station at Check Structure 22 would be operated. The general pump station configuration at each of the check structures would include the following temporary components described below and as conceptually shown in Figure 5: Up to four 13- to 100-cubic-foot-per-second (cfs) nominal pumps located on the right embankment adjacent to the secondary maintenance road, except at Check 18 where the pumps would be on the left embankment adjacent to the primary maintenance road. Up to four 12 to 36 intake (suction) pipelines. 2 Check structure 22 is on State of California right-of-way; check structures 20, 18, and 15 are on federal right-of-way managed by Reclamation. 3 The remaining 13,500 AF would be delivered by exchange through the Normal Operations. 4 SCVWD may not need to install and operate the temporary pumps at all four check structures to complete this exchange. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-3

18 Chapter 2-Project Description Up to four 12 to 36 discharge pipelines, including instantaneous and totalizing flow meters reading in cfs and acre-feet respectively, placed alongside the secondary access roads, except at Check 18, where they would be placed alongside the primary maintenance road. Up to four 500-gallon fuel tanks (one per pump) with regulated spill containment. Up to two 1,200-gallon fuel tanks with regulated spill containment. Each of the pump stations to be installed will be designed for a capacity of up to 100 cfs. However, the actual pumping rate when the proposed project is implemented would depend on a number of considerations including how soon the system becomes operational, the amount of CVP and/or SWP water supply available for exchange, hydrologic conditions, and the actual amount of water needed to complete the exchange. Semitropic s pump in capabilities are generally greatest beginning September 1, due to drop off in internal irrigation demands. However, pump back could begin as early as August if the reverse flow system is put in place and Semitropic has available pump back capacity. The initial goal is to operate the bypass pump stations when the flows at Dos Amigos Pumping Plant (located between Checks 13 and 14 along the Aqueduct) are projected to be less than 100 cfs. It is anticipated that SCVWD would operate the pumps between the months of August and February. (For example, when flows at Dos Amigos Pumping Plant are expected to be less than 100 cfs, SCVWD may operate the pump stations between August and December of 2014 and possibly also in January and February of 2015 at 100 cfs or until 18,000 AF is reached.) It is estimated that in order to reach the 18,000 AF goal the pumps would run an estimated 90 days at 100cfs. However, these 90 days may not be consecutive and pumping could occur outside these specific time frames if the pumps are not operated at their maximum capacities. If at least 100 cfs is scheduled to flow from Dos Amigos to meet demands south of Semitropic, the pumps would not need to operate since a direct exchange would be possible between the Semitropic-pumped water and water scheduled to be delivered south through Dos Amigos. Close coordination on schedules will be implemented by DWR and Reclamation to avoid unneeded pumping. To the extent flows through Dos Amigos are scheduled, pump back for the proposed project would be curtailed and provide the ability to carry out simultaneous exchanges 5 or delayed exchanges 6 may be allowed. If the pumps are operated at their maximum capacity (100 cfs), it is expected that the operation would occur over a period of 90 days to pump the maximum amount of 18,000 AF around Check Structures 22, 20, 18, and/or 15. If SCVWD determines that a lower flow rate is needed for the water exchange, it may operate fewer of the installed facilities or operate them at below their maximum capacities; conversely, the pumping duration would be longer to achieve the maximum amount of 18,000 AF. 5 Simultaneous exchanges occur when Reclamation provides water into the San Luis Reservoir for SCVWD at the same flow rate at which the reverse flow pumps would operate; i.e. the pumps provide 100cfs north of Check 20, Reclamation releases 100 cfs to SCVWD on a daily basis. 6 Delayed exchanges occur when Reclamation accumulates the pumped deliveries over a longer period of time, such as a month, then provides the monthly volume to SCVWD in the San Luis Reservoir. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-4

19 Chapter 2-Project Description For purposes of CEQA, this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) analyzes the proposed project at its maximum capacity (i.e., operating the total number of pumps (16) at 100 cfs for 24 hours a day over 90 days for purpose of pumping 18,000 AF). This approach will represent the most conservative (worst-case) analysis of the potential environmental effects from the proposed project. Operation/Maintenance Activities Maintenance of the reverse flow system includes activities associated with refilling the fuel tanks, removing debris, clearing blockages, and replacing pump station parts as needed. As described above, up to four 500 gallon capacity fuel tanks and up to two 1,200 gallon capacity fuel tanks will be installed at each Check Structure to run the temporary pumps. At the maximum pumping rates, these fuel tanks would need a total of 62 fuel deliveries, 124 roundtrips, for the duration of the proposed project. In addition, an operation and maintenance crew will require travel to and from the check structures. It is estimated that two operators will travel to the four Check Structures (one operator for two Check Structures) once a day for the 90-day proposed project duration to operate and maintain the facilities as the pumps and engines require service after every 250 hours of operation. Also a security crew will travel to each of the Check Structures to monitor each site two times each day for the 90-day proposed project duration. The operational truck trips for tank re-fueling, on-site security, operations and on-site maintenance would average approximately 22 trips per day for the length of the proposed project as shown on Table 1 below. Table 1 Maximum Operational Roundtrips Generated Maximum Expected Estimated Fuel Trips Over the Proposed Project Duration Estimated Security Trips Over the Proposed Project Duration 1,440 8 Estimated Operator Trips Over the Proposed Project Duration Total Trips 1,924 Total Average Trips per Day 22 As stated above, these projected 90-days of operation may not be consecutive. In the event the proposed project would be operated for longer than 90-days, the total number of fuel trips would remain the same; however, additional on-site security, operations and on-site maintenance trips may be needed for the extended period of time. For example if the proposed project lasted for seven months at non consecutive intervals there would still be approximately 124 roundtrips for re-fueling purposes, approximately 3, security trips and approximately 7 Assuming a 90-day proposed project duration. 8 1,440 trips (4 checks x 2 shifts/check/day x 2 trips/shift (roundtrip) x 90 days) trips (1 operator / 2 checks x 4 checks x 2 trips/shift (round trip) x 1 shift/day x 90 days) 10 3,360 trips (4 checks x 2 shifts/check/day x 2 trips/shift (roundtrip) x 210 days) Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-5

20 Chapter 2-Project Description operation and maintenance trips for a total of approximately 4,324 trips over a 210 day period of time for an average daily trip count of 21 trips per day. Installation and Removal of Project Components Installation of the proposed project components and associated appurtenances is anticipated to last approximately four weeks and will utilize equipment such as cranes, flatbed delivery trucks, and a forklift. Installation work hours would be during daylight hours, Monday through Friday. The temporary pump stations and power units would be delivered by flatbed delivery trucks to the proposed project sites. The pump stations and power units are on skids (beams which create a frame attached to the bottom of the pumps). The skids allow for movement from the truck to the ground and serve as the structural support at their final placement by a crane or forklift at the top of the embankment. If submersible pumps are used, only the power units and discharge pipelines would be placed on the ground surface. In addition to the pumps and power units, a prefabricated piping will be placed on the embankment and connected to the pumps to allow the water to be pumped around the sides of the existing control gates at each check structure. Fuel tanks will be placed on the Aqueduct roadway at each proposed project site. All proposed project components will be placed above ground; as the installation of the proposed project requires only placement of prefabricated equipment and piping. As a result no ground disturbing activities such as grading, trenching or excavation will be necessary. This equipment would be placed in an area of less than 0.5 acres at each site. For the purposes of this IS/MND, impacts resulting from installation of the proposed project components would be treated as construction impacts. Once the maximum expected pumping (18,000 AF) is completed, the proposed project components would be removed from each site. Removal, or decommissioning, of proposed project components and associated appurtenances is anticipated to last approximately four weeks. The decommissioning of the proposed project would require the removal of all of the prefabricated equipment and piping by the use of cranes, forklifts and flatbed delivery trucks. As a result no ground disturbing activities such as grading, trenching or excavation will be required for the decommissioning activities. All proposed project components will be removed by SCVWD by June 30, 2016 regardless if all 18,000 AF has been pumped. Best Management Practices SCVWD routinely incorporates a wide range of standardized operating procedures, often referred to as best management practices (BMPs) into the proposed project design. SCVWD would implement some of its standard BMPs while installing, operating and decommissioning of the proposed project, as summarized in Table 2. Table 2 is intended to give an overview, focusing on the BMPs specifically needed to avoid potentially significant project impacts; All BMPs for the proposed project installation, operation and decommissioning activities will be incorporated into the installation documents (plans and specifications), so contractors employed on the proposed project will be contractually required to adhere to them trips (1 operator / 2 checks x 4 checks x 2 trips/shift (round trip) x 1 shift/day x 210 days) Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-6

21 Chapter 2-Project Description AQ-1 Table 2 Best Management Practices for Construction Activities Implement San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District s Use Basic Dust (SJVAPCD) _Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Control Emissions of PM : Measures For 1. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are All not actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be Construction effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, Sites, chemical stabilizers/suppressants, covered with a tarp or other similar cover, or vegetative ground cover. 2. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions during construction using water or chemical stabilizer suppressant. 3. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading cut and fill, and demolition activities during construction shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or pre-soaking. 4. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from top of container shall be maintained. 5. All operations shall limit, or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. 6. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. 7. Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site at the end of each workday. 8. Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. AQ-3 Incorporate Additional Dust Control Implement appropriate SJVAPCD Optional Control Measures for construction emissions of PM 10 at all construction sites. The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive 12 Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 65. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-7

22 Chapter 2-Project Description BI-7 All projects occurring between January 15 and August 31 BI-14 For construction and trenching activities Measure, As Appropriate Avoid Impacts to Nesting Migratory Birds from Pending Construction Avoid Animal Entry and Entrapment receptors, or which for any other reason warrant additional emissions reductions 13 : 1. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site; 2. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas; 3. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 mph; and* 4. Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. *Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII s 20 percent opacity limitation. Nesting exclusion devices may be installed to prevent potential establishment or occurrence of nests in areas where construction activities would occur. All nesting exclusion devices will be maintained throughout the nesting season or until completion of work in an area makes the devices unnecessary. All exclusion devices will be removed and disposed of when work in the area is complete. All pipes, hoses, or similar structures less than 12 inches diameter will be closed or covered to prevent animal entry. All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures, greater than 2-inches diameter, stored at a construction site overnight, will be inspected thoroughly for wildlife by a qualified biologist or properly trained construction personnel before the pipe is buried, capped, used, or moved. If inspection indicates presence of sensitive or state- or federally-listed species inside stored materials or equipment, work on those materials will cease until a qualified biologist determines the appropriate course of action. To prevent entrapment of animals, all excavations, steepwalled holes or trenches more than 6-inches deep will be secured against animal entry at the close of each day. Any of the following measures may be employed, depending on the size of the hole and method feasibility: 1. Hole to be securely covered (no gaps) with plywood, or similar materials, at the close of each working day, or any time the opening will be left unattended for more than one hour; or 2. In the absence of covers, the excavation will be provided with escape ramps constructed of earth or untreated wood, sloped no steeper than 2:1, and located no farther than Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 66. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-8

23 Chapter 2-Project Description HM-8 All construction projects Ensure Proper Vehicle and Equipment Fueling and Maintenance feet apart; or 3. In situations where escape ramps are infeasible, the hole or trench will be surrounded by filter fabric fencing or a similar barrier with the bottom edge buried to prevent entry. No fueling or servicing will be done in a waterway or immediate flood plain, unless equipment stationed in these locations is not readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators). 1. For stationary equipment that must be fueled or serviced onsite, containment will be provided in such a manner that any accidental spill will not be able to come in direct contact with soil, surface water, or the storm drainage system. 2. All fueling or servicing done at the job site will provide containment to the degree that any spill will be unable to enter any waterway or damage riparian vegetation. 3. All vehicles and equipment will be kept clean. Excessive build-up of oil and grease will be prevented. 4. All equipment used in the creek channel will be inspected for leaks each day prior to initiation of work. Maintenance, repairs, or other necessary actions will be taken to prevent or repair leaks, prior to use. 5. If emergency repairs are required in the field, only those repairs necessary to move equipment to a more secure location will be done in a channel or flood plain. HM-10 All construction projects HM-12 Projects in areas with fire hazards Utilize Spill Prevention Measures Incorporate Fire Prevention Prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water following these measures: 1. Field personnel will be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material control, and clean up of accidental spills; 2. Equipment and materials for cleanup of spills will be available on site, and spills and leaks will be cleaned up immediately and disposed of according to applicable regulatory requirements; 3. Field personnel will ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and natural resources are protected by all reasonable means; 4. Spill prevention kits will always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g., at crew trucks and other logical locations), and all field personnel will be advised of these locations; and, 5. The work site will be routinely inspected to verify that spill prevention and response measures are properly implemented and maintained. 1. All earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines will be equipped with spark arrestors. 2. During the high fire danger period (April 1 December 1), Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-9

24 Chapter 2-Project Description WQ-16 All construction projects WQ-24 All construction projects TR-1 Construction activities on or adjacent to public roads Measures Maintain Clean Conditions at Work Sites Manage Sanitary and Septic Waste Incorporate Public Safety Measures work crews will have appropriate fire suppression equipment available at the work site. 3. An extinguisher shall be available at the project site at all times when welding or other repair activities that can generate sparks (such as metal grinding) is occurring. 4. Smoking shall be prohibited except in designated staging areas and at least 20 feet from any combustible chemicals or vegetation. The work site, areas adjacent to the work site, and access roads will be maintained in an orderly condition, free and clear from debris and discarded materials on a daily basis. Personnel will not sweep, grade, or flush surplus materials, rubbish, debris, or dust into storm drains or waterways. For activities that last more than one day, materials or equipment left on the site overnight will be stored as inconspicuously as possible, and will be neatly arranged. Any materials and equipment left on the site overnight will be stored to avoid erosion, leaks, or other potential impacts to water quality Upon completion of work, all building materials, debris, unused materials, concrete forms, and other construction-related materials will be removed from the work site. Temporary sanitary facilities will be located on jobs that last multiple days, in compliance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulation 8 California Code of Regulations All temporary sanitary facilities will be located where overflow or spillage will not enter a watercourse directly (overbank) or indirectly (through a storm drain). Fences, barriers, lights, flagging, guards, and signs will be installed as determined appropriate by the public agency having jurisdiction, to give adequate warning to the public of the construction and of any dangerous condition to be encountered as a result thereof. 9. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses : The Central Valley is a large, asymmetrical, northwestwardly-trending, structural trough formed between the uplands of the California Coast Ranges to the west and the Sierra Nevada to the east. The Central Valley is over 400 miles long and approximately 50 to 60 miles wide in area. The Valley is subdivided into the Sacramento Valley (north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta) and the San Joaquin Valley (south of the Delta). The southern part of the Valley (including most of Kings County) internally drains into the Tulare Lake Bed, with flows derived from the distributaries of the Kings, Tule, and Kaweah rivers. Cross Creek is the lower reaches of the Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-10

25 Chapter 2-Project Description Kaweah River within Kings County. North of the Kings River, runoff is directed into the San Joaquin River, which flows northward 14. The proposed project is within Kings and Fresno Counties and is within the right-of-way of the Aqueduct, between the unincorporated communities of La Jolla Ranch and Lost Hills, California. The nearest residences to Check Structures 15, 18, 20, and 22 are over 1.5 miles north, 0.98 miles east, 0.9 miles west and approximately 0.8 miles north, respectively. The sites are not located within an area designated for or having a scenic vista or views, or located near a State-designated scenic highway, nor are there any scenic resources in the area. The proposed project sites are located in a region of California having a Mediterranean climate. Summers are dry and typically quite warm with daytime temperatures commonly exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Winters are rainy and cool with daytime temperatures rarely exceeding 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate in Kings County can be classified as Mediterranean with average rainfall rates of 7.6 inches annually, occurring primarily between November and April 15. There are no schools within eight miles of any of Check Structures and the closest airport to any of these Check Structures is the Harris-Agro West Airport, approximately 1.25 miles northwest of Check Structure 18, all other airports are more than six miles from any of the Check Structures. The closest park is Floyd Rice Park in Avenal at approximately nine miles southwest of Check Structure 20. There are four plugged wells within two miles of the proposed project sites. The sites have no known unique paleontological resources, geologic features, or human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. There is no undisturbed native habitat, wetland habitat, riparian habitat, or suitable nesting trees within the immediate proposed project vicinity. As the proposed project sites are within the actively maintained Aqueduct rightof-way, there are no natural waterways that traverse the sites, nor are the sites located in an area near open water which would give the potential for seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. Check Structures 15, 18, and 22 are located within Flood Zone X, and Check Structure 20 is located within Flood Zone A. However, the proposed project sites are within the embankments of the Aqueduct, making them unlikely to receive flood waters from outside the embankments. The sites do not lie within a designated fault zone, as identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required: California Department of Water Resources facilities agreement; conveyance agreement Bureau of Reclamation - land use authorization (license); documentation to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District- Regulation VIII San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District- Authority to Construct & Permit to Operate Kings County General Plan EIR (SCH# ). Page Kings County General Plan, Health and Safety Element, Section I.A, Page HS-2. Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-11

26 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 1 - Regional Location and Vicinity Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-12

27 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT REVERSE FLOW Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 2 - Other Associated Facilities Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-13

28 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 3 Check Structure 15 & 18 Zoning Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-14

29 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 4 Check Structure 20 & 22 Zoning Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-15

30 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-16

31 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 6 Check Structure 15 & 18 Soils Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-17

32 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 7 Check Structure 20 & 22 Soils Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-18

33 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 8 Check Structure 15 Topo Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-19

34 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 9 Check Structure 18 Topo Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-20

35 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 10 Check Structure 20 Topo Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-21

36 Chapter 2-Project Description Figure 11 Check Structure 22 Topo Map Santa Clara Valley Water District 2-22

37

38 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

39 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

40 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

41 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis CHAPTER 3 - IMPACT ANALYSIS 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, as amended (Public Law ; 16 U.S. Code ), established the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System), which identifies distinguished rivers of the nation that possess remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The WSRA preserves the free-flowing condition of rivers that are designated and protects their local environments. Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA requires that all federal agencies, when planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consider potential national wild, scenic, and recreational river areas, which are defined as follows: Wild river areas Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. Scenic river areas Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads. Recreational river areas Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. California has approximately 189,454 miles of river, of which 1,999.6 miles or 1%, are designated wild & scenic under the Act. However, the man-made California Aqueduct is not a river as defined above, and therefore would not ever qualify as wild and scenic pursuant to the Wild and Scenic River Act 1. 1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Site Accessed August Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-1

42 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis State Nighttime Sky Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards: The Energy Commission adopted changes to Title 24, Parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Standards), on November 5, 2. These new Standards became effective on October 1, 2. Included in the changes to the Standards are new requirements for outdoor lighting. The requirements vary according to which Lighting Zone the equipment is in. The Standards contain lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment and specific alterations that are dependent on which Lighting Zone the project is located in. Existing outdoor lighting systems are not required to meet these lighting power allowances. However, alterations that increase the connected load, or replace more than 50% of the existing luminaires, for each outdoor lighting application that is regulated by the Standards, must meet the lighting power allowances for newly installed equipment. An important part of the Standards is to base the lighting power that is allowed on how bright the surrounding conditions are. The eyes adapt to darker surrounding conditions, and less light is needed to properly see; when the surrounding conditions get brighter, more light is needed to see. The least power is allowed in Lighting Zone 1 and increasingly more power is allowed in Lighting Zones 2, 3, and 4. The Energy Commission defines the boundaries of Lighting Zones based on U.S. Census Bureau boundaries for urban and rural areas as well as the legal boundaries of wilderness and park areas (see Standards Table A). By default, government designated parks, recreation areas and wildlife preserves are Lighting Zone 1; rural areas are Lighting Zone 2; and urban areas are Lighting Zone 3. Lighting Zone 4 is a special use district that may be adopted by a local government 2. The proposed project site is located in a rural area as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau and is therefore in Lighting Zone 2. California Scenic Highway Program: The Scenic Highway Program created by the Legislature in 1963, allows county and city governments to apply to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to establish a scenic corridor protection program. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. The state laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. There are no designated or eligible state scenic highways within five miles of any of the check structures 3,4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT I-a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The predominant open space landscape in the proposed project area includes actively farmed agricultural land, fallow grazing land, and water conveyance facilities and associated appurtenances. All installation of the temporary structures will occur within the existing Aqueduct rightof-way and the pumping structures will be placed on the existing check structures within the Aqueduct. There are no designated scenic resources or scenic vistas within the proposed project vicinity; therefore, there would be no impact. 2 California Department of Energy. Title 24 Standards Table , Lighting Zone Characteristics and Rules for Amendments by Local Jurisdictions. Site accessed March California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Kings County. 4 California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Fresno County. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-2

43 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis I-b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no designated or eligible state scenic highways within five miles of any of the check structures. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade scenic resources. No trees would be cut or removed as a result of the proposed project, and there are no historic buildings in the proposed project vicinity. Therefore there would be no impact. I-c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the proposed project sites and their surroundings is dominated by agricultural land uses and the California Aqueduct. The proposed project will install temporary pumping structures along the Aqueduct in four separate locations. The addition of the pumping structures and associated fuel tanks are consistent with the regional view shed of the Aqueduct, as pumping appurtenances are common along the Aqueduct. Additionally, there are no residences within 0.8 mile of any of the check structures, and residents would not have views of the proposed project. The proposed Project will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the area or its surroundings. The impact will be less than significant. I-d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. There will be temporary night lighting at each check structure to ensure visibility and safety for the security of the temporary pumping stations; however, the Project sites are not located adjacent to housing or other land uses considered to be sensitive to night lighting. In addition, the night lighting would be directed downward and shielded to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties. Therefore there would be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-3

44 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis II. AGRICULTURE ANDFOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-4

45 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Regulatory Setting Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is the federal agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The FPPA was enacted after the 1981 Congressional report, Compact Cities: Energy-Saving Strategies for the Eighties indicated that a great deal of urban sprawl was the result of programs funded by the federal government. The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize federal programs contributions to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner that is compatible with state, local, and private programs designed to protect farmland. Federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procedures to implement the FPPA every two years 5. Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program: The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP), managed by NRCS, provides funds to assist in the purchase of development rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. Through existing programs, USDA partners with state, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations and trusts to acquire easements or other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides matching funds up to 50 percent of the fair market value of the lands to help convert the development rights to conservation easements.. To qualify, farmland must be part of a pending offer from a state, tribe, or local farmland protection program; be privately owned; have a conservation plan for highly erodible land; be large enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and have surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production. State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Definition of Agricultural Lands: Public Resources Code Section defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts using the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection: The California Department of Conservation (DOC) applies the NRCS soil classifications to identify agricultural lands, and these agricultural designations are used in planning for the present and future of California s agricultural land resources. Pursuant to the DOC s FMMP, these designated agricultural lands are included in the Important Farmland Maps (IFM) used in planning for the present and future of California s agricultural land resources. The FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands. The FMMP provides analysis of agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. The DOC has a minimum mapping unit of 10 acres, with parcels that are smaller than 10 acres being absorbed into the surrounding classifications. 5 USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2011 Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-5

46 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis The list below provides a comprehensive description of all the categories mapped by the DOC. Collectively, lands classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland is referred to as Farmland 6. Prime Farmland. Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Farmland of Statewide Importance. Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Unique Farmland. Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. Grazing Land. Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. Urban and Built-up Land. Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. Other Land. Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act): The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section , and therefore is applicable only to specific land parcels within the State of California. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Private land within locally designated agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under Williamson Act contracts. However, an agricultural preserve must consist 6 California Department of Conservation. FMMP Important Farmland Map Categories. Site accessed March Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-6

47 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis of no less than 100 acres. However, in order to meet this requirement two or more parcels may be combined if they are contiguous, or if they are in common ownership. The Williamson Act program is administered by the Department of Conservation (DOC), in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10-year period, or a 20-year period for property restricted by a Farmland Security Zone Contract, wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non-renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non-renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners 7. Forestry Resources: State regulations regarding forestry resources are not relevant to the proposed project because no forestry resources exist at the project site. IMPACT ASSESSMENT II-a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Pursuant to CEQA Statute , Agricultural land means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria. The proposed Project will occur within the existing right-of-way of the Aqueduct. The Aqueduct at Check Structures 15, 18, and 20 is designated as Vacant or Disturbed Land while the Aqueduct at Check Structure 22 is designated as Grazing Land. The four check structures are surrounded by Prime Farmland, Urban Built-Up Land, Farmland of Local Importance, Native Vegetation, Semi-Ag and Grazing Land. Proposed project implementation will allow the existing agricultural uses to continue. No land will be converted to non-agricultural uses as a result of proposed project implementation and as such, there will be no impact to farmland conversion. II-b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project site is within the existing right-of-way of the Aqueduct and as described in Chapter 2 is not subject to County Zoning. None of the proposed project sites are within a Williamson Act Contract. All surrounding parcels of Check Structures 15 and 18 are zoned as Agriculture Exclusive 20 acre minimum(ae20) (see Figure 3), and all surrounding parcels of Check Structures 20 and 22 are zoned as General Agriculture 40 acre (AG40) (see Figure 4). Proposed project implementation will not prevent the surrounding existing agricultural uses from continuing. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, and no Williamson Act contracted lands are within the proposed project areas. Therefore, there would be no impact. 7 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Program. Site accessed March Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-7

48 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis II-c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed project site is within an existing right-of-way of the Aqueduct and as discussed in Impacts II-a and II-b no farmland will be converted. No forest or timberland is located on or near the proposed project. Therefore there would be no impact. II-d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As the proposed project lies on the Central Valley floor, no forest land is on or near the site. Therefore there would be no impact to forest land. II-e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Proposed project implementation will not impede the existing agricultural uses in the area from continuing and will not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there will be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-8

49 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal Clean Air Act: The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 (FCAA, as amended in 1990) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health or the environment. Two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established. Primary standards protect public health, while secondary standards protect public welfare, by including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, landscaping and vegetation, or buildings. NAAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), and lead (Pb). State California Air Resources Board: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency responsible for implementing the federal and California Clean Air Acts (CCAA). CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which include all criteria pollutants established by the NAAQS, but with additional regulations for Visibility Reducing Particles, sulfates, hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S), and vinyl chloride. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-9

50 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis The proposed project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and parts of Kern counties and is managed by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Air basins are classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified. Attainment is achieved when monitored ambient air quality data is in compliance with the standards for a specified pollutant. Non-compliance with an established standard will result in a nonattainment designation and an unclassified designation indicates insufficient data is available to determine compliance for that pollutant. Standards and attainment status for listed pollutants in the Air District can be found in Table 3. Note that both state and federal standards are presented. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-10

51 ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; ug/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT REVERSE FLOW Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Table 3 San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants San Joaquin Valley Attainment Status for SJVAB - Air Quality Attainment Status Criteria Pollutants 8 Criteria Pollutants Contaminant and National State National Standards State Standards Averaging Period Standard Standard Primary Sources of Criteria Pollutants Ozone 1-Hour ppm Nonattainment Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is formed by a complex series of photochemical reactions (O 3 ) 8 Hour 0.08 ppm 0.07 ppm Nonattainment Nonattainment between VOC and NO x (primarily NO). NO 2 Attainment/ 1-Hour ppm Attainment NO Unclassified 2 is a member of a family of gaseous nitrogen compounds (NO x ) and is a precursor to ozone formation. Attainment/ Annual.053 ppm Attainment NO 2 results primarily from combustion of fossil fuels. Unclassified CO Attainment/ Attainment/ 1-Hour 35 ppm 20 ppm CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. Under Unclassified Unclassified most conditions CO does not persist in the atmosphere. Attainment/ Attainment/ 8-Hour 9 ppm 9.0 ppm Most CO emissions come from motor vehicles. Unclassified Unclassified PM Hour 150 ug/m 3 50 ug/m Nonattainment PM10 is comprised of dust, sand, salt spray, metallic, and mineral particles, pollen, smoke, mist, and acid fumes. Annual 50 ug/m 3 20 ug/m 3 Attainment Nonattainment PM10 may also include sulfate and nitrate aerosols. PM Hour 35 ug/m Nonattainment PM2.5 is typically emitted from combustion sources. PM2.5 also includes aerosols that may be formed in the Annual 12 ug/m 3 12 ug/m 3 Nonattainment Nonattainment atmosphere. 1-Hour 75 ppb 0.25 ppm Attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) is formed primarily by the combustion SO 2 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm Attainment Attainment of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO 2 concentrations in the Annual 0.03 ppm Attainment Attainment SJVAB are only about 4 percent of the standard. 1.5 Primary sources of lead are smelters and battery Lead Month ug/m 3 Attainment Attainment manufacturing and recycling. In the past, combustion of (Pb) Quarter 1.5 ug/m Attainment Attainment leaded gasoline contributed to ambient concentrations. 8 California Air Resources Board, SJVAPCD, Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-11

52 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Additional State regulations include: CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program: This program was designed to allow owners and operators of portable engines and other common construction or farming equipment to register their equipment under a statewide program so they may operate it statewide without the need to obtain a Permit to Operate from the local air district. U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program: The (CCAA) requires CARB to achieve a maximum degree of emissions reductions from off-road mobile sources to attain State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS); off- road mobile sources include most construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in These standards, along with ongoing rulemaking, address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and toxic particulate matter from diesel engines. CARB is currently developing a control measure to reduce diesel PM and NO X emissions from existing offroad diesel equipment throughout the state. California Global Warming Solutions Act: Established in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) requires that California s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year This will be implemented through a statewide cap on GHG emissions, which will be phased in beginning in AB 32 requires CARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to monitor global warming emissions levels. Regional San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District: The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is the local agency charged with preparing, adopting, and implementing mobile, stationary, and area air emission control measures and standards. The Air District has several rules and regulations that may apply to the proposed project, but primarily they will include: Rule 3135 (Dust Control Plan Fees): This rule requires the project applicant to submit a fee in addition to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this rule is to recover the Air District s cost for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections. Rules 4101 and 4102 (Visible Emissions and Nuisance): This rule applies to any source of air contaminants and prohibits the visible emissions of air contaminants or any activity which creates a public nuisance. Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings): This rule limits volatile organic compounds (VOC) from architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, clean up, and labeling requirements. It is applicable to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any architectural coating, or who manufactures any architectural coating for use within the district. Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations): This rule applies to use of asphalt for paving new roadways or restoring existing roadways disturbed by project activities. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-12

53 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Rules 8011 and 8081 (Regulation VIII, Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions): This regulation is designed to reduce PM 10 emissions by reducing fugitive dust. Regulation VIII requires implementation of control measures to ensure that visible dust emissions are substantially reduced. The Regulation VIII control measures are provided in Table 4. Table 4 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Regulation VIII Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM 10 The following are required to be implemented at all construction sites: All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizers/suppressants, covered with a tarp or other similar cover, or vegetative ground cover. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions during construction using water or chemical stabilizer suppressant. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading cut and fill, and demolition activities during construction shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or pre-soaking. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from top of container shall be maintained. All operations shall limit, or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site at the end of each workday. Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-13

54 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis IMPACT ASSESSMENT III-a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The SJVAPCD has adopted several attainment plans to achieve state and federal air quality standards to comply with the CCAA and the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) requirements. The SJVAPCD s air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modeling to estimate future levels of pollution and make sure that the Valley will meet air quality goals. The SJVAPCD s attainment plans are subject to approval by its Governing Board. The following plans are currently in effect 9 : 1-Hour Ozone Although EPA revoked its hour ozone standard in June 2, many planning requirements remain in place, and the Valley must still attain this standard before it can rescind CAA Section 185 fees. The SJVAPCD s most recent 1-hour ozone plan, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard, demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by However, the SJVAPCD is in the process of requesting an EPA finding of attainment based on ozone data Hour Ozone The SJVAPCD s far-reaching 2007 Ozone Plan demonstrates attainment of EPA s hour ozone standard by EPA approved the 2007 Ozone Plan effective April 30, The SJVAPCD is now in the process of developing the 2016 Ozone Plan to address EPA s hour ozone standard, which the Valley must attain by This is a very tough standard that is nearing the Valley s naturally-occurring background concentrations. Attainment may not be possible without the virtual elimination of fossil fuel combustion 11. PM10 Based on PM10 measurements from , EPA found that the SJVAB has reached Federal PM10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD s Governing Board adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. This plan demonstrates that the Valley will continue to meet the PM10 standard. EPA approved the document and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment/maintenance 12. PM2.5 The SJVAPCD s 2008 PM2.5 Plan demonstrated 2014 attainment of EPA s first PM2.5 standard, set in EPA lowered the PM2.5 standard in 2006, and the SJVAPCD s 2012 PM2.5 Plan showed attainment of this standard by 2019, with the majority of the Valley seeing attainment much sooner. The SJVAPCD continues to work with EPA on issues surrounding these plans, including EPA implementation updates. EPA lowered the PM2.5 standard again in 2012 and is in the process of completing attainment designations 13. The SJVAPCD must continuously monitor its progress in implementing attainment plans and must periodically report to the ARB and the EPA. It must also periodically revise its attainment plans to 9 Draft Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). July 7, Pages Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-14

55 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis reflect new conditions and requirements in accordance with schedules mandated by the CCAA and FCAAA. 14 The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the Federal, State or SJVAPCD air quality management standards and plans, resulting in a less than significant impact. III-b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project includes the installation and operation of four pump stations, containing a total of up to 16 pumps, up to sixteen 500-gallon fuel tanks and up to eight 1,200-gallon fuel tanks. These pumps would be utilized, as needed, to reverse the water flow in the Aqueduct. Installation of the proposed project components and associated appurtenances is anticipated to last approximately four weeks and will utilize equipment such as cranes, flatbed delivery trucks, and a forklift. The temporary pump stations and power units would be delivered by flatbed delivery trucks to the proposed project sites. The pump stations and power units are on skids (beams which create a frame attached to the bottom of the pumps). The skids allow for movement from the truck to the ground and serve as the structural support at their final placement by a crane or forklift at the top of the embankment. In addition to the pumps and power units, a prefabricated piping will be placed on the embankment and connected to the pumps to allow the water to be pumped around the sides of the existing control gates at each check structure. All proposed project components will be placed above ground; as the installation of the proposed project requires only placement of prefabricated equipment and piping. As a result no ground disturbing activities such as grading, trenching or excavation will be necessary. This equipment would be placed in an area of less than 0.5 acres at each site. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, impacts resulting from the proposed project installation would be treated as construction impacts in the environmental analysis. As described in further detail below, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version , was used to estimate air pollutant emissions resulting from installation and operation of the proposed project. The modeling results are provided in Tables 5 (Installation Emissions) and 6 (Operational Emissions) and the CalEEMod output files are provided in Appendix A. The significance thresholds adopted by the SJVAPCD for the various air pollutants are also shown in Tables 5 and 6. Installation Emissions The installation emissions were calculated based on equipment needed to install the proposed project components and the number of days and trips required for installation activities which will occur over a four week period. As shown in Table 5 below, the criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project installation are expected to be well below the applicable significance thresholds, and thus the impact from the proposed project installation would be less than significant. Regulation VIII measures (see Table 4 above) are SJVAPCD mandated requirements for property owners, contractors, developers, equipment operators, farmers and public agencies to control fugitive dust emissions. SCVWD will implement Regulation VIII measures which will further reduce 14 GUIDE FOR ASSESSING AND MITIGATING AIR QUALITY IMPACTS TECHNICAL DOCUMENT, Information for Preparing Air Quality Sections in EIRs; January 10, 2002 revision; Adopted August 20, 1998 Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-15

56 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis any installation related PM 10 emission impacts. In order to lower the amounts of dust generated by installation activities, soil stabilizers will be applied to inactive areas, if needed. Table 5 Proposed Project Installation Emissions VOC (ROG) NO x PM 10 CO 2 (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) Total Project Installation Emissions Threshold of Significance for Construction Emissions 15 Operational Emissions The proposed project would also generate emissions from its operation. The proposed project s 16 pumps would emit exhaust emissions of particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) from fuel combustion related to the heavy-duty diesel powered engines. In addition, the fuel trips, security trips and operator trips over the duration of the proposed project as described in Chapter 2- Project Description would result in emissions. As described in Chapter 2-Project Description, if the pumps are operated at their maximum capacity (100 cfs), it is expected that the operation would occur over a period of 90 days to pump the maximum amount of 18,000 AF around the check structures. However, if SCVWD determines a lower flow rate is needed for the water exchange, it may operate fewer of the installed facilities or operate them at below their maximum capacities. In order to quantify the maximum emissions, Table 6 provides the total operational emissions assuming that the pumps would run at maximum capacities (100 cfs) for 24 hours a day over a 90 day period. In addition to the engine emissions Table 6 also includes emissions associated with operational trips related to the maintenance, security and fueling of the project components. In the event that SCVWD operates the pumps at a lower cfs or determines that a lower flow rate is needed for the water exchange, as described in Chapter 2 Project Description, the estimated operational emissions are expected to be similar as there may be a slight increase in the number of operator and security trips however that would be offset by a decrease in the pump emissions as the pumps would operate at a lower cfs. The number of fuel trips would remain the same as a lower cfs on the pumps would not burn fuel as quickly as when they are ran at the maximum capacity (100 cfs). 15 Based on SJVAPCD s adopted thresholds of significance for construction emissions of criteria pollutants adopted July Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-16

57 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Table 6 Proposed Project Operational Emissions VOC (ROG) (tons*/year) NO x (tons/year) PM 10 (tons/year) CO 2 (tons/year) Project Trip Emissions Project Engine Emissions Total Project Operational Emissions Threshold of Significance for Operational Emissions 16 Number of Tons Needed to Mitigate *one ton equals 2,000 pounds. As shown in Table 6 above, the criteria pollutant emissions relating to the proposed project operation, mainly from operating the diesel engines to carry out the reverse flow pumping, are expected to exceed SJVAPCD s adopted thresholds for NO X. In order to reduce the operational impact, SCVWD will implement the following mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure: AIR-1: Prior to delivering internal combustion engine-driven pumping equipment to the Project site, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) shall enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Execution of the VERA will allow the SCVWD to mitigate Project emissions to a less than significant level by providing a pound-for-pound mitigation credit of air emissions based on the actual emissions generated. Specifically, SCVWD would pay the Air District mitigation fees and the Air District would enter into funding agreements with owners and/or operators of pollution source equipment to achieve emission reductions which offset the emissions from this Project. After the Project is mitigated, the Air District will certify to SCVWD that the mitigation has been completed. III-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)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed in Impact III-b, the proposed Project is expected to result in the generation of criteria pollutants during installation and operation. During installation, air quality impacts will be less than Air District s recommended thresholds for nonattainment pollutants. During operations, under the worst case scenario, shows that the diesel engines needed to pump the water from each check structure would generate emissions exceeding the threshold of significance for NO X and will be less than recommended thresholds for other nonattainment pollutants. Additionally, approximately 16 trips per day will be generated by the 16 Based on SJVAPCD s adopted thresholds of significance for operational emissions of criteria pollutants adopted July Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-17

58 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis security employees, 4 trips per day will be generated by operators and approximately 1.4 trips per day (62 trips or 124 roundtrips for Project duration) for the filling of the diesel storage tanks for a total estimated trips per day of 22. These trips will be temporary and will only last during the proposed project operation. As discussed in Impact III-b above, the emissions from operational trips are expected to be well below threshold of significance for the criteria pollutants. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. On June 3, 2014, the Dudley Ridge Water District adopted an IS/MND for the California Aqueduct 2014 Pump Back Program Project (SCH# ). The Dudley Ridge Water District Project will also utilize pumps for reverse flow along the Aqueduct at Check Structures 25 and 22. In addition to this Project, the Dudley Ridge Water District s California Aqueduct 2014 Pump Back Program Project will result in emissions above the Air District s thresholds for NO x. Both projects will implement the mitigation measure identified in Impact III-b to reduce the project s significant NO X impacts to a less than significant level through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District s VERA program which would result in the offset of emissions generated by the proposed projects. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure AIR-1, proposed project-generated NO X emissions would not result in a cumulative net increase of this nonattainment criteria pollutant. As a result the proposed project s cumulative impact would be less than significant impact with mitigation. III-d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Pump operation will produce Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), as fuels are combusted. Temporary installation and operational maintenance of the pumps also has the potential to emit HAPs in exhaust emissions, such as diesel PM. Section 3 of the Air District s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), defines a sensitive receptor as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons are present and where there is a reasonable expectation of human exposure to pollutants. Sensitive receptors normally refer to people with heightened sensitivity to localized, rather than regional pollutants. The closest potential sensitive receptor to any of the check structures is a residence approximately 0.8 miles north of Check Structure 22. Due to diesel pollutants dissipating quickly in the mix of surrounding air, concentrations of pollutants due to engines and vehicle emissions will not pose a hazardous threat to any sensitive receptors, which are located more than 0.8 miles from the site. The impact would be less than significant. III-e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptor, a residence, is located approximately 0.8 miles away from the proposed project sites. The proposed project operation will not be a source of odors. Any odors caused by operation or installation of the proposed project would be from diesel fuel combustion. Diesel-type installation odors are not typically detectable offsite. Therefore, objectionable odors are not expected to be a significant concern during either proposed project installation or operation. The impact will be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-18

59 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act: The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Section 9 of the FESA prohibits the taking of listed wildlife, where taking is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct (50 CFR 17.3). For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any listed plant on federal land Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-19

60 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis and removing, cutting, digging-up, damaging, or destroying any listed plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16USC1538). Pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed plant or wildlife species or its critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity, provided the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of the FESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to private parties, provided a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): The MBTA implements international treaties devised to protect migratory birds and any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits are in 50 CFR part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and of the CDFW Code. Federal Clean Water Act: The CWA s purpose is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation s waters. Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The definition of waters of the United States includes rivers, streams, estuaries, the territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR b). The USEPA also has authority over wetlands and may override an ACOE permit. Substantial impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit. Projects that only minimally affect wetlands may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. A Water Quality Certification or Waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions; this certification or waiver is issued by the RWQCB. State California Endangered Species Act: The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA, but unlike its federal counterpart, the CESA applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called candidate species by the state). Section 2080 of the CDFW Code prohibits the take, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the CDFW Code as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with the CDFW to ensure that any action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered, threatened, or candidate species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat. The CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for designated fully protected species). Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-20

61 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Fully Protected Species: The State of California first began to designate species as fully protected prior to the creation of the CESA and FESA. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the CESA and/or FESA. The regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (CDFW Code Section 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Furthermore, the CDFW prohibits any state agency from issuing incidental take permits for fully protected species, except for necessary scientific research. Native Plant Protection Act: Regarding listed rare and endangered plant species, the CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (CDFW Code Sections 1900 to 1913), which prohibits importing of rare and endangered plants into California, and the taking and selling of rare and endangered plants. The CESA includes an additional listing category for threatened plants that are not protected pursuant to NPPA. In this case, plants listed as rare or endangered pursuant to the NPPA are not protected pursuant to CESA, but can be protected pursuant to the CEQA. In addition, plants that are not state listed, but that meet the standards for listing, are also protected pursuant to CEQA (Guidelines, Section 15380). In practice, this is generally interpreted to mean that all species on lists 1B and 2 of the CNPS Inventory potentially qualify for protection pursuant to CEQA, and some species on lists 3 and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory may qualify for protection pursuant to CEQA. List 3 includes plants for which more information is needed on taxonomy or distribution. Some of these are rare and endangered enough to qualify for protection pursuant to CEQA. List 4 includes plants of limited distribution that may qualify for protection if their abundance and distribution characteristics are found to meet the standards for listing. California Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement: Sections 1600 through 1616 of the CDFW Code require that a Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Notification Package be submitted to the CDFW for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. The CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal on which the CDFW and the applicant agree is the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Often, projects that require a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement also require a permit from the ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement may overlap. IMPACT ASSESSMENT IV-a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Chaney Ranch, Harris Ranch, La Cima and Avenal Gap 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. A review of information from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind3 data (2013) was conducted for the four USGS quadrangles, and for the 28 surrounding quadrangles (Antelope Plain, Avenal, Broadview Farms, Calflax, Chounet Ranch, Coalinga, Coit Ranch, Domengine Ranch, Dudley Ridge, Emigrant Hill, Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-21

62 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Firebaugh, Five Points, Garza Peak, Guijarral Hills, Hammonds Ranch, Huron, Kettleman City, Kettleman Plain, Levis, Los Viejos, Monocline Ridge, Pyramid Hills, Sawtooth Ridge, Tres Picos Farms, Tumey Hills, West Camp, Westhaven, and Westside) using the CNDDB Rarefind A list of special status species that could occur in the Project vicinity can be seen in Table 7. Table 7 List of Special Status Species That Could Occur in the Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name Amphibians Federal Status State Status Spea hammondii western spadefoot SC Birds Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird SC Asio flammeus short-eared owl SC Asio otus long-eared owl SC Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SC Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk T Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover T SC Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo PT E Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Falco columbarius merlin Falco mexicanus prairie falcon Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike SC Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte's thrasher SC Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus yellow-headed blackbird SC Mammals Ammospermophilus nelsoni Nelson's antelope squirrel T Antrozous pallidus pallid bat SC Dipodomys ingens giant kangaroo rat E E Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus short-nosed kangaroo rat SC Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Tipton kangaroo rat E E Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat SC Lasiurus blossevillii western red bat SC Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis Onychomys torridus tularensis Tulare grasshopper mouse SC CDFW Status CNPS List Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-22

63 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status Perognathus inornatus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse Taxidea taxus American badger SC Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox E T Reptiles Anniella pulchra pulchra silvery legless lizard SC Emys marmorata western pond turtle SC Gambelia sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard E E Masticophis flagellum ruddocki San Joaquin whipsnake SC Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SC Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake T T Aegialia concinna Coelus gracilis Lytta hoppingi Lytta molesta Lytta morrisoni Metapogon hurdi Trigonoscuta sp. Invertebrates Ciervo aegilian scarab beetle San Joaquin dune beetle Hopping's blister beetle molestan blister beetle Morrison's blister beetle Hurd's metapogon robberfly Doyen's trigonoscuta dune weevil Plants CNPS List Atriplex coronata var. vallicola Lost Hills crownscale 1B.2 Atriplex depressa brittlescale 1B.2 California macrophylla round-leaved filaree 1B.1 Caulanthus californicus California jewelflower E E 1B.1 Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's jewelflower 1B.2 Deinandra halliana Hall's tarplant 1B.1 Delphinium recurvatum recurved larkspur 1B.2 Eriastrum hooveri Hoover's eriastrum D 4.2 Eriogonum temblorense Temblor buckwheat 1B.2 Layia heterotricha pale-yellow layia 1B.1 Layia munzii Munz's tidy-tips 1B.2 Lepidium jaredii ssp. album Panoche pepper-grass 1B.2 Lepidium jaredii ssp. jaredii Jared's pepper-grass 1B.2 Madia radiata showy golden madia 1B.1 Malacothamnus aboriginum Indian Valley bush-mallow 1B.2 Monolopia congdonii San Joaquin woollythreads E 1B.2 Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead 1B.2 Tropidocarpum californicum Kings gold 1B.1 Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-23

64 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW Status CNPS List E Endangered SC Species of Special Concern T Threatened FP Fully Protected D Delisted WL Watch List PT ProposedThreatened 1B.1 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere, seriously threatened in CA 4.2 Plants of limited distribution, moderately 1B.2 threatened in CA Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere, moderately threatened in CA The entirety of the proposed project will be installed and operated within the existing Aqueduct right-of-way. The banks and associated facilities of the Aqueduct are highly disturbed and kept clear of vegetation, resulting in a habitat unable to support any federal or state protected biological species. In addition, there are no tall trees that could provide nesting habitat within a ½ mile of any of the check structure. As such, any impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant. IV-b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Riparian habitat is absent from the proposed project sites. Grazing and active agricultural land surrounds most of all four check structures. Because riparian and other habitats of special concern are absent, proposed project installation and operation will have no impact on these habitats. IV-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? No Impact. The proposed project will not discharge dredged or fill material into the Aqueduct as the installation of the proposed project requires only placement of prefabricated equipment and piping. As a result no ground disturbing activities such as grading, trenching or excavation will be necessary. In addition, no natural aquatic or federally protected wetland features as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the proposed project site; therefore there would be no impact. IV-d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. No special status migratory fish species occur within the proposed project vicinity. The Aqueduct does has the potential to act as a wildlife corridor for bird species; however, the installation of pumping structures and associated appurtenances as well as operation of the proposed project will not interfere with any movement of bird species or migratory fish. Any impacts to regional wildlife movements, native wildlife nursery sites, or migratory fish would be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-24

65 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis IV-e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The 2035 Kings County General Plan s Resource Conservation Element and the 2020 Fresno County General Plan s Resource Conservation Element contain policies for the protection of biological resources; however, proposed project implementation would include the installation and operation of temporary pumping stations at Check Structures 15, 18, 20, and 22 all of which will not affect any protected biological resource. Fresno County General Plan Policy OS-F.4 and Kings County General Plan Policy RC Policy E1.1.2 contain general guidelines for the protection of trees; however, the proposed project will not be disturbing nor removing any trees. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, there would be no impact. IV-f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Area of the PG&E Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (PG&E). PG&E s San Joaquin Valley HCP, was implemented in early 2008, and covers almost all of PG&E s routine operations and maintenance, as well as minor new construction activities that will occur within the San Joaquin Valley for the next 30 years. Fresno and Kings Counties do not have adopted HCPs as part of their General Plans. There are also no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Designated Critical Habitats associated with the proposed project sites. The proposed project implementation would take place within the Aqueduct right-of-way and no earth moving activities will occur. Equipment placement would be temporary and would be removed at the end of the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with the PG&E HCP; there would be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-25

66 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), Section 106: The National Historic Preservation Act (Act) established the National Register of Historic Places, State Historic Preservation Offices and programs, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Act establishes a national policy of historic preservation to protect, rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American architecture, history, archaeology, and culture. Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C ) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preservation for public use of historic sites, buildings and objects including geologic formations. State The proposed project is subject to CEQA and the State Guidelines which require public or private projects financed or approved by public agencies to assess their effects on historical resources. CEQA Guidelines uses the term historical resources to include buildings, sites, structures, objects or districts, each of which may have historical, prehistoric, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if implementation of a project results in significant effects on historical resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered; however, only significant historical resources need to be addressed (Sections , of the CEQA Guidelines). For the purposes of this CEQA document, a significant impact would occur if project implementation: Causes a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource Disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-26

67 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Therefore, before impacts and mitigation measures can be identified, the significance of historical resources must be determined. CEQA Guidelines define three ways that a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA review: If the resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) If the resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section (k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section (g) of the PRC unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant The lead agency determines the resource to be significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section (a)) Each of these ways of qualifying as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA is related to the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the CRHR (PRC (k), , (g)). A historical resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Properties that area listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purpose of CEQA (PRC Section (d)(1)). Public Resources Code Section : California Public Resources Code Section prohibits excavation or removal of any vertebrate paleontological site or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. California Health and Safety Code Section : Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-27

68 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals and associated deposits. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources 17.CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) Section (a)(1)). California Public Resources Code Section (see above) also applies to paleontological resources. IMPACT ASSESSMENT V-a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Less Than Significant Impact. A cultural resources records search was conducted on June 6, 2014 by California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, housed at California State University, Bakersfield. The records search included an examination of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, California State Historic Landmarks Registry, and the HRIC files of pertinent historical and archaeological data (see Appendix C). There is one recorded historical resource within the proposed project area, P (P ). This resource is the Aqueduct. There is only one recorded historical resource within the half mile radii, P (Avenal Cutoff Bridge; Bridge #45C0071). There are no recorded cultural resources within the proposed project areas or radii that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, California Points of Historical Interest, California Inventory of Historic Resources, or the California State Historic Landmarks (see Appendix C). The proposed project proposes the installation of up to four temporary pump stations, one at Check Structure 15, one at Check Structure 18, one at Check Structure 20, and one at Check Structure 22, which would reverse the flow in the Aqueduct. All facilities will be installed aboveground. No grading or earth moving activities will be required for installation of proposed project components. In addition, no permanent alteration to the California Aqueduct is proposed as a result of the Project. All facilities will be removed from each site once pumping is completed. Therefore, the Project is not expected to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and thus the impact would be less than significant. 17 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee Policy Statements. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-28

69 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis V-b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? Less Than Significant Impact. Any impacts to archaeological resources have been discussed in Impact V-a. Any impacts would be less than significant. V-c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No impact. No known paleontological resources exist within the Project area, nor are there any known geologic features in the Project area. Project installation will not be expected to disturb any paleontological resources not previously disturbed. V-d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. No formal cemeteries or other places of human internment are known to exist on the proposed project sites (see Appendix B) and no grading or excavation activities would occur for proposed project implementation; thus, the proposed project is not expected to result in disturbance of human remains. However, in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains during Project implementation, SCVWD would comply with applicable laws and regulations including California State State Health and Safety Code Section which requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Corner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-29

70 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal Historic Sites Act of 1935: This Act became law on August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C ) and has been amended eight times. This Act establishes as a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects, including geologic formations. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), which was first authorized by Congress in 1977, coordinates the earthquake-related activities of the Federal Government. The goal of NEHRP is to mitigate earthquake losses in the United States through basic and directed research and implementation activities in the fields of earthquake science Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-30

71 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis and engineering. Under NEHRP, FEMA is responsible for developing effective earthquake risk reduction tools and promoting their implementation, as well as supporting the development of disaster-resistant building codes and standards. FEMA's NEHRP activities are led by the FEMA Headquarters (HQ), Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Risk Reduction Division, Building Science Branch, in strong partnership with other FEMA HQ Directorates, and in coordination with the FEMA Regions, the States, the earthquake consortia, and other public and private partners. State California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (originally enacted in 1972 and renamed in 1994) is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The statute prohibits the location of mot types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and regulates construction in the corridors along active faults. California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act: The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Uniform Building Code: The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is assigned to the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. The California Building Code incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code with necessary California amendments. The Uniform Building Code is a widely adopted model building code in the United States published by the International Conference of Building Officials. About one-third of the text within the California Building Code has been tailored for California earthquake conditions. IMPACT ASSESSMENT VI-a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: VI-a-i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps and the State of California Department of Conservation, the Nunez Fault is the nearest named fault. It is located approximately 16.8 miles southwest of Check Structure 18. The nearest major fault line is approximately 21.9 miles west of Check Structure 22. According to the Five County Seismic Safety Element (FCSSE), the proposed project sites are located in the V3 zone (Checks 15, 18, and 20) and V4 zone (Check 22). V3 is defined as a Thick section of marine and continental sedimentary deposits results in a moderate increase in expected shaking over that for Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-31

72 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis the east side of the valley. The FCSSE further states that, Amplification of shaking is reduced by the damping effect of the thick sedimentary section, but the moderate proximity of the San Andreas fault zone. V4 is defined as a "thick section of consolidated sedimentary units overlain by thick unconsolidated alluvial fan deposits. The FCSSE further states that, Amplification of shaking is reduced by the damping effect of the thick sedimentary section, but its moderately close proximity to the San Andreas fault zone results in the expectation of moderately high shaking characteristics". The site is relatively flat and no ground disturbing activities are associated with the installation of the proposed project components. In addition, due to the distance from any major faults, the risk of the proposed project exposing people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is less than significant. VI-a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Any impacts regarding strong seismic ground shaking have been discussed in Impact VI-a-i. The impact will be less than significant. VI-a-iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in VI-a-i, the check structures are located in V3 and V4 zones. V3 has a moderate to high subsidence risk and a minimal liquefaction risk. V4 has a moderate subsidence risk and a low to moderate liquefaction risk. The pumps skids would be temporary and would be removed at the end of the proposed project. No buildings would be constructed, and no persons would be permanently housed on site. Additionally, no subsidence-prone soils or oil or gas production is involved with the proposed project. Any impacts would be less than significant. VI-a-iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. No geologic landforms exist on or near Check Structures 15, 18, and 20 that would result in a landslide event. The nearest foothills are several miles away. Check Structure 22 is near the foothills, however no employees would be permanently stationed on site, no housing or structure would be located on site, and the landslide risk is considered low in that portion of Kings County 18. Any impact would be less than significant. VI-b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The pumps would be installed on skids and no ground disturbance would occur other than from vehicle traffic and equipment operation. The site is relatively flat, with very little slope and would continue to have a flat topography after project installation. The proposed project site has flat terrain with a low potential for soil erosion. The proposed project would not involve any soil disturbance. All proposed project components would be located above ground. The pumps would be mounted on skids and placed in the canal right-of-way. This space normally experiences truck traffic as a result of vehicles passing through for routine operations maintenance and monitoring. Due to no ground disturbance, loss of topsoil and substantial soil erosion during the installation period are not anticipated. The impact would be less than significant County of Kings General Plan. Page HS-11. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-32

73 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis VI-c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact. The proposed project will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed project and thus would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Therefore, there would be no impact. VI -d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. No grading activities are proposed as part of the proposed project; therefore the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential risks related to expansive soils. Therefore, there would be no impact as a result of implementation of the proposed project. VI-e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the installation of septic tanks or other alternative waste water disposal system. Therefore, there would be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-33

74 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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 an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Environmental Setting Various gases in the earth s atmosphere play an important role in moderating the earth s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters earth s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth s surface. The earth emits this solar radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are transparent to solar radiation, but are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. Consequently, radiation that would otherwise escape back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the earth s atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect 19. Scientific research to date indicates that some of the observed climate changes are a result of increased GHG emissions associated with human activity. Among the GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), ozone, NOx, and chlorofluorocarbons. Humancaused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are considered responsible for enhancing the greenhouse effect. GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are believed by many to be attributable, in large part, to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation 20. GHGs are considered global pollutants, unlike criteria pollutants and TACs, which are considered pollutants of regional and/or local concern. Global climate change has the potential to affect water resources in California. Rising temperatures could be anticipated to result in sea-level rise (as polar ice caps melt) and possibly change the timing and amount of precipitation, which could alter water quality. According to some, climate change could result in more extreme weather patterns; both heavier precipitation that could lead to flooding, as well as more extended drought periods. There is uncertainty regarding the timing, magnitude, and nature of the potential changes to water resources as a result of climate change; however, several trends are evident 21 Snowpack and snowmelt may also be affected by climate change. Much of California s precipitation falls as snow in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades, and snowpack represents approximately 35 percent of the state s useable annual water supply. The snowmelt typically occurs from April through 19 U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Contra Costa Water District, and Western Area Power Administration Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project. Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No February. Pages cites: 5-1 through Ibid. 21 Ibid. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-34

75 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis July; it provides natural water flow to streams and reservoirs after the annual rainy season has ended. As air temperatures increase due to climate change, the water stored in California s snowpack could be affected by increasing temperatures resulting in: (1) decreased snowfall, and (2) earlier snowmelt 22. Regulatory Setting Federal The USEPA Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98), which became effective December 29, 2009, requires that all facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year beginning in 2010, report their emissions on an annual basis. On May 13, 2010, the USEPA issued a final rule that established an approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA permitting programs. The final rule set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. In addition, the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (Supreme Court Case ) found that the USEPA has the authority to list GHGs as pollutants and to regulate emissions of GHGs under the CAA. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA found that CO 2, CH 4, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride may contribute to air pollution and may endanger public health and welfare. This finding may result in the USEPA regulating GHG emissions; however, to date the USEPA has not proposed regulations based on this finding. State California is taking action to reduce GHG emissions. In June 2, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05 to address climate change and GHG emissions in California. This order sets the following goals for statewide GHG emissions: Reduce to 2000 levels by 2010 Reduce to 1990 levels by 2020 Reduce to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 In 2006, California passed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of The Act requires ARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other feasible cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by Senate Bill 97 was signed into law in August The Senate Bill required the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resource Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions by July 1, On April 13, 2009, the OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting the amendments. Following a 55-day public comment period and 2 public hearings, and in response to comments, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions to the text of the proposed Guidelines amendments. The Natural Resources Agency 22 U.S Bureau of Reclamation, Contra Costa Water District, and Western Area Power Administration Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project. Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No February. Pages cites: 5-1 through 5-4. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-35

76 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the CCR. The Amendments became effective on March 18, The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions that cause climate change. The scoping plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 cost of implementation fee regulation to fund the program. The first regulation adopted by the ARB pursuant to AB 32 was the regulation requiring mandatory reporting of GHG emissions. The regulation requires large industrial sources emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 per year to report and verify their GHG emissions from combustion of both fossil fuels and biomass-derived fuels. The California Cap and Trade program is being developed and the ARB must adopt regulations by January 1, Finally, Governor Schwarzenegger directed the ARB, pursuant to Executive Order S-21-09, to adopt a regulation by July 31, 2010, requiring the state s load serving entities to meet a 33 percent renewable energy target by Local In December 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA and the District Policy Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. The guidance and policy rely on the use of performance based standards, otherwise known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to assess significance of project specific GHG emissions. Generally, projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less than cumulatively significant impact. Otherwise, demonstration of a 29 percent reduction in GHG emissions, from business-as-usual, is required to determine that a project would have a less than cumulatively significant impact. The guidance does not limit a lead agency s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project related impacts on global climate change. IMPACT ASSESSMENT VII-a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to global climate change are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), ozone (O 3 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). As seen in Impact Section III, the proposed project will potentially exceed the significance thresholds for NO X emissions. NO X is the driving pollutant for both the wintertime PM problem and the summertime ozone problem (in combination with VOC) 23. Temporary proposed project installation and operation trip emissions will be under any significance thresholds, as demonstrated in Tables 5 and 6. However proposed project operations related to the diesel engines needed to pump the water around the check structures would have the potential to increase greenhouse gas emissions related to NO X (see Tables 5 and 6). Regulation VIII measures, as seen in Table 4, will be implemented, reducing potential emissions. Furthermore, the mitigation measure identified in Impact III-b would reduce the proposed project s significant NO X impacts to a less 23 Draft Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). July 7, Page 115. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-36

77 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis than significant level through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District s VERA program which would result in the offset of proposed project emissions. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure AIR-1, the proposed project generated NO X emissions would not result in a cumulative net increase of this non-attainment criteria pollutant. With mitigation measure AIR-1, the impacts from GHG emissions will be less than significant. VII-b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. Kings County, Fresno County and the San Joaquin Valley Air District have not adopted Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans, therefore, significance is based on whether the proposed project would hinder or delay California s ability to meet the reduction targets set forth in AB 32. The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) to 1990 levels by the year Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The Scoping Plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by The proposed project s temporary emissions of greenhouse gas (NO x and CO 2 ) have been quantified in tables 5 and 6. The mitigation measure identified in Impact III-b would reduce the proposed project s significant NO X impacts to a less than significant level through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District s VERA program which would result in the offset of proposed project emissions. With mitigation measure AIR-1, the proposed project would not be inconsistent in any way with the AB 32 goal of reducing state-wide greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the impact to less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-37

78 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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 one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal The NFPA 70 : National Electrical Code is adopted in all 50 states. It includes requirements for electrical wiring and equipment. Article 705 covers interconnecting generators, windmills, and solar and Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-38

79 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis fuel cells with other power supplies 24. The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and California Hazardous Waste Control Law regulate the disposal of solar PV cells. The local hazardous waste regulatory authority for the proposed project is Fresno and Kings Counties. Several federal regulations govern hazards as they are related to transportation issues. They include: Title 49, CFR, Sections (49 CFR ), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. 49 CFR , and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways. 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. State California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA): The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991 by Governor s Executive Order. The six boards, departments, and office were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources. The mission of CalEPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 25 Unified Program: The Unified Program (codified CCR Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections ) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the following six environmental and emergency response programs 26 : Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) program and Hazardous Waste On-site Treatment activities; Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) program Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan requirements; Underground Storage Tank (UST) program; Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (HMRRP) program; California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program; Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMMP/HMIS) requirements. The Secretary of CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program. The Unified Program requires all counties to apply to the CalEPA Secretary for the certification of a local unified program agency. Qualified cities are also permitted to apply for certification. The local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is required to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, fee structures, and inspection and enforcement activities for 24 National Fire Protection Association NFPA 70: National Fire Code. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency, Site accesses: March 2014, 26 California Environmental Protection Agency, Site accesses: March 2014, Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-39

80 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis these six program elements in the county. Most CUPAs have been established as a function of a local environmental health or fire department. Hazardous Waste Management Program: The Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) regulates hazardous waste through its permitting, enforcement, and Unified Program activities in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section et seq. The main focus of HWMP is to ensure the safe storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created by the California legislature in The mission of SWRCB is to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. The joint authority of water allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California s waters. California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA): In California, every employer has a legal obligation to provide and maintain a safe and healthful workplace for employees, according to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (per Title 8 of the CCR). The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) program is responsible for enforcing California laws and regulations pertaining to workplace safety and health and for providing assistance to employers and workers about workplace safety and health issues. Cal/OSHA regulations are administered through Title 8 of the CCR. The regulations require all manufacturers or importers to assess the hazards of substances that they produce or import and all employers to provide information to their employees about the hazardous substances to which they may be exposed. IMPACT ASSESSMENT VIII-a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? and; VIII-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? Less Than Significant. Proposed project activities will require the storage, transport and use of small quantities of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel and oil. There is the potential for small leaks from refueling of the gasoline tanks. However standard construction, including the installation of regulated spill containment at each tank and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs), identified in Chapter 2, Project Description, will minimize the potential for the release of construction-related fuels and other hazardous materials. These practices will also control storm water contamination from spills or leaks, control the amount of runoff from the site, and require proper disposal or recycling of hazardous materials. In addition, the storage, transport, and use of these materials will comply with all applicable Local, State and Federal regulatory requirements. Thus, the impact to public or environment through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and accidental release of such materials would be less than significant. VIII-c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-40

81 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis No Impact. The nearest school, is more than eight miles northwest of the proposed project sites. There will be no impact. VIII-d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed project sites are not located on lands listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section and are not included on a list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control per a review of Identified Hazardous Waste Sites, conducted on June 12, The nearest site is the Helm Auxiliary Field #6, site 80070, which is approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast of the site. There will be no impact. VIII-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?; and, VIII-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? No Impact. The nearest airport is the Harris-Argo West Airport, located approximately 1.25 miles west of Check Structure 18. However, there will be no employees stationed at the site on a permanent basis. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the proposed project area. There would be no impact. VIII-g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project does not cross any publicly accessed routes, and would not interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan or evacuation. There would be no impact. VIII-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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site and the surrounding lands are either vacant/disturbed, grazing, prime farmland, farmland of local importance, urban/built-up, or semiagricultural and are designated as exclusive agriculture or general agriculture and are not considered wildlands. Vegetation near the site is sparse with little potential for vegetative fuel buildup. The staging area is a clean sandy surface with regular weed control. The impact would be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-41

82 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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 of 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 through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-42

83 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Regulatory Framework Federal Clean Water Act: The Clean Water Act (CWA) is intended to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation s waters (33 CFR 1251). The regulations implementing the CWA protect waters of the U.S. including streams and wetlands (33 CFR 328.3). The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality by regulating point source and some nonpoint source discharges. Under Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process was established to regulate these discharges. The National Flood Insurance Act (1968) makes available federally subsidized flood insurance to owners of flood-prone properties. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that can be used for planning purposes. State State Water Resources Control Board: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), located in Sacramento, is the agency with jurisdiction over water quality issues in the State of California. The SWRCB is governed by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code), which establishes the legal framework for water quality control activities by the SWRCB. The intent of the Porter-Cologne Act is to regulate factors which may affect the quality of waters of the State to attain the highest quality which is reasonable, considering a full range of demands and values. Much of the implementation of the SWRCB's responsibilities is delegated to its nine Regional Boards. The Project site is located within the Central Valley Region. Regional Water Quality Board: The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES storm water-permitting program in the Central Valley region. Construction activities on one acre or more are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The plan will include specifications for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during project construction to control degradation of surface water by preventing the potential erosion of sediments or discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The General Construction Permit program was established by the RWQCB for the specific purpose of reducing impacts to surface waters that may occur due to construction activities. BMPs have been established by the RWQCB in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook (2), and are recognized as effectively reducing degradation of surface waters to an acceptable level. Additionally, the SWPPP will describe measures to prevent or control runoff degradation after construction is complete, and identify a plan to inspect and maintain these facilities or project elements. IMPACT ASSESSMENT IX-a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-43

84 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis a) No impact. The proposed project would only affect the flow of water within the Aqueduct. In addition, there would not be any introduction of contaminants as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards and would not impact waste discharge requirements. There would be no impact. IX-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 of 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)? No Impact. The proposed project sites are located in the Westside subbasin (Checks 15 and 18) and Tulare Lake (Checks 20 and 22) subbasin of the Tulare Lake Region, an area significantly affected by overdraft. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The proposed project would allow the installation of a reverse flow system to augment delivery of SCVWD s banking withdrawals. As a result, the net change in groundwater recharge potential surrounding the site would be the same or potentially positive. There would be no impact. IX-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? Less Than Significant Impact. Drainage patterns would not change as a result of the proposed project. The proposed pumps and tanks would be mounted on skids and installed on the right embankment (looking downstream) adjacent to the secondary maintenance road, except at Check 18 where the pumps would be on the left embankment adjacent to the primary maintenance road and would not be permanent. This proposed project would reverse the flow of the California Aqueduct for a short period of time. These flows can be accommodated within the existing California Aqueduct infrastructure. In addition, no soil would be disturbed at any of the check structures. Potential impacts would be less than significant. IX-d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Any impacts regarding the alteration of drainage patterns to increase runoff water that will potentially induce flooding have been discussed in the impact analysis for Impact IX-c. In addition, the California Aqueduct is designed to control run-off as a result of a flood. The impact will be less than significant. IX-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? Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-44

85 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Less Than Significant Impact. Any impacts regarding the creation or contribution to runoff water that will potentially exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems have been discussed in the impact analysis for Impacts IX-c and IX-d. The impact will be less than significant. IX-f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Any impacts to water quality have been discussed in the impact analysis for Impact XV-a. IX-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? and, IX-h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. Figures 12 and 13 show Check Structures 18 and 20 are within the 100 year flood zone as pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Numbers 06019C3075H and 06019C3450H, both dated February 18, Check Structure 22 is 700 feet outside of the 100 year flood zone, FIRM Map 06029C0075E (dated September 26, 2008), and 06031C0800C (dated June 16, 2009). Check Structure 15 is approximately 0.21 miles northwest of flood zone AE according to FIRM Map 06019C1955H, dated February 18, The proposed project would not involve placement of housing or structures; therefore, there would be no impact. IX-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? and, IX-j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The nearest large body of water is the Mendota Pool and Wetlands, which is located approximately 15 miles northeast of Check 15. The proposed project sites are also outside of any inundation zones and within the levee walls of the Aqueduct making them unlikely to receive flood waters from outside the levees. Due to the extended distance between the pond and the proposed project site, there would be no potential for seiche or tsunami to occur. In addition, the proposed project would not involve placement of housing or structures; therefore, there would be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-45

86 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Figure 12 Check 15 and 18 FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-46

87 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Figure 13 Check 20 and 22 FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-47

88 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: 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 coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state or local regulations pertaining to land use and planning relevant to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT X-a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project sites are located in a rural areas in Kings County and Fresno County within the existing Aqueduct right-of-way (see Figure 1). The proposed project will not physically divide any established community. There will be no impact. X-b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No impact. The proposed project site is located within rural portions of Fresno and Kings County and is within the existing right-of-way of the Aqueduct. The Fresno County General Plan designates the parcels surrounding the site for Check Structures 15 and 18 as AE20. The 2035 Kings County General Plan designates the parcels surrounding the site for Check Structures 20 and 22 as AG40 - General Agriculture 40 acres. The proposed project would not conflict with the General Plan designation, the land use plan policy or regulation or other plans; therefore there would be no impact. X-c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. As discussed in Impact IV-f, the proposed project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Area of the PG&E Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan (PG&E). PG&E s San Joaquin Valley HCP, was implemented in early 2008, and covers almost all of Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-48

89 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis PG&E s routine operations and maintenance, as well as minor new construction activities that will occur within the San Joaquin Valley for the next 30 years. Fresno and Kings Counties do not have adopted HCPs as part of their General Plans. There are also no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Designated Critical Habitats associated with the proposed project sites. Proposed project implementation would take place within the Aqueduct right of way and no earth moving activities will occur. Equipment placement would be temporary and would be removed at the end of the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with the PG&E HCP; there would be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-49

90 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal and Local There are no federal or local regulations pertaining to mineral resources relevant to the proposed project. State California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975: Enacted by the State Legislature in 1975, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), Public Resources Code Section 2710 et seq., insures a continuing supply of mineral resources for the State. The act also creates surface mining and reclamation policy to assure that: Production and conservation of minerals is encouraged; Environmental effects are prevented or minimized; Consideration is given to recreational activities, watersheds, wildlife, range and forage, and aesthetic enjoyment; Mined lands are reclaimed to a useable condition once mining is completed; and Hazards to public safety both now and in the future are eliminated. Areas in the State (city or county) that do not have their own regulations for mining and reclamation activities rely on the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Mine Reclamation to enforce this law. SMARA contains provisions for the inventory of mineral lands in the State of California. The State Geologist, in accordance with the State Board s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands, must classify Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) as designated below: MRZ-1. Areas where available geologic information indicates that there is minimal likelihood of significant resources. MRZ-2. Areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicate that significant mineral deposits are located or likely to be located. MRZ-3. Areas where mineral deposits are found but the significance of the deposits cannot be evaluated without further exploration. MRZ-4. Areas where there is not enough information to assess the zone. These are areas that have unknown mineral resource significance. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-50

91 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis SMARA only covers mining activities that impact or disturb the surface of the land. Deep mining (tunnel) or petroleum and gas production is not covered by SMARA. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XI-a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. Check Structures 15 and 18 are located within Fresno County, along the Aqueduct. The Fresno County General Plan Background Report (2000) includes a Natural Resources chapter (Chapter 7), which identifies Mineral Resource Locations (Figure 7-7). According to the map, Check Structures 15 & 18 sites are not located in a Mineral Resource Zone. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resources in Fresno County. Check Structures 20 and 22 are located within Kings County along the Aqueduct. Mineral resources located within Kings County are predominately sand and gravel resources primarily located in the historic Tulare Lake area of the County s southwestern portions. As analyzed by the Program EIR for the 2035 Kings County General Plan (SCH# ), Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, the California Geological Survey Division of Mines and Geology has not classified lands in Kings County as a Mineral Resource Zone under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of Soils of the proposed project sites have been altered through grading, scraping, and compaction. Additionally, the proposed project does not entail any trenching, footings or foundations and as such will not involve any soil excavation. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Kings and Fresno County, California 27, the proposed pump-back sites contain six soil types: Excelsior sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes) at Check Structure 15, Ciervo clay (0 to 2 percent slopes) at Check Structure 18, Milham sandy loam, silty substratum and Wasco sandy loam (0 to 5 percent slopes) at Check Structure 20, and Panoche loam at and Kettleman loam (5 to 15 percent slopes) at Check Structure 22. Due to the proposed project site s soil ratings, and site location, the proposed project will not result in the loss of an available known mineral resource that would be of value to residents of the region or state. There will be no impact as a result of proposed project implementation. XI-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? No Impact. As noted in response XI-a), the proposed project site is not located in a State identified Mineral Resource Zone. Furthermore, the proposed project site is not delineated on a local land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site; therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not result in the loss of known availability of any mineral resources. There will be no impact. 27 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey of Kings County, California, Site accessed: March 2014 Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-51

92 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XII. NOISE Would the project: 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 in the project vicinity 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? 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 levels? Regulatory Setting Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Federal Federal Vibration Policies The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have published guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FRA, fragile buildings can be exposed to groundborne vibration levels of 0.5 PPV without experiencing structural damage 28. The FTA has identified the human annoyance response to vibration levels as 80 RMS 29. State The California Noise Control Act was enacted in 1973 (Health and Safety Code et seq.), and states that the Office of Noise Control (ONC) should provide assistance to local communities in developing local noise control programs. It also indicates that ONC staff would work with the OPR to provide guidance for the preparation of the required noise elements in city and county General Plans, pursuant to Government Code 65302(f). California Government Code 65302(f) requires city and 28 Federal Railway Administration, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, December Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-52

93 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis county general plans to include a noise element. The purpose of a noise element is to guide future development to enhance future land use compatibility. Local Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance. The Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance (Fresno County Code Chapter 8.40) includes baseline standards for exterior and interior noise. County standards apply specifically to noise exposure at residences, schools, hospitals, churches, and libraries. The ordinance provides exterior and interior noise standards to be achieved during both daytime and nighttime hours, and it provides limitations on construction activities. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XII-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? Less Than Significant Impact. Fresno County s Noise Ordinance provides that noise sources associated with construction are exempt from the ordinance provided that construction activities do not take place prior to six a.m. or after nine p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before seven a.m. or after 5 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. The installation is anticipated to last approximately four weeks and will comply with the construction hours designated by the Fresno County Noise Ordinance. Kings County does not have an adopted noise ordinance but recognizes that numerous uses within the County are protected by the County s Right-to-Farm Ordinance. Kings County recognizes that due to the wide array of equipment types and conditions under which that equipment is used in the agriculture industry, noise generated by agricultural processes varies and are conducted on a 24-hour a day, seven day a week basis. The proposed project installation and operation are temporary and would involve temporary noise sources. As discussed above, proposed project installation is not expected to generate or exposure persons to noise levels in excess of standards as SCVWD will install proposed project components only during the hours permitted for construction activities in accordance with the Fresno County s Noise Ordinance. Regarding operational noise, Fresno County s noise ordinance provides maximum exterior noise levels allowed for daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours. The noise levels are to be measured at affected single- or multiple-family residence, school, hospital or public library. The daytime hourly average noise standard is 50dB with a maximum of 70dB and the nighttime (hourly average noise standards is 45dB with a maximum of 65dB 30. In addition, the Fresno County s Noise Ordinance requires the standards to be reduced by 5dB if the noise is steady or repetitive such as a whine, screech, or hum. For the proposed project, each of the pump engines will have an acoustically silenced enclosure which will keep the sound levels at approximately 69 dba at 30 feet, which is below the standards specified in the Fresno County s Noise Ordinance for the nearest sensitive receptors. In addition, this proposed project is located along the Aqueduct and the nearest sensitive receptor, a residence, is located approximately 0.8 miles away from any of the check structures. Therefore any impacts would be less than significant. 30 Fresno County Noise Ordinance, Section of Fresno County Code. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-53

94 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XII-b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS (VbA) vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings 31. Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. As it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals, it is more prudent to use vibration velocity when measuring human response. The typical background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels 32. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. The approximate threshold of vibration perception is 65 VdB, while 85 VdB is the vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day 33. Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Equipment that typically has high vibration levels, such as chainsaws, jackhammers, bulldozers and pile drivers will not be used for the proposed project installation. The closest land uses potentially impacted from groundborne vibration and noise (primarily from the delivery and running of the pumps) is a residence located 0.8 miles from the proposed project site. The impact would be less than significant. XII-c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? and, XII-d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is expected to be completed in approximately three months and thus would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Potential noise sources resulting from proposed project implementation include noise associated pump motors and vehicular trips for maintenance/repair activities. Maintenance would involve activities such as, clearing debris, trash removal and refueling of the fuel tanks. Although the ambient noise will increase 31 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Ibid. 33 Ibid. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-54

95 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis during the duration of the proposed project, there are no sensitive receptors within 0.8 mile of the proposed sites; therefore, any impacts would be less than significant. XII-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? and, XII-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 levels? No Impact. The closest airport is the Harris-Argo West Airport which is located 1.25 miles northwest of Check Structure 18. The proposed project would not create the demand for increase in population nor proposes any residential development on the site. The proposed project would not permanently staff onsite employees. As such, the proposed project would not expose people or employees associated with the proposed project to excessive noise levels. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be no impact as a result of proposed project implementation. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-55

96 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XIII-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 or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project will include the installation and temporary operation of up to 16 pumps, up to sixteen 500-gallon fuel tanks and up to eight 1,200-gallon fuel tanks (see Figure 5). It is estimated that two operators will travel to the four check structures (one operator for two check structures) once a day for the 90-day proposed project duration to operate and maintain the facilities. Also a security crew will travel to each of the check structures to monitor each site two times each day for the 90-day proposed project duration. The proposed project would not induce population growth, there would be no impact. XIII-b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing or people will be displaced by the proposed project. There will be no impact. XIII-c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Any impacts regarding the displacement of people have been discussed in Impact XIII-b. There will be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-56

97 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: Fire protection? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with public services that are applicable to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XIV-a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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: Less Than Significant Impact As described below, the proposed project would not result in a need for addition or alteration of any public services. The subject sites are within Kings County and Fresno County and would utilize existing services provided by Kings and Fresno Counties. Any impacts related to this checklist item would be less than significant. Fire Protection Kings County and Fresno County would continue to provide fire protection services to the proposed project sites during and after proposed project implementation. No residential or office construction is identified with this proposed project. The pumps and ancillary equipment result in a negligible increase in fire potential. Any impacts would be less than significant. Police Protection Kings County and Fresno County would provide sheriff protection services to the proposed project sites during and after proposed project implementation. Fresno County Sheriff Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-57

98 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Department Western Substation, San Joaquin, is approximately 28 miles east of Check Structure 15 and approximately 24 miles north of Check Structure 18. Kings County Sheriff Department, Avenal Substation, is 10.2 miles southeast of Check Structure 20 and the Kettleman City Station is approximately 11.5 miles northwest of Check Structure 22. SCVWD also plans to have on-site security stationed 24-hours a day to prevent vandalism of the proposed pumps. Emergency response from both Counties is adequate to the proposed project sites. No residential or office construction is proposed for this proposed project. Thus, any impact to sheriff services would be less than significant. Schools There are no schools within eight miles of the proposed project sites, and the proposed project itself would not include construction of any residential structures, nor change the existing land use. The proposed project would not result in an increase of population that would impact existing school facility service levels nor require additional need for school facilities to be expanded. There would be no impact. Parks Although there are many parks located within Fresno and Kings Counties, none of them are located within four miles of the proposed project sites. As the proposed project would not impact any existing recreational activities or induce greater population growth, there would be no need for additional park or recreational services or facilities as a result of proposed project implementation. There would be no impact. Other public facilities No power stations, water treatment plants or other public facilities are nearby. In addition, the site would have generate additional water treatment, sewer or electricity needs. Furthermore, the proposed project would not induce population growth. As such, there would be no impact as a result of proposed project implementation. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-58

99 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XV. RECREATION Would the project: 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with recreation that is applicable to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XV-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? No Impact. As discussed in Impact XIV-a, the proposed project will not increase the demand for recreational facilities nor put a strain on the existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, there will be no impact. XV-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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities. As there is no population growth associated with the proposed project, construction or expansion of nearby recreational facilities will not be necessary. There will be no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-59

100 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures 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 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 result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significa nt Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting Federal Several federal regulations govern transportation issues. They include: Title 49, CFR, Sections (49 CFR ), governs the transportation of hazardous materials, the types of materials defined as hazardous, and the marking of the transportation vehicles. 49 CFR , and Appendices A-G, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, address safety considerations for the transport of goods, materials, and substances over public highways. 49 CFR 397.9, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1974, directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish criteria and regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-60

101 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis State and Local There are no state or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with population or housing that are applicable to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XVI-a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures 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 paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require any changes to existing highways, intersections, pedestrian or bike facilities. The proposed project would generate temporary trips; approximately 22 trips per day as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Both Kings County and Fresno County operate their rural areas at a Level of Service (LOS) D. In Kings County a 2-lane facility functioning at a LOS D can serve 16,400 total daily vehicle trips (roundtrips) 34 In Fresno County a rural 2- lane highway functioning at a LOS D can serve 6,800 total daily vehicle trips per lane (or 13,600 total daily trips) 35. Due to the low number of traffic trips and the temporary nature of the proposed project, the proposed project would have a negligible effect on the service for the roadways surrounding the proposed project sites; therefore, the impact to local roadways would be less than significant. XVI-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? Less Than Significant Impact. At the maximum pumping rates, these fuel tanks would need a total of 62 fuel deliveries, 124 roundtrips, for the duration of the proposed project. An operation and maintenance crew will require travel to and from the check structures. It is estimated that two operators will travel to the four check structures (one operator for two check structures) once a day for the 90-day proposed project duration to operate and maintain the facilities. Also a security crew will travel to each of the check structures to monitor each site two times each day for the 90-day proposed project duration. The operational truck trips for tank re-fueling, on-site security, operations and on-site maintenance would average approximately 22 trips per day for the length of the proposed project. As stated in Chapter 2 Project Description, these projected 90-days of operation may not be consecutive and if so, the total number of trips could change with the overall average daily trips remaining approximately the same. For example if the proposed project lasted for seven months at non consecutive intervals there would still be approximately 124 roundtrips for re-fueling purposes, approximately 3,360 security trips and approximately 840 operation and maintenance trips for a total of approximately 4,324 trips over a 210 day period of time for an average daily trip count of 21 trips per day Kings County General Plan EIR. Page Fresno County General Plan Update. Draft Environmental Impact Report. February Page Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-61

102 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis Both Kings County and Fresno County operate their rural areas at a Level of Service (LOS) D. In Kings County a 2-lane facility functioning at a LOS D can serve 16,400 total daily vehicle trips (roundtrips) 36 In Fresno County a rural 2-lane highway functioning at a LOS D can serve 6,800 total daily vehicle trips per lane (or 13,600 total daily trips) 37 Therefore the proposed project s approximate 22 roundtrips per day will not generate significant new traffic, and based on existing LOS conditions, the existing roadways will be able to serve the proposed project. The impact to the level of service on surrounding roadways due to proposed project implementation will be less than significant. XVI-c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The nearest airport is approximately 1.25 miles northwest of Check Structure 18. The installation of these pumps and operation of the proposed project will not cause an increase in air traffic levels or cause a change in air traffic location. There will be no impact. XVI-d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. No new or modified roadways will be associated with the proposed project. In addition, none of the proposed project features would increase hazards. As such, no impacts will occur as a result of proposed project implementation. XVI-e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. No roads will be modified as a result of this proposed project; as such, there will be no impact to any emergency access. XVI-f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. There are no adopted alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs in the proposed project area. There will be no impact Kings County General Plan EIR. Page Fresno County General Plan Update. Draft Environmental Impact Report. February Page Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-62

103 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact Regulatory Setting There are no federal, state or local regulations, plans, programs, and guidelines associated with utilities and service systems that are applicable to the proposed project. IMPACT ASSESSMENT XVII-a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed project involves the installation and operation of up to 16 pumps, up to 16, 500-gallon fuel tanks and up to eight 1,200-gallon fuel tanks (see Figure 5). The pump facilities would not include permanent restroom facilities, require a sewer hookup, or generate any wastewater. The proposed project would not result in a change to facilities or operations of the existing wastewater facilities. There would be no impact as a result of proposed project implementation. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-63

104 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XVII-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? No Impact. As discussed in Impact IX-b and Impact XVII-a, proposed project operation would not generate any wastewater, nor would it require water additional to the water that already flows through the canal. No new water or wastewater facilities would be needed. There would be no impact. XVII-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? No Impact. The proposed project would be within the current Aqueduct canal channel roadway. There would be no impact to stormwater flow or discharge. XVII-d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. No new or expanded water entitlements would be required for the proposed project. There would be no impact. XVII -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? No Impact. As discussed in Impact XVII-a, the proposed project would not generate wastewater. There would be no impact. XVII -f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? No Impact Operation of the proposed project would not generate additional solid waste. There would be no impact. XVII -g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project will continue to comply with any federal, state, and local regulations. There is no impact. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-64

105 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less than Significant Impact No Impact IMPACT ASSESSMENT XVIII-a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation. Based on the analysis conducted in this Initial Study, impacts to Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utility/Services Systems would be less than significant. The proposed project's impacts to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the proposed project's potential to degrade the quality of the environment, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a protected species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-65

106 Chapter 3-Impact Analysis XVIII-b) 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)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation. Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study Checklist, the proposed project s land uses are consistent with the Fresno County and Kings County General Plans. However, cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual 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. On June 3, 2014, the Dudley Ridge Water District adopted an IS/MND for the California Aqueduct 2014 Pump Back Program Project (SCH# ). The Dudley Ridge Water District Project will also utilize pumps for reverse flow along the Aqueduct at Check Structures 25 and 22. In addition to this proposed project, the Dudley Ridge Water District Project will have emissions that may exceed the Air District s thresholds for NO x. At this time there are no other known projects that will have impacts that could be considered cumulative to the proposed project. Both Projects will implement the mitigation measure identified in Impact III-b to reduce the Project s significant NO X impacts to a less than significant level through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District s VERA program which would result in offset of emissions generated by the proposed project. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measure AIR-1, Project-generated NO X emissions would not result in a cumulative net increase of this non-attainment criteria pollutant. The proposed project s cumulative impact would be less than significant impact with mitigation. XVIII-c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporation. The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures are provided in sections III.-Air Quality Resource and VII.-Greenhouse Gas Emissions of this environmental document. The implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project s potential environmental effects on the public and the environment to less than significant levels. No additional mitigation measures will be required. Adverse effects on human beings resulting from implementation of the proposed project will be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Water District 3-66

107 CHAPTER 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

108 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

109 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CHAPTER 4 - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Santa Clara Valley Water District California Aqueduct Reverse Flow (proposed project) in Kings County and Fresno County. The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND for the proposed project and identifies monitoring and reporting requirements and responsible parties. Table 8 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Each mitigation measure is numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which it pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, AIR-2 would be the second mitigation measure identified in the Air Quality analysis of the IS/MND. The first column of Table 8 identifies the mitigation measure. The second column, entitled When Monitoring is to Occur, identifies the time the mitigation measure should be initiated. The third column, Frequency of Monitoring, identifies the frequency of which the monitoring of the mitigation measure should occur. The fourth column, Agency Responsible for Monitoring, names the party ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measure is properly implemented. The last columns will be used by SCVWD as a check-off tool to ensure that and when individual mitigation measures have been complied with and monitored. Santa Clara Valley Water District 4-1

110 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Air Quality: AIR-1: Prior to delivering internal combustion engine-driven pumping equipment to the Project site, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) shall enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air District). When Monitoring is to Occur During Construction and Operation Frequency of Monitoring During construction and operation Agency Responsible for Monitoring San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Method to Verify Compliance Field inspection Verification of Compliance Execution of the VERA will allow the SCVWD to mitigate Project emissions to a less than significant level by providing a pound-for-pound mitigation credit of air emissions based on the actual emissions generated. Specifically, SCVWD would pay the Air District mitigation fees and the Air District would enter into funding agreements with owners and/or operators of pollution source equipment to achieve emission reductions which offset the emissions from this Project. After the Project is mitigated, the Air District will certify to SCVWD that the mitigation has been completed. Santa Clara Valley Water District 4-2

111 CHAPTER 5 LIST OF PREPARERS

112 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

113 Chapter 5-List of Preparers The following firms, individuals and agency staff contributed to the preparation of this document: Santa Clara Valley Water District Department of Water Resources Bureau of Reclamation Dawn E. Marple, Senior Planner Amy Wilson, Assistant Planner Mary Beatie, QA/QC 130 N Garden Street Jason Thomas, GIS Specialist Visalia, CA Angie Hammon, Project Administrator Santa Clara Valley Water District 5-1

114 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

115 Appendix A CalEEMod Output Files

116 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 1 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage California Aqueduct 2014 Reverse Flow San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Air District, Annual Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population City Park 1.00 Acre , Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 45 Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2015 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company CO2 Intensity (lb/mwhr) CH4 Intensity (lb/mwhr) N2O Intensity (lb/mwhr) User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - City Park setting was used as it was the most similar to our project. Construction Phase - Project construction will take approximately four weeks total. Vehicle Trips - Approximately 1,924 round trips over the life of the 90 day project, or 22 trips per day. Trips would average 30 miles each.

117 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 2 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblprojectcharacteristics OperationalYear tblvehicletrips CC_TL tblvehicletrips CNW_TL tblvehicletrips CW_TL tblvehicletrips ST_TR tblvehicletrips SU_TR tblvehicletrips WD_TR Emissions Summary

118 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 3 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr e- Total e e e Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr e- Total e e e ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction

119 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 4 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area e e e e- Energy Mobile e e e e Waste e Water e e Total e e e e e

120 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 5 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area e e e e- Energy Mobile e e e e Waste e Water e e Total e e e e e ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2015 1/1/ Building Construction Building Construction 1/2/2015 5/21/ OffRoad Equipment

121 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 6 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Building Construction Cranes Building Construction Forklifts Building Construction Generator Sets Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Building Construction Welders Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Site Preparation LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

122 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 7 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 3.2 Site Preparation Unmitigated Construction On-Site Acres of Grading: 0.5 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust e e e e Off-Road e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e e e e Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e

123 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 8 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 3.2 Site Preparation Mitigated Construction On-Site Acres of Grading: 0.5 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust e e e e Off-Road e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e e e e Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor Worker e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e

124 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 9 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 3.3 Building Construction Unmitigated Construction On-Site Acres of Grading: 0 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road e- Total e Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor e e e e e e e e Worker e e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e

125 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 10 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 3.3 Building Construction Mitigated Construction On-Site Acres of Grading: 0 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road e- Total e Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling Vendor e e e e e e e e Worker e e e e e e e e e Total e e e e e e e Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

126 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 11 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated e e e e Unmitigated e e e e Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT City Park , ,423 Total , ,423 Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by City Park Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

127 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 12 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGas Unmitigated Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kbtu/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park Total

128 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 13 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kbtu/yr tons/yr MT/yr City Park Total Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kwh/yr MT/yr City Park Total

129 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 14 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kwh/yr MT/yr City Park Total Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated e e e e- Unmitigated e e e e-

130 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 15 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating Consumer Products Landscaping e e e e- Total e e e e- Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating Consumer Products Landscaping e e e e- Total e e e e- 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

131 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 16 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated e- Unmitigated e e e Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / e e Total e e

132 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 17 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr City Park 0 / e e Total e e Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated e- Unmitigated e

133 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod Page 18 of 18 Date: 8/19/ :07 AM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park e- Total e Mitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr City Park e- Total e Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation

134 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

135 Appendix B Operational Engine Emissions Calculations

136 Unit Emissions Date: 8/20/2014 Equipment Description: Emission Factors (EF) CARB E.O. U-R Pollutant g/bhp-hr g/kw-hr Source NMHC+NOx CARB E. O. NOx % of NMHC+NOx Operating Schedule 24 hr/day SOx Mass Balance 7 day/week PM CARB E. O. 4.0 weeks/month CO CARB E. O. 3.0 months/yr VOC % NMHC+NOx 2,016 hrs/year 84 days/year Power Rating: 2,190 bhp Potential Emissions (PE) Assuming 2,190 bhp Pollutant lb/hr lb/day lb/yr tons/yr Rating bhp NOx , # Engines 13 SOx PM CO , VOC ,

137 Appendix C Cultural Resource Records Search RS#

138 To: George W. Uc Record Search Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 286 W. Cromwell Avenue Fresno, CA Date: June 6, 2014 Re: County: Map(s): Job No B1-T2: California Aqueduct 2014 Reverse Flow Project Central California Irrigation District Fresno & Kings Avenal Gap, Chaney Ranch, Harris Ranch, & La Cima s CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH The following are the results of a search of the cultural resources files at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center. These files include known and recorded cultural resources sites, inventory and excavation reports filed with this office, and resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places, Historic Property Data File (3/18/13), California State Historical Landmarks, California Register, California Inventory of Historic Resources, and California Points of Historical Interest. PRIOR CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREAS AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADII According to the information in our files, there have been no previous cultural resource studies conducted within the project areas. There have been 11 previous studies conducted within the one-half mile radii, FR-00229, 00610, 02414, KI-00026, 00062, 00121, 00221, 00222, 00223, 00224, and KNOWN/RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREAS AND THE ONE-HALF MILE RADII There is one recorded cultural resource within project areas, P /P (the California Aqueduct). There is one recorded resource within the one-half mile radii, P (Avenal Cutoff Bridge; Bridge #45C0071).