April 12, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau 1201 L Street, Modesto, California

Transcription

1 April 12, 2018 Stanislaus County Farm Bureau 1201 L Street, Modesto, California 1

2 Purpose Public Draft PEIR Comment Period: March 23 May 7, 2018 Comments will be received in writing via or mail to Walter Ward, Stanislaus County DER Public Workshop to present PEIR and answer questions so you can formulate comments, but comments not received/recorded at workshop The purpose of this workshop is to provide information regarding the County s discretionary well permitting program and the environmental analysis and findings of the PEIR and answer questions that attendees may have. This is intended to enable attendees to formulate comments regarding the PEIR. The workshop is not intended to receive comments and there are no provisions to formally record any comments that are provided. Comments are encouraged and should be submitted in writing to Walter Ward. 2

3 Acknowledgements Workshop #5 This workshop is part of a project that is financed under the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, (Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program), administered by State of California, Department of Water Resources Local Contributors Include: Stanislaus County City of Patterson Oakdale ID Rock Creek WD City of Modesto City of Newman Eastside WD Trinitas Farming City of Turlock City of Waterford Del Puerto WD MCCV City of Ceres City of Hughson West Stanislaus ID Agricultural City of Riverbank Turlock ID Central Calif. ID Preservation Alliance, Inc. City of Oakdale Modesto ID Patterson ID 3

4 Acknowledgements PEIR Preparation Jacobson James & Associates Mike Tietze, Nick Anchor, Juliet Hutchins, Linda Mercurio Tetra Tech John Bock, Steve Carlton, Sujoy Roy, Clifford Jarman, Ann Zoidis, Julia Mates, Genevieve Kaiser, Angela Lortie Stanislaus County Walt Ward 4

5 Presenters Mike Tietze, P.G., C.EG., C.H.G. JJ&A Principal Juliet Hutchins JJ&A Staff Geologist Linda Mercurio, PMP JJ&A Project Manager 5

6 Agenda County Groundwater Ordinance PEIR Overview PEIR Findings Lessons Learned from PEIR Next Steps 6

7 County Groundwater Ordinance 7

8 Lessons learned from recent drought Limits on agricultural in eastern foothills based on sustainability Decrease in surface water availability led to overpumping of GW Surface water use helped GW levels recover Integrated management of GW, surface water, reclaimed water, storm water, and recharge essential Expansion of irrigated agriculture in unincorporated areas of the eastern foothills portion of the County may not be sustainable in the long term at the rate at which it occurred from 200 to 2015 (60,000 acres in 15 years). Fortunately this rate has greatly decreased since 2015 and is much lower now. Management of surface and GW in an integrated fashion is critical to maintaining healthy aquifers. 8

9 County Groundwater Ordinance Adopted November 2014 Purpose of the Ordinance Protection of groundwater resources Prevention of economic and environmental harm Preparation for compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 9

10 Purpose of Ordinance Ensure GW is managed sustainably Surface Water Depletion Groundwater Storage Reduction Water Quality Degradation Avoid negative impacts Groundwater Level Decline Unsustainable Groundwater Extraction Subsidence Local economy (e.g., cost to fix infrastructure damage caused by subsidence, drilling deeper wells to find water) and the environment can be negatively impacted if groundwater resources are not managed properly. The Ordinance requires applicants for new wells that are not exempt to provide substantial evidence that they will not withdrawing groundwater unsustainably. The substantial evidence must address each of the resource areas that are identified in the Ordinance and listed in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 10

11 Protection of Groundwater Resources Applicants provide evidence of: Sustainable groundwater extraction Less than significant impact to environment County processes application; initiates CEQA process If County deems sustainable, permit issued In addition to providing substantial evidence that the proposed groundwater extraction is sustainable, the need for County approval makes the permit discretionary and triggers an environmental 11

12 review under CEQA. Evidence must be provided that the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the proposed extraction will be less than significant. 11

13 Effective Area Does not apply to exempt wells: Does not apply in incorporated areas Water districts and their rate payers with GMPs these generally receive surface water and it is expected that 12

14 new wells would supplement those surface water resources Domestic wells (<2 AFY) Stock wells (<2AFY) Replacement wells 12

15 Ordinance aligns with SGMA Ordinance Adopted Ordinance Implemented GSPs Adopted; Ordinance Subordinate GSPs Implemented If County Finds Evidence of Unsustainable Extraction Steps In Shows the time line during which the prohibition on unsustainable extraction in the Ordinance is applicable to well permitting. The discretionary well permitting program is expected to be used primarily between the present and the time that GSPs are adopted, which is 2020 in the Eastern San Joaquin and Delta Mendota Subbasins, and 2022 in the Modesto and Turlock Subbasins. At that time, well permit applications will be considered exempt and sustainability will be reviewed and enforced by the GSAs in compliance with their GSPs. However, if the County finds that any well is not being operated sustainably, it can request substantial evidence of sustainable extraction and the prohibition against unsustainable extraction will apply. It is anticipated that the County will not need to exert this authority, and if so, would be a very rare occurrence; however, it is included in the Ordinance as an additional safeguard. 13

16 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) 14

17 Key Sections Chapter 2 Describes Program Chapter 3 Environmental Setting Chapter 4 Impact Analysis Does not apply to: Water districts with GMPs Domestic wells Stock wells Replacement wells 15

18 Purpose of PEIR Streamline the Well Permit Application Process Provide a robust technical basis for Ordinance implementation Provide data to help facilitate future GW sustainability planning 16

19 Benefits of PEIR Studies conducted for the PEIR generated much useful information for GSAs as they prepare GSPs Example: Hydrologic model that can aid in assessing potential impacts of future wells Can be used as a reference document for future applications and impact assessments The PEIR can provide an easy reference document for future applications and give a better understanding of hydrologic conditions. Identify issues and compile data for future evaluation of groundwater sustainability. Future CEQA documents can tier off the analyses in the PEIR, avoiding the need to redo some analysis for individual projects. 17

20 Broad Consideration of Alternatives Program Wide Greater flexibility to implement GW management strategies Mitigation strategies Consideration of cumulative impacts Comprehensive Consideration Key issues won t be revisited A program wide PEIR will assist in development of mitigation strategies (e.g., GW Management Zones) and consideration of cumulative impacts. Avoids revisiting some common issues during evaluation of individual well applications. 18

21 Initial Study Potential Significant Impact PEIR Potential Significant Impact No Significant impact No Significant impact DONE DONE Well Application Specific Analysis First, an Initial Study was conducted and any potential significant impacts were carried forward and addressed in the PEIR. Any found to have the potential for significant impact in the PEIR will be carried forward and addressed during the well application analysis. Others are addressed and not required to be analyzed again. 19

22 Evaluations Included in PEIR Initial Study evaluated impacts in 17 resource areas: Aesthetics Mineral Resources Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Traffic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Noise Utilities & Service Systems Agriculture & Forestry Resources These 17 resource areas are required to evaluated under CEQA. Of these 17 resource areas, the five in the top row and Transportation & Traffic were determined to have no significant impact during the Initial Study phase and were not carried forward for the PEIR analysis. 20

23 Evaluations Included in PEIR Impacts were evaluated in 11 resource areas: Aesthetics Mineral Resources Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation & Traffic Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Noise Utilities & Service Systems Agriculture & Forestry Resources In addition to the six resource areas screened out in the Initial Study, the PEIR found that impacts to GHG Emissions, Air Quality, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Land Use & Planning, Utilities & Service Systems, and Agriculture & Forestry Resources will be less than significant. 21

24 Map shows 9 cities and 16 water districts and CSDs that are considered in the PEIR analysis. Mesh shows model area. 22

25 Developed Hydrologic Model to Assist Analysis Used to simulate several future scenarios Future impact of 10 wells permitted each year to support impact analysis What If Scenarios give perspective on: Increase in GW use County wide Benefits of integrated surface and GW management The model simulated several future scenarios, including assessing the impact of 10 future wells permitted each year until the GSPs are adopted to evaluate potential impacts from implementing the County s discretionary well permitting program. This is considered at the upper end of what is reasonably anticipated based on the information to date. Several additional what if scenarios were run for perspective on the effects of future groundwater demand growth and implementation of conjunctive use. 23

26 Shows the groundwater subbasins covered by the model. Purple: General head boundary Red: No flow boundary Green: Stanislaus Co. boundary 24

27 Questions? 25

28 PEIR Findings Evaluated 17 resource areas as required by CEQA. For most resource areas, no significant impacts. Where significant impacts can t be ruled out at program level, recommend mitigation measures 26

29 PEIR Specific Findings Groundwater Drawdown and Storage Depletion Surface Water Resources Subsidence Biological Resources Cultural Resources Noise 27

30 Groundwater Drawdown/Storage Depletion from Shallow Wells Layer Layer Head Change (feet) Example result of the modeling study indicates that interference drawdown exceeding 5 feet is possible in the eastern portion of the County. Storage depletion may not be significant. 28

31 Groundwater Drawdown/Storage Depletion from Deeper Wells Layer Layer Head Change (feet) If wells are completed deeper, there will be more of a drawdown effect in the confined aquifer system beneath the Corcoran Clay. Indicates that interference drawdown exceeding 5 feet is possible in the eastern portion of the County and beneath the Corcoran Clay. Storage depletion may not be significant. 29

32 Groundwater Drawdown and Storage Depletion Well permitting program sufficient to addresses groundwater drawdown and storage depletion Applicants required to provide drawdown and storage depletion analysis Triggers for monitoring requirements, pumping restrictions and mitigation for nearby wells Groundwater Level Management Zones in areas where overdraft is a special concern We found that the requirements of the well permitting program will be sufficient to prevent significant impacts, except in areas where adverse effects from overdraft are already occurring. These areas are believed to be limited. A study of the Northern Triangle has been conducted and identified one small area near Valley Home. The study will be posted on the County Groundwater Web Page. A mitigation measure will require the remainder of the non exempt areas in the County to undergo a similar analysis. 30

33 Surface Water Resources Surface and groundwater are interconnected in some areas. In the County, this is particularly true of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne and San Joaquin Rivers, and associated reservoirs. Streamflow can be depleted by groundwater pumping. 31

34 Surface Water Resources Well permitting program sufficient to protect surface water resources Surface Water Protection Zones near streams, lakes and reservoirs connected to groundwater. Studies are required for wells proposed inside these Zones A modeling study was conducted to establish Surface Water Protection Zones outside of which new wells can be assumed to cause less than significant effects on streamflow. Inside the zones, special studies are required. Streamflow is mandated to be maintained at regulatory levels by reservoir releases. 32

35 Land Subsidence a Problem South of County 33

36 Land Subsidence Significant subsidence in County not yet recorded Well permitting program sufficient to prevent significant impacts Subsidence Study Zone near area underlain by Corcoran Clay Triggers for special studies and monitoring Triggers are established in the well permitting program for special studies, monitoring and mitigation in Subsidence Study Zones, and are sufficient to prevent signficant impacts. 34

37 Water Quality 35

38 Water Quality Well permitting program sufficient to prevent significant impacts Water Quality Protection Zone in area underlain by Corcoran Clay special well construction requirements Water Quality Study Zones near reported contamination special studies required Water Quality Protection Zones In order to prevent potential water quality degradation, no new composite wells that would interconnect the aquifers above and below the Corcoran Clay are permitted. Special studies are required near reported contamination incidents and areas where groundwater quality is reported to be degraded. With implementation of these requirements of the well permitting program, impacts will be less than significant. 36

39 Biological Resources 37

40 Biological Resources Direct effects on habitat, plants and animals from well construction and rangeland conversion Groundwater drawdown a concern for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Well permitting program includes protective requirements Mitigation measures were recommended Impacts include construction impacts to habitat near the well sites or along access roads. Can also occur from conversion of rangeland to irrigated agricultural use that is made possible by a new well. Drawdown can also affect GDEs when they are hydraulically connected to a pumped aquifer. The program requires evaluation of potential drawdown effects to GDEs when they are located close to a well site. Additional mitigation measures were also recommended. 38

41 Biological Resources Desktop study Site reconnaissance by qualified biologist If threatened or endangered species may be present, surveys and additional requirements may apply Nesting surveys for construction work during nesting season Triggers for special studies where plants or animals depend on groundwater to survive. Mitigation measures always start with desk top study and site reconnaissance, and progress from there if needed. For regulated birds, there is a blanket requirement to do nesting surveys near drill sites any time well construction is performed during the nesting season. 39

42 Cultural Resources 40

43 Cultural Resources Can include historical structures, archeological artifacts, and fossils. Desktop studies required for new wells If warranted, on the ground studies are required Requirements for unexpected disturbance Mitigation measures start with desk top study and progress to site reconnaissance only when warranted. Requirement to stop work any time unexpected resources are discovered. 41

44 Noise 42

45 Noise Noise is a concern only when wells are constructed close to homes, schools or hospitals outside agricultural zoned areas. This is rare. Noise mitigation required in these cases. Not likely to be an issue for most wells a new well would have to be located very close to a sensitive receptor on land that is not zoned agricultural. The Noise Ordinance does not apply to land that is zoned agricultural. 43

46 Potential Effects of Ordinance on Ag Operations Well permit can limit the amount of groundwater pumped Restrictions on pumping intended to prevent impacts and ensure a reliable and sustainable groundwater supply not considered an environmental impact Enforcement after GSP adoption not expected to cause agricultural land to be converted to other types of land uses. Conclusion: Well permitting program not expected to result in significant impacts to existing ag operations. Permit conditions that limit the withdrawal of groundwater are not considered an impact under CEQA. Post GSP regulation of unsustainable wells is not expected to result in significant impacts based on a weight of evidence evaluation: County intervention is considered unlikely; If the county were to intervene, it is unlikely that this would result in an agriculturallyzoned property no longer being used for agricultural use; and There are policies and programs in place that discourage the conversion of agriculturallyzoned properties to non agricultural use. With all three of these factors considered, the likelihood of significant impacts to agricultural resources is considered remote. 44

47 Potential Effects of Ordinance on Municipal and District Water Supplies Cities and water districts are already required to manage groundwater under established plans County s oversight is not required in cities or water districts Wells in these areas are exempt from the Ordinance. CONCLUSION: Well permitting program is not expected to have s significant effect on city or district water supplies Cities are exempt form the discretionary permit program and future intervention is considered very unlikely. Water districts will provide water to their customers in accordance with applicable GSPs. They are not required to take on new customers outside their service territories, but if they do, annexations would be subject to environmental review. Therefore, impacts are expected to be less than significant. 45

48 Lessons Learned from the PEIR Refine well permitting program Significant impacts are NOT expected if permitting requirements and mitigation measures are adopted Rate of groundwater demand increase in east foothills from 2000 to 2015 is not sustainable in the future Reasonable groundwater demand growth can be met through integrated water management approach 46

49 Simulation of Conjunctive Use Layer Head Change (feet) This figure shows the effectiveness of conjunctive use to decrease drawdown and is discussed in the Technical Memorandum included as an attachment to the PEIR. Evaluation of reasonable case demand forecasts and conjunctive use indicates the potential effectiveness of conjunctive use to address groundwater sustainability. 47

50 Future Steps Streamline permitting program Data and model available for use Further studies are required to: Estimate sustainable groundwater demand rates Identify specific areas that need to be managed to avoid impacts Where conjunctive use and recharge project will provide the most benefit Plans are in place to develop a flowchart and checklist approach to future well permit applications. The work performed for the PEIR provides a substantial step forwards in understanding the factors that affect groundwater management and sustainability at a preliminary level. Further study is being performed by the GSAs in order to develop their GSPs, and this information has been made available to them. 48

51 Questions? 49