Uvas Creek Levee Rehabilitation Project Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration Project No. 62084001 April 2018 Prepared by: Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118-3614 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................III KEY TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................. IIV SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................... 244 SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ......................................................................25 SECTION 5: REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................86 SECTION 6: REFERENCES ....................................................................................................87 TABLES TABLE 1.1: SUMMARY OF AGENCY APPROVALS ................................................................ 3 TABLE 2.1: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................12 TABLE 2.2: CONSTRUCTION OFF-SITE TRIPS .....................................................................12 TABLE 2.3: CONSTRUCTION HAUL TRIPS ...........................................................................13 TABLE 2.4: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ......................................................13 TABLE 2.5: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY HABITAT PLAN CONDITIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........15 TABLE 3.1: BAAQMD THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................32 TABLE 3.2: CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMMISSIONS FOR LEVEE RESTORATION ..........35 TABLE 4.1: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT THE PROJECT SITE ......................................................................................................................42 TABLE 7.1: DESCRIPTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES ........................................................53 TABLE 7.2: CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..........................................55 TABLE 7.3: SCOPING PLAN MEASURES CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS .................................56 TABLE 12.1: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................................72 FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP ................................................................................. 6 FIGURE 2: PROJECT VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3A: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE ......................................................... 8 Page i FIGURE 3B: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE ......................................................... 9 FIGURE 3C: PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE ........................................................10 APPENDIX APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY AND GHG ANALYSIS REPORT ............................................... A-1 Page ii LIST OF ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill AQP Air Quality Plan ARB California Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act cfs Cubic Feet Per Second CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CWA Federal Clean Water Act dB Decibel dBA A-weighted sound level District Santa Clara Valley Water District DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances and Control EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHGs Greenhouse Gases GP NPDES General Permit GWP Global Warming Potential HCP Habitat Conservation Plan lbs Pounds Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level LID Low Impact Development IS Initial Study MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act ND Negative Declaration NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM10 Fine particulate matter less than 10 micrometers PM2.5 Fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutants SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Toxic Air Contaminant VHP Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Page iii Key Terminology Beneficial Impact: A project impact is considered beneficial if it would result in the enhancement or improvement of an existing physical condition in the environment – no mitigation is required when an impact is determined to be beneficial. Best Management Practices: Measures typically derived from standardized District operating procedures. These practices have been identified as methods, activities, procedures, or other management practices for the avoidance or minimization of potential adverse environmental effects. They have been designed for routine incorporation into project designs and represent the “state of the art” impact prevention practices. Less-than-significant Impact: This is indicated in the Initial Study checklist where the impact does not reach the standard of significance set for that factor and the project would therefore cause no substantial change in the environment (no mitigation needed). Less-than-significant Impact with Mitigation: This is indicated in the Initial Study checklist where the impact is determined to exceed the applicable significance criteria, but for which feasible mitigation measure(s) are available to reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation includes: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.1 No Impact: This is indicated in the Initial Study where, based on the environmental setting, the stated environmental factor does not apply to the proposed project. Potentially Significant Impact: This is indicated in the Initial Study where the project impact may cause a substantial adverse change in the environment, but for which (1) no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, or (2) feasible mitigation has been identified but the residual impact remains significant after mitigation is applied. Significance Criteria: A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine whether an impact would be considered significant. The District relied upon the significance criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria based on the regulatory standards of local, state and federal agencies. 1 Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21002, 21002.1, 21081, and 21100(c), Public Resources Code. Page iv SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Organization of This Document This document is organized to assist the reader in understanding the potential impacts that the proposed project may have on the environment and to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). Section 1 indicates the purpose under CEQA, sets forth the public participation process, and summarizes applicable state and federal regulatory requirements. Section 2 describes the location as well as features of the proposed project and Section 3 describes the environmental setting. Section 4 evaluates the potential impacts through the application of the CEQA Initial Study Checklist questions to project implementation. Section 5 lists the contributors, and Section 6 supplies the references used in its preparation. Purpose of the Initial Study The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District), acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, prepared this Initial Study (IS) and Negative Declaration (ND) to provide the public, responsible agencies and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the Uvas Creek Levee Rehabilitation Project (hereinafter “proposed project”). This Negative Declaration was prepared consistent with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), and District procedures for implementation of CEQA (Environmental Planning Guidance Q520D01 and W520M01). CEQA requires that public agencies such as the District identify significant adverse environmental effects from their discretionary actions and mitigate those adverse effects through feasible mitigation measures or through selection of feasible alternatives. This ND is intended to allow the public to fully understand the environmental consequences of the proposed