DUDLEY RIDGE WATER DISTRICT 286 W. Cromwell Avenue Fresno, CA 93711-6162 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMPBACK PROGRAM Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014 Prepared by: 10291403-ENV CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMPBACK PROGRAM Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Regulatory Information 1-1 Document Format 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 Project Background Objectives 2-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 2-17 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAYLSIS 3-1 4 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT AND PROGRAM 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Regional Location and Vicinity Map 2-7 Figure 2 – Check Structure 22 Site Aerial 2-8 Figure 3 – Check Structure 25 Site Aerial 2-9 Figure 4 – Project Participants 2-10 Figure 5 – Check Structure 22 Site Plan 2-11 Figure 6 – Check Structure 25 Site Plan 2-12 Figure 7 – Soils Map 2-13 Figure 8 – Check Structure 22 Topo Map 2-14 Figure 9 – Check Structure 25 Topo Map 2-15 Figure 10 – Zoning Map 2-16 Figure 11 – FEMA DFIRM Flood Zones 3-43 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – KCWA Estimated Summary of Bank Accounts 2-3 Table 2 – Maximum Estimated Acre Feet of Recovered Water Pumped 2-4 Table 3 – Maximum Temporary Operational Trips Generated 2-4 Table 4 – SJVAPSD Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants 3-11 Dudley Ridge Water District TOC-1 | Page CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMPBACK PROGRAM Table of Contents Table 5 – SJVAPCD Regulation VIII Control Measure 3-13 Table 6 – Proposed Project Construction and Operation Trip Emissions 3-15 Table 7 – Proposed Project Worst Case Engine Emissions 3-16 Table 8 – Proposed Project Maximum Expected Engine Emissions 3-16 Table 9 – List of Special Status Species 3-21 Table 10 – Typical Construction Vibration Levels 3-50 Table 11 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan 4-2 APPENDICES A – CalEEMod Pumpback Program Maximum Trips B - Cultural Resource Records Search RS# 14-100 Dudley Ridge Water District TOC-2 | Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMPBACK PROGRAM Chapter 1-Introduction CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION The Dudley Ridge Water District (District) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from the installation and operation of the California Aqueduct 2014 Pumpback Program (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et.seq. The District is the CEQA lead agency for this proposed Project. The proposed Project involves the construction and installation of two pumping structures, one at Check Structure 22 and one at Check Structure 25 of the California Aqueduct. The proposed Project is described in detail in Chapter 2, Project Description. Regulatory Information An Initial Study (IS) is a document conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 14 (Chapter 3, §15000 et seq.)-- also known as the CEQA Guidelines--Section 15064 (a)(1) states an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment and should be further analyzed to determine mitigation measures or project alternatives that might avoid or reduce project impacts to less than significant. A negative declaration may be prepared instead; if the lead agency finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA pursuant to §15300 et seq. of Article 19 of the Guidelines, would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration 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. If revisions are adopted by the Lead Agency into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is prepared. Dudley Ridge Water District P a g e 1-1 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMPBACK PROGRAM Chapter 1-Introduction 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 proposed Project objectives and components. Chapter 3, Impact Analysis, presents the CEQA checklist and environmental analysis for all impact areas, mandatory findings of significance, and feasible mitigation measures. 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, completion timeline, and person/agency responsible for implementation and 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. 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.) Dudley Ridge Water District P a g e 1-2 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMP BACK PROGRAM Chapter 2-Project Description CHAPTER 2-PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Background Objectives 1. Project Title: California Aqueduct 2014 Pump Back Program 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Dudley Ridge Water District (District) 286 W. Cromwell Avenue Fresno, CA 93711-6162 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Proponent Dale K. Melville, Manager-Engineer Dudley Ridge Water District (559) 449-2700 CEQA Consultant Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Dawn E. Marple, Project Manager (559) 636-1166 4. Project Location: The Project is located at two check structures along the California Aqueduct (Aqueduct), in the southwestern Central San Joaquin Valley (see Figure 1). Check Structure 22 (MP 184.82) 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 25th Avenue and west of Interstate 5 (see Figure 2.), Check Structure 25 (MP 217.79) is in Kern County, approximately 31 miles south of Check Structure 22. Check Structure 25 is found within the Lokern USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle, and lies within Township 28 South, Range 22 East, Section 32, M.D.B. & M situated immediately north of the terminus of Seventh Standard Road, east of State Route 33, and south of the Lerdo Highway (see Figure 3). 5. Latitude and Longitude: Check Structure 22: 35.8507961, -119.8905106 Check Structure 25: 35.4481545, -119.6251679 Dudley Ridge Water District Page 2-1 CALIFORNIA AQUEDUCT 2014 PUMP BACK PROGRAM Chapter 2-Project Description 6. General Plan Designation: The Project lies within the existing Right of Way of the Aqueduct, and as such a formal County General Plan Land Use Designation does not apply. 7. Zoning: The Project lies within the existing Right of Way of the Aqueduct, and as such the Aqueduct does not possess a formal County Zoning District designation.