1 Purpose Public Draft PEIR Comment Period: March 23 May 7, 2018 - - PDF document

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

1

Purpose

 Public Draft PEIR Comment Period:

March 23 – May 7, 2018

 Comments will be received in writing via email or

mail to Walter Ward, Stanislaus County DER wward@envres.org

 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

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 Preservation Alliance, Inc. City of Riverbank Turlock ID Central Calif. ID City of Oakdale Modesto ID Patterson ID

3

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

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

Agenda

County Groundwater Ordinance PEIR Overview PEIR Findings Lessons Learned from PEIR Next Steps

6

County Groundwater Ordinance

7

Lessons learned from recent drought

Limits on agricultural in eastern foothills based on

sustainability

Decrease in surface water availability led to over‐

pumping 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

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

Purpose of Ordinance

Ensure GW is

managed sustainably

Avoid

negative impacts

Unsustainable Groundwater Extraction

Groundwater Level Decline Surface Water Depletion Groundwater Storage Reduction Water Quality Degradation 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

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

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

11

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

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

12

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

Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)

14

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

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

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

Greater flexibility to implement GW management strategies Broad Consideration of Alternatives Mitigation strategies Consideration of cumulative impacts Program‐Wide Key issues won’t be revisited Comprehensive Consideration

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

Initial Study No Significant impact Potential Significant Impact DONE PEIR No Significant impact DONE Potential Significant Impact 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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions?

25

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

PEIR – Specific Findings

Groundwater Drawdown and Storage Depletion Surface Water Resources Subsidence Biological Resources Cultural Resources Noise

27

Groundwater Drawdown/Storage Depletion from Shallow Wells

2022 2042

Layer 1 Layer 2

2022 2042

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

Groundwater Drawdown/Storage Depletion from Deeper Wells

2022 2042

Layer 1 Layer 2

2022 2042

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

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

• verdraft 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

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

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

Land Subsidence a Problem South of County

33

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

Water Quality

35

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

Biological Resources

37

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

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

Cultural Resources

40

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

Noise

42

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

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 agriculturally‐

zoned property no longer being used for agricultural use; and

• There are policies and programs in place that discourage the conversion of agriculturally‐

zoned properties to non‐agricultural use. With all three of these factors considered, the likelihood of significant impacts to agricultural resources is considered remote. 44

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

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

Simulation of Conjunctive Use

2022 2042

Head Change (feet)

Layer 2

2022 2042

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

• f reasonable case demand forecasts and conjunctive use indicates the potential

effectiveness of conjunctive use to address groundwater sustainability. 47

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

Questions?

49