MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project - Final … Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report iii June 2005 J&S 03-564 Figures Page 2-1 …

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent

Environmental Impact Report

SCH Number: 2004022013

Prepared for:

Modesto Irrigation District 1231 Eleventh Street Modesto, CA 95354

Contact: Greg Dias 209/526-7566

and

City of Modesto 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 4600

Modesto, CA 95353 Contact: Rich Ulm 209/577-5261

Prepared by:

Jones & Stokes 268 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610-4724 Contact: Michael Murrell Stevenson 510/433-8962

June 2005

Jones & Stokes. 2005. MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. June. (J&S 03-564.) Oakland, CA.

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report i

June 2005

J&S 03-564

Contents

Page

Chapter 1 Introductory Comments on the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report..............................................................1-1CEQA Compliance..................................................................................1-1Format and Organization of the FSEIR ..................................................1-1Public Review of the DSEIR ...................................................................1-2Public Meeting on the DSEIR .................................................................1-2Revisions to the DSEIR ..........................................................................1-3Comments Received on the DSEIR .......................................................1-3Preparation of the FSEIR........................................................................1-3

Lead Agencies ..................................................................................1-3FSEIR Authors..................................................................................1-4

Chapter 2 Comments and Responses..................................................................2-1Introduction.............................................................................................2-1Comments and Responses ....................................................................2-1Responses to Department of Water Resources (November 23, 2004) ..2-3Responses to Department of Transportation (December 3, 2004).........2-5Responses to Tuolumne River Trust (December 13, 2004) ...................2-7Responses to City of Waterford (February 10, 2005) ...........................2-13Responses to California State Water Resources Control Board (March 4, 2005) ....................................................................................2-17

Attachment A ..................................................................................2-23 Attachment B ..................................................................................2-25

Chapter 3 Revisions to Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ........3-1Introduction.............................................................................................3-1Revisions ................................................................................................3-1

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ii

June 2005

J&S 03-564

Tables

Page

2-1 Urban and Agricultural Water Diversions @ La Grange Dam (in acre-feet per MID records) ...................................................2-8

2-2 Assumed Current Land Uses ...........................................................2-20

2-3 Current Modesto Irrigation District Projected Demand of Applied Water (PDAW).....................................................................2-22

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report iii

June 2005

J&S 03-564

Figures

Page

2-1 CALSIM II Representation of the San Joaquin River Basin and Demand Areas................................................ follows page 2-20

2-2 CALSIM II Demand Area Land Use................................. follows page 2-20

2-3 Interaction of Data within the CU Model ...............................................2-21

A-1 Attachment A, Urbanized Land in the Greater Modesto Area ................................................................................. follows page 2-23

B-1 Attachment B, Don Pedro End of the Month Storage ......follows page 2-25

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report iv

June 2005

J&S 03-564

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

City City of Modesto

CUAW consumptive use of applied water

DSEIR draft subsequent environmental impact report

DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

DWR California Department of Water Resources

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FSEIR final subsequent environmental impact report

GIS Geographic Information System

MID Modesto Irrigation District

MRWTP Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant

PDAW projected demand of applied water

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SEIR subsequent environmental impact report

TID Turlock Irrigation District

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 1-1

June 2005

J&S 03-564

Chapter 1

Introductory Comments on the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

CEQA Compliance This final subsequent environmental impact report (FSEIR) for the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant (MRWTP) Phase Two Expansion Project (Proposed Project) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a final environmental impact report (FEIR) consist of the following components:

The draft environmental impact report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR;

Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR, either verbatim or in summary;

A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR;

The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and consultation process;

Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The DEIR together with the responses to comments on the DEIR constitute the FEIR for the proposed project. The FEIR is an informational document prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving or denying the proposed project. Although a subsequent EIR was prepared for this project, the same CEQA requirements apply.

Format and Organization of the FSEIR This FSEIR comprises three chapters containing the information required by the CEQA Guidelines, as outlined above. Chapter 1 describes the public review process for the subsequent EIR (SEIR) and provides a list of organizations, public agencies, and members of the public that commented on the SEIR, as well as a list of people involved in the preparation of the responses to comments.

Modesto Irrigation District City of Modesto

Chapter 1. Introductory Comments on Final SEIR


June 2005

J&S 03-564

Chapter 2 contains comment letters received on the draft SEIR (DSEIR), along with Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the City of Modesto’s (City’s) responses to those comments. Chapter 3 presents changes made to the DSEIR in response to comments. Changes to the DSEIR are presented in errata format in Chapter 3 and are also referenced in the Chapter 2 responses.

When certified by the Lead Agency, the FSEIR will consist of the following components, as required by CEQA:

DSEIR, published in November 2004.

FSEIR, consisting of

all written comments received on the DSEIR;

responses to those comments; and

any changes or revisions to the DSEIR.

Public Review of the DSEIR Upon completion of the DSEIR, MID and the City filed a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse and issued a Notice of Availability, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087. The Notice of Availability provided notice of the public comment period that began on Monday, November 8, 2004, and ended on Friday, December 24, 2004. The DSEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to responsible and trustee agencies. In addition, MID and the City distributed 218 copies of the DSEIR to state, regional, and local agencies, as well as individuals. MID, the City, and consultants have responded to all comments received during the public comment period.

Copies of the DSEIR are on file at the following locations:

Modesto Irrigation District 1231 Eleventh Street Modesto, CA 95354

City of Modesto 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 4600 Modesto, CA 95353

Public Meeting on the DSEIR Two public meetings were noticed in MID and the City’s DSEIR Notice of Availability; the meetings were held on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. at the MID offices (address listed above). Although members




June 2005

J&S 03-564

of the public were invited to voice their comments at these meetings, no one attended either meeting.

Revisions to the DSEIR In response to comments received on the DSEIR, MID and the City deleted, added, and/or revised text, tables, and figures. The changes do not result in any new significant environmental impacts, or substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, or result in a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from those previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the project and which the City or MID have declined to adopt. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the DSEIR prior to certification is not required.

Comments Received on the DSEIR The following persons, organizations, and public agencies submitted comments on the DSEIR:

California Department of Water Resources (November 23, 2004)

California Department of Transportation (December 3, 2004)

Tuolumne River Trust (December 13, 2004)

City of Waterford (February 10, 2005)

California State Water Resources Control Board (March 4, 2005).

Preparation of the FSEIR The FSEIR was prepared by MID, the City of Modesto, and the following consultants. All work reflects MID and the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Lead Agencies

Modesto Irrigation District

1231 Eleventh Street

Modesto, CA 95354

Contact: Greg Dias, Senior Civil Engineer




June 2005

J&S 03-564

City of Modesto

1010 Tenth Street, Suite 4600

Modesto, CA 95353

Contact: Rich Ulm, Deputy Director

FSEIR Authors

Jones & Stokes

268 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

Project Team

Project Director Doug Brewer, Harlan Glines Project Manager Michael Murrell Stevenson Project Coordinator Rosalyn Stewart CEQA Review Antero Rivasplata Technical Editor Catherine Rudiger


June 2005

J&S 03-564

Chapter 2 Comments and Responses

IntroductionCopies of the comment letters/testimony received on the MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project DSEIR and responses to each comment are included in this chapter. The purpose of the public review process was to receive input on the content of the Proposed Project and the DSEIR. CEQA requires MID and the City of Modesto to make a good-faith reasoned analysis and respond to comments received (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088).

Each comment letter received on the DSEIR has been assigned a number, and comments within each letter are lettered consecutively (e.g., 1-A, 1-B, 2-A, 2-B) in the right margin adjacent to the individual comment. Each comment letter is followed by MID and the City’s response(s) to that letter. The responses are numbered to correspond with the comments as identified in the right margin of the letter. Where the response indicates that a change has been made to the DSEIR, the relevant text change can be found in Chapter 3 of this FSEIR.

Comments and Responses The following represents MID and the City’s responses to all comments received during the public comment period (November 5 – December 15, 2004) and public hearing on the DSEIR (December 15, 2004), as well as two additional comment letters that were accepted after the formal comment period. A total of five comment letters were received. Listed below are the sources of the comment letters and the dates they were received, as well as the numbers assigned to each of the comment letters.

California Department of Water Resources (November 23, 2004)—Letter 1

California Department of Transportation (December 3, 2004)—Letter 2

Tuolumne River Trust (December 13, 2004)—Letter 3

City of Waterford (February 10, 2005)—Letter 4

California State Water Resources Control Board (March 4, 2005)—Letter 5


Chapter 2. Comments and Responses


June 2005

J&S 03-564

This page intentionally left blank.

1- A

Comment 1




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Responses to Department of Water Resources (November 23, 2004)

Response to Comment 1-A. Comment noted. If the City of Modesto chooses to construct improvements along the Yosemite Boulevard alignment, then the City would obtain a State Reclamation Board Permit and comply with all requirements of the Board prior to start of any work within or adjacent to Dry Creek (i.e., wetted area, floodplain, and levees). The MRWTP Phase Two Expansion SEIR would be submitted with the permit application.




June 2005

J&S 03-564


2 - A

Comment 2

2 - A (cont.)

2 - B




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Responses to Department of Transportation (December 3, 2004)

Response to Comment 2-A: Comment noted. The City of Modesto would obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to start of any work within Caltrans rights-of-way. The MRWTP Phase Two Expansion SEIR would be submitted with the permit application.

Response to Comment 2-B: Mitigation Measure TR-4 in the DSEIR requires that, if the construction contractor is unable to maintain the existing number of traffic lanes through pipeline construction zones, construction activities must be limited to nighttime hours on SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard, near Codoni Avenue. The City of Modesto will further consider the request for night hours on other portions of SR 132/Yosemite Boulevard.




June 2005

J&S 03-564


3 - A

3 - B

3 - C

3 - D

3 - E

Comment 3

3 - E (cont.)

3 - F

3 - G

3 - H

3 - I




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Responses to Tuolumne River Trust (December 13, 2004)

Response to Comment 3-A: MID has performed a substantial analysis of the MID water supply allocated for the Phase Two Expansion Project. This work includes a computerized modeling analysis developed from the statewide planning model CALSIM II (Tuolumne River segment). This simulation model is described in Appendix E of the DSEIR.

Additional discussion and clarification of the Proposed Project’s water supply can be found in Response to Comments 3-C and 5-C.

Response to Comment 3-B: See Response to Comment 5-C.

Response to Comment 3-C: The Proposed Project would not change the total annual amount of water diverted from the Tuolumne River because urban customers would use water that was previously applied to agricultural lands (see Response to Comment 5-C). As a result, there would be no significant change in the amount of future Tuolumne River diversions at La Grange Dam by MID.

As shown in FSEIR Table 2-1, the annual water diversion at La Grange Dam to meet agricultural and urban requirements fluctuates from year to year, depending upon numerous factors such as weather conditions, water year type, available water supply, irrigation allocation, cropping patterns, agricultural and domestic water system capacity, and other factors that impact downstream demand.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Table 2-1. Urban and Agricultural Water Diversions @ La Grange Dam * (in acre-feet per MID records)

Year Urban Diversions Agricultural Diversions

1977 0 228,140

1978 0 340,910

1979 0 392,840

1980 0 408,293

1981 0 363,593

1982 0 356,390

1983 0 349,940

1984 0 408,182

1985 0 351,003

1986 0 334,849

1987 0 297,216

1988 0 230,641

1989 0 238,882

1990 0 261,892

1991 0 228,094

1992 0 243,933

1993 0 285,437

1994 190 284,952

1995 30,741 274,329

1996 30,393 309,943

1997 33,588 316,149

1998 34,962 216,878

1999 37,771 288,889

2000 37,864 277,736

2001 38,998 284,722

2002 ** 38,379 293,601

2003 ** 40,242 263,234

* Includes transmission & storage losses within the MID system

** Based upon provisional USGS data




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Response to Comment 3-D: As described in the DSEIR and in more detail in the Response to Comments 3-E and 3-F, the Proposed Project would not have a significant impact on the Tuolumne River. As such, there would be no impacts to report upon under CEQA.

Regarding reporting requirements, the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) Board has no authority or responsibilities tied to this project. Further, while MID and the City of Modesto are co-Lead Agencies for this project, MID is the Lead Agency in regard to the Proposed Project’s agricultural and urban water supply. MID staff regularly report to the MID Board of Directors on water use and other matters relating to water resources.

Response to Comment 3-E: Contrary to the implications of the comment, the simulation model shows that releases from La Grange Dam would maintain the minimum flows in the Tuolumne River required by the 1995 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Settlement Agreement and all water rights licenses and permits under all conditions. While the simulation model is consistent with widely accepted techniques for analyzing water systems, there are certain limitations in the ability of any water model to precisely replicate complex water systems such as the Tuolumne River watershed. For example, the model does not have the ability to factor in daily operational decisions made by MID and TID. Nevertheless, MID and TID monitor flows in the Tuolumne River below La Grange Dam to ensure that all minimum flow requirements are maintained. The Proposed Project would not, under any circumstances, reduce flows below the required levels. In addition, although the flow regimes were designed to protect salmon, they also protect rainbow trout/steelhead fisheries.

The river flow changes shown in DSEIR Table 3.4-4 were inaccurately transcribed from the modeling results in that reductions in flows were shown as increases in flows, and vice versa. This has been corrected, and the revised table is shown in Chapter 3 of this FSEIR. Despite this error in the table in the DSEIR, the simulation model indicates that minimum river flow requirements are maintained under all circumstances, as described above.

Response to Comment 3-F: Corrected Table 3.4-4 (see Chapter 3 of this FSEIR) shows insignificant reductions in average monthly flows of the Tuolumne River from February through April, and during November; insignificant increases in average monthly Tuolumne River flows are shown in the remaining months. The simulation model identifies a maximum average monthly reduction of 23 cubic feet per second (cfs) in February. The modeled flow changes would have an insignificant effect on temperatures in the Tuolumne River for the following reasons.

Reductions in river flow would occur during late winter and early spring when flows are already high and generally above minimum flows requirements and ambient water temperatures are cold. Any reduction would represent a small fraction of the total flow in the Tuolumne River during those periods.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Releases from La Grange Dam are of homogenous temperature, regardless of the quantity of water that is released. Therefore, the only factor that could increase temperatures downstream would be the effects of air temperature as the water is in transit. Because air temperatures are typically lower during late winter and early spring and because of the volume of water in the river at that time, such thermal effects would not likely be measurable and are considered insignificant.

In summary, while the simulation model shows small changes in the flows of the Tuolumne River, flows would still meet all regulatory requirements under all conditions, and changes in flows would not cause increases in water temperature that could be harmful to fish.

Response to Comment 3-G: There would be no adverse temperature impacts on the Tuolumne River as the result of the Proposed Project (see the Response to Comment 3-F), and therefore, no temperature mitigation measures are necessary. In addition, use of a downstream diversion point would require one of the following two changes to the project:

1. Construction of a separate water treatment plant at or near the new diversion point, and construction of associated pipelines and infrastructure to connect to the existing MID transmission system; or

2. Construction of approximately 10 miles of pipeline and one or more pump stations to covey the water uphill to the existing plant site.

Option 1 would not meet the project objective stated in the DSEIR to “provide water treatment and delivery capacity through expansion of MID’s existing MRWTP…” (DSEIR Page 2-3). Further, neither option would reduce any of the significant impacts identified in the SEIR; in addition, both options could result in additional impacts over and above those identified in the SEIR related to construction and operation of the additional facilities. Finally, both options would cost more than the Proposed Project. For these reasons, use of a downstream diversion point did not meet the criteria for an alternative under CEQA, and was not considered in the SEIR.

Note that a downstream diversion point was considered as an alternative in the EIR for the Modesto Surface Water Treatment Plant (Modesto Irrigation District 1990).1 This alternative was found in that EIR to be infeasible for reasons including those cited above, and was not ultimately selected as the preferred alternative.

Response to Comment 3-H: The City is currently engaged in an active program to clean up contaminated wells and prevent future contamination from historic sources such as dry cleaners. In addition, the City is building additional water supply wells to make up for well capacity lost due to well contamination. Because these activities are already occurring and use of all available

1 Modesto Irrigation District. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Modesto Surface Water Treatment Plant. March. (State Clearinghouse Number 1990101208.) Prepared by URS Consultants, Inc. San Bernardino, CA.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

groundwater would not be sufficient to supply Modesto’s future water demands, this is not a feasible project alternative which would reasonably attain most of the basic objectives of the project. As discussed below in the Response to Comment 3-I, conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater is part of the City’s overall master plan for water supply.

It also bears noting that the aquifers in the Modesto area have natural deposits of uranium, which is a source of contamination that is expensive to remediate.Further, to meet upcoming drinking water standards related to arsenic, some wells will require treatment systems, which will also be expensive, consume energy, and require disposal of waste products. These factors underscore the need for the operational flexibility afforded by an additional surface water supply and conjunctive water supply management.

Response to Comment 3-I: The City of Modesto’s water supply is a conjunctive use program wherein currently 60% of its supply is from groundwater and the remaining 40% is surface water provided by MID. This conjunctive use program will continue into the future and is in fact part of the baseline setting in which the Proposed Project would operate, which is why it was not considered as a separate project alternative.

The City of Modesto and MID, along with other agencies, continue to actively manage the groundwater supply in the project area. More detailed information can be found in the 2000 Final Urban Water Management Plan jointly developed by the City of Modesto and MID, and MID’s Final Groundwater Management Plan (1996).2 Both of these reports will be updated in 2005. Further information can be found in California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 (California Department of Water Resources 2004).3

It should also be noted that there are two groundwater associations that meet regularly to help coordinate groundwater issues in the project area. Agencies belonging to the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association include the Cities of Modesto, Oakdale, and Riverbank, the Modesto and Oakdale Irrigation Districts, and Stanislaus County. The Turlock Groundwater Basin Association includes the City of Modesto, Stanislaus County, and several other agencies south of the Tuolumne River. Both groundwater associations have completed groundwater management plans. The City of Modesto plans to complete its groundwater management plan in conjunction with the updating the two-groundwater basin association’s existing groundwater management plans, expected in 2005.

2 City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District. 2000. Final Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Black and Veatch. Modesto, CA; and Modesto Irrigation District. 1996. Final Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Irrigation District. Prepared in accordance with State Assembly Bill 3030 and adopted March 26, 1996. 3 California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater. (Bulletin 118.) Last revised: 2004. Available: <http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/update2003/index.cfm>. Accessed: January 27, 2004.




June 2005

J&S 03-564


4-A

4-B

Comment 4

4-B cont.

4-C

4-D

4-E




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Responses to City of Waterford (February 10, 2005) Response to Comment 4-A: The DSEIR identified agricultural to urban conversion as one of the indirect effects of growth, and the commenter correctly notes a relationship between such land conversion and rates of groundwater recharge. While the list of indirect effects of growth presented in the DSEIR was not intended to be comprehensive, this clarification to that list is noted. The DSEIR found all indirect effects of growth as significant and unavoidable, and this clarification does not change that conclusion. A more detailed discussion of groundwater and groundwater recharge is presented below.

There are two components of agricultural land use conversion that have occurred within the boundaries of MID – existing growth and forecasted growth. The forecasted growth is consistent with the City of Modesto General Plan and within the LAFCO defined Sphere of Influence.

Due to the construction and commercial operation of Phase One of the MRWTP in 1995, the existing urban lands are now served by a combination of both groundwater, supplied by the City of Modesto, and surface water, supplied by MID via the MRWTP. Since the MRWTP came on-line, the City of Modesto has lessened its reliance on groundwater by about 33,000 acre-feet on an average annual basis and the City has measured significant groundwater level recoveries (as measured in various monitoring wells).

The forecasted growth of the urban area, onto lands that are presently agricultural (or very recently were agricultural) and historically irrigated by surface water delivered by MID, presents a slightly different scenario than that which occurred during Phase One of the MRWTP. The urban growth in these areas will continue to be primarily served by surface water, provided from the Phase Two expansion of the MRWTP. The volume of water delivered to these urbanized lands, on a per acre basis, will be approximately the same as the volume of water delivered to these lands when they were agricultural.

Whereas these historical agricultural lands were primarily irrigated via “flood irrigation” methods (even though there has been a steady conversion over the last 10 – 20 years to solid set sprinkler and micro-irrigation systems) most of the water applied in this manner was consumptively used by the crop or returned to the atmosphere due to evaporation. However, a component of the irrigation water did, in fact, provide incidental local recharge to the groundwater basin due to deep percolation of the applied surface water.

The amount of aquifer recharge depends on many different factors such as surface soil permeability, location within the groundwater basin (up-gradient or down-gradient), the presence or absence of near surface clay layers or regionally significant aquitards, such as the Corcoran Clay. These same factors control the extent of recharge occurring under natural conditions. Nevertheless, there is no dispute that aquifer recharge has occurred, over time, due to the applied surface




June 2005

J&S 03-564

water using flood irrigation methods. Additionally, recharge occurs in urban areas through distribution system leakage, irrigation, and precipitation. It is uncertain whether there is a significant reduction in recharge with the urbanization of certain agricultural lands. However, if there is reduction in recharge due to development, this is not a phenomenon distinctly unique or directly related to this project or this area of the Central Valley of California, but is something that is occurring, to some extent, anywhere where agricultural land is either converted to more efficient irrigation delivery systems or converted to urban land uses.

To address the broader issue of groundwater management in the Modesto Sub-Basin, and particularly the issue of groundwater recharge, the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (the Association), which is represented by the cities of Modesto, Oakdale and Riverbank, Stanislaus County, Oakdale Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District, are nearing completion of an Integrated Regional Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Sub-Basin. The plan was adopted by the Association on May 12, 2005. The Association supports activities and programs that:

Relieve aquifer overdraft through substitution of surface water for groundwater

Continue implementation of water conservation programs that will reduce reliance on groundwater pumping

Continue and enhance groundwater monitoring and groundwater management to ensure the balanced state of the groundwater basin

Seek funding for programs and projects that would identify and mitigate potential condition of overdraft in the basin

The Association is evaluating the subsurface geology within and directly adjacent to its boundary for the purpose of delineating areas having potentially high recharge rates. The basin contains numerous discontinuous recharge and withdrawal areas that do not allow for easily defined mapping of recharge zones. The Association seeks to better define the areas within the basin that have a high potential for contributing effective aquifer recharge and will communicate that information to land use planning entities within the basin to enact the measures necessary to protect these lands from development that would reduce their value as recharge to the groundwater basin. The first step in implementing this plan is to identify recharge areas within the cities and the county, to develop a GIS-based map of the natural recharge areas, to inform planning entities of the importance of these areas and to make recommendations for the protection of those areas that are effective and affordable, and to the extent practicable, can be implemented.

Response to Comment 4-B: The primary objective of the MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project is to provide additional treated water and operational flexibility and reliability to existing and future water users in the City of Modesto (see DSEIR Page 2-3, “Project Objectives and Need” and DSEIR Figure 2-1, showing water service area boundary). Because a connection between the City




June 2005

J&S 03-564

of Modesto’s surface water supply system and outlying water systems is not consistent with this objective, such a connection has not been proposed as part of this project. The commentor’s concern regarding potential degradation of downstream aquifers to the west is noted, however the comment is speculative as there is no evidence to indicate that Waterford’s existing or planned use of groundwater will degrade downstream aquifers or that implementation of the Phase Two Expansion would result in the hypothetical adverse impact raised by the commentor. To the contrary, as noted above, implementation of the Phase Two Expansion will improve management of the groundwater basin and alleviate potential adverse impacts to the basin by lessening the City’s reliance on groundwater and improving opportunities for conjunctive use. In addition, implementation of the MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project does not preclude the consideration of such a connection from being included in a future expansion of the MRWTP.

Response to Comment 4-C: The City of Modesto and MID are open to working with the City of Waterford to address regional water supply issues. However, the current project and the subject of the environmental review is implementation of the MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project and associated facilities, as contemplated in the original Surface Water Treatment Plant project (see 1990 EIR Figure 2-1 and DSEIR Figure 2-1). The anticipated expansion never contemplated the inclusion of Waterford as part of the service area for this project. It was designed and intended to serve only the portion of the City of Modesto service area shown in the 1990 EIR Figure 2-1. The City is not proposing to expand the service area at this time, as it would undermine the City’s ability to meet the project objectives (see Response to Comment 4-B). The inclusion of additional service areas would necessitate a further expansion of the plant, which is beyond the scope of this project. As noted above, implementation of the MRWTP Phase Two Expansion does not preclude discussions regarding the possibility of making such a connection in the future as part of a separate project.

Response to Comment 4-D: See Response to Comment 4-A. In addition, the subject of groundwater usage and regulation has been previously addressed in the 1990 Final EIR. No substantial changes have occurred and no new information has become available which would warrant a significant revision of the 1990 Final EIR as it relates to this issue.

Response to Comment 4-E: Comment noted. As indicated in Response to Comment 4-C, the inclusion of Waterford as part of the service area for the Phase Two Expansion is beyond the scope of this project, but this does not preclude future discussion on this subject as part of a separate project.




June 2005

J&S 03-564


5-A

Comment 5

5-B

5-C

5-D

5-D cont.

5-E

5-F

5-G

5-H

5-I

5-J

5-K

5-L




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Responses to California State Water Resources Control Board (March 4, 2005)

Response to Comment 5-A: MID owns and operates the MRWTP and is the agency that completed construction of the plant in 1995, and will be the agency expanding the plant to a 60 mgd capacity.

Response to Comment 5-B: Comment noted.

Response to Comment 5-C: As depicted on Attachment A,4 11,920 acres of agricultural land historically irrigated by MID surface water have been urbanized in the Greater Modesto Area between 1977 (the year in which the aerial photo was taken) and 2004. This change in land use eliminated agriculture’s need for water on the converted land; therefore, water that was previously used on the agricultural land is now available for customers in the MID service area. Within the planning horizon of the Proposed Project, an additional 9,200 acres that are presently irrigated by MID surface water are projected to become urbanized within the MID water service area. Therefore, a total of 21,120 acres irrigated by MID surface water will have become urbanized within the Proposed Project’s planning horizon. Based on an average historical annual agricultural water demand of 3.5 acre-feet per acre,5 this converted acreage would make available 73,920 acre-feet of Tuolumne River water per year within the MID service area, which closely corresponds to the expanded design capacity of the MRWTP (67,200 acre-feet, or 60 mgd).

In 1997, the irrigated area within MID was 63,236 acres (see Response to Comment 5-L). Adjusting this value to 2004 conditions per MID water delivery records, yields a present-day irrigated area of 60,040 acres. When the 9,200 irrigated acres expected to be urbanized in the future are taken into consideration, 50,840 (60,040-9,200) acres are anticipated to remain irrigated by the end of the Project’s planning period.

No conserved water supply is being utilized for this project. However, MID recognizes that there has been some savings of water within its service area due to a number of water conservation practices. These practices include, but are not limited to, the conversion of flood irrigation practices to more water efficient application practices, such as sprinkler and drip irrigation, plus the continuous replacement of open ditches with pipelines and the replacement of old pipelines with new pipelines. MID has not claimed this conserved water supply on any reports to the SWRCB, as any water that is not used in any one year remains in Don Pedro Reservoir for use during the following year.

4 Attachment A consists of an overlaid aerial figure and a corresponding acreage table 5 Long-term records kept by MID show that agricultural activities in the MID service area have an average crop evapotranspiration requirement of 30 inches and approximate irrigation system efficiency of 70%. As a result, the average allocation has been 30 inches divided 0.7, or approximately 42 inches, which is equivalent to 3.5 feet of irrigation, or 3.5 acre-feet/acre.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Response to Comment 5-D: Regarding the term “baseline conditions,” this term was used interchangeably with the term “benchmark” to reflect existing conditions as depicted by the model.

Regarding the tables, Table R19 presented data in acre-feet, while DSEIR Table 3.4-3 presented data in thousands of acre-feet. The discrepancies noted are a result of rounding data for the purposes of DSEIR Table 3.4-3 and do not represent an error.

Response to Comment 5-E: Regarding the term “baseline conditions,” please refer to Response to Comment 5-D.

The commenter correctly notes an error in DSEIR Table 3.4-4. The river flow changes shown in Table 3.4-4 were inaccurately transcribed from the modeling results in that reductions in flows were shown as increases in flows, and vice versa. This has been corrected, and the revised table is shown in Chapter 3 of this FSEIR.

Response to Comment 5-F: Please see Response to Comments 5-I, 5-J, and 5-K.

Response to Comment 5-G: Commenter is correct that the DSEIR did not contain a section titled “Sources of Additional Water.” The correct reference should have been to the section “Water Supply and Demand Setting,” which begins on Page 3.4-2 of the DSEIR. This correction is shown in Chapter 3 of the FSEIR.

Response to Comment 5-H: Please see Response to Comments 5-I, 5-J, and 5-K.

Response to Comment 5-I: As modeled, the delivery of up to 67,200 acre-feet per year on an MID delivery schedule in lieu of delivering that amount of water on an agricultural demand schedule can result in a slightly higher yearly diversion from storage during the non-irrigation months of November through early March. However, this is not the case in all years since MID releases water from Don Pedro during the winter months for hydroelectric generation and for storage in Modesto Reservoir for downstream use within the MID service area. In years where MID diversions exceed normal winter hydroelectric diversions, there will be a slight decrease in the winter storage level at Don Pedro. Such lower storage levels can create a small amount of additional storage capacity in Don Pedro Reservoir, but this would only be applicable during wet years. During wet years, when winter reservoir levels would be at or slightly below the maximum flood control level of 801.9 feet, the difference in storage would not be large enough to cause any different than normal operational decisions. Based on the modeling results,6 this condition would have occurred only during two of the

6 See Attachment B, which includes: -Figure 1, Don Pedro End of Month Storage, 1980-1998 -Table 1, Don Pedro Storage Change 1980-1998




June 2005

J&S 03-564

nineteen-modeled years (1995 and 1996). The difference in storage levels for each of these two years would have been less than 0.5 feet in Don Pedro Reservoir level, or 5,000 acre-feet. Operationally, this difference of 0.3% is so small in comparison to the size of Don Pedro Reservoir that there is virtually no difference in the amount of water released or stored for either the Project or the Benchmark alternative. Consequently, MID believes that this difference in storage would have no potential to injure any other legal users of water and does not represent the initiation of a new water right.

Further, it should be noted that in contrast to 1995 and 1996 years where the modeling showed slightly lower reservoir levels under the Project alternative, and slight increases in reservoir releases to avoid encroachment in Don Pedro’s flood control space, the above normal runoff year types under the Project alternative can also result with increased downstream releases during August and September as the reservoir is drawn down to the winter flood control level. A review of the modeling data shows that this occurred in modeling years of 1980, 1986, 1993 and 1996.

Response to Comment 5-J: To clarify, Impact WR-4 does mention New Melones Reservoir, on the second full paragraph of DSEIR Page 3.4-20. The discussion in Impact WR-4 supports the assertion that the Proposed Project would not result in any changes that could affect operational decisions (i.e., water releases) at New Melones Reservoir.

Response to Comment 5-K: Attachment A identifies the agricultural lands expected to be converted to urban usages.

Details concerning the modeling assumptions may be found in Response to Comment 5-L.

Response to Comment 5-L: The modeling results in the DSEIR rely upon a simulation of District operations over a long sequence of years. The model systematically simulates a month-to-month and year-to-year operation that varies according to hydrologic conditions, through periods of abundant water supplies and periods of drought. Underpinning the water demand of the District is the consumptive use requirement of the lands served. For the “current” level of demand, data currently developed for the statewide planning model CALSIM II is used for the DSEIR analysis. This data is currently under review by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The following is an adaptation of Reclamation’s draft documentation for consumptive use included in CALSIM II.

A land-use based approach is used to depict water demands on the east side of the San Joaquin River including water demands in the District. Land-use based agricultural demands are developed by assuming an irrigated acreage within an area and estimating how much water is required to irrigate that land’s associated crops.

Land-use based demands are developed by first estimating the consumptive use of applied water (CUAW). The District is one of the 21 demand areas depicting




June 2005

J&S 03-564

the east side of the San Joaquin Basin (see FSEIR Figure 2-1). Historical land use data was used to develop a simulation current demands and operations. GIS was used to determine land use for each demand area in the San Joaquin Basin including the District. A map containing CALSIM II demand areas and land use is illustrated in FSEIR Figure 2-2.

The CUAW is determined by using the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) consumptive use model (CU model). Irrigated acreage for the District was developed using the Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage from the 1996 and 1997 DWR land use survey. Land use is aggregated to 13 crop types, based on crops with similar water use, and input to the CU model to estimate the CUAW. The assumed current land use for the District is shown in FSEIR Table 2-2. These acreages may slightly differ from reports from the District due to GIS differences and the methodology used to reconcile adjacent and adjoining overlapping areas, and the depiction of double-cropped plantings.

Table 2-2. Assumed Current Land Uses

Crop Acreage Pasture 9,683 Alfalfa 2,612 Sugar Beets 10 General Field 10,960 Rice 974 Misc. Truck 833 Orchard 33,086 Vineyard 4,227 Cotton 0 Tomato-Machine 69 Grain 808 Citrus-Olive 18 Total 63,236

The CUAW represents the amount of applied water realized as ET; it does not include water that is lost or returned to the water system. The DWR CU model incorporates monthly precipitation, ET rates, soil moisture criteria, rooting depth, irrigation indicators, and other factors along with land use to estimate the CUAW on a monthly basis. The interaction of the land use and environmental data within the CU model is depicted in FSEIR Figure 2-3.

Figures 2-1CALSIM II Representation of the

San Joaquin River Basin and Demand Areas

0356

4.03

FEI

R (6

-05)

Figures 2-2CALSIM II Demand Area Land Use

0356

4.03

FEI

R (6

-05)




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Figure 2-3. Interaction of Data within the CU Model

The CU model does not currently consider temperature or other meteorological data in its determination of CUAW. The ET data in the current CU model is based on 1976 evaporation values. It consists of crop ET during growing months and evaporative demand during non-growing months.

DWR employs a method to identify a proportion of applied irrigation water that is not used in crop ET, does not return to the surface or groundwater system, but is depleted or lost. The method used by DWR is the application of a factor (1.1) to the CUAW to ultimately arrive at the projected demand of applied water (PDAW), which is used in the DSEIR. FSEIR Table 2-3 provides the current level PDAW assumed in the DSEIR. This PDAW was factored down by 0.85 (50,840/60,040) to arrive at a revised (future) canal diversion demand inclusive of increased urban diversion. This factor corresponds to a projected decrease in irrigated acreage due to future urbanization in the greater Modesto area within the MID service boundary.

Land Use

Precipitation

ET

Rooting Depth

Soil Moisture Criteria

CU Model CUAW

Irrigation Indicator




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Table 2-3. Current Modesto Irrigation District Projected Demand of Applied Water (PDAW)

Current Modesto Irrigation District Projected Demand of Applied Water (PDAW) (Acre-feet)Water Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total

1921 4491 242 0 0 18 2934 15164 28473 32846 35944 27944 15240 1632951922 6800 100 0 0 0 0 10100 26000 33100 36100 28200 16300 1566991923 4700 0 0 0 0 4200 8700 29000 33000 36100 28200 12601 1565001924 5900 600 0 0 200 13300 27800 32500 33501 36100 28200 16300 1944001925 1500 0 0 0 0 501 7700 19100 32100 36100 28200 16000 1412001926 6100 300 0 0 0 6100 14400 31301 33400 36100 28200 16300 1722001927 5800 0 0 0 0 900 10600 30400 32500 36100 28200 16100 1605981928 700 0 0 0 0 1100 17800 31200 33501 36100 28200 16300 1649001929 7000 0 0 0 0 3000 18200 32500 27500 36100 28200 16100 1685981930 7000 900 0 0 0 2100 23400 30300 33501 36100 27400 15700 1764001931 6100 0 0 0 0 5500 26700 27600 31500 36100 28001 16100 1775991932 6800 0 0 0 0 1700 16100 26901 33501 35900 28200 16300 1653991933 7101 800 0 0 0 2300 25700 26901 33400 36100 28200 16300 1768011934 5800 900 0 0 0 2701 25400 30300 30600 36100 28200 15800 1758001935 5400 0 0 0 0 0 2500 26400 33501 36100 28001 16300 1482011936 1500 100 0 0 0 600 10300 25801 31301 35701 28200 15000 1485011937 4000 900 0 0 0 0 6800 30000 33400 36100 28200 16300 1557001938 5500 100 0 0 0 0 7700 28900 33200 35800 28200 15200 1546001939 2600 501 0 0 0 1000 23800 28700 33501 36100 28200 10401 1648011940 5900 800 0 0 0 0 8700 30201 33501 36100 28200 16200 1596001941 5500 800 0 0 0 0 2400 27100 33400 36100 28200 16300 1497991942 4300 400 0 0 0 501 1300 22700 33501 36100 28200 16300 1433001943 5800 0 0 0 0 0 6200 29700 33501 36100 28200 16300 1558001944 5500 400 0 0 0 2100 14400 31400 33200 36100 28200 16100 1673991945 1300 0 0 0 0 0 11600 30000 32600 36100 28200 14801 1546001946 800 0 0 0 0 501 14900 26600 33501 35900 28200 15901 1563001947 4800 300 0 0 100 15901 28400 31100 32000 36100 28200 16100 1930011948 1000 0 0 0 100 1900 13800 21000 33300 36100 28200 16200 1515991949 3100 800 0 0 100 3900 28200 28700 33501 36100 28200 16300 1788991950 7101 800 0 0 0 1400 18000 30201 33501 36100 28200 12400 1677021951 1200 0 0 0 0 1500 13200 30400 33501 36100 28200 16300 1604001952 3801 0 0 0 0 1300 7600 30100 33000 34200 28200 16200 1544001953 7101 0 0 0 0 4700 17800 29900 31301 36100 27200 16200 1703011954 5600 400 0 0 200 5800 23601 30800 32300 36100 28200 16300 1793011955 7101 0 0 0 0 2600 9000 27700 33501 36100 28200 14900 1591011956 7000 0 0 0 0 3801 12900 26600 33501 36100 28200 14400 1625011957 5000 900 0 0 0 6800 23400 23300 33100 36100 28200 15000 1717991958 1000 600 0 0 0 0 300 19600 32900 36100 28200 15800 1344991959 7101 800 0 0 0 2900 24500 31301 33501 36100 28001 4800 1690021960 7101 900 0 0 0 10300 24000 32000 33501 36100 28200 15901 1880011961 6900 0 0 0 0 4000 23100 28800 33501 36100 27600 16100 1761001962 7101 0 0 0 0 1200 15100 31900 33501 36100 28200 16300 1694001963 4300 300 0 0 0 200 5700 27500 33400 36100 28200 15500 1512011964 1100 0 0 0 100 9200 27100 31800 31100 36000 28200 16200 1807991965 1500 0 0 0 0 2100 14000 31200 33501 35900 23900 16100 1582001966 6800 0 0 0 0 2600 19400 31301 32900 35701 28200 16300 1732011967 7101 0 0 0 0 800 3100 26901 30600 36100 28200 16300 1491001968 6200 0 0 0 100 600 20700 31301 33501 36100 26400 16300 1712001969 3100 0 0 0 0 1400 10401 31100 33501 36100 28200 13800 1576001970 3400 0 0 0 0 1500 16800 32200 33100 36100 28200 16300 1676001971 5100 0 0 0 0 2000 15200 29300 33501 36100 28200 16100 1654981972 5400 100 0 0 0 12200 26100 32300 32900 36100 28200 15000 1882991973 3400 0 0 0 0 0 10800 31400 33300 36100 28200 16300 1594991974 300 0 0 0 0 700 6700 29400 31800 32100 28200 16300 1454991975 1700 200 0 0 0 100 14000 30900 33501 36100 24300 16300 1571001976 1601 501 0 0 200 20100 23400 32500 33300 36000 23900 14500 1860011977 5000 100 0 0 200 14500 28200 24900 33501 36100 28200 15000 1856991978 5300 0 0 0 0 0 1900 26600 33501 36100 28200 11600 1431991979 7101 0 0 0 0 800 13100 31100 33501 35300 28200 16300 1654001980 2300 0 0 0 0 700 11200 29300 33501 32900 28200 16300 1543991981 7000 900 0 0 0 501 17300 31700 33501 36100 28200 16300 1715001982 1601 0 0 0 0 0 3400 29400 32000 36100 28200 6300 1370001983 800 0 0 0 0 0 2400 27000 33501 36100 27200 5400 1323991984 4700 0 0 0 0 2600 19900 32500 33501 36100 28200 16200 1737001985 800 0 0 0 0 1300 17001 32000 32401 36100 28200 15901 1637011986 3300 0 0 0 0 0 8201 28700 33501 36100 28200 16000 1540001987 3900 800 0 0 0 400 22800 32500 33501 36100 28200 16300 1744991988 3801 100 0 0 0 6300 16800 29500 32100 36100 28200 16300 1692001989 7101 0 0 0 0 2701 25400 32300 33501 36100 27700 7700 1725021990 2701 200 0 0 0 10700 27200 21401 33501 36100 28200 16000 1760001991 2300 700 0 0 100 400 21401 32000 31200 36100 27300 16300 1678011992 3900 700 0 0 0 100 12300 31400 32500 35900 28200 16300 1612971993 5800 0 0 0 0 0 10500 24200 31200 36100 28200 16300 1522991994 5800 0 0 0 0 8800 18600 20800 33501 36100 28200 16100 1679001995 5000 0 0 0 0 0 5600 21100 30700 36100 28200 16300 1429991996 7101 900 0 0 0 800 11300 19100 33400 36100 28200 16300 1532001997 1601 0 0 0 0 5200 25300 31500 32800 36100 28200 16300 1769991998 6500 0 0 0 0 501 8300 9400 30300 36100 28200 16200 135498

Avg. 4491 242 0 0 18 2934 15164 28473 32846 35944 27944 15240 163295Prct. 3 0 0 0 0 2 9 17 20 22 17 9 100Max 7101 900 0 0 200 20100 28400 32500 33501 36100 28200 16300 194400Min 300 0 0 0 0 0 300 9400 27500 32100 23900 4800 132399




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Attachment A: Urbanized Lands in the Greater Modesto Area




June 2005

J&S 03-564




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Attachment B: Don Pedro End of the Month Storage




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Attachment B, Table 1DON PERO STORAGE CHANGE

(Project verses Benchmark)Flood Don Pedro End of the Month Storage Difference Difference

Date Control Project Benchmark Project vs. Project vs.Level Table R11 Table R3 Benchmark Benchmark

acre feet acre feet acre feet acre feet feetOct-79 1,690,000 1,452,186 1,444,934 7,252 0.7Nov-79 1,690,000 1,452,590 1,447,942 4,648 0.5Dec-79 1,690,000 1,489,309 1,487,060 2,248 0.2Jan-80 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-80 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-80 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-80 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-80 2,030,000 1,821,714 1,819,204 2,511 0.2Jun-80 2,030,000 1,960,200 1,960,200 0 0Jul-80 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-80 2,030,000 1,787,206 1,784,465 2,741 0.2Sep-80 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0Oct-80 1,690,000 1,616,489 1,616,589 -100 0Nov-80 1,690,000 1,588,103 1,590,430 -2,327 -0.2Dec-80 1,690,000 1,582,305 1,587,032 -4,727 -0.4Jan-81 1,690,000 1,591,639 1,598,568 -6,928 -0.6Feb-81 1,690,000 1,644,937 1,654,066 -9,129 -0.8Mar-81 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-81 1,690,000 1,706,715 1,705,456 1,259 0.1May-81 2,030,000 1,683,682 1,679,480 4,202 0.4Jun-81 2,030,000 1,590,846 1,583,586 7,260 0.7Jul-81 2,030,000 1,435,781 1,425,109 10,671 1.1

Aug-81 2,030,000 1,312,242 1,298,878 13,365 1.4Sep-81 1,690,000 1,245,475 1,231,879 13,596 1.5Oct-81 1,690,000 1,234,031 1,222,801 11,230 1.3Nov-81 1,690,000 1,338,694 1,330,070 8,624 0.9Dec-81 1,690,000 1,561,070 1,554,846 6,224 0.6Jan-82 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-82 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-82 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-82 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-82 2,030,000 1,876,400 1,876,400 0 0Jun-82 2,030,000 2,002,900 2,002,900 0 0Jul-82 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-82 2,030,000 1,790,000 1,790,000 0 0Sep-82 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0Oct-82 1,690,000 1,660,000 1,660,000 0 0Nov-82 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Dec-82 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Jan-83 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-83 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-83 1,690,000 1,294,700 1,294,700 0 0Apr-83 1,690,000 1,264,000 1,264,000 0 0May-83 2,030,000 1,270,800 1,270,800 0 0Jun-83 2,030,000 1,851,400 1,851,400 0 0Jul-83 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-83 2,030,000 1,790,000 1,790,000 0 0Sep-83 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0




acre feet acre feet acre feet acre feet feetOct-83 1,690,000 1,660,000 1,660,000 0 0Nov-83 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Dec-83 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Jan-84 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-84 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-84 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-84 1,690,000 1,646,144 1,644,304 1,839 0.2May-84 2,030,000 1,660,287 1,655,361 4,925 0.5Jun-84 2,030,000 1,764,800 1,756,819 7,981 0.7Jul-84 2,030,000 1,637,305 1,625,915 11,390 1

Aug-84 2,030,000 1,499,087 1,485,005 14,082 1.4Sep-84 1,690,000 1,418,582 1,404,290 14,292 1.5Oct-84 1,690,000 1,400,616 1,389,022 11,594 1.2Nov-84 1,690,000 1,433,446 1,424,459 8,987 0.9Dec-84 1,690,000 1,518,645 1,512,058 6,588 0.6Jan-85 1,690,000 1,568,602 1,564,213 4,389 0.4Feb-85 1,690,000 1,588,977 1,586,787 2,190 0.2Mar-85 1,690,000 1,686,985 1,686,857 128 0Apr-85 1,690,000 1,717,106 1,715,786 1,320 0.1May-85 2,030,000 1,668,401 1,664,085 4,317 0.4Jun-85 2,030,000 1,569,671 1,562,496 7,175 0.7Jul-85 2,030,000 1,414,989 1,404,402 10,587 1.1

Aug-85 2,030,000 1,288,183 1,274,903 13,280 1.4Sep-85 1,690,000 1,225,503 1,212,074 13,429 1.5Oct-85 1,690,000 1,196,561 1,184,793 11,768 1.3Nov-85 1,690,000 1,215,461 1,206,299 9,161 1Dec-85 1,690,000 1,358,097 1,351,335 6,762 0.7Jan-86 1,690,000 1,467,499 1,462,936 4,564 0.4Feb-86 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-86 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-86 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-86 2,030,000 1,883,210 1,880,808 2,402 0.2Jun-86 2,030,000 2,001,400 2,001,400 0 0Jul-86 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-86 2,030,000 1,774,109 1,771,368 2,741 0.2Sep-86 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0Oct-86 1,690,000 1,639,159 1,640,544 -1,384 -0.1Nov-86 1,690,000 1,611,049 1,614,702 -3,652 -0.3Dec-86 1,690,000 1,594,896 1,600,948 -6,053 -0.6Jan-87 1,690,000 1,561,680 1,569,935 -8,254 -0.8Feb-87 1,690,000 1,558,779 1,569,234 -10,455 -1Mar-87 1,690,000 1,586,497 1,598,204 -11,707 -1.1Apr-87 1,690,000 1,522,980 1,532,190 -9,210 -0.9May-87 2,030,000 1,434,849 1,440,945 -6,097 -0.6Jun-87 2,030,000 1,332,035 1,335,039 -3,004 -0.3Jul-87 2,030,000 1,198,672 1,198,219 453 0.1

Aug-87 2,030,000 1,088,022 1,084,830 3,192 0.4Sep-87 1,690,000 1,030,814 1,027,357 3,457 0.4Oct-87 1,690,000 1,004,357 1,002,333 2,024 0.3




acre feet acre feet acre feet acre feet feetNov-87 1,690,000 997,372 997,908 -536 -0.1Dec-87 1,690,000 1,034,385 1,037,321 -2,936 -0.4Jan-88 1,690,000 1,086,064 1,091,200 -5,136 -0.6Feb-88 1,690,000 1,165,282 1,172,619 -7,337 -0.9Mar-88 1,690,000 1,139,293 1,146,618 -7,324 -0.9Apr-88 1,690,000 1,101,144 1,107,830 -6,686 -0.8May-88 2,030,000 1,047,721 1,052,988 -5,267 -0.7Jun-88 2,030,000 982,679 986,377 -3,698 -0.5Jul-88 2,030,000 898,002 899,789 -1,787 -0.3

Aug-88 2,030,000 825,885 826,156 -270 0Sep-88 1,690,000 793,524 793,641 -117 0Oct-88 1,690,000 758,211 758,361 -149 0Nov-88 1,690,000 764,425 766,004 -1,579 -0.2Dec-88 1,690,000 806,100 808,999 -2,899 -0.4Jan-89 1,690,000 831,925 836,035 -4,110 -0.6Feb-89 1,690,000 862,556 867,876 -5,320 -0.8Mar-89 1,690,000 1,009,126 1,015,259 -6,133 -0.8Apr-89 1,690,000 1,041,445 1,044,966 -3,521 -0.4May-89 2,030,000 1,057,278 1,058,193 -915 -0.1Jun-89 2,030,000 1,117,144 1,115,444 1,700 0.2Jul-89 2,030,000 994,034 989,416 4,618 0.6

Aug-89 2,030,000 888,867 882,029 6,838 1Sep-89 1,690,000 883,920 878,386 5,534 0.8Oct-89 1,690,000 908,934 905,011 3,923 0.6Nov-89 1,690,000 901,556 899,774 1,781 0.3Dec-89 1,690,000 955,286 955,545 -259 0Jan-90 1,690,000 974,622 976,750 -2,129 -0.3Feb-90 1,690,000 1,008,080 1,012,079 -3,999 -0.5Mar-90 1,690,000 977,154 987,389 -10,235 -1.4Apr-90 1,690,000 938,985 947,302 -8,317 -1.1May-90 2,030,000 940,998 948,699 -7,701 -1Jun-90 2,030,000 945,398 951,382 -5,984 -0.8Jul-90 2,030,000 861,297 865,358 -4,061 -0.6

Aug-90 2,030,000 775,933 778,467 -2,534 -0.4Sep-90 1,690,000 731,743 734,150 -2,407 -0.4Oct-90 1,690,000 715,273 718,800 -3,527 -0.6Nov-90 1,690,000 703,975 708,771 -4,795 -0.8Dec-90 1,690,000 726,872 732,988 -6,116 -1Jan-91 1,690,000 725,056 732,384 -7,328 -1.2Feb-91 1,690,000 700,946 709,461 -8,515 -1.4Mar-91 1,690,000 773,512 783,454 -9,942 -1.6Apr-91 1,690,000 820,579 829,119 -8,540 -1.3May-91 2,030,000 875,343 882,008 -6,664 -0.9Jun-91 2,030,000 960,494 965,486 -4,992 -0.7Jul-91 2,030,000 914,483 917,315 -2,832 -0.4

Aug-91 2,030,000 849,942 851,166 -1,224 -0.2Sep-91 1,690,000 824,074 825,021 -948 -0.1Oct-91 1,690,000 825,496 827,169 -1,672 -0.2




acre feet acre feet acre feet acre feet feetNov-91 1,690,000 818,379 821,315 -2,936 -0.4Dec-91 1,690,000 857,879 862,135 -4,256 -0.6Jan-92 1,690,000 876,581 882,048 -5,467 -0.8Feb-92 1,690,000 939,076 945,754 -6,678 -0.9Mar-92 1,690,000 1,018,393 1,026,498 -8,105 -1Apr-92 1,690,000 1,035,304 1,043,308 -8,004 -1May-92 2,030,000 1,094,353 1,100,723 -6,370 -0.8Jun-92 2,030,000 1,047,157 1,051,893 -4,736 -0.6Jul-92 2,030,000 991,372 994,184 -2,812 -0.4

Aug-92 2,030,000 907,549 908,817 -1,269 -0.2Sep-92 1,690,000 858,460 859,559 -1,099 -0.2Oct-92 1,690,000 835,929 837,346 -1,417 -0.2Nov-92 1,690,000 823,146 825,992 -2,846 -0.4Dec-92 1,690,000 880,129 884,294 -4,166 -0.6Jan-93 1,690,000 1,156,523 1,161,900 -5,377 -0.6Feb-93 1,690,000 1,359,973 1,366,561 -6,587 -0.7Mar-93 1,690,000 1,609,222 1,617,237 -8,015 -0.7Apr-93 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-93 2,030,000 1,824,592 1,823,006 1,586 0.1Jun-93 2,030,000 2,030,000 2,030,000 0 0Jul-93 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-93 2,030,000 1,781,335 1,778,594 2,741 0.2Sep-93 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0Oct-93 1,690,000 1,625,853 1,626,450 -597 -0.1Nov-93 1,690,000 1,604,842 1,608,039 -3,197 -0.3Dec-93 1,690,000 1,592,292 1,597,889 -5,597 -0.5Jan-94 1,690,000 1,580,276 1,588,075 -7,798 -0.7Feb-94 1,690,000 1,587,243 1,597,242 -9,999 -0.9Mar-94 1,690,000 1,572,068 1,581,018 -8,950 -0.8Apr-94 1,690,000 1,564,182 1,571,574 -7,392 -0.7May-94 2,030,000 1,571,113 1,577,517 -6,404 -0.6Jun-94 2,030,000 1,461,410 1,464,721 -3,311 -0.3Jul-94 2,030,000 1,316,644 1,316,496 147 0

Aug-94 2,030,000 1,198,915 1,196,027 2,888 0.3Sep-94 1,690,000 1,139,914 1,136,801 3,113 0.4Oct-94 1,690,000 1,092,926 1,090,749 2,177 0.3Nov-94 1,690,000 1,110,052 1,110,476 -424 -0.1Dec-94 1,690,000 1,243,166 1,245,990 -2,824 -0.3Jan-95 1,690,000 1,561,603 1,566,628 -5,025 -0.5Feb-95 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-95 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-95 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-95 2,030,000 1,629,700 1,629,700 0 0Jun-95 2,030,000 1,982,800 1,982,800 0 0Jul-95 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-95 2,030,000 1,790,000 1,790,000 0 0Sep-95 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0Oct-95 1,690,000 1,606,968 1,607,026 -58 0




acre feet acre feet acre feet acre feet feetNov-95 1,690,000 1,575,346 1,577,631 -2,286 -0.2Dec-95 1,690,000 1,606,599 1,611,284 -4,686 -0.4Jan-96 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-96 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-96 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-96 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-96 2,030,000 1,993,320 1,992,658 662 0.1Jun-96 2,030,000 2,030,000 2,030,000 0 0Jul-96 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-96 2,030,000 1,773,261 1,770,520 2,741 0.2Sep-96 1,690,000 1,699,670 1,696,661 3,009 0.3Oct-96 1,690,000 1,660,000 1,660,000 0 0Nov-96 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Dec-96 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Jan-97 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-97 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-97 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-97 1,690,000 1,670,692 1,667,648 3,044 0.3May-97 2,030,000 1,803,687 1,797,741 5,946 0.5Jun-97 2,030,000 1,891,261 1,882,389 8,872 0.7Jul-97 2,030,000 1,793,469 1,781,191 12,278 1

Aug-97 2,030,000 1,684,550 1,669,582 14,967 1.3Sep-97 1,690,000 1,633,069 1,617,873 15,196 1.4Oct-97 1,690,000 1,583,506 1,568,647 14,858 1.4Nov-97 1,690,000 1,573,022 1,560,771 12,250 1.1Dec-97 1,690,000 1,580,364 1,570,513 9,851 0.9Jan-98 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Feb-98 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Mar-98 1,690,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 0 0Apr-98 1,690,000 1,717,600 1,717,600 0 0May-98 2,030,000 1,714,000 1,714,000 0 0Jun-98 2,030,000 1,987,500 1,987,500 0 0Jul-98 2,030,000 1,910,000 1,910,000 0 0

Aug-98 2,030,000 1,790,000 1,790,000 0 0Sep-98 1,690,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 0 0


June 2005

J&S 03-564

Chapter 3

Revisions to Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

IntroductionRevisions to the DSEIR are shown below. Text that has been deleted is shown in strikeout, and text that has been inserted is shown in underline.

RevisionsThe Phase Two Project Facilities description on page 2-4 in Chapter 2, ProjectDescription, has been revised as follows:

The MRWTP would continue to be owned and operated by MID, and the City would own and operate the downstream facilities ownership and operation of the downstream facilities is still under discussion, but are assumed to belong to the City. For simplicity, the environmental analysis refers to the above components as “MID” and “City” facilities, respectively.

Environmental Commitment GC-6 on page 2-24 in Chapter 2, ProjectDescription, has been revised as follows:

GC-6 Dust suppression and cleanup provisions (e.g., street sweeping, sidewalk cleaning, and debris removal) will be implemented, as needed by the City of Modesto and MID. (City of Modesto and MID facilities)

Environmental Commitment GC-9 on page 2-24 in Chapter 2, ProjectDescription, has been revised as follows:

GC-9 Fact sheets and public updates to inform the community about progress of the project will be provided. (City of Modesto and MID facilities)

Environmental Commitment WQ-3 on page 2-27 in Chapter 2, ProjectDescription, has been revised as follows:


Chapter 3. Revisions to Draft SEIR


June 2005

J&S 03-564

WQ-3 The federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (40 CFR 110) is any oil spill that (1) violates applicable water quality standards, (2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or (3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines.

If a spill is reportable, the contractor’s superintendent would immediatelynotify the City of Modesto and/or MID, Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which have spill response and clean-up ordinances to govern emergency spill response. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form.

If a reportable spill has occurred and results determine that project activities have adversely affected groundwater quality in excess of water quality standards, a detailed analysis will be performed by a Registered Environmental Assessor to identify the likely cause of contamination. This analysis will conform to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, and will include recommendations for reducing or eliminating the source or mechanisms of contamination. Based on this analysis, the City, MID, and/or their contractors will select and implement measures to control contamination, with a performance standard that groundwater quality must be returned to baseline conditions. These measures will be subject to approval by the City and MID.

Environmental Commitment NR-3 on page 2-28 in Chapter 2, ProjectDescription, has been revised as follows:

NR-3 Prior to construction, the City and/or MID will notify residences along the construction areas of the construction schedule in writing. MID/The City will designate a noise disturbance coordinator, who will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator will determine the cause of the complaint and will ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the written notification of the construction schedule sent to nearby residents in the identified range. These duties may be delegated to the City’s contractor in the project specifications.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Table 3.4-4 on page 3.4-19 in Chapter 3.4, Water Resources, under Impact WR-4: Changes in Reservoir Operations and Tuolumne River Releases, has been revised as follows:

Table 3.4-4. Average Changes in Tuolumne River Releases from LaGrange Dam, Proposed Project minus Baseline Conditions (in average cubic feet per second and percent of flow)

Month Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Average Releases,Baseline Conditions

333 305 660 1145 1660 2098 1681 1130 875 845 214 236

Average change

0 2-2

0 2-2

23-23

18-18

5-5

-44

-1515

-1616

-44

-66

Percentage Change

0.06%-0.06%

0.75%-0.75%

-0.07%0.07%

0.15%-0.15%

1.41%-1.41%

0.83%-0.83%

0.31%-0.31%

-0.32%0.32%

-1.72%1.72%

-1.84%1.84%

-1.94%1.94%

-2.34%2.34%

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle and Avoid or Compensate for Loss of Habitat on page 3.9-20 in Chapter 3.9, Biological Resources, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure Bio-2a: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle and Avoid or Compensate for Loss of Habitat For any construction activity within 100 feet of the six elderberry shrubs at Tank Sites S-2 and S-3 and near Dry Creek along the Southern main pipeline alignmentsan elderberry shrub, before construction begins, the City shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey of the alignment corridor and document the extent of habitat for the VELB. The information gathered in this survey would include the number of elderberry stems greater than 1 inch in diameter and the number of emergence holes in these stems for each elderberry shrub encountered. If no VELB habitat is found within 100 feet of a project alignment, then no further mitigation is required.

The City then would implement the USFWS guidelines for avoiding impacts on the VELB by avoiding construction activities within 100 ft of any elderberry shrub where feasible (Mitigation Measure Bio-2b). Where avoidance is not feasible, the City would obtain authorization from the USFWS pursuant to the ESA, and prepare and implement a mitigation plan consistent with USFWS guidelines to compensate for impacts on the VELB and loss of habitat.

USFWS guidelines call for avoidance of VELB habitat wherever possible. When avoidance is not possible, the guidelines direct that all elderberry plants be transplanted to an appropriate site when feasible, and that all stems 1 inch or greater in diameter be replaced by planting replacement plants at appropriate locations in the project vicinity determined in consultation with




June 2005

J&S 03-564

the resource agencies (Mitigation Measure BIO-2c). The replacement ratio depends on the percentage of affected elderberry shrubs that have beetle emergence holes. The guidelines require the project proponent to monitor the transplanted shrubs and replacement plants for 10 years from the date of transplanting to monitor the success of the mitigation efforts, and replacement would be necessary for plants that do not succeed.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Avoid and Protect VELB Habitat on page 3.9-20 in Chapter 3.9, Biological Resources, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measures BIO-2b: Avoid and Protect VELB Habitat Complete avoidance is assumed when a 100-foot buffer is established and maintained around elderberry plants containing stems measuring 1 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. Firebreaks may not be included in the buffer zone. In buffer areas, construction-related disturbance should be minimized and any damaged area should be promptly restored following construction. The City shall consult the USFWS before any disturbances within the buffer area are considered. The following measures include establishment and maintenance of a buffer zone:

The City shall hire a qualified biologist to identify and mark all elderberry shrubs with stems 1 inch or more in diameter within 100 feet of the impact area. A 100-foot buffer will be established around all elderberry shrubs, and no construction activities will be permitted within the buffer zone without consultation with USFWS. In areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by USFWS, no ground-disturbing activities will be permitted within 20 feet of the dripline of each elderberry shrub unless the activity is necessary to complete the project. If no VELB habitat is found within 100 feet of a project alignment, then no further mitigation is required.

Orange fencing will be placed around all shrubs to avoid inadvertent effects.

Signs will be erected every 50 feet along the edge of the avoidance area with the following information: “This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.” The signs will be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet, and must be maintained for the duration of construction.

The City’s contractor will present an An environmental education program will be presented to all construction personnel to brief them on the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs and the possible penalty for not complying with these requirements.

Any damage done to the buffer area (area within 100 feet of elderberry plants) during construction must be repaired and the area restored. Erosion control must be provided and the area must be revegetated with appropriate native plants.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Buffer areas must be protected after construction from adverse effects of the project through measures including fencing, signs, weeding, and removing trash.

The use of insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemicals that might harm the beetle or its host plant will be prohibited.

Grasses or ground cover will be mowed from July through April to reduce fire hazard. No mowing should occur within 5 feet of elderberry plant stems.

The City of Modesto must provide a written description of how the buffer areas are to be restored, protected, and maintained after construction is completed.

To prevent inadvertent trimming of elderberry shrubs (habitat for VELB) during future maintenance activities, the City will also prepare a Maintenance Plan that provides the location of all elderberry shrubs growing near the water storage tank sites and along the pipeline corridors. The Maintenance Plan will also include a photo and description of an elderberry shrub and information about VELB and its legal status and requirements under ESA.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement the DFG Guidelines for Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Mitigation on page 3.9-23 in Chapter 3.9, BiologicalResources, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement the DFG Guidelines for Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Mitigation The City will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat on undeveloped tank sites and/or pipelines outside of existing roadways. The preconstruction Asurveyswill be conducted to determine whether active Swainson’s Hawk nests are present within 10 miles of the project construction sites and will include, at a minimum, a study of the eight previously recorded nest sites. If the project construction site is not suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat, then no further mitigation is required. If agricultural habitat is removed within 10 miles of a known, active Swainson’s Hawk nest, the City will compensate to the extent specified by DFG to replace lost foraging habitat. Habitat compensation ratios will depend on the distance of the affected habitat from known, active nests, as specified in DFG mitigation guidelines for Swainson’s hawks. The publication Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California, published by DFG (1994), recommends mitigation for the removal of suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat at a ratio determined by the distance to the nearest active nest. The City will implement the measures identified or their functional equivalents, based on the recommendations of the qualified wildlife biologist.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Retain a Qualified Biologist to Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Swainson’s Hawk on page 3.9-24 in Chapter 3.9, Biological Resources, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Retain a Qualified Biologist to Conduct a Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Swainson’s Hawk If construction is scheduled to occur during the Swainson’s Hawk breeding season (generally March 1–August 15), the City will retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson's Hawks on undeveloped tank sites and/or pipelines outside of existing roadways. The preconstruction surveys will be conducted to determine whether there is in suitable nesting habitat within a 0.5-mile radius of the construction site. If no Swainson’s Hawks are found nesting within the areas surveyed, then no further mitigation is required. If Swainson’s Hawks are found nesting within a 0.5-mile radius of the construction site, DFG will be consulted to determine whether a no-disturbance buffer would be required until after the young have fledged (as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist). Impact avoidance measures will be conducted pursuant to DFG mitigation guidelines. The City will implement the measures identified or their functional equivalents, based on the recommendations of the qualified wildlife biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Active Burrowing Owl Burrows and Implement the California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines for Burrowing Owl Mitigation, if Necessary on page 3.9-25 in Chapter 3.9, Biological Resources, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Active Burrowing Owl Burrows and Implement the California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines for Burrowing Owl Mitigation, if Necessary DFG (1994) recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted to locate active Burrowing Owl burrows in the project area and in a 250-foot-wide buffer zone around the project area. The City will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active burrows on undeveloped tank sites and/or pipelines outside of existing roadways according to DFG guidelines. The preconstruction surveys will include a nesting season survey and a wintering season survey during the year immediately preceding construction. If no Burrowing Owls are detected, then no further mitigation is required. If active Burrowing Owls are detected in the survey area, the following measures will be implementedCity will implement the following measures or their functional equivalents, based on the recommendations of the qualified wildlife biologist.

Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1–August 31).

When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the non-nesting season (September 1–January 31), unsuitable burrows will be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created




June 2005

J&S 03-564

(installing artificial burrows) at a ratio of 2:1 on protected lands approved by DFG. Newly created burrows will follow guidelines established by DFG.

If owls must be moved away from the project area, passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing one-way doors at burrow entrances) will be used instead of trapping. At least 1 week will be necessary to accomplish passive relocation and to allow owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.

If active Burrowing Owl burrows are found and the owls must be relocated, the City will offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat in the project area by acquiring and permanently protecting a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per occupied burrow identified in the project area. The protected lands should be located adjacent to the occupied Burrowing Owl habitat in the project area or at another occupied site near the project area. The location of the protected lands will be determined in coordination with DFG. The City will also prepare a monitoring plan and provide long-term management and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan will specify success criteria, identify remedial measures, and require an annual report to be submitted DFG. If avoidance is the preferred method of dealing with potential impacts, no disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1–January 31) or within 250 feet during the breeding season. Avoidance also requires that at least 6.5 acres of foraging habitat (calculated based on an approximately 300-foot foraging radius of an occupied burrow), contiguous with occupied burrow sites, be permanently preserved for each pair of breeding Burrowing Owls or single unpaired resident bird. The configuration of the protected site will be submitted to DFG for approval.

Mitigation Measure TR-4: Maintain Traffic Lanes and Limit Hours of Construction on page 3.10-18 in Chapter 3.10, Transportation, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure TR-4: Maintain Traffic Lanes and Limit Hours of Construction The City of Modesto’s selected contractor will not conduct construction on arterial streets during the peak traffic period, and where feasible, will maintain the existing number of traffic lanes through pipeline construction. For pipeline segments with construction V/C ratios over 1.5 and construction duration that would exceed two weeks, if the contractor is unable to maintain the existing number of traffic lanes through pipeline construction zones, construction activities will be limited to evening hours.1 This practice applies to the following routes:

1 Construction V/C ratios were calculated for the peak traffic period. For segments with construction V/C ratios between 1.0 and 1.5, the off-peak (midday) construction V/C was not calculated but is anticipated to be close to or below 1.0. For this reason, midday construction for these segments is not anticipated to result in LOS failure and would be allowed.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Carpenter Avenue, south of Maze Boulevard

Yosemite Boulevard, near Codoni Avenue

Briggsmore Avenue

Mitigation Measure CUME1: Implement Enhanced Measures to Control PM10 Generation, as Recommended by SJVUAPCD (2002) on page 4.3-6 in Chapter 4.3, Cumulative Impacts, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure CUME1: Implement Enhanced Measures to Control PM10 Generation, as Recommended by SJVUAPCD, Regulation VIII (amended 20024)The City and MID will require construction contractors to implement the SJVUAPCD’s optional and enhanced PM10 control measures, listed below, or their functional equivalents.

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;

On sites with a slope greater than 1%, install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;

Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site;

Install wind and/or water breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas;

Suspend excavation and grading activity when Regulation VIII’s 20% opacity limitation is exceeded;

Ensure that the accumulation of mud or dirt is expeditiously removed from adjacent public streets throughout the duration of construction activities, where such accumulation is visible (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions);

Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, or other construction activity at any one time.

These measures will be incorporated into project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure that they are contractually enforceable. For each phase of the project, the entity responsible for retaining construction contractors will be responsible for ensuring that these measures are correctly and effectively implemented; MID will be responsible during construction of MID facilities, and the City will be responsible during the construction of City facilities.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

Mitigation Measure CUME2: Require Use of Measures to Reduce Emissions on page 4.3-6 in Chapter 4.3, Cumulative Impacts, has been revised as follows:

Mitigation Measure CUME2: Require Use of Measures to Reduce EmissionsThe City and MID will require construction contractors to implement the following measures to reduce emissions of combustion byproducts, or their functional equivalents.

Minimize idling time to 10-minute maximum.

Limit the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use to the minimum practical.

Take steps to curtail construction activity during periods of high ambient pollution concentrations, such as reducing construction activity during the peak hours of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways and ceasing construction activity during days declared as Spare the Air days by the SJVAPCD.

These measures will be incorporated into project construction documents (plans and specifications) to ensure that they are contractually enforceable. For each phase of the project, the entity responsible for retaining construction contractors will be responsible for ensuring that these measures are correctly and effectively implemented; MID will be responsible during construction of MID facilities, and the City will be responsible during the construction of City facilities.

The following text has been added to page 5-9, Chapter 5, Alternatives, under Delayed Alternative:

Water Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality

Without the expanded MRWTP and the new storage and distribution facilities, the need for surface water from Don Pedro reservoir would be decreased, and would result in reduced effects on water levels in Don Pedro Reservoir and flows in the Tuolumne River until such a time as the facilities were to be constructed. Note that these impacts of the proposed project were not identified as significant in this SEIR.

In addition, this alternative could result in significant adverse effects on groundwater levels if groundwater were used as an alternative source of supply and it was pumped in excess of sustainable yield of the aquifer. The water quality of the groundwater to be pumped to make up the supply need in many areas of the City would need expensive treatment systems to meet regulatory drinking standards. These treatment systems would consume energy and require disposal of waste products.




June 2005

J&S 03-564

The following text on page 6-1, Chapter 6, Water Transfer Petition Information,has been revised as follows:

Effects on the amounts of water the Petitioner is entitled to use. Thistransfer would result in no change to the amounts of water that Modesto Irrigation District (MID) is entitled to use. The water right license terms and conditions control the amount of water that the petitioner is entitled to use.The water to be transferred to the City is available due to the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. As this conversion occurs, water once used for agriculture will instead be used by residents of Modesto within the MID service area. The discussion of Sources of Additional Water Water Supply and Demand Setting in Chapter 3.4, Water Resources, of this SEIR provides additional detail on the agricultural to urban conversion ratio.

Documents

MRWTP Phase Two Expansion Project - Final … Phase Two Expansion Project Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report iii June 2005 J&S 03-564 Figures Page 2-1 …