HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09211999 - C241 TO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
os
FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER ANDCounty
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair
Supervisor Dark DeSaulnier
[SATE; September 21 , 1999
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR THE CALFED SAY-DELTA PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION
R COMMENDATIO
AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to Lester Snow,
Executive Director of the CALEED Say-Delta Program, conveying County comments
on CALFED's revised Graft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement.
EICAL IMPACT
Done.
BACKGROUND/REASONS ICOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee discussed the CALEED Bay-
Delta Program EIR/EIS at its meeting on September 20, 1999, Attached to this report
for background are a draft County comment letter and a background ;report prepared
by Water Agency staff for the Transportation, eater, and Infrastructure Committee
meeting.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _ OTHER
SIC3NATURE(S).
SuoervisoL,Qo ereCh it SuDervisor Mark DeSaulnier
ACTION OF SOARS ON se twi er zmoiAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ,. OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ASSENT - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: - NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENTo ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Kopchik, CIT (335-1227) ATT'ESTEO ter 21, 1999
Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC OF
cc: CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works
Department of Agriculture S f
� .._,,..a DEPUTY
Y
CON
TRA COSTA COUNT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
651 Dine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299
T ; Transportation, 'dater, and Infrastructure Committee
Supervisor Donna Gerber, Chair
Supervisor Dark DeSaulnier,Member
FROM: John Kopcc _, Water Agency Staff
DATE: September 15, 1999
SUBJECT: County Comments on the CALFED Bay-Delta Program EIRJEIS
At the August 2, 1999 meeting of the Transportation,Water, and Infrastructure("TWI")Committee,
members decided to develop comments on the revised CALFED Bay-Delta Program.Draft EII2/EIS
through the TWI Committee. This report provides background on CALFED and the Draft EIPJEIS,
explains the rationale for potential County comments,and includes as an attachment a draft comment
letter for your review. Both this report and the comment letter are based on staff work and Board
action related to past County comments on CALFED.
OVERVIEW OF THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is one outcome of the December 1994 Bay-Delta Accord(the first
major agreement between urban, agricultural and environmental water interests in California's
historic battles over water) and is a joint planning process sponsored by an array of state and federal
agencies. It is intended to resolve, at least partially, problems which are manifest in the Delta and
portions of the Bay. CALFED has identified four primary types of problems on which to focus: 1)
water quality; 2) ecosystem quality; 3)reliability of water supply; and 4) integrity of Delta levees.
CALFED has also identified six so-called `solution principles" which are the criteria by which
proposed programs will be judged. According to these principles, the preferred alternative in the
final EISIEIR must be: 1) affordable; 2) equitable; 3) durable; 4) implementable; 5) must reduce
conflict among competing interests; and 6)must not have significant redirected impacts. CALFED
seeks to be loosely consensus-based, and sponsors a variety of stakeholder forums to help achieve
this goal.
CALFED is a three phase program. phase 1, which was completed in 1997, included scoping and
I
.......................... .......... .............. ..........................................
the development of three alternatives for further environmental review. Phase 11 is currently
underway and involves the development of a draft program-level EIS/EIR and the certification of
a final program-level EIS/EIR by the summer of 2000. Phase Ill involves site-specific project
analysis and environmental review beginning in the year 2000.
REVISED DRAFT EIR/EIS
CALFED released an initial Draft Programmatic EIR/EIS in the Spring of 1998. The County
submitted comments on the initial Draft on June 23, 1998. CALFED released a revised Draft
EIR/EIS on June 25, 1999, and comments are due on the new document by September 23, 1999. The
revised document consists of 14 separate volumes. Public hearings on the Draft EIR/EIS are being
held throughout the state during the summer, including one public hearing held on September 8 in
Antioch. Copies of the CALFED documents, past staff reports, and past County comments are
available upon request.
CALFED is considering a wide range of actions to address the four primary Delta problems listed
previously. Most of these proposed actions are contained within a core of seven common Program
Elements are proposed to be included in any CALFED plan that is selected. In addition to the seven
common Elements, the CALFED plan includes an eighth Program Element related to Water
Conveyance which includes four distinct alternatives for conveying water through the Delta.
The seven common Program Elements are: the Long-Term Levee Protection Plan,the Water Quality
Program, the Ecosystem Restoration Program, the Water Use Efficiency Program, the Water
Transfer Program, the Watershed Program and Storage. Unlike the other elements, implementation
of the storage component is contingent on progress in other areas. For instance,the storage element
calls for development or expansion of new reservoirs or groundwater banks,but links these actions
to successful completion of other actions, such as water conservation.
Alternatives which were analyzed in the EIS/EIR are distinguished by differences in how water is
transported through the Delta. Alternative 1 relies primarily on the existing system of natural
channels to transport water though the capacity of some South Delta channels and pumping capacity
at South Delta facilities would be increased. Alternative 2 would include the South Delta features
of Alternative 1,but would also attempt to make water transport more efficient by constructing a 6-
mile, 10,000 cfs isolated canal from the Sacramento River near Hood to the Mokelumue River and
by widening some channels in the North Delta. Alternative 3 would include construction of a 5,000
cfs to 15,000 cfs isolated conveyance (i.e., a pipeline or canal or some kind) to transport water
around the natural channels to the large export pumps in the South Delta, and could also include
some channel enlargements. The fourth alternative, the Preferred Program Alternative, most closely
resembles Alternative I but also calls for evaluating a 6-mile "pilot" conveyance facility as in
Alternative 2 (but only 4000 cfs in the Preferred Alternative instead of 10,000 cfs). The isolated
facility would only be constructed under the Preferred Alternative if, through a pre-determined
process, it is deemed necessary for public health and/or fisheries.
COUNTY AND WATER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
The County and its water agency have participated in the CALFED Program since its inception.
Staff from the Water Agency periodically attend CALFED workshops and meetings, as well as
2
.................. .................. .................. ...........................
........................................................
........... .............................................................................
meetings of the Bay Delta Advisory Council and the meetings of the various BDAC work groups
(BDAC is a panel of stakeholders and agencies which is intended to provide guidance to the
CALFED program; it is not the only vehicle for public involvement). The County and the Water
Agency have submitted several letters to CALFED as the program has progressed,including letters
from the Board on the CALFED scoping process (May 14, 1996), on the scrape of the proposed
CALFED Habitat Conservation Flan (October 14, 1997), on the Draft Ecosystem .Restoration
Program Plan(October 14, 1997),on selecting interim restoration projects(December 2, 1997)and
on the initial Draft EIS/ETR(June 23, 1998). These letters have stressed two primary issues: 1)the
importance of maintaining a common Delta pool for uses and users in order to meet the durability
solution principle; and 2)the need to thoroughly consider the impacts to water quality caused by
agricultural drainage.
During its review of the earlier draft CALFED documents in 1997 and 1998, the Water Committee
drafted the following mission statement to guide its process of reviewing and j commenting on the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program: Contra Costa County supports the intent of°the C,4LFED BayDelta
Program to restore the natural resources of the Bay-Delta system and resolve the longstanding
conflicts associated with utilizing these natural resources. Contra Costa County will actively
participate in and comment on the actions of the CALFED Bay-.Delta Program to ensure the
protection,preservation, and enhancement of water equality,freshwaterflows,fisheries, wetlands,
and educational/recreational opportunities of the,fan Francisco Bay-.Delta estuary system.
KEY ISSUES
The CALFED program is addressing many issues of concern to Contra Costa County. A summary
and brief analysis of some of the major CALFED components with significant bearing on the
interests of the County are presented below. Storage and conveyance alternatives,probably the most
crucial issue from a County perspective, are discussed last. Ecosystem restoration actions are not
discussed extensively because the Board commented on that specific issue in October of 1997.
CALFED IMPLEMENTATION FLAN
The Implementation Flan released by CALFED discusses two important issues: assurances and
financing. The document outlines the range of tools which could be used as well as the policy
questions that must be answered to select from among these tools. The revised document is
significantly improved from prior versions. However, the document still lacks linformation on how
some actions will be implemented and paid for. CALFED contends that this detail is premature
because a decision on which actions will be taken is needed first. Unfortunately, it is very difficult
to evaluate certain proposed actions, such as an isolated facility and expanded pumping capacity
without knowing how the"proper"use of these facilities will be assured or who will pay for them.
Some examples of assurances and financing issues of interest to the County that are raised but not
resolved in the Implementation Flan are the following:
• How can we be assured that the expanded capacity of the South Delta pumps will only be
used for operational flexibility and not to export more water, particularly at inappropriate
times of the year?
Who will operate any isolated conveyance facility? What criteria will be used to determine
3
............. ..........I................................
.......................I..........11.1.11.1.......
how much water will flow through the facility and how much will flow through the Delta
(i.e. criteria to guide a balancing or prioritizing of the competing goals of fisheries
protection,export water quality,and Delta water quality)? How can we be assured that these
criteria will not be changed?
• How can diverters of Delta water be protected from further mitigation requirements through a
Conservation Strategy (similar to a Habitat Conservation Plan) while extending the
commensurate level of protection to the biological resources of the Delta? This problem is
magnified because we may not be able to identify or effectively address the causes of species
decline.
® Who will pay for major new dams, for an isolated facility, and for ecosystem/restoration
activities?The Implementation Plan suggests that the general public will be asked to fund a share
of these efforts because the isolated facility may be built (in part) to improve fisheries, new
reservoirs may be used(in part) to increase through-Delta flows, and restoration activities may
be viewed as the responsibility of society rather than as measures to mitigate for damage caused
by Delta exports or other specific actions.
The draft comment letter briefly addresses these implementation issues.
WATER QUALITY.PROGRAM
Like the Implementation Strategy discussed above, the CALFED document which describes the
Water Quality Program is fairly general but much improved from prior drafts. With respect to
agricultural drainage, a primary cause of poor water quality in the San Joaquin River and parts of
the Delta,CALFED identifies some very broad and appropriate goals and now also contains added
detail on possible ways to address the problem. However, CALFED's strategy still lacks some
necessary detail and emphasizes approaches which are supported by farmers and avoids stronger
remedies which are controversial but likely to be more effective. The document mentions land
retirement and more efficient irrigation,but provides no description of how this will occur or where
funding will come from, and sets more cautious goals for implementation. Formerly,CALFED had
set a target of retiring 70,000 acres of the most drainage-impaired lands in the San Joaquin Valley,
but this figure has been reduced to 3,000 to 37,400 acres. (early in the CALFED process,retiring as
much as 800,000 acres was considered). Likewise, land retirement would only be implemented after
all other approaches have been exhausted, including experimental techniques such as drainage
treatment. The Water Quality Program could also be improved by including specific and enforceable
performance criteria for the attainment of water quality standards, a tool which may help to correct
past limited -effectiveness of the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards in some areas,
particularly the San Joaquin River. The Draft comment letter briefly addresses these issues.
WATER STORAGE
Storage is becoming the biggest issue in the CALFED debate. Water users are urging CALFED to
develop new water supplies for a growing population by creating additional storage, beyond the
storage needed for operational flexibility and improved reliability. Storage proponents argue that the
new diversions needed to fill this storage could be timed to occur just after peak flows to minimize
ecological impacts(at such times, the magnitude of diversions would be very small relative to total
4
................................................. .......................................... .................................
......................................................................
............................................................. .............
............................ ............. ...............
.....................................................................''I'll'',................
........................................ .......................................
flaws; also, maximum Peak and flows would be maintained as hese have important ecological
functions). They also argue that new storage could be used to provide increased flows for fish
during critical periods. Environmental and fishing interests argue that new diversions and reservoirs
run counter to the goal of restoring the Delta and its freshwater flaws, though conjunctive use of
groundwater as a storage technique is generally supported. CALFED has included storage in all
program alternatives,but has linked construction of new reservoirs to improved water conservation
and other actions. Likewise,CALFED has maintained that storage is intended to more reliably meet
contracted water deliveries and to supply fisheries,not to expand the overall water supply. The Draft
comment letter supports storage as necessary to support water supply reliability and provide for
freshwater flows for the environment,but urges that storage be created in the most environmentally
benign manner possible, such as through groundwater banking.
POTENTIALLY,SIGNIFICANT LAND CONVERSIONS IN THE COUNTY
Within the Storage and conveyance elements, two specific potential projects are mentioned which
could involve significant land conversions in the County:(1) expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir
from a capacity of 100,000 acre feet to an approximate capacity of one million acre feet, and (2)
levee setbacks and channel enlargement along Old River,which could impact Byron Tract, Orwood
Tract, Palm Tract and possibly other areas. Flooding of some Delta islands, similar to what is
proposed under the Delta Wetlands project,is another action under consideration. These actions are
mentioned by CALFED primarily as examples of specific projects which could be performed if
program level alternatives (i.e. "increase storage south of the Delta")were selected. Project level
environmental review of these actions would be required if they were to proceed. Comments on
these matters could be provided now or withheld until project-level review, should that ever occur.
WATER USE EFFICIENCY
Ensuring that water users,particularly agricultural customers of the state and federal water projects
who have not agreed to binding efficiency guidelines such as those adopted by urban agencies,make
efficient use of existing supplies before new supplies are developed. This may be an appropriate
recommendation consistent with past County policy to protect freshwater flows.
DELTA AGRICULTURE&RECREATION
The Ecosystem Restoration Program is drawing considerable attention from farmers in the Delta
concerned about the loss of agricultural lands to habitat and facilities. The Draft letter urges
CALFED to do more to minimize and mitigate impacts to Delta agriculture while making serious
efforts to restore the ecosystem. Some Delta recreation interests are also concerned about program
impacts on recreation, including speed limits, channel barriers, conversion of deep water areas to
wetlands, etc. Recreation and habitat should be mutually beneficial and the draft letter urges greater
consideration of recreation heeds.
CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES
Provided below is a summary of the four conveyance alternatives, the common Delta pool concept,
and the other long-standing policy arguments regarding the Peripheral Canal or other isolated
conveyance facilities. The focus, however, is on how the County should comment on the
conveyance aspects of CALFED and how past policy should inform these comments.
5
............... ..............
Summary of the Four Alternatives: The major distinguishing features of the four conveyance
alternatives are summarized below and in the attached Executive Summary. It is important to note
that the method of conveyance selected has more to do with the quality of water exported from the
Delta than it does with the quantity of Delta exports. Other features of the CALFED program, such
as proposed new reservoirs and increased pumping capacity,relate more closely to the quantity of
water exported from the Delta, and comments on these components should reflect any County
concerns over increased diversions.
Alternative I -Involves the least changes: Relies primarily on existing Delta channels to convey
water through the Delta. Some channel widening and pumping capacity increases
are planned for the South Delta.
Alternative 2 -Includes the South Delta features of Alternative I plus a 6 mile, 10,000 cfs isolated
canal to improve conveyance of fresh water flows from the Sacramento River
towards the South Delta.
Alternative 3 -Includes construction of a 5,000 efs to 15,000 cfs isolated facility(pipeline or canal)
to transport water from the Sacramento River near Hood to the South Delta pumps.
Channel widening in the South and North Delta could also be included.
Preferred program Alternative—same as Alternative 1, except that evaluation of a 6 mile, 4000 cfs
"pilot"conveyance facility(smaller than in Alternative 2) would be included during
a seven year Stage I to the CALFED Program. The short isolated facility would
only be constructed under the preferred Alternative if Stage I actions in the South
Delta do not adequately protect public health or fisheries.
None of the alternatives are predicted to have a significant impact on salinity intrusion. The reasons
for this are the following: (1) the requirements for maintaining specific fresh water conditions were
fixed by the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord; and(2)the only proposed new diversions to new storage are
planned for periods of very high flow. The Ecosystem Restoration Program may provide new flows
for the environment during critical periods, which might have some small positive impact on X2.
However, this assumes that willing sellers of water can be found--not at all a certainty.
Summary of Policy issues:The County and others have for many years advocated the maintenance
of a common Delta pool to ensure that all parties which use or have a stake in the Delta have shared
need to maintain water quality, flows, and healthy populations of fish and wildlife. The County
General Plan addresses this matter, stating E.The County shall actively oppose any and all efforts
to construct a peripheral canal or any other water diversion system that reduces Delta water flows
unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such a system would, in fact, protect,
preserve and enhance water quality and fisheries of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary system.
(Policy 8-19 on Page 8-29). Proponents of the isolated facility argue that the common Delta pool
has not worked welt to date and that an isolated facility is needed to ensure a safer(from a health
perspective)water supply, to improve the reliability of this supply, and to protect fisheries from the
reverse flow problems in the Delta caused by heavy pumping in the South Delta.
Evaluating the Conveyance Alternatives: As CALFED has only identified a draft preferred
alternative, the County should, in its comments, indicate which alternative or alternatives it favors.
6
. . ... .... ......
..........
Certain alternatives do not benefit the interests of the County, and/or have little chance of being
selected, and should be abandoned. For example, some variations of Alternative 3 call for a large
isolated facility with a capacity of 15,400 cls(the 1982 Peripheral Canal and was to be 23,€ 00 cfs,
though it was to have been constructed somewhat differently). Such a facility would significantly
degrade in-Delta water quality, would provide no physical assurance that any operating criteria
designed to protect the Delta would be adhered to, and would essentially eliminate the common
Delta pool. Other alternatives, such as the short, 6 mile facility which could be a part of the
Preferred Alternative, present a more complicated policy question for the County.
The key questions before the County are: (1) whether a short "pilot" facility presents a different
policy question than a full-length isolated facility; (2)whether the full-length isolated facilities meet
the requirements of the County General Plan(staff can think of no reason for changing the General
Plan policy); (3) whether the claimed advantages of a small full-length isolated facility are
substantive and important from a County perspective; and (4)whether the benefits of a small full-
length isolated facility outweigh the costs of a diminished common.Delta pool. Preliminary analysis
of these four points is provided below.
a
Question 1: Does a short'`pilot"facility
_presents a different policy question than a full-let,
isolated facility In terms of physical impact, a short isolated facility would not have the
same effect on the County as a full length facility. A short facility would improve the flow
of fresh water from north to south in the Delta, and is predicted to (on average) reduce
salinity at Rock slough (one of CC 's intakes) and at Clifton Court (the intake for the
state and federal projects.) A full length facility could increase salinity at Rock Slough and
other parts of the Delta, but could also have some positive impacts to fisheries and drinking
water, as explained below. However, CALFED describes the short'facility as a "pilot',
raising the possibility that supporting the short facility could lead to the fail length facility
or be construed as supportive of a full length facility.
Conclusion: The potential advantages of a short facility must be weighed against the
potential disadvantages of a short facility eventually being extended and transformed into a
long facility. The information below further explains the potential', disadvantages (and
advantages) of a full length facility.
Question 2:Do the full-length isolated facilities meet the requirements of the County General
Plan? 'There appears to be some agreement among fisheries experts (particularly among
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries experts)that while all of the CALFED alternatives
would benefit fisheries to some extent,Alternative 3 (full length isolated facility)would have
the most benefit. Biologists predict Alternative 3 would best reduce the negative effects of
South Delta diversions (by reducing the need to transport fish caught in screens and by
reducing diversions in important spawning habitats),best reduce reverse flow problems, and
best restore a Delta circulation that is healthy to fish. (A short isolated facility would not
provide the fisheries benefits predicted for a full-length facility and, by adding another
diversion point and fish screen, it would create a new source of fish mortality.) In terms of
Delta water quality, a full-length isolated facility has significant disadvantages, mainly
because it would increase the impact of poor quality agricultural drainage which flows
northward in the San Joaquin River.
7
...................................
Conclusion: The question of whether CALFED's proposed isolated facility, as compared
with other conveyance alternatives, would meet the criteria outlined in the General Plan
cannot be answered definitively. Fisheries might benefit from a full-length isolated facility,
but such a facility would seriously degrade water quality in some areas and improve it in
others,making it difficult to assess the overall impact.
Question 3:Do the claimed advantages of a small full-length isolated facility are substantive
and important from a County perspective? The primary advantages of a small, full-length
isolated facility are the predicted improvements to fisheries,to export water quality, and
to the reliability of export water supplies. The predicted advantages to fisheries of a full-
length facility are discussed in more detail above and do constitute a substantive
improvement from a County perspective. Likewise, if a full-length isolated facility were
built, it is possible that County residents that now receive their water from the Delta could
instead receive water from the isolated facility. Such a facility would provide water of a
better quality than the water provided now. This is important not only to reduce the saltiness
of tan water, but also to reduce the associated levels of bromide which can react with
chemical disinfectants to produce trihalomethanes(THMs)--known carcinogens which are
suspected to increase the risk of miscarriage and which we continue to learn more about
(more stringent THM standards are expected in the near future). Regarding reliability of
exports, to the extent that an isolated facility would provide water to County residents and
would reduce the impact of Delta levee failures (in terms of short term increased salinity
intrusion), the County does have some interest in this outcome, though it is difficult to
determine how much. CALFED has predicted that a full-length isolated facility would
benefit export reliability by excluding these diversions from regulations on Delta exports
(such as criteria for maintaining certain Export-Inflow ratios), but this asserted benefit
applies more to non-County exporters, as Los Vaqueros Reservoir should effectively boost
the reliability of CCWD supplies.
Conclusion: At least some of asserted benefits of an isolated facility are substantive and
important to the County.
Question 4: the benefits of a small full-length isolated facility outweigh the costs of a
diminished common Delta p2211 Weighing the advantages of a smaller full-length isolated
facility against the disadvantages of diminishing the common Delta pool is difficult because:
(1) we lack important information on assurances and financing; and(2) we are required to
choose among some important, long-held County interests. To be specific, the County
would have to choose between the potential improvements to fisheries and tap water quality
offered by a small full-length facility on one hand, and the generally better in-Delta water
quality and the long-term assurance of a maintained common Delta pool offered by through-
Delta conveyance on the other.
Conclusion: Staff's view is that the uncertainties associated with the Assurances,Financing,
and the Water Quality Programs (all discussed above), make accurate comparison of the
predicted advantages and disadvantage of a small, full-length facility close to impossible.
The physical assurance of through-Delta conveyance, which would maintain the common
Delta pool and better protect in-Delta water quality, are more concrete and important to the
interests of the County than the predicted but far from certain advantages of a small isolated
facility.
8
...................................
..............................................
..................................
.....................................................................................
............................................................
Overall Conclusion: Staff does not recommend supporting a full-length isolated facility at
this time. Since the shorter facility is a likely or potential first step toward a full facility,the
most conservative approach for the County would be to oppose the shorter facility at this
time as well.
PRIMARY ISSUES FOR INCLUSION IN THE BOARD'S COMMENT LETTER
Staff recommends that the Water Committee authorize the Chair to transmit convents on the Draft
Programmatic EIRlEIS for the CALEED Bay-Delta Program which:
® explain the County's strong concern with the construction of an isolated facility of any length
because the uncertainties and disadvantages far outweigh any advantages,
i recommend through-Delta conveyance
urge strengthening and expanding the Water Quality Program, the Water Use Efficiency
Program, the financing strategy, and the assurances package,
® urge the maintenance or enhancement of freshwater flows to and through the Delta to benefit
fisheries and Delta water quality,
® recommend inclusion of some new water storage to provide for reliability, operational
flexibility, emergency reserves, and increased freshwater flows through the Delta,but urge
that such storage be developed and operated in the most environmentally benign manner
possible,
recommend that the Ecosystem Restoration Plan be refined to minimize and mitigate impacts
to Delta agriculture while maintaining restoration goals,
urge support for actions to improve educational and recreational opportunities in the Delta, and
recommend regulatory streamlining for use of dredged material in the Levee Program.
Attachments*
Draft comment letter on the Draft CALEED EIR/EIS
S:conservtohn/c€edtw nmems99
9
mom
"ALFE
BAY—DELTA
ELT
PROGRAM
e�
Uts
DaUtIve Ummal y
Draft
s
E
1
Programmati( ffi/EIR
June fi 4 8
d
C
Executive Summar
C LFI- '
BAY-DEL-11 A
loft.. ' CSC RIMM
Draft hro,3rammatic Environmenta impact 5taternent/
environmental Impact Kepor-t
:June 1999
Are you interested in more information?
You can contact the CALVED Bay-Delta Program toll-free at
(800)-900-3587 or(916)-653-5820, or visit us at our website.-
li'Ltp://calfcd.ca.gov
Comments on the Draft Programmatic EISIEI2 may be submited
in writing on or before September.23, 1999 to:
CALF ED Bay-Delta Program
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1 155
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Rick Breitenbach
ro��a
.......................... ................... .....................
.....................................I.......................... ... . ..
Executive SummarY
For decades, the Bay-Delta has been the focus of competing economic,
ecological, urban, and agricultural interests. The CALFED Bay-Delta
Program is a cooperative interagency effort to develop a long-term
solution to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, flood control,
and water quality problems in the Bay-Delta.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
THE CALFED PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF PROGRAM STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6
OVERVIEW OF THE PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE . . . . . ES-15
SUMMARY OF CONSEQUENCES OF PREFERRED
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-17
NEXTSTEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-20
CAI FED D D1,11t •June 1993
................ .............
........... ..................... ....................
.......... ........... ............
................................ ........... ........................
........................................
....................................................................
............. ,,
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Bay/San Joaquin Delta Estuary(Bay-Delta)is the largest estuary on the
West Coast. It consists of a maze of tributaries, sloughs, and islands and is a haven for The Bay-Delta
includes over 738,040
plants and wildlife—supporting more than 750 plant and animal species. The Bay-Delta acres in five counties
includes over 738,000 acres in five counties and is critical to California's economy, and is critical to
supplying drinking water for two-thirds of all Californians and irrigation water for over California's economy,
7 million acres of the most highly productive agricultural land in the world. Although all supplying drinking
water for two-thirds
agree or,its importance for loth habitat and as a,reliable source of water,few have agreed of all Californians and
on how to manage and protect this valuable resource. irrigation water for
over 7 million acres of
For decades the Bay-Delta has been the focus of competing economic ecological,urban the most highly
' y p g g ^ productive agricultural
and agricultural interests. These conflicting demands have resulted in declining wildlife land in the world.
habitat, native plant and animal species becoming threatened with extinction, the
degradation of the Delta as a reliable source of high quality -water, and a Delta levee
system faced with a high risk of failure.
Even though environmental,urban, and agricultural interests have recognized the Delta
as a critical resource, they have been unable to agree on appropriate management of the given though
Delta resources. environmental; urban,
and agricultural
interests have
Seeking solutions to the resource problems in the Bay-Delta, state and federal agencies recognized the Delta
signed a Framework Agreement in June of 1994 that provided increased coordination and as a critical resource,
they have been
communication for environmental protection and water supply dependability. The unabe to agree on
impetus to forge this Joint effort came at the state level in December 1992 with formation appropriate
of the Water Policy Council. Li September 1993,the Federal Ecosystem Directorate was management of the
created to coordinate Federal resource protection and management decisions for the delta resources.
Bay-Delta system. The Framework Agreement laid the foundation for the Bay-Delta
Accord and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program(Program).The Bay-Delta Accord detailed
interim measures for both environmental protection and regulatory stability in the Bay-
Delta.
CAI FED 0,aft Pioryam ,atrc£i51EiR+June 1999 ES-1
...........................................................................
Executive SumrnaEy
----------------'________'
� �
The Program oversees the coordination and increased communication between federal
agencies, state agencies, and stakeholders in three areas outlined in the Framework The Program over-sees
the coordination and
Agreement: increased commun�
ication between re
• Substantive and procedural aspects of water quality standard setting. eral agencies, state
agencies, and stake-
• Improved coordination of water supply operations with endangered species protection holders in'three areas
oWined in the Frame-
and water quality standard compliance. work Agreement.
• Development of a long-term solution to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability,
flood control, and water quality problems in the Bay-Delta.
The Program is charged with responsibility for the thircl issue identified in the
Framework Agreement. This Draft Programmatic Environmental I m-pact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIVEIR) evaluates this long term program.
THE CALFED PROGRAM
T he Program is a cooperative,
interagency effort involving 15 state Role oF CAU��LD Aeencje� In Preporation
and federai agencies with or Proe-rommatic QS/Qlj_�
management ancl regulatory
responsibilities in the Bay-Delta. Lead Agencies—State and federal agencies who have the prmcipal responsibility for
Lng out Of approving the project:
6 Resources Agency of California
Bay-Delta stakeholders also contri- - U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
bute to the Program design and to U.S.Bureau of Reclamation
the problem-solving/dectsion-rnaking U,S,National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
process. Public participation and U.S.Natural Resource Conservation Service
input have been essential throughout U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
the process, received through the Responsible Agencies—State agencies, other than the lead agencies, with 2. legal
Bay-Delta Advisory Council res-ponsibility for carrying out or approving the project:
(BDAQ, public participation in California Environmenl:21 Protection Agency
California Department of Fish and Game*
workshops, scoping meetings, com- CJ-iforma Department of Water Resources
ment letters, and other public Califorr,6 State Water Resources Control Board
outreach efforts. Cooperating Agencies—Federal agencies, other than the lead agencies, with
;'diction by law or special expertise with respect to any envirciriment2l impact:
BDAC is chartered under the Federal ur U-S'.Forest Service
Advisory Cornfruittee Act and is U.S.Geological Survej,
U.S.Western Area Power Admimstration
comprised of stakeholders in U.S.Bureau of Land Management
organizations from throughout Other agencies,such asth,�,California Department of Food and Agricuiture,regularly
California. This group of public par-icipate.
advisors helps to define problems Ul
_..... . .
Executive Summary
public participation,comments on environmental analysis and reports,and offers advice
on proposed solutions.
PROGRAM PURPOSE
The purpose of the Program is to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan
that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of The purpose of fire
Program is to develop
the Bay-Delta system. To practicably achieve this Program purpose, GALEED will and implement a
concurrently address problems of the Bay-Delta system within four critical resource long-term compre-
categories: ecosystem quality, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee system pensive parr,that will
integrity. Important physical,ecological, and socioeconomic linkages exist between the restore ecological
health and improve
problems and possible solutions in each of these categories. Accordingly, a solution to ;neater management
problems in one resource category cannot be pursued without addressing problems in the for beneficial uses of
other resource categories.In achieving its purpose,the Program will address goals related the Bay-Cie€ta svstem.
to ecosystem quality, water supply reliability, water quality, and levee system integrity.
THE CALFED PROGRAM WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE
PHASES
In Phase I, completed in September 1996, the Program identified the problems
confronting the Bay-Delta, and developed a Mission Statement and Guiding Principles
(next page). following scoping, public comment, and agency review, the Program
identified three preliminary alternatives to be further analyzed in Phase Il.
Phase t Phase it Phase flit
Define problems. Setection of Preferred tmplementaticn of
Dewlop range of Program Allemative_ Preferred Program
solutions. Allernatye over 20-30 years.
Projel-sKditc
environmentai
evaWfion.
CALFFD Draft F110g,am atic E$S/EIA<Jvne 7999 ES-3
....................I...................I...... ............ ...... ........................................I'll,.................
Executive Summary
In Phase H,the Program refined the preliminary alternatives,conducted a comprehensive
programmatic environmental review, and released a Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR in
March 1998. As pan of this effort, the Program added greater detail to each of the
Program elements and crafted frameworks for two new Program elements: Water
Transfers and Watersheds.
Because a Preferred Program Alternative was identified since the March 1998 Draft
Programmatic EIS/EK the Program decided to rewrite the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR. Because a Preferred
The primary difference between the two documents is analysis associated with the Program Alternative
was identified since
Preferred Program Alternative,although CALFED also took the opportunity to update U"_March 1998 Draft
its analysis of consequences for all alternatives and to restructure the document into a Programmatic EIS/
more reader-friendly format.Comments received about the previous draft document were EIR,CALFED decided
to rewrite the Draft,
catalogued and incorporated into the revised program plans, and are identified or Programmatic
addressed,as appropriate, in the impact analyses.A Multi-Species Conservation Strategy EIS/EIR.
and Implementation Plan have also been completed. Phase H is expected to conclude in
2000 with-a Record of Decision and Certification (ROD/CERT).
During Phase 111,the Preferred Program Alternative will be implemented in stages over
many years.This phase will include any necessary studies and site-specific environmental During Phase H1,the
Preferred Program
review and permitting. Because of the size and complexity of the Program alternatives, Alternative will be
implementation is likely to take place over a period of 20-30 years.
implemented in
stages over many
years.
P NA-��:On
_0,0,am -it , -ertient.
C A L f!E7.D 9c,Y-Delto _)tot
The mission statement does not stand alone as a single statement of Program purpose.Rather,the mission statement is
supported by sets of primary objectives and solution principles."'he mission statement is important and reflects tile basic
intent of the Program.However,the full-expression of the Program mission is reflected in the rn;ssion statement,
objectives,and solution principles,read together,
Mission Statement
The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore
ecological health and improve coater management.for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system_
PrimaryObjectives of th--CALFED Program
Ecosystem Quality-Improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the Bay-
Delta to support sustainable populations of diverse and valuable plans and anmial species,
Witter Supply-Reduce 01C mismatch between Bay-Delta water supplies and t hv,current and projected beneficial uses
dependent on the Bay-Delta system.
• Water Quality-Provide good water quality for 2111 beneficial uses.
Vulnerability ofDelia Functions-Reduce the risk to land use and associated economic activiuvs,water sj:pply,
and the ecosysu�in f!om ca
infrastructure, - catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
CAL!:ED 01-ft il-e 959 ES-4
Executive Summary
CA#IED aq-Delta ProeT rn Mission S,,,>'tctement
Solution Principles
The solution principles were developed as a means to achieve the Program's ob; ctives in the context of a multi-purpose
mission and a history of(competing)contentious environmental,political,and institutional influences on the affected
resources.The solution principles provide an overall measure of the acceptability of alternatives and guide the design of
the institutional part of each alternative.The solution principles are:
• Reduce conflicts in the system.Solutions will reduce major conflicts among beneficial uses of water.
• Be equitable.Solutions will focus on solving problems in all problem areas.Improvement for some problems will not
be m2de without corresponding improvements for other problems.
• Be affordable.Solutions will be implementable and ma'inta'inable within the foreseeable resources of the Program and
stakeholders.
• Be durable.Solutions will have political and economic staying power and will sustain the resources they were designed
to protect and enhance.
• Be implementable.Solutions will have broad public acceptance and legal feasibility,and will be timely and relatively
simple to implement compared with other alternatives.
4 Pose no significant redirected impacts.Solutions will not solve problems in the Bay-Delta system by redirecting
significant negative impacts,when viewed in their entirety,within the Bay-Delta or to other regions of Cali€brma.
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF PROGRAM
STUDY AREA
The geographic scope of analysis and actions for the Program evolved through both
technical and public forum discussions. The geographic scope focuses on the Bay-Delta
system for purposes of problem definition, while allowing solution generation from a
truth broader area.
CALFED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION AREAS The scope of possible
solutions to Bay-Delta
s
The Program-is addressing problems that are identified in or closely linked tothe Suisunproblems encompassany anion that can be
Bay/Suisun ?harsh and Delta area. However, the scope of possible solutions to these irrmpletriented by the
problems encompass any action that can be implemented by the CALFED agencies, or CALFED D agenciesr or
can be influenced by them, to address the identified problems---regardless of whether can be influenced by
l <¢ , them,to address the
implementation takes place to the Dela, Suisun Bay,or Suisun Marsh area. identified problems--
regardless of whether
Any problern currently associated with (1) the management and control of water, or implementation takes
M the beneficial use of water iti the Bay-Delta {includitcg bath environtx3etttal artd place in the Delta,
Suisun Say,or Suisun
Marsh area.
CALFED Daft P,oq,an mat�c EIS/EIR+..tune 1999 ES-5
............I'll...................... .............. ......
.. .......................
Executive Summary
economic uses) is within the purview of the Program if at least part of the problem is
identified in the Bay-Delta or is directly associated with conditions in the Bay-Delta.
In contrast to the problem scope,the solution scope is Tuite broad—potentially including An expanded solution
any action that could help solve identified problems in the Bay-Delta. An expanded scope is necessary
solution scope is necessary because many problems related to the Ba -Delta are caused by
because many
factors outside the Bay-Delta.Moreover,an expanded solution scope is desirable from a problems related to
planning point of view because more benefits may be generated at lower cost if solutions the Bay-Delta are
are not limited to the geographic Bay-Delta. caused by factors
outside the Bay-Delta.
Geographk Swpe
7 of Problem 4�
Identification Area
R"Fslwm'
'7
Geographic scop?
of Soh.,Uon Arez
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
Each of the alternatives include the Ecosystem Restoration,Water Quality,Levee System Thealternatives are
Integrity, Water Use Efficiency, Water Transfer, Watershed, Storage, and Conveyance not intended to defime
elements. Each alternative includes an assessment with storage up to 6 million acre feet the site-specific
LMAF)and without storage.The descriptions of each of the Program elements,except for actions that Otimately
Conveyance,do not vary among the alternatives.The descriptions of the alternatives are will be implemented.
programmatic in nature, defining broad approaches to meet Program purposes. The
alternatives are not intended to define the site-specific actions that ultimately will be
implemented.The figures on pages 7 through 10 show the general features of the:Program
alternatives with a focus on Delta facilities.
CALFED Q,afl P1o91allat,C ElStEIR 19S9 ES-6
................................ . ............................. ............
0.1.1............................................................................................................. ........................................................
....................................................
. ............
J
s
�-e
Lai .r„ to ax,
A - �. cz .2
e- tz �b- z
01
tog
a� 1
� rytlEfl a�
it
at
` i � U
) m 4u
5
OL
4n td f
I
m !Z
LL
�y
x �
cs
tam! till
4C taa °fin151
tl
cl
. a Q P"VCR
6°i vs crt P � i
t7 �w 4
�
CS
g e A
CS � ,t , f 4y �toy
cz
aa„
"tz 4u
Imam—
g �
oi3 y��p�{9 � .._ 4 s • ptN ��'t^ � ' r .. ..�- a" L. 7
3 ` e cta s a
411-1 W
• ` 3
(gyp \ 1 cu "ts
a< j ul
CA f r
x <.
u
uw
LAA ,
)l E cu
1�<y$r�,e � � W Y. ...�. a 1 •mom $y t :1
is � 3 �
Csf i s i
g
+ x y1
tz
Zia
Q3
x
4
a�
r
s;
`LT mm
� � .'"^,.,,,, w1 � � � �•� tet„is �cox �
em
j eye_. aaf p4S ; tz,
L
0
It
ID
< � t
j .2 E-1 E
-u " �' t3
E
cx `� t
€� l °r3
Z --w -- d
:LJ �°° i
Executive Summary
OVERVIEW OF THE EIGHT PROGRAM ELEMENTS
The eight Programa elements provide the foundation for overall improvement in the
Bay-Delta systems. implementation of these Program elements will result in a significant
investment in and improvement of the resource conflicts in the system.For more detailed
information on each of these elements, please see the Revised Phase II Report as well as
specific program appendices.
Ecosystem Restoration Program
The goal of the Ecosystems Restoration Programa 4F ;
is to improve and increase aquatic and terrestrial Storage, The goal of the Eco
system Restoration
habitats and improve ecological functions in the Program is to improve
y y pp gco
S,g�,�, andincrease aquatic
Bay-Delta system LQ support sustainablev'i' an
opulatiQns of diverse ardd Valuable lint and wz:eruse,ti¢z; Resforseian and terrestrial hab-'
p Ps�csenyVa#¢ itats and improve
animal species. In addition, the Ecosystems F
t ecological functions!in
f r
Restoration Program, along with the water r,`1 the Bay-Delta system
ld*ter .
management b emaent strategy, 1S designed LO achieve or Transfers'' to support sustainable
� t.3, a
contribute to the recovery of listed species found �Ystent �»r ,. populations of diverse
tnsertey � �,x�, and valuable plant
in the Bay-Delta and, thus, achieve goals in the `l ' � '+ and animal species.
Multi-Species Conservation Strategy.
improvements in ecosystem health will reduce the conflict between environmental water
use and other beneficial uses,and allow:note flexibility in water management decisions.
The Ecosystem Restoration Program identifies programmatic actions designed to restore,
rehabilitate, or maintains important ecological processes, habitats, and species within
14 ecological management zones. Implementation of these programmatic actions will be
guided by six goals presented in the Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration. Nearly
100 restoration objectives have been developed which are directly linked to one of the six
goals.Each objective further defines the restoration approach for each ecological process,
habitat, species, or ecosystem stressor. One to several restoration targets have been
developed for each objective to set more specific or quantified restoration levels.
Long-terra implementation of the Ecosystem Restoration Program will be guided by the
Long-terra implemen-
adaptive management approach descri bed in the Strategic Pian for Ecosystem Restoration. sys_
Cation of the Eco
This approach to restoration will require review by an Ecosystems Restoration Science Lein Restoration
Review Panel and will rely on information developed in the Comprehensive Monitoring, Program will be
Assessment, and Research Programs. guided by the adap-
tive management
approach described in
the Strategic Pian for
Ecosystem Restor-
ation.
CALFED Draft Pro9,ar auc EIS/E18<Juno 1999 ES-1 i
Executive Summary
The Water Use Efficiency Program will build on the work of the existing Agricultural
Water Management Council and California Urban Water Conservation Council Process,
supporting and supplementing those processes through planning and technical assistance
and through targets financial incentives(both loans and grants).The Water Use Efficiency
Program has identified potential recovery of currently irrecoverable Water losses of over
1.4 million acre-feet of Water annually by 2020 as a result of CALFED actions. Before
execution of the ROD, CALFED Will identify measurable goals and objectives for its
urban and agricultural Water conservation program, Water reclamation programs, and
managed Wetlands programs.
Water Transfer Program
The Water Transfer Program proposes a frame- f the Water brasier
Work of actions, policies, and processes that, storapa caya„c«u }
Program proposes a
collectively,Will facilitate water transfers and the _ a' $ ^ framework of aeons
r i. 'Xsate,. �'t-�k a
turther development of a state-wide Water ECosystas t r s Xr policies,and pro-
cesses market. TincludesWatarSSaef Reataraticro¢ cessesthat,collec
-
he framework also l
tively,will facilitate
mechanisms to provide protection from third water transfers and
party impacts. A transfers market can improve Watar 9r3"�` .F '' the further develop-
-wide
usransfara mer t of estate
water availability for all users, including the Lave 8 �5
environment. "Transfers also can help to match Byatt t i ataf s water transfer
arta ri
water demand with water sources of the 3 ,�altty '" market.
appropriate quality,thus increasing the utility of
Water supplies.
Watershed Program
The Watershed Program provides financial and
technical assistance to local Watershed programs storaq. �:raayat, The Watershed
Program provides
that benefit the Bay-Delta system. Watershed financial and technical
actions can improve reliability by shifting thect�y3�m �G: assistance to local
timingof flouts in lase f'iCWs and wataftt�a a¢ ttaatorihana`' watershed programs
s increasing .Effie.n y = *
reducing peals flouts. These actions also help to 1Na:srsr,ae that benefit the Say-
Delta system.
maintain levee integrity during igh-f low periods.
watat
Cather Watershed actions will improve coaterLev" n I Tranafara
quality by reducing the discharge of parameters fnm VSafex,k�
of concern. t Cuafity, as ,
CALFED Draft Programmatic EISIEIR o June 1999 ES-13
Executive Summary
OVERVIEW OF THE PREFERRED
PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
The problems and potential solutions facing the .Bay-Delta involve a complex set of
interrelated biological,chemical,and physical systems. This complexity,coupled with the
broad scope and number of actions needed to implement the Program,the 20-to 31-year
implementation period, the need to test hypotheses, and resource limitations make it
necessary to implement the Program in stages. Consequently, the Preferred Program
Alternative provides for implementation of the Program in a staged mariner and
establishes mechanisms to obtain the necessary additional information to guide the next
stage of decision making.
The Preferred .Program Alternative consists of a through-Delta conveyance approach,
coupled with ecosystems restoration, water quality improvements, levee system The Preferred
Program Alternative
improvements, increased water use efficiency, improved water transfer opportunities, meets the Program's
watershed restoration, and a Water Management Strategy that includes an integrated multiple purposes,
storage program.. The Preferred Program Alternative meets the Program's multiple reduces adverse
purposes, reduces adverse environmental effects, and provides a system of research and environmental effects,
monitorin to determine whether modifications or additional actions are needed; It and provides a system
g of research and
provides multiple benefits, including: monitoring to
determine whether
a Modifying the timing and magnitude of flow to restore ecological processes and to modifications or
` rove conditions for fish wildlife d Tants in the Bay-Delta stem. additional actions are
.m
prove � anp Y Y needed.
• Improving and increasing aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
• Modifying and eliminating fish passage barriers.
• Coa:structing fish screens that use the best available technology.
• Reducing the loads and impacts of bromide, total organic carbon, pathogens,
nutrients, salinity, and turbidity.
• Deducing the impacts of pesticides.
• Reducing the impacts of trace metals, .mercury, and selenium.
® Improving and maintaining the stability of the Delta and Suisun Marsh levee system.
• Enhancing flood protection for key Delta islands.
• Expanding and implementing agricultural and urban conservation incentive programs.
• Implementing getter water nranagenient for managed wetlands.
CALFED Draft Programmatic EIS/ESR June 1999 ES-15
Executive Summary
• Implement the first stage of the Ecosystem Restoration, Water Quality, and Levee
System Integrity program flans.
• Monitor the results of these actions to determine whether ars isolated conveyance
facility as part of a dual-Delta conveyance configuration is necessary to meet the
Program objectives.
As described above, the Preferred Program Alternative adopts a set of progranur=atic
actions designed to achieve the objectives for each of the resource areas while evaluating
the effectiveness of those actions,and assessing whether modifications may be needed to
meet Program goals and objectives. The Preferred Program Alternative accordingly
constitutes the"Environmentally Preferable Alternative'as that term is used in NEPA,
and the"Environmentally Superior Alternative"as that term is used in CEQA.
SUMMARY OF CONSEQUENCES OF
PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE
The Program alternatives were analyzed to determine the potential for adverse and
beneficial consequences. The most significant potential consequences of the Preferred poteThe most significant
Z rogram Alternative are related to the resource areas listed below. For detailed quen esai conse-
quences of the
information about impacts on all environmental resource areas,please refer to Chapters 5, Preferred Program
6, and 7 in the impact analysis document. Chapter 3 in the impact analysis decurrent Alternative are related
provides a summary comparison of the consequences for all resources and Program to the resource areas
alternatives,
listed below,
RESOURCE BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
WATER SUPPLY AND Through coordinated implementation Temporary local water supply interruptions due to
LATER MANAGEMENT of Program elements, facilities turbidity of water during construction of facilities and
reoperation and integration; and, if habitat restoration activities,
appropriate, additional groundwater
andlor surface water storage.
WATER OUAUTY Improved water quality for environ- Increases in concentrations of bromide, salinity, total
mental and urban or agricultural uses dissolved solids, and total organic carbon in the Delta;
from reduced concentrations of many increased diversions of water from the Delta, reducing
contarninates,including heavy metals, outflow to the Say and changing Bay salinity; releases
pesticide residues, salts, selenium, of inorganic or organic suspended solids,or toxic sub-
pathogens, suspended sediments, stances into the water columna in the Delta, increased
total organic carbon, and bromides. water temperatures and decreased dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the£fie;ta; potential decreased in-
stream water quality from reduced in-stream flows
associated with new storage facilities.
CALrED Dalt Prog,a—wic Et5/EIR•June 1999 ES-17
................I........................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................1.111,11.11,.................
Executive Summary
RESOURCE BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
GROUNDWATER In areas undertaking managed ground- Increased groundwater extractions,resiulting in land
water use programs, tong-lerm in- subsidence, lower groundwater levels, and higher
creased groundwater levels,reduced pumping costs; degradation of groundwater quality, or
pumping-induced subsidence, im- losses of existing wells.
proved groundwater recharge, locaiiy
reduced potential for salt-water
intrusion or pumping-induced
migration of existing contaminapts,
and reduced groundwater extraction
and.educed long-term lift costs.
FISHER;ES AND AaUATlC Reactivating and maintaining eco- Increased non-native species abundance and dis-
ECOSYSTEMS logical processes and structures that tribution;blocked access to habitat and potentially
sustain healthy fish, wildflfe,and plant altered water quality and flow conditions from place-
populations;increased abundance and ment of barriers in the south Delta, altered natural
distribution of desired aquatic species. ecosystem structure,removal of benthic communities,
improved streamflow, sediment sup- and creation of conditions that may damage habitat
ply, floodplain connectivity,stream. for desired species from dredging activities;short-term
temperature, and biological ptoduc- disturbance of existing biological communities and
tivity; and reduced entrainmen't species habitat,mobilized sediments, and input con-
losses. taminants from construction activities;reduced
streamflow and Delta outflow,changed seasonal
flow, water temperature variability, and chariges in
salinity potentially resulting in reduced habitat
abundance, impaired species movernent, and in-
creased loss of fish to diversions;increased entrain-
m r
ent loss of chinook salmon and other species from
diversions to new off-stream storage;reduced fre-
quency and magnitude of net natural flow conditions
in the south and central Delta from Delta Cross
Channel operations and south Delta barriers; with a
Hood area diversion facility,impacts on individual
organisms of special status-species from reduced net
flow conditions in the Sacramento River down-stream,
of Hood, increased mortality through abrasion,
increased predation, and other factors from a new fish
screen facility for the through-Delta ele-ment on the
Sacramento River, and delayed migration and reduced
spawning success for adult fish.
VEGETATION AND Net increases in target habitat types, Fragmentation of existing habitat corridors or.small or
WILDLIFE increased protection for natural ephemeral tr�butaries as a result of inundation by
habitats, reduced toxic organic and storage reservoirs, potentially blocking the movement
inorganic constituents in the food and'Interchange of populations of some wildlife
web; increased quality and quantity of species from upper to lower watershed locations;loss
wetiand and riparian habitats; of habitat and direct impacts on special-status
increased habitat diversity; improved species, loss of incidental wetlands and riparian
vigor of target populations(inciuding habitats that depend or,agricultural water use
special-status speciesi; and long-term inefficiencies; temporary or permanent loss or
flood protection for existing and disturbance of wetland or riparian communities,
-esto, I
I led wedand, riparian, upland, and wintering waterfowl habitat, portions of rare natural
agricultural habitats. Communities and significant natural areas, and
quantity oi-quality of forage for species of concern.
ES-18
CALFED D'aft F`1091aat�C(ISIf M 1999
.................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................
................ ........
.................................................................
................................................
......................................................
Executive Summary
RESOURCE BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
AGRICULTURAL LAND Increased certainty in availability of Conversion of prime,state-wide important,and unique
AND`dVATEst USE irrigation water, potential for higher farmland;conflicts with adjacent land uses;and
value crops and higher grazing conflicts with local government pians and policies.
productivity because of better water
quality, increased property,protection
and reduction of saltwater intrusion,
updated aging and inefficient irrigation
systems,and opportunities for water
transfers that could make irrigation
water available where it may not have
been otherwise.
AGR:cuLTURAL Protection,long-term savings, Reduction in agricultural incomes in local areas.
Economics increased revenues, and certainty to
the agricultural economy.
AGRICULTURAL SOCIAL Some localized increases in Localized social effects related to reduced agricultural
ISSUES agricultural-related employment, incomes,
protection of agricultural jobs and
income from catastrophic loss due to
levee failure, and reduced future social
dislocations due to water reliability.
URBAN LAND 135E Greater flood protection for urban Displacement of existing urban residences, physical
centers. disruption or division of established communities, and
potential conflicts with local general plans.
URBAN WATER SUPPLY Lower treatment and regulatory costs, Additional costs through payment for Program
ECONOMICS improved water quality, relocated elements. Many economic effects cannot be
water supply intakes, reduced risk of determined until more specific information is available.
export interruptions caused by levee
failure, and increased water supply
availability.
UTMT?ES AND PUBLIC Reduced risk to electrical or natural Relocation or modification of major infrastructure
SERVICES gas transmission lines, utility facilities, components;increased risk of gas line rupture during
communication infrastructure, and construction.
emergency service centers due to
I
evee failure.
RECREATION RESOURCES increased open space;enhanced or Temporary or permanent closure of some.recreation
restored wetiand or wildlife habitat; areas or facilities; reduced access to recreation
improved water quality; increased facilities;decreased recreation opportunities from
fish€ng, hunting, and wildlife viewing changes in reservoir levels; loss of terrestrial and on-
opportunities; more recreation-related stream,recreation by innundation from reservoirs;
Jobs; increased quality of recreational temporary and permanent changes to motorized
experience;increased flood protection boating in the Delta from speed limits,channel
for camping facilities and boat closures, and installation of flow and fish control
launches; and increased or improved barriers;decrease in flooded lands suitable for wildlife
access to public recreation areas. viewing, hunting, and fishing;reduced water-contact
recreation quality from releases of reservoir cold
water.
CALFED Draft P,og,ammat,c E#S/EiR•June?999 ES-19
...............................................................................
.....................................................................
Executive Summary
RESOURCE BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES POTENTIALLY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
FLOOD CONTROL Easier inspection, maintenance, and Reduced levee stability and reductions in a channel's
repair of the flood control system; flow conveyance from barriers in the channel;
improved flood flow conveyance increases in seepage, wind letch, and wave erosion
caoacities; and reduced incidences of on landside levee slopes;level of flooding downstream
instability and overtopping failures; of diversions after removal of Sacramento River
levees improved to the Public Law tributary diversion structures and other flow
84-99 standards and restored obstructions; flood stages along streams;localized
floodplains would provide additional subsidence,resulting in levee slumping or cracking
system-wide flood control benefits. near levees; and adverse effects on water quality from
use of dredged materials.
POWER PRODUCTION Some increase in hydropower Decrease in amount of energy available for non-
AND ENERGY generation if new storage is project uses, possible air quality and land use impacts
constructed. from new power plants to replace lost power.
REGIONAL ECONomics Increases in.recreation-related or Adverse effects to agrictfturai sector in the Delta.
construction-based economies; Amount and allocation of costs are currently
increased land values due to flood uncertain.
protection;reduced cost to some
water supplies due to increased
storage; and some increases in
regional revenues and jobs associated
with the Storage element.
NEXT S EPS
Between the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR and the Final Programmatic EIVEIR—in,late Work will continue on
1999, work will continue on refining and evaluating the Preferred Program Alternative. refining and eval-
This effort.will include additional technical evaluations. The Program will work with uating the Preferred
ave.
elected officials,local agencies, interest groups, and the public over the coming months Program Alternat
to respond to comments on this draft to finallize the Preferred Program Alternative. A
series of public hearings to receive comments will be held around the state in August and
September 10,99. In addition,written comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR are
invited.
The Final Program.-natic EIS/EIR is expected to be adopted sometime in summer 2000.
CALFED Olaf t P109f a-1136C CISAIR ES-20
.............................................................. .................................
...................................................................
........... ................ ...................I.........................................................
:.X.................................................................... ..................
....................
CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM
Public Hearing Schedule
CALFED will Fold 15 public hearings to gain input on the Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. At present, only the date and city locations are
known. When the actual site location and tines are known, a notice will be published in local
newspapers making individuals aware of the public bearings. Below is a list of the planned dates
and cities:
August 18, 1999, in Stockton
August 19, 1999, in San .Bernardino
August 24, 1999, in .Los Angeles/Pasadena
August 25, 1999, in Salinas
August 26, 1999, in Oakland
August 31, 1999, in Los Angeles/Pasadena
September 1, 1999, in Redding
0 September 2, 1999, in Antioch
September 7, 1999, in San Jose
September 8, 1999, in Costa Mesa
®
September 9, 1999, in Santa Rosa
September 14. 1999, in Visalia
September 15, 1999, in Chico
September 21, 1999, in San Diego
September 22, 1999, in Sacramento
For more information regarding the public hearings you can:
Call (916)-657-2666
FAX (916)-654-9780
Website: htto:Hcalfed.ca.gov
In addition, written comments of the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR can be sent to the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, c/o Rick Breitenbach at the following address:
CALFED Bay-Delta Program
1416 Ninth Street, Smite 115
Sacramento, California 95814
t
3
a
i
i
i
s
z
Place
Postage
Stamp
Here #
C'ALFED Bay-Delta Program
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1155
Sacramento, California 95814
b�
o�
ua`9-
�►`� '6r.i•`-,.�`, a. ?�F. „'fid,. ^P' .', a
\
¢- X x x x
o`
s�
x x x
cu
za
J
t\6
( \�•� \
��WO�
C�
CD 0
®ol �a<�
10.
Cl) Cl) M Cl)
O 6
x i x x
x x x
x x x
t` o
q`0
x x X x
�z ops' _
cc
t
mq`�
E
i
rte- r tV ce)
CL d '
i
Com,
_ N GIOI
'+1
-1-61014
rNit
SWM
S
CAi-k�}�'Sh
T1
OL
The Board of. SupervisorsContra Phil Batchelor
C#erk of the Board
Cosh r an d
County Administration Bui€dig g �ouniy Administrator
659 Pine Street, Room, 106 �°� (925)335-+900
Maninez, California 9455'3-1233 County
John G€oia, #V.Distr ct
Gayle B. U€€kema,2m District
Donna Gertner, 3" Distinct
Park DeSau€nier, 4M District
Joe Canc€amilla, 5:" District
September 21, 1999
Mr. Lester Snow, Executive Director
CALFED Bay-Delta Program
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1155
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Comments on the Draft EIRfS for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program
Dear Mr. Snow:
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports the efforts of the C LFED Bay-Delta
Program to identify and implement comprehensive solutions to the various problem associated with
the Bay-Delta system, and believes that the plan contained in the revised Draft EIWS is properly
ambitious and contains elements which are of significant value. However,we continue to urge that
the CALFE 3 program not propose drastic and probably damaging changes to the delivery of water
through the Delta and only make changes to other aspects of the Delta system that are important to
its long tern health.. The ward of Supervisors urges the CALFED program to focus on maintaining
the common Delta pool, on increasing fresh water flaws to and through the Delta, on
comprehensively addressing the causes of Delta pollution,on restoring the fisheries of our region.,
and on improving the educational and recreational opportunities available to study and enjoy this
important state-wide resource.
® The Preferred alternative should not include an isolated transfer facility(of any length):
Modifying Delta charnels to improve the flow of water through the Delta will improve water
quality both in the Delta and at the state and federal pumps. We see no justification for
constructing an isolated canal to move the state and federal water project diversion points out
of the Delta,and assert that any solution which endorses such a concept will only aggravate the
very problems it purports to solve. Likewise, even the short isolated facility described in
CA.LFD documents presents a significant policy risk since, by all appearances, such "pilot"
facilities would be a first step toward a larger project. Maintaining the Delta as a common pool
for agricultural, environmental, and urban uses ensures a balanced distribution of resources
which is fax more binding and dependable than any agreement which calls for an isolated transfer
facility.
.fir. Lester Snow
September 21, 1999
Page 2 of 4
Inclusion of an isolated conveyance facility in the review process at this time will overshadow
Stage I efforts related to through-Delta conveyance. Because isolated transfer will be considered
and designed before Stage I is complete, adequate time will not be given to implementation,
scientific evaluation and the adaptive management process to allow through-Delta conveyance
to work. the preferred alternative as it is expressed with this premature timeframe for isolated
transfer will allow political will to push isolated transfer before the potential of other alternatives
are fully realized.
: Strengthen the Fater Quality Program by establishing enforceable performance criteria:
As currently written,CA,FEDBsWater amity Program includes broad,commendable goals and
plans for improving water quality in the Delta, but lacks concrete measures to snake changes
happen. In particular, the Mater Quality Program needs a more specific plan for reducing the
serious water quality problems caused by the discharge of agricultural drainage from. the San
Joaquin Malley to the Delta. The program should also rely more on improving regulatory
enforcement and land retirement and less on more experimental treatment technologies. This
component must be strengthened to assure that such goals, many of whichare already stated
within state regulations,will be achieved in the near future.
We do not believe that voluntary,cooperative,incentive-based efforts to improve water quality
as elaborated upon in the report will effect meaningful changes to water quality in the Delta.
Additional, appropriate water quality standards based on bard scientific data are necessary if we
are to see significant change. For example, a better scientific basis is necessary for effective
regulation of bioaccumulative elements to determine if concentration-based standards are
appropriate and what those standards should be.
• Define a specific financing strategy which fairly assigns costs based on benefits: A specific
financing plan will be needed before much of the program can be supported. This more detailed
plan must ensure that storage and conveyance facilities are primarily .funded by those parties
which would most benefit from there,namely those areas which exhort water frons.the Delta.
• Define a package of assurances which specifically states how facilities will be operated and
how water quality,freshwater flows,and fisheries will be protected(among other things):
Creating an acceptable solution will require strong assurances to all parties that plans will be
implemented as described. A crucial part of this will be assuring that new storage,pumping and
conveyance facilities will be operated in a responsible manner and will protect water quality,
flows, and fisheries. As another example,CALFED should also provide assurances that water
entitlements purchased from fanners in the Delta will be used to maintain freshwater flows to
the Delta and not used to increase exports to the south. In addition., assurances need to be
provided which ensure that increased pumping capacity in the south Delta will not be misused.
The assurances:document will need to be exceptionally concise to accommodate the adaptive
-Mr. Lester Snow
September 21, 1999
Page 3 of 4
management program's conversely flexible approach.
• Improve the Water Use Efficiency Program to ensure that existing grater supplies are used
as efficiently as possible before additional seater supplies are developed; Fater use
efficiency guidelines for agriculture must be enforceable to be consistent with the enforceable
guidelines established for urban users.
• Select a storage alternative which maximizes freshwater flows for fish and minimizes
environmental impacts:New storage is needed to provide for unproved reliability,operational
flexibility, emergency reserves, and increased opportunities for boosting freshwater flows
through the Delta during critical periods. However,such storage should be as environmentally
benign as possible. Storage plants should include conjunctive use of groundwater and should
restrict any new diversions to periods of extremely high flows.
• Refine the Ecosystem Restoration Flan to maintain ambitious restoration goals while
minimizing and mitigating impacts to Delta agriculture and. Delta Recreation.
• Levee System Program implementation will treed to include resolution of institutional
constraints related to permitting issues and funding considerations in order to use dredged
materials in upland. (levee) environments on any kind of meaningful scale. Despite the
urgent need for sediment in the Delta for levee rehabilitation,existing water quality regulations
have been and continue to be problematic. Even when materials are clean(arid in our case from
a brackish,not salute environment),with no demonstrable water quality impacts resulting from
past projects,obtaining permits and reasonable monitoring requirements to accomplish beneficial
reuse continues to be difficult at best. Further, levee demonstration projects for dredged
material disposal on levees has already been accomplished, and therefore,Stage I demonstration
projects for this purpose would be redundant. Upland disposal is the most expensive disposal
method, in general costing at least three times as much as conventional methods. If beneficial
reuse of dredged materials is to become a priority,funding must become an early consideration.
• Identify means for improving public recreation and public education opportunities in the
Delta.
• In general,the staged approach to implementation mares sense; however,it is likely that
the great variety of tasks proposed in Stage I will tape much longer than severe years to
accomplish. Although it is important to expedite these tasks, it is also incumbent upon the
CALFED group to insure that accurate,complete work has been dome and that scientific basis
exists to insure proper, appropriate decisions in subsequent stages.
• The concept of adaptive management is a good one,as flexibility in operations of the Delta
Is critical; however,the flexibility that adaptive management would allow raises questions
Mr.Lester Snow
September 21, 1999
Page 4 of 4
on haw adequate oversight can be accomplished on such a broad scale, and how solid
scientific basis can be achieved. It would seem that the flexibility provided by this concept
could backfire if not implemented in a thorough manner with appropriate oversight and careful
documentation.
Thank you in advance for your thorough consideration of these recommendations. We believe it is
vitally important that CALFED succeed in its difficult mission to solve the long-standing problems
with the Bay-Delta system, and we hope that the substantial progress you have made to date can
continue through to a conclusion even:more unproved and one in which we can all be satisfied.
Please feel free to contact John Kopchik in our Community Development Department at(925)335-
1290 if you should have any questions on this or other correspondence from the County.
Sincerely,
6'Joie ciamilla, Chair
"Co a Costa County Board of Supervisors
JR:JK
s:\Conse;vVohnl2CFEDcomrs.s99.doe