Contra Costa Water District Recent Projects to Improve Water Quality, Provide Ecosystem Benefits, and Prepare for Emergencies

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment A Page A1 Contra Costa Water District Recent Projects to Improve Water Quality, Provide Ecosystem Benefits, and Prepare for Emergencies Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem An off-stream reservoir with 100 thousand acre-foot (TAF) storage capacity, filled with water pumped from the Delta. This reservoir project provides emergency storage and water quality benefits for CCWD, but does not increase CCWD s total diversions from Delta. As part of the project, CCWD purchased nearly 20,000 acres within the watershed to protect water quality and preserve ecosystem habitats. Reservoir is filled with high quality (low salinity) water when available in the Delta. This high quality water is stored in the reservoir and released for delivery to customers when Delta salinity increases seasonally. Storage allows the District to cease all diversions and rely on stored water at times when Delta fish are most at risk. CCWD typically ceases all diversions for 30 days in most years, in compliance with the Biological Opinions. Preservation of 18,000 acres of refuge habitat and 1,500 acres of lacustrine habitat benefits many species, including San Joaquin kit fox, California red legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Emergency Preparedness Storage is available in case of emergency when direct diversions from the Delta may not be available. Annual average storage is approximately 6 months of annual demands. Completed in Reservoir is operated to pass through the low stream flows in the valley in which it is built, which maintains habitat downstream of the reservoir.

6 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Mallard Slough Intake Fish Screen Old River Intake Expansion of reservoir from 100 TAF to 160 TAF. This cost-effective expansion will raise the height of the dam while re-using the existing dam foundation and many of the major appurtenances. Construction to be completed in Expanded reservoir will be operated as described above. Additional storage will allow the District to extend the water quality benefits of the reservoir further into a multi-year drought. State-of-the-art fish screens installed in New water intake with state-of-the-art positive barrier fish screens on Old River near Highway 4. Completed in New intake location tends to have better water quality than previous 2 intake locations for most of the year. Expansion of storage will allow the District to reduce diversions during dry years, leaving more water for environmental needs. Increased storage also improves CCWD s ability to cease diverting from the Delta during critical periods for fish. The project includes further watershed improvements for terrestrial species, including preservation of new acreage and creation of new wetlands. Screen installed on existing intake to limit entrainment of fish. State-of-the-art positive barrier fish screen on new intake to limit entrainment of fish. In over 14 years of operation, CCWD has only caught one larval delta smelt, zero adult delta smelt, and zeros salmon behind the fish screens. Attachment A Page A2 Emergency Preparedness The expansion will improve emergency water storage. Annual average storage is anticipated to be approximately 1 year of average annual demand. --- Redundancy of intake locations provides flexibility in case portions of the Delta become impaired.

7 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Middle River Intake New water intake, with state-of-the-art positive barrier fish screens, on Victoria Canal south of Highway 4. Completed in New intake location tends to have better water quality in the summer and fall. With better water quality at this new intake in the summer and fall, CCWD is able to reduce diversions in the spring when the Delta fishery is most sensitive, and instead divert in the summer and fall when sensitive species are not near the intakes. Attachment A Page A3 Emergency Preparedness Redundancy of intake locations provides flexibility in case portions of the Delta become impaired. State-of-the-art positive barrier fish screen on new intake to limit entrainment of fish. Moved a nearby previously unscreened agricultural diversion behind the new fish screens to provide additional entrainment protection and reduced impacts to Delta fisheries. As part of this project, under CESA, all CCWD Delta water operations are fully mitigated, not just the incremental change due to this additional intake.

8 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Rock Slough Intake Fish Screen Contra Costa Canal Levee Elimination and Flood Protection Project (also known as Canal Replacement Project) Veale Tract Water Quality Improvement Project Construction to be completed in Replace four miles of unlined canal with a buried pipe to protect water supply from groundwater seepage and remove potential flooding hazard as new and planned development encroaches on the area. Phase 1 completed in Relocated an agricultural drain on Veale Tract. Completed in Allows Rock Slough to be used in periods when water quality is good while still protecting fish, improving delivered water quality. Reduces (Phase 1) and eliminates (Phase 2 and 3) poor quality groundwater seepage from agricultural fields and Iron House Sanitation District fields to enter the water supply. Improves the ability of CVP and SWP to meet water quality standards. Reduced the amount of agricultural drainage to reach CCWD drinking water intakes. Improves the ability of CVP and SWP to meet water quality standards. State-of-the-art positive barrier fish screen on existing intake to limit entrainment of fish and reduce access to possible predation areas. Buried pipeline reduces predation relative to open, unlined canal. New protected habitat created has substantial ecosystem benefits relative to the poor quality wetland habitat in unlined canal. Completion of Phase 2 of this project is necessary before the Dutch Slough restoration project can flood the adjacent lands. New drain location provides better mixing with Delta waters to prevent intake of high concentrations of agricultural constituents. Attachment A Page A4 Emergency Preparedness Stop log structure allows some flood control by allowing better control of water levels. Replacement of earthen levees with a buried pipe provides seismic improvements, reducing the risk of lost water supply and reducing flood hazard to surrounding residents. ---

9 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment A Page A5 Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Old River Water Quality Improvement Project Intertie with East Bay Municipal District (EBMUD) Contra Loma Reservoir Swim Lagoon Install a diffuser on RD 800 s agricultural drain. Completed in New connection between CCWD s Los Vaqueros Pipeline and EBMUD s Mokelumne Aqueduct. Completed in Construction of a swim lagoon to separate recreation from the drinking water supply. Increased dilution to reduce the concentration of constituents. Benefit in water quality provided by less saline water from EBMUD diversion on the Sacramento River to offset the potential impacts of higher salinity at CCWD intakes due to increased diversions from the Sacramento River. Reduction in coliform levels due to prevention of body contact. Diffuser provides better mixing with Delta waters to prevent high concentrations of constituents of concern. --- Emergency Preparedness --- Allows for water transfers during emergencies Bollman Water Treatment Plant Safety and Water Quality Project Completed in Upgrade to existing water treatment plant, including conversion to ozone disinfection, conversion to sodium hypochlorite, new granulated activated carbon filters, and seismic upgrades. New water treatment technologies, chosen specifically for issues associated with Delta water, reduce formation of disinfection byproducts and improve taste and odor aesthetics. --- Seismic upgrades reduce risk of outage following earthquake. Completed in 1999.

10 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment A Page A6 Project Specifics Benefits Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant Sedimentation Basins Advanced Water Treatment of Estuarine Water Supplies Installed sedimentation basins at Randall Bold water treatment plant. Completed in Multi-agency effort to evaluate existing and advanced treatment technologies to meet current and future regulations and water treatment goals. Addition of sedimentation basins reduces the formation of disinfection byproducts and improves the performance of filtration system. Study will inform upgrades to existing water treatment plants, including incorporation of new technologies as appropriate. Emergency Preparedness Reducing Non-point DOC and Nitrogen Exports from Rice Fields. Completed in A pilot study and quantitative survey to determine if management of water elevation in rice field drains can affect residence time of subsurface drainage water, absorption of organic carbon, and ultimately, the load in discharge waters. Study may inform the development of rice BMPs to provide a net reduction in DOC and nitrogen. Implementation of new BMPs has not been completed, so water quality improvements have not yet been realized. The nitrogen data collected during this study may be useful to future studies on the nitrogen cycle in Delta waters. --- Completed in 2006.

11 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment A Page A7 Project Specifics Name Description Water Quality Ecosystem Clifton Court Forebay Fish Screen Study Alternatives Development Study, funded by a coalition of water agencies, will undergo a formal review by a Delta Science Panel in early If study results are positive, implementation could be considered as an early action in the Delta Plan. --- Benefits Emergency Preparedness Study will develop optimal alternatives and locations for fish screens and alternative actions to minimize salvage and predation in CCFB. ---

12 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment A Page A8 [blank page for double sided printing]

13 Attachment B What the BDCP studies show about conveyance December 2010

14 Water Supply can be Recovered with a 3,000 cfs Facility Average Annual Exports for SWP and CVP [Million Acre-Feet] North South Operations under D-1641 Operations under Existing BOs Operations under BDCP with 3,000 cfs capacity tunnel Operations under BDCP with 15,000 cfs capacity tunnel December 2010

15 Additional Cost for Large Facility is Substantial with Little Benefit Incremental Water Supply over Existing BOS 3,000 cfs Capacity 15,000 cfs Capacity 1.1 MAF/yr 1.3 MAF/yr Capital Cost $ 7.2* B $ 12.3 B Capital Cost per Incremental Supply (assuming 50-yr project life) Facility Configuration $130* / af $ 190 / af 1 intake 2 18-ft tunnels* 2 Intermediate Pumps 5 intakes 2 33-ft tunnels 10 Intermediate Pumps * Additional cost savings of ~$1 B could be achieved by constructing the 3,000 cfs facility with only 1 tunnel, instead of 2 tunnels December 2010

16 A Large Conveyance Facility would be Largely Unused % of time facility operates at various levels > 14,000 cfs > 11,400 cfs > 6,000 cfs Less than 3,000 cfs 2% 6% 23% 62% of the time of the time of the time of the time Current permitted capacity for SWP and CVP December 2010

17 Benefits of 3,000 cfs Facility Cost Effective Fully-used asset Can be expanded over time, if needed Recovers Water Supply to levels prior to federal court actions Actual Annual Exports (before court): 5.5 MAF/yr Actual Annual Exports (after court): 4.2 MAF/yr Estimated Annual Exports with 3,000 cfs facility: 6.0 MAF/yr Protects fish Reduces South Delta diversions below existing BOs Maintains salmon attraction flows within Sacramento River December 2010

18 But What If? But if/when the Delta levees fail, won t seawater rush into the Delta making the south Delta too salty such that we would need a large north Delta facility? NO, not according to the BDCP studies. Following massive levee failure, BDCP studies indicate: South Delta salinity only peaks briefly, seawater flushes out when the winter rains enter the Delta, even during a critically dry year (see slide 7). If islands remain flooded (i.e. levees not repaired), South Delta salinity would be even less than existing channel configuration (see slide 8) December 2010

19 Levee Failure would Substantially Increase South Delta Salinity, but Only Briefly Salinity increases abruptly after levee failure, especially for the major Hayward fault scenario (green lines). Salinity reduces to near pre-levee failure levels when winter rains flush the Delta (green line drops to blue line approximately 3 months after failure) in a critically dry year! Levees fail salinity intrudes Salinity in South Delta at SWP Existing Configuration Existing Configuration with SLR Moderate Levee Failure Moderate Levee Failure with SLR Major Levee Failure Major Levee Failure with SLR Winter rains begin to flush Delta Notes: 1 SLR = Sea Level Rise of 140cm, the maximum rise forecast for Existing Channels includes BDCP tidal marsh restoration of 65,000 acres 3 Moderate Levee Failure = 3 western Delta islands plus Grizzly Island 4 Major Levee Failure = DRMS Hayward scenario, with 13 islands flooded December 2010

20 Flooded Islands Dampen the Tides and Reduce Salinity Intrusion If Delta levees are not repaired after failure, salinity would be lower than the existing channel configuration (green line is consistently lower than blue line) Sea Level Rise (SLR) of 140cm, with vertical sea walls and no levee overtopping could substantially increase salinity (dashed lines), but the flooded islands would still reduce salinity relative to no levee failures. Salinity in Central Delta in Old River at Rock Slough Existing Configuration Existing Configuration with SLR Moderate Levee Failure Moderate Levee Failure with SLR Major Levee Failure Major Levee Failure with SLR EC =1090 umhos/cm December 2010

21 A word of caution BDCP studies of levee failure are limited Assumptions are designed for worst case scenario Levee failures were simulated during the worst 6-year drought in the last 70 years. SLR of 140cm is extreme maximum estimate. Assumes all islands remain flooded, but some islands would likely be reclaimed. Only considers salinity, but massive levee failure will create other issues that must be addressed, including, but not limited to: infrastructure (e.g. highways, electrical lines, gas mains) will need repair. other water quality problems may arise (e.g. toxic algae may bloom in the flooded islands) In any event, droughts are a far greater threat (10 times more likely than a seismic event) and a smaller capacity tunnel works best for all cases December 2010

22 Much Remains to be Done Key water conflict remains ~ Balance between water for fish and water for people: DFG and State Water Board reports indicate that increased freshwater flows are needed to protect fisheries. Reductions in exports since 2007 have impacted water users with further implications for state economy. To provide more flow for fish, water supply for all water users (not just SWP/CVP) would have to be reduced at times. Full effects analysis should be completed. Must not delay further ~ take initial actions to restore ecosystem immediately December 2010

23 Environmental Problems have yet to be addressed It takes a river to make an estuary Low San Joaquin River inflows combined with increased residence time from reduced South Delta exports with a large conveyance facility will create a stagnant, warm, polluted region in the South Delta. South Delta flows : San Joaquin River (largely agricultural drainage and wastewater) Urban wastewater (Stockton, Manteca, Tracy ) Ag drainage December 2010

24 Delays = even more costs Estimated PC costs continue to rise, and will likely exceed the current $12 Billion estimate (2009 dollars) for 15,000 cfs. Large facility will take many years longer to build than a 3,000 cfs facility and is more likely to have determined opposition. The optimal conveyance is clearly the smaller facility December 2010

25 Near Term Actions Still Needed BDCP implementation 10 to 15 years away Fisheries status remains poor Other stressors (pollution, invasive species, etc.) not being addressed Lawsuits continue (over 20 active) Water supplies will remain unreliable December 2010

26 Data Sources BDCP Presentation to Steering Committee on July 1, 2010 Average Annual Exports under various operational scenarios (slides 2, 3, and 5) Capital Costs for 3,000 cfs and 15,000 cfs capacity tunnel options (slide 3) BDCP Presentations to Steering Committee on July 29, 2010 Usage of large facility (slide 4) Salinity Response to Delta Levee failures (slides 6, 7, and 8) DWR Dayflow ( Actual historical exports (slide 5) December 2010

27 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment C Page C1 Attachment C: Additional BDCP Issues Levee Failure Scenarios. Prior claims that large conveyance is necessary due to the risk of levee failure have been shown to be exaggerated; BDCP studies indicate that the Delta can be up and running in four months after catastrophic failure (this was a worst-case scenario, with a massive set of levee failures and no action taken to restore flows or levees), so there is no need to write off the Delta or size the conveyance for that eventuality. (See Attachment B for a summary of the BDCP studies on this issue). What is needed is planning to reduce the recovery time further, since it is now clear that this scenario can be managed better with proper planning. In any event, abandoning through-delta conveyance in favor of a large new conveyance facility would impact water supply: the BDCP s own modeling shows that if the South Delta facilities were completely abandoned and SWP and CVP took all water exclusively through a large isolated facility in the North Delta, water supply would be further reduced; a 15,000 cfs facility operating alone would deliver about 1 million acre-feet less per year than operations under the current Biological Opinions. Flow Criteria. Although the SWP and CVP are not responsible to supply the instream flows described in the State Water Board s report Development of Flow Criteria for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Ecosystem, the 2009 Legislation requires the BDCP to be informed by the analysis. However, the operations described in the November 2010 draft BDCP further reduce flows, counter to the State Water Board report recommendation of increased flows. If this discrepancy is not addressed in a scientifically supportable manner, it is likely to result in problems down the road, when the State Water Board considers water right petitions for the BDCP. As discussed previously, adding more storage to capture flows in wet years appears to be the most feasible solution. Local Involvement. Local involvement in the BDCP has been limited. Although the Steering Committee meetings are open for public attendance and comment, public comments are seldom addressed. CCWD has been encouraged by the initiation of meetings with specific local interests and the appointments of Delta representatives to a large number of seats on the various bodies involved in overseeing governance of Delta planning activities; however, many of the specific concerns raised by local representative have yet to be addressed within the Plan. The BDCP must ensure that impacts to third parties are accurately evaluated and mitigated. Response to Comments. Many comments and concerns expressed by CCWD and other Steering Committee members have not been addressed. Similarly, comments from fishery agencies have not been adequately incorporated. Putting off resolution on these issues by calling comments scientific disagreement implies no resolution is possible. This is dismissive of the work and genuine concerns of many of the key stakeholders in this process, and CCWD is concerned that unless an effort is made to respond to comments and address concerns, the current process will only lead to delay rather than resolution and progress. Effects Analysis. Even though CCWD is a Steering Committee member agency, we have yet to see the Effects Analysis methods and results. CCWD has made numerous comments and suggestions on the methodology for the Effects Analysis at Steering Committee meetings, most of which have not, to our knowledge, been addressed. Further, a critical comment letter was submitted by environmental organizations that have been participating on various teams for the Effects Analysis.

28 The Honorable Gerald H. Meral, PhD February 2, 2011 Attachment C Page C2 CCWD concurs that the issues raised in their letter are crucial to the success of the plan and thus we have provided a copy for your review (Attachment D). Modeling Issues. The new modeling tools developed for the project have not been released for review. They incorporate a new physical configuration of the Delta that has never existed (e.g. new tidal marsh), so testing the model results against field data is not possible. These tools require careful scrutiny to ensure that their results can be trusted. With limited information available for review, CCWD has identified problems in the modeling that may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding impacts to in-delta users and water supply for the exporters. After repeating our concerns at multiple Steering Committee meetings, CCWD was granted some of the consultant s time to explore the technical issues. On October 20, 2010, CCWD met with modelers from CH2M HILL to determine the source of the errors; together, we concluded that the issues raised by CCWD were indeed problematic, and developed an approach to begin fixing the problems. This meeting was productive and encouraging. However, despite multiple inquires, we have not received any notice on the status of the workplan that was developed. This is an example of the technical review and support that is available if information is made available to concerned stakeholders in this project. However, to be effective and avoid serious problems later, the communication must run both ways and issues must be addressed in a timely fashion.

29 Attachment D Page D1 American Rivers The Bay Institute Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense Fund The Nature Conservancy Natural Resources Defense Council November 3, 2010 Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Steering Committee c/o Hon. Karen Scarborough, Undersecretary of Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Sacramento, CA RE: Comments and Recommendations Regarding the Draft BDCP Effects Analysis Dear Members of the Steering Committee: We write to provide comments and recommendations regarding the Draft BDCP effects analysis (EA), which was released on August 19th. It is widely recognized that the problems with the EA are serious and systemic. As a result, the Principals Group recently implemented a process designed to address the most serious analytical shortcomings of the EA. Unfortunately, that process too has become unfocussed and drifted away from its original intent to make the EA s analyses and interpretations technically correct. Having participated in the Principals Group, Effects Analysis Oversight Committee, and technical Theme Teams, our organizations see little chance that the draft Effects Analysis or the current effort to fix it will produce a credible scientific foundation for evaluating the Proposed Project by release of a November 2010 status report on BDCP (hereafeter the November Document ). We recognize the difficulty and compounding uncertainty that is inherent in an effects analysis of this magnitude. However, to ensure a strong foundation for conclusions, we offer the following suggestions for changing the Effects Analysis process which we believe will, if implemented, produce a strong foundation for analyzing and assessing the effects of BDCP proposed activities and for refining and modifying

30 Attachment D Page D2 conservation measures in an iterative process. We hope that the Steering Committee will expeditiously complete these revisions in the Effects Analysis process so that BDCP planning can benefit from strong and credible technical analysis. I. The current incomplete, draft Effects Analysis is seriously and systemically flawed. Federal agency biologists have identified literally hundreds of issues with the analysis and conclusions of the Draft Effects Analysis (EA). In addition to the issues highlighted by the agencies (with which we concur), the current draft EA includes the following major categories 1 of error: (1) Lack of assessment of impacts with respect to BDCP Goals and Objectives. The result of this flawed approach is a characterization of no significant change as a desirable result when, in fact, no significant change in a crashing ecosystem represents a highly undesirable result. A fundamental tenet of BDCP is that the plan must result in improved biological conditions, not maintenance of the status quo. (2) Deficient incorporation of the best available science. This flaw pervades many sections of the document and must be addressed in order to provide a solid scientific foundation for the plan. For example, the current draft EA does not adequately incorporate methods for estimating entrainment proposed by the federal agencies, failing to apply those methods even for the sake of comparison. Similarly, the current draft EA s treatment of flow-habitat relationships does not adequately reflect the breadth or magnitude of effects developed in peer-reviewed literature. (3) An overreliance on poorly conceived, simplistic, and often untested models without reference to better documented and reviewed models or published results from field studies. For example, the EA s overly optimistic estimates regarding the efficacy of predator control methods should have been!!

31 Attachment D Page D3 tempered by reference to on the ground examples of predator control efforts designed to support endangered fish populations and by discussion of the potential negative impacts of predator control on covered species (e.g. through relaxation of predation on more abundant competitor species). (4) Inappropriate resolution of data (time-step or geographic extent) to determine biological impacts. The current draft EA makes extensive use of averaging; by its nature, averaging obscures the extreme values that, for some variables, drive biological systems. For example, the EA repeatedly reports monthly averages for temperature and dissolved oxygen although these measures are not relevant to determining biological effects that respond to daily maxima. Similarly, the EA analyzes X2 values averaged from December-May even though that period encompasses a huge seasonal range in natural Delta outflow patterns and different studies have shown high-magnitude, statistical relationships between Jan- March outflow (Rosenfield and Baxter 2007), March-May X2 (Kimmerer 2002, Kimmerer et al. 2009); and March-June X2 (Jassby et al. 1995). Averaging across these periods would tend to hide larger changes in Delta outflow within and across years that may occur as a result of BDCP implementation. Furthermore, averaging entrainment across years obscures the long-term effect of years with high entrainment rates. (5) Overstated and inconsistent determinations as to which effects are significant and not significant. For example, the reported reduction in winter-run Chinook salmon entrainment at the South Delta pumps (from 0.61% of the population to 0.26% of the population [Table 5-90]) is extremely small (as are the initial values). Thus, it appears to be an overstatement of accuracy in the models and magnitude of the effect to characterize this as a 59% percent reduction in entrainment [Table 5-95]. It is important to note that we believe that the EA significantly underestimates entrainment (see our comments on averaging above). The use of additional existing models would likely show that entrainment is indeed greater and thus that there is a higher potential to reduce entrainment reduction of significant entrainment rates could be a major benefit of this project. (6) Conclusions that are not supported by analysis. There are many examples in which the EA asserts benefits without

32 Attachment D Page D4 conducting any analysis at all. For example the EA describes the merits of new smelt hatcheries (p. 592) without disclosing that the two smelt species of concern have never been raised in hatcheries or that hatchery production of salmon has faced decades of serious methodological problems that lead to significant ecological effects. In addition, the claim that restoration of tidal marshes will result in a biologically meaningful cooling effect is simply assumed even though the scientist who first documented this effect in Suisun Marsh has repeatedly denied that this effect can be expected to occur in the planned restorations. (7) Deficient or inconsistent reporting of uncertainty. For instance, when describing the anticipated benefits to green and white sturgeon species from enhanced poaching control efforts (CM3), the EA does not reveal that the certainty of that benefit was judged to be low by the DRERIP technical team that reviewed this measure. 2 (8) Deficient or inconsistent reporting of natural patterns of variance (quantitative or qualitative). Reporting variance and model error rates is standard practice in the biological sciences. Estimates of model error and natural variance allow scientists to determine whether (a) reported differences between scenarios are real and (b) changes in average results are reflected by changes in the range of environmental conditions or the frequency with which deleterious conditions occur. Few of the graphs and figures in the draft EA (or the accompanying text) contain estimates of variance, considerably diminishing their analytical value. (9) Incomplete consideration of alternatives. The more environmentally protective set of operational parameters (Range B) has not been thoroughly modeled or evaluated, per the expressed expectation of the NGO s upon agreeing to move forward with the effects analysis in July "Overall, the draft EA makes little use of the significant amount of documentation of impacts produced by highly-qualified technical teams during the DRERIP review process. Indeed, though the Draft EA relies on the DRERIP conceptual models for green and white sturgeon as its primary source of information for these two species; the entire report makes substantive reference to the DRERIP evaluations only three times and each of these references address the evaluation of only one conservation measure. The DRERIP review raised serious questions regarding several elements of the proposed Conservation Strategy that were reviewed in the EA, which SAIC committed to address and has not.

33 Attachment D Page D5 Without this agreed-upon analysis, decisionmakers (and the public) cannot compare the impacts of an adequate range of operational scenarios and lack sufficient information to make an informed decision. (10) Lack of roll-up of effects that occur through species life cycles or, for ecosystem level impacts, across seasons and years. There has been no credible quantifiable (or even qualitative) integration of multiple Plan effects (i.e, a roll-up ) in the draft EA. II. Addressing These EA Deficiencies Requires Correcting These Serious Technical Deficiencies Before Modifying the Project Description The EA should help identify and adequately develop BDCP elements that would support recovery of covered species and conservation of communities and ecosystems. An Effects Analysis is only useful for understanding and modifying the proposed project if it is an iterative process where results lead to refinements to the project description that is then analyzed again. Identifying BDCP elements that would cause jeopardy to covered species and modifying them to barely avoid those disastrous outcomes is not sufficient. Rather than focusing on correcting the fundamental flaws identified above, the focus of the post-principals Process fix has drifted to peripheral issues, such as trying to avoid the significant impacts to covered species that the flawed analysis has identified. While we believe that modifications to the project to eliminate these (and other, as yet unidentified) adverse effects is ultimately necessary, the focus now should be on the more fundamental task of correcting the flawed approach to the effects analysis. Only when the effects analysis is grounded in a comprehensive and scientifically credible approach will the decision-makers and the public have any assurance that all of the impacts have been identified a necessary step before the project description is finalized. The Theme Teams have made progress in unraveling and correcting the methodology used to produce the incomplete draft EA, despite unnecessary delays brought on by challenges to well-supported and documented comments of the federal biologists involved in the process. Those teams should continue to develop acceptable methodologies for

34 Attachment D Page D6 estimating effects and the uncertainty surrounding those effects. Unfortunately, the work of these Theme Teams has now been paused for an indefinite period in order to reallocate resources to production of the November Document. This delay clearly does not advance the goal of fixing the EA. We strongly recommend that a thorough, credible, and comprehensive revision of the EA be initiated that is intended to construct a conservation strategy on a firmer scientific and analytic foundation than what we have now. The basic elements of this revision would involve: (1) Transparent review and assessment of each plan element including both positive (intended) and negative (unintended) outcomes of proposed actions. a. Projected outcomes of each measure should be presented before they are consolidated into an overall package of plan outcomes. Without understanding the projected outcomes of individual plan elements, there is no way to evaluate or adequately explain their contribution to the overall Plan, or to assess the impact to the overall Plan if any particular action is not eventually implemented (e.g. because it was not permitted or funds to implement it did not become available). b. Use of standard methodologies and a comparative approach where multiple respected methodologies are available. If there are reasons to believe that previously published methodologies may be inadequate, the rationale for developing a new methodology should be clearly explained. Even then, the results of a new analytical approach should be compared with those of more established approaches so that readers can compare and draw their own conclusions about the competing analytical approaches. Furthermore, the EA should attempt to derive lessons from the differences in models where appropriate. All models are simplifications of reality and the truth often lies in the different outcomes revealed by competing analytical approaches. (2) Measuring effects against S.M.A.R.T. biological and physical objectives a. The BDCP has yet to clearly identify stressors that it will attempt to manage or to complete quantification of draft objectives (statements that are S.M.A.R.T.: specific, measureable, attainable, relevant-to-a-goal, and time-bound)

35 Attachment D Page D7 and performance targets relating to recovery of covered species and conservation of ecological values affected by these stressors. Without this information, it will be impossible to gauge whether the Plan s presumed effects will produce the conditions that contribute to recovery of covered species. b. The BDCP will not address all stressors in this ecosystem but it must identify unmanaged stressors (in particular, ones that can be measured) so that Plan objectives can be stated with reference to uncontrolled environmental conditions (e.g. unimpaired hydrology, sea level rise, air temperatures, ocean conditions, etc.). This will allow us to filter out effects of natural variability and forces operating outside of BDCP s purview and see clearly whether the Plan is producing benefits compared to both the status quo and relative to the its own objectives. (3) Identifying and characterizing uncertainties and natural variability a. One of the most important outcomes of the EA should be a clear vision of the uncertainties surrounding projected outcomes. We are dealing with the ecology of an unusual and complex ecosystem and levels of uncertainty are correspondingly high. Rather than overlooking the uncertainty using overly simplistic models and analysis (as the current EA does repeatedly), the EA should give significant attention to the known variance in ecological conditions and the error estimates associated with models. b. Identifying uncertainties is essential to developing an adaptive management plan for BDCP and it is essential information for agencies attempting to establish permit terms for the project. By their nature, permit terms generate some certainty for an HCP/NCCP permittee, but benefits carried in a permit must be discounted to some extent by the uncertainty inherent in the Conservation Strategy. Without understanding the uncertainty of the BDCP, we cannot hope to design conservation measures and adaptive management strategies that reduce that uncertainty. (4) Documenting and identifying key thresholds (both biological limits and limits of our ability to detect change with sampling programs) for impacts on covered species and ecosystem

36 Attachment D Page D8 values, and relevant resolution for those thresholds (e.g., maximum vs. average). a. The DRERIP conceptual models were designed to identify thresholds for certain covered species. These models provide a convenient source of technical information on thresholds that the EA should use as its foundation. b. Where thresholds or other critical biological parameter values cannot be determined from conceptual models or published literature, the uncertainty surrounding these values must be clearly identified. (5) Comparing and contrasting the results of different analytical methods. a. Use all relevant analytical methods where appropriate; for instance, incorporate methods to estimate entrainment effects that were applied in the Biological Opinions and compare outputs of that methodology with alternative approaches. b. Provide the best possible estimate of margin of error for all analytical methods. c. When different analytical methods are used, compare all results and describe why differences arise and why application of one set of results to the EA is more valid than the others. (6) Incorporating adequate scientific review. a. Fully address and incorporate the findings of outside and/or independent reviews (e.g. DRERIP, NRC, etc), and provide an analysis where the EA results differ from review recommendations. b. Provide adequate time for further DRERIP and independent panel reviews (as described in the letter on this topic dated August 17, 2009). (7) Analyzing an appropriate range of alternatives where a range of potential implementation actions has been proposed for both near- and long-term operations. (8) A credible roll-up of effects that integrates the positive and negative impacts across the lifecycle for each species. We are concerned that any decisions in a November Document that are based on the results of the current flawed draft EA will be both

37 Attachment D Page D9 unfounded and premature. The BDCP schedule should be revised as needed to 1) remedy these problems, 2) build a stronger foundation for a technically credible EA and a permittable BDCP, and 3) allow sufficient time for review by the DRERIP process, independent science panels, BDCP participants and other interested parties. Completion of a thorough and credible effects analysis is a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit for the BDCP. The current track is not likely to yield that result. We urge the Steering Committee to take steps to remedy this serious problem as soon as possible. Sincerely, Jon Rosenfield The Bay Institute John Cain American Rivers Ann Hayden Environmental Defense Fund Campbell Ingram The Nature Conservancy Kim Delfino Defenders of Wildlife Doug Obegi Natural Resources Defense Council