San Joaquin River Group - Supplemental Executive Summary

FINAL Supplemental EIS/EIR

Acquisition of Additional Water for Meeting the San Joaquin River Agreement Flow Objectives, 2000 – 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the San Joaquin River Group Authority (SJRGA) are jointly preparing this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/EIR) to provide for the acquisition of up to 47,000 acre-feet of "supplemental" water if needed by Reclamation from the SJRGA and its members. The supplemental water is to provide full Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) test flow conditions at Vernalis during "double-step years" for Water Years 2001 through 2010.

ES.1 BACKGROUND

This document is a SEIS/EIR covering minor additions to the project addressed in the Meeting Flow Objectives for the San Joaquin River Agreement, 1999-2010, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR, Reclamation 1999). The Final EIS/EIR documents the environmental consequences of acquiring and using flows specified in the San Joaquin River Agreement (SJRA). The SJRA flow objectives were approved and confirmed in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Right Decision 1641 (State Board 1999) revised March 15, 2000, in accordance with Order WR-2000-02. The SJRA contains three flow components:

It obligates the SJRGA and its members to provide the amount of water needed to achieve the April - May Target Flow for VAMP or 110,000 acre-feet, whatever is less. Additional water, in excess of the 110,000 acre-feet, may be purchased from willing sellers, if available, to meet the target flow for VAMP.
The SJRA provides for Merced Irrigation District to sell 12,500 acre-feet above the existing flow for release to the Merced River during October of all years as an attraction flow for fall-run Chinook salmon.
The SJRA also provides for Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) to sell 15,000 acre-feet in every year of the SJRA plus the difference between the water made available by OID for VAMP pulse flow (11,000 acre-feet) and the amount actually used. The additional water from OID could be used for ramping either during the spring or October pulse flows or used at other times to supplement spawning flows. The final decision for the use of this water for fish and wildlife purposes would be made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) annually, following consultation with other federal and state agencies.

The Final EIS/EIR did not specifically address the environmental impacts associated with acquiring the additional "supplemental" water for the Spring Pulse Flow above the 110,000 acre-feet to be provided by SJRGA members. As noted in the Final EIS/EIR (p. 2-5): "If achieving the double-step requires more than the 110,000 acre-feet of supplemental water, additional water from willing sellers on the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers (approximately 50,000 acre-feet) may be acquired by Reclamation for the pulse flow period, and it would require additional NEPA/CEQA analysis." This SEIS/EIR provides the required environmental analysis to allow the acquisition of the supplemental flows for the period from 2001 through 2010.

The affected portions of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries (Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers) are located in the Central Valley of California. The rivers and related storage and conveyance facilities are located in the following counties: Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Calaveras.

ES.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

Up to 47,000 acre-feet of water may be needed in addition to the 110,000 acre-feet of water identified in the SJRA for the VAMP 31-day spring pulse flow during April and May for Water Years 2001 through 2010. The purpose of the Proposed Project/Proposed Action is to supplement, under Paragraph 8 of the SJRA, the water provided by the SJRA that has been analyzed in the Final EIS/EIR. This water is needed to support the flows identified in the VAMP by providing flows in the San Joaquin River at Vernalis, and to assist Reclamation in meeting the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, Bay-Delta flow objectives as required by Water Right Decision 1641 (State Board 1999), and the Biological Opinion on Delta Smelt (Service 1995a).

ES.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

On August 8, 2000, Reclamation and the SJRGA distributed a Notice of Preparation of a Joint Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR on supplying the supplemental water to meet the flow objectives for the proposed VAMP to about 275 agencies and individuals. The notice requested that comments on the content of this SEIS/EIR be submitted by September 8, 2000. On August 24, 2000, Reclamation also filed a Notice of Intent to prepare the Joint Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, No. 165). Comments on this notice were requested by September 28, 2000.

Reclamation has also issued newsletters covering topics related to the SJRA. The first newsletter was published in May 1998, and several more have followed. Information on the Proposed Action is also available on Reclamation=s web page (www.mp.usbr.gov) and on the SJRGA’s web page (www.sjrg.org), and the detailed model results for the hydrologic analysis are provided as Appendix A.

The principal mechanism for agency involvement in this SEIS/EIR is the San Joaquin River Agreement Steering Committee consisting of representatives from Reclamation, the Service, the SJRGA and its members. An Administrative Draft of this SEIS/EIR was reviewed by the federal and state resource agencies. Participating agencies are described in Chapter 19, Consultation and Coordination.

The Draft SEIS/EIR was mailed to 274 agencies and individuals on December 20, 2000. A notice of the document’s availability was published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2000. A public hearing was held on February 1, 2001, and the public review period concluded on February 12, 2001. Written and oral comments received during this review period are included in Appendix B along with responses to those comments.

ES.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This section describes two alternatives, a No Action and a Proposed Action. No Action represents existing flow conditions based on existing hydrology and operations within the Bay-Delta watershed with implementation of the SJRA. The Proposed Project/Action is the acquisition of up to 47,000 acre-feet of "supplemental" water, if needed, by Reclamation from the SJRGA and its members on the Tuolumne and Merced rivers to provide full VAMP test flow conditions at Vernalis in April and May during "double-step years" for Water Years 2001 through 2010. The Supplemental Hydrologic Analysis indicates that the Proposed Project would occur during approximately 10 percent of the years during the modeled period of 1922 through 1992 (Appendix A).

ES.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

Table ES-1 provides a summary of all of the environmental effects and mitigation for both options under the Proposed Action. Impact statements are often abbreviated; see Chapters 4 through 13 for the complete statements. No mitigation is required for this Proposed Project/Action, but updates to the implementation action for the Merced Irrigation District are described in Chapter 21. While the impacts to cultural resources may be minor and contribute incrementally to ongoing impacts that may be considered cumulatively significant, they would be unavoidable and no mitigation is required. Symbols used in the table are:

S:	Significant adverse impact	LS:	Less-than-significant adverse impact
SU:	Significant unavoidable adverse impact	N:	No adverse impact
PS:	Potentially significant adverse impact	B:	Beneficial impact
PSU:	Potentially significant unavoidable adverse impact	na:	Not applicable

Table ES-1
Summary Comparison of Impacts

	Proposed Action – Tuolumne River		Proposed Action – Merced River
Impact	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation
Surface Water
Water Deliveries
There would be no changes in water deliveries relative to the No Action scenario, so there are no impacts.	N	na	N	na
Water Storage
Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in reduced carryover storage in New Don Pedro Reservoir between 15 and 20 percent of the years. However, the decrease in carryover storage would generally be less than 3 percent and would always be less than 10 percent. This would be a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation is required.	LS	na	na	na
In about 2 to 3 percent of the 71-year period, the decrease in carryover storage in Lake McClure could be greater than 10 percent. For most of the period, when supplemental water is needed the decrease in carryover storage would be less than 10 percent. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.	na	na	LS	na

Table ES-1 (continued)

	Proposed Action – Tuolumne River		Proposed Action – Merced River
Impact	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation
Water Quality
Maintaining compliance with the water quality objective at Vernalis was impacted in only one instance (July 1985) due to release of the supplemental water from New Don Pedro Reservoir (in May 1984) during the 71-year simulation period. In the context of a hydrologic sequence, the probability of this event occurring over the 2001-2010 period is very small, and it is considered less than significant.	LS	na	na	na
In one instance, the supplemental water release in April 1971 resulted in an increased release from New Melones Reservoir in August 1973 in order to meet the water quality objective at Vernalis. This release resulted in a minor reduction in spill to the Stanislaus River. Any changes to New Melones operations due to the Proposed Action are considered less than significant.	na	na	LS	na
Groundwater
Overdrafting
The maximum surface water release for the supplemental water for the VAMP flows would come from carryover storage; none of the water would come from groundwater. As such, there would be no impacts to groundwater overdrafting.	N	na	N	na
Water Levels
The maximum surface water release for the supplemental water for the VAMP flows would come from carryover storage; none of the water would come from groundwater. As such, there would be no impacts to groundwater levels.	N	na	N	na
Water Quality
The maximum surface water release for the supplemental water for the VAMP flows would come from carryover storage; none of the water would come from groundwater. As such, there would be no impacts to groundwater quality.	N	na	N	na
Subsidence
The maximum surface water release for the supplemental water for the VAMP flows would come from carryover storage; none of the water would come from groundwater. As such, there would be no impacts to groundwater subsidence.	N	na	N	na

Table ES-1 (continued)

	size="2">Proposed Action – Tuolumne River		size="2">Proposed Action – Merced River
Impact	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation
Agricultural Subsurface Drainage
The maximum surface water release for the supple-mental water for the VAMP flows would come from carryover storage; none of the water would come from groundwater. As such, there would be no impacts agricultural subsurface drainage.	N	na	N	na
Terrestrial Resources
Riparian Vegetation
The Proposed Project on either the Tuolumne or Merced rivers is not likely to impact riparian vegetation.	N	na	N	na
Wildlife
The Proposed Project on either the Tuolumne or Merced rivers is not likely to impact wildlife.	N	na	N	na
Special-Status Species
The Proposed Project on either the Tuolumne or Merced rivers is not likely to impact terrestrial special-status species.	N	na	N	na
Aquatic Resources
Factors Affecting Distribution and Abundance of Aquatic Resources
Implementation of the Proposed Action could have no significant impact on water quality and would, therefore, not adversely affect aquatic resources.	N	na	N	na
Chinook Salmon
The Proposed Action could result in flow changes for the Tuolumne River, Merced River, and portions of the San Joaquin River that are not considered to be significant.	N	na	N	na
Beneficial impacts to fall-run smolts emigrating out of the river towards the Delta are shown for the Merced River in April during Dry water year types with supplemental releases in the Merced River during April, and in May during Below Normal water year types with supplemental releases in the Merced River during May.	na	na	B	na
Steelhead
The Proposed Action could result in flow changes for the Tuolumne River, Merced River, and portions of the San Joaquin River that are not considered to be significant.	N	na	N	na
Beneficial impacts to juvenile steelhead rearing habitat in the river are shown for the Merced River in April during Dry water year types with supplemental releases in the Merced River during April, and in May during Below Normal water year types with supplemental releases in the Merced River during May.	na	na	B	na

Table ES-1 (continued)

	Proposed Action – Tuolumne River		Proposed Action – Merced River
size="2">Impact	size="2">Without Mitigation	size="2">With Mitigation	size="2">Without Mitigation	size="2">With Mitigation
Land Use
Population and Population Density
No impact would occur to local populations, and local population growth would not be affected.	N	na	N	na
No impact would occur to municipal users, so no impact would occur to population density.	N	na	N	na
Regional Economy and Employment
No impacts would occur to jobs, because no reduced farm production would occur.	N	na	N	na
Agricultural Land Use
No impacts would occur to water deliveries to irrigation customers in years where the supplemental water would be needed.	N	na	N	na
Cultural Resources
Reservoirs
No significant impacts to cultural resources at Lake McClure and New Don Pedro Reservoir would be expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action. Because water levels, velocities, and periods of bank exposure are not expected to vary significantly from the range of existing operations under the water management strategies that would be implemented under the Proposed Action, impacts of the Proposed Action would be less than significant.	LS	na	LS	na
Rivers
No significant impacts to cultural resources on the Merced or Tuolumne rivers would be expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action. Because water levels, velocities, and periods of bank exposure are not expected to vary significantly from the range of existing operations under the water management strategies that would be implemented under Proposed Action, impacts of the Proposed Action would be less than significant.	LS	na	LS	na
Recreation
Reservoirs
There would be less-than-significant adverse impacts to recreation use at New Don Pedro Reservoir. The slight changes in frequencies of water surface elevations (with either the April or May releases at the end of May or September) would be less than 10 percent.	LS	na	na	na
There would be no adverse impacts to recreation use at Lake McClure.	na	na	N	na

Table ES-1 (concluded)

	size="2">Proposed Action – Tuolumne River		size="2">Proposed Action – Merced River
Impact	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation	Without Mitigation	With Mitigation
Rivers
There would be no adverse impacts to recreation use on the Tuolumne River.	N	na	na	na
There would be no adverse impacts to recreation use on the Merced River. The slight changes in frequencies of flows (with either the April or May releases) are beneficial but would be less than 10 percent and insignificant.	na	na	B	na
Because there would be no adverse impacts to recreation use on the Tuolumne or Merced rivers, tributaries of the San Joaquin River, there would be no adverse impacts to recreation use on the San Joaquin River from supplemental water from the rivers.	N	na	N	na
There would be no adverse impacts to recreation connected with conveyance facilities, wildlife refuges, or hunting clubs.	N	na	N	na
Energy Resources
Reservoirs
If the supplemental water was released entirely from New Don Pedro Reservoir, the net loss in generation from the New Don Pedro Power Plant would be between 22 GWh and 26 GWh over the model study period, or from 0.31 GWh/year to 0.36 GWh/year. This change in energy production is considered insignificant.	LS	na	na	na
If the supplemental water was released entirely from Lake McClure, the net loss in generation from the Exchequer Powerhouse would be between 19 GWh and 78 GWh over the model study period, or from 0.26 GWh/year to 1.10 GWh/year. This change in energy production is considered insignificant.	na	na	LS	na
Impacts at the smaller downstream powerhouses were determined by inspection to be insignificant, with minor increases possible during periods of supplemental VAMP releases offset by decreases during periods when storage is replaced in the upstream reservoirs(s).	LS	na	LS	na
Indian Trust Assets
No Indian Trust Assets lie within the Project Area, so there is no potential for impacts to these assets.	N	na	N	na
Environmental Justice
Aquatic Resources
Beneficial impacts to fisheries would not affect environmental justice.	N	na	N	na
Recreation Resources
Insignificant impacts to recreation in rivers and reservoirs would not affect environmental justice.	N	na	N	na

Final SEIS/EIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

March 13, 2001

Dennis W. Westcot, Project Administrator
San Joaquin River Group
716 Valencia Ave.
Davis, CA 95616-0153
(530) 758-8633
westcot-sjrga@sbcglobal.net

For information regarding this web site, contact the Modesto Irrigation District.