|
FINAL
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report
Meeting
Flow Objectives for the San Joaquin River Agreement
1999-2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 BACKGROUND ES-1
ES.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ES-2
ES.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
ES-3
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ES-4
ES.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS AND MITIGATION ES-5
Table ES-1: SUMMARY COMPARISON
OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS
ES.1 BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary (Bay/Delta Estuary) is a critically important
part of California’s natural environment and
economy. In recognition of the serious problems
facing the region and the complex resource management
decisions that must be made, the Federal government
and the State of California are working together
to stabilize, protect, and restore ecological health
and improve water management for beneficial uses
in and from the Bay/Delta Estuary. The San Joaquin
River Group Authority (Authority or SJRGA) is working
with the State and Federal governments to facilitate
meeting these needs as related to the San Joaquin
River: increased instream flows, the 1995 State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality
Control Plan (WQCP) flow objectives at Vernalis,
and the Delta Smelt Biological Opinion.
As part of these ongoing efforts, the Draft San
Joaquin River Agreement (SJRA) was developed as
an alternative that provides a level of protection
equivalent to the San Joaquin River flow objectives
contained in the State Water Resources Control Board’s
1995 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (1995
WQCP: SWRCB 1995). Discussion over the flow objectives
led to a proactive problem-solving process to develop
an adaptive fishery management plan and the water
supplies (from willing sellers on the San Joaquin
River system) to support that plan. The SJRA includes
the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP).
The SJRA identifies where the water to support
the VAMP study would be obtained, specifically from
the San Joaquin River Group Authority whose members
are making the water available. It is a "performance
agreement" (VAMP flows) and a water acquisition
(other flows) wherein the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) pay the
Authority to ensure that water supplies are available
for instream flows as needed up to prescribed limits.
There are two appendixes to the SJRA that relate
to the proposed action. Appendix
A is the VAMP, a conceptual framework for protection
and experimental determination of juvenile chinook
salmon survival within the lower San Joaquin River,
the adaptive management study. Appendix B provides
for planning and operation coordination for VAMP.
The SJRA was completed in April 1998, and its implementation
requires that the NEPA and CEQA documentation be
completed by March 1, 1999. This Final Environmental
Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
is prepared in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
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: Fresno, Madera,
Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne,
and Calaveras.
ES.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to acquire
water identified in the SJRA and use the water for:
- a pulse flow for a 31-day period at Vernalis
during April and May, and
- other flows identified by the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) water acquisition
plan, with concurrence by the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), to facilitate migration and
attraction of anadromous fish including fall attraction
flows and other flows as needed by the adaptive
management study, with concurrence by the Service,
to support anadromous fish and environmental benefits
in the project area.
This water is needed to support VAMP and to provide
protective measures for fall-run chinook salmon
in the San Joaquin River. The adaptive management
study means that the flow requirement would change
annually in response to hydrologic and biologic
conditions. As a result, varying amounts of water
would be needed. The additional water for other
flows would be used for ramping around the pulse
flow to assist in protection of salmon redds, to
assist in control of water temperature, and to assist
in improving water quality. Since the water released
would increase instream flows in the lower San Joaquin
River, it also improves compliance with the 1995
WQCP Vernalis objectives and with the San Joaquin
River component of Delta Smelt Biological Opinion.
(See Section ES.4 for additional information on
the sources, amounts, and timing of the flows.)
Section 3406(b)(1) of the CVPIA requires the development
of a program that will make all reasonable efforts
to ensure that, by the year 2002, natural production
of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and
streams will be sustainable on a long-term basis,
at levels not less than twice the average levels
attained during the period of 1967-1991. As one
element of the Draft Anadromous Fish Restoration
Program (AFRP), Reclamation has a need to obtain
water on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and Lower
San Joaquin rivers to provide additional flows at
times that will facilitate migration, attraction,
production, and survival of anadromous fish on these
rivers in accordance with specific fish, wildlife,
and habitat restoration purposes authorized by the
CVPIA.
Reclamation proposes to contract for water on the
San Joaquin River and its tributaries under P.L.
102-575, Title 34, Section 3406(b)(3) of the CVPIA.
Water may be acquired by Reclamation to meet fish
and wildlife needs within the San Joaquin Valley
under the authority of Sections 3406(b)(3) of the
CVPIA. The CVPIA amended the purposes of the Central
Valley Project (CVP) to achieve a reasonable balance
among competing demands for use of CVP water for
fish and wildlife, agriculture, municipal and industrial,
and power contractors.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
approved the final Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Estuary in May 1995. The 1995 WQCP
includes objectives for Delta outflow, Sacramento
and San Joaquin River flows, salinity, dissolved
oxygen, and State Water Project (SWP) and Central
Valley Project (CVP) operations. It presents a combination
of Delta inflow and outflow objectives, water quality
objectives, and project operation criteria. These
requirements are specified temporally and vary depending
on the hydrologic condition and the biological needs
of various fish species.
The March 6, 2023 Biological Opinion (Opinion)
for Threatened Delta Smelt, Delta Smelt critical
habitat, and the proposed Threatened Sacramento
Splittail approved Reclamation’s operations
to provide flows and pursue acquisition of additional
water (acquired flow) in order to provide San Joaquin
River flows at Vernalis in excess of those exported
by the CVP and SWP (USFWS 1995). Any such enhancement
flows would be in excess of those attributable to
CVP New Melones releases, unregulated accretions,
or unstorable flows, and would not be exported at
the Delta pumping facilities. As a result of this
Opinion, Reclamation has a requirement to acquire
water within the San Joaquin River Watershed to
maximize the ability of the CVP to meet this commitment.
ES.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Reclamation and the Authority distributed a Notice
of Preparation of a Joint EIS/EIR on supplying water
to meet the flow objectives for the proposed VAMP
on November 25, 2022 to about 160 agencies and individuals.
The notice announced three public scoping meetings
for January 6–8, 1998, and requested that comments
on the content of this EIS/EIR be submitted by January
16, 1998. Issues raised at the meetings and in comment
letters are discussed in each section of Chapter
4, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures.
Public review of the Draft EIS/EIR was conducted
over the period September 25, 2022 to November 10,
1998. (See Appendix H, Responses to Comments.) Recirculation
of the Draft EIS/EIR is not necessary, because all
of the comments received resulted in minor modifications
to the Draft EIS/EIR. This Final EIS/EIR has been
sent to all agencies and individuals who commented
on the Draft EIS/EIR.
Reclamation has also issued a newsletter covering
topics related to the San Joaquin River Agreement.
The first newsletter was published in May 1998,
a second was distributed in September 1998 to 225
agencies and individuals, and a third newsletter
was sent to 250 agencies and individuals in January
1999. Information on the proposed action is also
available on Reclamation’s web page (www.mp.usbr.gov),
and the detailed model results for the hydrologic
analysis are available upon request.
The principal mechanism for agency involvement
in the EIS/EIR is the San Joaquin River Agreement
Joint Steering/Cooperating Agency Committee. Participating
agencies are described in Chapter 5, Consultation
and Coordination.
ES.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The proposed action/proposed project is a 12-year,
long-term water supply program, outlined in the
San Joaquin River Agreement, for instream flows
in the San Joaquin River system and has three components:
- VAMP Flow: Water from the Authority, for achieving
the VAMP 31-day pulse flow (April-May), is provided
by the Authority member agencies and is capped
at 110,000 acre-feet in any year (Table 2.1-1
in Section 2.1). There is also the potential for
additional water from willing sellers who are
members of the Authority for VAMP implementation
above the 110,000 acre-feet.
- October Flow: Additional water (12,500 acre-feet)
from Merced Irrigation District (Merced ID)
would be available for delivery during October
of all years.
- OID: Additional water (15,000 acre-feet) from
Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) would be available,
plus the difference between water committed to
the VAMP pulse flow by OID (11,000 acre-feet)
and what is actually used. This water provided
by OID would be used for various fish and wildlife
benefits including additional instream flows on
the Stanislaus during the months when fish are
present, ramping of flow changes on the Stanislaus
following high flow periods, implementing pre-VAMP
and post-VAMP ramping objectives during the spring
flow period, water for fall attraction flows,
temperature control in the lower Stanislaus River
during the summer and fall periods, and/or banked
in New Melones Reservoir for the purpose of using
the additional water to augment flows in subsequent
dry years. The final decision for the use of this
water for fish and wildlife purposes would be
made by the Service annually, following consultation
with other Federal and State agencies.
The proposed project is for the Authority to make
water available over the period 1999–2010 for
release to the San Joaquin River and its tributaries.
The quantity and precise timing of the proposed
releases vary depending on hydrologic conditions.
In addition to the no action and proposed action,
one other alternative was determined to meet the
project’s purpose and need, the SWRCB Water
Right Priority System Alternative. This alternative
is assumed to be Flow Alternative 3 in the SWRCB’s
Draft Environmental Impact Report for Implementation
of the 1995 Bay/Delta Water Quality Control Plan
(DEIR; SWRCB 1997). This alternative has the capabilities
to meet the SWRCB’s 1995 Water Quality Control
Plan Vernalis flow objectives assigned to water
right holders based on a water right priority system.
Under this alternative, up to 38 water right holders
share responsibility to implement flow objectives.
Junior appropriative water right holders are required
to cease diversions before senior appropriative
water right holders are affected (based on the "first-in-time,
first-in-right" principle). This alternative
would involve different water right holders than
the proposed action and different quantities of
water being released into the San Joaquin River
system.
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 the proposed action and the alternative
action. Impact statements are often abbreviated;
see Chapter 4 for the complete statements of impact.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program required by CEQA
is described in Appendix G. 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 ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS
| |
Proposed Action
|
Alternative Action
|
|
Impact
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
|
Surface Water
|
|
|
|
|
| Water Deliveries |
|
|
|
|
|
Deliveries reduced to Merced Irrigation District
during critically dry years and under below
normal or dry hydrologic conditions under
certain sequential hydrologic conditions;
however, implementation of a conjunctive use
program would augment surface water supplies.
|
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Deliveries reduced to Oakdale
Irrigation District during critically dry years;
however, implementation of conjunctive use,
reclamation, and increased efficiencies would
augment surface water supplies. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Average annual deliveries reduced
within the San Joaquin River Basin by 62,000
acre-feet; at times, complete curtailment of
junior water rights appropriators. Mitigation
unknown. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
PS
|
Table ES-1: SUMMARY COMPARISON
OF ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS (CONT.)
| |
Proposed Action
|
Alternative Action
|
|
Impact
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
| Water Storage |
|
|
|
|
|
Carryover water storage improved for New
Melones Reservoir.
|
B
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Carryover water storage reduced
for New Don Pedro Reservoir. |
LS
|
na
|
SU
|
na
|
| Carryover water storage reduced
for Lake McClure during below normal or dry
hydrologic conditions. |
PSU
|
na
|
PSU
|
na
|
| Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
| Exceedence of water quality standards
reduced on San Joaquin River at Vernalis in
October. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Exceedence of salinity standards
reduced on San Joaquin River at Vernalis in
June and July, and potentially in November or
August. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Salinities reduced with April
or May pulse flow. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Water quality would improve at
Vernalis from November through March. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| |
Proposed Action
|
Alternative Action
|
|
Impact
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
Without Mitigation
|
With Mitigation
|
| Exceedence of salinity standards
increased on San Joaquin River at Vernalis in
June, July, and August. Mitigation would require
additional releases from New Melones. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
|
Groundwater
|
|
|
|
|
| Overdrafting |
|
|
|
|
| No groundwater from the SSJID
service area would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; overdrafting would be unaffected. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| A minor amount of groundwater
from the OID service area (up to 15,000 acre-feet)
would be used to provide water for instream
flows, but the groundwater would be recharged
by inflow from the Stanislaus River. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Modesto
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for the pulse flow. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Turlock
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for the pulse flow. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater could indirectly
be used to replace surface water used for the
flows from the Merced ID (up to 67,500 acre-feet,
12% of the typical annual production); however,
implementation of conjunctive use, reclamation,
and increased efficiencies would augment groundwater
supplies. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater from the Exchange
Contractors service area could provide all of
the water for the pulse flow (up to 11,000 acre-feet,
2.2% of the Delta Mendota Basin production rate). |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater may be used to supplement
surface water deliveries in order to achieve
the 1995 WQCP Vernalis flow objectives; however,
implementation of conjunctive use, reclamation,
and increased efficiencies would augment groundwater
supplies. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Water Levels |
|
|
|
|
| No groundwater from the SSJID
service area would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; water levels would be unaffected. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Up to 15,000 acre-feet of groundwater
from the OID service area would be used to provide
water for instream flows, but the groundwater
would be recharged by inflow from the Stanislaus
River; the water levels would be unaffected. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater would be used
to provide water for the pulse flow from MID;
water levels in the Modesto Groundwater Basin
would be unaffected. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Turlock
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for the pulse flow; water levels would be unaffected. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater from the Merced Groundwater
Basin could indirectly be used to replace surface
water for the flows (up to 67,500 acre-feet,
12% of the typical annual production); however,
implementation of conjunctive use, reclamation,
and increased efficiencies would augment groundwater
supplies. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater from the Exchange
Contractors service area could provide all of
the water for the pulse flow (up to 11,000 acre-feet,
2.2% of the Delta Mendota Basin production rate). |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater may be used to supplement
surface water deliveries in order to achieve
the 1995 WQCP Vernalis flow objectives; however,
implementation of conjunctive use, reclamation,
and increased efficiencies would mitigate use
of groundwater. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Water Quality |
|
|
|
|
| No groundwater from the SSJID
service area would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; there would be no impact on
water quality. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| A minor amount of groundwater
from the OID service area would be used to provide
water for instream flows, but the groundwater
would be recharged by inflow from the Stanislaus
River; there would be no impact on water quality. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Modesto
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for the pulse flow; there would be no impact
on water quality. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
|
| No groundwater from the Turlock
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; there would be no impact on
water quality. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater from the Merced Groundwater
Basin could indirectly be used to replace surface
water for the flows; TDS levels may increase
slightly. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater could provide all
of the water for the pulse flow from the Exchange
Contractors service area; TDS levels may increase
slightly. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater may be used to supplement
surface water deliveries in order to achieve
the 1995 WQCP Vernalis flow objectives; there
could be an impact on water quality; however,
limiting or restricting groundwater pumping
in restricted areas, conjunctive use, and increased
efficiencies could augment groundwater supplies. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Subsidence |
|
|
|
|
| No groundwater from the SSJID
service area would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; there would be no impact on
subsidence. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Up to 15,000 acre-feet of groundwater
from the OID service area would be used to provide
water for instream flows, but the groundwater
would be recharged by inflow from the Stanislaus
River; there would be no impact on subsidence. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Modesto
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for the pulse flow; there would be no impact
on subsidence. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No groundwater from the Turlock
Groundwater Basin would be used to provide water
for pulse flow; there would be no impact on
subsidence. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater (up to 67,500 acre-feet)
from the Merced Groundwater Basin could indirectly
be used to replace surface water for the flows;
there could be an impact on subsidence. However,
limiting groundwater pumping in highly overdrafted
areas, importing water, and developing or expanding
recharge areas would reduce the impact. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Groundwater (up to 11,000 acre-feet)
could provide all of the water for the pulse
flow from the Exchange Contractors; the impact
on subsidence is less than significant. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Approximately 62,000 acre-feet
of groundwater may be used to supplement surface
water deliveries in order to achieve the 1995
WQCP Vernalis flow objectives; there could be
an impact on subsidence. However, limiting groundwater
pumping in highly overdrafted areas, importing
water, and developing or expanding recharge
areas could reduce the impact to less than significant. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Agricultural Subsurface Drainage |
|
|
|
|
| The 31-day pulse flow and other
flows would not have an impact on agricultural
seepage. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Raised water levels in the San
Joaquin River could affect seepage, but groundwater
pumped to replace reductions in surface water
deliveries would produce a less-than-significant
effect on agricultural drainage. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
|
Terrestrial Resources
|
|
|
|
|
| Riparian Vegetation |
|
|
|
|
| May pulse flows interfere with
Fremont cottonwood initiation; most likely operation
would be for pulse flows to begin mid-April.
Ramping flows to minimize flow changes are part
of the proposed project. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Stable summer base flows would
increase likelihood of invasion by narrowleaf
willow, but FERC mandated flows in the Tuolumne
would preclude such an impact. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| No threatened or endangered plant
species and no relic vegetation types would
be affected. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Wildlife |
|
|
|
|
| Ramping rates and April pulse
flows would reduce loss of wildlife habitat
and decrease the potential for riparian corridor
fragmentation. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| The impacts to wildlife, especially
TES species would be insignificant. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aquatic Resources
|
|
|
|
|
| Factors Affecting Distribution
and Abundance of Aquatic Resources |
|
|
|
|
| Water quality improved; no adverse
impacts on aquatic resources. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Chinook Salmon |
|
|
|
|
| Flow changes on all rivers would
result in non- measurable or less-than-significant
impacts to fall-run chinook salmon. |
N/LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Flows increased in April/May
and October on all rivers that benefit emigrating
salmon smolts and immigrating adults. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Rapid changes in flows in the
spring and fall may affect juvenile salmon and
salmon redds; however, ramping of flows would
ensure the impacts would be less than significant. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Impacts to female fecundity in
November from possibly high water temperature
would have a low frequency of occurrence. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Minimal effects on water temperature
in Merced River. Decreasing seasonal air temperature
dominates release temperatures. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Reduced flows in February on
the Merced River and in May on the Stanislaus
River in critically dry periods would affect
juvenile salmon. Mitigation could include increased
smolt production. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Steelhead |
|
|
|
|
| Steelhead found only in the Stanislaus
River. Flows increased during most months, in
all water year types. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Reduced flows in May on the Stanislaus
River during critically dry periods could affect
juvenile steelhead. Mitigation could include
increased smolt production. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Occasional flow increases during
summer months on the Stanislaus River would
benefit over-summering juveniles. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Striped Bass |
|
|
|
|
| Flows increased during the spawning
period, especially during dry and critically
dry years. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Flows reduced in the Merced River
during above normal and wet years with a potential
reduction of available spawning. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Flows increased during the spawning
period in the Merced River. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Flows reduced in the Stanislaus
and Tuolumne rivers during the spawning period. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Increased flows in the summer
months may benefit maturing striped bass fry
in offsite locations (within the Delta). |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Splittail |
|
|
|
|
| Flows increased during the spawning
period, especially during dry and critically
dry years. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Flows decreased on the Merced
River during the spawning period during above
normal and wet years. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Flows increased during the spawning
period in the Merced River. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Flows reduced in the Stanislaus
and Tuolumne rivers during the spawning period. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Increased flows in the summer
months of the critically dry period may benefit
young splittails in all rivers. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Reservoir Species |
|
|
|
|
| No impacts to largemouth bass. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Habitat impacted at New Don Pedro
Reservoir and Lake McClure. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Habitat impacted at New Melones
Reservoir. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Delta smelt and longfin smelt |
|
|
|
|
| Flows provided by the proposed
action would be in compliance with the 1995
Biological Opinion for the operation of the
CVP and SWP. No significant impacts to delta
or longfin smelt would occur during the spring
or fall pulse flows or with the alternative
action’s increased flows. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
|
Land Use
|
|
|
|
|
| Population and Population
Density |
|
|
|
|
| No adverse impacts on local populations
or local population growth. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No impacts on municipal users,
therefore no impact to population density. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Users with junior water rights
who serve municipal water users would have deliveries
curtailed 20 to 60% of the time in April-May.
Groundwater could be used to replace surface
water reductions. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
| Population densities under constrained
growth would remain stable. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Regional Economy and Employment |
|
|
|
|
| Short-term impacts on jobs from
reduced farm production avoided by substituting
groundwater for surface water supplies. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Job losses less than significant,
but output and income losses could be significant.
Mitigation measures include groundwater substitution,
conjunctive use, conservation, and tailwater
recovery. |
na
|
na
|
S
|
LS
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Agricultural Land Use |
|
|
|
|
| Potential reduction of 104,500
acre-feet of Authority’s water to irrigation
customers could adversely impact cropping patterns
and productivity. However, most of this surface
water would be replaced by groundwater including
conjunctive use water or come from carryover
storage. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Reduced deliveries by Merced
ID could adversely affect agricultural production
in the short term, but this decline in productivity
would be mitigated through a conjunctive use
project and by groundwater pumping by individual
farmers. |
PS
|
LS
|
na
|
na
|
| Cropping patterns could change
and crop production could be reduced. Mitigation
measures include alternative sources of water. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
|
Cultural Resources
|
|
|
|
|
| Reservoirs |
|
|
|
|
| Recreation use increased at New
Melones during critically dry years; potential
for cultural resource damage could increase. |
LS
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Recreation use not affected at
New Don Pedro Reservoir and Lake McClure, so
no indirect impact. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Lower reservoir levels at New
Don Pedro Reservoir may expose potential cultural
resources to impact from recreationists. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Rivers |
|
|
|
|
| No adverse impacts to cultural
resources on San Joaquin, Stanislaus, or Tuolumne
rivers. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Frequency of streamflows below
critical flow decreased in critical, dry, and
below normal years on Merced River; recreation
use could increase and therefore could increase
potential for cultural resource damage. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Frequency of flows above the
critical threshold increase on the San Joaquin
River, but the short-term impact on cultural
resources is less than significant. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| During critical water years,
recreation use could increase or decrease on
the San Joaquin River depending on the various
critical thresholds or optimal ranges; the short-
term impact on cultural resources is less than
significant. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Recreation use is beneficially
impacted on the Stanislaus River and could,
therefore, increase the potential for damage
to cultural resources. Mitigation measures could
include implementation of a protection plan. |
na
|
na
|
PS
|
LS
|
|
Recreation
|
|
|
|
|
| Reservoirs |
|
|
|
|
| No adverse impact to recreationists
at any of the reservoirs. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Reservoir levels increased at
New Melones in critical years in September. |
B
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| Reservoir levels decreased at
New Don Pedro Reservoir during critical water
years. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| No impacts on reservoir levels
at Lake McClure. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Rivers |
|
|
|
|
| Frequency of streamflows below
critical flow decreased in critical, dry, and
below normal years on Merced River. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| No adverse impacts to recreation
on San Joaquin, Stanislaus, or Tuolumne rivers. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Frequency of streamflows above
critical flow increased in all years on San
Joaquin River; however, the recreation opportunities
above this threshold are unknown. |
na
|
na
|
PSU
|
na
|
| During critically dry years,
San Joaquin River streamflows would provide
both beneficial and adverse impacts to recreationists. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Frequency of streamflows in optimal
ranges for boating increased on the Stanislaus
River. |
na
|
na
|
B
|
na
|
| No adverse impacts to recreation
on Tuolumne or Merced rivers. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
|
Energy Resources
|
|
|
|
|
| Reservoirs |
|
|
|
|
| Storage increased at New Melones
Reservoir during June, July, and August thus
increasing potential for hydropower generation. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Storage decreased at New Don
Pedro Reservoir during peak power production
months thus decreasing potential for hydropower
generation. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Storage decreased greater than
10% at Lake McClure in critical, dry, and below
normal years during peak power production months
thus decreasing potential for hydropower generation. |
PSU
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| There are less-than-significant
impacts to potential hydropower production on
any of the reservoirs. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| Rivers |
|
|
|
|
| Releases increased on Stanislaus
River could increase hydropower generation. |
LS
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Releases increased on Tuolumne
River could increase hydropower generation. |
B
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Flows decreased more than 10%
on Merced River in above normal years in June
thus decreasing potential for hydropower generation. |
PSU
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| There are less-than-significant
impacts to potential hydropower production on
the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, or Merced rivers. |
na
|
na
|
LS
|
na
|
| No hydropower generation is generated
on the lower San Joaquin River so there are
no impacts. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
|
Indian Trust Asset
|
|
|
|
|
| Reservoirs |
|
|
|
|
| Indian Trust Assets are not located
at any of the reservoirs. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Rivers |
|
|
|
|
| Indian Trust Assets do not occur
along any of the rivers in the project area. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
|
Environmental Justice
|
|
|
|
|
| Aquatic Resources |
|
|
|
|
| Beneficial impacts to fisheries
would not affect environmental justice. |
N
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Recreation Resources |
|
|
|
|
| Beneficial impacts to recreation
in rivers and reservoirs would not affect environmental
justice. |
N
|
na
|
na
|
na
|
| Less-than-significant adverse
impacts to New Don Pedro Reservoir during critical
water years would not impact environmental justice. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| Potentially significant adverse
or beneficial impacts to recreationists on the
San Joaquin River would not impact environmental
justice. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| There are no impacts on either
the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, or Merced rivers. |
na
|
na
|
N
|
na
|
| 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 |
|
