Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896) Response to Comments Public Comment Summary The legal notice for the opportunity to comment appeared in the newspaper of record (Union Democrat) on December 19, 2014. The 30-day comment period ended on January 20, 2015. In response to the Forest’s request for comments, six interested parties submitted letters during the comment period (Table 1). The interdisciplinary team (IDT) sequentially numbered each letter and each comment within each letter, and provided a unique comment identification (ID) number and a response (Public Comments and Responses to Comments).

Table 1 List of Respondents

ID Date Name Organization Address City State Zip 1 1/15/15 John Buckley Central Sierra Environmental P.O. Box 396 Twain Harte CA 95383 Research Center 2 1/12/15 William Lane P.O. Box 1235 Groveland CA 95321 3 1/14/15 Jena Sorrells Family Camp at Yosemite 11401 Cherry Lake Road Groveland CA 95321 City of San Jose 4 1/14/15 Jon M. Sturtevant Tuolumne Group of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 4440 Sonora CA 95370 5 1/16/15 Patrick Koepele Tuolumne River Trust 312 Sutter St., Suite 402 San Francisco CA 94108 6 1/16/15 Stephen Welch Tuolumne River Outfitters; 24000 Casa Loma Road Groveland CA 95321 American River Touring The IDT reviewed all comments and identified specific comments to address. Specific (S) comments are: within the scope of the Proposed Action; specific to the Proposed Action; have a direct relationship with the Proposed Action; and, include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR 215.2). Specific comments were received regarding discrepancies between the project description at the time of scoping and as described in the EA; potential traffic increases associated with fill import for the project; the potential effects of streamflow reductions that would occur during the LCA operation recovery period and the need for associated mitigation to be identified; definition of a drought “trigger” for operation of the LCA; and the validity of the No Action alternative. The remaining comments do not meet the definition of specific comments and the IDT identified them as non-specific (NS) comments. Public Comments and Responses to Comments on Draft EA 1-1 Comment: (NS) The Forest Service is obviously in a position of wanting to support the ability of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) through the operations of Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) to provide for the critical water needs of Bay Area customers during drought periods. That is a simple, straightforward, and fully reasonable objective. CSERC does not oppose that objective. We do not oppose the emergency use of the historic Lower Cherry Aqueduct to convey water from Lake Eleanor and Lake Lloyd/Cherry Lake to the mountain tunnels at Early Intake. Response: Comment noted. 1-2 Comment: (S) The EA is legally deficient and vulnerable, if it should it be challenged, because there have been substantial, major changes in the project – or at least in the project description - between the scoping document and the draft EA.

1 Response to Comments

As one example, the EA glosses over at least one highly important change of key information between the scoping document and the EA – without clarifying how such an enormous error became the basis for the scoping document. Response: NEPA does not require that a project be fully developed at the time of scoping. Federal agencies are encouraged to apply the NEPA process at the earliest possible time in order to ensure consideration of potential or actual environmental impacts. The purpose of NEPA is to disclose the potential environmental impacts of an action before the action is taken. Despite the differences between project description in the scoping document and the EA, the EA adequately analyzes the project as proposed. We acknowledge that it would have been prudent to highlight all of the changes in the EA that were made between the scoping document and the EA publication for public comment. These changes are highlighted in the final EA. 1-3 Comment: (S) In the scoping document, the claim is made that the water to be conveyed through the LCA to bypass the Tuolumne River would total 150,000 acre feet (af) if the LCA was operated at 165 cfs. Yet in the EA, the document now claims that the same action would only result in 40,000 af bypassing the Tuolumne River and going through the Mountain Tunnel. This is a huge difference (150,000 af vs 40,000 af) that is not explained except to refer to the scoping document number of acre feet as “erroneous”. Response: 150,000 af was incorrectly cited in the scoping document. 150,000 af was an approximation of the conveyance capacity of the aqueduct based on year round use. There is no proposal to use the LCA year round. Under the corrected project description the amount of water conveyed would be 48,000 af, as described in the EA. This is the maximum amount of water that could be conveyed at 200 cfs during 4 months (120 days) of 24 hour operation; that is, 200 cfs X 3600 seconds per hour X 24 hours per day X 120 days = 48,000 af. We acknowledge that it would have been prudent to specifically describe this error in the EA. The final EA (Section 1.3.3, page 9) acknowledges and corrects this misstatement. 1-4 Comment: (S) The scoping document described the proposed time period for water diversion into the LCA as three months in length, yet in the draft EA, the length of the proposed diversion period has jumped upwards to four months at 24 hours per day – not three. Response: The scoping document , page 5, states, “The SFPUC anticipates using the Cherry Reservoir /Lake Eleanor water supply for about three months annually, during drought periods, as necessary to optimize all Tuolumne River supplies to meet SFPUC customer deliveries.” (emphasis added). As operational planning and projections advanced during project design, it was identified that the facility could be operated for up to four months—up to 2 months through releases from Lake Eleanor and up to 2 months through releases from Cherry Lake. The maximum duration of anticipated use would be 4 months, but the duration of use could be as short as 1 to 2 months. The maximum total volume of water diverted as disclosed in the EA (p. 19) is much less than incorrectly disclosed during scoping (see Comment 1-3 and response). 1-5 Comment: (S) The scoping document made no mention of the project needing to “import” (dig up and transport) up to 22,000 yards of fill and soil that is now planned to come from the borrow site at Granite Portal on national forest land, or from some other not yet

2 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

identified site. This could result up to 3,000 dump truck loads or more of material mined and distributed, and yet there was zero mention of this potential environmental impact in the scoping document. To not even describe the importing, transport, and dumping of 22,000 yards of material onto the national forest in the scoping document is an error of omission. The project map distributed with the scoping document also did not even include any identification of the borrow site or any description of it being considered a part of the project, whereas the draft EA map does. Response: The scoping document stated that, “Native backfill would be placed over the top of the pipe and hydroseeded with a seed mix approved by the Forest Service” (p. 3) and that, “Soil for burial of the pipeline installed in the aqueduct would be extracted either from existing borrow pits within Stanislaus National Forest or imported from other local sources that meet USFS weed-free soil requirement and specifications” (p. 4). The amount of fill required to bury the pipeline had not been established at the time the scoping document was published, as the project was still in design. As reported in the Traffic Specialist Report (project record) and summarized in Section 3.7 of the EA, a total of about 1,900 dump truck loads (not up to 3,000) are estimated for fill delivery. The EA identifies management requirements and BMPs that would reduce the potential effects of construction traffic with respect to public safety and access delays (3.7, Traffic), minimize the potential for introduction of invasive plants (3.4, Invasive Species), and ensure that the fill cover on the pipeline is vegetated for erosion control and aesthetic improvement (2.3, Management Requirements). 1-6 Comment: (S) The scoping document on page three specifies that the improvements in the project would restore “the 165 cubic feet per second design capacity of the LCA”. On page two of the scoping document, the document states that the fourth purpose of the LCAER project is to: “Restore LCA design capacity of 165 cubic feet per second (cfs).” Yet now the draft EA claims that the construction of an expanded pipeline section during Phase II would restore “the historic design capacity of the LCA to 200 cubic feet per second (cfs)”. This 200 af amount is a significant difference from the 165 cfs amount of design capacity described in the scoping document, and it expansively changes the project. Response: This change also relates to design information that was under development at the time of scoping. The existing capacity of the LCA is 165 cfs. The Phase 1 project would not increase this capacity, but would increase the reliability of the system for operating at this capacity to deliver up to 40,000 af during an operating season. This existing capacity, however, is less than the original 200-cfs design capacity of the system (as described by M.M. O’Shaughnessy 1916: 14)1, which became constrained when a segment of the aqueduct that was destroyed by a slide was replaced with a smaller pipeline segment. Phase 2 of the project would alleviate this constraint to restore the original 200 cfs design capacity of the Lower Cherry Aqueduct, such that a total of 48,000 af—or 20 percent more water—could be delivered during an operating season. The EA accurately describes water conveyance volumes at 165 cfs and at 200 cfs (sections 1.3.3 and 3.2) and discusses the effects of 200-cfs operations (Chapter 3, various locations).

1 The Hetch Hetchy Water Supply- Report of M. M. O’Shaughnessy, City Engineer, to the Mayor, the Board of Public Works and the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, March 1916.

3 Response to Comments

1-7 Comment: (S) The EA is also legally deficient and vulnerable because the EA does not comply with NEPA: The EA dismisses the proposed reduction in flows down the Tuolumne River (of up to 48,000 acre feet) as not being an impact of any significance. The loss of 40,000 af of water that does not go down the river to provide extra fish habitat, extra watering of riverine habitat, and cleansing flows for algae, etc. cannot be dismissed simply because river flows may still fall within the range of variability of past flow fluctuations. Bypassing the Tuolumne River with 40,000 to 48,000 af of water may not be an impact that justifies denying the project, but it still needs to be fairly and truthfully evaluated as a significant reduction in river flows. As our Center has learned through years of FERC relicensing discussions, the amount of water in the river directly translates into fish habitat capacity, macro-invertebrate benefits, etc. The EA instead attempts to minimize the significance of the flow reduction by claiming that the resulting lower flow amount will still be within the range of historic variability. That completely twists the intent of NEPA. Just because the Rim Fire occurred and wiped out tens of thousands of acres of trees can’t be justification by an applicant to wipe out tens of thousands of trees because it happened historically. The impact is still significant, whether or not it falls within a range of historic variability. Response: The EA appropriately evaluates the effects of LCA operations as they relate to reduction in flows on the Tuolumne River. The direct and indirect hydrologic effects of the Proposed Action are identified on pp. 99-109 of the EA (Watershed) and cumulative hydrologic effects are identified on pp. 109-110. Effects are identified in relation to water quality, stream flow, reservoir elevations, water temperature, sediment transport, and cumulative effects. The EA (pp. 52-60) also addresses effects of operations upon aquatic species. It should be noted that diversion of stored water under Phase 1 of the Proposed Action would be the same (165 cfs/ 40,000 af annually) as under the No Action Alternative. Flows would increase by 35 cfs (for an additional 8,000 af annually) with implementation of Phase 2 of the Proposed Action. As summarized in the FONSI (Section 3.12 of the Final EA), full implementation of the Proposed Action, which would enable the LCA to carry flows at a total of 200 cfs, would not result in any significant impacts in relation to environmental conditions on the Tuolumne River, for the reasons detailed in the EA in Section 3.8.2. Further, as discussed in Chapter 1 of the EA, operations of the LCA are not within the authority of the USFS and are outside the scope of the current approval. The following discussion has been added to the EA (Section 3.8.2) to clarify the basis for the conclusions presented in the EA that the Proposed Action would not result in flows that are outside of the range of streamflow conditions under existing ongoing operations; that is, flows under the Proposed Action would be consistent with baseline flows, which are illustrated in EA Table 3.8-6. The EA baseline for analysis of environmental effects was the historical range of releases from Cherry and Eleanor dams and Holm Power House (which enter the Tuolumne River at the Cherry Creek confluence) in the period between 1993 and 2014. 1993 was identified as the lower bounding date for this analysis because it marks the beginning of HHWP operations under its Water First policy. As explained on p. 8 of the EA, under this policy

4 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

during low water years more of the available water is stored in the reservoirs, rather than being used for power generation then released to Cherry Creek, in order to maintain HHWP water supplies and operational flexibility to provide backup water supplies for the Bay Area and for required releases to meet water obligations to downstream irrigation districts. During wetter years, larger volumes of water are used to generate power at HPH and then released to Cherry creek to flow to the Tuolumne River. The 21-year period between 1993 and 2014 approximates the range of variability in streamflow conditions downstream of HPH under HHWP’s Water First operations policy and thus provide a baseline against which the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action can be measured. As reported in the EA, Section 3.8 (Watershed), because the projected streamflow volumes during LCA recovery would be within the baseline period range of release volumes that characterize “normal” operations of the HHWP system, the operation of and recovery from operation of the LCA would not be expected to result in a change relative to baseline- period streamflow conditions on the Tuolumne downstream of Cherry Creek (that is, relative to existing conditions) with respect to water temperature, sediment transfer, fish habitat, watering of riverine habitat, and cleansing flows for algae. The EA describes releases from HPH and Cherry and Eleanor dams in annual acre-feet. Table 3.8-7, has been added to the EA to show how these annual water volumes were distributed monthly during the baseline years and as modeled for the LCA recovery period, in terms of average monthly flow rates in cubic feet per second (cfs). These data were the basis of comparative analyses provided in the project technical specialist reports for hydrology, recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers (project record), the results of which are presented in the respective sections of the EA. The data provided in Table 3.8.7 support the conclusions presented in Section 3.8.2 of the EA: the modeled flow rates during the recovery year following LCA operation are within the range of flows for the same months during the baseline years used in the EA analyses, and therefore do not represent a change relative to existing environmental conditions. More detailed explanation of this issue has been added to the EA (Watershed, Section 3.8.2, Environmental Consequences, Streamflow Effects) to provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the analysis presented in the draft EA. 1-8 Comment: (S) There was No Action taken in response to the request we made in our scoping comments that called for the EA or EIS to spell out clearly defined parameters as to exactly when the LCA project diversions could be allowed. If approved as now developed, the EA would allow up to 48,000 af to bypass the river corridor and instead be conveyed through the Mountain Tunnel to the Bay Area. That action could be done despite there being no legal parameters as to when SFPUC or HHWP can choose to describe a time period as a “drought” or as “a series of dry years.” HHWP could deem that a year with 45% of normal snowpack is a “drought”, whereas the Department of Water Resources might define that same water year as “average”. THE FREQUENCY OF THE LOSS OF UP TO 48,000 AF OF WATER IN THE TUOLUMNE RIVER COULD BE FAR MORE OFTEN IF LEFT TO AN UNDEFINED JUDGMENT OF NECESSITY BY HHWP OR SFPUC STAFF THAN IF THERE IS A CLEAR DEFINITION OF “DROUGHT” OR “SERIES OF DRY YEARS” FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRIGGERING USE OF THE LCA DIVERSION.

5 Response to Comments

Put another way, the potential significant environmental impact of approving this project could be far higher due to the loss of water in the river occurring far more frequently if SFPUC is not constrained to only utilizing the LCA diversion when a true drought situation exists. CSERC urges that any project approval specify that LCA diversion shall only be allowed (1) when the State Department of Water Resources has identified the Water Year in the central region of the Sierra Nevada to be a Critical Dry water year, or (2) when DWR has identified both the previous year and the current year as Dry or Critically Dry water years. The failure of a NEPA document to specify when a major action will be allowed and when it will not be allowed is a significant error of omission. Response: The decision regarding when to operate the LCA is outside of the scope of the decision to be made by STF for the reasons discussed in p. 1 of the EA . The federal decision under consideration is authorization of the rehabilitation and construction of improvements to the existing facility and is not related to the operations of the facility, which have been previously authorized under the Raker Act of 1913. The commenter is correct that the SFPUC identified that LCA would be operated during drought periods. The EA has been updated to further define drought conditions and circumstances under which the LCA is likely to be operated (EA pp. 8 and 9). The following text is added to EA p. 8 to further clarify the previously-presented information on the hydrologic conditions under which operation of the LCA would be considered. Hydrologic condition indicators vary throughout regions. The index the CCSF-SFPUC uses to designate the hydrologic conditions in the Tuolumne River basin is based on precipitation measured at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Extremely (or Critically) Dry is defined as the driest 15% of the historical record (currently less than 22.1 inches of precipitation received by June 1st). Dry conditions are defined as receiving more precipitation than the Extremely Dry condition, but less than 35% of the historical record (currently less than 27.4 inches received by June 1st). An Extremely Dry or two consecutive Dry years would be drought conditions in which use of LCA would be considered. As detailed in response to Comment 1-7, the EA analyzed the effects of LCA operations and concluded that the effects would be within the range of variability of “normal” flows and operations. The commenter’s suggested requirement for operation only during a DWR-declared drought is not appropriate for this project. DWR does not designate a water year type specifically for the Central Sierra. The closest applicable DWR water year type index for the Tuolumne Basin would be the San Joaquin 60-20-20 Index. This index is based on the current water year runoff condition on the San Joaquin River (and forecasted) and the previous year runoff on the San Joaquin River. 1-9 Comment: (S) The EA rejected our Center’s relatively minimal mitigation request that (to at least partially compensate for the loss of 40-48,000 af of water in the Tuolumne River) SFPUC agree to mandate some level of water conservation for water customers during the drought period when LCA operations occurred. Instead, the EA response assures that CCSF has numerous conservation programs in place. Furthermore, the EA response noted that San Francisco water users were encouraged to voluntarily reduce water use by 10%.

6 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

Given that customers of water utility districts in Tuolumne County were mandated to cut back use by 50% during 2014, it appears to be arbitrary and capricious for the SFPUC – CCSF to reject a requirement to mitigate for the bypassing of 48,000 af of water in the Tuolumne River by mandating at least a 10% reduction in water use by customers during the year of LCA diversion. CSERC believes that the project is legally in conflict with NEPA if approval allows the project applicant to reject the need for any mitigation to reduce the impact of diverting 48,000 af of water away from the Tuolumne River. CSERC believes that the project should be denied for a failure to comply with NEPA unless the SFPUC – CCSF agrees to adopt 10% mandatory conservation requirement in a year when 20,000 af or more of water is diverted through the LCA system – since without such a mitigation measure, the project will fail to feasibly reduce the significance of the project’s impact on the river system. Response: The EA presents the results of technical analyses of the effects of the Proposed Action with respect to soils, wildlife and aquatic species, wetland, riparian corridor, recreation and Wild and Scenic Rivers, and the hydrology of Cherry and Eleanor creeks and the Tuolumne River. With the incorporation of the BMPs and management directives that are included in the project, no environmental effects for which the proposed mitigation would be required were identified in the NEPA analyses; therefore, no mitigation is required, nor does NEPA require that additional alternatives be considered. Furthermore, the operation of the LCA is outside of the authority of the USFS and of the decision at hand. Nonetheless, with respect to a mandate for 10 percent water rationing, note that per capita water use in SFPUC’s service area is already among the lowest in the state. The State of California Water Resource Control Board’s September Per Capita Daily Water Use Report (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/ programs /drought/conservation_reporting_info.shtml) showed San Francisco’s residential daily use to be lowest in the State at 45.73 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). San Francisco’s gross water use is about 88 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), less than one-half the statewide average of 197 gpcd. Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System customers met their 10% voluntary conservation goal for 2014 by saving approximately 8 billion gallons of water. Customers reached this milestone in October, more than two months ahead of the original December 31 deadline (SFPUC News Archive 11/5/2014). CCSF has numerous conservation programs in place to reduce water demand, including use of recycled or non- potable water, water conservation education, and distribution to customers of low-flow water fixtures and purchase rebates, commercial and residential water efficiency and landscape irrigation ordinances. 1-10 Comment: (S) The EA is also legally deficient and vulnerable because the document authors have inaccurately and misleadingly portrayed a large portion of the project action alternative as the “No Action” alternative. The scoping document on page 1 clearly states: “In its current condition the LCA cannot reliably fulfill its intended water supply purpose. Impacts from the Rim Fire of 2013 and the effects of age must be addressed before the LCA can be used to deliver water supply to the Mountain Tunnel serving the Bay Area. The LCAER project would rehabilitate and project major improvements to restore system functionality and reliability.”

7 Response to Comments

The scoping document was clear. Major work needed to be approved through the LCAER project in order for the LCA to be able to be used to deliver water supply to the Mountain Tunnel. Those major improvements were described on page 3 of the scoping notice under: Key components of the LCAER Project. They very clearly were the installation of new large- diameter pipe in the existing open aqueduct, the construction of new reinforced concrete structures at each of the tunnel portals, constructing a new reinforced concrete cover over the open aqueduct section between Tunnels 2 and 2A, replacing the entire reach of existing above-ground piping and associated supports between Tunnels 4 an 5 with a new large diameter pipeline, repairing the concrete surface of the CC diversion dam, replacing sluice gates and controls, replacing head gates and mechanical operating equipment, and a wide range of reconstruction, restoration, and rehabilitation work at the Gate House and Control Room, the CCDD Access Trail, and the Forebay. All of those actions were described as key components of the LCAER project. Yet NOW in this EA, project applicants and the Forest Service incorrectly claim that the NO-ACTION alternative (no project) is “no change from present conditions” (page 17 EA) – yet the No Action alternative would be similar to what was originally described in the scoping document as the action alternative project. Over the past seven months or longer, HHWP crews or contract crews have been doing considerable actions that do not appear to equal maintenance, but appear instead to be “improvements” designed to bring the LCA back into operating capacity after it has been in a state of non-use since 1988. In the EA, the text claims that in 2014, as part of HHWP’s “ongoing maintenance efforts” HHWP removed debris from canals and tunnels, relocated bats, and carried out necessary repairs to ready the LCA for use. That work was much more than the removal of logs and debris that have clogged the open canal and tunnels for years. It included major improvement work such as the realignment of piping between tunnel sections that our staff observed. Even with these substantial actions that likely exceeded “maintenance” authorization, the current LCA system still cannot in fact be operated in its present condition for providing 40,000 af water to Bay Area customers due to the huge amount of sediment and debris poised upslope above the canals and due to all of the sludge piles and the banks of sediment that blanket slopes along Cherry Creek and Eleanor Creek upstream from the diversion dam. Sediment just within the creek drainage is enormous. During storm events in winter periods when the diversions into Eleanor and Cherry Creek would occur, this sediment will significantly muddy or sludge up the water that would need to go through the aqueduct into the Mountain Tunnel. In addition, the head gates at the dam have deteriorated due to age and a lack of use. THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TO USE THE CURRENT LCA SYSTEM TO CONVEY UP TO 40,000 AF OF WATER SUPPLIED AT A RATE OF 165 CFS OVER A FOUR-MONTH PERIOD. Response: The scoping document and the EA both very explicitly indicate that the existing system is functional but is not fully reliable. As stated in EA scoping document, the purpose and need for the project includes: “Rehabilitate the LCA to provide reliable delivery of water from Lake Eleanor and Cherry Reservoir into the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System” (scoping document, p. 2)”

8 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

As accurately reported in the EA project description (Chapter 2), the Proposed Action includes extensive work on the LCA system, both to repair Rim Fire damage and rehabilitate aging infrastructure and, most importantly, to enclose the existing open aqueduct to exclude slope debris and silt. The EA also accurately describes the work conducted in the summer of 2014 to prepare the LCA for interim operation (EA, p.1). While major maintenance work was needed to clear tunnels, aqueducts and conveyance and drainage pipelines of debris and silt, the commenter is not correct in stating that the work included realignment of piping between tunnels. Temporary repairs of Rim Fire-damaged head gate and sluice gate operating mechanisms at the Cherry Creek diversion dam were carried out in 2014; permanent replacements of these damaged and deteriorated gates will not be conducted until National Historic Preservation Act compliance has been completed. After completion of the summer 2014 maintenance work, the LCA was briefly tested in fall 2014 and has been demonstrated to be functional at this time, although it continues at risk from blockage by Rim Fire silt and debris, which also could result in increased turbidity in the transported water. While impacts from the Rim Fire will lessen over time, the problem with turbidity and the need to filter water transported by the LCA are among factors that discourage the use of the LCA except in urgent need. 1-11 Comment: (S) A 27-YEAR GAP IN USE IS NOT “ON-GOING” USE. Furthermore, as noted in CSERC’s previous comments, we pointed out that HHWP has admittedly not used the LCA for water supply purposes since 1988 – 27 years ago. In terms of a NEPA evaluation for consideration of timeliness, that 27-year gap in use cannot possibly be defined as “continued” or “on-going” use, as is misleadingly claimed in the EA. After 27 years without use, this is a “new” use for purposes of NEPA evaluation and the potential for environmental impacts…. That major improvement to a system after 27 years of non-use is very different from how the EA describes Alternative 2 on page 17, when it describes Alternative 2 as the “No Action Alternative (No change from present conditions).” Response: We acknowledge that “on-going” did not characterize actual use of the aqueduct for water supply. The commenter is correct that the LCA has not been used for backup water supply since 1988. However, the system has received low level ongoing maintenance to ensure its availability at need, for the intermittent backup water supply use for which it has been preserved. As clearly indicated in the scoping document (p.1) and the EA (cf. pp. 3, 4, 8, 35, 99 and elsewhere), the LCA is a backup water supply facility. As such, since the cessation of its use for hydroelectric power generation in the 1960s, the LCA has not been used regularly. In particular, since the initiation of HHWP’s Water First policy in 1992, HHWP operations have prioritized the retention of water within the storage system during dry periods over its use for hydroelectric power to ensure that sufficient water remains in the system to maintain required downstream flows over a long period and as backup water supply in the event of severe shortages. The major improvements to the system, which would both rehabilitate aging infrastructure, permanently repair elements damaged by the Rim Fire and make a major improvement to the reliability of the aqueduct, would not be carried out

9 Response to Comments

under the No Action alternative; however, in the absence of the major rehabilitation and improvements, ongoing repairs to deteriorated elements of the system would continue to be needed, and would be made in the context of HHWP’s ongoing maintenance of the HHWP system. The ongoing maintenance and operation of this system is consistent with Hetch Hetchy’s appropriative water rights under California law and authorizations under the Raker Act of 1913. 1-12 Comment: (S) That issue [that is, that continued operation of the LCA is the No Action alternative] is underscored by the fact that as managed up to this time, the LCA system qualifies as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. In the discussion of Alternative 2, the EA acknowledges that to convey 165 cfs of water through the system there would need to be the replacement of diversion dam head gates, sluice gate, and the head gate operating mechanism and the elevated segment of the pipeline (page 81). Response: The commenter correctly states that the major elements of the LCA system have retained their historical integrity: the existing system is functional in its historical condition. However, it is anticipated that increasing levels of maintenance and incremental repairs would be needed over time to address the effects of aging. Under Alternative 2 (the No Action alternative), the major work described as the Proposed Action would not be carried out, but necessary repairs to maintain the function of the system would be conducted incrementally through ongoing maintenance (EA, pp. 22-23). The Proposed Action includes replacement of and alterations of minor and major system elements that would affect key historical elements of the system, as discussed in Section 3.3, in particular by replacing the open aqueduct with a pipeline. 1-13 Comment: (S) Mitigation to reasonably and feasibly reduce the significance of that impact would be to make mitigation measures (a) and (b) a part of the project approval. a) As part of the Record of Decision, require that use of the Lower Cherry Aqueduct shall only be allowed for water supply diversion (1) when the State Department of Water Resources has identified the Water Year in the central region of the Sierra Nevada to be a Critical Dry water year, or (2) when DWR has identified both the previous year and the current year as Dry or Critically Dry water years. b) Also in the Record of Decision, provide assurance that SFPUC – CCSF agrees that during a year when the LCA system is used to divert 20,000 af or more of water into the Mountain Tunnel, that SFPUC – CCSF agrees to institute mandatory water conservation of at least 10% for water users to correspondingly reduce demand on Tuolumne River water during that year. If the two mitigation measures above were adopted in order to reduce the level of significance of the environmental impact of up to 48,000 acre feet of water bypassing the Tuolumne River corridor above Don Pedro Reservoir, there would be no longer justification for asking for an EIS to consider additional alternatives to the Proposed Action or for further in-depth consideration of the environmental consequences of not only the water diversion, but also the importing of 22,000 cubic feet of soil and fill, the numerous contradictions and conflicts in project description between the scoping document and the EA, and other major concerns associated with the marginal adequacy of the planning analysis.

10 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

Response: As summarized in the FONSI (final EA Section 3.12), the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts requiring mitigation. In addition, see response to comments 1-8 and 1-9, above. 2-1 Comment: (S) On page 1, 1. Introduction, the third paragraph refers to “historical design capacity”. For the record, Lake Eleanor and the Cherry Creek System was built to provide water for a single unit power house, located downstream form Early Intake, to provide electric power for the construction of Hetch-Hetchy Dam. Later hydroelectric power was used while building the Cherry Lake Dam. The system has not been used for “historic purposes” since the Cherry Lake dam was completed in 1956. The single unit powerhouse was removed over 20 years ago. The domestic water use such as done in 1976 and 1988 was by amendment after the original approvals. The reason I bring this out is so current Forest service employees will be aware of how the City and County of San Francisco has managed to manipulate the Raker Act to suite their purposes (years ago the U.S. Dept. of Interior expressed grave concern about this). Response: The commenter is correct that the primary purpose for which the LCA was constructed was to convey water to the Cherry Power House for generation of hydroelectric power for construction of Hetch Hetchy facilities. However, from the time of its conception in 1916, the LCA also was conceived as a means of conveying backup water supply into the HHWP Mountain Tunnel (“The canal will have a capacity of 200 cubic feet per second, and will be a permanent structure, as it is intended that after the construction period is over it shall remain in service for the purpose of making the water of Cherry Creek tributary to the tunnel aqueduct” O’Shaughnessy 1916:14). The original power house was constructed, explicitly, as a temporary structure, while the aqueduct was constructed as a permanent facility. The construction of the final leg of the aqueduct, to connect it to the Mountain Tunnel for water transfers into the water supply system, was completed in the 1930s and is consistent with CCSF’s water rights under California law and with the purposes of the Raker Act of 1913. 2-2 Comment: (NS) Page 6, fifth paragraph refers to an additional 8,000 acre feet of water annually. What percentage of the total C.C.S.F. water system does the 8,000 acre feet represent? Response: 8,000 af is 1.2 percent of the HHWP reservoir storage capacity, or approximately 3 to 5 percent of Tuolumne River basin annual diversions. 8,000 af represents less than 1 percent of total CCSF’s SFPUC system storage. 2-3 Comment: (NS) After the 1988 drought San Francisco Public Utilities Commissions engineer advised me that the lower Cherry Aqueduct would not be used again because of its poor condition, impacts to Cherry Lake recreation, and inadequate capacity. To meet the future demands, C.C.S.F. would pump water from Cherry Power House (Holm P.H.) to Early Intake. Response: CCSF currently has no infrastructure through which water could be pumped from HPH to Early Intake. See also response to comment 2-4. EA Section 3.5 addresses effects to recreation at Cherry Lake.

11 Response to Comments

2-4 Comment: (NS) After 27 years of increased demand for water, how will the Cherry Creek Aqueduct now be viable? Response: The LCA would convey supplemental water supply to augment Bay Region water supplies during drought, as detailed in EA Section 1.3.3. The purpose of the project is not to meet increased demand. 2-5 Comment: (NS) Page 7 – Phase 1 project elements: How high will the dikes be raised on Cherry Creek? Response: There are presently no dikes on Cherry Creek and none is proposed. The Proposed Action would include repairs to the Cherry Creek diversion dam, including restoration of the surface of the concrete diversion sill on the bedrock of the creek and the faces of the existing concrete sluiceway. 2-6 Comment: (S) The last time the Lower Cherry Aqueduct was used, it was during the summer months. Its purpose was to save the higher quality water in Hetch Hetchy. How does this relate to using Cherry Lake and Lake Eleanor water from November to March? Response: In 1988 the SPFUC was not required to filter LCA water and operations could deliver LCA water with limited system restrictions. Under current CA Water Board and EPA drinking water regulations, this water source needs to be filtered. Due to HHRWS system constraints and water supply demands, the HHRWS cannot accommodate LCA water within the system during the summer months and is operationally limited to the fall and winter months (EA, p. 9). Body contact recreation at Cherry Lake will not be restricted by the use of LCA (EA, p. 74). 3-1 Comment: (NS) Thank you for reaching out. This project had no impact on Family Camp at Yosemite, located at 11401 Cherry Lake Road. Response: Comment noted. 4-1 Comment: (S) The U.S. Forest Service and HHWP-SFPUC desire to avoid an EIS document and analysis, so the agencies are cooperating to provide an EA that is intended to accurately analyze the project and its environmental impacts. Based on our Group's understanding of various changes in the project description between the Scoping Notice and the EA, it appears that the Forest Service-HHWP believe that the project can be changed in numerous ways between the two documents without violating NEPA. Response: The EA was prepared to assess whether the Proposed Action would result in significant environmental effects. As indicated in the FONSI (EA, Section 3.12), no significant impacts were identified for the Proposed Action; therefore an EIS will not be prepared. With regard to differences between the project description at the time of scoping and the project as described in the EA, see response to comments 1-2 through 1-5, above. Chapters 1 and 2 of the EA have been revised to clarify the changes between scoping document and the EA, as well as between the EA circulated for comment and the Final EA.

12 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

4-2 Comment: (S) It also appears from the EA that there is no current intention by HHWP- SFPUC to require customers to conserve 10% or more of normal water use, as was requested by CSERC as mitigation. Response: See response to Comment 1-9. 4-3 Comment: (S) Accordingly, at this time the EA provides the perspective of the agencies that taking 40,000 (or up to 48,000) af out of the Tuolumne River simply isn't any impact on the environment. Our Tuolumne Group disagrees. We are especially concerned that the proposed project described in the Scoping Document has now become the so-called "No Action" alternative, so that if the Forest Service chooses to reject the proposed project, HHWP can still gain approval to divert 40,000 af as the No Action project. This is highly troubling, and it appears to be motivated by political pressure rather than a fair and accurate environmental assessment of the project. Response: The EA analyzes the environmental effects of diverting up to 48,000 af from Tuolumne flows and also the effects of reduction in flows in a recovery year subsequent to operation, as detailed and cited in response to Comment 1-7, above, and concludes that hydrologic conditions (and resultant biological and water quality conditions) under the projected flows during recovery from LCA operations would be within the range of existing conditions that have resulted from the range of “normally”-managed flows within the historical period (1993-2014), which are used as baseline for the analysis. It therefore is concluded that biological and water quality conditions would not be altered beyond the existing normal range (that is, the range of conditions during normal operations between 1993 and 2014) by operation of the LCA. The effects of flow diversions also are analyzed in the EA under Alternative 2, the No Action alternative. With regard to the requested 10% conservation requirement, see response to Comment 1-9, above With regard to the No Action alternative, see response to comment 1-10, above. 4-3 Comment: (S) The Tuolumne Group of the Sierra Club respectfully asks that either the Forest Service reject any conveyance of water through the long-unused LCA system, or that the Forest Service require there to be a clear mitigation requirement that if so much water is allowed to be taken before it can flow down the river, that as mitigation Bay Area customers will be mandated to conserve at least 10% of normal water use during the drought year or during the multiple dry years of diverting the 40,000 to 48,000 af of flows. Response: The Proposed Action would issue a permit related to the construction and related activities outside the existing ROW; however it would not authorize or regulate flows. With regard to impacts that require mitigation, see response to Comment 1-7, above. With regard to the requested 10 percent conservation requirement, see response to Comment 1-9, above. 5-1 Comment: (NS) TRT proposes that the City of County of San Francisco (CCSF) be required to collaborate with the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts (MID/TID), which own and operate Don Pedro and La Grange Dams, on their Upper Tuolumne River Basin Habitat Assessment for the possible reintroduction of anadromous fish into the upper

13 Response to Comments

Tuolumne. MID/TID are conducting this study as part of the La Grange Dam licensing process. CCSF’s role might be to:

- Provide historic gage data downstream of Early Intake and the Holm Powerhouse facilities. - Collaborate with MID/TID on the Operations Model to allow users to modify the operation of Holm Powerhouse. - Identify feasible options to adjust San Francisco’s operations in order to improve thermal suitability for salmon and steelhead in river reaches affected by those operations. These options should consider the City’s peaking operations at Holm Powerhouse. - Consider adding seasonal flows downstream of Early Intake and flow from Holm Powerhouse to improve conditions for anadromous fish. Response: The comment has been passed on to SFPUC for consideration; however, the proposed studies and operational adjustments have no specific connection to project impacts and the decision to be made. Further, they and deal with a potential future condition- the presence of anadromous fish in the Upper Tuolumne. As detailed in response to Comment 1-7, the EA concludes that the Proposed Action would not result in hydrological or biological conditions that are outside of the normal range of variability in flow condition on the river. Irrespective, HHWP already shares stream flow data with the Districts; data also are presently available through the United States Geological Survey. 5-2 Comment: (NS) The LCAER would enable up to 48,000 acre-feet of water in a given year to bypass stretches of Cherry Creek and the Tuolumne River to provide water to Bay Area communities during droughts. This could lead to negative impacts on anadromous fish if they are reintroduced into the upper Tuolumne River above Don Pedro Reservoir. The LCAER EA makes the following observations: (a) Streamflows within Eleanor and Cherry creeks would be directly affected by operation of LCA. Operation of the LCA also would have an indirect streamflow effect within Cherry Creek downstream of Holm Powerhouse and on the mainstem of the Tuolumne River during reservoir storage recovery years. (b) The use of the LCA would result in an overall volume loss of up to 48,000 acre-feet of stored water from the Cherry Reservoir and Lake Eleanor system. At the end of the operating season in which the LCA would be operated, the combined reduction in carry- over storage in Cherry Reservoir and Lake Eleanor would be approximately equal to the volume released for LCA diversion. This volume would be recovered in the reservoirs in the years subsequent to LCA operation through precipitation and natural snowmelt to the reservoirs. During the recovery period when the reservoirs are refilling to replace water released for LCA diversion, an indirect streamflow effect could occur in Cherry Creek downstream of HPH and on the mainstem of the Tuolumne River because less water would be available in the reservoirs for use at Holm Power House and subsequent release downstream, such that the rate and volume delivered downstream by the power house over the course of the year would be reduced....

14 Lower Cherry Aqueduct Emergency Rehabilitation (44896)

(c) To the extent that the downstream flows would be altered by the diversion, operation of the LCA could adversely affect aquatic wildlife and riparian vegetation on Cherry and Eleanor Creeks and the Tuolumne River. Construction on the slopes above Cherry Creek and the Tuolumne River could result in runoff that could adversely affect water quality in the river. (d) …for other resources the cumulative setting includes the stream courses of Cherry and Eleanor creeks and portions of the Tuolumne River. Further, some effects may be limited to the duration of the construction period; others may occur later as the result of operations, or may continue subsequent to construction. To mitigate the potential impacts listed above [that is to anadromous fish], CCSF should be required to collaborate with MID/TID on their Upper Tuolumne River Basin Habitat Assessment. Response: Anadromous fish currently are not present in the Tuolumne upstream of Don Pedro. Consistent with NEPA requirements, the EA analysis does not address speculative future conditions. Potential environmental consequences of the project are avoided or minimized by the inclusion in the project of numerous management requirements and BMPs (EA Section 2.3). Based on the EA analyses, no environmental consequences requiring additional mitigation measures were identified. 6-1 Comment: (NS) The four permitted Tuolumne River Outfitter Guides provide valuable recreational access to the Tuolumne River canyon below Holm Powerhouse. Our operations depend on reliable, predictable releases from the Hetch Hetchy facilities upstream of the confluence of Cherry Creek and the Main Tuolumne River. Any actions taken by the City and County of San Francisco that affect these releases have an impact on us and on the public who use our services to recreate on the Wild and Scenic Tuolumne River. SFPUC has recognized that the timing of their releases to facilitate recreational flows is a benefit of their project. HHWP has been collaborating with white water recreational users since 1973 to provide, when possible, the best flow releases for white water boating during the spring and summer months. Furthermore when possible, SFPUC has directed the HHWP to dampen the impacts of potential springtime floodwater in a manner that minimizes the dangers of higher flows. HHWP has maintained an excellent line of communication with the Forest Service and river users with advice regarding changes in river flow that would affect the safe and reliable boating flow parameters Response: Comment noted. These practices would be continued under the Proposed Action, as discussed in detail in sections 3.5 (Recreation) and 3.9 (Wild and Scenic Rivers) of the EA. 6-2 Comment: (S) A diversion of “40,000 to 48,000 acre-feet” during times of “severe drought” has the potential to impact the recreational releases needed to conduct rafting trips on the Tuolumne River. Because of this, we would like to see better definition of the terms: “drought” and “severe drought” (under exactly what conditions will the LCA be used), as well as a more accurate estimate of the actual amount of water that would be diverted (there are discrepancies between the scoping document and the EA).

15 Response to Comments

We concur with Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) that the deficiencies addressed in the EA need to be corrected so that the NEPA process is properly followed. Response: Relevant passages in Chapter 1 and 2 of the EA have been updated to clarify and correct differences between the scoping document and the EA. Determination of the need to implement use of the LCA would be based on a number of factors related to drought conditions in the central Sierra. A statewide drought declaration almost certainly would trigger a need to use the LCA. However, more localized factors also would need to be taken into consideration. These would include relative storage levels in Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and Cherry and Eleanor lakes, seasonal snow pack, precipitation projections, and release requirements in the given year for the downstream irrigation districts. With regard to discrepancies between the project description in the scoping document and in the EA, see responses to comments 1-3 through 1-5, above. 6-3 Comment: (NS) We also concur with the Tuolumne River Trust’s comments regarding appropriate mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures we would like considered include developing/restoring a trail up the South Fork to the diversion site, trailhead parking, restroom facilities, and possibly restroom facilities at the Upper Tuolumne launch site. Response: The EA does not identify impacts to recreational improvements or activities, including river rafting, and thus no additional mitigation, management requirements of project design elements are required. 6-4 Comment: (NS) Otherwise, we do not oppose the rehabilitation of the historic Lower Cherry Aqueduct or its emergency use to convey water from Lake Eleanor and Lake Lloyd/Cherry Lake to the Mountain Tunnel at Early Intake Response: Comment noted.

16