Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Chapter 13 1 A. Land Use

2 NOTE TO READERS: This Preliminary Administrative Draft EIS is for internal 3 review. Redline/Strikeout text is provided in the Affected Environment section 4 to allow commenters to view how changes were made in the previously 5 reviewed text. Final formatting of tables and page breaks are not included in this 6 version.

7 A.1 Introduction

8 This chapter describes non-agricultural land use in the Study Area, and potential 9 changes that could occur as a result of implementing the alternatives evaluated 10 in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Implementation of the 11 alternatives could affect municipal and industrial land uses through potential 12 changes in operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project 13 (SWP) and ecosystem restoration. 14 Changes in agricultural land use and resources are described in Chapter 12, 15 Agricultural Resources. Changes to population are described in Chapter 1419, 16 Socioeconomics.

17 A.2 Regulatory Environment and Compliance 18 Requirements

19 Potential actions that could be implemented under the alternatives evaluated in 20 this EIS could affect land uses served by CVP and SWP water supplies. Actions 21 located on public agency lands; or implemented, funded, or approved by Federal 22 and state agencies would need to be compliant with appropriate Federal and 23 state agency policies and regulations, as summarized in Chapter 4, Approach to 24 Environmental Analyses.

25 A.3 Affected Environment

26 This section describes land use conditions that could be potentially affected by 27 the implementation of the alternatives considered in this EIS. Changes in land 28 uses due to changes in CVP and SWP operations may occur in the Trinity River, 29 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 30 regions. 31 There are an extensive range of land uses within this study area. However, 32 direct or indirect land use effects due to implementation of the alternatives 33 analyzed in this EIS are related to changes in agricultural, municipal, and

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-1 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 industrial, and wildlife refuge land uses due to the availability and reliability of 2 CVP and SWP water supplies. The following description of the affected 3 environment is presented at the county-level for agricultural and municipal and 4 industrial land uses. More detailed agricultural land use information is 5 presented in Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources. More detailed wildlife refuge 6 information is presented in Chapter 10, Terrestrial Biological Resources.

7 A.3.1 Area of Analysis 8 A summary of land use conditions within the following regions that may be 9 affected by implementation of alternatives analyzed in this EIS are described in 10 this chapter: 11 Trinity River Region 12 Central Valley Region 13 San Francisco Bay Region 14 Central Coast Region 15 Southern California Region 16 Locations of the counties discussed in this chapter are shown in Figure 1.X 13.1. 17 presented in Chapter 1, Introduction.

18 A.3.2 Trinity River Region 19 The Trinity River Region includes the area in Trinity County along the Trinity River 20 from Trinity Lake to the confluence with the Klamath River; and in Humboldt and 21 Del Norte counties along the Klamath River from the confluence with the Trinity 22 River to the Pacific Ocean. Tribal lands are also summarized for the entire Trinity 23 River Region.

24 A.3.2.1Trinity County 25 Trinity County encompasses approximately 3,206 square miles in northwestern 26 California. It is bounded on the north by Siskiyou County, on the east by Shasta 27 and Tehama counties, on the south by Mendocino County, and on the west by 28 Humboldt County. About 76 percent of the land area is within a national forest 29 (Shasta-Trinity, Six Rivers, and Mendocino) and in four wilderness areas known 30 as the Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Reserve, Trinity Alps, Chanchellula, and North Fork. 31 Another 14 percent is zoned for timber use or held in agriculture land 32 conservation contracts (Trinity County 2012). 33 The headwaters of the Trinity River are in the northeastern part of the County at 34 an elevation of 6,200 feet, in the southern Siskiyou Mountains. Trinity Lake and 35 Lewiston Reservoir are located along the middle reach of the mainstem Trinity 36 River. Downstream of Lewiston Dam, the river flows northwest to join the 37 Klamath River in Humboldt County (Trinity County 2012).

Second Administrative June 2015 13-2 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Development of communities is relatively limited in Trinity County because much 2 of the land is within national forests and tribal lands or is characterized by steep 3 slopes. The largest communities in Trinity County include Lewiston, Weaverville, 4 and Hayfork (Trinity County 2012). 5 Trinity County’s primary industries are tourism and timber. Trinity County is the 6 sixth largest timber producer in the state, with substantial acreage in National 7 Forest and private holdings. There is one operating mill in the County. 8 Recreational opportunities are also important, as described in Chapter 15, 9 Recreation Resources (Trinity County 2012). 10 The portion of Trinity County in the Trinity River Region in Trinity County that 11 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 12 this EIS includes areas in the vicinity of CVP facilities (Trinity Lake and Lewiston 13 Reservoir) and areas along the Trinity River that use the river, as described in 14 Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 15 Water Supplies.

16 A.3.2.2Humboldt County 17 Humboldt County encompasses approximately 3,570 square miles in 18 northwestern California. It is bounded on the north by Del Norte County, on the 19 east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties, on the south by Mendocino County, and on 20 the west by the Pacific Ocean. About 25 percent of the land area is within the Six 21 Rivers National Forest, Trinity Alps Wilderness Area, Redwood National and State 22 National Park, national wildlife refuges, or other public land. About 3 percent of 23 the land area is within State Parks lands. The Yurok and Hoopa tribal lands 24 represent about 5.6 percent of the land within Humboldt County boundaries 25 (Humboldt County 2012). 26 Most of the population and developed areas are located in western Humboldt 27 County along U.S. Highway 101 (Humboldt County 2012). Incorporated cities 28 and residential lands in unincorporated portions of Humboldt County represent 29 less than one percent of the county. Development of communities is relatively 30 limited in Humboldt County because much of the land is within national forests 31 and tribal lands, characterized by steep slopes, or within the Coastal Zone where 32 new large scale developments are minimized. Timber and agricultural lands are 33 located on over 60 percent of unincorporated areas of Humboldt County. 34 Humboldt County’s primary industries are lumber manufacturing, retail, and 35 services (Humboldt County 2012). Humboldt County provides over 25 percent of 36 the lumber in the state. 37 The portion of Humboldt County in the Trinity River Region in Humboldt County 38 evaluated in this EIS is located along the Trinity and Klamath rivers. Most of this 39 area is located within the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation and Yurok Indian 40 Reservation. This portion of the county includes the communities of Willow 41 Creek and Orleans within Humboldt County; Hoopa in the Hoopa Valley Indian

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-3 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Reservation; and the communities of Weitchpec, Cappell, Pecwan, and Johnson’s 2 in the Yurok Tribe Indian Reservation (Humboldt County 2012). 3 Humboldt County’s primary industries are lumber manufacturing, retail, and 4 services (Humboldt County 2012). Humboldt County provides over 25 percent of 5 the lumber in the state. 6 The portion of the Trinity River Region in Humboldt County that could be 7 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 8 includes areas along the Trinity River that use the river, as described in Chapter 9 15, Recreation Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 10 Supplies.

11 A.3.2.3Del Norte County 12 Del Norte County encompasses 1,070 square miles in northwestern California. It 13 is bounded on the north by the State of Oregon, on the east by Siskiyou County, 14 on the south by Humboldt County, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. Del 15 Norte County includes lands within national forests (Six Rivers and Rogue River- 16 Siskiyou), Smith River National Recreation Area, Redwood National and State 17 Park, or other Federally-owned land. State lands include units of the Redwoods 18 State Park and the Lake Earl Wildlife Area. The Yurok tribal lands are located 19 along the lower Klamath River between the Del Norte-Humboldt county 20 boundaries to the Pacific Ocean (Del Norte County 2003). 21 Del Norte County’s primary industries are retail and services (Del Norte County 22 2003). 23 The portion of Del Norte County in the Trinity River Region in Del Norte County 24 evaluated in this EIS is located along the lower Klamath River. Most of this area 25 is located within the Yurok Indian Reservation. This portion of the county 26 includes the communities of Requa and Klamath in the Yurok Tribe Indian 27 Reservation (Del Norte County 2003). 28 Del Norte County’s primary industries are retail and services (Del Norte County 29 2003). 30 The portion of the Trinity River Region in Klamath County that could be affected 31 by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS includes 32 areas along the Klamath River that use the river, as described in Chapter 15, 33 Recreation Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 34 Supplies.

35 A.3.2.4Tribal Lands in Trinity River Region 36 The major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands in the Trinity River Region 37 include the tribal lands of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Yurok Tribe of the Yurok 38 Reservation, Resighini Rancheriea, and Karuk Tribe. Aquatic and wildlife 39 resources associated with the Trinity and Klamath rivers and the surrounding

Second Administrative June 2015 13-4 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 lands are very important to these tribes (NCRWQCB et. al. 2009; Yurok Tribe 2 2005; Karuk Tribe 2009). 3 The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation includes 93,702.73 acres (Hoopa Valley 4 Tribe 2008). The Trinity River flows through the Hoopa Valley Indian 5 Reservation. 6 The Yurok Indian Reservation includes about 55,890 acres within Tribal trust, 7 Tribal fee, allotment, Tribal member fee, nonmember fee, Federal, state, and 8 county lands (Yurok Tribe 2012). The Tribe employs over 250 in the government 9 agency, as well as seasonal workers for fisheries, forestry, fire prevention, and 10 other programs. 11 The Resighini Rancheria includes about 435 acres of land along the south bank of 12 the lower Klamath River and extends from an inland area to the U.S. Highway 13 101 bridge along the western boundary of the Rancheria (Reclamation 2010). 14 The Rancheria is surrounded by the Yurok Indian Reservation (Reclamation 2010; 15 Resighini Rancheria 2014). The community includes tribal offices, a casino, 16 campground, residences, agricultural lands, and open space. 17 The Karuk Ancestral Territory is located to the north of the Trinity River in the 18 vicinity of Trinity County and east of the Trinity River in the vicinity of Humboldt 19 County (Karuk Tribe 2010). The western boundary of the Karuk Ancestral 20 Territory is relatively concurrent with the western boundary of the Six Rivers 21 National Forest. Therefore, changes in the Trinity River flow or water quality 22 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations considered in 23 the alternatives in this EIS would not occur within the Karuk Ancestral Territory.

24 A.3.3 Central Valley Region 25 The Central Valley Region extends from above Shasta Lake to the Tehachapi 26 Mountains, and includes the Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Delta, and 27 Suisun Marsh.

28 A.3.3.1Sacramento Valley 29 The Sacramento Valley includes the counties of Shasta, Plumas, Tehama, Glenn, 30 Colusa, Butte, Sutter, Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Sacramento counties. 31 Yolo and Solano counties also are located within the Sacramento Valley; 32 however, these counties are discussed below as part of the Delta and Suisun 33 Marsh subsection because potential changes in land use due to changes in CVP 34 and SWP long-term operations would primarily occur within the Delta and Suisun 35 marsh geography. Other counties in this region are not anticipated to be 36 affected by changes in CVP and SWP operations, and are not discussed here, 37 including: Alpine, Sierra, Lassen, and Amador counties. Tribal lands are also 38 described for the entire Sacramento Valley.

39 Shasta County

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-5 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Shasta County encompasses approximately 3,793 square miles in northern 2 California. It is bounded on the north by Siskiyou County, on the east by Lassen 3 County, on the south by Tehama County, and on the west by Trinity County. 4 Shasta County includes lands within national forests (Shasta-Trinity, 5 Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity, and Lassen), Lassen Volcanic National Park, or other 6 Federally-owned land. State lands include state forest and state parks (Shasta 7 County 2004). 8 The Shasta County General Plan identifies four major categories of land use: 9 urban, rural, agricultural, and timber (Shasta County 2004). Of Shasta County's 10 2,416,440 acres, 25 percent or 613,,495 acres are designated as timber preserve 11 zones pursuant to California's Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 (Shasta 12 County 2004). Approximately 7 percent, or 169,127 acres, are designated as 13 agricultural preserve lands. 14 Approximately 1.2 percent of the lands in the county are within incorporated 15 areas (Shasta County 2004). Urban development is concentrated in the south 16 central portion of the county in the cities of Redding, Anderson, and Shasta Lake 17 (Reclamation 2005a). 18 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Shasta County 19 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 20 in this EIS includes CVP facilities (Shasta Lake, Keswick Reservoir, and 21 Whiskeytown Lake), areas along the Sacramento River and Clear Creek that use 22 the surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as 23 described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 24 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

25 Plumas County 26 Plumas County encompasses approximately 2,610 square miles in northern 27 California. It is bounded on the north by Shasta County, on the east by Lassen 28 County, on the west by Tehama and Butte counties, and on the south by Sierra 29 County. Plumas County includes lands within national forests (Plumas, Lassen, 30 Toiyabe, and Tahoe), Lassen Volcanic National Park, or other Federally-owned 31 land. State lands include Plumas-Eureka State Park (Plumas County 2012). 32 Prominent landscape features in Plumas County are the Sierra Valley, the Lake 33 Almanor Basin, and the Upper Feather River watershed which includes three 34 SWP lakes (Antelope Lake, Lake Davis, and Frenchman Lake). The largest land 35 uses in the county are agricultural and timber resource lands. Rural and semi- 36 rural development is scattered throughout the County, with most growth 37 concentrated in several designated planning areas. The county’s only 38 incorporated area is the City of Portola. 39 The most recent Plumas County General Plan was adopted in 1984. The county 40 is in the process of updating its General Plan through 2030 (Plumas County 41 2012). Approximately 76 percent of the land in Plumas County is National Forest

Second Administrative June 2015 13-6 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 land owned and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service 2 prepared the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan in 3 1988 to guide management and land use planning decisions in the forest. The 4 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides a designation for 5 areas based on established priorities for various resources, including wilderness, 6 recreation, wildlife, timber, and visual resources (Plumas County 2012). 7 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Plumas County 8 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 9 in this EIS is located at the SWP Antelope Lake, Lake Davis, and Frenchman Lake 10 and along the Feather River downstream of Frenchman Lake. The land uses for 11 these areas are described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources.

12 Tehama County 13 Tehama County encompasses approximately 2,951 square miles in northern 14 California. It is bounded on the north by Shasta County, on the east by Plumas 15 County, on the west by Trinity and Mendocino counties, and on the south by 16 Glenn and Butte counties. Tehama County includes lands within national forests 17 (Lassen, Mendocino, and Shasta-Trinity), Lassen Volcanic National Park, or other 18 Federally-owned land (Tehama County 2008). 19 Tehama County is predominantly rural, with populations primarily concentrated 20 in incorporated cities of Corning, Red Bluff, and Tehama or along the major 21 transportation corridors. The incorporated areas include less than one percent 22 of the total land area in the county. The primary incorporated and 23 unincorporated developed areas in the county are adjacent to major 24 transportation centers, with most adjacent to Interstate 5 and State Route 99. 25 Clustered commercial land uses are located primarily along the major state and 26 county roadways, most of which are near Red Bluff, Corning, and the 27 unincorporated community of Los Molinos. Residential land uses in the 28 developed portions of the county tend to be located behind or beyond the 29 commercial and service uses adjacent to the major street network (Tehama 30 County 2008). 31 Ranches, timber company holdings, and government land dominate the county. 32 Much of the land use is resource-based, such as cropland, rangeland, pasture 33 land, and timber land (Tehama County 2008). The majority of land within the 34 CVP water service area in Tehama County is designated for agricultural uses 35 (Tehama County 2008; Reclamation 2005b). 36 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Tehama County 37 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 38 in this EIS includes CVP facilities, areas along the Sacramento River that use the 39 surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as 40 described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 41 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-7 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Glenn County 2 Glenn County encompasses 1,317 square miles in northern California. It is 3 bounded on the north by Tehama County, on the east by Butte County, on the 4 west by Lake and Mendocino counties, and on the south by Colusa County. 5 Glenn County includes lands within the Mendocino National Forest, Sacramento 6 National Wildlife Refuge, and other Federally-owned land (Glenn County 1993). 7 Approximately two-thirds (583,974 acres) are croplands and pasture. The two 8 incorporated towns in the county are Willows, the County seat, and Orland 9 (Reclamation 2004). Intensive agriculture provides a major segment of the 10 county’s economic base (Glenn County 1993; Reclamation 2005b).The portion of 11 the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Glenn County that could be 12 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 13 includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial Biological 14 Resources; and CVP facilities, areas along the Sacramento River that use the 15 surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as 16 described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 17 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

18 Colusa County 19 Colusa County encompasses approximately 1,132 square miles in northern 20 California. It is bounded on the north by Glenn County, on the east by Butte and 21 Sutter counties, on the west by Lake County, and on the south by Yolo County. 22 Colusa County includes lands within the Mendocino National Forest, Sacramento 23 National Wildlife Refuge complex (Colusa, Delevan, and Sacramento national 24 wildlife refuges); East Park Reservoir; and other Federally-owned land (Colusa 25 County 2011). State lands in Colusa County include Willow Creek-Lurline, North 26 Central Valley, Colusa Bypass, and Sacramento River wildlife management areas. 27 Existing land uses in Colusa County are predominantly agricultural. 28 Approximately 76 percent of the county’s total land area is cropland or 29 undeveloped rangeland. Twelve percent is national forest and national wildlife 30 refuge land. Less than one percent is covered by urban and rural communities. 31 Colusa and Williams are the only incorporated cities in the county, and they 32 encompass about 2,574 acres (Colusa County 2011). Arbuckle is the largest 33 unincorporated town of the unincorporated communities, including Arbuckle, 34 College City, Century Ranch, Grimes, Maxwell, Princeton, and Stonyford. 35 Together, these established incorporated and unincorporated towns cover a 36 total area in “urban” uses of about 5,451 acres (Colusa County 2011). The 37 majority of land within the CVP water service area in Colusa County is designated 38 for agricultural uses (Colusa County 2011; Reclamation 2005b). 39 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Colusa County 40 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 41 in this EIS includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial

Second Administrative June 2015 13-8 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Biological Resources; and CVP facilities, areas along the Sacramento River that 2 use the surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service 3 areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface 4 Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

5 Butte County 6 Butte County encompasses 1,680 square miles in northern California. It is 7 bounded on the north by Tehama County, on the east by Plumas County, on the 8 west by Glenn and Colusa counties, and on the south by Sutter and Yuba 9 counties. Butte County includes lands within national forests (Plumas and 10 Lassen), Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge (Butte County 2010). State lands 11 in Butte County include Big Chico Creek and Butte Creek ecological preserves; 12 Table Mountain Reserve; Gray Lodge, Sacramento River, and Oroville wildlife 13 areas; SWP facilities at Lake Oroville and Thermalito Reservoir; and more than 14 750 miles of rivers and streams. 15 The county comprises three general topographical areas: the valley region, the 16 foothills east of the valley, and the mountain region east of the foothills. Each of 17 these regions contains distinct environments with unique wildlife and natural 18 resources. 19 The U.S. Forest Service manages 135,427 acres (12 percent) within Butte County, 20 including portions of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests. The BLM owns 21 and manages 16,832 acres (1.5 percent) in the county (Butte County 2010). 22 Agriculture is the dominant land use within unincorporated Butte County, 23 accounting for approximately 599,040 acres (60 percent of the county area) 24 (Butte County 2010). 25 Butte County contains five incorporated municipalities: Biggs, Chico, Gridley, 26 Oroville, and Paradise. Each has a general plan that guides development within 27 its limits and larger planning area (Butte County 2010). 28 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Butte County 29 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 30 in this EIS includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial 31 Biological Resources; and SWP facilities (Lake Oroville and Thermalito Afterbay), 32 CVP facilities, areas along the Feather River that use the surface waters 33 (including agricultural lands), and CVP and SWP water service areas, as described 34 in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 35 Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

36 Sutter County 37 Sutter County encompasses approximately 607 square miles in northern 38 California. It is bounded on the north by Butte County, on the east by Yuba and 39 Placer counties, on the west by Colusa and Yolo counties, and on the south by 40 Sacramento County. Sutter County includes lands within the Sutter National

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-9 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Wildlife Refuge. State lands in Sutter County include Butte Slough, Feather River, 2 Gray Lodge, Sutter Bypass, and Butte Sink wildlife management areas; and Sutter 3 Buttes State Park (Sutter County 2010). 4 Sutter County’s General Plan was updated in 2011. Approximately 98 percent of 5 the land in the County is unincorporated, and approximately 98 percent of the 6 unincorporated land is zoned for agricultural use (Reclamation 2004). The two 7 incorporated cities within the county, Yuba City and Live Oak, encompass 8 approximately 10,600 acres. 9 Existing land use in Sutter County is rural and dominated by agricultural areas. 10 The county has significant natural and recreational resources, and a relatively 11 low population density. Existing land uses in Yuba City and Live Oak contain the 12 bulk of the county’s urban land uses, such as residences, commercial and 13 industrial uses, parks, and public facilities (Sutter County 2010). The county 14 includes several incorporated rural communities: Meridian, Sutter, Robbins, Rio 15 Oso, Trowbridge, Nicolaus, East Nicolaus, and Pleasant Grove (Sutter County 16 2010). 17 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Sutter County 18 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 19 in this EIS includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial 20 Biological Resources; and CVP facilities, areas along the Sacramento River that 21 use the surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP and SWP water 22 service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, 23 Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural 24 Resources.

25 Yuba County 26 Yuba County encompasses approximately 634 acres in northern California. It is 27 bounded on the north by Butte County, on the east by Sierra and Nevada 28 counties, on the west by Sutter County, and on the south by Placer County. 29 Federally-owned lands in Yuba County include Tahoe and Plumas national 30 forests, and the 22,944-acre Beale Air Force Base (Yuba County 2011). The 31 Department of Fish and Wildlife administers the state Spenceville Wildlife Area 32 Yuba County is predominantly rural. Over 189,500 acres, or 46 percent of the 33 county, are designated for agricultural land uses. Most of the population lives in 34 the two incorporated cities in the county (Marysville and Wheatland); and the 35 major unincorporated communities including Brown’s Valley,Brownsville, 36 Camptonville, Dobbins, Linda/Olivehurst, Log Cabin, Loma Rica, Oregon House, 37 Rackerby, and River Highlands (Yuba County 2011). 38 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Yuba County that 39 could be affected by changes evaluated in this EIS includes areas within Yuba 40 County Water Agency facilities that provide water for environmental and water

Second Administrative June 2015 13-10 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 supply purposes within the Central Valley, as described in Chapter 5, Surface 2 Water Resources and Water Supplies.

3 Nevada County 4 Nevada County encompasses approximately 634,880 acres in northern 5 California. It is bounded on the north by Sierra County, on the northwest by 6 Yuba County, on and on the south by Placer County. Federally-owned lands in 7 Nevada County include 169,686 acres in the Tahoe National Forest; 2,574 acres 8 in the Toiyabe National Forest; and approximately 11,000 acres administered by 9 the Bureau of Land Management (Nevada County 1995). The State Lands 10 Commission manages approximately 4,600 acres; State Parks administers 6,300 11 acres at several locations, including Malakoff Diggins State Historical Park and 12 Empire Mine State Park; and the Department of Fish and Wildlife administers 13 approximately 11,000 acres at the Spenceville Wildlife Management and 14 Recreation Area. 15 Nevada County is predominantly rural (Nevada County 2012). Approximately 91 16 percent of the county is used for agriculture, timber, or open space. Most of the 17 population lives in the three incorporated cities in the county (Grass Valley, 18 Nevada City, and Truckee). 19 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in Nevada County 20 that could be affected by changes evaluated in this EIS includes areas along the 21 lower Bear River between the Nevada Irrigation District Rollins Reservoir and the 22 confluence with the Feather River, including the South Sutter Water District 23 Camp Far West Reservoir.

24 Placer County 25 Placer County encompasses approximately 1,506 square miles in northern 26 California. It is bounded on the north by Nevada County, on the east by the 27 California-Nevada boundary, on the west by Yuba and Sutter counties, and on 28 the south by Sacramento and El Dorado counties. Placer County includes lands 29 within the El Dorado and Tahoe national forests and other Federally-owned land 30 (Placer County 2011). 31 Placer County is predominantly rural. Most of the population lives in the area 32 along Interstate 80 from the City of Auburn to the Sutter and Sacramento county 33 boundaries. Incorporated cities and towns include Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, 34 Colfax, Loomis, and Auburn (Placer County 2011; Reclamation 2005c; SACOG 35 22007). Residential land uses range from rural residential areas to medium and 36 high-density dwelling units in urbanized areas. Commercial land uses are 37 primarily located in the urbanized portions of the county; although a large 38 concentration of commercial development occurs outside existing urban areas 39 along Interstate 80. Non-urban land uses include agriculture, resource 40 extraction (timber and mining), and public lands and open space uses. The

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-11 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 largest amount of public lands within Placer County is located in the eastern half 2 of the county, and is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, 3 U.S. Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation. The CVP water service area 4 within Placer County primarily includes the communities and agricultural areas in 5 the western portion of the county. The portion of the Central Valley Region, 6 Sacramento Valley, in Placer County that could be affected by changes in CVP 7 and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS includes CVP water facilities 8 (Folsom Lake) ,areas along the American River that use the surface waters 9 (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in 10 Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 11 Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

12 El Dorado County 13 El Dorado County encompasses approximately 1,790 square miles in northern 14 California along the American River. It is bounded on the north by Placer County, 15 on the east by California-Nevada boundaries, on the west by Sacramento 16 County, and on the south by Amador and Alpine counties. El Dorado County 17 includes about 521,210 acres, 45.5 percent of the total county, under Federal 18 ownership or trust, including lands within the El Dorado and Tahoe national 19 forests. About 9,751 acres, or 8.5 percent of the county, is under the State 20 jurisdiction (El Dorado County 2003). 21 The county includes two specific regions: the Lake Tahoe Basin and the western 22 slopes of the Sierra Nevada (El Dorado County 2003). The CVP water service 23 area provides water to a large portion of the communities and some agricultural 24 areas along the western slope. El Dorado County includes two incorporated 25 cities, Placerville and South Lake Tahoe, which cover 621 acres of land. Other 26 major communities include El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Shingle Springs, 27 Rescue, Diamond Springs, Camino, Coloma and Gold Hill, Cool and Pilot Hill, 28 Georgetown and Garden Valley, Pollock Pines, Pleasant Valley, Latrobe, 29 Somerset, and Mosquito. The rural land uses in the county include over 259,000 30 acres of private production forests, 153,472 acres of agricultural lands, and 31 35,282 acres within the waters of Folsom Lake and Lake Tahoe. The county’s 32 two largest crops are wine grapes and apples. 33 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Sacramento Valley, in El Dorado County 34 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 35 in this EIS includes CVP water facilities (Folsom Lake) , areas along the American 36 River that use the surface waters, and CVP water service areas, as described in 37 Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 38 Water Supplies.

39 Sacramento County 40 Sacramento County encompasses approximately 1,769 square miles in northern 41 California. It is bounded on the north by Sutter and Placer counties, on the east

Second Administrative June 2015 13-12 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 by El Dorado and Amador counties, on the south by Contra Costa and San 2 Joaquin counties, and on the west by Yolo and Solano counties. Sacramento 3 County includes Federally-owned lands within Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma. 4 Residential areas in Sacramento County primarily occur in northern and central 5 Sacramento County. Sacramento County includes areas within the Delta, 6 including the southwestern portion of the City of Sacramento, City of Isleton and 7 the communities of Locke, Ryde, Courtland, Freeport, Hood, and Walnut Grove; 8 and areas located to the east of the Delta (Sacramento 2011). Sacramento 9 County has seven incorporated cities located in about 56 percent of the county: 10 Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, and Rancho 11 Cordova. The County includes several unincorporated communities, including 12 Antelope, Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Cordova, Elverta, Foothill Farms, Fair Oaks, 13 Herold, Natomas, North Highlands, Orangevale, Rancho Murieta, Rio Linda, 14 Sloughhouse, and Wilton. . 15 The leading agricultural crops in Sacramento County include dairy, wine grapes, 16 Bartlett pears, field corn, and turkeys (Sacramento County 2010). Agricultural 17 acreage has declined as urban development has continued. Between 1989 and 18 2004, the portion of the county designated as agriculture declined from 40 19 percent to 34 percent. The southeastern portion of the county remains primarily 20 rural with smaller communities, such as Herald (Sacramento County 2011). 21 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Delta, in Sacramento County that could 22 be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 23 includes CVP facilities (Folsom Lake and Lake Natoma), areas along the American 24 and Sacramento rivers and Delta channels that use the surface waters (including 25 agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, 26 Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, 27 and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

28 Tribal Lands in Sacramento Valley 29 This section summarizes the tribal lands that could be affected by changes in CVP 30 and/or SWP operations and that are located within the county boundaries 31 described above. 32 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Shasta County 33 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 34 Shasta County include the Pit River Tribe and the Redding Rancheria, which is a 35 federal reservation of Wintun, Pit River, and Yana Indians near Redding (SDSU 36 2013). 37 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Tehama County 38 There are approximately 2,000 acres within the total acreage of Tehama County 39 within tribal trust, including land near Corning owned by the Paskenta Band of 40 Nomlaki Indians of California (Paskenta 2014).

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-13 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Glenn County 2 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of Glenn 3 County include the Grindstone Indian Reservation near Elk Creek at the 4 Grindstone Indian Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians of California, and lands of 5 the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California. 6 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Colusa County 7 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 8 Colusa County include the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa 9 Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, and the Cortina Indian Rancheria of 10 Wintun Indians of California (Colusa County 2011). 11 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Butte County 12 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of Butte 13 County include the Tyme Maidu of Berry-Creek Rancheria on approximately 90 14 acres, and the Concow Maidu of Mooretown Rancheria on approximately 300 15 acres (Butte County 2010). 16 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Nevada County 17 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 18 Nevada County include tribal trust lands of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 19 Indians. 20 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Placer County 21 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 22 Placer County include tribal trust lands of the United Auburn Indian Community 23 of the Auburn Rancheria of California. 24 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of El Dorado County 25 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of El 26 Dorado County include the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. 27 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Sacramento County 28 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 29 Sacramento County include lands of the Wilton Miwok Indians of the Wilton 30 Rancheria near Elk Grove (SACOG 2007).

31 A.3.3.2San Joaquin Valley 32 The San Joaquin Valley includes the counties of Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, San 33 Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. Other counties in this region 34 are not anticipated to be affected by changes in CVP and SWP operations, and 35 are not discussed here, including: Calaveras, Mariposa, and Tuolumne counties. 36 Tribal lands are also described for the entire San Joaquin Valley.

37 Stanislaus County

Second Administrative June 2015 13-14 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Stanislaus County encompasses approximately 1,521 square miles in central 2 California. It is bounded on the north by San Joaquin County, on the east by 3 Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, on the west by Santa Clara County, and on the 4 south by Merced County. Stanislaus County includes lands within the San 5 Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge (Stanislaus Council of Governments 2007). 6 Land use in the county is primarily agricultural, with nearly 80 percent of the 7 land zoned for general agriculture or in agricultural production (Stanislaus 8 Council of Governments 2007). Over the past 40 years, some portions of the 9 county have been changing from a rural agricultural region to semi-urbanized, 10 especially along major highways and freeways. There are nine incorporated 11 cities in the county, including Ceres, Hughson, Modesto, Newman, Oakdale, 12 Patterson, Riverbank, Turlock, and Waterford. Stanislaus County has adopted 13 community plans for most of its unincorporated towns, including Crows Landing, 14 Del Rio, Denair, Hickman, Keyes, Knights Ferry, La Grange, Westley, and Salida 15 (Stanislaus County 2010, 2012). 16 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Stanislaus County 17 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 18 in this EIS includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial 19 Biological Resources; and CVP water facilities (New Melones Reservoir, Delta- 20 Mendota Canal, and San Luis Canal/California Aqueduct) and areas along the 21 Stanislaus and San Joaquin rivers that use the surface waters (including 22 agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, 23 Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, 24 and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

25 Merced County 26 Merced County encompasses approximately 1,977 square miles in central 27 California. It is bounded on the north by Stanislaus County, on the east by 28 Mariposa County, on the south by Fresno and Madera counties, and on the west 29 by Santa Clara and San Benito counties. Merced County includes Federally- 30 owned lands within the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (Merced County 2013). 31 State lands within the county include San Luis Reservoir State Recreation Area; 32 Great Valley Grasslands State Park; and the Los Banos, North Grasslands, and 33 Volta wildlife areas. 34 Merced County includes the six incorporated cities of Atwater, Dos Palos, 35 Gustine, Livingston, Los Banos, and Merced. The major unincorporated 36 communities include Delhi, Fox Hills, Franklin, Hilmar, LeGrand, Planada, Santa 37 Nella, Laguna San Luis, and Winton (Merced County 2013). Unincorporated land 38 within the county includes approximately 1.2 million acres (98.1 percent of the 39 land in the county). Agriculture is the primary land use, totaling just over 1 40 million acres (81.2 percent). Public and quasi-public land is the next largest use 41 with 131,582 acres or 10.6 percent of the unincorporated County. Commercial

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-15 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 land uses represent 3,025 acres (0.2 percent), industrial uses represent 2,488 2 acres (0.2 percent), and mining represents 3,375 acres (0.3 percent). 3 Incorporated cities account for 24,138 acres (1.9 percent) (Merced County 4 2012a, 2013,). The Merced County Local Agency Formation Commission policies 5 discourage annexation of prime agricultural land when significant areas of non- 6 prime agricultural land are already available. The policies also encourage 7 development of vacant areas in cities before the annexation and development of 8 outlying areas. Local Agency Formation Commission policies encourage city 9 annexations that reflect a planned, logical, and orderly progression of urban 10 expansion and promote efficient delivery of urban services (Merced County 11 2012b). 12 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Merced County 13 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 14 in this EIS includes wildlife refuges as described in Chapter 10, Terrestrial 15 Biological Resources; and CVP and SWP water facilities (San Luis Reservoir, Delta- 16 Mendota Canal, and San Luis Canal/California Aqueduct), areas along the San 17 Joaquin River that use the surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP 18 water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 19 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural 20 Resources.

21 Madera County 22 Madera County encompasses approximately 2,147 square miles in central 23 California. It is bounded on the north by Merced and Mariposa counties, on the 24 east by Mono County, and on the south and west by Fresno County. Madera 25 County includes lands within the Sierra and Inyo national forests (Madera County 26 1995). State lands within the county include the Millerton Lake State Recreation 27 Area. 28 Land elevations in Madera County range from 180 feet to over 13,000 feet above 29 mean sea level. Madera County can be divided generally into three regions – the 30 San Joaquin Valley in the west, the foothills between the Madera Canal and the 31 3,500-foot elevation contour, and the mountains from the 3,500-foot contour to 32 the crest of the Sierra Nevada. The County has two incorporated cities, Madera 33 and Chowchilla (Madera County 1995). Major unincorporated communities in 34 the county include North Fork, South Fork, O’Neals, Oakhurst, Coarsegold, 35 Gunner Ranch, and Rio Mesa. 36 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Madera County 37 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 38 in this EIS includes CVP water facilities (Millerton Lake and the Madera Canal), 39 areas along the San Joaquin River that use the surface waters (including 40 agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15,

Second Administrative June 2015 13-16 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, 2 and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

3 San Joaquin County 4 San Joaquin County encompasses approximately 1,426 square miles in central 5 California. It is bounded on the north by Sacramento County, on the east by 6 Calaveras and Amador counties, on the south by Stanislaus County, and on the 7 west by Contra Costa and Alameda counties. San Joaquin County includes about 8 6,000 acres of Federally-owned lands (San Joaquin County 2009). 9 San Joaquin County is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Most 10 of the county’s land is in agricultural production. Agriculture, the predominant 11 land use, covers 686,109 acres or 75 percent of the county. Residential land is 12 the second largest use in the unincorporated lands, encompassing 40,410 acres 13 (4.4 percent of the county). Residential development in the county is 14 concentrated in existing cities and in adjacent unincorporated communities. San 15 Joaquin County has seven incorporated cities: Stockton, Tracy, Manteca, Escalon, 16 Ripon, Lodi, and Lathrop. Stockton and Tracy are the largest cities in the county. 17 The major unincorporated areas in the county include French Camp, Linden, 18 Lockeford, Morada, Mountain House, New Jerusalem, Thornton, and 19 Woodbridge (San Joaquin County 2009). The incorporated cities account for 20 90,191 acres (approximately 10 percent of the county). 21 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Delta, in San Joaquin County that could 22 be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 23 includes CVP and SWP facilities (including facilities associated with Rock Slough 24 Pumping Plant, Jones Pumping Plant, Clifton Court, and Banks Pumping Plant), 25 areas along the Delta channels that use the surface waters (including agricultural 26 lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation 27 Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 28 12, Agricultural Resources.

29 Fresno County 30 Fresno County encompasses approximately 6,000 square miles in central 31 California. It is bounded on the north by Merced and Madera counties, on the 32 east by Mono and Inyo counties, on the south by Kings and Tulare counties, and 33 on the west by San Benito and Monterey counties. Fresno County includes lands 34 within Millerton Lake, Pine Flat Lake, the Sierra and Sequoia national forests, 35 Sequoia National Monument, and Kings Canyon National Park (Fresno County 36 2000). State lands within the county include the Millerton Lake State Recreation 37 Area, San Joaquin River Parkway, and Mendota Wildlife Area. 38 Fresno County is California's sixth-largest county. Agricultural land uses cover 39 over 48 percent of the county, and resource conservation lands (e.g., forests, 40 parks, and timber preserves) cover approximately 45 percent of the county. The

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-17 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 15 incorporated cities and unincorporated communities cover approximately 5 2 percent of the county (Fresno County 2000). Development constraints within 3 the county are primarily caused by lack of funding for infrastructure 4 improvement, availability of water supplies, air quality regulations, and physical 5 limitations, especially in the mountains and eastern foothills. The incorporated 6 communities include Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Fowler, Fresno, Huron, Kerman, 7 Kingsburg, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier-WestParlier, Reedley, Sanger, San 8 Joaquin, and Selma (Fresno County 2000). Major unincorporated communities 9 include Biola, Caruthers, Del Rey, Friant, Lanare, Laton, Riverdale, Shaver Lake, 10 and Tranquility. . The Coalinga oil field, the eighth-largest oil-producing field in 11 California, is also located in Fresno County. 12 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Fresno County 13 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 14 in this EIS includes CVP water facilities (Millerton Lake and the Friant-Kern 15 Canal), areas along the San Joaquin River that use the surface waters, and CVP 16 water service areas (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as 17 described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 18 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

19 Kings County 20 Kings County encompasses approximately 1,280 square miles in south central 21 California. It is bounded on the north by Fresno County, on the east by Tulare 22 County, on the south by Kern County, and on the west by Monterey County. 23 Kings County includes lands within Naval Air Station Lemoore (Kings County 24 2009). 25 Land use is predominantly agricultural, with more than 90 percent of the county 26 designated for agricultural uses. Incorporated cities in Kings County include 27 Avenal, Corcoran, Hanford, and Lemoore. Residential land uses in 28 unincorporated areas and special districts cover less than one percent of the 29 county’s total acreage including for the communities of Armona, Home Garden, 30 Kettleman City, and Stratford (Kings County 2009). 31 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Kings County that 32 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 33 this EIS includes CVP and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 12, 34 Agricultural Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 35 Supplies.

36 Tulare County 37 Tulare County encompasses approximately 4,840 square miles in south central 38 California. It is bounded on the north by Fresno County, on the east by Inyo 39 County, on the south by Kern County, and on the west by Kings County. Tulare 40 County includes Federally-owned lands within the Sequoia National Forest,

Second Administrative June 2015 13-18 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, Sequoia National Monument, several 2 wilderness areas, Lake Kaweah, Lake Success, and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 3 (Tulare County 2010). 4 Agricultural land uses cover more than 2,150 square miles (approximately 44 5 percent) of the county. Lands classified as open space (i.e., national forests, 6 monuments, and parks; wilderness areas; and County parks) make up 25 percent 7 of the land use in the county. Less than 3 percent of the county lands are in the 8 incorporated cities of Dinuba, Exeter, Farmersville, Lindsay, Porterville, Tulare, 9 Visalia, and Woodlake (Tulare County 2010). Less than 2 percent of the county is 10 designated for unincorporated residential areas, including the major 11 communities of Alpaugh, Cutler, Ducor, Earlimart, East Oros, Goshen, Ivanhoe, 12 Lemoncove, London, Oros, Pixley, Plainview, Poplar-Cotton Center, Richgrove, 13 Springville, Strathmore, Terra Bella, Three Rivers, Tipton, Traver, and Woodville. 14 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Tulare County 15 that could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated 16 in this EIS includes CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 12, 17 Agricultural Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 18 Supplies.

19 Kern County 20 Kern County encompasses approximately 8,202 square miles in south central 21 California. It is bounded on the north by Kings, Tulare, and Inyo counties; on the 22 east by San Bernardino County, on the south by Ventura and Los Angeles 23 counties; and on the west by San Luis Obispo County. Kern County includes 24 lands within the Sequoia National Forest, Kern and Bitter Creek national wildlife 25 refuges, Lake Isabella, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, and Edwards Air 26 Force Base (Kern County 2004). State lands within the county include the Tule 27 Elk State Reserve. 28 The county’s geography includes mountainous regions, agricultural lands, and 29 deserts. There are 11 incorporated cities in the county, including Arvin, 30 Bakersfield, California City, Delano, Maricopa, McFarland, Ridgecrest, Shafter, 31 Taft, Tehachapi, and Wasco (Kern County 2009). The major unincorporated 32 communities include Kernville, Lake Isabella, Inyokern, Mojave, Boron, 33 Rosamond, Golden Hills, Stallion Springs, and Buttonwillow. Agricultural land 34 uses are designated for approximately 85 percent of the unincorporated lands 35 that are under the jurisdiction of the county (not including lands under the 36 jurisdiction of the Federal, state, tribes, or incorporated cities). Less than six 37 percent of the unincorporated lands under jurisdiction of the county are 38 designated for residential uses. 39 The portion of the Central Valley Region, San Joaquin Valley, in Kern County that 40 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 41 this EIS includes CVP and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 12,

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-19 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Agricultural Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 2 Supplies.

3 Tribal Lands in San Joaquin Valley 4 This section summarizes the tribal lands that could be affected by changes in CVP 5 and/or SWP operations and that are located within the county boundaries 6 described above. 7 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Madera County 8 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 9 Madera County include the Picayune Rancheria of the Chuckchansi Indians of 10 California near the community of Coarsegold and the Northfork Rancheria of the 11 Mono Indians of California near Northfork (SDSU 2013). 12 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Fresno County 13 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 14 Fresno County include the lands of the Big Sandy Rancheria of the Western 15 Mono Indians of California and Table Mountain Rancheria of California. 16 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Kings County 17 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of Kings 18 County includes the lands of the Santa Rosa Indian Community of Santa Rosa 19 Rancheria near the town of Lemoore (SDSU 2013). 20 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Tulare County 21 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 22 Tulare County includes the Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation 23 of the Yokut Indians about 20 miles east of Porterville and covers 55,356 acres 24 (SDSU 2013).

25 A.3.3.3Delta and Suisun Marsh 26 The Delta and Suisun Marsh includes the counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Solano, 27 San Joaquin, and Contra Costa counties. Sacramento County is discussed above 28 in the Sacramento Valley subsection because more of the land that could be 29 affected by changes in CVP and SWP long-term operations is located within the 30 Sacramento Valley than in the Delta and Suisun Marsh geographical areas. San 31 Joaquin County is discussed above in the San Joaquin Valley subsection because 32 more of the land that could be affected by changes in CVP and SWP long-term 33 operations is located within the San Joaquin Valley than in the Delta and Suisun 34 Marsh geographical areas. Contra Costa County is discussed below as part of the 35 San Francisco Bay Region because more of the land that could be affected by 36 changes in CVP and SWP long-term operations is located within the San 37 Francisco Bay Region than in the Delta and Suisun Marsh geographical areas. 38 Tribal lands are also described for Yolo County.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-20 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Yolo County 2 Yolo County encompasses approximately 1,021 square miles in northern 3 California. It is bounded on the north by Colusa County, on the east by Sutter 4 and Sacramento counties, on the south by Solano County, and on the west by 5 Lake and Napa counties. Yolo County includes Federally-owned lands in the Yolo 6 Bypass and Cache Creek areas and state lands within the Yolo Bypass. 7 Residential areas in Yolo County primarily occur in the county’s four 8 incorporated cities (Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland) that 9 comprise approximately 32,325 acres (5 percent) of county lands (Yolo County 10 2009). Yolo County includes areas within the Delta, including the City of West 11 Sacramento and the community of Clarksburg. The unincorporated portion of 12 the county encompasses 35 community areas, including Capay, Clarksburg, 13 Dunnigan, Esparto, Guinda, Knights Landing, Madison, Monument Hills, Rumsey, 14 Yolo, and Zamora. 15 Yolo County adopted its 2030 General Plan in 2011. The general plan designates 16 more than 92 percent of the County area for agricultural and open space uses. 17 The major crops are tomatoes, alfalfa, wine grapes, rice, seed crops, almonds, 18 organic production, walnuts, cattle, and wheat (Yolo County 2009). 19 The 59,000-acre Yolo Bypass is primarily located within Yolo County and includes 20 a portion of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, as described in Chapter 21 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies (CALFED et al. 2001). The upper 22 section of the Yolo Bypass is defined as the area between Fremont Weir and 23 Interstate 80 and is located within Yolo County. The lower section is defined as 24 the area between Interstate 80 and the southern boundary of Egbert Tract at the 25 Sacramento River. The portion of the southern area located to the north of the 26 upper Holland Tract and upper Liberty Island is within Yolo County. In the 27 northern area, agricultural crops include rice, corn, and safflower with melons 28 and tomatoes planted in years when the bypass is not inundated with flood 29 waters. The southern bypass crops include corn, milo, safflower, beans, and 30 sudan grass. Approximately 16,770 acres in the southern Yolo Bypass is within 31 the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (Yolo County 2009). 32 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Delta, in Yolo County that could be 33 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 34 includes areas in the Yolo Bypass and along the Delta channels that use the 35 surface waters (including agricultural lands), and CVP water service areas, as 36 described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 37 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

38 Solano County 39 Solano County encompasses approximately 910 square miles in northern 40 California. It is bounded on the north by Yolo County, on the east by Sutter and 41 Sacramento counties, on the south by Contra Costa County, and on the west by

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-21 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Napa County. Solano County includes Federally-owned lands within Travis Air 2 Force Base (Solano County 2008). State lands include areas within Suisun Marsh 3 and the Cache Slough area of Yolo Bypass. 4 Solano County’s General Plan was adopted in 2008. Approximately 81,678 acres 5 of the county, or 14 percent of the total land area, lies within seven incorporated 6 cities: Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Rio Vista, Suisun City, Vacaville, and Vallejo. 7 Urban development is generally concentrated within the incorporated cities or 8 surrounding suburban communities. Travis Air Force Base is located on 9 approximately 7,100 acres, or about one percent of the land within the county. 10 In 2006, agriculture accounted for 56.5 percent of the total land use in Solano 11 County (Solano County 2008). The southern section of the Yolo Bypass, as 12 described above under the Yolo County subsection, is located within Solano 13 County. 14 The portion of the Central Valley Region, Delta, in Solano County that could be 15 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 16 includes SWP facilities (North Bay Aqueduct intakes at Barker Slough), areas in 17 the Yolo Bypass and along the Delta channels that use the surface waters 18 (including agricultural lands), and CVP and SWP water service areas, as described 19 in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 20 Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

21 Tribal Lands in Delta and Suisun Marsh 22 This section summarizes the tribal lands that could be affected by changes in CVP 23 and/or SWP operations and that are located within the county boundaries 24 described above. 25 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Yolo County 26 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of Yolo 27 County include lands of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (previously called the 28 Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians of California) (Yolo County 2009).

29 A.3.4 San Francisco Bay Area Region 30 The San Francisco Bay Area Region includes portions of Napa, Contra Costa, 31 Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Benito counties that are within the CVP and SWP 32 service areas.

33 Napa County 34 Napa County encompasses approximately 793 square miles in northern 35 California. It is bounded on the north by Lake County, on the east by Yolo 36 County, on the south by Solano County, and on the west by Sonoma County. 37 Napa County includes 62,865 acres of Federally-owned and 40,307 acres of 38 state-owned lands throughout the county, including approximately 28,000 acres

Second Administrative June 2015 13-22 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 related to Lake Berryessa and the State Cedar Rough Wilderness and Wildlife 2 Area (Napa County 2007). 3 Approximately 479,000 acres, or 95 percent of the county, are unincorporated. 4 The five incorporated cities include American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. 5 Helena, and the town of Yountville. Land use in the county is predominantly 6 agricultural (Napa County 2007, 2008).

7 Contra Costa County 8 Contra Costa County encompasses approximately 805 square miles in northern 9 California. It is bounded on the north by Solano and Sacramento counties, on 10 the east by San Joaquin County, on the south by Alameda County, and on the 11 west by San Francisco Bay. Contra Costa County includes Federally-owned and 12 state-owned lands throughout the county, including approximately 20,000 acres 13 within Mount Diablo State Park (Contra Costa County 2005). 14 Over 40 percent of the county’s land is in agricultural production, or about 15 200,370 acres. Residential land is the second largest use in the county, 16 encompassing approximately 122,100 acres (25.4 percent of the county). 17 Approximately 46,700 acres, or 9 percent of the land within the county, are 18 within surface waters (Contra Costa County 2005). 19 Residential development is concentrated in existing cities and adjacent 20 unincorporated communities. The Contra Costa County incorporated cities 21 include Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, 22 Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Pittsburg, Richmond, San 23 Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. The major unincorporated areas in the 24 county include Alamo, Bethel Island, Byron, Crockett, Discovery Bay, Kensington, 25 Knightsen, North Richmond, Pacheco, Port Costa, and Rodeo (Contra Costa 26 County 2005). Portions of the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, and 27 Brentwood and eastern Contra Costa County are located within the Delta. 28 The portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Region in Contra Costa County that 29 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 30 this EIS includes CVP facilities (including facilities associated with Rock Slough), 31 areas along the Delta channels that use the surface waters (including agricultural 32 lands), and CVP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation 33 Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 34 12, Agricultural Resources.

35 Alameda County 36 Alameda County encompasses approximately 738 square miles in northern 37 California. It is bounded on the north by Contra Costa County, on the east by San 38 Joaquin County, on the south by Santa Clara County, and on the west by San 39 Francisco Bay. Alameda County includes Federally-owned and state-owned 40 lands throughout the county (Alameda County 2009).

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-23 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Western Alameda County and the portions of the Livermore-Amador Valley are 2 heavily urbanized. The incorporated cities include Oakland, which is the County 3 seat; Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, 4 Livermore, Newark, Piedmont, Pleasant, San Leandro, and Union City. The 5 unincorporated area of the County covers approximately 277,760 acres, or 59 6 percent of the total land area, includes the unincorporated areas of Castro 7 Valley, Eden Area, and (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2010; 8 Alameda County 2000, 2009). Large portions of the unincorporated areas 9 located to the east of Castro Valley and within the Livermore-Amador Valley hills 10 include agricultural and open space lands which are not served by the CVP or 11 SWP water supplies. 12 The portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Region in Alameda County that could 13 be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 14 includes CVP and SWP facilities (including the SWP South Bay Aqueduct), 15 reservoirs that store CVP or SWP water, and CVP and SWP water service areas, 16 as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 17 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

18 Santa Clara County 19 Santa Clara County encompasses approximately 1,306 square miles in northern 20 California. It is bounded on the north by Alameda County, on the east by 21 Stanislaus and Merced counties, on the south by San Benito County, and on the 22 west by San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. Santa Clara County includes 23 Federally-owned and state-owned lands throughout the county, including 24 approximately 87,000 acres within Henry W. Coe State Park (Santa Clara County 25 1994, 2012). 26 Approximately 83 percent of the county’s population resides in the 15 27 incorporated cities. The incorporated cities include Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, 28 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, 29 Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. The 30 southern portion of the county near Gilroy and Morgan Hill is predominantly 31 rural, with low-density residential developments scattered though the valley and 32 foothill areas (Santa Clara County 1994, 2012). 33 The portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Region in Santa Clara County that 34 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 35 this EIS includes CVP and SWP facilities (including the SWP South Bay Aqueduct 36 and CVP facilities that convey water from San Luis Reservoir) and CVP and SWP 37 water service areas, as described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 38 Water Supplies and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

39 San Benito County

Second Administrative June 2015 13-24 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 San Benito County encompasses approximately 1,386 square miles in central 2 California. It is bounded on the north by Santa Clara County, on the east by 3 Merced and Fresno counties, and on the south and west by Monterey County. 4 San Benito County includes Federally-owned and state-owned lands throughout 5 the county, including approximately 26,000 acres within Pinnacles National 6 Monument, over 105,403 acres owned by Bureau of Land Management, and 7 over 8,800 acres associated with the Hollister Hills State Vehicular Recreation 8 Area and San Juan Bautista State Historic Park (San Benito County 2010, 2013). 9 San Benito County has approximately 882,675 acres of unincorporated lands, or 10 nearly 99.5 percent of the total land area. The incorporated cities of Hollister 11 and San Juan Bautista account for approximately 4,044 acres, or 0.5 percent of 12 the county land area. Agriculture is the predominant land use, totaling 747,409 13 acres or 84 percent of the county (San Benito County 2010, 2013). 14 The portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Region in San Benito County that 15 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 16 this EIS includes CVP and SWP facilities (including San Justo Reservoir and other 17 facilities to convey water from San Luis Reservoir) and CVP water service areas, 18 as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water 19 Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

20 A.3.5 Central Coast Region 21 The Central Coast Region includes portions of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara 22 counties served by the SWP. Tribal lands are also described for the Central Coast 23 Region.

24 A.3.5.1San Luis Obispo County 25 San Luis Obispo County encompasses approximately 3,594 square miles in 26 central California, including over 200,000 acres of surface waters (San Luis 27 Obispo County 2013). It is bounded on the north by Monterey County, on the 28 east by Kern County, on the south by Santa Barbara County, and on the west by 29 the Pacific Ocean. Federally-owned land in San Luis Obispo County includes Los 30 Padres National Forest, Carizzo Plain National Monument, several wilderness 31 areas, and Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge. State-owned 32 lands include Hearst-San Simeon State Historical Monument, Montano d Oro 33 State Park, and state beaches and marine conservation areas. 34 Land uses in the County are predominantly rural and agricultural with over 35 1,672,000 acres in agricultural and rural land uses, or 83 percent of the total 36 county lands. Incorporated cities include Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover 37 Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo. Major 38 unincorporated communities include Avila, California Valley, Creston Village, 39 Edna Village, Heritage Ranch, Los Ranchos, Nipoma, Oak Shores, Oceano, San 40 Miguel, Santa Margarita, and Templeton (San Luis Obispo County 2013).

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-25 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 The portion of the Central Coastal Region in San Luis Obispo County that could 2 be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 3 includes SWP facilities (including facilities associated with the Central Coast 4 Water Authority) and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 5, 5 Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies and Chapter 12, Agricultural 6 Resources.

7 A.3.5.2Santa Barbara County 8 Santa Barbara County encompasses approximately 2,744 square miles in central 9 California. It is bounded on the north by San Luis Obispo, on the east by Ventura 10 County, and on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean. Federally-owned land 11 in Santa Barbara County includes 629,120 acres in the Los Padres National 12 Forest, 98,560 acres in the Vandenberg Air Force Base, Channel Islands National 13 Park, and Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge. The state-owned 14 lands include the University of California at Santa Barbara, Sedgwick Reserve, La 15 Purisima Mission State Park and other state parks, and Burton Mesa Ecological 16 Reserve (Santa Barbara County 2009; SBCAG 2013; Santa Barbara County Water 17 Agency 2010). 18 Agricultural is the predominant land use in the county with over 1,440,000 acres, 19 or 82 percent of the land (Santa Barbara County 2009; SBCAG 2013). Santa 20 Barbara County includes eight incorporated cities, including xxx, Buellton, 21 Carpenteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and 22 Solvang. Less than 3 percent of the County is within incorporated cities. The 23 major unincorporated communities include Cuyuama, Los Alamos, Los Olivos, 24 Mission Hills, Montecito, New Cayamu, Orcutt, Summerland, and Vandendberg 25 Village. The portion of the Central Coastal Region, in Santa Barbara County that 26 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 27 this EIS includes SWP facilities (including facilities associated with the Central 28 Coast Water Authority), recreation facilities at Cachuma Lake that stores SWP 29 water, and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation 30 Resources, and Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies.

31 A.3.5.3Tribal Lands in Central Coast Region 32 This section summarizes the tribal lands that could be affected by changes in CVP 33 and/or SWP operations and that are located within the county boundaries 34 described above. 35 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Santa Barbara County 36 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of Santa 37 Barbara County include the Santa Ynez Reservation, which is home to the Santa 38 Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation near Santa 39 Barbara (SDSU 2013).

Second Administrative June 2015 13-26 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 A.3.6 Southern California Region 2 The Southern California Region includes portions of Ventura, Los Angeles, 3 Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties served by the SWP. 4 Tribal lands are also described for the Southern California Region.

5 A.3.6.1Ventura County 6 Ventura County encompasses approximately 1,873 square miles in southern 7 California. It is bounded on the north by Kern County, on the east and south by 8 Los Angeles County, and on the west by Santa Barbara County and the Pacific 9 Ocean. Ventura County includes Federally-owned and state-owned lands 10 throughout the county, including 550,211 acres in Los Padres National Forest, 11 Chumash and Sespe wilderness area, 4,331 acres at the Point Mugu Naval Air 12 Station, 670 acres at the California State University Channel Islands, and over 13 410 acres in state beach parks (Ventura County 2013). 14 Ventura County has 10 incorporated cities, Including Camarillo, Fillmore, 15 Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, San Buenaventura, Simi 16 Valley, and Thousand Oaks (Ventura County 2013). Major unincorporated 17 communities within the county include Bell Canyon, Box Canyon, Camarillo 18 Heights, Del Norte, El Rio, Hidden Valley, Lake Sherwood, Matilija Canyon, 19 Montalvo, Oak Park, Ojai Valley, Piru, Saticoy, and Somis (Ventura County 2005). 20 The portion of the Southern California Region in Ventura County that could be 21 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 22 includes recreation at Lake Piru that stores SWP water, and SWP water service 23 areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface 24 Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

25 A.3.6.2Los Angeles County 26 Los Angeles County encompasses approximately 4,083 square miles in northern 27 California. It is bounded on the north by Kern County, on the east by San 28 Bernardino County, on the south by Orange County, and on the west by Ventura 29 County and the Pacific Ocean. Los Angeles County includes Federally-owned and 30 state-owned lands throughout the county, including nearly 650,000 acres in Los 31 Padres and Angeles national forests, portions of Edwards Air Force Base, over 32 29,000 acres of other Federally-owned open space (including wilderness areas), 33 and approximately 50,893 acres of state-owned land, including Hungry Valley 34 State Vehicular Recreation Area (Los Angeles County 2011). 35 More than half of Los Angeles County’s 1,698,240 acres of unincorporated land 36 area is designated a natural resources land use category. The next highest land 37 use is rural, which accounts for 39 percent of the unincorporated areas, followed 38 by residential, which accounts for three percent of the unincorporated areas. 39 The remaining land area is in the county’s 88 incorporated cities, the most 40 populous of which is the city of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County 2012). The 41 County has approximately 140 unincorporated areas (Los Angeles 2014).

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-27 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 The portion of the Southern California Region in Los Angeles County that could 2 be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 3 includes SWP facilities, and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, 4 Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, 5 and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

6 A.3.6.3Orange County 7 Orange County encompasses 948 square miles in southern California. It is 8 bounded on the north by Los Angeles County, on the east by San Bernardino and 9 Riverside counties, on the south by San Diego County, and on the west by the 10 Pacific Ocean. Orange County includes Federally-owned lands, including lands in 11 the Cleveland National Forests. 12 Orange County has 34 incorporated cities in Orange County. The unincorporated 13 lands cover approximately 192,758 acres (Orange County 2005). Land zoned as 14 open space forms the largest land use type (143,313 acres). 15 The portion of the Southern California Region in Orange County that could be 16 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 17 includes SWP facilities and SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 5, 18 Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies and Chapter 12, Agricultural 19 Resources.

20 A.3.6.4San Diego County 21 San Diego County encompasses approximately 4,525 square miles in southern 22 California. It is bounded on the north by Orange and Riverside counties, on the 23 east by Imperial County, on the south by Mexico, and on the west by the Pacific 24 Ocean. San Diego County includes Federally-owned land, including Camp 25 Pendleton Marine Corps Base, Cleveland National Forest, and San Diego and San 26 Diego national wildlife refuges. State-owned lands throughout the county, 27 includes Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, an Felipe 28 Wildlife Area, Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area (San Diego County 29 2011). 30 There are incorporated cities include Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, 31 El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National 32 City, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcos, Santee, Solano Beach, and Vista San Diego 33 (San Diego County 2011). The unincorporated communities include Lakeside, 34 Ramona, San Dieguito, Spring Valley, and Valle de Oro. 35 The portion of the Southern California Region in San Diego County that could be 36 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 37 includes SWP facilities, non-SWP reservoirs that store SWP water (including 38 Dixon Lake; and San Vicente, Lower Otay, and Sweetwater Reservoir), and CVP 39 water service areas, as described in Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 40 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural 41 Resources.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-28 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 A.3.6.5Riverside County 2 Riverside County encompasses approximately 7,295 square miles in southern 3 California. It is bounded on the north by San Bernardino County, on the east by 4 the state of Nevada, on the south by San Diego and Imperial counties, and on the 5 west by Orange County. Riverside County includes Federally-owned lands 6 throughout the county, including March Air Reserve Base, Chocolate Mountains 7 Naval Gunnery Range, Joshua Tree National Park, San Bernardino and Cleveland 8 national forests, numerous wilderness areas, and Coachella Valley National 9 Wildlife Refuge; and state-owned lands including San Jacinto and Santa Rose 10 wildlife areas and Mount San Jacinto State Park (RCIP 2000). 11 Residential land use accounts for approximately 184,000 acres, nearly 57 percent 12 of which are within incorporated cities. Approximately 1,313,000 acres (28 13 percent) is in open space, recreation, agriculture, and wildland preservation 14 (RCIP 2000). 15 Most of the population is concentrated in the 24 incorporated cities of Banning, 16 Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Cathedral City, Coachella, Corona, Desert Hot 17 Springs, Hemet, Indian Wells, Indio, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Moreno Valley, 18 Murrieta, Norco, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Perris, Rancho Mirage, Riverside, 19 San Jacinto, and Temecula. The major unincorporated communities in the 20 county include Banning Bench, Bermuda Dunes, Cabazon, Cherry Valley, 21 Cleveland Ridge, Desert Center, Eagle Mountain, El Cerrito, Lakeview/Nuevo, 22 Meadowbrook, Mecca, Menifee Valley, North Palm Springs, Ripley, Sun City, 23 Temescal Canyon Tenaja, Thermal, Thousand Palms, Warm Springs, and 24 Wildomar. 25 The portion of the Southern California Region in Riverside County that could be 26 affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in this EIS 27 includes SWP facilities, reservoirs that store SWP water (including Diamond 28 Valley Lake and Lake Skinner, and SWP water service areas, as described in 29 Chapter 15, Recreation Resources, Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 30 Water Supplies, and Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources.

31 A.3.6.6San Bernardino County 32 San Bernardino County encompasses approximately 20,106 square miles in 33 southern California. It is bounded on the north by Inyo County, on the east by 34 the state of Nevada, on the south by Riverside County, and on the west by Kern, 35 Los Angeles, and Orange counties. Most of the land in San Bernardino County is 36 Federally-owned and state-owned lands, including approximately 10,500,000 37 acres, or 81 percent of the county (San Bernardino County 2007, 2012). The 38 Federally-owned lands include 28 Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas 39 (approximately 47 percent of the total county), San Bernardino, and Angeles 40 national forests (676,666 and 655,387 acres, respectively), Mojave National 41 Preserve, Joshua Tree and Death Valley national parks, and four military bases 42 (Edwards Air Force Base, Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-29 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Training Center, Fort Irwin, and China Lake Naval Weapons Center. State-owned 2 lands include Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area at the SWP reservoir, 3 Wildwood Canyon State Park, and Providence Mountain and Chino Hills state 4 recreation areas. 5 San Bernardino County includes 24 incorporated cities, including Adelanto, Apple 6 Valley, Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Grand 7 Terrace, Hesperia, Highland, Loma Linda, Montclair, Needles, Ontario, Rancho 8 Cucamonga, Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Twentynine Palms, Upland, 9 Victorville, Yucaipa, and Yucca Valley. Major unincorporated communities in the 10 county include Amboy, Baker, Bear Valley, Bloomington, Crest Forest, Earp, 11 Essex, Fontana suburbs, Goffs, Harvard, Havasu Lake, Helendale, Hilltop, 12 Hinckley, Homestead Valley, Joshua Tree, Kelso, Kramer Junction, Lake 13 Arrowhead, Landers, Lucerne Valley, Ludlow, Lytle Creek, Mentone, Moronga 14 Valley, Muscoy, Newberry Springs, Nipton, Oak Glen, Oak Hills, Parker, 15 Phelan/Pinon Hills, Pioneertown, Red Mountain, Rimrock, Silver Lake, Trona, 16 Vidal, and Yerno. 17 The portion of the Southern California Region in San Bernardino County that 18 could be affected by changes in CVP and/or SWP operations and evaluated in 19 this EIS includes SWP water service areas, as described in Chapter 5, Surface 20 Water Resources and Water Supplies.

21 A.3.6.7Tribal Lands in Southern California Region 22 This section summarizes the tribal lands that could be affected by changes in CVP 23 and/or SWP operations and that are located within the county boundaries 24 described above. 25 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of San Diego County 26 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of San 27 Diego County includes lands of the Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission 28 Indians of California (Barona Reservation and Viejas Reservation), Cahuilla Band 29 of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, Campo Band of Diegueno Mission 30 Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay 31 Indians, Inaja Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit 32 Reservation, Jamul Indian Village of California, La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, 33 La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, 34 Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, Manzanita Band of Diegueno 35 Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, Mesa Grade Band of Diegueno 36 Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, Pala Band of Luiseno Mission 37 Indians of the Pala Reservation, Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 38 Pauma & Yuima Reservation, Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians of the Rincon 39 Reservation, San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California, Iipay 40 Nation of Santa Ysabel, and Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Nation.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-30 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of Riverside County 2 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of 3 Riverside County include lands of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahilla Indians of the 4 Agua Caliente Reservation, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of 5 Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, 6 Morango Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of 7 the Pechanga Reservation, Ramona Band of Cahuilla, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla 8 Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 9 Indians, Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California, and Colorado 10 River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation (RCIP 2000). 11 Tribal Lands within the Boundaries of San Bernardino County 12 Major Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands within the boundaries of San 13 Bernardino County include the lands of the San Manual Band of Mission Indians 14 and the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (SDSU 2013). 15 The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation is also located in 16 San Bernardino County near the Colorado River.

17 A.4 Environmental Consequences

18 This section describes the potential mechanisms for change in non-agricultural 19 land uses; quantitative and qualitative analytical methods; effects of the 20 analyses; potential mitigation measures; and cumulative effects.

21 A.4.1 Potential Mechanisms for Change in Non-Agricultural Land 22 Uses 23 As described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, the 24 environmental consequences assessment considers changes in non-agricultural 25 land uses related to changes in CVP and SWP operations under the alternatives 26 as compared to the No Action Alternative and Second Basis of Comparison.

27 A.4.1.1Analysis of Operational Impacts 28 Changes in CVP and SWP operations under the alternatives as compared to the 29 No Action Alternative and Second Basis of Comparison could change non- 30 agricultural land uses that are served by CVP and SWP water supplies over the 31 long-term average conditions and during dry and critical dry water years. 32 Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses in Areas Served by CVP and SWP 33 Water: Changes in CVP and SWP operations under the alternatives could change 34 the availability of CVP and SWP water supplies. If the CVP and SWP water 35 supplies were reduced as compared to the No Action Alternative and Second 36 Basis of Comparison to a level that would not support planned municipal and 37 industrial water demands, development of future land uses may not occur.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-31 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Changes in Wetland Land Uses in Areas Served by CVP and SWP Water: The No 2 Action Alternative, Alternatives 1 through 5, and Second Basis of Comparison all 3 include implementation of restoration of more than 10,000 acres of intertidal 4 and associated subtidal wetlands in Suisun Marsh and Cache Slough; 17,000 to 5 20,000 acres of seasonal floodplain restoration in the Yolo Bypass; and continued 6 delivery of refuge water supplies under the Central Valley Project Improvement 7 Act, as described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives. Therefore, this 8 chapter does not analyze changes in wetland land uses.

9 Effects Related to Water Transfers 10 Historically water transfer programs have been developed on an annual basis. 11 Recently, Reclamation has evaluated longer term water transfer programs and 12 programmatic water transfer programs that provide flexibility to accommodate 13 subsequent transfer agreements. Potential changes in non-agricultural land uses 14 are informed by the recent environmental documents prepared by Reclamation 15 for inter-basin transfers in the Central Valley. 16 Projecting changes related to water transfer activities is difficult because specific 17 water transfer actions to make the water available, convey the water, and/or use 18 of the water would change each year due to changing hydrological conditions, 19 CVP and SWP water availability, and specific local agency operations, as 20 described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies. 21 Reclamation has recently completed several regional water transfer 22 environmental documents which evaluated the potential changes in visual 23 resources conditions related to water transfer actions (Reclamation 2013b, 24 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). These documents provided programmatic environmental 25 analyses of land use changes. 26 It is anticipated that water would continue to be transferred between subbasins, 27 including: 28 Transfers between areas within the Sacramento Valley. 29 Transfers between areas within the San Joaquin Valley. 30 Transfers between areas in the Sacramento Valley and areas in the San Joaquin 31 Valley. 32 Transfers between areas in the Sacramento Valley or San Joaquin Valley to the 33 San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and/or Southern California regions. 34 Under all of the alternatives and Second Basis of Comparison, it is assumed that 35 these transfers would continue to occur each year which could increase water 36 supply availability for agricultural and municipal and industrial land uses under 37 long-term average conditions and in dry and critical dry years. Changes in 38 agricultural land uses within the sellers’ and purchasers’ service areas are 39 described in Chapter 12, Agricultural Resources. Changes in municipal and 40 industrial water supplies due to transfers are included in the CWEST analyses, as

Second Administrative June 2015 13-32 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies. The 2 CWEST analyses includes the use of transfers to provide adequate municipal and 3 industrial water supplies to meet the 2030 water demands for implementation 4 of the adopted general plans and urban water management plans. Therefore, 5 this chapter does not include separate analyses of changes in municipal and 6 industrial land uses due to water transfers.

7 A.4.1.2Analysis of Construction Impacts 8 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, there are several ongoing 9 projects that are assumed to be implemented by 2030, such as Grasslands 10 Bypass Project which is currently under construction. It is assumed that these 11 projects would be included in the No Action Alternative, all other alternatives, 12 and Second Basis of Comparison. The 2030 conditions assume the projected 13 long-term conditions for each ongoing project as described in their respective 14 environmental documents. This analysis does not address the construction 15 activities of each ongoing project because those impacts were addressed in 16 separate environmental documents for each project. It is assumed that 17 implementation, including construction activities, of these actions would be 18 complete by 2030 except for implementation of Suisun Marsh Habitat 19 Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan which would be implemented 20 by the Year 2041 (Reclamation et al. 2011a). 21 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, some actions identified in 22 the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinion (BO), such 23 as implementation of fish passage or installation of temperature control devices 24 at CVP dams, could require construction under the No Action Alternative and 25 Alternatives 2, 5, and 6. Specific implementation actions, including potential 26 construction activities, are not identified at this time. Future environmental 27 documents would be prepared to analyze potential environmental consequences 28 related to specific construction and operations. Future conditions in 2030 29 assume projected long-term conditions that would occur due to operations of 30 these actions. However, this analysis does not evaluate specific construction 31 impacts which would be analyzed in future environmental documents.

32 A.4.2 Assessment Methods to Analyze Changes in Municipal and 33 Industrial Land Uses 34 The analysis of changes in municipal and industrial land uses as presented in this 35 chapter include quantitative methods using available numerical tools and 36 qualitative methods for analyses that cannot be simulated with available 37 numerical tools. 38 As described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, the 39 Environmental Consequences analysis compares conditions under the Second 40 Basis of Comparison and Alternatives 1 through 5 to conditions under the No

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-33 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Action Alternative; and compares conditions under Alternatives 1 through 5 to 2 conditions under the Second Basis of Comparison.

3 A.4.2.1Quantitative Analyses of Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land 4 Uses 5 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, the 6 CalSim II model was used to simulate CVP and SWP water deliveries and the 7 CWEST model was used to simulate municipal and industrial water use to users 8 of CVP and SWP water supplies in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, 9 Central Coast, and Southern California regions. The municipal and industrial 10 water demands for 2030 conditions included in the CWEST model are based 11 upon the water demands presented in the urban water management plans to 12 meet projected water demands in 2030. If adequate water supplies are not 13 available to meet the 2030 water demands, future municipal and industrial 14 development may be postponed or not occur.

15 A.4.3 Bases of Comparison 16 This EIS includes two bases of comparison, as described in Chapter 3, Description 17 of Alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison. 18 Both of these bases are evaluated at 2030 conditions.

19 A.4.3.1No Action Alternative 20 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, the No Action Alternative 21 is based upon the continued coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and 22 SWP by 2030, including implementation of the 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 23 NMFS BO Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions. The RPA actions 24 include restoration of more than 10,000 acres of intertidal and associated 25 subtidal wetlands in Suisun Marsh and Cache Slough; and 17,000 to 20,000 acres 26 of seasonal floodplain restoration in the Yolo Bypass. 27 The No Action Alternative also includes changes not related to the coordinated 28 long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, including full implementation of the 29 general plans through 2030, changes in CVP and SWP operations due to climate 30 change and sea level rise, increased CVP and water rights water demand in 31 portions of the Sacramento Valley, and implementation of reasonable and 32 foreseeable non-CVP or SWP water resources management projects to provide 33 water supplies, as described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water 34 Supplies. Therefore, long-term average CVP and SWP water supply deliveries by 35 2030 would decline as compared to historical long-term average deliveries. 36 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, programs that could 37 increase available water supplies, including: 38 Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water 39 Authority, 2014-2038 (Reclamation 2013b).

Second Administrative June 2015 13-34 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Continuation of annual water transfers based upon water supply availability and 2 conveyance opportunities. 3 Initial implementation of the SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management 4 Plans.

5 Trinity River Region 6 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 7 and SWP Water 8 Under the No Action Alternative, land uses would occur in accordance with the 9 general plans for the three counties in the Trinity River Region; cities within 10 these counties; and tribal lands within these counties. There are no municipal 11 and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region that use CVP and SWP water 12 supplies. Therefore, there would be no changes in potential changes in 13 municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region the No Action 14 Alternative as compared to recent historical conditions.

15 Central Valley Region 16 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 17 and SWP Water 18 Under the No Action Alternative, land uses would occur in accordance with the 19 general plans for the 22 counties and cities within the Central Valley Region; 20 tribal lands; and regulations of state and regional agencies, including Central 21 Valley Flood Protection Board, Delta Protection Commission, and Delta 22 Stewardship Council. As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and 23 Water Supplies, water supplies have been identified to meet projected 2030 24 water demands for municipal and industrial water users that are served by CVP 25 and SWP water under the No Action Alternative. 26 Development along the river corridors in the Central Valley will continue to be 27 limited by the state regulations to protect floodways. The Central Valley Flood 28 Protection Board adopts floodway boundaries and approves uses within those 29 floodways (DWR 2010). Various uses are permitted in the floodways, such as 30 agriculture, canals, low dikes and berms, parks and parkways, golf courses, sand 31 and gravel mining, structures that will not be used for human habitation, and 32 other facilities and activities that will not be substantially damaged by the base 33 flood event and will not cause adverse hydraulic impacts that will raise the water 34 surface in the floodway. 35 Within the Delta, future development also is subject to the requirements of the 36 Delta Protection Commission and Delta Stewardship Council. The general plans 37 within the Delta are required by state laws to be consistent with the Delta 38 Protection Commission Land Use and Resource Management Plan for the 39 Primary Zone of the Delta (DPC 2010; OAL 2010) which does not allow 40 development within the Primary Zone of the Delta unless proponents can

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-35 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 demonstrate that implementing their projects would preserve and protect 2 natural resources of the Delta, promote protection of remnants of riparian and 3 aquatic habitat, not result in loss of wetlands or riparian habitat, would not 4 degrade water quality, would not interfere with migratory birds or public access, 5 would not harm agricultural operations, and would not degrade levees or expose 6 the public to increased flood hazards. Farmers are encouraged to implement 7 management practices to maximize habitat values for migratory birds and 8 wildlife. 9 The Delta Plan adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council in May 2013 included a 10 policy that protects floodways within the entire Delta that are not regulated by 11 other Federal or state agencies (23 California Code of Regulations Section 5014). 12 This policy prevents encroachment into floodways that would impede the free 13 flow of water in the floodway or jeopardize public safety.

14 San Francisco Bay Area Region 15 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 16 and SWP Water 17 Under the No Action Alternative, land uses would occur in accordance with the 18 general plans for the five counties in the San Francisco Bay Area Region; cities 19 within these counties; and tribal lands within these counties. As described in 20 Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, water supplies have 21 been identified to meet 2030 water demands for municipal and industrial water 22 users that are served by CVP and SWP water under the No Action Alternative.

23 Central Coast Region 24 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 25 and SWP Water 26 Under the No Action Alternative, land uses would occur in accordance with the 27 general plans for the two counties in the Central Coast Region; cities within 28 these counties; and tribal lands within these counties. As described in Chapter 5, 29 Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, water supplies have been 30 identified to meet 2030 water demands for municipal and industrial water users 31 that are served by CVP and SWP water under the No Action Alternative.

32 Southern California Region 33 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 34 and SWP Water 35 Under the No Action Alternative, land uses would occur in accordance with the 36 general plans for the six counties in the Central Valley Region; cities within these 37 counties; and tribal lands within these counties. As described in Chapter 5, 38 Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, water supplies have been 39 identified to meet 2030 water demands for municipal and industrial water users 40 that are served by CVP and SWP water under the No Action Alternative.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-36 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 A.4.3.2Second Basis of Comparison 2 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, the Second Basis of 3 Comparison is based upon: 4 Coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in 2030 without 5 implementation of the 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO RPAs. 6 Changes in CVP and SWP operations due to climate change and sea level rise, 7 and increased CVP and water rights water demand in portions of the Sacramento 8 Valley. 9 Implementation of reasonable and foreseeable non-CVP and -SWP water 10 resources projects to provide additional water supplies, as described in Section 11 7.4.3.1, No Action Alternative. 12 Implementation of RPA actions that address programs and projects that were 13 ongoing prior to issuance of the 2008 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO, including 14 restoration of Battle Creek for salmonids; replacement of the Red Bluff Diversion 15 Dam; restoration of more than 10,000 acres of intertidal and associated subtidal 16 wetlands in Suisun Marsh and Cache Slough; and 17,000 to 20,000 acres of 17 seasonal floodplain restoration in the Yolo Bypass. 18 Implementation of the general plans, tribal plans, and state and regional land 19 use plans and requirements as described under the No Action Alternative. 20 Overall, under the Second Basis of Comparison, long-term average CVP and SWP 21 water supply deliveries by 2030 would increase and end of September reservoir 22 storage would probably decrease as compared to recent conditions. 23 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, programs that could 24 increase available water supplies, including: 25 Water Transfer Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water 26 Authority, 2014-2038 (Reclamation 2013b). 27 Continuation of annual water transfers based upon water supply availability and 28 conveyance opportunities. 29 Initial implementation of the SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management 30 Plans.

31 Trinity, Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern 32 33 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 34 and SWP Water 35 Municipal and industrial land uses under the Second Basis of Comparison are 36 anticipated to be consistent with conditions under the No Action Alternative in 37 accordance with general plans, tribal plans, and state and regional land use plans 38 and requirements.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-37 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 A.4.4 Evaluation of Alternatives 2 As described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, Alternatives 1 3 through 5 have been compared to the No Action Alternative; and the No Action 4 Alternative and Alternatives 1 through 5 have been compared to the Second 5 Basis of Comparison.

6 A.4.4.1No Action Alternative 7 As described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, the No Action 8 Alternative is compared to the Second Basis of Comparison.

9 Trinity River Region 10 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 11 and SWP Water 12 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 13 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses 14 would be the same under the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of 15 Comparison in the Trinity River Region.

16 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 17 18 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by CVP 19 and SWP Water 20 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 21 SWP water supplies under the No Action Alternative would be less than under 22 the Second Basis of Comparison. However, as described in Chapter 5, 2030 23 municipal and industrial water demands would be met through a combination of 24 available CVP and SWP water supplies and other water supplies, including water 25 transfers. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses would be the same 26 under the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison in the 27 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 28 regions.

29 A.4.4.2Alternative 1 30 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, Alternative 1 is identical to 31 the Second Basis of Comparison. As described in Chapter 4, Approach to 32 Environmental Analysis, Alternative 1 is compared to the No Action Alternative 33 and the Second Basis of Comparison. However, because land use conditions 34 under Alternative 1 are identical to land use conditions under the Second Basis 35 of Comparison; Alternative 1 is only compared to the No Action Alternative.

36 Alternative 1 Compared to the No Action Alternative

Second Administrative June 2015 13-38 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Trinity River Region 2 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 3 CVP and SWP Water 4 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 5 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses 6 would be the same under Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative in the 7 Trinity River Region. 8 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 9 Regions 10 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 11 CVP and SWP Water 12 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 13 SWP water supplies under Alternative 1 would be greater than under the No 14 Action Alternative. As described in Chapter 5, 2030 municipal and industrial 15 water demands would be met through a combination of available CVP and SWP 16 water supplies and other water supplies, including water transfers. Therefore, 17 the municipal and industrial land uses would be the same under Alternative 1 18 and the No Action Alternative in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, 19 Central Coast, and Southern California regions.

20 Alternative 1 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 21 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, Alternative 1 is identical to 22 the Second Basis of Comparison.

23 A.4.4.3Alternative 2 24 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 2 are identical to the CVP and 25 SWP operations under the No Action Alternative, as described in Chapter 3, 26 Description of Alternatives. Therefore, the land use conditions under Alternative 27 2 would be identical to the conditions under the No Action Alternative. As 28 described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, Alternative 2 is 29 compared to the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison. 30 However, because land use conditions under Alternative 2 would be identical to 31 the land use conditions under the No Action Alternative; Alternative 2 is only 32 compared to the Second Basis of Comparison.

33 Alternative 2 Compared to the No Action Alternative 34 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 2 are identical to the CVP and 35 SWP operations under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the land use 36 conditions are identical under Alternative 2 and No Action Alternative.

37 Alternative 2 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 38 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 2 are identical to the CVP and 39 SWP operations under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, changes to land use

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-39 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 under Alternatives 2 as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison would be 2 the same as the impacts described in Section 13.4.4.1, No Action Alternative.

3 A.4.4.4Alternative 3 4 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, CVP and SWP operations 5 under Alternative 3 are similar to the Second Basis of Comparison with modified 6 Old and Middle River flow criteria. As described in Chapter 4, Approach to 7 Environmental Analysis, Alternative 3 is compared to the No Action Alternative 8 and the Second Basis of Comparison.

9 Alternative 3 Compared to the No Action Alternative 10 Trinity River Region 11 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 12 CVP and SWP Water 13 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 14 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses 15 would be the same under Alternative 3 and the No Action Alternative in the 16 Trinity River Region. 17 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 18 Regions 19 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 20 CVP and SWP Water 21 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 22 SWP water supplies under Alternative 3 would be greater than under the No 23 Action Alternative. As described in Chapter 5, 2030 municipal and industrial 24 water demands would be met through a combination of available CVP and SWP 25 water supplies and other water supplies, including water transfers. Therefore, 26 the municipal and industrial land uses would be the same under Alternative 3 27 and the No Action Alternative in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, 28 Central Coast, and Southern California regions.

29 Alternative 3 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 30 Trinity River Region 31 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 32 CVP and SWP Water 33 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 34 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses 35 would be the same under Alternative 3 and the No Action Alternative in the 36 Trinity River Region.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-40 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 2 Regions 3 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 4 CVP and SWP Water 5 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 6 SWP water supplies under Alternative 3 would be less than under the Second 7 Basis of Comparison. However, as described in Chapter 5, 2030 municipal and 8 industrial water demands would be met through a combination of available CVP 9 and SWP water supplies and other water supplies, including water transfers. 10 Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses would be the same under 11 Alternative 3 and the Second Basis of Comparison in the Central Valley, San 12 Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California regions.

13 A.4.4.5Alternative 4 14 As described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, Alternative 4 is 15 compared to the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison. The 16 CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 4 are identical to the CVP and SWP 17 operations under the Second Basis of Comparison and Alternative 1, as described 18 in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives. Under Alternative 4, new development 19 and substantial improvements would be prohibited within floodways or within 20 170 feet of the ordinary high water line of any floodway. Existing the general 21 plans and state and regional plans (e.g., requirements of the Delta Protection 22 Commission and Delta Stewardship Council) prohibit new municipal and 23 industrial development within floodways. Structures that either cannot be 24 moved prior to flood events or that would reduce the flood management 25 function of the floodway are also not allowed. It is anticipated that the 26 provisions under Alternative 4 could result in site-specific parcel changes. 27 However, the development that would have occurred on these parcels would be 28 minimal due to the existing regulations and could be incorporated within the 29 general plan development guidelines.

30 Alternative 4 Compared to the No Action Alternative 31 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 4 are identical to the CVP and 32 SWP operations under Alternative 1. Therefore, the land use conditions 33 influenced by availability of CVP and SWP water supplies under Alternative 4 34 would be the same as conditions under the Second Basis of Comparison. 35 Changes in municipal and industrial land use conditions under Alternative 4 as 36 compared to the No Action Alternative would be the same as the impacts 37 described in Section 14.4.4.2.1, Alternative 1 Compared to the No Action 38 Alternative. 39 Under Alternative 4, new development and substantial improvements would be 40 prohibited within floodways or within 170 feet of the ordinary high water line of 41 any floodway. Existing the general plans and state and regional plans (e.g.,

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-41 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 requirements of the Delta Protection Commission and Delta Stewardship 2 Council) prohibit new municipal and industrial development within floodways. 3 Structures that either cannot be moved prior to flood events or that would 4 reduce the flood management function of the floodway are also not allowed. It 5 is anticipated that the provisions under Alternative 4 could result in site-specific 6 parcel changes as compared to the No Action Alternative. However, the 7 development that would have occurred on these parcels would be minimal due 8 to the existing regulations and could be incorporated within the general plan 9 development guidelines.

10 Alternative 4 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 11 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 4 are identical to the CVP and 12 SWP operations under Second Basis of Comparison. Therefore, the land use 13 conditions influenced by availability of CVP and SWP water supplies under 14 Alternative 4 would be the same as conditions under the Second Basis of 15 Comparison. 16 Under Alternative 4, new development and substantial improvements would be 17 prohibited within floodways or within 170 feet of the ordinary high water line of 18 any floodway. Existing the general plans and state and regional plans (e.g., 19 requirements of the Delta Protection Commission and Delta Stewardship 20 Council) prohibit new municipal and industrial development within floodways. 21 Structures that either cannot be moved prior to flood events or that would 22 reduce the flood management function of the floodway are also not allowed. It 23 is anticipated that the provisions under Alternative 4 could result in site-specific 24 parcel changes as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison. However, the 25 development that would have occurred on these parcels would be minimal due 26 to the existing regulations and could be incorporated within the general plan 27 development guidelines.

28 A.4.4.6Alternative 5 29 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, CVP and SWP operations 30 under Alternative 5 are similar to the No Action Alternative with modified Old 31 and Middle River flow criteria and New Melones Reservoir operations. As 32 described in Chapter 4, Approach to Environmental Analysis, Alternative 5 is 33 compared to the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison.

34 Alternative 5 Compared to the No Action Alternative 35 Trinity River Region 36 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 37 CVP and SWP Water 38 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 39 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses

Second Administrative June 2015 13-42 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 would be the same under Alternative 5 and the No Action Alternative in the 2 Trinity River Region. 3 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 4 Regions 5 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 6 CVP and SWP Water 7 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 8 SWP water supplies under Alternative 5 would be less than under the No Action 9 Alternative. As described in Chapter 5, 2030 municipal and industrial water 10 demands would be met through a combination of available CVP and SWP water 11 supplies and other water supplies, including water transfers. Therefore, the 12 municipal and industrial land uses would be the same under Alternative 5 and 13 the No Action Alternative in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central 14 Coast, and Southern California regions.

15 Alternative 5 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 16 Trinity River Region 17 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 18 CVP and SWP Water 19 No municipal and industrial land uses in the Trinity River Region are served by 20 CVP and SWP water supplies. Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses 21 would be the same under Alternative 5 and the No Action Alternative in the 22 Trinity River Region. 23 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California 24 Regions 25 Potential Changes in Municipal and Industrial Land Uses that are Served by 26 CVP and SWP Water 27 As described in Chapter 5, Surface Water Resources and Water Supplies, CVP and 28 SWP water supplies under Alternative 5 would be less than under the Second 29 Basis of Comparison. However, as described in Chapter 5, 2030 municipal and 30 industrial water demands would be met through a combination of available CVP 31 and SWP water supplies and other water supplies, including water transfers. 32 Therefore, the municipal and industrial land uses would be the same under 33 Alternative 5 and the Second Basis of Comparison in the Central Valley, San 34 Francisco Bay Area, Central Coast, and Southern California regions.

35 A.4.4.7Summary of Environmental Consequences 36 The results of the environmental consequences of implementation of 37 Alternatives 1 through 5 as compared to the No Action Alternative and the 38 Second Basis of Comparison are presented in Table 13.1. 39 Table 13.1 Comparison of Alternatives 1 through 5 to No Action Alternative and 40 Second Basis of Comparison

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-43 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

Alternative Trinity River Central San Central Southern Compared Region Valley Francisco Coast California to Bases of Region Bay Area Region Region Comparison Region Alternative 1 No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued NAA use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. Alternative 2 No change. No change. No change. No change. No change. compared to NAA Alternative 3 No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued NAA use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. Alternative 4 Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as compared to Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 NAA compared to compared to compared to compared to compared to NAA. NAA. NAA. NAA. NAA. Alternative 5 No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued NAA use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. NAA No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued SBC use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. Alternative 1 No change. No change. No change. No change. No change. compared to SBC Alternative 2 Same as NAA Same as NAA Same as NAA Same as NAA Same as NAA compared to compared to compared to compared to compared to compared to SBC SBC. SBC. SBC. SBC. SBC. Alternative 3 No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued SBC use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. Alternative 4 No change. No change. No change. No change. No change. compared to SBC Alternative 5 No change. No change due No change due No change due No change due compared to to continued to continued to continued to continued SBC use of regional use of regional use of regional use of regional and local water and local water and local water and local water supplies and supplies and supplies and supplies and water water water water

Second Administrative June 2015 13-44 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

transfers. transfers. transfers. transfers. Note:

NAA – No Action Alternative

SBC – Second Basis of Comparison

1

2 A.4.4.8Cumulative Effects Analysis 3 As described in Chapter 3, the cumulative effects analysis considers projects, 4 programs, and policies that are not speculative; and are based upon known or 5 reasonably foreseeable long-range plans, regulations, operating agreements, or 6 other information that establishes them as reasonably foreseeable. Projects, 7 programs, and policies that could affect municipal and industrial land uses are 8 related to actions that could increase or decrease water supplies.

9 Projects and Programs that Could Increase Water Supply Availability 10 Projects and programs that develop additional water supplies are being 11 considered throughout the CVP and SWP service area. Major inter-regional 12 future projects include the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, Upper 13 San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation, North-of-the-Delta Offstream 14 Storage, Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project, and Delta Wetlands 15 (Reclamation 2013a, 2014d; DWR 2013; Reclamation, CCWD, and Western 2010; 16 SWSD 2011). 17 Major future infrastructure project also would indirectly increase water supply 18 reliability to some CVP and SWP water users. One of these projects, the Bay 19 Delta Conservation Plan (DWR, Reclamation, USFWS, and NMFS 2013) could 20 improve water supply reliability to CVP and SWP water users in the Central 21 Valley Region – San Joaquin Valley, San Francisco Bay Area Region, Central Coast 22 Region, and Southern California Region. In urban areas, infrastructure projects 23 would improve regional and local water supplies including the Bay Area Regional 24 Water Supply Reliability (CCWD 2014, EBMUD 2014) and North Bay Aqueduct 25 Alternative Intake (DWR 2011). 26 Many of the future projects would directly increase regional and local 27 groundwater storage and recovery capacity through development or expansion 28 of groundwater banks. Major projects that would provide more than 10,000 29 acre-feet/year of additional groundwater supplies in the CVP and SWP service 30 area were discussed in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives. Projects in the 31 Central Valley Region include groundwater management projects for the City of 32 Roseville, Mokelumne River Water & Power Authority, Northeastern San Joaquin 33 County Groundwater Banking Authority, Stockton East Water District, Madera 34 Irrigation District, Kings River Conservation District, and Buena Vista Water 35 Storage District and Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District (City of Roseville

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-45 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 2012; MORE 2015; NSJCGBA 2007; SEWD 2012; MWDSC 2010; KRCD 2012b; 2 BVWSD 2015). Major projects in the Southern California Region are being 3 considered by the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, City of San Diego, 4 Rancho California Water District; San Diego County Water Authority; Eastern 5 Municipal Water District; and Jurupa Community Services District (City of Los 6 Angeles 2010, 2013; Los Angeles County 2013; City of San Diego 2009a, 2009b; 7 RCWD 2011, 2012; Reclamation 2011b; EMWD 2014a; JCSD et al. 2010). 8 Major future recycled water projects would either indirectly increase 9 groundwater storage through providing new water supplies for irrigation or 10 increased supplies for groundwater recharge. Future recycled water projects 11 include treatment and reuse of both wastewater effluent and stormwater flows. 12 Major recycled water projects that provide more than 10,000 acre-feet/year of 13 new regional and local water supplies include projects developed for the cities of 14 Fresno and Los Angeles, Central Basin Municipal Water District, Foothill 15 Municipal Water District, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, 16 West Basin Municipal Water District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, 17 Eastern Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Palmdale Water 18 District, and East Valley Water Reclamation Authority (City of Fresno 2011; City 19 of Los Angeles 2005; MWDSC 2010; USGVMWD 2013; WBMWD 2011b, 2015a; 20 OMWD 2015; EMWD 2014b; PWD 2010; Antelope Valley 2013). 21 Major future coastal desalination water projects would indirectly increase 22 groundwater storage through providing new surface water supplies. Major 23 coastal desalination water projects being considered include the San Francisco 24 Bay Area Regional Desalination Project in the San Francisco Bay Area Region; City 25 of Santa Barbara and Camrosa Water District in the Central Coast Region; and 26 Cities of Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Oceanside, and Carlsbad; West Basin 27 Municipal Water District; Metropolitan Water District of Orange County; and San 28 Diego County Water Authority in the Southern California Region (BARDP 2015; 29 City of Santa Barbara 2015; CWD 2015; City of Long Beach 2015; City of 30 Huntington Beach 2010; City of Oceanside 2012; City of Carlsbad 2006; WBMWD 31 2015; MWDOC 2015; SDCWA 2009, 2015).

32 Projects and Programs that Could Decrease Water Supply Availability 33 There also are several ongoing programs that could result in changes in flow 34 patterns in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers watersheds and the Delta 35 including renewals of hydroelectric generation permits issued by the Federal 36 Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and update of the Water Quality Control 37 Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta 38 WQCP), as described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives. These changes in 39 flow patterns could result in reduced CVP and SWP water supply availability in 40 some months and possibly on an annual basis.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-46 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 There 22 hydroelectric generation FERC permits that will expire prior to 2030 2 (FERC 2015). Fifteen projects in the Sacramento River watershed include one on 3 the Pit River (upstream of Shasta Lake), six on the Feather River, four on the 4 Yuba River, one on the Bear River, one on the American River, and one each on 5 Cow and Battle creeks. Projects in the San Joaquin River watershed include four 6 on the San Joaquin River, one on the Stanislaus River, two on the Merced River, 7 and one on the Tuolumne River. The FERC must complete analyses under NEPA 8 and Endangered Species Act to consider the effects of the hydropower 9 operations on the environment, including flow regimes, water quality, fish 10 passage, recreation, aquatic and riparian habitat, and special status species. 11 Through these analyses, the patterns of flow releases from the hydropower 12 facilities may be changed from recent historical conditions which could result in 13 changes in flow patterns into CVP and SWP reservoirs and water availability. 14 In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, water quality and flow objectives to 15 meet water quality criteria are included in the Bay-Delta WQCP (SWRCB 2006). 16 The SWRCB and the Central Valley and San Francisco Regional Water Quality 17 Control Boards are in the process of updating the Bay-Delta WQCP. The updates, 18 or amendments, are being prepared in two phases. Initially, the SWRCB and 19 Regional Water Quality Control Boards are evaluating new flow objectives for 20 the Lower San Joaquin River and the tributaries of Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and 21 Merced rivers; and southern Delta salinity objectives. The second phase will 22 evaluate changes to other portions of the Bay-Delta WQCP including Delta 23 outflows, SWP and CVP export restrictions, and other requirements in the Bay- 24 Delta to protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses. A third phase will consider and 25 assign responsibility for implementing measures to achieve the water quality 26 objectives established in the first two phases (SWRCB 2013).

27 No Action Alternative Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 28 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 29 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 30 availability of regional and local water supplies under the No Action Alternative 31 and Second Basis of Comparison. 32 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 33 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 34 under the No Action Alternative and Second Basis of Comparison. However, as 35 described in Chapter 5, use of regional and local water supplies and water 36 transfers from other areas would continue to be used to meet 2030 water 37 demands. 38 The future projects would occur under both the No Action Alternative and 39 Second Basis of Comparison. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under the 40 No Action Alternative as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison would be

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-47 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 similar without the future projects as with the cumulative effects of the future 2 projects.

3 Alternative 1 4 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 5 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 6 availability of regional and local water supplies under Alternative 1. 7 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 8 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 9 under Alternative 1. However, as described in Chapter 5, use of regional and 10 local water supplies and water transfers from other areas would continue to be 11 used to meet 2030 water demands. 12 Alternative 1 Compared to No Action Alternative 13 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 1 and the No Action 14 Alternative. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 1 as 15 compared to the No Action Alternative would be similar without the future 16 projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects. 17 Alternative 1 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 18 As described in Chapter 3, Description of Alternatives, Alternative 1 is identical to 19 the Second Basis of Comparison.

20 Alternative 2 21 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 22 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 23 availability of regional and local water supplies under Alternative 2. 24 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 25 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 26 under Alternative 2. However, as described in Chapter 5, use of regional and 27 local water supplies and water transfers from other areas would continue to be 28 used to meet 2030 water demands. 29 Alternative 2 Compared to No Action Alternative 30 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 2 are identical to the CVP and 31 SWP operations under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, municipal land use 32 conditions are identical under Alternative 2 and No Action Alternative without 33 and with the future projects. 34 Alternative 2 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 35 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 2 and the Second Basis 36 of Comparison. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 2 as 37 compared to the Second Basis of Comparison would be similar without the 38 future projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-48 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Alternative 3 2 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 3 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 4 availability of regional and local water supplies under Alternative 3. 5 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 6 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 7 under Alternative 3. However, as described in Chapter 5, use of regional and 8 local water supplies and water transfers from other areas would continue to be 9 used to meet 2030 water demands. 10 Alternative 3 Compared to No Action Alternative 11 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 3 and the No Action 12 Alternative. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 3 as 13 compared to the No Action Alternative would be similar without the future 14 projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects. 15 Alternative 3 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 16 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 3 and the Second Basis 17 of Comparison. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 3 as 18 compared to the Second Basis of Comparison would be similar without the 19 future projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects.

20 Alternative 4 21 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 22 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 23 availability of regional and local water supplies under Alternative 4. 24 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 25 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 26 under Alternative 4. However, as described in Chapter 5, use of regional and 27 local water supplies and water transfers from other areas would continue to be 28 used to meet 2030 water demands. 29 Alternative 4 Compared to No Action Alternative 30 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 4 and the No Action 31 Alternative. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 4 as 32 compared to the No Action Alternative would be similar without the future 33 projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects. 34 Alternative 4 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 35 The CVP and SWP operations under Alternative 4 are identical to the CVP and 36 SWP operations under the Second Basis of Comparison. Therefore, the 37 municipal land use conditions are identical under Alternative 4 and Second Basis 38 of Comparison without and with the future projects.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-49 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Alternative 5 2 Implementation of future projects to increase surface water supply reliability 3 could result in increased CVP and SWP water supply availability and water supply 4 availability of regional and local water supplies under Alternative 5. 5 Future FERC permit renewals or the Bay-Delta WQCP updates could result in less 6 CVP and SWP water supplies and water supplies available for water transfers 7 under Alternative 5. However, as described in Chapter 5, use of regional and 8 local water supplies and water transfers from other areas would continue to be 9 used to meet 2030 water demands. 10 Alternative 5 Compared to No Action Alternative 11 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 5 and the No Action 12 Alternative. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 5 as 13 compared to the No Action Alternative would be similar without the future 14 projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects. 15 Alternative 5 Compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 16 The future projects would occur under both Alternative 5 and the Second Basis 17 of Comparison. Therefore, municipal land use conditions under Alternative 5 as 18 compared to the Second Basis of Comparison would be similar without the 19 future projects as with the cumulative effects of the future projects.

20 A.4.4.9Potential Mitigation Measures 21 As described above, adequate municipal and industrial water supplies to meet 22 2030 water demands would be provided under the No Action Alternative, 23 Second Basis of Comparison, and Alternatives 1 through 5. Therefore, there 24 would be no substantial impacts under Alternatives 1 through 5 as compared to 25 the No Action Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. 26

27 A.5 References

28 Alameda County. 2000. East County Area Plan (Revised by Initiative Nov. 2000). 29 Alameda County. 2009. Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Alameda County 30 Housing Element Update (2009-2014). December 2. 31 Antelope Valley. 2013. Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water Management 32 Plan, Final, 2013 Update. 33 BARDP (Bay Area Regional Desalination Project). 2015. About the Project, 34 Schedule. Site accessed January 12, 2015. 35 http://www.regionaldesal.com/schedule.html 36 Butte County. 2010. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. April 8.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-50 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 BVWSD (Buena Vista Water Storage District). 2015. Buena Vista Water Storage 2 District, James Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project. Site accessed 3 February 15, 2015. http://bvh2o.com/James.html 4 CCWD (Contra Costa Water District). 2014. Bay Area Regional Water Supply 5 Reliability Presentation. November 18. 6 City of Carlsbad. 2006. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum 7 City of Carlsbad, California Precise Development Plan and Desalination 8 Plant Project, Final Environmental Impact Report. June 13. 9 City of Fresno. 2011. City of Fresno Recycled Water Master Plan, Final 10 Environmental Impact Report. June. 11 City of Huntington Beach. 2010. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, 12 Seawater Desalination Project at Huntington Beach. May. 13 City of Long Beach. 2015. Capital Projects, Seawater Desalination. Site accessed 14 January 12, 2015. http://www.lbwater.org/overview-long-beach- 15 seawater-desalination-project 16 City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). 2005. 17 Integrated Resources Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report. 18 November. 19 City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). 2010. Water 20 System Ten-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Fiscal Years 2010- 21 2019. 22 City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). 2013. Initial 23 Study, Los Angeles Groundwater Replenishment Project. September. 24 City of Oceanside. 2012. Oceanside Harbor Desalination Testing Project. 25 City of Roseville. 2012. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Final 26 Environmental Impact Report. March. 27 City of San Diego. 2009a. Mission Valley Basin. September 11. 28 City of San Diego. 2009a. San Pasqual Basin. September 11. 29 City of Santa Barbara. 2015. Desalination. Site accessed February 19, 2015. 30 http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/source 31 s/desalination.asp 32 Colusa County. 2011. Public Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 33 Colusa County General Plan Update. November. 34 Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020. 35 January. 36 Del Norte County. 2003. Del Norte County General Plan. January 28.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-51 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015a. Status 2 of the Central Valley Salt & Nitrate Management Plan, Central Valley 3 Water Board Meeting, Agenda Item #14. April 16. 4 CVRWQCB (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015b.CV- 5 SALTS. No Date (n.d.). CV-SALTS, Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for 6 Long-Term Sustainability. Site accessed April 29, 2015. 7 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/salinity/ 8 CWD (Camarosa Water District). 2015. Local Water Desalination. Site accessed 9 January 25, 2015. http://www.camrosa.com/self_reliance_lwd.html 10 DPC (Delta Protection Commission). 2010. Draft Land Use and Resource 11 Management Plan for the Primary Zone of the Delta, Adopted February 12 25, 2010, February 25. 13 DSC (Delta Stewardship Council). 2013. The Delta Plan, Ensuring a reliable water 14 supply for California, a healthy Delta ecosystem, and a place of enduring 15 value. May. 16 DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2010. Central Valley Flood 17 Management Planning Program, State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive 18 Document. November. 19 DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2011. Scoping Report, North 20 Bay Aqueduct Alternative Intake Project. February. 21 DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2013. North-of-the-Delta 22 Offstream Storage Preliminary Administrative Draft Environmental 23 Impact Report. December. 24 DWR and Reclamation (California Department of Water Resources and Bureau of 25 Reclamation). 2014. Draft Technical Information for Preparing Water 26 Transfer Proposals (Water Transfer White Paper) Information for Parties 27 Preparing Proposals for Water Transfers Requiring Department of Water 28 Resources or Bureau of Reclamation Approval. November. 29 DWR, Reclamation, USFWS and NMFS (California Department of Water 30 Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 31 National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013. Draft Environmental Impact 32 Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Bay Delta Conservation 33 Plan. November. 34 EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utility District). 2014. Memo to the Board of 35 Directors, Bay Area Regional Reliability Principles. May 8. 36 El Dorado County. 2003. El Dorado County General Plan Draft Environmental 37 Impact Report. May.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-52 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 EMWD (Eastern Municipal Water District). 2014a. Hemet/San Jacinto 2 Groundwater Management Area, 2013 Annual Report, Prepared for 3 Hemet-San Jacinto Watermaster. April. 4 EMWD (Eastern Municipal Water District). 2014b. Indirect Potable Reuse 5 Program. January 8. 6 FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 2015. FERC: Hydropower- 7 General Information – Licensing. Site accessed April 29, 2015. 8 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp 9 Fresno County. 2000. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. October. 10 Glenn County. 1993. Glenn County General Plan. June 15. 11 Hoopa Valley Tribe. 2008. Water Quality Control Plan, Hoopa Valley Indian 12 Reservation. February. 13 Humboldt County. 2012. Humboldt 21st Century General Plan Update, Draft 14 Environmental Impact Report. April 2. 15 JCSD et al. (Jurupa Community Services District, City of Ontario, Western 16 Municipal Water District). 2010. Chino Desalter Phase 3. December. 17 Karuk Tribe. 2010. Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources Eco-Cultural 18 Resources Management Plan. June. 19 Kern County. 2004. Revised Update of the Kern County General Plan and 20 Amendment of the Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste 21 Management Plan Siting Element, Recirculated Draft Program 22 Environmental Impact Report. January. 23 Kern County. 2010. Greater Tehachapi Area Specific Plan Draft Environmental 24 Impact Report. August. 25 Kings County. 2009. 2035 Kings County General Plan Draft Environmental 26 Impact Report. June. 27 KRCD (Kings River Conservation District). 2012. Sustainable Groundwater 28 Management through an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan 29 (IRWMP). 30 Los Angeles County (County of Los Angeles). 2011. Public Review Draft 4/5/11 31 Text-Only Version, Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. April. 32 Los Angeles County (County of Los Angeles). 2012a. Cities within the County of 33 Los Angeles. February. 34 Los Angeles County (County of Los Angeles). 2013. Press Release, LA County 35 Flood Control District Tapped to Receive $28 Million State Flood 36 Protection, Water Supply Grant. October 3.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-53 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Madera County. 1995. Madera County General Plan Background Report. 2 October. 3 Merced County. 2012a. Merced County General Plan Revised Background 4 Report. November. 5 Merced County. 2012b. 2030 Merced County General Plan Draft Program 6 Environmental Impact Report. November. 7 Merced County. 2013. 2030 Merced County General Plan Update Recirculated 8 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. July. 9 MORE (Mokelumne River Water & Power Authority). 2015. Status and Timeline. 10 Site accessed January 14, 2015. 11 http://www.morewater.org/about_project/status_timeline.html 12 MWDOC (Metropolitan Water District of Orange County). Doheny Desalination 13 Project. Site accessed January 12, 2015. 14 http://www.mwdoc.com/services/dohenydesalhome 15 MWDSC (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). 2010. Integrated 16 Water Resources Plan, 2010 Update. October. 17 Napa County. 2007. Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report. February. 18 Napa County. 2008. Napa County General Plan. June. 19 NCRWQCB et al. (California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 20 and Bureau of Reclamation). 2009. Channel Rehabilitation and Sediment 21 Management for Remaining Phase 1 and Phase 2 Sites, Draft Master 22 Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment. June. 23 Nevada County (County of Nevada). 1995. Nevada County General Plan, Final 24 Environmental Impact Report. March. 25 Nevada County (County of Nevada). 2012. Nevada County Demographic and 26 Statistical Profile. 27 NSJCGBA (Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority). 28 2007. Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. 29 July. 30 OAL (California Office of Administrative Law). 2010. Notice of Approval of 31 Regulatory Action, Delta Protection Commission. October 7. 32 Orange County. 2005. 2005 Orange County General Plan. 33 OMWD (Olivenhain Municipal Water District). 2015. North County Recycled 34 Water Project on Track to Receive Millions More in State Grant Funds. 35 Site accessed February 16, 2015. 36 http://www.olivenhain.com/component/content/article/3-news/236- 37 north-county-recycled-water-project-on-track-to-receive-millions-more- 38 state-grant-funds.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-54 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Placer County. 2011. Placer County Conservation Plan, Western Placer County, 2 Agency Review Draft Document. February 1. 3 Plumas County. 2012. 2035 Plumas County General Plan Update Draft 4 Environmental Impact Report. November. 5 PWD (Palmdale Water District). 2010. Strategic Water Resources Plan, Final 6 Report. March. 7 RCIP (Riverside County Integrated Project). 2000. Existing Setting Report. March. 8 RCWD (Rancho California Water District). 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management 9 Plan Update. June 30. 10 RCWD (Rancho California Water District). 2012. Agricultural Water Management 11 Plan. December 13. 12 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2005a. Final Environmental Assessment 13 for the Long-term Contract Renewal, Shasta and Trinity Divisions. March. 14 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2005b. Final Environmental Assessment 15 for Renewal of Long-term Contracts for the Sacramento River Division 16 Contractors. February. 17 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2005c. Central Valley Project Long-Term 18 Water Service Contract Renewal American River Division Environmental 19 Impact Statement. June 20 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2006. San Luis Drainage Feature Re- 21 evaluation. Final Environmental Impact Statement. May. 22 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2009. Record of Decision, Grassland 23 Bypass Project, 2010-2019. December. 24 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2010. Resighini Rancheria Water 25 Resources Development Project. July. 26 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2011. Record of Decision Madera 27 Irrigation District Water Supply Enhancement Project. July. 28 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2012. Record of Decision San Joaquin 29 River Restoration Program. September 28. 30 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2013a. Shasta Lake Water Resources 31 Investigation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. June. 32 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2013b. Record of Decision, Water Transfer 33 Program for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water 34 Authority, 2014-2038. July 30. 35 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2014a. Findings of No Significant Impact, 36 2014 Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority Water Transfers. April 22.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-55 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2014b. Findings of No Significant Impact, 2 2014 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Water Transfers. April 3 22. 4 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2014c. Long-Term Water Transfers 5 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Public 6 Draft. September. 7 Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation). 2014d. Upper San Joaquin River Basin 8 Storage Investigation, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. August. 9 Reclamation et al. (Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Fish and 10 Game [now known as Department of Fish and Wildlife], and U.S. Fish and 11 Wildlife Service). 2011. Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, 12 Preservation, and Restoration Plan Final Environmental Impact 13 Statement/Environmental Impact Report. 14 Reclamation, CCWD, and Western (Bureau of Reclamation, Contra Costa Water 15 District, and Western Area Power Administration). 2010. Los Vaqueros 16 Expansion Project, Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental 17 Impact Report. March. 18 Resighini Rancheria. 2014. Resighini Rancheria, About Us. Site accessed April 24, 19 2014. http://resighin.ipower.com/about_us.html. 20 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact 21 Report for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035. . October. 22 Sacramento County. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report, Sacramento 23 County General Plan Update. April. 24 Sacramento County. 2011. General Plan of 2005-2030. November 9. 25 San Benito County. 2010. San Benito County General Plan Public Review Draft 26 Background Report. November. 27 San Benito County (County of San Benito). 2013. 2035 San Benito County General 28 Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. November. 29 San Bernardino County (County of San Bernardino). 2007. County of San 30 Bernardino 2006 General Plan Program, Final Environmental Impact 31 Report and Appendices. February. 32 San Bernardino County (County of San Bernardino). 2012. County of San 33 Bernardino 2007 General Plan. May. 34 San Diego County (County of San Diego). 2011. San Diego County General Plan 35 Update, Final Environmental Impact Report. August. 36 San Joaquin County. 2009. General Plan Update Background Report. July. 37 San Luis Obispo County (County of San Luis Obispo). 2013. County of San Luis 38 Obispo, Land Use and Circulation Elements. August.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-56 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Santa Barbara County (County of Santa Barbara). 2009. Santa Barbara County 2 Comprehensive Plan. May. 3 Santa Clara County (County of Santa Clara). 1994. Santa Clara County General 4 Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. September. 5 Santa Clara County (County of Santa Clara). 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat 6 Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 7 Statement. 2012. 8 SBCAG (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments). 2013. 2040 Santa 9 Barbara County Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable 10 Communities Strategy, Draft Environmental Impact Report. May. 11 SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2009. Camp Pendleton Seawater 12 Desalination Project Feasibility Study. December. 13 SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2015. Seawater Desalination. Site 14 accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.sdcwa.org/seawater-desalination 15 SDSU (San Diego State University). 2013. Site accessed March 18, 2013. 16 http://library.sdsu.edu/guides/sub2.php?id=195&pg=193. 17 SEWD (Stockton East Water District). 2012. Farmington Groundwater Recharge 18 Program. Site accessed November 30, 2012. 19 http://www.farmingtonprogram.org/index.html 20 Shasta County. 2004. Shasta County General Plan, as amended through 21 September 2004. September. 22 SJRECWA (San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority). 2012. Los 23 Banos Creek Water Restoration Management Plan, Attachment 4 – 24 Project Description. 25 SJRRP (San Joaquin River Restoration Program). 2011. Friant-Kern Canal Capacity 26 Restoration, Draft. June. 27 SJRRP (San Joaquin River Restoration Program). 2015. Madera Canal Capacity 28 Restoration Project. Site accessed February 21, 2015. 29 http://restoresjr.net/activities/site_specific/madera-canal/index.html 30 Solano County. 2008. Solano County General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact 31 Report. April. 32 Stanislaus Council of Governments. 2007. Final Supplemental Program 33 Environmental Impact Report for the 2007-2030 Regional Transportation 34 Plan of Stanislaus County. May. 35 Stanislaus County (County of Stanislaus County). 2010. Stanislaus County 36 General Plan Support Documentation, Revisded April 2010. April. 37 Stanislaus County (County of Stanislaus County). 2012. Text Revisions to the 38 Stanislaus County General Plan.

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-57 June 2015 Chapter 13: Land Use

1 Sutter County. 2010. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2 September. 3 SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2006. Water Quality Control Plan 4 for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. 5 December 13. 6 SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2013. Comprehensive (Phase 2) 7 Review and Update to the Bay-Delta Plan, DRAFT Bay-Delta Plan 8 Workshops Summary Report. January 9 SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board) 2015. CV-SALTS Annual Report, 10 State Water Board Meeting, Agenda Item #5. January 20. 11 SWSD (Semitropic Water Storage District). 2011. Delta Wetlands Project Place 12 of Use, Final Environmental Impact Report. August. 13 Tehama County. 2008. Tehama County 2008-2028 General Plan Draft 14 Environmental Impact Report. September. 15 Tulare County. 2010. Tulare County General Plan 2030 Update, Recirculated 16 Draft Environmental Impact Report. February. 17 USGVMWD (Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District). 2013. 18 Integrated Resources Plan. January. 19 Ventura County (County of Ventura). 2005. Final Subsequent Environmental 20 Impact Report for Focused General Plan Update. June. 21 Ventura County. 2013. Ventura County Statistics. Assessor’s Office. Site 22 accessed February 5, 2013. 23 http://assessor.countyofventura.org/generallyspeaking/CountyStatistics. 24 html. 25 WBMWD (West Basin Municipal Water District). 2011b. Edward C. Little Water 26 Recycling Facility Phase V Expansion, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative 27 Declaration. March. 28 WBMWD (West Basin Municipal Water District). 2015. Ocean Water 29 Desalination. Site accessed January 12, 2015. 30 http://www.westbasin.org/water-reliability-2020/ocean-water- 31 desalination/overview 32 Yolo County. 2009. Yolo County 2030 Countywide General Plan Environmental 33 Impact Report Public Review Draft. April. 34 Yuba County. 2011. Final Yuba County 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact 35 Report. May. 36 Yurok Tribe. 2005. Tribal Park Concept Plan. August. 37 Yurok Tribe. 2012. NPS Assessment and Management Program Plan. December.

Second Administrative June 2015 13-58 Draft LTO EIS Chapter 13: Land Use

1

Second Administrative Draft LTO EIS 13-59 June 2015