Executive Summary

1 Executive Summary

2 ES.1 Introduction

3 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coordinated Long-Term 4 Operation of the (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) has 5 been prepared by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 6 (Reclamation). Reclamation is the Federal lead agency for compliance with the 7 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is completing the EIS as ordered 8 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of (District 9 Court). The EIS evaluates long-term potential direct, indirect, and cumulative i10 i10 mpacts on the environment that could result from operation of the CVP and SWP 11 with implementation of the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12 Biological Opinion (BO) and the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 13 BO. The BOs were issued pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 14 1973 as amended (U.S.C. Section 1531 et. seq.).

15 ES.2 Background

16 ES.2.1 Central Valley Project 17 The first Federal action authorizing the CVP was through the Rivers and Harbors 18 Act of August 30, 1935. The CVP was reauthorized for construction, operation, 19 and maintenance by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) pursuant to the 20 Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended and supplemented (the Federal 21 Reclamation laws), and by the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 26, 1937. In 22 1992, the Central Valley Project Authorization Act of August 26, 1937 was 23 amended by Section 3406(a) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 24 (CVPIA), Public Law 102-575. (http://www.usbr.gov/history/cvpintro.html) 25 The CVP is composed of 20 with a combined storage capacity of more t26 t26 han 11 million acre-feet, over 11 hydroelectric powerplants, and more than 27 500 miles of major and aqueducts. The major CVP facilities are located in t28 t28 he Delta watershed including: 29 • Major Reservoirs: (Trinity River), Whiskeytown Lake (Clear 30 Creek); (), (), 31 New Melones (), portions of the 32 complex (local drainages), and (). 33 • Major Pumping Plants and Conveyance Facilities: Red Bluff Pumping 34 Plant (diverts water from Sacramento River into CVP Tehama-Colusa ), 35 (diverts water from Folsom Lake to portions of 36 Sacramento County), Pumping Plant (diverts water from 37 the Delta into CVP Contra Costa Canal), C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant 38 (diverts water from the Delta into CVP Delta-Mendota Canal), Clear Creek

Draft LTO EIS ES-1 Executive Summary

1 Tunnel (conveys water from Trinity Lake to Whiskeytown Lake), Pacheco 2 Tunnel and Conduit (conveys water from San Luis Reservoir to Santa Clara 3 and San Benito counties), and Friant Kern and Madera canals (convey water 4 from Millerton Lake to the eastern San Joaquin Valley). 5 These facilities are operated as an integrated project, although they are authorized 6 and categorized in distinct units or divisions.

7 ES.2.2 State Water Project 8 The State Legislature appropriated funds to the Department of Water Resources 9 (DWR) to begin construction of the SWP under the State Central Valley Project 10 Act (Water Code section 11100 et seq.), Burns-Porter Act (California Water 11 Resources Development Bond Act), State Contract Act (Public Contract Code 12 section 10100 et seq.), Davis-Dolwig Act (Water Code sections 11900 - 11925), 13 and other acts of the State Legislature. 14 Major SWP facilities include: 15 • Reservoirs: Lake Oroville and the Thermalito Complex (Feather River); 16 Antelope Lake, Lake Davis, and Frenchman Lake (upper Feather River 17 upstream of Lake Oroville); portions of the San Luis Reservoir complex (local 18 drainages); reservoirs located downstream of San Luis Reservoir along the 19 California Aqueduct and other SWP conveyance facilities (Quail Lake, 20 Pyramid Lake, Castaic Lake, Silverwood Lake, Crafton Hills Reservoir, and 21 Lake Perris). 22 • Major Pumping Plants and Conveyance Facilities: Barker Slough Pumping 23 Plant (diverts water into SWP North Bay Aqueduct); 24 and Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant (diverts water from the Delta into SWP 25 South Bay Aqueduct and the SWP California Aqueduct); California Aqueduct 26 and associated pumping plants (convey water to the San Joaquin Valley, San 27 Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties along the central coast, and southern 28 California); Coastal Branch of the California Aqueduct (conveys water to San 29 Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties); and East Branch and West Branch 30 (convey water to Southern California).

31 ES.2.3 Coordinated Operation of the CVP and SWP 32 The purpose of the Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA) (Public 33 Law 99-546) is to ensure that the CVP and SWP each manage respective water 34 rights from the Delta and share the obligations to protect other beneficial uses of 35 water in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta. The State Water Resources 36 Control Board (SWRCB) has placed conditions on the CVP and SWP water right 37 permits and licenses to meet water quality and operational criteria within the 38 Delta. Reclamation and DWR coordinate the operation of the CVP and SWP to 39 meet these and other operating requirements pursuant to COA. Coordinated 40 operation by agreed-on criteria can increase the efficiency of both the CVP and 41 the SWP.

ES-2 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 Implementation of the COA has evolved continually since 1986 as changes have 2 occurred to CVP and SWP facilities, operational criteria, and the physical and 3 regulatory environment. However, the COA has not been formally modified to 4 address these newer operating conditions. For example, adoption of the CVPIA 5 in 1992 changed purposes and operations of the CVP; application of Federal 6 Endangered Species Act (ESA) responsibilities affected operations; and SWRCB 7 water quality and flow standards have been revised.

8 ES.2.4 Federal Endangered Species Consultation 9 The following species and their critical habitats were considered in ESA 10 consultations with the USFWS and NMFS for the coordinated long-term 11 operation of the CVP and SWP. 12 • The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 13 tshawytscha) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) was originally listed as 14 threatened in August 1989, under emergency provisions of the ESA, and 15 formally listed as threatened in November 1990 (55 Federal Register (FR) 16 46515). They were re-classified as an endangered species on January 4, 1994 17 (59 FR 440). 18 • Central Valley spring-run Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) ESU was listed 19 as threatened on June 18, 2005 (70 FR 37160). 20 • The Central Valley Steelhead (O. mykiss) distinct population segment (DPS) 21 was listed as threatened on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). 22 • Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) ESU 23 was listed as threatened on June 18, 2005 (70 FR 37160). 24 • Southern DPS of the North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 25 was listed as threatened on June 6, 2006 (71 FR 17757). 26 • The Southern Resident DPS of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) was listed as 27 endangered on November 18, 2005 (NMFS 2005). 28 • The Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) was listed as threatened on 29 March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854). The species was recently proposed for re- 30 listing as endangered under the ESA. 31 The Central California Coast Steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS was listed as threatened 32 on January 5, 2006 (71 FR 834). The 2009 NMFS BO determined that the long- 33 term operation of the CVP and SWP would not likely adversely affect Central 34 California Coast Steelhead DPS and its critical habitat. Therefore, no further 35 analysis of this DPS was performed and addressed in this EIS.

36 ES.2.4.1 Recent ESA Consultation Activities and Court Rulings 37 In August 2008, Reclamation submitted a biological assessment (BA) to the 38 USFWS and NMFS for consultation. BO’s were issued by the USFWS 39 (December 15, 2008) and NMFS (June 4, 2009) with separate Reasonable and 40 Prudent Alternative (RPA) actions to allow the projects to continue operating

Draft LTO EIS ES-3 Executive Summary

1 without causing jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification to designated 2 critical habitat. Reclamation provisionally accepted the two BOs and RPAs. 3 Lawsuits were filed in the District Court challenging various aspects of the 2008 4 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO and Reclamation’s acceptance and 5 implementation of the associated RPAs. The District Court consolidated many of 6 the lawsuits into two proceedings that focused on each BO separately. The 7 outcomes of the Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases and the Salmonid Consolidated 8 Cases are summarized below. 9 • Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases 10 – On November 16, 2009, the District Court ruled that Reclamation violated 11 NEPA by failing to conduct a NEPA review of the potential impacts to the 12 human environment before provisionally accepting and implementing the 13 2008 USFWS BO, including the RPA. Reclamation was ordered to 14 review the USFWS BO and RPA in accordance with NEPA. 15 – On December 14, 2010, the District Court found certain portions of the 16 2008 USFWS BO to be arbitrary and capricious, and remanded those 17 portions of the BO to the USFWS without vacatur for further 18 consideration. The District Court ordered Reclamation to review the BO 19 and RPA in accordance with NEPA. 20 – The decision of the District Court related to the USFWS BO was appealed 21 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appellate 22 Court). On March 13, 2014, the Appellate Court reversed the District 23 Court decision and upheld the BO. Therefore, the remand order related to 24 the USFWS BO was rescinded. 25 – A mandate of the Appellate Court was issued on September 16, 2014. 26 – Petitions for Writ of Certiorari were submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court; 27 however, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear the cases. The 28 District Court issued the Final Order on October 1, 2014. 29 • Salmonid Consolidated Cases 30 – On March 5, 2010, the District Court held that Reclamation violated 31 NEPA by failing to undertake a NEPA analysis of potential impacts to the 32 human environment before accepting and implementing the 2009 NMFS 33 BO and RPA. Reclamation was ordered to review the USFWS BO and 34 RPA in accordance with NEPA. 35 – On September 20, 2011, in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, the District 36 Court found certain portions of the 2009 NMFS BO to be arbitrary and 37 capricious, and remanded those portions of the BO to NMFS without 38 vacatur for further consideration. The District Court ordered Reclamation 39 to review the BO and RPA in accordance with NEPA. 40 – The decisions of the District Court related to the 2009 NMFS BO were 41 appealed to the Appellate Court. On December 22, 2014, the Appellate

ES-4 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the BO. Therefore, 2 the remand order related to the NMFS BO was rescinded. 3 – A mandate of the Appellate Court was issued on February 17, 2015. The 4 District issued the Final Order on May 5, 2015.

5 ES.3 Need to Prepare this Environmental Impact 6 Statement

7 To comply with the District Court’s orders regarding NEPA for the coordinated 8 long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, Reclamation initiated preparation of 9 this EIS in 2011 addressing both the USFWS and NMFS RPAs. This EIS 10 documents Reclamation’s analysis of the effects of modifications to the 11 coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP that are likely to avoid 12 jeopardy to listed species and destruction or adverse modification of designated 13 critical habitat. 14 In accordance with the October 1, 2014, District Court’s order in the Delta Smelt 15 Consolidated Cases, the Final EIS and Record of Decision are to be completed on 16 or before December 1, 2015. 17 Many of the provisions of the RPAs, as set forth in the 2008 USFWS BO and the 18 2009 NMFS BO, will require further study, monitoring, consultation, 19 implementation of adaptive management programs, and subsequent 20 environmental documentation for future facilities to be constructed or modified. 21 Specific actions related to these provisions are not known at this time. Therefore, 22 this EIS assumes the completion of future actions, including provisions of the 23 RPAs, would be done in a manner that is consistent with ESA and does not 24 address impacts during construction or start-up phases of these actions.

25 ES.4 Use of the Environmental Impact Statement

26 This EIS may be used by Reclamation or cooperating agencies that are 27 participating in the preparation of this EIS to inform future decisions related to 28 operation of the CVP and SWP, and implementation of the RPAs in the 2008 29 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO. 30 This Draft EIS does not recommend a preferred alternative. A preferred 31 alternative will be included in the Final EIS.

32 ES.5 Purpose and Need

33 NEPA regulations require a statement regarding “the underlying purpose and need 34 to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives, including the 35 proposed action” (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.13).

Draft LTO EIS ES-5 Executive Summary

1 ES.5.1 Purpose of the Action 2 The purpose of the action considered in this EIS is to continue the operation of the 3 CVP in coordination with operation of the SWP, for its authorized purposes, in a 4 manner that: 5 • Is similar to historic operational parameters with certain modifications; 6 • Is consistent with Federal Reclamation law; other Federal laws and 7 regulations; Federal permits and licenses; State of California water rights, 8 permits, and licenses; and 9 • Enables Reclamation and DWR to satisfy their contractual obligations to the 10 fullest extent possible.

11 ES.5.2 Need for the Action 12 Continued operation of the CVP is needed to provide river regulation, navigation; 13 control; water supply for and domestic uses; fish and wildlife 14 mitigation, protection, and restoration; fish and wildlife enhancement; and power 15 generation. The CVP and the SWP facilities are also operated to provide 16 recreation benefits and in accordance with the water rights and water quality 17 requirements adopted by the SWRCB. 18 The USFWS and NMFS concluded in their 2008 and 2009 BOs, respectively, that 19 the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, as described in the 20 2008 Reclamation Biological Assessment, jeopardized the continued existence of 21 listed species and adversely modified critical habitat. The USFWS and NMFS 22 provided RPAs in their respective BOs as an alternative to the project described in 23 the 2008 BA that would not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical 24 habitat. 25 The Appellate Court confirmed the District Court ruling that Reclamation must 26 conduct a NEPA review to determine whether the acceptance and implementation 27 of the RPA actions cause a significant effect to the human environment.

28 ES.6 Project Area

29 The project area boundaries are defined by the locations of most of the CVP 30 facilities and their service areas; and all of the SWP facilities and the SWP service 31 areas. The CVP facilities associated with Millerton Lake, including the Madera 32 and Friant-Kern canals and their service areas, and the San Joaquin River 33 Restoration Program are not part of the project area for this EIS because the 34 operations of these facilities were not addressed in either the 2008 USFWS BO or 35 2009 NMFS BO.

ES-6 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 ES.7 Study Period

2 It is anticipated that the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, as 3 described in the alternatives analyzed in this EIS, would continue to at least 2030 4 before major changes to CVP and SWP operations would be implemented. These 5 changes could include projects considered as part of the cumulative effects 6 analyses. Therefore, the EIS analyzes future conditions projected for the Year 7 2030. It is recognized that many changes would occur between existing 8 conditions and 2030 that would also occur without changes to CVP and SWP 9 operations, including local land use decisions and climate change.

10 ES.8 Summary Description of Alternatives

11 Identification of the No Action Alternative and the range of alternatives for this 12 EIS were developed to respond to the purpose and need for the action and to 13 comments received during the scoping process and preparation of the Draft EIS. 14 Twenty-three alternative concepts were identified during the scoping process and 15 through meetings with stakeholders and agencies during preparation of this EIS. 16 The alternative concepts were compared to screening criteria that were developed 17 based on the purpose of the action. The alternative concepts were also reviewed 18 to determine if they addressed substantial issues. Based upon the comparison of 19 screening criteria to the alternative concepts, 17 of the 23 alternative concepts 20 were identified to be included in one or more of the alternatives evaluated in this 21 EIS. The alternative concepts were combined into five specific alternatives that 22 were consistent with assumptions for the year 2030. Further development of the 23 alternatives was informed by subsequent comments received during preparation 24 of the Draft EIS. 25 All of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, include the same 26 assumptions related to (1) climate change and sea level rise in Year 2030, and 27 (2) development throughout California in accordance with existing general plans, 28 existing contracts, and implementation of reasonable and foreseeable water 29 resources management projects.

30 ES.8.1 Inclusion of the Second Basis of Comparison 31 The No Action Alternative is defined as the projections of current conditions and 32 trends into the future without implementation of the alternatives. These projected 33 conditions are defined as no change from current management direction or level 34 of management intensity for this EIS. 35 For this EIS, the No Action Alternative is based upon the continued operation of 36 the CVP and SWP in the same manner as occurred at the time of the publication 37 of the Notice of Intent in March 2012. Thus, the No Action Alternative consists 38 of the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP, including full 39 implementation of the RPAs in the 2008 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO. The 40 No Action Alternative also includes changes not related to the long-term

Draft LTO EIS ES-7 Executive Summary

1 operation of the CVP and SWP or implementation of the RPAs in the 2008 2 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO. 3 Numerous scoping comments requested that the No Action Alternative not 4 include the RPAs in the 2008 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO because, at that 5 time, the District Court had remanded the BOs back to USFWS and NMFS. The 6 comments indicated that the EIS should include a “basis of comparison” for the 7 alternatives that was similar to conditions prior to implementation of the RPAs. 8 Scoping comments also indicated that a ”No Action Alternative scenario” without 9 implementation of the RPAs in the 2008 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO could 10 be used to analyze the effects of implementing the RPAs. 11 Because the RPAs were provisionally accepted and the No Action Alternative 12 represents a continuation of existing policy and management direction, the No 13 Action Alternative includes the RPAs. However, in response to scoping 14 comments and subsequent comments from stakeholders and interest groups, and 15 to provide a basis for comparison of the effects of implementation of the RPAs 16 (per the District Court’s mandate), this EIS includes a “Second Basis of 17 Comparison” that represents a condition in 2030 with coordinated long-term 18 operation of the CVP and SWP without implementation of the 2008 USFWS BO 19 and 2009 NMFS BO RPAs. All of the alternatives are compared to the No Action 20 Alternative and to the Second Basis of Comparison to describe the effects that 21 could occur in 2030 under both bases of comparison. 22 Because several of the 2009 NMFS BO RPA actions had already been initiated 23 prior to issuance of the 2009 NMFS BO; those actions are included in the Second 24 Basis of Comparison. Reasonably foreseeable actions included in the No Action 25 Alternative that are not related to the 2008 USFWS BO or 2009 NMFS BO are 26 also included in the Second Basis of Comparison.

27 ES.8.2 No Action Alternative 28 The definition of the No Action Alternative is based upon the following 29 assumptions. 30 • Continued long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in accordance with 31 ongoing management policies, criteria, and regulations, including water right 32 permits and licenses issued by the SWRCB; and requirements of the 2008 33 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO. 34 • Implementation of existing and future actions described in the 2008 USFWS 35 BO and 2009 NMFS BO that would occur by 2030 without implementation of 36 the BOs, including: 37 – Restoration of more than 10,000 acres of intertidal and associated subtidal 38 wetlands in Suisun Marsh and Cache Slough; and at least 17,000 to 39 20,000 acres of seasonal floodplain restoration in Yolo Bypass. 40 – Gravel augmentation in the Sacramento Valley watershed. 41 – Replacement of the Spring Creek Temperature Control Curtain.

ES-8 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 – Habitat restoration of Battle Creek. 2 – Implementation of Red Bluff Pumping Plant. 3 – Implementation of the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program. 4 – Implementation of the American River Flow Management Standard. 5 • Implementation of existing and future actions not described in the 2009 6 NMFS BO that would occur by 2030 without implementation of any 7 alternatives considered in this EIS, including: 8 – Trinity River Restoration Program. 9 – Clear Creek Mercury Abatement and Fisheries Restoration Project. 10 – Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site cleanup. 11 – Mainstem Sacramento River and American River Gravel Augmentation 12 Programs. 13 – Nimbus Fish Hatchery Fish Passage Project. 14 – FERC Relicensing for Middle Fork of the American River Project. 15 – Lower Mokelumne River Spawning Habitat Improvement Project. 16 – Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration. 17 – Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan 18 Implementation. 19 – Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. 20 – San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 21 – Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel Demonstration Dissolved Oxygen 22 Project. 23 – Grasslands Bypass Project. 24 – Municipal Water Supply Projects identified in Urban Water Management 25 Plans that have undergone environmental review and are reasonably 26 foreseeable. 27 – Water Transfer Projects.

28 ES.8.3 Second Basis of Comparison 29 The definition of the Second Basis of Comparison is based upon the following 30 assumptions. 31 • Continued long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in accordance with 32 ongoing management policies, criteria, and regulations, including water right 33 permits and licenses issued by the SWRCB without implementation of the 34 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO.

Draft LTO EIS ES-9 Executive Summary

1 • Implementation of existing and future actions that would occur by 2030 2 without implementation of the BOs, including actions that have already been 3 constructed or have substantial progress: 4 – Restoration of more than 10,000 acres of intertidal and associated subtidal 5 wetlands in Suisun Marsh and Cache Slough; and at least 17,000 to 6 20,000 acres of seasonal floodplain restoration in Yolo Bypass. 7 – Gravel augmentation in the Sacramento Valley and Stanislaus River 8 watershed. 9 – Replacement of the Spring Creek Temperature Control Curtain. 10 – Habitat restoration of Battle Creek. 11 – Implementation of Red Bluff Pumping Plant. 12 – Implementation of the CVPIA Anadromous Fish Screen Program. 13 – Implementation of the American River Flow Management Standard. 14 – Trinity River Restoration Program. 15 – Clear Creek Mercury Abatement and Fisheries Restoration Project. 16 – Iron Mountain Mine Superfund Site cleanup. 17 – Mainstem Sacramento River and American River Gravel Augmentation 18 Programs. 19 – Nimbus Fish Hatchery Fish Passage Project. 20 – FERC Relicensing for Middle Fork of the American River Project. 21 – Lower Mokelumne River Spawning Habitat Improvement Project. 22 – Dutch Slough Tidal Marsh Restoration. 23 – Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan 24 Implementation. 25 – Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Delta and Suisun Marsh. 26 – San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 27 – Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel Demonstration Dissolved Oxygen 28 Project. 29 – Grasslands Bypass Project. 30 – Municipal Water Supply Projects identified in Urban Water Management 31 Plans that have undergone environmental review and are reasonably 32 foreseeable. 33 – Water Transfer Projects.

ES-10 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 ES.8.4 Alternative 1 2 Alternative 1 was created because many comments requested an alternative that 3 reflected conditions without implementation of the 2008 USFWS BO and the 4 2009 NMFS BO RPAs. Since the Second Basis of Comparison is not a true 5 alternative, in accordance with NEPA guidelines, Reclamation could not select 6 Second Basis of Comparison as a preferred alternative. Therefore, Alternative 1 7 is identical to the Second Basis of Comparison.

8 ES.8.5 Alternative 2 9 Alternative 2 was first included in the Notice of Intent and identified as a 10 “preliminary proposed action” that included the operational actions of the 2008 11 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO. Alternative 2 includes all of the RPA actions 12 except: 13 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action I.2.5, Winter-Run Passage and Re-Introduction 14 Program at Shasta . 15 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action II.3, Structural Improvements for Temperature 16 Management on the American River. 17 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action II.5, Fish Passage at Nimbus and Folsom . 18 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action II.6, Implement Actions to Reduce Genetic 19 Effects of Nimbus and Trinity River Fish Hatchery Operations. 20 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action III.2.1, Increase and Improve Quality of 21 Spawning Habitat with Addition of Gravel. 22 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action III.2.2, Conduct Floodplain Restoration and 23 Inundation Flows in Winter or Spring to Inundate Steelhead Juvenile Rearing 24 Habitat on Stanislaus River. 25 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action III.2.3, Restore Freshwater Migratory Habitat 26 for Juvenile Steelhead on Stanislaus River. 27 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action III.2.4, Fish Passage at New Melones, Tulloch, 28 and Goodwin Dams. 29 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action IV.4, Tracy Fish Collection Facility 30 Improvements to Reduce Pre-Screen Loss and Improve Screening Efficiency. 31 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action IV.4.2 Skinner Fish Collection Facility 32 Improvements to Reduce Pre-Screen Loss and Improve Screening Efficiency. 33 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action IV.4.3 Tracy Fish Collection Facility and the 34 Skinner Fish Collection Facility Actions to Improve Salvage Monitoring, 35 Reporting and Release Survival Rates. 36 • 2009 NMFS BO RPA Action V Fish Passage.

37 ES.8.6 Alternative 3 38 Alternative 3 was developed based upon a scoping comment from the Coalition 39 for a Sustainable Delta, including actions related to their “RPA Alternative 1,”

Draft LTO EIS ES-11 Executive Summary

1 and a scoping comment received from Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) and 2 South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). The definition of Alternative 3 is 3 based upon the following assumptions. 4 • Continued long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in accordance with 5 ongoing management policies, criteria, and regulations, including water right 6 permits and licenses issued by the SWRCB; without the operational 7 requirements of the 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO RPAs. 8 • Implementation of the 2012 operations plan for New Melones Reservoir 9 proposed by OID and SSJID. 10 • Additional demands for American River water supplies for up to 17,000 acre- 11 feet/year under a Warren Act contract for El Dorado Irrigation District and 12 15,000 acre-feet/year under a water service contract for El Dorado County 13 Water Agency. 14 • Implementation of actions described in the scoping comments letter from the 15 Coalition for a Sustainable Delta related to their “RPA Alternative 1.” 16 – The Old and Middle River (OMR) flow criteria under Alternative 3 are 17 based on concepts addressed in the 2008 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO 18 related to adaptive restrictions for temperature, turbidity, salinity, and 19 presence of Delta Smelt. 20 – Flood control operations for the New Melones Reservoir would be the 21 same as under the No Action Alternative. However, New Melones 22 Reservoir would be operated for different fishery flows, water quality 23 flows, and San Joaquin River base flows and pulse flows at Vernalis. 24 – Implement predator control programs for Black Bass, Striped Bass, and 25 Pikeminnow to protect salmonids and Delta Smelt, including 26 establishment of new catch limits. 27 – Restore or create at least 10,000 acres of tidally influenced seasonal or 28 perennial wetlands (these conditions are the same as under the No Action 29 Alternative and Second Basis of Comparison). 30 – Establish a trap and haul program for juvenile salmonids entering the 31 Delta from the San Joaquin River upstream of the Head of Old River in 32 March through June with a release site near Chipps Island. 33 – Modify ocean harvest limits for consistency with Viable Salmonid 34 Population Standards; including harvest management plan to show that 35 abundance, productivity, and diversity (age-composition) are not 36 appreciably reduced. 37 • Implementation of future actions that would occur by 2030 without 38 implementation of any alternatives considered in this EIS, as described above 39 for the Second Basis of Comparison.

ES-12 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 ES.8.7 Alternative 4 2 Alternative 4 was developed based upon a scoping comment from the Coalition 3 for a Sustainable Delta, including actions related to their “RPA Alternative 2.” 4 The definition of Alternative 4 is based upon the following assumptions. 5 • Continued long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in accordance with 6 ongoing management policies, criteria, and regulations, including water right 7 permits and licenses issued by the SWRCB; without the operational 8 requirements of the 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO, as described 9 under Second Basis of Comparison. 10 • Implementation of actions described in the scoping comments letter from the 11 Coalition for a Sustainable Delta related to their “RPA Alternative 2.” 12 – Limit floodplain development to protect salmonids and Delta Smelt by 13 incorporating guidance into flood hazard mapping to comply with ESA; 14 prioritizing consideration of ESA listed species and critical habitats in 15 flood insurance studies; refine community rating system to provide credits 16 for natural and beneficial functions; prohibit new development and 17 substantial improvements to existing development within any designated 18 floodway or within 170 feet of the ordinary high water line of any 19 floodway. 20 – Modify the requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers related to 21 removal of vegetation on levees to allow for the planting of trees and 22 shrubs along the levees; and installation of vegetation, woody material, 23 and root re-enforcement material on the levees instead of riprap for 24 erosion protection. 25 – Implement predator control programs for Black Bass, Striped Bass, and 26 Pikeminnow to protect salmonids and Delta Smelt, including 27 establishment of new catch limits. 28 – Restore or create at least 10,000 acres of tidally influenced seasonal or 29 perennial wetlands (these conditions are the same as under the No Action 30 Alternative and Second Basis of Comparison). 31 – Establish a trap and haul program for juvenile salmonids entering the 32 Delta from the San Joaquin River upstream of the Head of Old River in 33 March through June with a release site near Chipps Island. 34 – Modify ocean harvest limits to reduce by-catch of winter-run and spring- 35 run Chinook Salmon to less than 10 percent of age-3 cohort in all years. 36 • Implementation of future actions that would occur by 2030 without 37 implementation of any alternatives considered in this EIS, as described above 38 for the Second Basis of Comparison.

Draft LTO EIS ES-13 Executive Summary

1 ES.8.8 Alternative 5 2 Alternative 5 was developed considering comments from environmental interest 3 groups during the scoping process. Alternative 5 is similar to the No Action 4 Alternative with reduced potential for reverse flows in April and May and with 5 associated increased Delta outflow; and use of the SWRCB D-1641 pulse flow at 6 Vernalis. The definition of Alternative 5 is based upon the following 7 assumptions. 8 • Continued long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in accordance with 9 ongoing management policies, criteria, and regulations, including water right 10 permits and licenses issued by the SWRCB; including the requirements of the 11 2008 USFWS BO and the 2009 NMFS BO. 12 • The OMR flow criteria similar to the RPA criteria in the 2008 USFWS BO 13 and 2009 NMFS BO plus a requirement for positive OMR (no reverse flows) 14 in April and May of all water year types. 15 • New Melones Reservoir operations are similar to assumptions under the No 16 Action Alternative except additional requirements were added to meet the 17 SWRCB D-1641 April and May pulse flows at Vernalis on the San Joaquin 18 River. 19 • Additional demands for American River water supplies for up to 17,000 acre- 20 feet/year under a Warren Act Contract for El Dorado Irrigation District and 21 15,000 acre-feet/year under a Warren Act Contract for El Dorado County 22 Water Agency. 23 • Implementation of future actions that would occur by 2030 without 24 implementation of any alternatives considered in this EIS, as described above 25 for the No Action Alternative.

26 ES.9 Impact Analysis

27 An EIS must evaluate the effects of implementation of the alternatives on the 28 environment; and any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided, the 29 relationship between short-term uses of the human environment and long-term 30 productivity; and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources if the 31 alternatives are implemented. The impact analyses section of each resource 32 chapter (Chapters 5 through 21) address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 33 the alternatives as compared to the No Action Alternative and the Second Basis of 34 Comparison. 35 An EIS must also identify relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that are not 36 already included in the proposed action or alternatives to the proposed action that 37 could be used to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for the 38 project’s adverse environmental effects. Mitigation measures are presented for 39 each resource to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for 40 adverse environmental effects of Alternatives 1 through 5 as compared to the No 41 Action Alternative. Mitigation measures were not included to address adverse

ES-14 Draft LTO EIS Executive Summary

1 impacts under the alternatives as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison 2 because this analysis was included in this EIS for information purposes only. 3 Tables ES.1 and ES.2 present summaries of the environmental changes of 4 Alternatives 1 through 5 as compared to the No Action Alternative and the 5 Second Basis of Comparison, respectively. These tables are located at the end of 6 this Executive Summary. The results of the impact analysis indicated that there 7 were no changes in conditions for the following comparisons, and these items are 8 not included in Table ES.1 and ES.2. 9 • Alternatives 1 through 5 as compared to the No Action Alternative and the 10 Second Basis of Comparison. 11 – Geology and Soils Resources. 12 – Agricultural Resources. 13 – Land Use. 14 – Cultural Resources. 15 – Indian Trust Assets. 16 • Alternative 1 as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison (all resources). 17 • Alternative 2 as compared to the No Action Alternative. 18 – All resources except for Fish and Aquatic Resources (due to the lack of 19 fish passage actions). 20 • Alternative 4 as compared to the Second Basis of Comparison. 21 – All resources except for Fish and Aquatic Resources, Terrestrial 22 Resources, Recreation Resources, and Socioeconomics (due to the 23 inclusion of predator control, Delta fish passage, floodplain management, 24 and ocean harvest limits for sport and commercial salmon fishing actions).

25 ES.10 Public Involvement and Next Steps

26 In accordance with NEPA review requirements, this Draft EIS will be available 27 for public and agency review and comment for a 60-day period. Written 28 comments from the public, reviewing agencies, and stakeholders will be accepted 29 during the public comment period. Similar to the approach to public scoping, 30 public meetings will be held in various locations statewide. These meetings will 31 be held during the public comment period to provide information about the Draft 32 EIS to the attendees. 33 A Final EIS will be prepared and circulated in accordance with NEPA 34 requirements. The Final EIS will include responses to all substantial comments. 35 The Final EIS will also include a preferred alternative. Reclamation will make 36 the Final EIS available for 30 days before finalizing the Record of Decision 37 (ROD).

Draft LTO EIS ES-15 Executive Summary

1 In the ROD, which is the final step in the NEPA process, Reclamation will 2 document its decision on which actions, if any, to take to address the primary 3 objectives. Reclamation will also describe other risk reduction plans it 4 considered, identify any mitigation plans, and describe factors and comments 5 taken into consideration when making its decision.

ES-16 Draft LTO EIS