Short-Term Central Valley Project Water Transfer Between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and City of Roseville

Home , Central Valley Project, Folsom South Canal

Environmental Assessment Short-Term Central Valley Project Water Transfer Between Sacramento Municipal Utility District and City of Roseville

EA-19-05

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Central California Area Office June 2019

Mission Statements The Department of the Interior conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Contents

Contents

Page

Section 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Background ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action...... 2-1 2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Action Area ...... 2-2 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 3.1 Resources Not Analyzed in Detail ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Land Use ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Cultural Resources ...... 3-1 3.1.3 Global Climate ...... 3-1 3.1.4 Indian Sacred Sites ...... 3-2 3.1.5 Socio-Economic Resources ...... 3-2 3.1.6 Environmental Justice ...... 3-2 3.1.7 Indian Trust Assets ...... 3-2 3.1.8 Air Quality...... 3-2 3.2 Water Resources ...... 3-3 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-3 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-4 3.3 Biological Resources ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-5 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-9 3.4 Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-9 Section 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 4-1 4.1 Public Review Period ...... 4-1 Section 5 References ...... 5-1

Figure

Figure 2-1. Project Location ...... 2-3

Table

Table 3-1. Federal Status Species Potentially Found in the Proposed Action Area ...... 3-7

i June 2019 EA-19-05

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2008 USFWS BO 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 2009 NMFS BO 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project 2016 LTO ROD 2016 Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Record of Decision AFA acre-feet annually ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery City City of Roseville CVO Central Valley Operations CVP Central Valley Project CVPIA Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV, Central Valley Project Improvement Act EA Environmental Assessment ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System EID El Dorado Irrigation District EIS Environmental Impact Statement FSC Folsom South Canal IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation LTO Coordinated Long-term Operation of Central Valley Project and State Water Project M&I municipal and industrial MFP Middle Fork Project (owned and operated by PCWA) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service PCWA Placer County Water Agency Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation ROC Reinitiation of consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, for the LTO ROD Record of Decision SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SWP State Water Project USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WFA Water Forum Agreement WSP Water Shortage Policy

ii – June 2019 Section 1 Introduction

Section 1 Introduction In conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate and disclose any potential environmental impacts related to Reclamation’s approval of the short-term transfer of up to 6,000 acre-feet annually (AFA) of Central Valley Project (CVP) water supply from Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to the City of Roseville (City) occurring between December and February during Contract Years 2019 through 2021 (i.e., March 1, 2019, through February 28, 2022).

1.1 Background

Both SMUD and the City are CVP contractors in the American River Division with previous long-term water supply contracts that expired in 2012 and 2010, respectively, but continued to receive CVP water supply through interim contracts. Reclamation recently renewed those interim contracts with SMUD (No. 14-06-200-5198A-IR4) and the City (No. 14-06-200-3474A-IR5) through February 2021. Water supply conditions of these two contractors and their needs for CVP water are summarized in the Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for Central Valley Project Interim Renewal Contracts for City of Roseville, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Sacramento County Water Agency 2019-2021 (Reclamation 2018).

Reclamation’s statutory authority to allow this transfer is Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV, Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), Section 3405(a). CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1) provides for allowable water supply transfers. Subject to review of potential water supply and environmental impacts, this proposed in-basin CVP water transfer satisfies all conditions for transfers in CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1). CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1)(M) clarifies that in-basin transfers among CVP contractors (such as this proposed water supply transfer) would not be limited to the actual use by SMUD.

This transfer is pursuant to Article 9 of SMUD’s current CVP contract (Sales, Transfers, or Exchanges of Water). SMUD’s CVP contract requires SMUD to obtain written approval from Reclamation’s Contracting Officer for the transfer of specified contract quantities.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Proposed Action is for Reclamation to facilitate and approve the proposed water transfer in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including CVPIA Section 3405(a) for water transfers and Subparagraphs (H) and (I) of Section V of Reclamation’s 1993 Interim Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Transfer Provisions of the Central Valley

1-1 June 2019 EA-19-05

Project Improvement Act (Title XXXIV of PL 102-575), as amended. The transfers allowed in the CVPIA are to increase water-related benefits provided by the CVP and improve CVP operational flexibility.

The City will use the transferred water in its existing and approved Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program for conjunctive use purposes in its service area, shown in Exhibit A of the City’s existing CVP contract. The transferred water will augment local groundwater resources, providing additional water-related beneficial use of CVP water and improving overall health of the groundwater basin. The City is a signatory to the Water Forum Agreement (WFA) which was signed in 2000 by Sacramento area water purveyors, environmental groups, and economic interests to facilitate regional economic growth and protect the lower American River. Under its Purveyor Specific Agreement in the WFA, the City is to use groundwater to provide supplemental water supply during dry years to facilitate its voluntary reductions in diversions from the American River in those years, including CVP water deliveries. As Reclamation is not a signatory to the WFA, it cannot rely on the relief provided by the voluntary reductions in diversions.

1-2 – June 2019 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action This EA considers two possible actions: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative reflects future conditions over the 3-year period without the Proposed Action and serves as a basis of comparison for determining potential effects to the human environment.

2.1 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would not approve the proposed short-term, 3-year CVP water transfer as described in the Proposed Action. Because the alternate means of supporting the ASR program are at the City’s discretion, the No Action Alternative assumes, for the purpose of environmental impact assessment, no CVP water transfer between SMUD and the City would occur.

Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would operate the CVP, including Folsom Reservoir, in accordance with regulatory and approved operational constraints, analyzed and mitigated in the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (LTO) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated Record of Decision (ROD) (Reclamation 2016). Reclamation is currently under a reinitiation of consultation (ROC) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, for the LTO and associated NEPA compliance. The resulting ROD from the ROC would become the governing document when completed, superseding the 2016 ROD. Implementation of certain CVPIA water transfers is also covered in the LTO. American River Division CVP contractors, including the City and SMUD, would divert their CVP contract water supplies at the specified point(s) of delivery specified in their contracts, and the delivery amounts would be subject to Reclamation’s CVP Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water Shortage Policy (WSP). For SMUD, CVP water delivery would be through the Folsom South Canal (FSC) at Nimbus Dam.

During the three years of the proposed CVP water transfer, it is not anticipated that SMUD would use this portion of its CVP water supply. This would not preclude the proposed transfer, as further explained in the Proposed Action.

2.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is for Reclamation to approve a short-term, 3-year water transfer of up to 6,000 AFA of SMUD’s CVP supply under its current interim renewal contract (and subsequent CVP contracts with Reclamation) to the City (also a CVP American River Division contractor). This in-basin CVP to CVP water transfer is pursuant to Section 3405(a) of the CVPIA and Article 9 of SMUD’s CVP Contract (Sales, Transfers, Exchanges). CVPIA Section 3405(a)(1)(M) states that in-basin transfers among CVP contractors (such as this proposed water

2-1 June 2019 EA-19-05

supply transfer) would not be limited to the actual use by SMUD. This CVP water transfer would comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and Tribal laws or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment and Indian Trust Assets.

The proposed CVP to CVP water transfer would be implemented in the period of December 1 through the last day of February in CVP Contract Years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Delivery would be made during the period of seasonal high inflow to Folsom Reservoir from December through February to minimize potential impacts to Reclamation’s operation of Folsom Reservoir for all authorized purposes. A CVP Contract Year is from March 1 of the current calendar year through the last day of February of the following calendar year. Therefore, the proposed transfer could start as early as in December 2019, if approved, and expire on February 28, 2022. Due to the current interim contract with SMUD expiring in February 2021, the proposed transfer during December through February of Contract Year 2021 (from March 2021 through February 2022) would be subject to the terms and conditions of SMUD’s subsequent renewed interim contract or its long-term contract, if available.

The actual amount transferred each year would be subject to the annual request by the City to SMUD, and SMUD would inform Reclamation of that need in a schedule request. Reclamation would consent to the request following announcement of SMUD’s CVP water allocation. Based on the available hydrologic forecast, the City and SMUD would coordinate closely with Reclamation to determine the timing and pattern for diverting transferred water supply in the December through February period to avoid any adverse impacts to Reclamation’s operation of Folsom Reservoir.

Delivery of the transferred CVP water would be through the City’s existing intake and conveyance at Folsom Dam, which are the same facilities the City uses currently for diverting its own CVP contract water delivery. There would be no new facilities required for diverting and conveying the transferred CVP water.

2.2.1 Action Area The Action Area consists of Folsom Reservoir the 6.8-mile reach of the American River from Folsom Dam (the diversion location on the American River for the City’s CVP water delivery) to Nimbus Dam (the diversion location on the American River for SMUD’s CVP water delivery), and the FSC as shown in Figure 2-1. For reference, the City’s CVP service area, as depicted in its current interim renewal contract with Reclamation, and where the City’s ASR program is located, is also shown in the figure for reference.

2-2 – June 2019 Section 2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Action Area for the CVP Water Transfer Between SMUD and City of Roseville and City WaterTransfer SMUD Between forthe CVP Area Action 1.

Figure 2-

June 2019 – 2-3 EA-19-05

This page left blank intentionally.

2-4 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences This section identifies the potentially affected environment and the environmental consequences that could result from the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action to determine the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to environmental resources of concern.

3.1 Resources Not Analyzed in Detail

Department of the Interior Regulations, Executive Orders, and Reclamation guidelines require discussion of Indian Trust Assets, Indian Sacred Sites, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, and Environmental Justice when preparing environmental documentation. Impacts to these resources were considered and found to be minor or absent. Brief explanations supporting the minor or absent impacts are provided below.

3.1.1 Land Use There would be no land use development or land conversion under either the No Action Alterative or the Proposed Action. Therefore, land use would not change under either of the alternatives.

3.1.2 Cultural Resources There would be no impacts to cultural resources or cause effects to historic properties pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3(a)(1) under either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action. Reclamation would continue to operate the CVP consistent with all requirements as described in the 2016 LTO ROD and the subsequent ROD from the ROC, and any fluctuations in Folsom Reservoir or Lake Natoma as a result of the Proposed Action would be within historical ranges (see Section 3.2.2). In addition, CVP water would be conveyed through existing facilities to existing users without any new construction or ground disturbances.

3.1.3 Global Climate Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action would affect the global climate. Water would move through existing facilities and using existing pumps. Water delivered to SMUD and the City is predominantly moved via gravity and electric pumps at the FSC (Nimbus Dam) and the conveyance facilities at Folsom Dam, respectively. Recharging water into the underlying groundwater aquifer would use existing electric-powered injection wells. The limited quantity of the proposed water transfer would not result in a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action would have a contributing effect toward global climate change.

June 2019 – 3-1 EA-19-05

Continued changes in global climate are expected to have some effect on the snow pack of the area and the runoff regime. Water made available to CVP contractors is dependent on a number of factors, including but not limited to, hydrologic conditions, and instream flow, and water quality requirements in the CVP/State Water Project (SWP) system. Long-term climate change would not affect the proposed short-term transfers in Contract Years 2019 through 2021.

3.1.4 Indian Sacred Sites There would be no impacts to Indian Sacred Sites under either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action. Reclamation would continue to operate the CVP consistent with all requirements as described in the 2016 LTO ROD and the subsequent ROD from the ROC, and any fluctuations in Folsom Reservoir or Lake Natoma as a result of the Proposed Action would be within historical ranges (see Section 3.1.2). Both alternatives would maintain existing land use practices, would not involve construction or ground disturbance on Indian Sacred Sites, and would not limit access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian Sacred Sites, or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

3.1.5 Socio-Economic Resources There would be no impacts to socio-economic resources from the No Action Alternative. Allowing a transfer under the Proposed Action would not adversely affect the quality of human environment but would allow for additional groundwater recharge and increased flexibility to meet water demands when the City’s surface water supplies become limited during droughts or otherwise restricted conditions.

3.1.6 Environmental Justice There would be no impacts related to Environmental Justice under either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action assume that water demands in the City’s CVP service area would continue to be met with existing water supplies. Neither alternative would cause dislocation; changes in employment; increase flood, drought, or disease; or disproportionately affect minority populations. Therefore, there would be no Environmental Justice issues associated with either the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action.

3.1.7 Indian Trust Assets There would be no impacts to Indian Trust Assets under the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action. Both alternatives would maintain existing land use practices at existing locations; not involve any construction on lands; or not have impacts to water, hunting, fishing, or ceremonial rights.

3.1.8 Air Quality Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action would result in significant changes to air quality. There would be no new facility required for the proposed transfer; water would move through existing facilities using existing pumps. After being diverted from Folsom Reservoir, transferred water would move via gravity and electric-powered pumps before being injected into the groundwater aquifer using wells. The limited quantity of the proposed water transfer would not result in a substantial increase in emissions. Since no impacts to air quality would occur, a determination of general conformity under the Clean Air Act is not required.

3-2 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.2 Water Resources

3.2.1 Affected Environment The American River Basin in California covers an area of approximately 2,100 square miles and has an average annual unimpaired runoff of 2.7 million acre-feet; however, annual runoff has varied from 900,000 acre-feet to 5,000,000 acre-feet (USACE 2017). The major tributaries in the American River system include the North Fork American River, Middle Fork American River, and South Fork American River, all of which eventually flow into Folsom Reservoir.

The Folsom Dam and Reservoir on the American River is the major facility of the American River Division of the CVP. Reclamation operates Folsom Dam and Reservoir for authorized purposes, including: flood control, water rights and contract obligations, CVP water service contract deliveries, environmental flow requirements and temperature management in the lower American River, and helping to meet Delta water quality standards (Reclamation 2017). At an elevation of 466 feet above mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 29), Folsom Reservoir is the largest reservoir on the American River with a normal full-pool storage capacity of approximately 975,000 acre-feet and a drainage area of approximately 1,875 square miles (USACE 2017). Lake Natoma, which is impounded by Nimbus Dam, another facility of the CVP American River Division, is located seven miles downstream from Folsom Dam. Lake Natoma serves as a regulating afterbay for Folsom Dam with a total storage capacity of approximately 8,760 acre-feet, and Nimbus Dam serves a diversion dam for the FSC (Reclamation 2018). From Nimbus Dam, the lower American River extends 23 miles to the confluence with the Sacramento River near downtown Sacramento.

Reclamation holds both direct diversion and storage rights on the American River and uses these rights in combination to deliver water to local users under CVP water service contracts and to meet downstream regulatory requirements and water contract deliveries in and south of the Delta. SMUD and the City are two of eight long-term Water Service Contractors in the American River Division of the CVP, which also includes the City of Folsom, Sacramento County Water Agency, San Juan Water District, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), and East Bay Municipal Utility District. Reclamation facilities, including Folsom Dam and Reservoir, are also used to deliver non-CVP water to senior water rights holders, and many of these water rights holders take delivery from Folsom Reservoir (Reclamation 2005).

SMUD receives its CVP contract deliveries via the FSC, diverting at Nimbus Dam, and the City receives its CVP contract deliveries and its MFP contract deliveries through the City’s intake and conveyance facilities at the Hinkle Wye, diverting at Folsom Dam. Both the City and SMUD service areas are in the CVP Consolidated Place of Use under Reclamation’s water right permits.

The City has made major investments in ASR facilities and supporting interties and conveyance infrastructure to facilitate in-lieu groundwater recharge opportunities and emergency groundwater delivery capabilities throughout the City’s service area. Under the City’s ASR program, treated surface water can be injected into the aquifer during wet times (normal/wet years or during the rainy season) and withdrawn when the City needs additional water supplies. The ASR program uses include augmenting surface water supplies during droughts or “peak- shaving” (i.e., seasonal storage). In 2012, the City certified the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Final Focused Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2009072018)

June 2019 – 3-3 EA-19-05

(Roseville 2012) which evaluated the environmental effects of the ASR program and obtained all permits for the ASR program in 2013. As of 2019, the City has successfully recharged water into the groundwater aquifer using its ASR facilities.

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative Implementation of the No Action Alternative would mean that there would be no transfer of SMUD’s CVP contract delivery to the City. The No Action Alternative assumes that water demands in the City’s CVP service area would continue to be met with existing water supplies, but without the proposed transfer. The City would continue to use its CVP and MFP water supplies and other transferred water as approved for its ASR program and drought protection. Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to operate the CVP, including Folsom Reservoir, consistent with requirements described in the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (2008 USFWS BO) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009 Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (2009 NMFS BO) and the 2016 LTO ROD and the subsequent ROD from the ROC.

SMUD has used a portion of its CVP water supply historically and expects to use more of its CVP water supply in the future. However, during the three years of the proposed CVP water supply transfer, it is not anticipated that SMUD would use its CVP water supply.

Proposed Action Implementation of the Proposed Action would mean up to 6,000 acre-feet of SMUD’s CVP contract water would be transferred to the City in CVP Contract Years 2019, 2020, and 2021. The transfer would occur during December through February, and the water would be used in the City’s ASR program in its CVP service area to improve groundwater conditions, advance regional conjunctive use practices, and provide additional drought protection for the City.

Under the Proposed Action, the transfer would be executed during December through February when seasonal high inflows to Folsom Reservoir occur in the American River. The actual amount transferred each year would be subject to the annual request by the City to SMUD, and SMUD would inform Reclamation of that need in a schedule request. Reclamation would consent to the request following announcement of SMUD’s CVP water allocation. Based on the available hydrologic forecast, the City and SMUD would coordinate closely with Reclamation to determine the timing and pattern for diverting transferred water supply in the December through February period to avoid any adverse impacts to Reclamation’s operation of Folsom Reservoir.

Changes in Folsom Reservoir releases, with transferring up to 6,000 acre-feet in the 3-month period, to Lake Natoma, would be minimal compared to the total flows through Lake Natoma in December through February (i.e., 825,000 acre-feet on average, based on the 1988 – 2018 period of record [California Department of Water Resources 2018]). Based on the simulated American River flow below Nimbus Dam in the preferred alternative of the 2016 LTO EIS, the transferred amount would be less than 0.4, 0.6, 1.1, 1.9, and 2.9 percent of the flow in December through February in wet, above normal, below normal, dry, and critical years, using the Sacramento

3-4 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Valley Index. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have insignificant effects on operation of Folsom Reservoir because of (1) the above-mentioned low percentages of the proposed transfer amount compared to Folsom Reservoir releases, and (2) the commitment in the Proposed Action for the City and SMUD to closely coordinate with Reclamation to determine the actual quantity, timing, and pattern to minimize potential adverse effects on Reclamation’s operation of Folsom Reservoir. Similarly, the Proposed Action would have no impact on the cold-water pool and temperature management in the Lower American River because the proposed transfer period in December through February would be after the temperature management period.

The Proposed Action does not include any modification of the operation of facilities upstream of Folsom Reservoir owned and operated by other entities including PCWA, SMUD, EID, Georgetown Division Public Utility, and other individual water right holders. Therefore, it would not result in any changes in facility operations upstream of Folsom Reservoir. Similarly, the Proposed Action does not include any action downstream of Lake Natoma on the American River or the rest of CVP/SWP system. Under the Proposed Action, Reclamation would continue to operate the entire CVP system consistent with requirements described in the 2008 USFWS BO/2009 NMFS BO and 2016 LTO ROD. As discussed above, there would be minimal changes in CVP reservoir storage and operations, surface water elevations, and release patterns in the CVP system. Furthermore, the transferred amount would be subject to the same CVP M&I WSP as the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not have any effect on water supply allocations or deliveries to other CVP contractors, and no other CVP water users would be affected. The Proposed Action would not result in impacts to water resources.

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Affected Environment Official lists of Federally-listed Candidate, Threatened, and Endangered species that may occur in or near the Action Area and were generated on December 7, 2018, by accessing the San Francisco Bay-Delta and Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office’s databases through the Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) (USFWS 2018a). The lists represent species that may occur in affected areas of El Dorado, Placer, and Sacramento counties, and were used to determine the effects of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action and a summary of the rationale supporting the determinations (Table 3-1). Information obtained from the IPaC reports was refined using habitat information obtained from the USFWS’ Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2018b) and species occurrences documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2018).

Special-status species reported on the species lists that have no potential to be present in the Action Area, either due to lack of suitable habitat and/or because the species’ range does not include the Action Area, include the: California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), El Dorado Bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. Sierra), Layne’s Butterweed (Senecio layneae), Pine Hill Ceanothus (Ceanothus roderickii), Pine Hill Flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. Decumbens), Stebbin’s Morning-glory (Calystegia stebbinsii).

June 2019 – 3-5 EA-19-05

Some special-status species (valley elderberry longhorn beetle [Desmocerus californicus dimorphus], conservancy fairy shrimp [Branchinecta conservation], vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi], vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi]) would have the potential to occur in the Action Area (which includes the City’s service area that uses CVP water). However, the proposed action is limited to the use of existing infrastructure and there would be no land use changes. As such, these species would not occur in the existing pipes and pumps that comprise the City’s service area.

The remainder of the species listed in Table 3-1 are known or believed to occur in the Action Area.

3-6 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3-1. Federal Status Species Potentially Found in the Proposed Action Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status Effects Potential for Occurrence in Action Area Amphibians / Reptiles California red- Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside Rana draytonii T, X NE legged frog the action area.

California tiger Ambystoma Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside T, X NE salamander californiense the action area. Possible. Habitat consists of rice fields or managed marshes with emergent wetland giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas T NE vegetation for cover and foraging, grassy banks for basking and upland burrows for refuge in inactive season. No Critical Habitat established. Fishes Hypomesus Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside delta smelt T, X NE transpacificus the action area. Insects Desmocerus Present. Habitat consists of riparian habitat valley elderberry californicus T, X NE only in the vicinity of their host plant, the longhorn beetle dimorphus elderberry. Crustaceans conservancy fairy Branchinecta Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside E, X NE shrimp conservatio the action area. Present. Habitat consists of vernal pools and vernal pool fairy occasionally other freshwater aquatic habitats Branchinecta lynchi T, X NE shrimp including ditches, road ruts, and other natural and artificial temporary water bodies. Present. Habitat consists of vernal pools and vernal pool tadpole other freshwater aquatic habitats including Lepidurus packardi E, X NE shrimp ponds, reservoirs, ditches, road ruts, and other natural and artificial temporary water bodies. Flowering Plants Galium californicum Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside El Dorado bedstraw E NE ssp. Sierra the action area. Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside Layne’s butterweed Senecio layneae T NE the action area. Ceanothus Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside pine hill ceanothus E NE roderickii the action area. Fremontodendron Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside pine hill flannelbush E NE californicum ssp. the action area. Present. Habitat consists of bottoms of vernal Sacramento orcutt pools in eastern Sacramento County. Orcuttia viscida E, X NE grass Designated Critical Habitat intersects portions of the action area. Stebbin’s morning- Calystegia Absent. Designated Critical Habitat is outside E NE glory stebbinsii the action area. Birds Coccyzus Present. May breed in action area sometime in bald eagle N/A NE americanus January 1 to August 31. Charadrius Present. May breed in action area sometime in California thrasher alexandrinus BCC NE January 1 to July 31. nivosus

June 2019 – 3-7 EA-19-05

Table 3-1. Federal Status Species Potentially Found in the Proposed Action Area (contd.)

Common Name Scientific Name Status Effects Potential for Occurrence in Action Area Birds (contd.) Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in Clark’s grebe BCC NE caurina January 1 to December 31. Charadrius common Present. May breed in action area sometime in alexandrinus BCC NE yellowthroat May 20 to July 31. nivosus Costa’s Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in BCC NE hummingbird caurina January 15 to June 10. Charadrius Present. May breed in action area sometime in golden eagle alexandrinus BCC NE January 1 to August 31. nivosus Lawrence’s Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in BCC NE goldfinch caurina March 20 to September 20. Charadrius Lewis’s Present. May breed in action area sometime in alexandrinus BCC NE woodpecker April 20 to September 30. nivosus Strix occidentalis long-billed curlew BCC NE Possible. Breeds elsewhere. caurina Charadrius marbeled godwit alexandrinus BCC NE Possible. Breeds elsewhere. nivosus Nuttall’s Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in BCC NE woodpecker caurina April 1 to July 20. Charadrius Present. May breed in action area sometime in oak titmouse alexandrinus BCC NE March 15 to July 15. nivosus Strix occidentalis rufous hummingbird BCC NE Present. Breeds elsewhere. caurina Charadrius Present. May breed in action area sometime in song sparrow alexandrinus BCC NE February 20 to September 5. nivosus

Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in spotted towhee BCC NE caurina April 15 to July 20.

Charadrius Present. May breed in action area sometime in tricolored blackbird alexandrinus BCC NE March 15 to August 10. nivosus

Strix occidentalis Present. May breed in action area sometime in wrentit BCC NE caurina March 15 to August 10. Charadrius Yellow-billed Present. May breed in action area sometime in alexandrinus BCC, X NE magpie April 1 to July 31. nivosus Key: BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern NE = No Effect E = Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction N/A = Not Applicable T = Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future X = Critical Habitat is designated for this species XP = Critical Habitat is proposed for this species

3-8 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative There would be no new impacts to fish and wildlife, listed species, or Critical Habitat from the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Reclamation would continue to operate the CVP, including Folsom Reservoir, consistent with all requirements as described in the 2008 USFWS BO/2009 NMFS BO and the 2016 LTO ROD and the subsequent ROD from the ROC.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would not change Reclamation’s CVP water allocation process or practice. The transfer would be a water management action to support existing uses and conditions.

Under the Proposed Action, the transfer would be executed during December through February when seasonal high inflows to Folsom Reservoir occur in the American River. The City would further coordinate closely with CVO to determine the timing and pattern for diverting the transferred water to minimize any impacts to the operation of Folsom Reservoir. The changes in releases, of up to 6,000 AF in the 3-month period, to Lake Natoma would be insignificant compared to the total flows through Lake Natoma in December through February (i.e., 825,000 acre-feet in average); therefore, would be no new impacts to fish and wildlife as compared to the No Action Alternative. In addition, the transferred water would only be diverted through existing diversions, further limiting the potential for impacts to fish species. The Proposed Action would result in a minor shift in the location of water use; however, it would remain in the American River watershed and in the Place of Use for Reclamation’s water right permits. There would be no anticipated impact to fish species or habitat from the Proposed Action and the transfer would be consistent with all requirements in 2008 USFWS BO/2009 NMFS BO and 2016 LTO ROD and the subsequent ROD from the ROC. Likewise, there would be no conditions of the transfer actions that would alter Reclamation’s finding of “not likely to adversely affect” terrestrial species, including but not limited to, the giant garter snake, with which the USFWS concurred in the 2008 BO. No change to refuge water supplies would occur from the Proposed Action. In addition, the Proposed Action would have no impact on the cold-water pool and temperature management in the Lower American River because the proposed transfer period from December through February would be after the temperature management period. There would be no effect on operations upstream of Folsom Reservoir or downstream of Lake Natoma. Because this action would occur entirely in the American River Basin, there would be no concerns for species present south of the Delta.

Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be within the historic limits covered by the consultations for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the CVPIA. However, Section 3405 (a)(1)(L) of the CVPIA provides Reclamation an additional opportunity to reject any proposed transfer or exchange action that falls within the general criteria of the Proposed Action but is anticipated to have a significant environmental impact.

3.4 Cumulative Impacts

According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, a cumulative impact is defined as the impact on the environment which

June 2019 – 3-9 EA-19-05

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Reclamation has reviewed existing or foreseeable projects in the same Action Area that could affect or could be affected by the Proposed Action.

As in the past, hydrological conditions and other factors are likely to result in fluctuating water supplies that would drive requests for CVP water transfers. Water districts would continue to provide water to their customers based on available water supplies and timing, while attempting to minimize costs. Farmers would continue to irrigate and grow crops based on these conditions and factors. A myriad of water service actions would be approved and executed each year to satisfy water needs. It is likely that over the course of the Proposed Action, water districts would continue to request various water service actions, such as transfers, exchanges, and Warren Act contracts (conveyance of non-CVP water in CVP facilities). Each water service request involving Reclamation would be required to undergo environmental review prior to approval. In addition, the Proposed Action would not involve construction or modification of facilities. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts to existing facilities or other contractors.

The Proposed Action and the approval of other similar projects would not hinder or effect the normal operations of the CVP and Reclamation’s obligation to deliver water to its contractors or to fish and wildlife habitats. Under the Proposed Action, the transfer would occur during December through February when seasonal high flows occur in the American River Basin. The City would further coordinate closely with CVO to determine the timing and pattern for diverting the transferred water to minimize any impacts to the operation of Folsom Reservoir. As described in detail in Section 3.2, the changes in releases, of up to 6,000 AF in the 3-month period, to Lake Natoma would be insignificant compared to the total flows through Lake Natoma in December through February (i.e., 825,000 acre-feet in average). Similarly, the Proposed Action would have no impact on the cold-water pool and temperature management in the Lower American River because the proposed transfer period from December through February would be after the temperature management period, and the City and SMUD would be committed in the Proposed Action to coordinate closely with Reclamation to determine the quantity, timing, and pattern to minimize any adverse effects on Reclamation’s operation of Folsom Reservoir. Therefore, the Proposed Action, when considered cumulatively with all comparable transfer actions, would have no effect on river flows. Likewise, it would not be expected to have an effect on protected species reliant on the maintenance of minimum flows.

There are no known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions that would cumulatively result in significant impacts to the human environment when considered in conjunction with the Proposed Action.

3-10 – June 2019 Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This page left blank intentionally.

June 2019 – 3-11

Section 4 Consultation and Coordination

Section 4 Consultation and Coordination In consideration of the lack of significant impacts identified from the Proposed Action, no consultation or coordination with other Federal agencies were performed.

4.1 Public Review Period

Reclamation is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EA for a 30- day period starting in June 2019.

June 2019 – 4-1 EA-19-05

This page left blank intentionally.

4-2 – June 2019 Section 5 References

Section 5 References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database, Commercial Version. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/cnddb/maps-and-data. Accessed December 7, 2018.

California Department of Water Resources. California Data Exchange Center: Folsom Lake (Station ID: FOL). December. https://cdec.water.ca.gov/dynamicapp/staMeta?station_id=FOL. Accessed December 12, 2018.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

City of Roseville. 2012. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Final Environmental Impact Report. March.

______. 2016. General Plan 2035. June.

______. 2016. Final 2015 City of Roseville Urban Water Management Plan. May.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. 2009 Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. June.

NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service.

Reclamation. See U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

Roseville. See City of Roseville.

USACE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. 2017. Folsom Dam Raise Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. October. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Folsom-Dam-Raise/. Accessed December 2, 2018.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2005. Central Valley Project Long- Term Service Contract Renewals American River Division Environmental Impact Statement. June. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=1. Accessed December 2, 2018.

June 2019 – 5-1 EA-19-05

______. 2014. Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins Climate Impact Assessment. September. https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/baseline/docs/ssjbia/ssjbia.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2018.

______. 2015. Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. November. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_project_details.php?Project_ID=21883. Accessed December 12, 2018.

______. 2016. Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basin Study. March. https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/sacramento- sj/Sacramento_SanJoaquin_TechnicalReport.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2018.

______. 2017. 2018-2020 American River Division 24-Month Interim Renewal Water Service Contract for the Placer County Water Agency Environmental Assessment. October. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=30601. Accessed December 2, 2018.

______. 2018. Water Facts - Nimbus Dam and Powerplant. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/arwec/facts-nimbus-dam-powerplant.html. Accessed December 2, 2018.

______. 2018. Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment for Central Valley Project Interim Renewal Contracts for City of Roseville, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Sacramento County Water Agency 2019-2021. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=36461. Accessed March 10, 2019.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Proposed Coordinated Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. December.

______. 2018a. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed December 7, 2018.

______. 2018b. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/. Accessed December 7, 2018.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

5-2 – June 2019