Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 Appendix 1E 2 Comments from Individuals and 3 Responses 4 This section contains copies of comment letters from individuals on the Draft 5 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coordinated Long-term Operation 6 of the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP). Each 7 comment in the comment letters was assigned a number, in sequential order. The 8 numbers were combined with the last name of the individual (example: Bartlett 9 1). The comments with the associated responses are arranged alphabetically by 10 last name, and appear in the chapter in that order. 11 Copies of the comments are provided in Section 1E.1. Responses to each of the 12 comments follow the comment letters, and are numbered in accordance with the 13 numbers assigned in the letters. None of the comments from individuals included 14 large attachments. 15 1E.1 Comments and Responses 16 The individuals listed in Table 1E.1 provided comments on the Draft EIS. 17 Table 1E.1. Individuals Providing Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 18 Statement Abbreviation Commenter Bartlett John Bartlett Brobeck 1 James Brobeck Brobeck 2 James Brobeck Cardella Nicolas Cardella Cartwright Ken Cartwright Hoover Michael Hoover McDaniel Daniel McDaniel St. Amant Tony St. Amant Todenhagen Nora Todenhagen 19 20 Final LTO EIS 1E-1 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.1 John Bartlett 2 3 1E.1.1.1 Responses to Comments from John Bartlett 4 Bartlett 1: Two of the alternatives evaluated in the EIS, Alternatives 3 and 4, 5 included modifications of the striped bass bag limits to reduce the predation 6 potential on native species, as described in Sections 3.4.5.2 and 3.4.6.2 of Chapter 7 3, Description of Alternatives. 8 1E-2 Final LTO EIS Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.2 James Brobeck – Number 1 Comment 2 3 Final LTO EIS 1E-3 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 2 1E-4 Final LTO EIS Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 2 Final LTO EIS 1E-5 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 2 1E.1.2.1 Responses to Comments from James Brobeck at the Public 3 Meeting held in Red Bluff on September 10, 2015 4 Brobeck 1 1: Comment noted. 5 Brobeck 1 2: At the time the request for extension of the public review period 6 was submitted, the Amended Judgement dated September 30, 2014 issued by the 7 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) 8 in the Consolidated Delta Smelt Cases required Reclamation to issue a Record of 9 Decision by no later than December 1, 2015. Due to this requirement, 1E-6 Final LTO EIS Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 Reclamation did not have sufficient time to extend the public review period. On 2 October 9, 2015, the District Court granted a very short time extension to address 3 comments received during the public review period, and requires Reclamation to 4 issue a Record of Decision on or before January 12, 2016. This current court 5 ordered schedule does not provide sufficient time for Reclamation to extend the 6 public review period. 7 Brobeck 1 3: The purpose of the action, as described in Chapter 2, Purpose and 8 Need, of the EIS, is not biased because it includes a provision to enable 9 Reclamation and DWR to satisfy their contractual obligations to the fullest extent 10 possible in accordance with the authorized purposes of the CVP and SWP, as well as 11 the regulatory limitations on CVP and SWP operations, including applicable state 12 and federal laws and water rights. 13 Brobeck 1 4: 14 The population of winter-run Chinook salmon is at extreme risk. NMFS recently 15 named Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon as one of the eight species 16 most at-risk of extinction in the near future. Last year (2014), due to a lack of 17 ability to regulate water temperatures in the Sacramento River in September and 18 October, water temperature rose to greater than 60°F. This reduced early life 19 stage survival (eggs and fry) from Keswick to Red Bluff from a recent average of 20 approximately 27 percent (egg-to-fry survival estimates averaged 26.4 percent for 21 winter-run Chinook salmon in 2002-2012) down to 5 percent in 2014. 22 Consequently, 95 percent of the year class of wild winter-run Chinook was lost 23 last year. Additional information regarding key components of the 2015 Shasta 24 Temperature Management Plan is provided at: 25 http://www.usbr.gov/mp/drought/docs/shasta-temp-mgmt-plan-key-components- 26 06-18-15.pdf. 27 The 2014 spawning run of spring-run Chinook salmon returning to the upper 28 Sacramento River system also experienced significant impacts due to drought 29 conditions as well as elevated temperatures on the Sacramento River and other 30 tributaries. Similar to winter-run, spring-run eggs in the Sacramento River 31 experienced significant and potentially complete mortality due to high water 32 temperatures downstream of Keswick Dam starting in early September 2014 33 when water temperatures exceeded 56° F. Extremely few juvenile spring-run 34 Chinook salmon were observed this year migrating downstream of the 35 Sacramento River during high winter flows, when spring-run originating from the 36 upper Sacramento River, Clear Creek, and other northern tributaries are typically 37 observed, indicating that the population was significantly impacted. Similar 38 concerns for spring-run exist this year as for winter-run. While spring-run have 39 greater distribution and inhabit locations in addition to the Sacramento River, 40 conditions on those streams are also expected to be poor due to the drought. The 41 conservation of storage expected as a result of the changes requested in the 42 Temporary Urgency Change (TUC) Permit submitted by Reclamation and DWR 43 in response to drought conditions are expected to also benefit spring-run this year. 44 Additional information regarding CVP and SWP operations under a TUC Order 45 issued on July 3, 2015, by the State Water Resources Control Board is provided Final LTO EIS 1E-7 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 at: 2 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/docs/t 3 ucp/2015/tucp_order070315.pdf. 4 Brobeck 1 5: Alternatives 1 through 4 were selected as part of the range of 5 alternatives evaluated in the EIS, as described in Section 3.4 of Chapter 3, 6 Description of Alternatives. The commenter’s opposition to Alternatives 1 7 through 4 is acknowledged. 8 Brobeck 1 6: The District Court required Reclamation to prepare a NEPA 9 document upon the provisional acceptance of the RPA actions in the 2008 10 USFWS BO and 2009 NMFS BO. Reclamation is the lead agency for this action 11 and the environmental document; therefore, the environmental document is being 12 prepared only under the National Environmental Policy Act. Several State of 13 California agencies are cooperating agencies for this EIS. Because compliance 14 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be under DWR’s 15 purview, Reclamation consulted with DWR on this comment. On October 5, 16 2015, DWR provided the following response: “The District Court required 17 Reclamation to comply with NEPA on the provisional acceptance of the RPA 18 actions. There is no action for the State of California requiring California 19 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.” 20 Brobeck 1 7: Recent ESA consultation activities and court rulings are discussed 21 in Section 1.2.3.2 of Chapter 1, Introduction, of the EIS. 22 Brobeck 1 8: The CVHM model was used to support the EIS groundwater 23 program because it was deemed to have the greatest resolution (vertically and 24 spatially) and more robust calibration than any of the other available Central- 25 Valley wide models. While the CVHM model simulation period ends at the end 26 of 2003, none of the Central-Valley wide models that simulate groundwater 27 conditions for more recent periods post-2003 were available or deemed adequate 28 for the analysis at the time of preparation of the EIS. The 1961 through 2003 time 29 period simulated by CVHM includes varying hydrologic conditions that range 30 from extreme dry periods (such as 1987-92) and extreme wet periods (1983). 31 1E-8 Final LTO EIS Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.3 James Brobeck – Number 2 Comment 2 3 Final LTO EIS 1E-9 Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.3.1 Responses to Comments from James Brobeck at the Public 2 Meeting held in Red Bluff on September 10, 2015 3 Brobeck 2 1: The cumulative effects analysis discussion in Chapter 7, 4 Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality, has been modified to provide 5 more discussion of the potential effects of future projects. 6 7 8 1E-10 Final LTO EIS Appendix 1E: Comments from Individuals and Responses 1 1E.1.4 Nicolas Cardella 2 3 1E.1.4.1 Responses to Comments from Nicolas Cardella 4 Cardella 1: Comment noted. 5 Cardella 2: The EIS analysis assumes all water deliveries to the San Joaquin 6 River Exchange Contractors are conveyed through the Delta; and water deliveries 7 from Millerton Lake would be similar under all alternatives and the Second Basis 8 of Comparison in all water year types. However, it is recognized that during 9 extreme droughts, water can be delivered to the San Joaquin River Exchange 10 Contractors from Millerton Lake and CVP deliveries to users along the Friant and 11 Madera canals can be reduced.