Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Environmental Review Process - October 24, 2013 Part 1

1. Presented by:
Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager
Imported Water Committee
October 24, 2013

2. 
Overview of Environmental Review
◦ Federal and state
 Endangered Species Acts
 Environmental Documents
 Approval process

Determining Baseline (Where do we start from?)
◦ EIR/EIS Baselines
◦ BDCP Economic Benefits Analysis

Next Steps
2

3. 
Prohibit the “take” of listed species
◦ “…to harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct”

“Take” can be authorized via permit
◦ “ . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of habitat of such species”

BDCP will require state and federal permits
3

4. Regulatory Pumping Restrictions
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
Salmon
Delta Smelt
Longfin Smelt
4

5. Permit
Listed Species Listed & Non-Listed Species
Federal ESA Section 7
State ESA

Section 10 (HCP)
Section 2081 Section 2835 (NCCP)
NCCP/HCP Benefits
◦ Cover large geographic areas
◦ Provide long-term assurances
 financial, water, land, other natural resources
◦ Cover non-listed species
 automatically updated upon listing
◦ Streamline future actions
5

6. 

A HCP/NCCP conservation plan to comply with
state and federal ESA
Two co-equal goals
◦ Protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem
◦ Provide more reliable water quality and supply
‣ 22 conservation measures
‣ Results in 50-year permit
to operate
6

7. 1. Water Facilities & Operations
(New North Delta Diversion)
12. Methylmercury management
2. Yolo Bypass enhancement
13. Invasive plant controls
3. Natural habitat protection
14. Channel dissolved oxygen
4. Tidal habitat restoration
15. Reduce predatory fish
5. Seasonal floodplain restoration
16. Nonphysical fish barriers
6. Channel margin enhancement
17. Illegal harvest reduction
7. Riparian restoration
18. Fish hatcheries
8. Grassland restoration
19. Storm water treatment
9. Vernal pool restoration
20. Invasive species program
10. Non-tidal marsh restoration
21. Non-project diversions
11. Natural habitat enhancement
22. Avoidance measures
7

8. 
HCP/NCCP Standards
◦ More than just fully mitigating
impacts to avoid further decline
◦ Must contribute to recovery
“…when the decline of a species is
stopped or reversed, or threats to
its survival neutralized so that its
long-term survival in the wild can
be ensured, and it can be removed
from the list of threatened and
endangered species.”

BDCP covers 57 species and
their habitats
8

9. 9

10. 
EIR/EIS is a joint CEQA (state) and NEPA
(federal) document
◦ Common practice to issue a combined EIR/EIS
◦ Regulations require very similar analyses
◦ For high level review no material differences

Review the environmental effects of proposed
project and a reasonable range of alternatives
Lead agency for EIR is DWR
Co-lead agencies for EIS are
USBR, NMFS, and USFWS
10

11. CEQA and
NEPA as
Parallel
Processes
Exempt
Review for
Exemptions
Review for
Exclusions
Negative
Declaration
Initial
Study
Environmental
Assessment
EIR
Excluded
Finding of No
Significant
Impact
EIS
Scoping
Draft EIR
Draft EIS
State Clearinghouse
EPA Filing: Federal Register
Public and Agency Review
Public and Agency Review
Preparation of Response to Comments
Final EIS
Review of Response by
Commenting Agencies
EPA Filing: Federal Register
Final EIR
Agency Decision/ Findings,
Statement of Overriding
Consideration, Mitigation Monitoring
Agency Decision/
Record of Decision
NEPA
Notice of Intent
Scoping
CEQA
Notice of Preparation

12. 
Both a Program and Project level document
◦ Program-level Analysis
 CM 2-22
 Requires additional environmental
review before implementation
 May require other permits or
approvals before implementation
◦ Project- level Analysis
 CM 1 – Water Facilities And
Operations (North Delta Diversion)
 No further environmental review
 May require other permits or
approvals before implementation
12

13. 13

14. 

BDCP documents use multiple baselines
EIR/EIS
◦ Used to determine environmental impacts/benefits
and mitigation of various alternatives

Economic Benefits Analysis
◦ Used to determine incremental water supply
improvement and economic benefit of proposed
actions compared to existing conveyance

Baseline conditions allow estimates of water
supply yield from continued reliance on south
delta pumping only (no BDCP)
14

15. 

A reference from which to compare the
possible environmental effects of an action
Defined in law
◦ CEQA: “…normally the physical environmental
conditions as they exist at the time Notice of
Preparation is published”
◦ NEPA: “…the environment of the areas to be
affected or created by the proposed action”

Should not provide an artificial analysis of
impacts that can mislead users
15

16. Level of Impact
How an EIR/EIS Baseline Works
Environmental
Impact
Environmental
Impact
Existing Baseline
Affected Environment
Current Time
Future

17. 
CEQA: Existing Conditions
◦ continued operation of SWP and CVP including
some of 2008 and 2009 BiOp south Delta pumping
restrictions, and projects in effect in 2009

NEPA: Future Conditions
◦ continued operation of SWP and CVP per 2008 and
2009 BiOps, other programs and projects likely to
occur in the absence of BDCP (including full
implementation of fall salinity standard, climate
change and sea level rise through 2060)
17

18. Regulatory Pumping Restrictions
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
Salmon
Delta Smelt
Longfin Smelt
Spring salinity
Fall salinity
18

19. 
Traditional construction
o

baseline determines level of impacts and required
mitigation to maintain status quo
BDCP is a conservation plan
◦ science-based biological goals and objectives must
be achieved regardless of baseline in order to
contribute to recovery
19

20. 

New Conveyance (CM1)
Construction
◦ Water contractors pay for CM1
◦ Includes mitigation for
construction impacts
◦ Baseline important to
allocating mitigation cost
◦ Construction mitigation small
component of BDCP measures

Operation
◦ Baseline not really relevant
◦ “Decision tree” and adaptive
management govern exports
20

21. Year 1-5
Year 6-10
Year 11-40
10,010
11,385
41,560
8,150
8,150
48,700
Floodplain
0
0
10,000
Channel Margin (miles)
0
5
15
Riparian Wetland
400
400
4,200
Grassland
570
570
860
49
49
41
360
360
800
19,539
20,914
106,161
PROTECTION
Acquisition
RESTORATION
Tidal Wetland
Vernal Pool/Alkali Wetland
Non-tidal marsh
TOTAL
Grand Total: 146,614 acres

22. 

Cost/benefit compared to existing conveyance
Not tied to CEQA/NEPA baseline
◦ Not determining environmental effects

Used higher Delta outflows than in EIR/EIS
◦ Assumed fisheries continue to decline
◦ Assumed fishery agencies will further restrict exports
to protect species via more regulations
◦ Assumed climate change, sea level rise and all other
likely future conditions

It is the “worst case” in BDCP documents
◦ More conservative prediction of future conditions
22

23. High-Outflow
Criteria
Decrease in
Export Yield
Correlation
between
Delta Outflow
Criteria and
resulting
Supply Export
Yield
High-Outflow
Criteria =
Decrease in
Export Yield
23

24. Low -Outflow
Criteria
Increase in
Export Yield
Correlation
between
Delta Outflow
Criteria and
resulting
Supply Export
Yield
Low-Outflow
Criteria =
Increase in
Export Yield
24

25. 6.0
Average Annual Exports (MAF)
5.0
5.6
4.7
2.7
4.0
2.3
3.0
South Delta
Incremental
benefit
48%
49%
Future
Condition
2.0
1.0
North Delta
2.4
2.9
3.4
3.9
51%
52%
Proposed Action High-
Proposed Action Low-
Existing Conveyance
Existing Conveyance
Outflow Scenario
Outflow Scenario
High-Ouflow Scenario
Low-Ouflow Scenario
9,000 cfs
9,000 cfs
0.0
Source: BDCP Chapter 9, Table 9-3
Alternative or Scenario
Early Long-Term (2025)
25
25

26. Document
High
Outflow
Environmental
Conditions
Fall Salinity
Standard
EIR/EIS
No
EIR: Existing
EIS: Future
Economic
Benefits
Yes
Future+

Yield (MAFY)
BDCP
No BDCP
EIR: No
EIS: Yes
4.7-5.6
4.7
Yes
4.7-5.6
3.4-3.9
“BDCP” yields are based on “decision tree”
◦ Will change depending on BDCP success
◦ “Assurances” reduce future regulatory actions

“No BDCP” yields subject to future unknown
regulatory and/or court actions
26

27. 
Environmental Review & Permitting
◦ NCCP/HCP is proper permitting approach and
results in greatest certainty for ESA compliance
 Permits can be issued administratively by agencies
 Additional non-ESA permits will be required
◦ EIR/EIS will complete CEQA/NEPA for new
conveyance (CM1)
 Lead agencies can certify and complete process
 Other elements (CM2-22) will require additional
project level review
27

28. 
EIR/EIS use different baselines
◦ Reflects differences between state and federal law
 NEPA baseline assumes additional future conditions
◦ Environmental baselines do not drive selection of
alternative or cost of BDCP
 All BDCP measures, including CM1, contribute to
species recovery and must be implemented

Economic Benefits Analysis baseline
◦ Uses even greater future conditions provided by
fisheries agencies
 Conservative approach for evaluating economic benefits
and potential future yield of existing conveyance system
28