Downloaded 12 times
Uploaded bySan Diego County Water Authority
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Environmental Review Process - October 24, 2013
Larry Purcell, Water Resources Manager, presented an overview of the environmental review process for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to the Imported Water Committee. The presentation covered the federal and state environmental laws and approval processes, how baselines would be determined for the environmental impact report/environmental impact statement and economic benefits analysis, and next steps. The BDCP involves 22 conservation measures that would be covered by state and federal permits to provide a long-term solution for endangered species protection and water supply reliability in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
More Related Content
Similar to Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Environmental Review Process - October 24, 2013
More from San Diego County Water Authority
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Environmental Review Process - October 24, 2013
- 1. Presented by: Larry Purcell,Water Resources Manager Imported Water Committee October 24, 2013
- 2. Overview of EnvironmentalReview ◦ 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 SEPOCT 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 conservationplan 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 ◦ Morethan 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.
- 10. EIR/EIS is ajoint 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 Reviewfor 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 Programand 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.
- 14. BDCP documents usemultiple 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 fromwhich 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 Howan 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 SEPOCT NOV DEC Salmon Delta Smelt Longfin Smelt Spring salinity Fall salinity 18
- 19. Traditional construction o baseline determineslevel 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 Year11-40 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 toexisting 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 DeltaOutflow Criteria and resulting Supply Export Yield High-Outflow Criteria = Decrease in Export Yield 23
- 24. Low -Outflow Criteria Increase in ExportYield 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 differentbaselines ◦ 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