Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat ProjectDraft EIS/EIR

California Natural Resources AgencyU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

What We Want to Accomplish Today

Review purpose and need for Species Conservation Habitat (SCH) ProjectPresent alternatives evaluated in Draft EIS/EIRAccept oral or written comments on Draft EIS/EIRDescribe what comes after public comment period

Need for SCH ProjectDeclining surface water elevation will lead to loss of shallow water habitat and increased salinityIncreasing salinity will lead to fishery collapseFishery collapse will result in loss of food for fish-eating birds (pelicans, cormorants)SCH ponds would provide salinity controlled, replacement habitat

Authorization for SCH California Fish and Game Code § 2932(b)

Implementation of conservation measures necessary to protect the fish and wildlife species dependent on the Salton Sea, including adaptive management measurements pursuant to Section 2081.7. These conservation measures shall be limited to the Salton Sea…

Future Salton Sea Salinity and Elevation

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 20800

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

-265

-260

-255

-250

-245

-240

-235

-230

-225

-220

Year

Sim

ulat

ed E

leva

tion

(ft)

Sim

ulat

ed S

alin

ity

(ppm

)

2017 QSA Mitigation Water Ends

53,000 ppm Current Salinity

Simulated Salinity

Simulated Elevation

Tilapia Gone >60,000 ppm

Purpose of EIS/EIR

Disclose to decision-makers and publicSignificant environmental impactsReasonable alternatives to avoid/minimize impacts

Identify Environmentally preferable / Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (NEPA)Environmentally superior alternative (CEQA)Preferred alternative

Solicit comments on project/impacts

Alternatives Development Principles Alternatives Must…

Provide habitat ASAPHave sufficient and reliable water supplyManage salinity, sediment, and seleniumBe compatible with other projects

GeothermalUSFWS habitat developmentAgriculture

Use cost-effective structures and operationsBe “doable” and “durable”

Alternatives Development Process

DFG/DWR

Consultants

Stakeholders

Special Studies

EIS/EIR Alternatives/Impact Analysis

Preferred Alternative

Project Design

Project Need / Legislation

Developing Project Alternatives

Stakeholder/special interest involvementShared information about SCH ProjectIdentified concerns or conflicts with other usesIdentified solutions and opportunities (cooperative efforts)

Special studies BiologicalGeotechnicalEngineering

Cost considerations

Results of Stakeholder Involvement

Refined project descriptionModified project design at Alamo RiverAdded mosquito control measures to operations

Confirmed SCH project would not preclude geothermal developmentConfirmed SCH project would complement planned development

USFWS habitatAir quality management

Results of Special StudiesDeveloped specialized construction techniques for weak soils

Identified performance and tolerance ranges for tilapia species

Identified target pond salinities to achieve desired biological performance

Refined a range of operations to maximize potential for success

Cost ConsiderationsCombinations of New/ Alamo River sites eliminatedSites configured to maximize benefit at lowest costSites mostly on IID propertyDesign based on simple construction techniquesMaximized use of existing topographyPonds located close to suitable water sourcesOperational flexibility to optimize water quality conditions

Location and Configuration of Alternatives

Alamo River sites

New River sites

Alt. 1, New River/Gravity Diversion 3,130 acres

14

Alt. 2, New River/Pumped Diversion2,670 acres

Alt. 3, New River/Pumped Diversion3,770 acres

Alt. 4, Alamo River/Gravity Diversion 2,290 acres

17

Alt. 5, Alamo River/Pumped Diversion 2,080 acres

18

Alt. 6, Alamo River/Pumped Diversion 2,940 acres

State’s Preferred SCH AlternativeAlt. 3, New River/Pumped Diversion (3,770 acres)

Current Project Schedule

Draft NEPA/CEQA document – Summer 2011Draft permit applications – Fall 2011Final NEPA/CEQA document – Spring 2012Permits complete – Summer 2012Final design – Fall 2012Begin construction – Spring 2013Complete construction – Summer 2014

How to Submit Comments

At today’s meetingVerbally Written on comment form

Electronic commentE-form provided on DWR Salton Sea website

Mail written comments

To Comment Today

Verbal commentsGive name and affiliation, if anySpeak clearly so concerns are understoodBe succinct so others have time to comment

Turn in comment form

To Comment after TodayElectronic comment form (preferred method)www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/In left margin, click on “DEIS/EIR Comment Form”

Preferred Way to Submit Comments

e -

Com

men

t For

m

Written Comments

Ms. Lanika Cervantes, Corps Project ManagerU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLos Angeles District, Regulatory Division6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 105Carlsbad, CA 92011

OR

Mr. David Elms, Deputy Regional ManagerCalifornia Department of Fish and Game 78078 Country Club Drive, Suite 109Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203

Guidance for Commenting

Focus on scope and content of EIS/EIRGoals and objectivesAlternativesAffected environmentImpact analysis

Be specificRefer to sections and line numbers where appropriate

END

Thank you for your interest. Please give us your comments.