Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update and Proposed Final … · 2018. 8. 21. · Bay-Delta...

Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update and

Proposed FinalSubstitute Environmental Document

Board MeetingAugust 21, 2018

State Water Resources Control Board

1

Meeting to Consider

2

Public Comments

Adoption of Final SED

Adoption of Amendments

Final decision to be made at a continued meeting

Today’s PresentationBay-Delta Plan and Update

Proposed Amendments

Comments & Responses

Environmental & Economic Effects

Staff Recommendation

Next Steps

3

Bay-DeltaWater Quality Control PlanEnsure protection of beneficial uses

Water quality objectives

Program of implementation

State Water Board adopts Bay-Delta Plan

Water resource of statewide importance

Water right and water quality authority

4

Bay-Delta Plan & Update

Major Amendments

1995

Periodic Review

ProposedAmendments

Draft SED

Comment Period

2009

ModifiedProposed

Amendments

Recirculated Draft SED

Begin Comment Period

2016

Proposed Final SED

ModifiedProposed

Amendments

Comment Period

2018

Consider Public

Comment

Adoption of Proposed

Final SED & Amendments

2018

1995 - 2018

Close Comment

Period

Review & Respond to Comments

2017

5

2012

6

Proposed Bay-Delta Plan Amendments

GoodwinDam

La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7

Why Flow Objectives?Re

turn

ing

Adul

t Fis

h (t

hous

ands

)

Year of Adult Fish Return

Adult Fall Run Chinook Salmon Returns

Returning Adult Fish

Proposed Amendments

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8

Why Flow Objectives?

Tota

l Trib

utar

y Di

scha

rge

2.5

Year

s Pr

ior (

TAF)

Retu

rnin

g Ad

ult F

ish

(tho

usan

ds)

Year of Adult Fish Return

Adult Salmon Returns and Flows Experienced by Juveniles

Returning adult fish

Discharge (Feb-Jun)

Proposed Amendments

LSJR Flow Objectives

9

2013 Delta Plan“Without adequate water flow (the right mix of timing and amount), we cannot expect fisheries to recover, no matter how well we deal with the range of other stressors.”

Delta Stewardship Council


10

LSJR Plan Amendments

La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

GoodwinDam

Flow ObjectivesNarrative

40% unimpaired flow30-50% range

1,000 cfs800 – 1,200 cfs

Program of ImplementationNumeric

11


GoodwinDam

La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

12

Southern Delta Salinity Objective

1.0 dS/meter Electrical

ConductivityYear-round

13

Substitute Environmental Document

Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan

Program-level analysis Project-level analysis may be

appropriate for implementation Complies with CEQA and Porter-

Cologne Water Quality Control Act

14

Public Comments

Modifications to Proposed Plan AmendmentsJul. 6, 2018 – Jul. 27, 2018

2018

Draft Recirculated SEDSept. 15, 2016 – Mar. 17, 2017SED & Proposed Plan Amendments

2016

Draft SEDDec. 31, 2012– Mar. 29, 2013SED & Proposed Plan Amendments

2012

15

More than 180 DaysSept. 15, 2016 – Mar. 17, 2017

3,100 Unique Letters

Public CommentsDraft Recirculated SED

10,500 Unique Comments

33,150 Total Letters

16

Draft Recirculated SED

Economic Considerations

20%

Process10%

Alternatives8%

FishBenefits

14%

Regulatory Language

11%

Economic Effects

15%Process

16%

EnvironmentalResourceImpacts

36%

Comment Categories

Comment ResponseDraft Recirculated SED

17

Response TablesRespond to each unique commentRefer to master responses when appropriate

22 Master ResponsesComprehensive responses Repeated comment themes

Clarifications

Refine Agricultural Economic Analysis Deficit irrigation

Corn silage

Total irrigated acreage

Crop prices & production costs

Groundwater use18

Changes to SED

19

23

513

31

79

25

615

37

79

0102030405060708090

All Years Wet Above NormalBelow Normal Dry Critical

Redu

ctio

n in

Irrig

ated

Are

a (1

,000

Acr

es)

Water Year Type

2016 SED SWAP analysis 2018 Revised SWAP analysis

0 0

Agricultural Economic AnalysisComparison of 2016 SED and 2018 Revised SWAP Change in IRRIGATED AREA

20

36

721

50

120

39

822

55

130

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

All Years Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry CriticalRedu

ctio

n in

Eco

nom

ic O

utpu

t (M

illio

n $)

Water Year Type

2016 SED SWAP analysis 2018 Revised SWAP analysis

Agricultural Economic AnalysisComparison of 2016 SED and 2018 Revised SWAP Change in CROP REVENUE

0 0

21

Regional Economic Output 2016 SED - $64 million/year loss

Reviewed comments

Refined Statewide Agricultural Production (SWAP) simulation

2018 SED - $69 million/year

Agricultural Economic Analysis

Flow Objectives

Starting point of 40% unimpaired flow Repeated from program of implementation

Avoid significant adverse effects Repeated from program of implementation

Clarified baseflow Added compliance calculation

Changes to Amendments

22

Program of Implementation Removed a sentence regarding water held for

release after June Biological goals may include temperature

targets 5-year review of San Joaquin River Monitoring

and Evaluation Program Annual operations reports in a public meeting


23

Southern Delta Salinity Due date for Comprehensive

Operations Plan Effects of POTW discharges on Delta

salinity Feasibility of reverse osmosis

technology


24

25

Primary Benefits

Restore Flows

ImproveTemperature

IncreaseFloodplain Inundation


26


La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

GoodwinDam

27

Tuolumne River (1990-1995)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Stre

amflo

w (

cfs

)

Unimpaired Flow at LagrangeWSE 40%UF Scenario at ModestoWSE Baseline Scenario at Modesto


28


La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

GoodwinDam

Rearing

Monthly Average 7DADM TemperatureTuolumne: April 1990

FLOW 29

Rearing

Tuolumne: May 1970-2003All Years Averaged

FLOW 30


31


La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

GoodwinDam

32

Lethal

Harmful

Migration

San Joaquin: May 1970-2003All Years Averaged

FLOW

33Based on Table ES-18

21,034

28,831

38,352

52,988

Baseline 30% UF 40% UF 50% UF

Acre*Days for Tributaries, April – June Average Floodplain Inundation

Photo credit: Carson Jeffres

34

Primary Impacts

WaterSupply

Groundwater Agriculture

637

851

580

2068

604

795

520

1919

558

732

485

1775

501658

444

1603

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Stanislaus Tuolumne Merced Total

Dive

rsio

ns (T

hous

and

Acre

-feet

)

Baseline30% UF Objective40% UF Objective50% UF Objective

35

Average Annual Surface Water Deliveries

36

Greatest effect on diversions for human use would be in driest years;almost no effect on diversions for human use in wet years.

86% Delivery

86% Delivery

70% Delivery

62% Delivery

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

All Year Types Below Normal Dry Critically Dry

Thou

sand

Acr

e Fe

et (T

AF)

Water Year-Type

Water Supply Available at 40% UF Existing Water Supply Available

Change in Surface Water Deliveryby Water Year Type (40% UF Objective)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry Critically Dry

Thou

sand

Acr

e-Fe

et

Base 40% UFBase 40% UF Base 40% UF Base 40% UF Base 40% UF

Water Supply

Annual Water Supply & Feb-June Stream FlowBaseline vs. 40% UF

37

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry Critically Dry

Thou

sand

Acr

e-Fe

et

Base 40% UFBase 40% UF Base 40% UF Base 40% UF Base 40% UF

Instream Flow

Water Supply

Annual Water Supply & Feb-June Stream FlowBaseline vs. 40% UF

38

Maximum GW pumping capacity over all districts is 626 TAF/y in 2009 & 903 TAF/y in 2014 using best available information. 39

257 289359

457

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Assuming 2009 GW Pumping Capacities Assuming 2014 GW Pumping Capacities

Aver

age

Annu

al G

roun

dwat

er P

umpi

ng

(TAF

)

Baseline 40% UF

Average Annual Effects of 40% UF Objective on GROUNDWATER (GW) PUMPING

40

714 723637 665

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Assuming 2009 GW PumpingCapacities

Assuming 2014 GW PumpingCapacities

Aver

age

Annu

al G

roun

dwat

er

Rec

harg

e (T

AF)

Baseline 40% UF

Average Annual Effects of 40% UF Objective on GROUNDWATER (GW) RECHARGE

41

515 522 522 522 521487490

522 516 507485

408

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

All Years Wet Above Normal Below Normal Dry Critical

Irrig

ated

Are

a (1

,000

Acr

es)

Water Year Type

Baseline 40% UF Objective

Average Annual Effects of 40% UF Objective on IRRIGATED ACREAGE

42

Economic Consideration

CropRevenue

RegionalEconomic

Output

Higher economic effect estimates $400 million/year - $1.6 billion/year $128 million/year $600 million/year - $3.2 billion/year

Different assumptions No strategic groundwater pumping No ability to substitute livestock feed Inconsistent with observed behavior Amplified effects in regional analysis

43

Agricultural Economic AnalysisConsidered Commenters’ Analyses

44Note: Crop revenue is the farm gate value of all production from irrigation districts that

receive surface water from the Merced, Tuolumne, & Stanislaus Rivers.

1.52 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.531.481.48 1.53 1.52 1.51 1.48

1.35

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8


Aver

age

Annu

al A

gric

ultu

ral C

rop

Reve

nue

(Bill

ion

$)

Water Year Type


Average Annual Effects of 40% UF Objective on CROP REVENUE

45

Average Annual Effects of 40% UF Objective on REGIONAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT

2.67 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.592.60 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.582.36

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


Regi

onal

Eco

nom

ic O

utpu

t(B

illio

n $)

Water Year Type


Note: Regional economic output is the measure of change in all economic activity (sales) in Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties, resulting from a change in irrigated crop revenue.

46

Public Comments

Modifications to Proposed Plan AmendmentsJul. 6, 2018 – Jul. 27, 2018

2018

Draft Recirculated SEDSept. 15, 2016 – Mar. 17, 2017SED & Proposed Plan Amendments

2016

Draft SEDDec. 31, 2012– Mar. 29, 2013SED & Proposed Plan Amendments

2012

Public comment was solicited on the modified plan amendments in the July 6, 2018 Notice

The comment period was 21 days

• 2013 comment period resulted in extensive revisions• Six month comment period provided in 2016 – 2017 on revised plan

amendments• Recent modifications were limited in scope• Plan amendment proposal did not substantially change

Public review period is more than 45 days

47

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendments

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 1: Modified language in the proposed flow objectives is a significant new change to the plan amendments

• “Maintain 40% of unimpaired flow, within an adaptive range between 30-50%,”

• “Flows provided to meet these numeric objectives shall be managed to avoid causing significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife beneficial uses at other times of the year”

Response: The program of implementation already included the express language that is now repeated in the objective. The 40% unimpaired flow starting point and requirement to avoid adverse effects is the program of implementation and was available for comment in the 2016 proposed plan amendment. Repeating these requirements in the objective does not substantively change the LSJR plan amendments.

48

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 2: Modified language in the proposed baseflow objective is a significant new change to the plan amendments.

• A lowering of the flow requirement• Requires Use Attainability Analysis

Response: The baseflow language was modified to clearly state that flows at all times during February through June must be greater than 1,000 cfs within an adaptive range of 800 – 1,200 cfs. The flow values were not modified. The modified language does not substantially alter the baseflow objective. A use attainability analysis is used to support the removal of beneficial uses that support the fishable and swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. This is not relevant to the plan amendment proposal as it does not include removal of beneficial uses.

49

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 3: Multiple comments described concerns about the compliance calculation for the proposed flow objective. Concerns were about accuracy of full natural flow gage station data, forecasting, and identification of flow gage location

Response: These comments were addressed in the proposed Final SED response to comments, Master Responses 2.1 and 2.2. Concerns with accuracy are addressed with a longer averaging period and the program of implementation requirement to develop information to monitor and evaluate compliance.

The plan amendments recognize that an annual operation plan is based on a forecast from the best available information and may not accurately reflect actual conditions that occur during the February–June time period. As a result, an annual operations plan is required to include a range of actions that will work under a reasonable range of hydrologic conditions and must identify how adjustments will be made as updated information becomes available.

The full natural flow stations are identified in Master Response 3.2, see the map in Figure 3.2-2.

50

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 4: Language assigning responsibility for Implementing LSJR Flow Objectives to water rights holders will require water releases from reservoir storage and is not justified

Response: Adoption of the plan amendments does not modify water rights and does not impose enforceable requirements on any entities. Enforceable obligations to implement the water quality objectives will be imposed in future proceedings involving the specific exercise of the State Water Board’s water right or water quality authority. The State Water Board has authority to impose requirements on the diversion and use of water, including conditions on the diversion of water to storage.

51

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 5: The plan amendments do not have a technical or legal basis to require U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to meet a lower salinity level than the proposed objective

Response: The actions of the Central Valley Project, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), are the principal cause of salinity concentrations in the southern Delta at Vernalis. The plan amendments continue USBR’s existing obligation to meet 0.7 dS/m EC on the LSJR at Vernalis in order to implement the salinity water quality objective for the interior southern Delta and to comply with antidegradation policies.

52

Comment ResponseModifications to the plan amendmentsComment Topic 6: POTWs desire language in Bay-Delta Plan on how to determine future feasibility. The plan amendments state that reverse-osmosis treatment of POTW wastewater in the southern Delta is currently not feasible for controlling salinity and that where it is infeasible for POTWs to comply with numeric limits, they have to comply with best management practices. Where it becomes feasible to comply with numeric limits, POTWs must comply. Response: An exclusive list of factors to determine future feasibility is not possible. Future feasibility can be informed by the Board’s current finding of infeasibility, but there may additional unknown factors that may be relevant in the future.

53

54


GoodwinDam

La Grange Dam

Crocker Huffman Dam

Final SED Plan amendments into the

Bay-Delta Plan

55

Staff RecommendationAdopt Resolution:

Next Steps

• Conclude Board Meeting

• Submit to Office of Administrative Law

• Submit to US EPA for review

• Notice of Determination

56

Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update and Proposed Final … · 2018. 8. 21. · Bay-Delta...

Documents

Transcript of Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update and Proposed Final … · 2018. 8. 21. · Bay-Delta...