Chapter 6 Responses to Local Agency Comments

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsCity of Sacramento (L01)

Response to Comment of the City of Sacramento (Letter L01) L01-1. The comment period was extended per the request. Also,

see the master response to Public Outreach Process.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-2 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsNorth San Joaquin Conservation District (L02)

Response to Comments of the North San Joaquin Conservation District (Letter L02) L02-1. The alternative discussed in this comment was

eliminated from further consideration because it is not capable of meeting several criteria, does not appear to clearly reduce project impacts, and—most importantly—it would not meet most of the basic project objectives for the FRWP, it does little to improve EBMUD system reliability and operational flexibility during droughts, and it does not substantially meet the District’s need for water. Neither CEQA nor NEPA requires the consideration of alternatives that are not capable of meeting the basic objectives of a proposed project.

L02-2. The alternatives suggested in this comment were

evaluated in Chapter 6 of the Alternatives Screening Report for the FRWP (Volume 2, Appendix B). Groundwater banking/exchange programs in San Joaquin County were eliminated from further consideration. The information used to screen this alternative remains valid and is supported by substantial information in the administrative record. No additional information is presented that would alter the conclusions reached in the Alternatives Screening Report. The information developed for the EIR/EIS will form the basis of the third-stage (most detailed) evaluation of the project alternatives. This section of the screening report will be completed once the final EIR/EIS is completed.

L02-3. The institutional considerations regarding alternative

screening appropriately consider legal and regulatory constraints (see pages 6-18 and 6-19 in Appendix B,

Volume 2 of the draft EIR/EIS). See also response to comment L02-2 above.

L02-4. There is no evidence to suggest that such a canal would

be locally supported. In addition, a canal alternative was considered and rejected in Chapter 5, Volume II of the October 1997 EBMUD Supplemental Water Supply Project draft EIR/EIS because it would have substantially greater environmental and property impacts than either of the pipeline alternatives under consideration and thoroughly evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS because the right-of-way would be substantially wider and because it could not follow property lines and public rights-of-way. A pipeline along the same route was rejected for similar reasons in that document as well.

L02-5. The FRWP Alternatives Screening Report appropriately

examines the alternative suggested in this comment. No information exists to suggest that the conclusions reached in the Alternatives Screening Report should be reevaluated. Should the North San Joaquin Water Conservation District or another entity develop appropriate information in a timely manner that shows that the conclusions reached in the Alternatives Screening Report should be reevaluated, FRWA and Reclamation would consider the information. Also see response to comment L02-2 above regarding groundwater banking in San Joaquin County.

L02-6. This comment accurately reflects the conclusions of the

Alternatives Screening Report.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-5 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsNorth San Joaquin Conservation District (L02)

L02-7. Should the Eastern Water Alliance develop a reasonable proposal that provides equal or greater benefits at equal or less cost and that would result in minimal environmental impact, EBMUD would consider the proposal. No such proposal has been presented to date.

L02-8. See responses to comments L02-1 through L02-7 above. L02-9. The concept of bypassing the proposed water treatment

plant to supply raw water for possible storage at Duck Creek is not part of the FRWP. There are currently no plans for use of the unused capacity of the FRWP facilities other than the small quantities described in Chapter 2 of this final EIR/EIS. These facilities may provide additional regional benefits in the future by enabling regional water supply solutions. However, no such plans have been identified at this time, and any such future plan will be required to provide a new source of water (EBMUD’s CVP contract does not allow for diversion of water in normal and wet years, when excess capacity would generally be available) and will undergo appropriate separate environmental review.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-6 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsNortheastern San Joaquin County Groundwater

Banking Authority (L03

Response to Comments of the Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority (GBA) (Letter L03) L03-1. FRWA and Reclamation encourage the GBA to continue

making progress toward addressing certain of the issues described in the FRWP Alternatives Screening Report (Volume 2, Appendix B). However, at the current time there is no substantial evidence that the issues addressed in the Alternatives Screening Report and the reasons for determining that groundwater banking/exchange in San Joaquin County is not a feasible alternative have been resolved to the point where such an alternative could be considered a feasible alternative to the projects analyzed in this EIR. A number of efforts are underway in San Joaquin County to address these issues. However, these issues have been thoroughly explored for more than 10 years and have not been resolved. As noted in the Screening Report, this alternative remains infeasible at this time.

L03-2. The alternative suggested in this comment was evaluated

in Chapter 6 of the Alternatives Screening Report for the FRWP (Volume 2, Appendix B). Groundwater banking/exchange programs in San Joaquin County were eliminated from further consideration. The information used to screen this alternative remains valid and is supported by substantial information in the administrative record. No additional information is presented that would alter the conclusions reached in the Alternatives Screening Report. Should the GBA develop appropriate new information, FRWA and Reclamation would consider the information prior to certification of the final EIR/EIS and project approval.

L03-3. FRWA and Reclamation fully acknowledge that the

FRWP could assist with local and regional water solutions. There are currently no plans for use of the unused capacity of the FRWP facilities other than the small quantities described in Chapter 2 of this final EIR/EIS. These facilities may provide additional regional benefits in the future by enabling regional water supply solutions. However, no such plans have been identified at this time, and any such future plan will be required to provide a new source of water (EBMUD’s CVP contract does not allow for diversion of water in normal and wet years, when excess capacity would generally be available) and will undergo appropriate separate environmental review.

L03-4. See response to comment L03-3 above. FRWA and

Reclamation agree that the FRWP has the potential to contribute to local and regional water supply solutions. However, given the objectives of the proposed project and the identified needs of SCWA and EBMUD, there is no justification from a water supply, environmental, or cost basis to enlarge the FRWP facilities as described in this comment. No such enlargement is proposed as part of the FRWP.

L03-5. FRWA and Reclamation appreciate and support the

efforts of the GBA. Any additional information provided by the GBA will be taken under consideration.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-14 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsCouncilmember Dave Jones (L04)

Responses to Comments of Councilmember Dave Jones, City of Sacramento (Letter L04) L04-1. See the master response to Intake Facility Issues. L04-2. See the master response to Intake Facility Issues. L04-3. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. L04-4. Objection to the placement of the project adjacent to the

Pocket neighborhood is noted. L04-5. See the master response to Public Outreach Process. L04-6. See the master response to Intake Facility Issues.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-16 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsMetropolitan Water District (L05)

Responses to Comments of the Metropolitan Water District (Letter L05) L05-1. At the time the draft EIR/EIS was published,

Reclamation and FRWA considered EBMUD diversions to be “Sacramento Valley in basin” uses as described in the Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA). Since publication of the draft EIR/EIS, Reclamation has determined that EBMUD diversions will be treated as an “export” under the COA. This change in designation under the COA would result in only very minor changes to the hydrologic and water quality modeling results. Section 3.4.10 of Volume 3 of the draft EIR/EIS displays the results of a study conducted prior to publication of the draft EIR/EIS that compares the FRWP modeling results with EBMUD diversions being treated as an export under the COA. As shown in that analysis, changes are very slight, and these small changes would not affect the conclusions reached in the draft EIR/EIS regarding impacts.

L05-2. As described above, the results of modeling in which

EBMUD diversions are treated as exports for purposes of the COA are displayed in Section 3.4.10 in Volume 3.

L05-3. FRWA and Reclamation agree that EBMUD diversions

should be treated as an export for purposes of the FRWP.

L05-4. The modeling with EBMUD diversions treated as an

export use was conducted in the same manner as that conducted for the main project analysis. In the “export project” analysis, EBMUD diversions were treated as exports in the COA, and the responsibility of CVP and

SWP to make upstream releases for project diversions, if needed, is assigned according to the appropriate COA provisions. As shown in Section 3.4.10, these changes are very small and do not alter the conclusions of the EIR/EIS.

L05-5. The values included in Tables 3-1 and 3-3 for Banks

Pumping Plant exports intentionally did not include SWP and CVP water conveyed through this facility for the Environmental Water Account (EWA) because the values were not affected by the FRWP alternatives. The values for Banks Pumping Plant exports in Volume 3 included EWA water conveyed through that facility. The values are, therefore, not different; the EWA amounts are a constant that would not affect the impact analysis or conclusions of significance. In addition, minor differences are also attributable to round-off errors, as the long-term averages presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-3 were computed using data with fewer significant digits than those used in Volume 3.

L05-6. Section 4.1.3 of Volume 3 of the draft EIR/EIS describes

the approach used for the water quality analysis in the draft EIR/EIS. Organic carbon is not used as an potential impact indicator because of the lack of a sufficiently accurate predictive tool, and because of the small magnitude of changes that could be caused by the FRWP alternatives. Current models for simulating organic carbon concentrations in the Delta do not reflect the dynamics of production and decay of organic carbon in channel water and how these processes are affected by ambient conditions. Mechanisms of these processes are little understood. FRWA and Reclamation have concluded that any results from using existing models

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-19 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsMetropolitan Water District (L05)

would not be reliable and such modeling has, therefore, not been undertaken.

Freeport Regional Water Project

6-20 March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsAmador County Water Agency (L06)

Response to Comments of the Amador County Water Agency (Letter L06) L06-1. As described on pages 2-40 and 2-41 of the draft

EIR/EIS, EBMUD’s ability to use its full Mokelumne River water rights is limited by system demand, river hydrology, upstream storage and diversions, seasonal flood control requirements, and reservoir releases to the lower Mokelumne River. All assumptions used to simulate operation of Alternative 6 and the results of hydrologic simulations are described in Chapter 3 of Volume I and in Volume III of the draft EIR/EIS. Amador County Water Agency is specifically noted in this description. The description goes on to state that “[b]efore enlarging Pardee Reservoir, EBMUD would have to obtain any appropriate modifications to its water rights from the SWRCB.”

L06-2. Volume 2, Appendix B, “Alternatives Screening Report

for the Freeport Regional Water Project,” of the draft EIR/EIS also notes that the Enlarged Pardee Reservoir alternative (a component of Alternative 6 in the draft EIR/EIS) would result in significant controversy and that it is likely that additional or revised water rights would have to be obtained from the SWRCB (page 7-33 of Volume 2, Appendix B). FRWP and Reclamation agree that effects on water rights upstream of Pardee Reservoir are likely to be a controversial issue.

L06-3. These water rights/permit issues would need to be

resolved and/or confirmed prior to implementing a project as described in Alternative 6. However, FRWA has not selected Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative

and is not pursuing resolution of the water rights issue or actual project implementation.

Freeport Regional Water Project 6-30

March 2004

J&S 03-072

Freeport Regional Water Authority and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Chapter 6. Local Agency CommentsCounty of Sacramento Public Works Agency (L07)

Responses to County of Sacramento Public Works Agency (Letter L07) L07-1. As mentioned in the Environmental Commitments

section of Chapter 2 of the DEIR/EIS, project construction will be coordinated with planned improvements to roadways and other projects in order to minimize disruptions associated with two or more projects. FRWA through SCWA staff has reviewed the TIP and has had several meetings with DOT staff to coordinate the various pipeline routes. FRWA appreciates DOT staff cooperation in past coordination meetings and looks forward to working with the County of Sacramento Public Works Agency’s Traffic Operations and Right-of-Way Management groups to ensure that all construction activities in Sacramento County have been considered in coordination efforts.

L07-2. Damage to roadway surfaces that are not maintained as

truck routes in the County of Sacramento will be repaired following construction activities, as mentioned in the Environmental Commitments section of Chapter 2 of the DEIR/EIS. Please see Impact 12-2 in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” for additional discussion.

Freeport Regional Water Project 6-32

March 2004

J&S 03-072