Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Stakeholders Meeting April 12, 2011.

Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat

Stakeholders Meeting • April 12, 2011

2

Introduce new team member

Provide general updates on Salton Sea/activities

Provide updates on SCH Project

Provide opportunity for Stakeholders to provide informal input

Meeting Purpose

2

3

Agenda

Salton Sea Restoration Fund

State of the Salton Sea

SCH ProjectScheduleStakeholder coordinationSpecial studiesAlternatives development

Salton Sea Financial Assistance Program

Stakeholder feedback/general discussion

3

4

Introductions

Rick Davis – Davis Group

Kim Nicol – Department of Fish and Game

David Elms – Department of Fish and Game

Kent Nelson – Department of Water Resources

Rob Thomson – Cardno ENTRIX

Ramona Swenson – Cardno ENTRIX

4

Salton Sea Restoration Fund Update and

State of the Salton Sea

5

Salton Sea Restoration Fund Update

(July 2007 through February 2011)

6

Source

Mitigation Fund Prop 84

  FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Total

Appropriation 2,741,578 2,829,770 2,741,923 2,786,000 13,300,000 10,750,000 5,296,000 296,000 40,741,271

Expenditures 1,474,889 1,494,011 235,401 84,932.83 783,076.25 1,378,858 0 0 5,451,169

Encum-brances 224 18,426 2,316.27 29,890.87 11,456,163 28,541 0 0 11,535,563Appropriation balance 1,266,464 1,317,332 2,504,205 2,671,176 1,060,760 9,342,599 5,296,000 296,000 23,754,538

Note: Annual appropriation of approximately $2.7 million from the Mitigation Fund

Current State of Salton SeaSalinity – 53 ppt

Water elevation – dipped below -230 feet this winter

Bird numbers – very high last few years (especially fish-eating birds) due to continuing abundance of tilapia

Bird disease – very low levels

Fishery – tilapia fishery very robust; no signs of marine species return

Fish die-offs – occasional smaller ones, no large events by historic standards

Pileworm and barnacle populations – severely reduced; barnacle bars and beaches not replenished as Sea recedes 7

Questions and Discussion

8

Species Conservation Habitat Project

Current Schedule

9

10

NEPA/CEQA scoping – June/July 2010

Draft NEPA/CEQA document – Spring 2011

Draft permit applications – Spring 2011

Final NEPA/CEQA document – Late 2011 to early 2012

Final design – Mid to late 2012

Permits complete – Mid 2012

Begin construction – Late 2012

Current Schedule (Subject to Change)

10

Species Conservation Habitat Project

Stakeholder Coordination

11

Stakeholder Meetings

Meetings held with Imperial County Farm BureauImperial Irrigation DistrictGeothermal development companiesSonny Bono National Wildlife RefugeVector control agenciesElected officials

Purpose of meetingsShare information about SCH ProjectIdentify any concerns or conflicts with future plansIdentify solutions and opportunities (cooperative efforts)

12

Imperial County Farm BureauIssues

Westernmost New River pond next to farmland good for lettuce productionNew guidelines require remedial action if leafy greens exposed to animal fecesTypically includes eliminating affected portion of crop

ResponseAnalysis identified potential for increase in birdsNo increase in habitat for birds that forage in fields compared to current conditions

Ducks and geese may roost and loaf, but not a changeHabitat for gulls at SCH ponds, but may keep away from fields

Overall bird population decrease over time from habitat loss

13

Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.

IssuesWesternmost New River pond site is most easily reclaimable landNeed to accommodate runoff in natural drainagesCost of SCH Project

ResponseNew River ponds truncated on western side

Too costly (long berms for small amount of habitat)

Avoids drains carrying natural runoff

Combination of New and Alamo River sites eliminated due to cost

14

Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.

IssuesFish for birds could be raised in hatcheries, not ponds

ResponseRaising fish at hatcheries would not meet Project goals

Would not develop range of aquatic habitats to support fish and wildlife species dependent on Salton Sea

Would not develop/refine information needed to manage SCH Project through adaptive management

IssuesPrevious technique of using geotubes as berms presented

ResponseUse of geotubes being considered in geotechnical study

15

Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.

IssuesSaline water not needed to address selenium issues

ResponseRange of salinity retained (20-40 ppt)

Selenium in river water likely to reduce hatching success in some birds and likely to increase risk of embryo malformation

Salinity range would minimize vegetation, reducing potential for bioaccumulation and mosquitoes

IssuesPotential conflicts with geothermal development

ResponseMeetings held with geothermal developers and IID to address potential conflicts

16

IID and Geothermal Developers

IssuesProposed SCH pond sites in known geothermal area Geothermal companies have contractual right to develop supplies Geothermal facilities (wellpads, roads, power lines) may be located in or near SCH ponds

ResponseSCH agencies working cooperatively with geothermal companies to avoid conflictsSCH facilities would not preclude future geothermal development

17

IID and Geothermal Developers, cont.

IssuesPotential conflicts between sensitive species using SCH ponds and future geothermal development

Construction disturbances

Emergency brine basin could attract wildlife

Bird collisions with transmission lines

Accidents (blow-outs, leaking wells)

ResponseSCH agencies coordinating with IID to avoid conflicts with operations and obtain appropriate coverage in HCP/NCCP

18

Sonny Bono National Wildlife Refuge

IssuesFuture NWR projects planned at proposed SCH pond sites

Red Hill Bay shallow water habitat

Unit 1 A/B Ponds Reclamation

ResponseSCH pond footprint redesigned to avoid Red Hill BayExploring potential for sharing infrastructure with USFWS Guidance being developed to ensure SCH compatibility with refuge management, including Unit 1 A/B Reclamation

19

Vector Control Agencies

IssuesAgencies raised concerns regarding potential increase in mosquito habitat at SCH ponds and sedimentation basins

ResponseUC Riverside mosquito expert added to SCH team

Providing input into EIS/EIR impact analysis

Developing Vector Control Plan in coordination with Imperial County and Coachella Valley vector control agencies

20

Elected Officials

Imperial County SupervisorsJack TerrazasRay CastilloGary Wyatt

State Senator Bill Emmerson

State Senator Juan Vargas staff

Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez staff

21

Questions and Discussion

22

Species Conservation Habitat Project

Special Studies Overview

23

Questions Addressed by Special Studies

How to design SCH ponds that are ecologically productive and efficient?

Biological requirements for productive fish community -Fish tolerancePond design and operation - Hydrologic modelingHow to build stable berms - Geotechnical studies

Will SCH ponds increase ecotoxicity risks while providing habitat?

Sediment and water contaminants (Se, As, Bo, pesticides)Selenium ecorisk

24

Fish Tolerance Study

What are biological requirements for thriving fish community?

Which tilapia species are best given their tolerances?

What range of salinity and water temperature can be tolerated?

Tested 3 tilapia species 3 salinities (20, 45, 60 ppt) 3 temperatures (11-16°C, 23-28°C, 33-38°C)

25

26

California Mozambique California Mozambique tilapia hybrid, maletilapia hybrid, male

Redbelly tilapia

Good survival in cold,20 ppt

Blue tilapia

Wild fish – best survival in cold, 20 & 45 pptHatchery strain – very high survival in medium temps, moderate survival in hot Poor survival in experiment

Found mainly in fresher waters

Lousy survival when

salty (60 ppt) plus

extreme temperature

(hot or cold)

Hydrologic Modeling

Water quality conditions in ponds raise challenges for operations and biota

Desired salinity (20-40 ppt)Selenium levels higher in fresh water

Salinity tolerated by fish, suppresses vegetation and mosquitoes

Evaporation of river water takes too long, concentrates selenium

Blend of Sea and river water more efficient

SCH pond depth and operations affect DO and temperaturePonds become stratified in summer (May to October)

Low oxygen at bottom in spring and fall

Tilapia can go to surface, but invertebrates may not

Winter temperatures could fall below fish tolerance

Deeper ponds stratified more often27

Preliminary Geotechnical Studies

Characterized soils/geotechnical information for preliminary engineering design

Sea sediments – low strength, dispersive

Subject to erosion from wave action

Potential for compressibility, seepage, expansion, liquefaction

Possible berm instability from seismic shaking

Low risk of injury, property damage from berm failure

28

Preliminary Geotechnical Studies, cont.Conditions have implications for construction

Increased construction costs due to soil characteristics

May use onsite soils to minimize cost

Playa soils may be too weak to support traditional construction equipment

May need very flat slopes for berms

Need to minimize seepage, dispersion of soils

Shoreline protection needed

29

Contaminant SurveyArsenic and boron not a problem

Selenium Present in sediment, but not at toxic levelsRewetting sediments releases some Se, but greater source from river water

PesticidesHigher concentrations close to river mouth and below surfaceSubmerged sediments had lower concentrations than exposed playaDDE is predominant organochlorine pesticide in sediment

30

Selenium Ecorisk

Elevated risk compared to other habitats

Moderate risk of reduced hatching

Risk higher with Alamo River, low salinity

UncertaintiesBioaccumulation rates in fish-eating birds Proportion of diet from SCH ponds

Reduce risk through managementUse New River waterHigher salinity (35 ppt)Flush ponds in first yearMonitor SCH pondsOngoing research 31

BirdsBirds

Fish

Invertebrates

PhytoplanktonAlgaePlants

WaterSediment

SeleniumSelenium

General conclusions Use CM tilapia, wild from Sea and from hatchery, to accommodate variable conditionsLow oxygen at bottom and in spring and fall; cold in winterSelenium - moderate risk for some bird species that breed at Sea, can be reduced with managementWeak, dispersive soils - challenging for construction, berms

Remaining uncertainties and data gapsSoil dispersion in saline waterSelenium transfer from fish to birdsSelenium management using constructed wetlands

Conclusions

32

Adaptive Management

33

PlanGoals & objs,alternatives

DesignPhysical designs, operations plan

ImplementConstruct and operate ponds

MonitoringWater quality,

fish & birds, Se

EvaluateAnalysis, data management

Adapt, LearnDecision-making

framework, communications

Questions and Discussion

34

Species Conservation Habitat Project

Crafting the Alternatives

35

Prior Alternatives

New River, gravity diversion (2,460 acres)

New River, pumped diversion (2,260 acres)

Alamo River, gravity diversion (2,420 acres)

Alamo River, pumped diversion (2,860 acres)

New and Alamo River, gravity diversion (4,880 acres)

New and Alamo River, pumped diversion (5,120 acres)

36

Factors Used to Refine SCH Alternatives

Stakeholder input

Existing and proposed land uses

Special studies

Geotechnical information

Costs

37

Current Alternatives

Combinations of New and Alamo River sites eliminatedToo costly

SCH pond footprints modifiedRed Hill Bay eliminated at Alamo River due to NWR plansNWR Unit 1 A/B in but will coordinate with NWRFar western pond at New River truncated due to high cost for small amount of habitat, drains

Ongoing coordination with geothermal companies to ensure that design does not preclude geothermal development

Not under DSOD jurisdiction as designed

38

Alternative 1, New River, Gravity Diversion

2,500 acres

Independent ponds for West New and East New

Cascading ponds for West New and East New (berm @ -236)

39

40

Alternative 2, New River, Pumped Diversion

2,100 acres

Independent ponds for West New and East New

Far West New extended pond, but truncated from original skinny extension west

41

42

Alternative 3, New River Combination, Pumped Diversion

2,900 acres

Independent ponds for West New, East New, and Far West New

Cascading ponds for West New, East New, and Far West New (berm @ -236)

43

44

Alternative 4, Alamo River, Gravity Diversion

2,290 acres

Independent ponds for Morton Bay

Cascading pond for Morton Bay that includes Mullet Island (berm @ -239)

45

46

Alternative 5, Alamo River, Pumped Diversion

2,080 acres

Independent pond for Morton Bay

Wister Beach extended pond

47

48

Alternative 6, Alamo River Combination, Pumped Diversion

2,940 acres

Independent ponds for Morton Bay and Wister Beach extended pond

Cascading ponds for Morton Bay and Wister Beach extended pond (berm @ -239)

49

50

Next Steps

EIS/EIR will identify the environmentally superior alternative and lead agencies’ preferred alternative

Corps of Engineers 404(b)(1) analysis will identify the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)

Design will continue to be refined based on Input from technical studiesInput from Stakeholders, SCH TeamAvailable budget and projected costsPlanned land uses

Constructed acreage may be less than evaluated in EIS/EIR due to budget considerations

51

Questions and Discussion

52

Salton SeaFinancial Assistance Program

53

54

Financial Assistance Program General

$3 million to local entities for habitat restoration and research projects

FAP will be competitive proposal solicitation processApplications will be made online through DWR’s Bond Management SystemProposals must be consistent with Salton Sea Restoration Act

54

Financial Assistance Program Schedule (Subject to Change)

June 2011: Public review of draft solicitation package

August 2011: Public release of final FAP Proposal Solicitation Package and Guidelines

August 2011: Conduct applicant workshops Applicants have 2 months to prepare proposals December 2011: Review panel to make recommendation for funding

5555

Questions and Discussion

56

Stakeholder Feedback and

General Discussion

57

58

SCH Information Dissemination

Website (www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea)

Stakeholders meetings/workshops

Periodic newsletters

Public meetings

58

59

Contact Information

Co-Program Managers/CEQA LeadsKent Nelson, DWR Program Manager

(916) 653-9190

[email protected]

David Elms, DFG Project Manager(760) 200-9372

[email protected]

NEPA LeadLanika Cervantes, Corps Project Manager

(760) 602-4838

[email protected]

59