Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Stakeholders Meeting April 12, 2011.
59
Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Stakeholders Meeting • April 12, 2011
-
Upload
allison-wheeler -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of 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
David Elms, DFG Project Manager(760) 200-9372
NEPA LeadLanika Cervantes, Corps Project Manager
(760) 602-4838
59
