DRAFT

Bureau of Reclamation Comments on the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Dated August, 1999

General Comments

The report does not present an equal, consistent interpretation and application of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) policies and regulations in regard to endangered species. Three of the alternatives propose reducing water exports to the Central Valley and Bay-Delta, yet rely on programs like Cal-Fed to build dams (that may never be constructed) to provide water for salmonid mitigation. If this were proposed by an action agency, one or both of these agencies would find it unacceptable. On page 3-147 the significant impacts on Delta smelt and Sacramento splittail are minimized by the sentence beginning: "However" , yet in other forums the Service consistently holds that any reduction in Delta flows would have unacceptable impacts on these species.

Considerable space is wasted by use of the wide-margin format and the graphics and quotes should be deleted. The apparent reason for the use of this format is to emphasize text in the body of the report which tends to bias the reader.

As much as possible, descriptive adjectives should be used to provide a clear unbiased picture for the reader. On page 3-40, first full paragraph, harmful effects are attributed to the Trinity River Division, yet the harm is not explained, i.e. what is the harm, and who are what is harmed?

Although the listing of significance criteria for several of the sections adheres well to CEQA requirements, it should not be used to describe the environmental consequences. For example on page 3-147, it states that "adverse significant impacts would occur to Delta smelt, Sacramento splittail, and other Delta fish species as a result of changes in Delta inflows and outflows." It is left to the reader to wonder which of the eleven significance criteria would occur to which of the fish listed and to what magnitude. Then the reader must decide what the consequences of those significant impacts are. In other words, significant impacts to each species should be clearly described and the consequence of those impacts should be articulated.

Figures and tables frequently do not offer complete explanations of their contents, the sources of data and/or data calculations, and the titles are sometimes inadequate. Each figure and table should be independent and self-explanatory.

The document should describe the Safety of Dams (SOD) criteria, concerns and operation as it impacts river geo-morphology and biological resources. The alternatives should be evaluated including the SOD criteria which could make significant contributions to the desired objectives. The Safety of Dams concern has the potential to increase water supplies from Trinity Reservoir for all objectives while minimizing the potential negative interactions between Safety of Dam releases and fishery objectives.

The Affected Environment should present a description of specific Indian trust assets and the legal instruments that established the trust relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government. This presentation should clearly and unambiguously define the trust assets. This section, however, takes an extra step by interpreting the government's responsibility with respect to tribal trust assets. The text provides several editorial comments that interpret federal responsibilities and are inappropriate for an EIS. Two examples are: a) "The alternatives in this DEIS/EIR have important implications for the Federal government's duty to protect those rights (Page 3-173)." b) "For Indians of the Klamath/Trinity Region... that its degradation has had a profoundly devastating impact (Page 3-175)." The Affected Environment section should describe the trust relationships - not make judgements.

The text should distinguish the Delta from the Bay-Delta. The two terms are used synonymously. An example of this is found on page 3-48, fourth full paragraph, first sentence which states, "The Bay-Delta is located at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and consists . . " This should be revised to, "The Delta is located at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers." As a point of clarification, the revised sentence should be followed by, "It is generally recognized as the area bounded by the City of Sacramento on the Sacramento River, Chipps Island at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, and the City of Stockton on the San Joaquin River."

Specific Comments

Page Summary-16, third sentence: The statement, "Indeed, Flow Evaluation and Percent Inflow showed an increase in energy available for sale in September during average conditions," assumes Trinity River exports are shifted from the spring/summer to the summer/fall period which is called into question by subsequent comments concerning Whiskeytown reservoir heating and effects on CVP operations.

Page Summary-16, paragraph 1: Simulations of 1922-90 hydrological data indicate that Maximum Flow, Flow Evaluation, and Percent Inflow would reduce the net annual CVP energy available for sale (generation less project-use) by 24, 7, and 5 percent, respectively. Although Flow Evaluation and Percent Inflow showed an increase in energy available for sale in September (see comment above), there is less energy available for sale in the remaining months during average conditions. The value of hydropower generation impacts ranged from a loss of $26 million under Maximum Flow to an increase of $6 million under State Permit.

Page Summary-22, Summary Table: The reduction of CVP available energy from the Maximum Flow, Flow Study, and Percent Inflow as compared to No-Action should be 24, 7, and 5 percent.

Page Summary-23, last full paragraph: The CVP contractor allocations are not the only cause of the problems during extremely dry years because they receive water as a byproduct of environmental deliveries.

Page Summary-25, Table 4, Water Resources, first row: Changes to water supply could result in an impact if the development of additional water supplies are not implemented. The CALFED and CVPIA actions might not be implemented, or, if implemented may not make up the losses in supplies to the Central Valley associated with the DEIS/EIR alternatives.

Page 1-16, Section 1.6.1, paragraph 1, second sentence: The "surplus" of 704,000 acre-feet was probably based on a Reclamation yield study and appears to be based on an assumption of the State permit for Trinity River releases and critical drought hydrology. The paragraph then goes on to compare this "surplus" to actual exports, which vary dramatically in hydrology. This paragraph should characterize historical Trinity River Division operations and discuss historic river and export management.

Page 1-17, Figure 1-2: The release to the river in 1997, should be 811,700 ac-ft. The 1998 information is now available.

Page 2-2, Section 2.1, paragraph 2, immediately below Table 2-1; Page 2-18, second bullet, paragraph 1; and Page 2-45, Table 2-9: These sections do not adequately address Reclamation's Safety of Dams criteria and its potential effects on the Trinity River environment.

Page 2-7, paragraph 2, first 2 sentences: It should be stipulated that the hydrograph shown on page 2-9 is an example of operations under the mandate to provide 340,000 af of water. It should also be noted that current adaptive management practices change the dates of peak releases from year to year.

Page 2-12, paragraph beginning with "Water Operations.", second sentence: During most water years it is impossible to predict a wet or extremely wet year in January and often into February. This part of the alternative would be impossible to implement.

Page 2-16, Section 2.1.4: This section should emphasize the bounds of the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study (TRFES). The TRFES recommends "permanent" annual flow volumes in five water year types. These five volumes specify the total volume of water available for meeting the objectives listed in the TRFES. The flow schedule, or five hydrographs, of each of the five water year types is entirely variable insofar as the schedule strives to meet the management objectives. The purpose of the adaptive management program, also recommended in the TRFES, is to annually determine the annual flow schedule, utilizing the permanent annual volume. The five hydrographs recommended by the TRFES are only the first estimate of the flows necessary to meet the management objectives. Future annual flow schedules will be recommended through the scientific process of the adaptive management program. The EIS should reflect the recommend- ations of the TRFES and emphasize the permanent flow volume and the variable flow schedule for meeting management objectives.

Page 2-17, Section 2.1.4, paragraph 1: There is insufficient information to determine if the adaptive management program proposed would allow the dynamic, responsive management of Trinity River flows to account for changes in hydrology and coordination with other CVP operations.

Page 2-21, paragraph 1: The operational tradeoffs proposed in this paragraph should be described in detail. There are power, carryover and temperature tradeoffs that would occur between the two watersheds with this change in operations.

Page 2-25, paragraph beginning with "Water Operations.": Same comment as Page 2-21, paragraph 1 above.

Page 3-13, Figure 3-4: This figure needs interpretation to explain the significance of the contents and identify key geographical features relevant to the DEIS/EIR.

Page 3-19, Figure 3-6: Same comment as for Figure 3-4.

Page 3-40, second full paragraph: The fourth and fifth sentence should be changed to the following: "Lewiston Dam releases are the major component of Trinity River flows until the confluence with Indian Creek. Downstream of the confluence with the North Fork the accretion of tributary inflows reduces the harmful effects of the TRD."

Page 3-40, second full paragraph: Again, SOD material should be explained in detail. Releases are made from Trinity Reservoir to evacuate reservoir space in order to minimize potential glory hole spills. Trinity Reservoir Safety of Dams releases are preferentially exported to the Central Valley to produce energy generation. If conditions on the Sacramento River are near flood stage, then Safety of Dams releases are re-routed to the Trinity River.

Page 3-40, third full paragraph, second sentence: Change the word "determined" to "influenced".

Page 3-40, last paragraph, second sentence: Change "Shasta Division" to "CVP".

Page 3-47, Under Central Valley.: The vast majority of CVP contractual water has been delivered to agricultural users. A large portion and possible the majority of the water utilized and developed by the CVP goes to meeting the types of objectives listed. It is not clear what is intended meaning of the above paragraph, the single objective of contractual delivery or the multiobjective nature of CVP operations.

Page 3-48, third full paragraph, third sentence: This sentence should be rewritten as, "In years when the CVP facilities cannot be operated to meet the required temperature and storage objectives, Reclamation will re-initiate consultation with NMFS."

Page 3-48, last full paragraph: The operations to comply with the Winter-run Biological Opinion should include the following:

1) Reclamation attempts to maintain a minimum coldwater pool in the both Shasta and Trinity Reservoirs in order to meet each basins temperature objectives. It is not just Shasta reservoir coldwater pool that is managed but both river systems, as well as Whiskeytown reservoir and clear creek flows.

2) Spring exports from the TRD do allow cool water to be held in Shasta for later release, but this is not the exclusive reason for spring exports. A major factor in the transbasin export pattern is the reservoir warming effects of Whiskeytown lake. Similar to Lewiston, if water is not flowing through Whiskeytown Reservoir it has a tendency to warm in the Redding heat of late May-June. If spring exports are not performed at this time, Whiskeytown Reservoir could heat up and excessive Shasta coldwater pool reserves may be needed to thermally dilute the heated water until Whiskeytown reservoir "refilled" with Trinity imports.

3) As a general rule, CVP operations begin significant transbasin export amounts in late May and June to help prevent Whiskeytown warming effects by partially "refilling" Whiskeytown reservoir (capacity 240,000 af) with Trinity import water. The remaining Trinity exports are provided in summer months to keep Whiskeytown flowing, prevent excessive warming, and conserve Shasta coldwater resources, and produce high economic value summer and early fall power generation. The operational objective is to keep Whiskeytown Reservoir cool while integrating TRD imports in an efficient manner for all CVP objectives, (temp control, water supply, and power).

Page 3-49, Figure 3-11: Reclamation dams should be identified. Other facilities such as canal and pumping plants are included. It is misleading to identify in the title and in the legend that CVP facilities will be depicted.

Page 3-51, Figure 3-12: Millerton Lake should be in included.

Page 3-60, Table 3.3: It seems inconsistent that the Banks Pumping Plant (a SWP facility) would increase by 2% in the dry period with the Flow Evaluation alternative.

Page 3-105, paragraph 1 second sentence and right margin: The statement, "Generally speaking, the greater the release volume form the dams, the less susceptible the river's temperature is to other factors. Trinity Reservoir releases tend to be generally cold (47-42 F), whereas Lewiston Reservoir, which is much shallower, tends to provide releases that more affected by ambient temperatures," is not always a fact. There will be less influence during the high release period, but at a cost to other temperature dependent times of the year. If the natural snowmelt is passed through Trinity Dam to the Trinity River, significant change occurs to the coldwater pool resources that are relied upon for cool releases at other times of the year. This is an operational tradeoff and has the potential to be a seasonal negative influence. This is another operational tradeoff, not a statement of fact, and should not be in the right hand margin.

Page 3-106, paragraph 2 beginning "Central Valley", second sentence and left margin: The northern CVP system controls temperatures in the upper Sacramento River. Trinity River water is a key component of that control.

Page 3-109, last paragraph, continued on page 3-110: The temperature modeling analysis performed in the EIS assumed operations of a Shasta TCD and this facility is not new as the text suggests. In fact, it should be pointed out that a TCD has been operationally assumed and assumed to be highly efficient in its performance. If the TCD is not as efficient as assumed in the modeling analysis, which it most likely is not, then the performance to Sacramento River temperature criteria can also not be performed as well as modeled. (Also, see comment on page 3-48.)

Page 3-111, paragraph 2: Water quality standards are much more difficult to meet in critically dry years because there is less water supply to meet them and multi-objective CVP purposes must be made on a tradeoff basis with limited resources. Water quality standards become more protective (or enhanced) as conditions become wetter and there generally are more water resources and project flexibility to meet these competing multi-objective needs. The CVP no longer operates to meet D-1485 standards, but is now guided by the SWRCB May 1995 Water Quality Control Plan as amended by WR95-1 and 95-6.

Page 3-111, last paragraph, first 3 sentences: It is not clear how carryover effects were evaluated if only a one-year snapshot was modeled. The carryover changes due to the Trinity River alternatives is one of the most significant influences on how the CVP will be managed for temperatures on both the Trinity basin and the Sacramento basin. Many of the years picked for analysis are within a drought sequence and, therefore, heavily influenced by previous year management actions.

Page 3-112, first full paragraph: See comments on page 3-48 and 3-109 concerning the TCD.

Page 3-112, second full paragraph and margin: The statement, "PROSIM includes operating rules ensuring that minimum water quality standards are maintained in the Bay-Delta," is wrong. PROSIM includes estimates of requirements assumed to meet water quality requirements. There is no guarantee that these estimates will meet the intended minimum water quality standard.

Page 3-113, Table 3-7: It is not clear how this table is cross-comparing Trinity River temperature performance with Sacramento River temperature performance. The origin and nature (long term or short term) of the data used in this table should be stated. The operational relationship of higher Trinity River flows to temperature performance should be explained. Also, there is no mention of powerplant bypass and/or slugging as a means of controlling Lewiston temperatures.

Page 3-116: The text fails to disclose the effects of the various alternatives on non-listed salmonids in the Central Valley. Presumably there would be some effect, since temperature violations under the Preferred Alternative are projected to occur at a "slightly higher frequency than under the No Action Alternative" (page 3-114, second full paragraph.).

Page 3-117, paragraph 1, first sentence: The suggestion that "potentially significant water quality (impacts to listed salmonids in the Sacramento River) related impacts could be lessened by the development of additional water supplies to meet demands" [through the CALFED Bay -Delta Program, etc.] is disingenuous. Unmet or inadequate mitigation for actions undertaken could result in reduced populations of Central Valley species.

Page 3-119, paragraph 2: This paragraph should be rewritten as "The native anadromous salmonid species of primary interest in the mainstem Trinity River and its tributaries include two species of Pacific salmon - chinook and coho - and a third species, steelhead trout. Of the three species, there are two spawning populations of chinook salmon (fall and spring) and two spawning populations of steelhead (winter and summer). All anadromous species begin their life in fresh water, then migrate to the ocean to mature, and finally return to spawn in fresh water. The various species, and spawning populations within a given species, differ in their biological requirements and habitat needs (Table 3-8)."

Page 3-120, paragraph 2, second sentence: Should be rewritten as, "Their life history is depicted in Table 3-9." The remainder of the text in this sentence is replaced by new text on page 3-119, paragraph 2.

Page 3-125, third full paragraph: Explain the status of the offspring of freshwater-spawned progeny of hatchery-produced salmonids (i.e. parents in generation 1 spawned in hatchery, progeny in generation 2 spawned in river, offspring in generations 3-plus spawned in river) in meeting these goals.

Page 3-127, paragraph 1, last 2 sentences: If 47% are natural spawners then .47x34,670=16,295 which does not equal 34,670-22,440=12,230.

Page 3-127, paragraph 2, last sentence: The hatchery goal of 9,000 should be added to the 34,670 to compare to 45,600.

Page 3-128, paragraph 2: The text on page 3-119 (paragraph 3) indicates the winter steelhead is one of the species of salmonids that is "of primary interest", the TRPP goals (Table 3-10) do not distinguish winter steelhead, and the text in this paragraph indicates escapement of winter steelhead cannot be estimated. Please reconcile the management intent for winter steelhead.

Page 3-141, Table 3-13: This table needs further detailed explanation. The average annual losses over the 1922-90 simulation period should be given to form a baseline and give the reader an indication of the magnitude of losses. There should be some indication of the affects over a longterm period as well as comparisons of losses during dry periods verses wet periods. A complete explanation of why these changes occur and the mechanisms that cause these changes is also needed.

Page 3-143, first full paragraph, sentence 2: There is no mitigation identified in section 3.4

Page 3-147, first full paragraph, sentences 3 and 4: Please explain how these adverse impacts could occur in light of the discussion on page 3-145 (third full paragraph) which defines the level of changes required to cause an adverse effect.

Page 3-173, last paragraph: The section Rights to Wildlife and Vegetation Resources does not provide any legal basis for identifying these values as trust assets. Legal instruments for establishing these resources as trust assets should be presented.

Page 3-174, Table 3-21: The term "trust species" is undefined. The legal instruments that created the trust relationship do not identify specific species, with the possible exception of salmon. Specific citations should be referenced that identify the trust responsibility to specific species. Table 3-21 also identified specific species that, while of important cultural significance, are not specifically identified in the legal instruments that established the trust relationships. This table is more appropriately place in the Cultural Environment section since not all these species are specifically trust assets.

Page 3-175: The section entitled Cultural Environment belongs under a separate section and should not be placed under Indian Trust Assets. This section describes important ethnographic information regarding the river. Ceremonies, for example, are not trust assets. This section can be summarized for the EIS and the entire text placed within an appendix.

Page 3-187, last paragraph, first sentence: This sentence is awkward and should be reworded to clarify it.

Page 3-239, Section 3.8.2: It would aid understanding if assumptions were stated at the beginning of this section (i.e. reductions in exports are equal to river flow increases).

Page 3-293, paragraph 2, last sentence: It should be noted that after 2004, the contract with PG&E will expire and Western may/may not have the authorization to purchase energy.

Page 3-299, first sentence: The statement, "Reduction in reliable Western power are likely to be offset by more power from other sources," should be changed to, "Reduction in reliable CVP hydropower generation are likely to be offset by more power from other sources."

Page 3-300, last two paragraphs: Hydrological conditions are the impetus for the CVP hydropower system operations. How much power being generated, consumed, and available for marketing will depend on whether we are in a dry, wet, or above/sub normal water year. This method assumes a set of synthetic dry months/year regardless of hydrological conditions; specifically, it ignores the CVP reservoir conditions in any particular water year type. It comprises a set of synthetic years that do not resemble any specific operating or chronological year within the 69-year simulation period. Based on our analysis of the CVPIA PEIS, the synthetic dry year method has anomalous reservoir profiles which does not characterize the CVP operations. For example, data shows Clair Engle reservoir being filled from 650 to 1300 TAF in April and then ramped back down to 700 TAF in May; a change of 600 TAF. This implies we would have spilled 380 TAF. Shasta storage is filled from 2.2 to 4.2 MAF in April and ramped back down to 2.2 MAF in May; a change of 2 MAF in one month. This means we would have spilled 1 MAF in April. This is not possible especially in a dry/critical dry year scenario, and clearly this does not reflect actual CVP operations. The same phenomena were also observed at Folsom and New Melones reservoirs.

Also, operating assumptions at the regulating reservoirs and other CVP facilities such as Whiskeytown reservoir are not known for all water year types. In dispatching generation to system loads, reservoirs' operating criteria may have been violated. The text did not address the flows assumptions into and from the reregulating reservoirs and how monthly flows from PROSIM are divided up to daily and hourly flows. Since the maximum generating capacity, which is marketed by Western, is computed based on these flows, clarification on this subject would be helpful to stakeholders and all interested parties. Most importantly, operations not conforming to the regulating reservoirs criteria could have serious environmental impacts to the Sacramento River fishery.

Reclamation strongly recommends the use of energy and capacity produced in a historically dry period; specifically, 1929-1934 for the CVP power production analysis under the dry/critical dry conditions. This period represents real chronological and hydrological conditions under which actual CVP operations are exemplified during a dry/critical dry year. As of January 1999, in addition to computing the maximum electrical capacity based on reservoir storage, the latest version of PROSIM has the capability to calculate the load-carrying capacity in all water year types based on PG&E power system demands. Data available from PROSIM for all simulations is appropriate for use in the analysis; particularly, in comparison to the alternatives.

Pages 306 and 307, Table 3-47: We suggest the following changes: Under "Operations": The simulated period is from 1922-1990 for the average period. The dry period is 1929-1934. Thus, the capacity (MW) values are to be reviewed and revised. Under Power Marketing: See Page 3-
300 comment on Synthetic years above. Also under Power Marketing: The table shows Dry-
year Firm load-carrying capacity available for sale is 1,274 MW. This is misleading to the reader since it may be the highest capacity that is available in one particular month possibly in June or July. However, in the remaining months, the available capacity could be as low as 200 MW in a dry period.

Page 3-371, last full paragraph, second sentence: Change "11" to "111".

Page 4-2, last paragraph and margin: The statement, "Implementation of the alternatives considered in the draft CVPIA PEIS would improve fish and wildlife habitats, but would reduce water supply reliability to CVP water service contractors," might not hold true in all water years. The alternative considered in the CVPIA PEIS would improve fish and wildlife habitats in non critical drought periods. In critical drought periods, the fish and wildlife habitats may actually degrade as a result of the PEIS alternatives.

Page 4-9, third full paragraph, first sentence and margin: The statement that, "... minimum contract deliveries and even deliveries to water rights holders cannot be maintained in the American River Division," is true but far too narrow in scope. Demand for environmental water is far outpacing what the reliability of the facilities and hydrology can provide throughout the CVP. During normal and wet years the CVP is incurring operating risks to supply water for environmental purposes. The consequences of taking those risks will be manifested during the next drought years for both contractors and the environment.