boards (board [s) amendments to strengthen and clarify the ... · pdf...

September 1, 2017

Jeanine Townsend Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I St., 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected]

RE: Salton Sea Dear State Water Resources Control Board:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, Pacific Institute, and

Sierra Club California, we write to offer our comments in anticipation of the State Water Resources Control

Board’s (Board’s) September 7 Public Workshop regarding the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP)

and the Draft Stipulated Order for Future Action by the State Water Board (Order). As discussed in the

following, the draft Order offers several improvements over the status quo: 1) it requires that at least 50%

of the project acreage milestones “provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife that depend on the Salton

Sea ecosystem;” 2) it commits the Board to annual monitoring and assessment workshops, facilitating

accountability for the SSMP; and 3) it memorializes the acreage milestones in the draft SSMP Phase I: 10-

Year Plan, offering an independent basis for assessment. While the draft order provides some

improvements, we offer the attached amendments to strengthen and clarify the state’s commitments.

Further, even with an improved draft order, our organizations are concerned that more promises and more

plans do not equal real projects on the ground to address the imminent and significant human health and

environmental threat posed by the water transfer when the mitigation water ends in December 2017.

There are still no state habitat or dust control projects in the ground, likely due to insufficient staff

resources dedicated by the state. And, there is less than $100 million available in state funding for projects

at the Sea when there is a need for more than several hundred million dollars to complete the minimum

amount of promised projects and infrastructure to deliver water to those projects. This lack of progress

mailto:[email protected]

NGO Salton Sea comment letter September 1, 2017

p. 2 of 5

and sufficient funding suggests that aggressive oversight by the Board and the legislature will be required, if

the milestones in the draft Order are to be achieved and public and ecological health are to be protected.

Draft Stipulated Order

The draft order memorializes the acreage milestones in the March draft of the SSMP Phase I: 10-Year Plan

and – importantly – establishes a minimum habitat percentage: “24. No less than 50% of the acreage

described in paragraph 23 shall provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife that depend on the Salton Sea

ecosystem.” This is a significant improvement over the 10-Year Plan itself, which offered no specific habitat

targets at all. It is important to note that habitat projects also provide air quality benefits, truly creating

‘multi-benefit solutions’. However, because the draft Order does not define “habitat benefits,” or require

purpose-built habitat, incidental or unintended habitat benefits, as well as temporary or ephemeral

benefits that might occur with vegetated dust control methods, could be counted toward the 50%

minimum under the current language, which would counter the intent of this requirement and Order. We

have provided language to address this discrepancy.

Furthermore, the 50% minimum only refers to the restoration milestone acreage in paragraph 23. As noted

in Table 2 of the 10-Year Plan, the 29,800 acres of proposed projects is only 62% of the 48,300 acres

projected to be exposed from 2018-2028.1 The SSMP presentation2 at the public workshops in June and July

indicates that “waterless dust control” projects may be constructed (“as needed”) on the remaining 18,500

exposed acres. The 50% habitat milestone presumably does not apply to projects constructed on these

additional exposed acres.

Additionally, the draft order needs additional clarification regarding the phases beyond Phase 1, an

adjustment in the deadlines for completion of acreage targets to line up with the required reports to the

board, and a shorter period of time for any allowable shortfall to ensure that the acreage targets do not fall

behind by more than two years within this 10 year period.

Recommended Amendments to the Draft Stipulated Order

Attached is a redline version of the draft board order with our suggested revisions. Those revisions are

described below.

To clarify “habitat benefits,” add the following sentence to the end of paragraph 24 of the draft Order:

“Projects that provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife do not include dust control projects that involve

surface roughening, vegetation enhancement, and surface stabilization.”

To clarify that the existing paragraph 23 only refers to Phase I, we recommend that the paragraph be

amended to read:

23. Consistent with Recitals B, C, and D [of this Order], in addition to currently planned and funded habitat projects (Red Hill Bay, Torres Martinez wetlands and Species Conservation Habitat) and all QSA JPA funded Salton Sea mitigation projects, restoration milestones detailed below are necessary to address public

1 The SSMP has yet to release its Salton Sea hydrologic model, or the basis for the projected exposure. 2 At http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Workshop-Presentation-June-July-2017.pdf


p. 3 of 5

health and environmental concerns during Phase 1 of the SSMP. Additional projects and milestones will be developed for subsequent phases to address public health and environmental concerns.

To be consistent with the annual milestones shown in the March draft of the Phase I: 10-Year Plan, we

recommend that the January 1 dates for each of the milestones in Paragraph 23 be changed to December

31 of the prior year. For example, January 1, 2019 should be changed to December 31, 2018.

To clarify that December 31, 2022 is a firm deadline for the SSMP long-term plan, we recommend that the

final clause in paragraph 25 be changed to read “CNRA will develop complete a long-term plan by no later

than December 31, 2022.”

The reporting requirements described in paragraph 27 will encourage transparency and accountability. To

promote timely accountability, we recommend that the “cure” for missed milestones be changed, to the

following: “Should an annual milestone shortfall exceed 20 percent of a year’s annual obligation for more

than two years, the report will also include a plan that will cure the deficiency within 12 months.” While we

would prefer a stronger sanction to encourage the Administration to work assiduously to achieve the

project milestones, we recognize the Board’s limited authority. Any suggestion of sanctions stronger than

plans to cure deficiencies would be welcomed warmly.

Salton Sea Management Program

While the draft stipulated order offers some improvement over the status quo, the continued lack of state

projects on the ground concerns us greatly. We encourage the members of the Board to review the

comment letters submitted by Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute and Sierra Club

California over the past two and a half years (attached for your convenience); most of the observations and

recommendations made in previous letters remain acutely relevant. Indeed, with less than four months

until the obligation to deliver mitigation water to the Salton Sea expires, the continued absence of on-the-

ground state habitat and dust control projects suggests that the SSMP will not achieve the project acreage

milestones listed in the draft Order.

Two key factors will determine the success of the SSMP: 1) adequate funding; and 2) adequate project

implementation and management. The draft order acknowledges the funding challenge with:

20. The Board further finds and declares that successful management of a smaller but sustainable Salton

Sea will require the active participation and support of the federal government, affected local and

regional governing bodies, affected tribal governments, environmental and philanthropic organizations,

and the State of California. While the importance, cost and scale of this endeavor will exceed what can

be expected from any single entity, the State has acknowledged that its role as a catalyst is essential in

advancing the cause of restoration.

This is an important point in the draft order, but we note that the identification of specific sources or ideas

to finance the SSMP is sorely lacking. Without adequate funding, the SSMP will fail, jeopardizing the health

of the more than 650,000 people that live in the Coachella and Imperial valleys – and the health of another


p. 4 of 5

million people across the border in Mexicali,3 as well as the fish and wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea

ecosystem. We encourage the Administration to work with the Legislature and stakeholders to obtain such

funding. In particular, we are following the current negotiations on a potential water and parks bond in the

State Legislature. Our organizations have been vigorously advocating for the inclusion of at least $300

million in any final bond passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. If a bond deal is passed and

there is not substantial new funding for the Sea, we believe that is a strong indication of a lack of

commitment by the State to follow through with any promises made in the draft order. While we recognize

that the Board lacks the authority and jurisdiction to order the Administration to pursue funding, it is

critical that the Board acknowledge the importance of funding for the success of the SSMP and take the

Administration’s pursuit of funding – or failure to do so – into account.

To its credit, the Administration budgeted, and the Legislature appropriated, $80.5 million for Salton Sea

activities for the fiscal years 2016/17 through 2018/19. It is important to remember that only $60 million of

this funding will be available for capital projects; the remainder has been set aside for agency salaries,

consultants, and overhead. These funds built upon existing funding, including some $45.4 million from

Prop. 84. Approximately $30 million of the Prop. 84 has been encumbered for the Species Conservation

Habitat project. The Board should request that the Natural Resources Agency provide a clear and complete

accounting of all outstanding bond funds that have been allocated for the Salton Sea by the end of this

calendar year, and should post this accounting report on the Board’s website.

Project implementation is also critical. Despite holding more than $110 million in Salton Sea accounts, the

Administration has yet to initiate construction on any projects at all. The Secretary of the Natural Resources

Agency approved the Species Conservation Habitat project more than nine years ago. That project has yet

to start construction. In August, DFW conducted the first fish surveys since October, 2008. Neither the

SSMP nor its consultant has released a hydrologic model for the Salton Sea. Recent presentations to SSMP

committees and to the public fail to reference the changing conditions at the Salton Sea, either in terms of

its elevation, salinity, bird counts, or air quality.

The Governor’s Salton Sea Task Force Agency Actions, released in October, 2015 – almost two years ago –

stated that “The Natural Resources Agency will take the following actions over an accelerated timeline:

…. Meet a short-term goal of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects at the

sea.” The Phase I: 10-Year Plan milestones would not achieve the minimum short-term goal until 2023.

Over the eight years between the release of the Agency Actions and the projected construction, more than

30,000 acre of playa will have been exposed. Attachment 2 shows a detailed assessment of the

Administration’s satisfaction of the goals and directives laid out in the Agency Actions. It is not encouraging.

As of the date of this letter, we have not seen a revised version of the March draft of the Phase I: 10-Year

Plan. Attached for your reference please find a copy of our comments on the March 16 draft. The delay in

3 It also increases California's health care liabilities because a large percentage of qualifying U.S./California residents live in Mexico and commute on a daily basis to work and seek healthcare in California. Because of the high poverty level and low income jobs it has become more affordable to the agricultural sector labor force to live in Mexico. If the farm labor population’s health is impaired, crops will not be harvested and the local economy will be adversely affected.


p. 5 of 5

releasing a final plan, indicate the insufficient staff resources dedicated to the SSMP, as well as the SSMP’s

low priority among the Administration’s other challenges.

Finally, while we appreciate the various plans and commitments made by the State, we also believe that

there have been insufficient staff resources allocated to the getting projects done at the Sea. We know

that the current state staff working on the Salton Sea program are working diligently, but they are only a

handful of people – and some are only working on this issue part time. The state must ramp up its staffing

and oversight of the Salton Sea work, and in particular, give the Assistant Secretary the direct staff

resources necessary to accomplish the goal of building thousands of acres of projects at the Sea in the next

10 years while also working through a longer-term plan for managing the Sea.

Most of the recommendations in our previous comment letters remain relevant.

While the draft stipulated order offers a mild improvement over the status quo, the pace of project implementation must accelerate dramatically if the Administration is to avoid a major human health and environmental crisis.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberly Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife Michael Lynes Kyle Jones Director of Public Policy Policy Advocate Audubon California Sierra Club California Pablo Garza CA Political Director, Ecosystems Environmental Defense Fund

Attachments 1. revisions to Aug. 11 draft stipulated order 2. previous comment letters 3. annotated Agency Actions 4. Salton Sea project timeline

Draft Stipulated Order Revising WRO 2002-0013 (revised)

Draft: August 11, 2017

Page 1 of 3

A. Whereas, an immediate, continued, and focused effort to manage a smaller but sustainable Salton Sea is necessary to protect public health and the environment.

B. Whereas, the Salton Sea Restoration Act, California Fish & Game Code section 2931(a) states that “it is the intent of the Legislature that the State of California undertake the restoration of the Salton Sea ecosystem and the permanent protection of the wildlife dependent on the ecosystem.”

C. Whereas, the Salton Sea Restoration Act, California Fish & Game Code section 2942 provides that the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency (CRNA) shall lead the state’s efforts to restore the Salton Sea.

D. Whereas, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has prepared Phase I of the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP) in furtherance of its Salton Sea Restoration objectives and is committed to constructing and maintaining habitat and dust-suppression projects that address public health and environmental concerns. The SSMP contemplates future phases, and a long-range plan.

E. Whereas, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (Board) on November 18, 2014, seeking to have the Board enter an order to ensure success of Salton Sea Restoration.

F. Whereas, the Board conducted workshops in 2015 and 2016 to examine issues related to Salton Sea restoration.

G. Whereas, on August 31, 2016, CNRA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of the Interior that provides, in pertinent part, that the State will have a lead role in the cooperative effort to restore the Salton Sea.

H. Whereas, on January 18, 2017, CNRA and the United States Department of the Interior entered into an Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding expressly identifying the importance of Salton Sea restoration as a critical component of plans for maintaining California’s long-term water supply reliability.

I. Whereas, on March 15, 2017, IID filed a motion with the Board seeking to have an evidentiary hearing to address its November 18, 2014 petition regarding Salton Sea Restoration.

J. Whereas, in addition to the mitigation requirements imposed by the federal and state endangered species laws, the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000-21177 et seq.) establishes requirements for the implementation of mitigation measures imposed to minimize the projected significant impacts of the Transfer Project. These mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program for the QSA transfers are not addressed and are unaffected by this Order.

The State Water Resources Control Board finds and determines as follows:

1. For the reasons set forth in Water Rights Order 2002-0013 (revised) and Water Rights Order 2002-0016, the delivery of “mitigation water” to the Salton Sea will terminate on December 31, 2017. Mitigation measures shall continue to proceed pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program as provided in the “Water Conservation and Transfer Project” Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement certified by IID and Amended and Restated in a September 2003 Addendum and incorporated into Water Right Order 2002-0013 (revised) including the four-step air quality plan outlined therein.

2. Water Right Order 2002-0013 (revised) is hereby modified by adding the following paragraphs as new independent conditions 19-27 pertinent to Salton Sea Restoration:

19. The Board finds and declares that restoration of a smaller but sustainable Salton Sea is feasible, that the State of California will lead and coordinate management efforts, and that implementation of projects to protect or improve air and water quality and wildlife habitat will be completed forthwith to avoid severe consequences to the State of



Page 2 of 3

California as a whole, to the health of Imperial and Coachella Valley residents, and to multiple wildlife habitats that exist at the Salton Sea and serve the Pacific Flyway.

20. The Board further finds and declares that successful management of a smaller but sustainable Salton Sea will require the active participation and support of the federal government, affected local and regional governing bodies, affected tribal governments, environmental and philanthropic organizations, and the State of California. While the importance, cost and scale of this endeavor will exceed what can be expected from any single entity, the State has acknowledged that its role as a catalyst is essential in advancing the cause of restoration.

21. The Board further finds that the ability to successfully manage a smaller but sustainable Sea will require cooperation from non-state property owners, surface lease holders, surface and subsurface mineral rights owners as well as air quality management districts with jurisdiction over the Sea to ensure land use entitlements are secured expeditiously and management project design is compatible with existing land use and water conveyance infrastructure.

22. The Board further finds that successful management of the exposed Salton Sea lakebed requires the cooperation of the State of California and air quality managers with jurisdiction over the Sea to develop future air quality projects.

23. Consistent with Recitals B, C, and D [of this Order], in addition to currently planned and funded habitat projects (Red Hill Bay, Torres Martinez wetlands and Species Conservation Habitat) and all QSA JPA funded Salton Sea mitigation projects, restoration milestones detailed below are necessary to address public health and environmental concerns during Phase 1 of the SSMP. Additional projects and milestones will be developed for subsequent phases to address public health and environmental concerns:

a. By January 1December 31, 20189, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on 500 acres of exposed playa.

b. By January 1December 31, 201920, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 1,300 acres of exposed playa.

c. By January 1December 31, 20201, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 1,700 acres of exposed playa.

d. By January 1December 31, 20212, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 3,500 acres of exposed playa.

e. By January 1December 31, 20223, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 1,750 acres of exposed playa.

f. By January 1December 31, 20234, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 2,750 acres of exposed playa.

g. By January 1December 31, 20245, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 2,700 acres of exposed playa.

h. By January 1December 31, 20256, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 3,400 acres of exposed playa.

i. By January 1December 31, 20267, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 4,000 acres of exposed playa.

j. By January 1December 31, 20278, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 4,000 acres of exposed playa.



Page 3 of 3

k. By January 1December 31, 20289, construction of habitat and dust-suppression projects shall be completed on an additional 4,200 acres of exposed playa.

24. No less than 50% of the acreage described in paragraph 23 shall provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife that depend on the Salton Sea ecosystem. Projects that provide habitat benefits for fish and wildlife do not include dust control projects that involve surface roughening, vegetation enhancement, and surface stabilization. 25. CNRA will develop subsequent 10-year phases of the SSMP based upon available information, with the development of each phase commencing no later than midway through each current phase. Beginning with the development of Phase II, and in close coordination with stakeholders, CNRA will complete develop a long-term plan by no later than December 31, 2022. 26. Annual milestones are cumulative and if they are not achieved or exceeded in any given year, the amount of the shortfall or excess in that year will carry over to the following year.

27. No later than March 31 each year, the Board will hold a public meeting to receive oral and written comments on the status of Salton Sea Restoration, including a report from state agencies identifying: (i) completed projects and milestones achieved in the prior year; (ii) amount of acreage of completed projects that provide dust suppression and habitat, broken down by habitat type; (iii) upcoming projects to be completed and milestones to be achieved prior to the next annual progress report; (iv) the status of financial resources and permits that have not been secured for future projects; (v) any anticipated departures from the dates and acreages identified in paragraph 23; and progress toward development of the long-range plan described in paragraph 25. Should an annual milestone shortfall exceed 20 percent of a year’s annual obligation for more than two consecutive years, the report will also include a plan that will cure the deficiency within 12 months.

28. The Board reserves jurisdiction to further amend conditions 19-27 of this order as necessary to ensure Salton Sea Restoration throughout the term of the QSA through its continuing jurisdiction under this order.

February 18, 2015 The Honorable Felicia Marcus Chair State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I St. Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Support for Imperial Irrigation District Request to Convene a Collaborative Process Dear Chairwoman Marcus: On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, the Pacific Institute and Sierra Club California, we write to thank you and the State Water Resources Control Board for scheduling a public workshop on March 18 regarding the status of the Salton Sea and Revised Order WRO 2002-0013. We support the Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) request to your board to convene a series of stakeholder meetings to discuss the current and future status of the State of California’s restoration efforts at the Salton Sea and discuss whether or not Revised Order WRO 2001-0013 should be amended. We are encouraged that the Board has scheduled this first workshop. We plan to participate in the workshop and will submit written comments in advance, as requested. As you know, the Salton Sea is our state’s largest lake and one of its most significant natural and environmental resources. The Salton Sea provides a diverse array of wildlife habitats that support several threatened and endangered species, as well as more than 400 species of resident and migratory birds, and serves as a critical link on the Pacific Flyway. The Sea is also home to the Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge and the Salton Sea State Recreation Area, both serving as recreational destinations and attracting thousands of visitors annually. Mitigation water currently delivered to the Salton Sea as required by the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and the Board’s Revised WRO 2002-13 will stop at the end of 2017. This will greatly accelerate the decline of the lake’s surface water level, roughly tripling the lake’s salinity within a dozen years, and will expose tens of thousands of acres of highly emissive lakebed, as documented in Resource Agency’s 2007 PEIR. Not only is this an issue of statewide importance, it is an issue of the utmost importance to the residents of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys because it is they who will have to live with the lasting impacts of a dying Salton Sea. If no immediate course of action is put in place, the negative impacts to the environment, public health and the local economy will be substantial. The Pacific Institute’s recent Hazard’s Toll: The Costs of Inaction at the Salton Sea estimates that the total costs of these negative impacts could run into the tens of billions of dollars over the next thirty years. The State of California has failed to meet its responsibilities under the QSA and the accompanying legislation as well as to the people and wildlife resources of California. While the State of California has

http://www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/documents/final_eir.cfm

http://pacinst.org/publication/hazards-toll/

benefited greatly from the QSA, as detailed in IID’s petition, since the release of the Resource Agency’s PEIR almost eight years ago, the state has repeatedly deferred and delayed any effort to undertake the restoration of the Salton Sea. Unfortunately, as time quickly runs out, it appears that high-level state engagement in the Salton Sea will require the intervention of your Board to ensure that the state lives up to its commitments. Without timely intervention, the devastating impacts on the Salton Sea, its fish and wildlife resources, and the counties of Imperial and Riverside will likely lead to an unraveling of the QSA and all of its benefits to urban Southern California as well as the rest of the state. A water supply interruption for much of coastal Southern California will ripple throughout the state and create additional pressures on our already strained state water system. Such an outcome is not in anybody’s interest. Your Board’s involvement in this critical issue will raise its profile and encourage participation and commitment from all stakeholders involved. Again, we thank you and the Board for scheduling this first workshop and encourage you to convene a series of stakeholder meetings that include not only the QSA parties and the Salton Sea Authority, but also those stakeholders representing fish and wildlife, water quality, and public health interests. It is imperative that this process results in a credible, feasible plan for funding and implementing a timely, appropriate plan for the Salton Sea. Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberly Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife Michael Lynes Kathryn Phillips Director of Public Policy Director Audubon California Sierra Club California cc: Thomas Howard, State Water Resources Control Board Steve Benson, Imperial Irrigation District Roger Shintaku, Salton Sea Authority

December 30, 2015


RE: Comments Regarding the Status of Salton Sea Task Force Agency Actions

Dear State Water Resources Control Board:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute and Sierra Club, we write to

submit our comments regarding the status of Agency Actions by the Salton Sea Task Force (Task Force),

in anticipation of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) public workshop on

January 5th. We appreciate State Water Board’s following up on its March 18, 2015 workshop and look

forward to continued monitoring and assessment, as directed by the Task Force Agency Actions released

on October 9, 2015. The magnitude and scope of the multi-agency state effort dictated by the Task

Force Agency Actions will require careful coordination and integration. The State Water Board is best

suited to supervise this effort and ensure that the state meets its commitments.

In response to the State Water Board’s December 4th public workshop notice, we write to provide the

following input to the State Water Board relative to the implementation of the Salton Sea Management

Program. In addition, we reiterate our recommendation that the State Water Board require the Natural

Resources Agency (Agency) to submit, within three months of the January 5th, 2016 workshop, (1) the

Agency’s estimated annual funding obligations pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement

(QSA) and QSA-related legislation, including mitigation payments, (2) the Agency’s schedule for

developing and implementing a coordinated holistic plan to address the air, wildlife, and water quality

problems at the Salton Sea as the water transfer goes into full effect and without the delivery of

mitigation water after 2017, and (3) the Agency’s identified and potential future sources of current and

potential future funding to meet the State’s financial obligations with respect to the QSA and QSA-

related legislation. In addition to providing the above oversight and ensuring accountability, the State

Water Board should revise Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 to reflect the final language of the QSA as

signed on October 10, 2003, and the clear language adopted by the legislature in 2003 in Senate Bill (SB)

277, SB 317, and SB 654, and in SB 187 in 2008.

(1/5/16) Board MeetingSalton Sea

Deadline: 12/30/15 by 12:00 noon

12-30-15


NGO Salton Sea Comment Letter December 30, 2015

p. 2 of 7

The Salton Sea Task Force’s strong and timely Agency Actions are very welcome and encouraging. The

Agency Actions clearly convey the urgency of the challenges facing the Salton Sea and the critical

importance of immediate actions to address and reverse the Sea’s decline. The state’s Salton Sea

Management Program must incorporate and demonstrate this urgency by accelerating the

implementation of common-sense, ‘no regrets’ actions such as the construction of the water supply and

distribution infrastructure required to support large-scale habitat and air quality management projects

at the Salton Sea. Absent the suspension of the water transfer or the extension of the mitigation water

delivery requirement, the Salton Sea ecosystem and public health in the region face a critical tipping

point in less than two years. Fortunately, expedited and aggressive implementation of a Salton Sea

Management Program can avoid the worst of these impacts. We urge the State Water Board to embrace

its designated monitoring and assessment role to ensure that the State satisfies its commitments and

obligations.

We offer our comments in the order described by the State Water Board’s December 4th Public Notice.

We preface our comments by recognizing the state’s creation and hiring of a new Assistant Secretary for

Salton Sea Policy in late September, and the very valuable recommendations of the Salton Sea Task

Force itself. In the three months since the release of the Task Force Agency Actions, the California

Natural Resources Agency has held two initial stakeholder meetings and has begun the process of

convening the needed stakeholder workgroups to develop and review plans and designs for a Salton Sea

Management Plan. Despite the passage of almost ten months since the last State Water Board

workshop, the Salton Sea management effort is still very much in its infancy. We acknowledge the

challenge of developing and implementing a plan of this magnitude, while reiterating our concerns

about the imminent collapse of the ecosystem and the severity of public health impacts in the absence

of an expedited effort. We provide the following comments within this context.

Efforts to improve public outreach and local partnerships

Communication with stakeholders and the general public is very important. The new assistant secretary

has met with a large number of stakeholders including local partners and our organizations. He has

convened two large stakeholder meetings and is organizing workgroups comprised of many

stakeholders, developing momentum and building confidence that the state now recognizes its

obligations and is making a concerted effort to address them. However, the California Natural Resources

Agency (CNRA) has yet to schedule a general public meeting or update its website. We have heard that

the state will soon schedule public outreach meetings, but to date such meetings have not occurred.

We strongly encourage CNRA to update and maintain the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Salton

Sea website so that it becomes a timely and credible source of information on CNRA and Task Force

activities. As of December 29th, 2015, the DWR Salton Sea website at

http://www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/ reportedly was “Last Modified: 09/21/2015.” The “new” Salton Sea

Ongoing Projects page on the website simply shows a page extracted from IID’s Salton Sea Restoration

and Renewable Energy Initiative Framework Document, rather than detailed descriptions of on-going

projects and the state’s own timelines. As public and media interest in the Salton Sea increases, this

website must become more timely, more informative, easier to navigate, and more credible. This


p. 3 of 7

website is the public’s first entry into the state’s Salton Sea activities. It should reflect the state’s

commitment and interest in the issue. We also recommend having this website, and as many materials

as possible, made available in Spanish.

Communication with stakeholders and the general public should be proactive. We encourage CNRA to

develop and implement a public outreach schedule, including holding regular meetings in the Salton Sea

region in both Riverside and Imperial Counties, in English and in Spanish, and noticed in English and in

Spanish, as well as periodic briefings for legislative and agency staffs in Sacramento and for the federal

legislators whose districts include the Salton Sea.

Efforts to implement habitat creation and dust suppression projects

Meeting the Salton Sea Task Force’s short-term habitat goal requires an accelerated timeline for the

immediate term projects needed to meet the objective of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and

dust suppression projects by the year 2020. To achieve this, the state will need to prioritize actions to

design and implement a water supply and distribution infrastructure (“infrastructure”). We have

encouraged CNRA to emphasize the importance of such infrastructure for any larger-scale Salton Sea

plan that may be implemented in the future: any such plan will require the capture and redistribution of

Salton Sea inflows. Therefore, the critical path for the Salton Sea includes the accelerated design and

construction of this water supply infrastructure. CNRA should give the design, budgeting, environmental

compliance, and permitting of this water supply infrastructure its very highest priority.

We have written to CNRA to recommend that the agency present a timeline and critical path elements

for implementing the Task Force Agency Actions. Our recommended actions included:

Describe the water supply and distribution system (“infrastructure”);

Develop initial budget estimates for the accelerated implementation of the infrastructure;

Develop an accelerated timeline for the infrastructure project, including the identification of critical

path elements;

Identify and describe existing Salton Sea-related permits and the extent to which they can be used

to implement the infrastructure;

Conduct a rapid analysis of “no regrets” air quality and habitat projects that can proceed in

conjunction with the infrastructure;

Identify and describe additional permits that will need to be obtained, along with relevant lead and

regulatory agencies; and

Identify existing Salton Sea-related contracts with consultants that could be modified quickly to

cover new tasks related to the design, environmental compliance, and permitting of the

infrastructure backbone.

The current CNRA effort takes place within a broader context of existing statute and the Task Force

Agency Actions. These pre-existing goals and objectives should drive the current effort.


p. 4 of 7

Existing statute (California Fish & Game Code §2940) establishes clear goals for Salton Sea management

that include protection of the fish and wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea ecosystem, stabilization of

the aquatic and shoreline habitat, protection of the area’s air quality and water quality; and

preservation of cultural and tribal values at the Sea.

The Task Force Agency Actions and the Governor’s accompanying press release dated October 9th, 2015,

build on these goals by describing several quantifiable action items with specific deadlines (from the

press release):

Meet a short-term goal of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects

at the sea (by 2020)

Set medium-term goal of 18,000-25,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects

at the sea (starting in 2020)

Within the next year, as part of planning to meet the 2030 greenhouse gas goals, the Public

Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the Independent System Operator will

consider renewable energy opportunities at and around the Salton Sea and the region, and any

additional transmission that may be needed for the near term or long term.

Convene a scientific advisory committee to ensure that the best available science guides the

habitat restoration efforts.

We have encouraged CNRA to organize these goals on a timeline, to inform agency planning efforts over

the short-term, medium-term and long-term. We also encouraged CNRA to establish a set of objectives

for each goal. Most importantly, CNRA should immediately articulate clear objectives specifically for

2016. These should include:

Complete next level of engineering design for water supply infrastructure

Develop budgets for water supply infrastructure

Initiate NEPA/CEQA for water supply infrastructure

Analyze existing permitting to determine the flexibility of those permits to accommodate short-

term objectives

Begin permitting processes

Convene scientific advisory committee

By January, 2016, define objectives, establish membership, and implement reporting deadlines

for each of the Salton Sea Management Plan committees

Create and distribute for review an annotated list of air quality management and habitat project

types and options as they relate to the various goals, and identify, at a broad level, how each of

these options will help attain the California Fish & Game Code §2940 goals for water, air quality,

and habitat

Update Salton Sea water balance and harmonize existing water models


p. 5 of 7

Quantify predicted wildlife benefits of short-term projects

Convene working groups

Develop outreach materials (such as 1 page briefings) that committee members can share with

their staff, boards, etc.

Develop a public relations plan and schedule

Host two public workshops at each of Imperial Valley, Salton Sea, lower Coachella Valley, and

Upper Coachella Valley

Host briefings for each state and federal legislator or staff who represents part of the Salton Sea

basin

Update and maintain DWR (or CNRA) Salton Sea website

Work with California Energy Commission and other agencies to prioritize Salton Sea geothermal

in the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) 2.0 and other energy and transmission

planning processes and host a workshop on renewables at the Salton Sea

Conduct preliminary feasibility evaluations for proposed Salton Sea management plans.

“Feasibility” itself needs to be defined prior to conducting feasibility evaluations. The feasibility

evaluations should be more than just an effort to identify fatal flaw analysis. They should include specific

criteria to evaluate project feasibility, such as:

Ability to meet overall program objectives

Ease of construction

Time to complete construction

Ease of permitting

Time to attain objectives

Capital costs

Annual operations, maintenance, energy and replacement costs

Seismic risk

Resilience (e.g., if one project element fails, will others also fail)

Inflow requirements

Impacts on state’s 2030 greenhouse gas targets

Selenium risks

Water quality benefits and impacts

Habitat benefits and impacts

Air quality benefits and impacts

CNRA must also work with stakeholders to identify a medium and long-term plan for the Sea, beyond

2020. While immediate progress must be made at the Sea to address the imminent impacts from the

water transfer, the Sea will continue to decline for decades due to less inflow to the Sea and there must

be a plan for addressing those longer-term issues. To ensure that current and short-term efforts do not


p. 6 of 7

result in stranded costs or costly revisions due to the need to address impacts beyond 2020, the State

must start on a longer-term plan while working diligently to address the imminent impacts at the Sea.

Project Management Recommendations

A full-time project manager is necessary to ensure that project objectives and outcomes are achieved in

a timely manner. We have encouraged CNRA either to task an existing employee or hire a new person

(potentially with a facilitation firm such as Center for Collaborative Policy) with extensive project

management experience to assume responsibility for tracking and directly supervising the objectives

and tasks related to the Salton Sea management plan. This would support the state’s efforts and enable

the Assistant Secretary to engage more in the interagency coordination, planning, feasibility evaluation,

and public outreach described in the Task Force’s Agency Actions.

The California Energy Commission regarding consideration of renewable energy

opportunities at and around the Salton Sea and the region.

Development of geothermal at the Salton Sea will provide air quality, economic and carbon benefits.

However, developing this resource commercially will require valuing these resources in utilities

procurement. Additionally, bringing it to market will require new transmission investments. Each of

these processes have long lead-times, and will require prioritizing development of these resources by

the state. We encourage the California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and

California Independent System Operator, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to

develop an action plan for bringing these resources to commercial market.

Ensure Oversight by Regulatory Agencies

We encourage the State Water Board to embrace its designated monitoring and assessment role to

ensure that the State satisfies its commitments and obligations. The State Water Board should establish

a quarterly or at minimum semi-annual workshop schedule, with clear deadlines and objectives for state

agencies and announced sanctions for failure to meet these deadlines and objectives. The state’s recent

actions are very encouraging; continued oversight will promote continued activity and dedication.

An important objective of State Water Board oversight must be to ensure the coordination among the

many state agencies named by the Task Force Agency Actions, including officials and staff at the

California Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, and the Independent System Operator.

Such monitoring and oversight will help clarify who is doing what as part of state efforts to carry out the

Task Force recommendations.

Establish a Federal and State Memorandum of Understanding

We recommend that the State of California enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S.

Department of the Interior and with the Army Corps of Engineers, to improve collaboration between

state, federal, and tribal entities on natural resource issues involving the Salton Sea. The MOU will be a

key step in cementing each party's commitment to find collaborative solutions to resource challenges, to

share available technical and scientific information and expertise, to facilitate more efficient permitting,

and to prioritize partnerships to improve resource conditions in and around the Sea.


p. 7 of 7

In closing. we are very encouraged by Task Force recommendations and look forward to working with

you and the other state agencies to protect the communities and wildlife at the Salton Sea. The key

objective in the next several months must be to acknowledge the urgency of the Salton Sea’s challenges

by expediting the implementation of a water supply and distribution infrastructure. This infrastructure

would be a ‘no regrets’ action, required for the implementation of any Salton Sea Management Plan

under consideration and critical for the timely construction of habitat and air quality management

projects at the Salton Sea. The accelerated implementation of this infrastructure will signal state

commitment to meetings its obligations. We encourage the State Water Board to establish such activity

as the very highest priority for the state.

Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberley Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife

Michael Lynes Sarah K. Friedman Director of Public Policy Senior Campaign Representative Audubon California Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign

April 13, 2015


RE: Status of the Salton Sea Management Program Dear State Water Resources Control Board:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute, and Sierra Club California, we write

to offer our comments regarding the status of the Salton Sea Management Program, in response to the

State Water Resources Control Board’s (Board’s) March 22nd Notice of a Public Workshop on this topic. The

governor’s and the Board’s increased attention to the Salton Sea over the past year signal a dramatic and

welcome change from the prior eight years. However, translating this renewed attention into action, in the

form of actual habitat creation and dust suppression projects at the Salton Sea, has not yet occurred. The

current rate of progress suggests that the Salton Sea Management Program will not meet the Salton Sea

Task Force’s stated goals of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects in the

short-term or 18,000-25,000 acres of such projects in the medium-term.

We maintain that addressing the Salton Sea’s habitat and air quality challenges is relatively straightforward

in concept, especially in the short and medium-term. The estimated 700,000 acre-feet of average annual

inflows to the Salton Sea for the foreseeable future will provide a ready and available source of water for

extensive habitat and dust suppression efforts. Evidence from the decommissioned Reclamation/USGS 100-

acre shallow water saline habitat ponds pilot project adjacent to the Salton Sea clearly demonstrates the

viability and productivity of constructing and maintaining such habitat. Several effective methods used to

suppress dust emissions at Owens Lake offer valuable lessons for managing Salton Sea playa. Tremendous

opportunity exists at the Salton Sea for habitat creation projects. Additionally, a recent NREL/CEERT study

shows significant energy system and carbon benefits to California with the addition of 1,280 MW of

geothermal energy generated in the Imperial Valley, indicating that the Task Force Agency Actions are

achievable and realistic.

It is time to focus on management, not policy: The challenge continues to be moving from concept and

policy to constructing habitat and dust suppression projects at the Salton Sea. The new Assistant

Secretary’s full title reflects the problem: it is time to move past “Salton Sea Policy” and toward “Salton Sea

Management.” As we’ve noted in previous comments, the State’s actions still do not reflect the urgency of


2

the impending ecological and public health catastrophe at the Salton Sea. For example, “Salton Sea” does

not appear anywhere on the Natural Resources Agency’s homepage. To reinforce the importance of Salton

Sea action, California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Laird should direct all appropriate Agency

departments to prioritize Salton Sea activities and expedite the implementation of proposals to implement

habitat creation and dust suppression projects.

Greater transparency about program coordination is needed and appropriate: The Salton Sea

Management Program is housed within the Natural Resources Agency (see organizational chart posted at

resources.ca.gov/salton-sea/management-program-organizational-chart/). However, the Salton Sea Task

Force includes “principle staff and appointed members of the Governor’s Office, Natural Resources Agency,

California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Air Resources Board and

Energy Commission.” Institutionally, the Management Program appears to be a subset of some larger Task

Force effort, but it is not clear the extent to which Task Force discussions and decisions direct or inform

coordination or interaction among the staff of the different agencies represented on the Task Force. To the

public and other external audiences, it appears that the Assistant Secretary leads the State’s Salton Sea

efforts. However, the structure and individuals comprising the Task Force suggest that the Assistant

Secretary’s role and authority are more complicated. Greater transparency about the structure and

decision-making roles within the State’s effort would be appropriate. Additionally, greater coordination

between Task Force agencies, including participation in the Management Program committees, would be

productive. To the consternation of stakeholders, there has been a total lack of presence or engagement

from California’s energy agencies and the California Independent System Operator in the Salton Sea

Management Program meetings. Given that several Salton Sea Task Force recommendations require these

entities taking actions, which to date have not occurred, it is critical that they be fully and publicly engaged

in the Salton Sea management process.

The scale of effort requires a full-time project manager and greater authority over other agencies: We

appreciate and commend the unflagging efforts, regular communication, and good faith demonstrated by

the new Assistant Secretary for Salton Sea Policy. However, the scale of the effort required to implement

and operationalize a Salton Sea Management Plan is far too great for one person. The Assistant Secretary

needs dedicated staff and greater authority over those assigned to work on Salton Sea activities. We do not

know how many people in State agencies are currently assigned to Salton Sea activities, or what those

specific tasks are. Previously, we have expressed concern that Salton Sea program funds were being

expended on non-Salton Sea activities and are very mindful of stakeholders’ concerns about the

appropriate use of these funds. To demonstrate transparency and to facilitate communication, we

recommend that the Salton Sea Management Program list state staff working on Program activities and

their specific responsibilities.

To support the Assistant Secretary and accelerate the implementation of Salton Sea Program Management

projects and activities, we strongly suggest that a full-time project manager be assigned or detailed to work

under the Assistant Secretary through at least the end of 2017. The new Project Manager would track and

supervise the many deliverables, schedules, and tasks required to achieve the goals established by the

Salton Sea Task Force Agency Actions, enabling the Assistant Secretary to focus on key decisions, agency

coordination, and stakeholder and public outreach. If the State does not have a very experienced,

http://resources.ca.gov/salton-sea/management-program-organizational-chart/

3

dedicated Project Manager on staff with availability for this critical task, perhaps the federal government or

a local or regional agency could detail such a person through the end of 2017 or later.

The Salton Sea Management Program should formally adopt and promote goals and objectives: The new

Salton Sea Management Program website (at resources.ca.gov/salton-sea/) states:

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.’s Salton Sea Task Force, created in May 2015, has directed agencies to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Sea that will:

Meet a short-term goal of 9,000 acres to 12,000 acres of habitat and dust suppression projects, and set a medium-term plan to construct 18,000 acres to 25,000 acres of habitat and dust suppression

projects.

These goals will be implemented through the Salton Sea Management Program, which is committed to a transparent process with clearly defined goals and measurable objectives aligned with available fiscal and hydrological resources.

The clearly defined goals and measurable objectives referenced on the website should be publicized. The

Salton Sea Management Program should adopt and promote the Salton Sea goals codified in statute. For

example, California Fish & Game Code §2940 established the following goals for Salton Sea management:

In restoring the Salton Sea, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:

(1) Permanently protect fish and wildlife that are dependent on the Salton Sea ecosystem.

(2) Restore the long-term stable aquatic and shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife that depend on the Salton

Sea.

(3) Eliminate air quality impacts from restoration projects using the best available technology, as determined

by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

(4) Protect water quality.

(5) Maintain the Salton Sea as a vital link along the Pacific Flyway.

(6) Preserve local tribal heritage and cultural values associated with the Salton Sea.

(7) Minimize noxious odors and other water and air quality problems.

Goals and objectives provide direction and milestones for any program or project. The Salton Sea

Management Program should define its goals and objectives, beyond the acreage targets described in the

Task Force Agency Actions. To ensure that this occurs, we urge you to require the Assistant Secretary to

submit a written report to the Board by the end of May, 2016, listing the Salton Sea Management Program

goals and objectives. These should incorporate existing statutory goals, including those listed above, as well

as the acreage goals established by the Task Force Agency Actions. Appropriate measurable objectives

should be listed for each goal. These goals, objectives, and metrics should also be posted on the Salton Sea

Management Program website.

The Salton Sea Management Program should develop and share clear and achievable milestones: The

Salton Sea Task Force Agency Actions highlights the importance of “clear and achievable milestones with

state-directed plans to achieve them.” To achieve the short-term goal of 9,000 acres to 12,000 acres of

habitat and dust suppression projects, the Program should determine by what date the relevant

engineering plans, environmental compliance documentation, funding plans, permits, easements, and

construction deadlines will be required. These milestones should then be shared with appropriate project

4

partners and oversight agencies such as yours, to ensure that project deadlines will be met or to identify

potential problems.

The State should formalize its long-term commitment through memoranda of agreement: Salton Sea

Management Program goals and objectives and milestones will help address the need for a demonstrated

long-term state commitment to meeting its Salton Sea responsibilities and obligations. Although state

activities over the past six months have begun to demonstrate state interest in the Salton Sea, skepticism

and lack of trust continue. To demonstrate commitment, the state should develop and execute memoranda

of agreement related to funding Salton Sea projects in the IID service area in particular. The state should

also develop a master contract or similar mechanism to ensure the rapid reimbursement of Salton Sea

project expenses fronted by other stakeholders. Ultimately, as discussed below, it may be most appropriate

to memorialize this commitment in a new Water Resources Order.

The Assistant Secretary should develop a multi-year financing plan: The governor’s proposed budget of

$80 million to the Department of Water Resources for the plan, design, and construction of projects at the

Salton Sea would be the state’s first significant contribution to Salton Sea management. This welcome and

much-needed financial commitment is an important start and will likely be sufficient for Salton Sea

activities in the coming fiscal year. As the funding lead, the State also needs to develop a clear multi-year

financing plan with annual contributions and reimbursement commitments. To accelerate its development,

we urge you to require the Assistant Secretary to submit a multi-year financing plan, together with a capital

improvement plan, to the Board within three months of the April 19, 2016 workshop. This multi-year

financing plan should describe estimated and expected expenditures and potential funding sources through

at least the end of the short-term period (described in the Governor’s press release as ending in 2020).

The State should determine and publicize the nature of its role (oversight versus operations):

Construction and operation of Salton Sea Management Program projects pose complex institutional

challenges. Most of the water that will supply these projects comes from IID and remains under IID control

until it enters the Salton Sea. The State needs to negotiate an appropriate mechanism to assure sufficient

water flow to the habitat and dust suppression projects built at the Salton Sea, for the life of those projects.

Additionally, IID and other entities own the majority of land adjacent to and underneath the Salton Sea.

Navigating these multiple jurisdictions will require clear planning and explicit agreements. It is not clear if

the Salton Sea Management Program has determined the State’s role in the design, construction,

management and oversight of individual Salton Sea project components. The State should determine its

role in Salton Sea management: will oversight and funding be more appropriate than direct construction

and operations?

The Assistant Secretary should develop a master funding agreement with IID, a construction

management plan, and an operations plan: The state initiated scoping for the Salton Sea Species

Conservation Habitat (SCH) project on June 21, 2010. It issued the final EIR/EIS in July, 2013. Apparently,

the State has secured all necessary permits for the SCH project. Some initial preparation of the SCH site has

occurred, primarily the removal of saltcedar, but construction of the SCH project has yet to begin.

According to the Natural Resources Agency’s April 8th, 2016 “Report on Salton Sea Projects: Per

requirements of AB 1095,” the state now plans to start project construction early next year, some seven

years after project conception. This experience strongly suggests that the State should delegate design,

5

environmental compliance, permitting and construction on future projects to other, local authorities that

have direct construction experience, to meet the Task Force’s deadlines and acreage targets.

IID has taken the lead on the initial design of the “backbone infrastructure” that we highlighted in previous

comments. We recommend that the State execute a master funding agreement with IID to provide

assurance that IID payments to date will be reimbursed and that future project-related expenditures will be

reimbursed on a timely basis. The State should also develop a broader construction management plan that

describes roles of appropriate state agencies, such as DWR’s Division of Engineering, to ensure timely

review and appropriate supervision of local design and construction efforts. Similarly, the State should

develop a plan for subsequent operation and management of Salton Sea habitat and dust suppression

projects. To accelerate the development of the master funding agreement, construction management plan,

and operations plan, we urge you to require the Assistant Secretary to submit each of these documents to

the Board within three months of the April 19 workshop.

The Assistant Secretary should schedule agency stakeholder advisory committee meetings immediately,

with regular meetings thereafter: Three of the agency stakeholder advisory committee workgroups have

met since the last SWRCB workshop in January, but the others have yet to meet. To our knowledge, no

meetings have been scheduled for the following committees:

Project

Environmental Compliance

Science Advisory

Agency Stakeholder group as a whole

The work of each of these committees will be important for the Salton Sea Management Program, yet the

expertise and experience of the committee members remains untapped. We recommend that the

Assistant Secretary schedule a regular meeting date for the agency stakeholder group as a whole, such as

the second Thursday of the month (or whatever specific day is convenient for the majority of participants).

The agency stakeholder group should meet quarterly in person, with the two intervening meetings

conducted via webinar or conference call, to update members on state activities and achievement of

milestones and objectives, and to discuss issues as needed. Within the next two weeks, the Management

Program should also schedule meetings for each of the other committees and post agendas and meeting

objectives on the Management Program website.

RWQCB should summarize existing water quality requirements and designations for the Assistant

Secretary: As noted previously, there appears to be little interagency coordination with respect to Salton

Sea management activities. For example, the Management Program does not appear to have an overview

or summary of existing Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations governing the Salton Sea or

inflows to the Sea. We recommend that the Board direct the RWQCB to summarize existing regulations and

water quality parameters for the lake and major tributaries and deliver this summary to the Assistant

Secretary, to assist in the evaluation of Salton Sea proposals and to ensure consistency among state

agencies’ responses and reviews of such proposals. For example, we recommend that a RWQCB staff

member participate in the April 13 meeting of the Long Range Planning Committee, scheduled to review

proposals intended to improve the water quality of the Salton Sea.

6

The Assistant Secretary should harmonize and publicize hydrologic and salinity data: The Salton Sea

Management Program should develop and post information on Salton Sea elevation and salinity to its

website, as well as information on annual and monthly inflows to the Salton Sea. Currently, IID, the Salton

Sea Authority, and possibly the State itself each has its own hydrologic and salinity model for the Salton

Sea. These models are not consistent and are not transparent. Hydrologic and salinity data and models

need to be harmonized and publicized. Project planning, not to mention consensus among stakeholders,

cannot be achieved without this critical information. To ensure that this deficiency is corrected, we urge

you to require the Assistant Secretary to submit a written report to the Board by the end of July, 2016,

describing the Salton Sea Management Program’s hydrologic baseline and projected inflows to the Salton

Sea.

The State Water Board should revise WRO 2002-0013: In addition to providing the above oversight and

ensuring accountability, the State Water Board should revise Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 to reflect the

final language of the QSA as signed on October 10, 2003, and the clear language adopted by the legislature

in 2003 in Senate Bill (SB) 277, SB 317, and SB 654, and in SB 187 in 2008.

Many of the recommendations and suggestions offered in our previous comment letters remain pertinent.

We urge you to direct the Salton Sea Management Program to review and act upon these previous

recommendations and suggestions, as well as the ones described above, and to accelerate their efforts on

behalf of the Salton Sea and the people and wildlife who depend on it. Our brief window, before the

mitigation water requirement expires and the Salton Sea enters a period of very rapid decline and

deterioration, is closing fast.

Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberley Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife Michael Lynes Kyle Jones Director of Public Policy Policy Advocate Audubon California Sierra Club California

Cc: Bruce Wilcox, Assistant Secretary for Salton Sea policy Val Simon, Reclamation Phil Rosentrater, Salton Sea Authority Jose Angel, RWQCB

August 15, 2016


RE: Update Regarding the Status of the SSMP (Item 10, Aug. 16 Board Meeting) Dear State Water Resources Control Board:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute, and Sierra Club California, we

write to offer our comments regarding the status of the Salton Sea Management Program, in response

to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (Board’s) August 16 Board Meeting that includes this

agenda item. We are deeply concerned by the State’s lack of progress in developing or expediting the

Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP) and urge the Board to direct the State to make significant

progress on a clear and accelerated schedule.

While we appreciate the Board’s attention to the Salton Sea, we are disappointed that the meeting only

seeks an update from the Natural Resources Agency (Agency) rather than a more in-depth discussion

which would include input from the stakeholders. More importantly, the Agency’s continued delays and

failure to make any meaningful progress in the SSMP threaten significant adverse public and ecological

health impacts in the region and have the potential to unravel the complex series of agreements that

make up the QSA, which would have significant water supply implications for the State, as well as the

lower Colorado River basin. State inaction and delay could have significant water supply implications.

The State has not dedicated sufficient staffing or resources to the SSMP, or prioritized the SSMP among

its many existing obligations. The SSMP lacks the resources and urgency necessary to meet the State of

California’s existing statutory and contractual obligations to the Salton Sea. Per Revised Order WRO

2002-0013, IID’s mitigation water delivery obligation expires next year. The loss of this mitigation water

will accelerate the decline of the Salton Sea dramatically, exposing tens of thousands of acres of lakebed

and endangering the health of the 650,000 people living in the Coachella and Imperial valleys, as well as

another million people south of the border, in addition to the health of the Salton Sea ecosystem as a

whole. This very real threat does not disappear if the State fails to advance the SSMP and on-the-ground

projects: the State’s inaction ensures that these injuries will occur.


The Natural Resources Agency’s “shovel-ready report” to the Legislature, submitted in April, makes clear

that the Agency will not achieve the habitat and dust control project acreage goals established by the

Governor’s Salton Sea Task Force last October. Almost a year later, the SSMP still lacks goals, objectives,

a funding plan, or a governance plan. Instead of moving forward, the State seems to be re-doing

geotechnical surveys and is re-engineering existing plans and designs, likely incurring permitting delays.

It remains unclear whether the State has directed sufficient agency staff to work on the SSMP, what

tasks existing staff have been assigned, or to whom staff report.

The SSMP has funding, water, completed designs, permits, and broad stakeholder consensus to

construct more than a thousand acres of habitat and dust control projects in the very near term. Yet

prolonged delays, combined with the SSMP’s failure to demonstrate any real progress, much less actual

projects on the ground, prompt the very troubling question of whether the State intends to honor its

existing statutory and contractual obligations.

Meanwhile, IID has invested some $500,000 developing a Salton Sea Backbone Infrastructure Project

Design Concept, presented to the IID Board earlier today.1 This Design Concept includes a conceptual

layout of nearly 8,000 acres of habitat and dust control projects at the Salton Sea that could be

completed with the $60 million currently in the state budget for the SSMP. The Design Concept also

includes broader short, medium, and long-term projects. It describes the purpose and need for the

project, water demand and water sources, design constraints and concepts, and unit costs and layouts.

In short, IID’s Design Concept lays out a clear roadmap for progress at the Salton Sea.

Rather than waiting for the SSMP to hire a different consultant to redesign habitat and then attempt to

coordinate that new habitat design with IID’s backbone infrastructure, we request that the Board direct

the Agency to incorporate IID’s Design Concept into the SSMP and expedite its implementation. Failure

to incorporate IID’s existing design work would be a very clear signal that the State does not intend to

honor its existing statutory and contractual obligations and does not intend to achieve the Task Force

goals. We will pay very close attention to the State’s actions on this matter.

Our request is simple: ensure that the State meets its existing Salton Sea obligations. As we have noted

previously, we strongly support the Salton Sea Task Force’s direction to state agencies – including the

Board – and welcomed the habitat and dust control project goals described by the Task Force. In

previous letters to the Board, we have offered a number of suggestions on how the State can achieve

these goals. We have participated in SSMP committees and previously on the Salton Sea Advisory

Committee, and have worked to broker agreements and discussions among various stakeholders. We

have worked diligently for many years to assist the State in meeting its obligations. We urge the State to

meet its own stated goals.

We urge the Board to honor its oversight responsibility and set clear milestones for the SSMP. To ensure

compliance, and to ensure that State meets its obligations, we also urge the Board to make the water

transfer contingent on the State implementing functional habitat and dust control projects at the Salton

1 IID’s backbone infrastructure concept design is posted at http://www.iid.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=11857, starting at p. 35 of the pdf.

http://www.iid.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=11857

Sea, in a timely fashion. Failure to honor State Obligations not only jeopardizes California’s water supply

reliability – as well as the health of the millions of birds that depend upon the Salton Sea and of the

650,000 Californians who already suffer from some of the worst air quality in the nation and whose

health could be further degraded by continued inaction – but suggests, more broadly, that the State of

California is not a reliable partner.

Sincerely,


Cc: Bruce Wilcox, CNRA

Phil Rosentrater, SSA

Val Simon, Reclamation

Kevin Kelley, IID

Nov 10, 2016


RE: 11/15/16 BOARD MEETING – ITEM # 7 – SALTON SEA PUBLIC WORKSHOP Dear State Water Resources Control Board:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute, and Sierra Club California, we

write to offer our comments in anticipation of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (Board’s)

November 15 Public Workshop regarding the status of the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP). As

noted below, the State of California has begun to demonstrate progress in planning for the Salton Sea.

Despite the demonstration of the beginnings of progress, we remain very concerned that the current

rate of progress does not begin to match the rate of change – and especially the projected rate of

change after the mitigation water delivery obligation expires next year – at the Salton Sea. (See

Attachment 1, “Salton Sea Playa Exposure,” and Attachment 2, “Estimated SSMP Project Schedule.”)

Unfortunately, this disconnect between state planning efforts and the physical changes at the Salton Sea

creates a real cost. As we’ve noted before and the Pacific Institute described in detail in Hazard’s Toll:

The Costs of Inaction at the Salton Sea, dramatic and measurable adverse impacts will be borne by the

650,000 people and the fish and wildlife – including listed species – in the region. Indeed, these adverse

impacts are already being felt. Ominously, this summer witnessed significant eared-grebe mortality,

apparently due to starvation; a die-off of adult tilapia with few immature fish, suggesting that tilapia

reproduction has declined; and dramatically lower numbers of migratory birds. Local asthma rates

continue to rank among the highest in the state, the lake’s salinity approaches 60 g/L TDS and the lake

now releases hydrogen sulfide on a regular basis, and lake levels continue to drop at an alarming rate.

The state’s lack of urgency in responding to these and related challenges effectively shifts state costs

onto local residents and farmers and property owners and species. In short, the Salton Sea is not static,

where delay can be justified. It is not a question of deferring expenditures until suitable funding sources

are found. It is simply a question of whether the state will mobilize with sufficient resources (both

staffing and funding) to meet its obligations now, or whether it will transform the Salton Sea region into

a sacrifice zone.

(11/15/16) Board Meeting-Item 7Salton Sea Management ProgramDeadline: 11/10/16 by 12:00 noon

11-10-16

(11/15/16) Board Meeting-Item 7Salton Sea Management ProgramDeadline: 11/10/16 by 12:00 noon

11-10-16




NGO letter re: SSMP Nov. 10, 2016

p. 2 of 8

We urge the Board to consider the below recommendations and move expeditiously to find ways to

ensure that the state of California moves forward with actions at the Sea at a rate that will avoid the

looming public health and environmental threat posed by a lack of action and projects at the Sea.

Progress to Date

Since the Board’s March, 2015, “Workshop for Solicitation of Comments Regarding the Status of the

Salton Sea and Revised Order WRO 2002-0013,” the State of California has taken many key steps:

Convened a Salton Sea Task Force, with participation from leading state officials

Task Force met with Salton Sea stakeholders

Hired an Assistant Secretary of Salton Sea Policy

Task Force released Agency Actions, establishing short- and medium-term acreage goals and other

measurable objectives and benchmarks

Appropriated $80.5 million for the SSMP ($60 million for construction) from Proposition 1

Submitted a “Shovel-ready Salton Sea Projects” report to the Legislature

Improved public outreach, by creating an SSMP website and by hosting at least 14 public workshops

over the summer.

The Board held two Salton Sea workshops and heard one additional update, not including the Nov.

15 Salton Sea workshop.

On August 31, the Natural Resources Agency and the U.S. Department of the Interior signed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which includes $20 million in federal support for operations

and maintenance of Salton Sea projects and $10 million for science and monitoring efforts

Released a Request for Qualifications from consultants for SSMP related work

In addition, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have

begun construction of the 530-acre Red Hill Bay project, funded in part by the state’s Financial

Assistance Program.

Continuing Challenges

Although the State has taken many steps forward, many challenges continue to hinder progress at the

Salton Sea and delay the timely implementation of habitat and dust control projects. Despite requests

from the Board and others, the State has yet to complete critical tasks essential to ensuring that real

projects will be implemented on the ground at the Sea in a timely manner to avoid the worst impacts

caused by a rapidly declining Sea, particularly when the mitigation water ceases to flow to the Sea at the

end of 2017. Below is a list of the specific items that the State must complete in order to meet its

obligations to the public and public trust:

Salton Sea Goals:

X Clearly define goals and measurable objectives aligned with available fiscal and hydrological resources, as stated by the October 2015 Task Force Agency Actions

X Describe the actions state energy agencies have taken regarding geothermal development at the Sea, in accordance with Task Force recommendations.


p. 3 of 8

X Identify clear and measurable milestones, such as the dates when the relevant engineering plans, environmental compliance documentation, funding plans, permits, and construction deadlines will be required to meet the Task Force Agency Action acreage goals

X Adopt and promote the Salton Sea goals codified in statute (eg, California Fish & Game Code §2940)

Funding:

X Assemble an assessment of funding needs for the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years for completing the

necessary air quality and habitat work at the Sea, including describing the state’s annual Salton

Sea-related funding obligations pursuant to the QSA and QSA-related legislation, including

mitigation payments.

X Identify potential funds to meet the State’s Salton Sea obligations beyond the current $80.5

million and the $15 million recently committed by the Wildlife Conservation Board, and create a

funding plan for securing those additional funds, including exploring additional funding

contributions from the federal government and other parties.

X Execute memoranda of understanding with the relevant agencies, related to funding Salton Sea projects in the IID and CVWD service areas.

X Submit a detailed expenditure report, describing Salton Sea funds spent and encumbered in

FY2015-2016.

Project Management:

X Assign an experienced Project Manager to the SSMP, to track and report on permitting, easements, design, funding, construction, and related tasks.

X Develop a master contract or similar mechanism to ensure the rapid reimbursement of Salton Sea project expenses fronted by other stakeholders.

X Determine and describe the state’s role in the operations, management, and monitoring of individual Salton Sea project components. Will the Resources Agency, DWR, DFW, or some other entity be responsible for operating Salton Sea projects? What will be the long-term staffing requirements for such efforts? Where will staff be located? To whom will they report?

X Clarify the goals and roles of the various SSMP committees. Many have only met once or twice since their formation.

X Report on the status of the Financial Assistance Program projects and the recommendations included in the Salton Sea Authority’s Financing and Feasibility Study, submitted in May.

Critical Scientific & Information Needs:

X Resume regular surveys on invertebrate, fish, and bird populations and health. It is our understanding that state agencies have ceased to collect this data in the last several years.

X Project future inflows, salinity, and Salton Sea elevation, to inform Salton Sea project design and dust management needs.

X Reconcile the different vertical datum (eg, NGVD 1929 vs. NAVD 1998) currently used to report the elevation of the Salton Sea, and specify a consistent datum for future use.

X Post and update information on the SSMP website on topics such as current elevation, salinity, fish and invertebrate populations, and bird use.


p. 4 of 8

X Integrate and document the multiple dust control/air quality management programs underway or being planned, by the QSA JPA, IID, and other agencies.

X Document and integrate natural revegetation atop exposed playa, and determine the efficacy of such natural processes in controlling dust emissions.

Air Quality and Dust Control

There is a fundamental lack of information sharing and understanding on air quality issues that

permeates the current planning effort. This lack of transparency and seeming disconnect between local

information and knowledge and the program creates a lack of trust and understanding at a time when

all efforts should be made to demonstrate to the public that the federal, state and local agencies are

working diligently to avoid what could be one of the greatest air quality disasters in the state.

The SSMP Air Quality Committee met only one time, on May 2nd, for an hour and a half. The SSMP has

not shared its plans or proposals to control dust at the Salton Sea. The extent of collaboration and

cooperation between the SSMP and related air management agencies such as the Air Resources Board,

the two local air pollution control districts, the QSA JPA, or the federal EPA has not been shared with the

Air Quality Committee.

Vegetation, primarily non-native saltcedar, has grown atop Salton Sea playa. The SSMP or other state

agencies should monitor and report on the extent of this revegetation and, in collaboration with air

management agencies, determine its ability to control or limit dust emissions. If sufficiently extensive,

such organic revegetation could supplant the need for active management efforts, at least in some

areas. This should be investigated.

Similarly, anecdotal reports suggest that the local farming community has identified effective and

inexpensive methods for achieving the “surface roughening” that are currently under investigation by

other agencies. This local knowledge and practice should be explored and, if appropriate, employed to

identify and implement cost-effective dust control methods atop Salton Sea playa.

Project Selection

There is a lack of transparency and understanding of how the state is selecting its near term actions,

which will likely lead to potentially unnecessary criticisms and delay. The SSMP Project Committee

meeting on September 14 included a presentation describing Prop. 1 “near-term actions.” Staff

presented a set of criteria for determining a “Phase 1a” project alternative; the slide listing these criteria

and the performance of six alternatives is included as Attachment 3, “Project Criteria.” Staff selected

“New River West,” because ease of permitting received a higher priority than “Maximize air quality and

habitat benefits for dollars spent” or “Improved acreage achievable with Prop 1.” While we welcome the

use of criteria for selecting project alternatives, a more collaborative and transparent approach would

have solicited comments from Project Committee members on the depth and breadth and weighting of

the selection criteria, and the alternatives themselves. For example, the criteria do not include any

measure of habitat types or diversity, and the list of alternatives does not include the backbone

infrastructure “budget-limited” alternative.

http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/09-14-16-Proj-Cmte-Mtg-v9.pdf


p. 5 of 8

We recognize that revisiting the apparent selection of the “New River West” project presents an

important tradeoff: expediting project implementation versus maximizing project acreage. Clear

program goals and objectives would inform decisions about this and other tradeoffs. Without goals and

objectives, SSMP decision-making appears to be ad hoc and opaque.

Selecting the backbone infrastructure as the Phase 1a project would be a clear signal that the SSMP is

laying the foundation to meet the habitat and dust control acreage targets established by the Task Force

Agency Actions and necessary to address the scale of the challenges posed by the Salton Sea. It is not

clear if the New River West alternative would be compatible with the proposed backbone infrastructure.

To establish habitat and control dust in the interim, we recommend that the SSMP construct low berms

atop exposed playa near the New River, to impound water.

Perimeter Lake

The status of the perimeter lake should be clarified. The Assistant Secretary has included variations of

the perimeter lake in presentations to the agency stakeholders and to the general public, but the

specifics of the perimeter lake plan remain unclear. For example, what criteria were used to determine

that the SSWIFT/perimeter lake plan would be included in the SSMP? What would be the phasing and

financing for the perimeter lake? What would be the total water demand for this concept? In the

absence of an updated hydrologic model, how did the SSMP determine that sufficient water will be

available to sustain a perimeter lake?

We recognize that retaining some measure of deep water is critical to support the full suite of habitats

for birds dependent on the Salton Sea. However, as outlined below, the linearity and scale of the

Perimeter Lake poses considerable problems.

Extrapolating from a USGS Salton Sea Science Office review of a similar concept, the perimeter lake

would be a sluggish extension of the New and Whitewater rivers, choked with vegetation along the

shoreline and presenting very poor water quality. Much of the perimeter lake would be essentially

stagnant and could support large numbers of disease-bearing mosquitoes. The narrow perimeter lake

along much of the shoreline could exacerbate the formation of stratified conditions, though periodic

high-wind events would mix the water and release the accumulated hydrogen sulfide gas, extirpating

most of the fish and macro-invertebrates in the water column. Actual conditions in the perimeter lake

will depend upon several factors, including total volume, nutrient loads, and salinity of inflows,

residence time in the lake, depth of the lake, and wind-generated mixing. Information on these factors,

including a review by the Science Committee, would improve understanding of future conditions.

Construction of the perimeter lake’s 65-mile long dike would be extremely challenging. An October,

2015, geotechnical feasibility study states that the levees should be built in the dry (“This will require a

phased approach to construction that would involve stockpiling, dewatering and spreading excavated

soils, drying the material to near optimum moisture content, and mechanical placement and

compaction of the material”). Presumably, this means that construction of the levees themselves would

not begin until the surface of the existing Salton Sea fell to below -245’. This could delay the start of

construction until 2025.


p. 6 of 8

Instead, we strongly recommend that the SSMP:

Expedite implementation of existing projects, including Red Hill Bay, Species Conservation Habitat, and the Torres-Martinez wetlands

Expedite the review and implementation of the Backbone Infrastructure

Expedite the construction of the 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat and dust control projects identified by the Task Force Agency Actions by 2020

Expedite the construction of the 18,000-25,000 acres of habitat and dust control projects identified by the Task Force Agency Actions by 2025

Construct a roughly 3,000 acre “North Lake,” fed by the Whitewater River, to provide deep-water habitat, as well as recreational and economic development amenities.

Drought Contingency Plan

The proposed lower Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) could result in additional reductions

in flows to the Salton Sea. Reclamation projections suggest a roughly 30% chance that, if the DCP is

approved, total California Colorado River water use could fall by 200,000 acre-feet by 2021; 60% (or

more) of these reductions would be borne by IID. The probability of a 350,000 acre-foot reduction in

California use by 2021 exceeds 20%, equivalent to a >200,000 acre-foot reduction in IID use. Such

reductions would accelerate the rate at which the Salton Sea shrinks and salinity rises, exacerbating

QSA-related trends. Strong federal and state support for the DCP suggests that these projected

reductions in flows to the Salton Sea should be recognized and incorporated into SSMP planning efforts.

It is our understanding that the California obligations and agreements associated with the draft DCP are

largely finalized. The Board should request that the federal, state and local agencies that are a part of

the DCP prepare and share information with the Board as to how the DCP actions will impact the Sea.

This information should be made publicly available. The Board should request a public presentation on

this topic at its next meeting.

Audubon California’s Habitat Model

Audubon California, together with Point Blue Conservation Science and Cooper Ecological Monitoring,

developed habitat suitability models for birds at the Salton Sea, with two key objectives:

1. Describing the preferred habitat features used by bird populations at the Salton Sea.

2. Quantifying the extent of preferred habitat used by bird populations at baseline (1999) levels.

(We used 1999 as the baseline because it is the most recent period with sea-wide bird survey data.)

Audubon recently submitted a report to the Assistant Secretary, identifying five key types of avian

habitat at the sea, and indicator birds representing each:

1. Playa – Snowy Plover;

2. Mudflats, sandflats, beaches – American Avocet, Marbled Godwit, sandpipers, dowitchers, and

Dunlin;

3. Mid-depth water – Snowy Egret, Gadwall, Northern Shoveler;

4. Deep water – Eared Grebe, Ruddy Duck, American White Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant; and

5. Permanent wetlands with tall vegetation – Least Bittern, Virginia Rail, Sora, and Common Gallinule.


p. 7 of 8

Key conclusions from the modeling effort include the following:

The amount of Salton Sea habitat used by birds in both 1999 and 2015 was about 58,000 acres.

Five major types of habitat are used by birds at the Salton Sea: playa; mudflats, sandflats, and beaches; mid-depth water (6-12 inches); deep water (>1 foot); and permanent wetlands with tall vegetation.

The area of each of the five habitat types used by birds was comparable between 1999 and 2015, even though the actual physical locations of those habitats changed as the Sea receded.

Based on data available for the habitat suitability models, four factors appear to be strong drivers of bird use of Salton Sea habitat: amount of shallow water, sediment composition, amount of open water, and proximity to rivers and river mouths. Water quality is also a critical factor but sea-wide data was not available.

Addressing the adequacy of food resources in these five habitats to support bird populations was beyond the scope of this project.

Implementation of the recommendations in the USGS Salton Sea Ecosystem Monitoring and Assessment Plan and further bird surveys, will enable updates to these models.

We offer the following recommendations based on the Audubon California report:

Habitat project planning at the Salton Sea should include a mosaic of the five major habitat types: playa; mudflats, sandflats, and beaches; mid-depth water; deep water; and permanent wetlands.

Acreage targets for habitat at the Salton Sea in the future should take into consideration the amount of preferred habitat birds used at the sea in 1999 and 2015 (approximately 58,000 acres).

Additional research and monitoring of birds, fish, and invertebrate populations at the Salton Sea is necessary to track changes and provide for adaptive management.

Because of the amount and quality of the data and how they were collected, Audubon California was

limited in their ability to quantify the effects of selenium, salinity, water temperature, water body size,

food resources, and flyway impacts. A lack of standardized bird monitoring data and issues around the

scale and shelf life of environmental data also presented challenges.

Policy Issue

The background information for the workshop includes the following assertion under “Policy Issue”:

First, although the conserved water transfer from IID to SDCWA, CVWD, and MWD has the potential

to exacerbate the air and water quality problems at the Salton Sea, those problems would exist in

the absence of the transfer.

This assertion is misleading. It is not consistent with the clear language of WRO 2002-13, which states,

“The Salton Sea Accounting Model demonstrates that the project will accelerate the rate of salinization

of the Salton Sea” (p. 38) and “The Salton Sea Accounting Model also shows that, with a 300,000 acre-

foot transfer, the Sea could drop as much as 15 feet as compared to baseline conditions” (p. 39). As

noted in WRO 2002-13, the conserved water transfer will exacerbate air quality impacts by dropping the

Sea’s surface by an additional 15 feet, exposing tens of thousands of acres of playa. The Board must

correct this assertion moving forward and recognize, instead of understate, the magnitude of the

transfer’s impacts on the Salton Sea, the surrounding communities, the species that rely on this region

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/agendas/2016/nov/111516_7.pdf


p. 8 of 8

for their survival, as well as the transfer’s impacts on California’s water supply reliability. To put forward

such misleading assertions undermines public confidence in the Board’s oversight of the QSA water

transfer.

Previous Comments and Recommendations

We encourage the Board to review our previous comment letters; most of our previous comments and

recommendations remain relevant.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,


Attachments:

1. “Salton Sea Playa Exposure”

2. “Estimated SSMP Project Schedule”

3. “Project Criteria”

Cc: Bruce Wilcox, CNRA

Phil Rosentrater, SSA

Val Simon, Reclamation

Kevin Kelley, IID

Attachment 1 - Salton Sea Playa Exposure

Attachment 2 - Estimated SSMP Project Schedule

Esti

mat

ed

Sh

ove

l-R

ead

y P

roje

ct S

che

du

le

Re

d H

ill B

ay

Torr

es

Mar

tin

ez

We

tlan

ds

SCH

Ph

ase

1

Bac

kbo

ne

Infr

astr

uct

ure

??

SSR

REI

Hab

itat

& A

Q??

Ne

w R

ive

r W

est

12

34

12

34

12

34

12

34

12

34

1

Pla

ya e

xpo

sed

(a

nn

ua

l)

Pla

ya e

xpo

sed

(cu

mu

lati

ve)

(aft

er 2

015)

1,10

0 ac

res

1,20

0 ac

res

2,90

0 ac

res

3,50

0 ac

res

4,20

0 ac

res

1,10

0 ac

res

2,30

0 ac

res

5,20

0 ac

res

8,70

0 ac

res

12,9

00 a

cre

s

530

acre

s

55 a

cre

s

640

acre

s

1300

acr

es

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

13,0

00

Attachment 3 – Project Criteria

March 12, 2015 Jeanine Townsend Clerk to the Board State Water Resources Control Board 1001 I St., 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] RE: Comments Regarding the Status of the Salton Sea and Revised Order WRO 2002-2013 Dear State Water Resources Control Board: On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, the Pacific Institute and Sierra Club California, we write to submit our comments regarding the status of the Salton Sea and Revised Order WRO 2002-0013. As discussed in the following, we strongly believe that the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) has a clear and important oversight role to play in ensuring that the State of California meets the obligations it assumed under contract and via statute. The State Water Board should require the Natural Resources Agency (Agency) to submit, by the end of this calendar year, (1) the Agency’s estimated annual funding obligations pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and QSA-related legislation, including mitigation payments, (2) the Agency’s schedule for developing and implementing a coordinated holistic plan to address the air, wildlife, and water quality problems at the Salton Sea as the water transfer goes into full effect and without the delivery of mitigation water after 2017, and (3) the Agency’s identified sources of current and potential future funding to meet the State’s financial obligations with respect to the QSA and QSA-related legislation. In addition to providing the above oversight and ensuring accountability, the State Water Board should revise Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 to reflect the final language of the QSA as signed on October 10, 2003, and the clear language adopted by the legislature in 2003 in Senate Bill (SB) 277, SB 317, and SB 654, and in SB 187 in 2008. The Salton Sea Is Important to California The Salton Sea provides immense ecological and public health benefits to Californians. The Sea has been designated an Important Bird Area of Global Significance by BirdLife International and the National Audubon Society because it hosts vast numbers of waterbirds and shorebirds throughout the year. It also provides vital public health benefits by covering the playa, which, if exposed will significantly worsen the air quality in the region. Ultimately, the state of the Salton Sea ecosystem will reflect the value of the State’s promises to protect public and ecosystem health as it promotes water transfers as a means to improve statewide water supply reliability.


NGO Salton Sea comment letter March 12, 2015

p. 2 of 7

Ecological value As the State Water Board notes in its Notice of Public Workshop, the Salton Sea plays a vital role in sustaining California’s critically-important wildlife values. The following table, copied from the Resources Agency’s 2006 Programmatic Environmental Impact Report,1 lists many of the important bird species found at the Salton Sea, based on abundance or legal status. The data provided in this table are based on surveys that are in many cases more than 10 years old; we acknowledge that some of these populations have already changed at the Salton Sea due to changing conditions. Audubon is in the process of producing a white paper to update bird data with more recent surveys to better inform planning at the Salton Sea. This tremendous avian abundance and diversity is the highest in California and the second-highest in the United States. In addition, the Salton Sea has been designated as a Globally Important Bird Area and one of the top 50 Climate Refugia Important Bird Areas by Audubon California.2 Simply put, the Salton Sea provides incomparable, irreplaceable avian habitat, benefitting the people of California and the nation. Table 1. Focal Bird Species and Criteria

SPECIES CRITERIA

Aechmophorous spp. (Includes Clark’s and Western Grebes)

Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

American Avocet Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

American White Pelican DFG Bird Species of Special Concern Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Black Skimmer DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; Service Birds of Conservation Concern - BCR 33 National Waterbird Conservation Plan (species considered Highly Imperiled or of High Concern)

Black Tern DFG Bird Species of Special Concern

Black-necked Stilt Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Brown Pelican Federally endangered species state endangered species3

California Gull Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Cattle Egret Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Double-crested Cormorant DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single

survey (Shuford et al., 2002)4

Dowitcher spp (Includes Long-billed and Short-billed Dowitchers)

Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

1 California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) (formerly, the California Resources Agency). 2006. Salton Sea

Ecosystem Restoration Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Available at http://www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/documents/draft_eir.cfm. 2 http://ca.audubon.org/important-bird-areas-9

3 The Brown Pelican is no longer a Federal endangered species.

4 More recent surveys indicate that Double-crested Cormorants nest in significantly lower numbers at the Salton

Sea than previously because of changing conditions. However, they still winter there in the thousands.

http://www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/documents/draft_eir.cfm


p. 3 of 7

Dunlin U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score)

Eared Grebe Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Gull-billed Tern DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; National Waterbird Conservation Plan (species considered Highly Imperiled or of High Concern) Service Birds of Conservation Concern - BCR 33

Least Bittern DFG Bird Species of Special Concern

Long-billed Curlew DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score)

Marbled Godwit U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score) Service Birds of Conservation Concern - BCR 33

Ring-billed Gull Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Ruddy Duck Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Snowy Egret National Waterbird Conservation Plan (species considered Highly Imperiled or of High Concern)

Snowy Plover DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score); Service Birds of Conservation Concern - BCR 33

Western Sandpiper Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002); U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score)

Whimbrel U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan species or subspecies (4-5 priority score); Service Birds of Conservation Concern - BCR 33

White-faced Ibis DFG Bird Species of Special Concern; Greater than 10,000 birds counted on single survey (Shuford et al., 2002)

Notes: DFG = Department of Fish and Game [now known as Department of Fish and Wildlife]; Service = U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Source: CNRA 2006 (App. C, Table C-1).

Public Health Benefits The Salton Sea also provides quantifiable health benefits to California, by covering playa that could otherwise emit dust. Owens Lake, another lake desiccated by a water transfer, offers a good example of the threat posed by the loss of lake surface in a wind-prone area. The L.A. Department of Water and Power has spent more than one billion dollars on aggressive remediation efforts at Owens Lake, to manage and reduce dust emissions from exposed lakebed dust in an effort to protect public health. The QSA will decrease the total volume of water flowing into the Salton Sea by roughly 300,000 acre-feet per year once the water transfer is in full effect and the mitigation water ceases to be delivered to the Sea, shrinking the lake’s surface area by tens of thousands of acres. This shrinking lake will increase the amount of dust-emitting playa exposed at the Salton Sea relative to the pre-QSA baseline by the same area, potentially increasing the amount of dust emitted in the air basin by scores of tons per day. This dust will further degrade the already poor air quality in the Coachella and Imperial valleys, adversely affecting the health of the 650,000 residents of the two valleys, as well as the health of the hundreds of thousands of annual visitors to the area. The Pacific Institute’s recent Hazard’s Toll: The Costs of Inaction at the Salton Sea (available at http://pacinst.org/publication/hazards-toll/ and incorporated here by reference) estimates the 30-year present value costs of this public health impact to run into the tens of billions of dollars.



p. 4 of 7

The Costs of Inaction The declining Salton Sea will impose massive public health and environmental costs on local residents and Californians generally, as described in the Pacific Institute report Hazard’s Toll. The continued failure to protect and preserve the Salton Sea, worsening air quality and the loss of valuable ecological habitat – combined with diminished recreational revenue and property devaluation – could cost as much as $70 billion over the next 30 years. The projected $9 billion cost of the Natural Resources Agency’s 2007 preferred alternative for the Salton Sea has inhibited deliberation and deterred any meaningful investment in revitalizing the Salton Sea. Because the Salton Sea has changed over the past decade and will soon enter a period of very rapid decline due to the cessation of mitigation water deliveries, the costs of inaction are escalating rapidly. Even at the low end of the costs estimated in Hazard’s Toll, the long-term social and economic costs of a deteriorating Salton Sea could approach $29 billion, well in excess of the project cost of the State’s plan. The costs of inaction reflect both chronic and acute public health costs, diminished property values in the region due to real and perceived disamenities associated with the ecological collapse of the Salton Sea and resultant downwind dust and odors, and the loss of ecological values to California residents generally as the Salton Sea no longer supports the tremendous avian abundance and diversity noted above. Too Big to Fail As the QSA transfer schedule ramps up to its maximum volumes, more than 367,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water5 will move from the Imperial Valley to urban Southern California, greatly improving water supply reliability for the region and for the state as a whole and avoiding additional pressure being brought to bear on the fragile Bay Delta system. This firm, reliable water supply greatly benefits California, helping to offset the State Water Project allocation reductions due to the continuing drought. The State’s explicit commitment to assume liability for mitigation costs above the $133 million commitment from the QSA parties was central to the completion of the QSA. Without this State commitment, the 19 million people in The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD’s) service area would face chronic rationing, diminishing their quality of life and economic productivity in the region. Moreover, the loss of this transfer water would have increased MWD’s service area’s reliance on water delivered from the declining California Bay Delta system. The State’s failure to provide assurance that it will meet its mitigation obligations – either through a clear, transparent funding plan or through leadership on the development of a vision for Salton Sea restoration/mitigation – will have a chilling effect on future water transfer agreements that require state involvement. In effect, the State’s inaction not only jeopardizes the current QSA, but also diminishes the likelihood that other large-scale water transfers will occur to improve the State’s overall water reliability. The notion that the QSA is too big to fail requires the State to develop a sound financial plan and a coordinated, holistic plan to address the air, wildlife, and water quality problems at the Salton Sea,

5 This volume includes 200,000 acre-feet (AF) of Colorado River water to be transferred each year from IID to

SDCWA, as much as 100,000 AF from IID to MWD or to CVWD, and an additional 67,700 AF from the lining of the All-American Canal to SDCWA and the San Luis Rey tribe. This does not include an additional 110,000 AF transferred from IID to MWD under the terms of their 1989 transfer agreement.

http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/09/PacInst_HazardsToll.pdf

http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/09/PacInst_HazardsToll.pdf


p. 5 of 7

lest those problems become so acute that postponing the transfer is the only viable means to minimize the looming and enormous threat to public and ecosystem health. The tremendous scale of the problems at the Salton Sea and the size of the Sea itself, combined with the time required to design, permit, and construct appropriate air quality and habitat projects in the region indicate that the State must develop its financial and holistic plans before the impacts of the full transfer are felt at the Salton Sea and in the surrounding communities. Quite frankly, this work should have begun years ago. The Natural Resources Agency’s lack of urgency regarding the imminent collapse of the Salton Sea ecosystem and subsequent threats to public health underscore the timeliness of IID’s request for relief and the importance of State Water Board oversight and intervention. State Water Board Assertions The State Water Board’s Notice suggests that IID’s requested relief may not be appropriate for three reasons. For the reasons set forth below, we do not agree with the State Water Board’s assertions, which downplay the need for action by the State. 1. “First, although the conserved water transfer from IID to SDCWA, CVWD, and MWD has the

potential to exacerbate the air and water quality problems at the Salton Sea, those problems would exist in the absence of the transfer.”

While it is correct that these problems will exist – to a smaller degree – in the absence of the transfer, the transfer dramatically and measurably exacerbates the magnitude and the timing of these problems. Although salinity will continue to rise at the Salton Sea whether or not the transfer continues, it is indisputable that the cessation of mitigation water deliveries at the end of 2017 and the ramp-up of transfer volumes will lead to a tripling of the lake’s salinity within 10-12 years, a rate that will exceed the ability of most aquatic species to adapt, leading to ecological collapse. The rapid accelerated decline of the Sea from the transfer itself drives this unacceptable rate of change, one that will also create noxious odors and economic repercussions that will ripple throughout the region. The transfer of some 300,000 AF of water out of the Imperial Valley in effect comes directly from the Salton Sea, causing additional lakebed exposure – and the resulting air quality and health impacts – that would not occur in the transfer’s absence. 2. “Second, the California Water Action Plan calls for the Natural Resources Agency, in partnership

with the Salton Sea Authority, to take the lead on coordinating state, local and federal restoration efforts and working with local stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the future of the Salton Sea.”

While we appreciate the efforts of the Deputy Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to coordinate with stakeholders and attempt to direct funding toward local efforts, the Natural Resources Agency – as a whole and during the last 13 years of the water transfers – has failed to develop the vision noted by the State Water Board’s Notice. The Agency’s 2007 Salton Sea Ecosystem Restoration Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report presented a restoration plan that was so bloated, expensive and unreasonable that it was never adopted by the California Legislature. And, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Water Resources have yet to create a single acre of habitat from their Species Conservation Habitat Project despite the fact that this project has been in process since 2010 and was certified in 2013. Moreover, the Agency has not delivered any kind of plan to demonstrate that the State will be able to pay for the mitigation responsibilities that will arise after


p. 6 of 7

the transfer goes into full effect and QSA mitigation costs exceed the annual funding available from the QSA Joint Powers Authority. In addition, the refusal of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to staff the Salton Sea Restoration Council in 2011, as required by SB 51 (2010), demonstrates the absence of good faith efforts by DFW and the Agency to provide the leadership and support required by the California Water Action Plan and by state law. 3. “Third, making approval of the transfer contingent on restoration of the Salton Sea has the potential

to unravel the complex series of agreements that make up the QSA, which would have significant water supply implications for the State.”

We disagree with this assertion by the State Board. Instead, we believe that the failure of the State to demonstrate good faith and undertake some kind of plan to address the imminent decline of Salton Sea has the potential to create an unacceptable public health and ecological crisis at the Salton Sea, a crisis that will lead to litigation as the local air pollution control district takes enforcement actions against local landowners with dust-emitting playa (including IID and the federal government), who will in turn either sue the State for failing to meet its mitigation funding responsibilities in a timely fashion or will simply stop transferring water out of the Imperial Valley until sufficient mitigation funding and mitigation projects materialize. Indeed, unless substantial progress is made, it will be the failure of the State to meet its mitigation obligations that will generate significant water supply problems for California, not IID’s petition. Issues for Discussion at the Workshop 1. How can the State Water Board promote implementation of a reasonable and sustainable plan to

address the air, wildlife, and water quality problems at the Salton Sea?

In Revised WRO 2002-013, the State Water Board reserved authority to consider changes to the order based on new information. The State’s assumption of liability for the QSA transfer and the related QSA legislation committing the State to undertake the restoration of the Salton Sea both fall within this new information countenanced by the SWRCB because it occurred after 2002. As requested by IID, the State Water Board should convene a series of stakeholder meetings, in conjunction with the Natural Resources Agency, to develop a plan to address the problems of the Salton Sea. The credible threat of postponing the QSA transfers has already proven to be a valuable incentive to bring the State and the QSA parties to the table to discuss appropriate mechanisms for moving forward. The State Water Board should wield this authority to ensure the timely development and implementation of a funding and habitat/air quality plan at the Salton Sea.

2. If there is a necessary and appropriate role for the State Water Board, what specific issues or

obstacles need to be addressed, and in what sequence and timeframe?

The key issues to date are (a) the absence of a clear funding plan for the State’s mitigation obligations that demonstrates a schedule for funding and adequate funding sources, (b) the absence of leadership from the Natural Resources Agency to develop a viable plan and vision for the Salton Sea, and (c) the absence of any sense of urgency regarding the timing and magnitude of the air, wildlife, and water quality problems at the Salton Sea. The State Water Board should require the Natural Resources Agency to submit, by the end of this calendar year, (1) the Agency’s estimated annual funding obligations pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and QSA-related legislation, including mitigation payments, (2) the Agency’s schedule for developing and implementing a coordinated holistic


p. 7 of 7

plan to address the air, wildlife, and water quality problems at the Salton Sea, and (3) the Agency’s identified sources of current and potential future funding sources to meet the State’s financial obligations. 3. What changes, if any, should the State Water Board consider making to Revised Order WRO 2002-

0013?

The State Water Board should revise Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 to reflect the final language of the QSA as signed on October 10, 2003, and the clear language adopted by the legislature in 2003 in SB 277, SB 317, and SB 654, and in SB 187 in 2008. The State Water Board may also need to revise Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 to reflect the additional conditions and requirements suggested above, toward ensuring the timely satisfaction of the State’s existing obligations. The presumption that the QSA is too big to fail does not justify neglecting State financial obligations nor its obligations to protecting human health, or to preserving California’s fish and wildlife resources. If the State does not act in good faith for this water transfer, it will jeopardize the continuation of the QSA water transfer and chill future water transfer efforts in other parts of California, jeopardizing the state’s long term water reliability. The State Water Board should take immediate action and offer the relief requested by IID’s petition. Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberly Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife Michael Lynes Kyle Jones Director of Public Policy Policy Advocate Audubon California Sierra Club California

Salton Sea Task Force

Agency Actions [announced Oct. 9, 2015]

[assessed August 28, 2017]

The implementation of sustainable habitat and air quality management and mitigation at the Salton Sea through a

Salton Sea Management Program is critical for the protection of regional air quality, natural resources at the sea,

and the management of a stable Colorado River Supply for California. The Salton Sea Task Force recognizes the

contributions of the local leadership, plans, and initiatives that have informed the Task Force process. Following

meetings with key stakeholders, the Task Force finds that implementation of a successful Salton Sea Management

Program depends on the following three principles: 1) strong state, federal, and local partnerships; 2) clear and

achievable milestones with state-directed plans to achieve them; and 3) committed participation from all

stakeholders who share the goals of protecting air quality, reducing habitat impacts, and maintaining a secure

Colorado River Water Supply. These three factors will drive decision-making on a short- and a medium-term plan

while leveraging fiscal and technical resources to deliver projects in an expedited manner.

The Natural Resources Agency will take the following actions over an accelerated timeline:

• Begin immediate implementation and further development of Salton Sea management plan

o The plan will prioritize actions that respond to air quality and natural resources impacts while

incorporating opportunities for regional economic development, including recreational and

renewable opportunities that benefit implementation of the plan.

o A science advisory committee will be utilized to provide scientific expertise into plan

development.

[to date, the science advisory committee has only met one time, on May 20, 2016, for 1.5 hours.

According to the agenda posted at http://resources.ca.gov/meetings-salton-sea/may-20-science-

advisory-committee-meeting/, only 30 minutes of the meeting were for substantive discussion. The

science advisory committee was not utilized to provide scientific expertise into the March draft of the

10-Year Plan, and apparently has not been utilized to provide expertise into subsequent revisions]

o Colorado River stakeholders will be asked to assist with the development of the plan. The Salton

Sea Authority and its members will be asked to help facilitate local involvement.

[some Colorado River stakeholders, notably some of the QSA parties, provided detailed input on the

development of the plan. The Authority and some of its member agencies have facilitated local

involvement.]

• Improve public outreach and local partnership

o Air quality and environmental impacts of a reduced Salton Sea will be felt foremost by the

residents of the region. The state will provide a meaningful public forum to discuss Salton Sea

issues locally and to develop future plans and actions.

[The state has hosted almost twenty public workshops.]

• Accelerate project implementation and delivery

o The state will work with Salton Sea, Colorado River partners to accelerate planning, state and

federal permitting and construction.

[The Natural Resources Agency entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the federal

Department of the Interior in late August, 2016, and amended this MOU in January, 2017. Efforts to

accelerate federal permitting and construction pursuant to the MOU are not known. DWR and DFW

continue to work with IID and other local landowners to accelerate project implementation, but to

date, no state projects have actually been implemented.]

http://resources.ca.gov/meetings-salton-sea/may-20-science-advisory-committee-meeting/

http://resources.ca.gov/meetings-salton-sea/may-20-science-advisory-committee-meeting/

April 13, 2017

Mr. Bruce Wilcox

Assistant Secretary of Salton Sea Policy

California Natural Resources Agency

1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311

Sacramento, CA 95814

Via email: [email protected]

RE: March 2017 draft SSMP Phase I: 10-Year Plan

Dear Assistant Secretary Wilcox:

On behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific Institute, and Sierra Club California,

we write to offer our comments and suggestions on the Salton Sea Management Program (SSMP)

draft Phase I: 10-Year Plan (“10-Year Plan”), released on March 16th. The 10-Year Plan is a significant

and necessary step forward in what needs to be a long-term effort to protect public and ecological

health in the region. As you know, our organizations are committed to working with you, the staff of

the Natural Resources Agency, and other state and local officials to improve, implement and manage

expeditiously Phase I Salton Sea projects and develop and implement a requisite long-term Salton

Sea program that encompasses the full term of the Imperial Irrigation District – San Diego County

Water Authority water transfer.

The large and enthusiastic attendance at the March 16th Salton Sea Leadership Tour demonstrated

the support that Salton Sea habitat and dust suppression projects can expect to enjoy. The success of

the former Torres-Martinez wetlands and the USGS/Reclamation Saline Habitat Project ponds

demonstrated that such projects can be constructed and attract large numbers of fish and birds,

while suppressing dust. We are hopeful that the cooperative Red Hill Bay project – one of the Tour’s

destinations – will be completed and operational by November, enabling the State of California to

demonstrate tangible progress at the Salton Sea, assuaging the concerns of many stakeholders.

Indeed, a ribbon-cutting ceremony at Red Hill Bay, led by Governor Brown, would offer a clear and

visually appealing, newsworthy demonstration of California’s commitment to protect public and

ecological health in the region, offering the Governor a platform to celebrate the successful

implementation of his Task Force’s recommendations and the importance of Salton Sea projects for

the state’s water supply reliability overall. The Red Hill Bay ribbon-cutting would also demonstrate


April 13, 2017 p. 2 of 6

California’s commitment to participating in a Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan. We

encourage the Natural Resources Agency to begin planning for such an event.

The 10-Year Plan offers a clear and welcome commitment by the State of California to begin to meet

its Salton Sea obligations. We appreciate the 10-Year Plan’s tables listing playa exposure and

proposed construction rates, as well as estimated project costs. The section describing “Potential

Funding Sources” helpfully outlines several such sources. We also appreciate the inclusion of the

Ten-Year Phase I Plan Schedule, listing tasks and their estimated duration. We recognize that this

March 2017 draft is still very much a work in progress, and offer the following comments so that the

next iteration offers sufficient information to facilitate project implementation at the Salton Sea.

I. Goals and Objectives

The next draft of the 10-Year Plan must list and define goals and objectives for the SSMP and for the

Phase I Plan itself. These goals and objectives also must reference existing legal authorities. The

absence of these critical elements from the 10-Year Plan, as well as from other SSMP documents and

materials, could be construed as a deliberate Agency decision to minimize its responsibilities and

retreat from existing obligations and statutory commitments. Moreover, a failure to include these

important components leaves the Plan without any measurable definition of success. We cannot

emphasize enough that the failure of the state to clearly define what either Phase 1 of the SSMP or

the overall SSMP is supposed to achieve relative to the state’s ongoing water transfer legal

obligations will continue to create confusion and distrust among the local communities and

stakeholders. Furthermore, the Plan’s discussion of an adaptive management and monitoring

program is meaningless if there are no goals or objectives to guide and inform project management.

II. State’s obligations to protect fish and wildlife.

The 10-Year Plan must describe the State of California’s statutory and contractual obligation to

provide long-term protection for the fish and wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea ecosystem, and

include a clear plan and commitment to meet this obligation. The Natural Resources Agency’s vague

and non-committal language regarding the State’s obligation to protect fish and wildlife resources at

the Salton Sea is unacceptable to our organizations and jeopardizes our continued support for the

10-Year Plan and the SSMP generally. The State’s legal obligation to protect fish and wildlife

resources at the Salton Sea is abundantly clear. Section 2940 of the Fish and Game Code states

(e) In restoring the Salton Sea, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:

(1) Permanently protect fish and wildlife that are dependent on the Salton Sea ecosystem.

(2) Restore the long-term stable aquatic and shoreline habitat for fish and wildlife that depend on

the Salton Sea.

(3) Mitigate air quality impacts from restoration projects using the best available technology or best

available control measures, as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District

and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

(4) Protect water quality.

(5) Maintain the Salton Sea as a vital link along the Pacific Flyway.

(6) Preserve local tribal heritage and cultural values associated with the Salton Sea.

April 13, 2017 p. 3 of 6

(7) Minimize noxious odors and other water and air quality problems.

(8) Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies that are responsible for air quality, endangered

species, and other environmental mitigation implementation requirements of the Quantification

Settlement Agreement.

(9) Enhance economic development opportunities that will provide sustainable financial

improvements benefiting the local environment and the economic quality of life for

communities around the Salton Sea.

Similarly, the State Water Resources Control Board’s Revised Order WRO 2002-0013 (p. 3) states

this order achieves a reasonable balance between the State’s interest in protecting the fish and wildlife

that depend on the Salton Sea, the State’s interest in protecting the economy of Imperial County, and

the State’s interest in the implementation of this transfer to meet California’s water supply needs.

Finally, the August 2016 “Memorandum of Understanding By and Between the United States

Department of the Interior and the California Natural Resources Agency Regarding the Coordination

of Activities to Manage the Salton Sea” (“MOU”) states that “[u]nder the [Quantification Settlement

Agreement] the State of California agreed to assume responsibility for environmental mitigation

requirements in excess of $133 million (in 2003 dollars), the amount that the QSA requires three

local water agencies to pay for this purpose.” MOU at p.2.

The 10-Year Plan fails to reflect the state’s obligation to balance these interests and articulate what is

required to meet all of the state’s obligations. Notably, the 10-Year Plan (p. 7) states “Phase I is

designed to address playa exposure by developing habitat or dust suppression projects on exposed

playa” [emphasis added]. That is, the 10-Year Plan subordinates the State’s interest in protecting fish

and wildlife to address playa exposure. As we have noted previously and repeatedly, we strongly

support dust suppression actions at the Salton Sea, in conjunction with the long-term protection of

fish and wildlife. The 10-Year Plan and the SSMP more generally must protect both public and

ecological health. While it is important for the 10-Year Plan to address playa exposure due to its

impacts on air quality and public health, the impacts to fish and wildlife from the water transfer are

not limited to playa exposure. The 10-Year Plan must also address the impacts to the Sea from the

water transfer that involve water quality needs for habitat purposes and the loss of food resources

(e.g., fish and pileworms) for the birds from the declining Sea.

III. Adaptive Management and Contingency Planning

The 10-Year Plan includes a section devoted to Adaptive Management, Monitoring, and Contingency

Planning (p. 24), which begins, “Adaptive management will be fundamental to the success of the

SSMP.” As noted above, without specific articulated goals and objectives, it is impossible to know

how the SSMP defines success. The next version of the draft 10-Year Plan must include specific

project metrics, as well as general programmatic goals and objectives, to define “success” and guide

management decisions toward this goal. The next version of the 10-Year Plan must also include a

description of the agency or agencies responsible for monitoring and managing SSMP projects. Will

the Department of Fish and Wildlife be the responsible agency? Who will be in charge of monitoring

air quality and dust suppression efforts?

April 13, 2017 p. 4 of 6

The 10-Year Plan must also identify the timing of and criteria to be used in important decision points,

such as decisions whether to design and build additional habitat versus additional water

infrastructure versus waterless dust suppression projects. The lack of specificity and metrics

associated with “contingency planning” in this section – and for Phase I generally – must be rectified

in the next draft. A strong plan that can achieve the goals laid out in statute can attract state funding;

a passive acquiescence to the limited funds appropriated to date will not. Further, this passive

approach, coupled with the vague language associated with “contingency planning,” could be read to

mean that the Natural Resources Agency intends to delay or abandon “the construction of water

infrastructure and habitat (the more costly components).” As noted above, the state’s obligations

include BOTH the protection of fish and wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea and the need to

maintain adequate dust suppression. To ignore these co-equal goals does not reflect the intent of the

Legislature or the commitments made in the QSA, the MOU, and in other legal documents. Ignoring

these co-equal goals will jeopardize the success of the SSMP as a whole, and ultimately could

undermine southern California’s water supply reliability.

IV. Project Costs & Timeline

The draft 10-Year Plan lacks detail on habitat implementation, such as the range of cost estimates for

the different habitat types, a discussion of their prioritization, or the criteria that will be used to

determine where and when to construct habitat. Although the 10-Year Plan references the Audubon

habitat report, without knowing what types or amounts of habitat the Plan contemplates, it is

impossible to tell if sufficient habitat, of sufficient quality, will exist to meet the needs of fish and

wildlife dependent on the Salton Sea.

Please also include information on the process for the draft 10-Year Plan itself. When will the Natural

Resources Agency finalize the 10-Year Plan? Will the Agency post and respond to the comments it

receives on the 10-Year Plan? Will the Agency submit the final plan to the Legislature, or to the State

Water Resources Control Board, or to some other entity? Once the Plan is finalized, what authority

will it have? Who will be responsible for determining conformance to the 10-Year Plan?

P. 18 of the draft states “Many of these [dust suppression] techniques are currently being evaluated

for efficacy and longevity in the 2003–2018 playa exposure zone.” In the next version, please list the

dust suppression techniques that are currently being evaluated, their location, their actual costs, and

their efficacy to date. Which of these require more maintenance or management? Do some require

more monitoring than others? Are some more wildlife-friendly than others? Please provide

additional detail, or list references where additional information may be found.

The projected costs listed in Table 4 (p. 18) for “Waterless Dust Suppression Techniques” appear to

be excessive. For example, our understanding is that “Surface Roughening” is comparable to plowing

fields with a particular kind of disc, a practice that occurs regularly in the 450,000 acres of cultivated

land in Imperial Valley. A review of recent costs for such activities suggests that the projected

$400/acre cost for “Surface Roughening” may be eight to ten times higher than farmers in the Valley

actually pay. We look forward to revised cost estimates that reflect more recent information, in the

April 13, 2017 p. 5 of 6

next draft. Reasonable cost estimates and projections, grounded in actual day-to-day operations in

the Imperial Valley, are more likely to attract legislative support and funding.

The “Cost Projections” in Appendix 2 are not a meaningful description of costs and may be double-

counting “Total Costs,” but it is not possible to determine this with the information provided. The 10-

Year Plan should also estimate annual operations and maintenance costs, and potential funding

sources for these. The project schedule in Appendix 3 is a helpful addition, but it also raises some

questions. The schedule states that no construction will start before July 2019, more than 18 months

after the end of mitigation water deliveries and the ensuing rapid decline of the Salton Sea. There are

also a lot of asterisks on the schedule tasks, but they are not defined. What do these asterisks refer

to?

The draft 10-Year Plan’s Projected Construction schedule, shown in Table 2 on p. 8, falls far short of

the Salton Sea Task Force’s “short-term goal of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and dust

suppression projects at the sea”1 by the year 2020. Table 2 shows the proposed construction of 3,500

acres by the year 2020, though this does not include the 530 acres of the Red Hill Bay project, the

640 acres of the Species Conservation Habitat project, or the estimated 55 acres of the Torres

Martinez wetlands. Yet even including these existing projects, the Phase I effort will barely meet half

of the Task Forces’ minimum. This does not inspire confidence.

The Natural Resources Agency needs to prioritize actions to design and construct the water supply

and distribution infrastructure backbone. We encourage you to emphasize the importance of such

infrastructure for any larger-scale Salton Sea plan that may be implemented in the future: any such

plan will require the capture and redistribution of Salton Sea inflows. Therefore, the critical path for

the Salton Sea includes the accelerated design and construction of this water supply infrastructure.

The Natural Resources Agency should give the design, budgeting, environmental compliance, and

permitting of this water supply infrastructure its very highest priority.

Prioritizing and accelerating the construction of necessary infrastructure would also improve the

likelihood of attracting much-needed federal financing. We encourage the Natural Resources Agency

to purse federal financing under the auspices of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

(WIFIA), a federal credit program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. WIFIA offers

eligible borrowers, including states, loans or loan guarantees for 49 percent of eligible water

infrastructure projects. In December 2016, Senator Boxer amended WIFIA to make Salton Sea

management program activities eligible for WIFIA financing. Leveraging the $80 million in existing

Salton Sea funding could secure an additional $39 million in federal financing for Salton Sea water

infrastructure, helping to overcome some of the funding challenges identified in the draft Plan and

accelerating project implementation.

1 Curiously, the 10-Year Plan refers to “dust suppression and habitat projects” (p. 2) rather than the actual language of the Task Force, quoted accurately above, that lists habitat creation before dust suppression. Coupled with the Plan’s subordination of habitat creation in other parts of the document, this reversal of the order of the terms is worrisome, as it appears to minimize habitat and prioritize dust suppression.

April 13, 2017 p. 6 of 6

V. The Need for a Compelling Narrative

We encourage you to better organize the next version of the 10-Year Plan, to create a coherent and

compelling narrative that describes the problems and challenges facing the Salton Sea, the legal

authorities to address these problems, the goals of the SSMP and the 10-Year Plan itself, a

description of previous efforts (including the USGS-Reclamation Saline Habitat pilot pond project and

the Torres-Martinez wetlands project) with an assessment of their successes and shortcomings, and

a clear description of the project timeline. Grounding the 10-Year Plan within the context of existing

statute and linking the Plan to the successes of previous habitat projects at the Salton Sea will

validate the current approach and should help attract much-needed legislative support and funding.

The current draft includes a disproportionate amount of detail on “the criteria for the backbone

water delivery system” but almost none on goals, objectives, management, or monitoring, or

responsible agencies. Similarly, the draft includes relatively detailed descriptions of habitat types,

from Audubon’s recent technical report, but neglects to provide a similar level of detail on habitat

implementation, such as a range of cost estimates for the different habitat types, a discussion of

their prioritization, or what criteria will be used to determine where to construct them.

VI. Conclusion

We were heartened by the strong response at the recent Salton Sea Leadership Tour, demonstrating

the commitment from key state officials and stakeholders to accelerate actions at the Salton Sea.

We believe that if the next version of the 10-Year Plan reflects the above recommendations, the

state will be on the correct path toward fulfilling its important obligations to the Salton Sea and its

surrounding communities. We look forward to working with you to make this happen.

Sincerely,

Michael Cohen Kimberley Delfino Senior Associate California Program Director Pacific Institute Defenders of Wildlife Michael Lynes Kyle Jones Director of Public Policy Policy Advocate Audubon California Sierra Club California Cc: Salton Sea Task Force State Water Resources Control Board Kevin Kelley, IID Phil Rosentrater, Salton Sea Authority Marc Maynard, Reclamation

• Meet a short-term goal of 9,000-12,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects at

the sea

o Projects to meet short-term goals will be achievable with available funding.

o Short-term projects will address dust suppression and natural resources needs while laying the

foundation for a long-term Salton Sea management framework.

o Projects will be staged to address the expected progression of playa exposure and designed to

provide access corridors for renewable energy development on those lands.

[The governor’s press release (at https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19161) clarifies this as

occurring “over the next five years,” e.g., by 2020. The SSMP milestones would not achieve 9,000

acres of project construction until early in 2023; by 2020, only 3,500 acres would be constructed.]

• Set medium-term goal of 18,000-25,000 acres of habitat creation and dust suppression projects at

the sea

o Funding plans to meet medium-term goals will need to be developed by the state with Salton Sea

and Colorado River partners.

[The governor’s press release (at https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19161) clarifies this as

“Restoring up to 25,000 acres of additional exposed shoreline starting in 2020.”]

Ensure Oversight by Regulatory Agencies:

• The State Water Resources Control Board will regularly monitor and assess progress on the

implementation of the Salton Sea Management Program, including the development of management plans

and funding options, and any potential action by the State Board.

• The State Water Resources Control Board will periodically hold public workshops as part of its

monitoring and assessment function.

[Including the September 7th workshop, the Board will have held five public workshops and included one

Salton Sea informational item since IID submitted its November, 2014 petition. To date, the Board has not

issued any reports or otherwise assessed progress on the implementation of the SSMP. The Board has not

publicized or otherwise posted any comments or assessments of the 10-Year Plan, or the Plan’s annotated list

of funding options.

• The State Water Resources Control Board will work with the Colorado River Regional Water Board and

the Administration to improve water quality and upstream co-benefits in the New River and the Alamo

River.

• The California Air Resources Board will coordinate with local partners to address air quality impacts

from the Salton Sea, work with Imperial and South Coast air districts to monitor air quality, and provide

technical and scientific expertise to ensure effective mitigation of dust impacts from exposed playa.

Consider opportunities for increasing renewable energy development at and around the Salton Sea:

• As part of the implementation of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350), the

California Energy Commission and the Public Utilities Commission will evaluate how renewables at and

around the Salton Sea will further the goals of the integrated resources plans, including a balanced

resource mix and the minimization of localized air pollutants.

• Within the next year, as part of planning to meet the 2030 greenhouse gas goals, the Public Utilities

Commission, the Energy Commission and the Independent System Operator will consider renewable

energy opportunities at and around the Salton Sea and the region, and any additional transmission that

may be needed for the near term or long term.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19161

https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=19161

Salton Sea - Milestones

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4thSalton Sea

Avg Annual Elev. (NGVD 1929) -228.2 -228.4 -228.7 -228.5 -228.9 -229.4 -230.0 -230.5 -231.3 -231.6 -231.9 -232.2 -233.1 -234.1Playa exposed (vs. 2002), acres 600 1,500 900 2,200 3,900 6,000 7,800 10,500 11,600 12,000 12,400 15,000 17,800 Authorities

SB 277, 317, and 654WRO 2002-0013

QSASB 187 authorizes "early-start habitat"

SB 51 Salton Sea Restoration Councilbudget omnibus disbanded Salton Sea Restoration Council

AB 71 SCH, state consultation with SSASWRCB draft stipulated order?

FundingProp. 84 $45.4 million (approved Nov 2006; $30+ m for SCH, $3 m for FAP; $0 unencumbered??)Prop. 1 $80.5 million (FYs 2016/17 – 2019/20; $20 m for salaries, consultants, overhead)Prop. 50 $22 million ($20 m spent on PEIR; $0 remaining?)Salton Sea Restoration Limit Funds$68.6 million ($30 m in 2003$, plus interest)USDA-RCPP $7.5 million (thru SSA)Water transfers

IID water transfers to SDCWAmitigation water to SS ends in 2017

PlanningPEIR, Preferred Alternative

SCH initiated Notice Draft EIR Final EIR PermittedProjects on the ground

Saline Habitat Ponds (100 acres) (decommissioned)Torres Martinez wetlands (~55 acres) (pump washed out; replaced Sept. 2017?)

Dust control projects (currently, ~1,000 acres)Regulatory oversightIID submits petition to SWRCB for modification of Revised Order WRO 2002-0013

SWRCB workshops"Shovel-Ready Projects" report AprilSalton Sea Management Program

Salton Sea Task Force Agency Actions (Oct)Ass't Secretary of Salton Sea Policy Hired (Sept.)

SSMP Phase I: 10 Year Plan draftGoals & Objectives Task Force Agency Actions; no specific SSMP goals or objectives. Project acreage milestones only

Long-Range Plan to be completed by Dec., 2022, per draft stipuated orderFunding/financing plan none

2016

-234.819,300

2017

boards (board [s) amendments to strengthen and clarify the ... · pdf...

Documents