Salton Sea
Species Conservation Habitat
Stakeholders Meeting • April 12, 2011
Meeting Purpose
Introduce new team member
Provide general updates on Salton Sea/activities
Provide updates on SCH Project
Provide opportunity for Stakeholders to provide
informal input
1
Agenda
Salton Sea Restoration Fund
State of the Salton Sea
SCH Project
Schedule
Stakeholder coordination
Special studies
Alternatives development
Salton Sea Financial Assistance Program
Stakeholder feedback/general discussion
2
Introductions
Rick Davis – Davis Group
Kim Nicol – Department of Fish and Game
David Elms – Department of Fish and Game
Kent Nelson – Department of Water Resources
Rob Thomson – Cardno ENTRIX
Ramona Swenson – Cardno ENTRIX
3
Salton Sea Restoration Fund Update
and
State of the Salton Sea
4
Salton Sea Restoration Fund Update
(July 2007 through February 2011)
Source
Mitigation Fund Prop 84
FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Total
Appropriation 2,741,578 2,829,770 2,741,923 2,786,000 13,300,000 10,750,000 5,296,000 296,000 40,741,271
Expenditures 1,474,889 1,494,011 235,401 84,932.83 783,076.25 1,378,858 0 0 5,451,169
Encum-
brances 224 18,426 2,316.27 29,890.87 11,456,163 28,541 0 0 11,535,563
Appropriation
balance 1,266,464 1,317,332 2,504,205 2,671,176 1,060,760 9,342,599 5,296,000 296,000 23,754,538
Note: Annual appropriation of approximately $2.7 million from the Mitigation Fund
5
Current State of Salton Sea
Salinity – 53 ppt
Water elevation – dipped below -230 feet this winter
Bird numbers – very high last few years (especially fish-
eating birds) due to continuing abundance of tilapia
Bird disease – very low levels
Fishery – tilapia fishery very robust; no signs of marine
species return
Fish die-offs – occasional smaller ones, no large events
by historic standards
Pileworm and barnacle populations – severely
reduced; barnacle bars and beaches not replenished as
Sea recedes 6
Questions and Discussion
7
Species Conservation Habitat Project
Current Schedule
8
Current Schedule (Subject to Change)
NEPA/CEQA scoping – June/July 2010
Draft NEPA/CEQA document – Spring 2011
Draft permit applications – Spring 2011
Final NEPA/CEQA document – Late 2011 to early 2012
Final design – Mid to late 2012
Permits complete – Mid 2012
Begin construction – Late 2012
9
Species Conservation Habitat Project
Stakeholder Coordination
10
Stakeholder Meetings
Meetings held with
Imperial County Farm Bureau
Imperial Irrigation District
Geothermal development companies
Sonny Bono National Wildlife Refuge
Vector control agencies
Elected officials
Purpose of meetings
Share information about SCH Project
Identify any concerns or conflicts with future plans
Identify solutions and opportunities (cooperative efforts)
11
Imperial County Farm Bureau
Issues
Westernmost New River pond next to farmland good for
lettuce production
New guidelines require remedial action if leafy greens
exposed to animal feces
Typically includes eliminating affected portion of crop
Response
Analysis identified potential for increase in birds
No increase in habitat for birds that forage in fields
compared to current conditions
Ducks and geese may roost and loaf, but not a change
Habitat for gulls at SCH ponds, but may keep away from fields
Overall bird population decrease over time from habitat
loss
12
Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.
Issues
Westernmost New River pond site is most easily
reclaimable land
Need to accommodate runoff in natural drainages
Cost of SCH Project
Response
New River ponds truncated on western side
Too costly (long berms for small amount of habitat)
Avoids drains carrying natural runoff
Combination of New and Alamo River sites eliminated due
to cost
13
Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.
Issues
Fish for birds could be raised in hatcheries, not ponds
Response
Raising fish at hatcheries would not meet Project goals
Would not develop range of aquatic habitats to support fish and
wildlife species dependent on Salton Sea
Would not develop/refine information needed to manage SCH
Project through adaptive management
Issues
Previous technique of using geotubes as berms presented
Response
Use of geotubes being considered in geotechnical study
14
Imperial County Farm Bureau, cont.
Issues
Saline water not needed to address selenium issues
Response
Range of salinity retained (20-40 ppt)
Selenium in river water likely to reduce hatching success in some
birds and likely to increase risk of embryo malformation
Salinity range would minimize vegetation, reducing potential for
bioaccumulation and mosquitoes
Issues
Potential conflicts with geothermal development
Response
Meetings held with geothermal developers and IID to
address potential conflicts
15
IID and Geothermal Developers
Issues
Proposed SCH pond sites in known geothermal area
Geothermal companies have contractual right to develop
supplies
Geothermal facilities (wellpads, roads, power lines) may be
located in or near SCH ponds
Response
SCH agencies working cooperatively with geothermal
companies to avoid conflicts
SCH facilities would not preclude future geothermal
development
16
IID and Geothermal Developers, cont.
Issues
Potential conflicts between sensitive species using SCH
ponds and future geothermal development
Construction disturbances
Emergency brine basin could attract wildlife
Bird collisions with transmission lines
Accidents (blow-outs, leaking wells)
Response
SCH agencies coordinating with IID to avoid conflicts with
operations and obtain appropriate coverage in HCP/NCCP
17
Sonny Bono National Wildlife Refuge
Issues
Future NWR projects planned at proposed SCH pond sites
Red Hill Bay shallow water habitat
Unit 1 A/B Ponds Reclamation
Response
SCH pond footprint redesigned to avoid Red Hill Bay
Exploring potential for sharing infrastructure with USFWS
Guidance being developed to ensure SCH compatibility with
refuge management, including Unit 1 A/B Reclamation
18
Vector Control Agencies
Issues
Agencies raised concerns regarding potential increase in
mosquito habitat at SCH ponds and sedimentation basins
Response
UC Riverside mosquito expert added to SCH team
Providing input into EIS/EIR impact analysis
Developing Vector Control Plan in coordination with Imperial County
and Coachella Valley vector control agencies
19
Elected Officials
Imperial County Supervisors
Jack Terrazas
Ray Castillo
Gary Wyatt
State Senator Bill Emmerson
State Senator Juan Vargas staff
Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez staff
20
Questions and Discussion
21
Species Conservation Habitat Project
Special Studies Overview
22
Questions Addressed by Special Studies
How to design SCH ponds that are ecologically
productive and efficient?
Biological requirements for productive fish community -Fish
tolerance
Pond design and operation - Hydrologic modeling
How to build stable berms - Geotechnical studies
Will SCH ponds increase ecotoxicity risks while
providing habitat?
Sediment and water contaminants (Se, As, Bo, pesticides)
Selenium ecorisk
23
Fish Tolerance Study
What are biological requirements for thriving fish
community?
Which tilapia species are best given their tolerances?
What range of salinity and water temperature can be
tolerated?
Tested 3 tilapia species
3 salinities (20, 45, 60 ppt)
3 temperatures (11-16°C, 23-28°C, 33-38°C)
24
California Mozambique
Blue tilapia tilapia hybrid, male
Good survival in cold,
20 ppt
Redbelly tilapia
Wild fish – best survival in cold, 20
& 45 ppt
Hatchery strain – very high survival
in medium temps, moderate
Poor survival in experiment survival in hot
25
Found mainly in fresher waters
Hydrologic Modeling
Water quality conditions in ponds raise challenges for
operations and biota
Desired salinity (20-40 ppt)
Selenium levels higher in fresh water
Salinity tolerated by fish, suppresses vegetation and mosquitoes
Evaporation of river water takes too long, concentrates selenium
Blend of Sea and river water more efficient
SCH pond depth and operations affect DO and temperature
Ponds become stratified in summer (May to October)
Low oxygen at bottom in spring and fall
Tilapia can go to surface, but invertebrates may not
Winter temperatures could fall below fish tolerance
Deeper ponds stratified more often
26
Preliminary Geotechnical Studies
Characterized soils/geotechnical information for
preliminary engineering design
Sea sediments – low strength, dispersive
Subject to erosion from wave action
Potential for compressibility, seepage, expansion,
liquefaction
Possible berm instability from seismic shaking
Low risk of injury, property damage from berm failure
27
Preliminary Geotechnical Studies, cont.
Conditions have implications for construction
Increased construction costs due to soil characteristics
May use onsite soils to minimize cost
Playa soils may be too weak to support traditional
construction equipment
May need very flat slopes for berms
Need to minimize seepage, dispersion of soils
Shoreline protection needed
28
Contaminant Survey
Arsenic and boron not a problem
Selenium
Present in sediment, but not at toxic levels
Rewetting sediments releases some Se, but greater source
from river water
Pesticides
Higher concentrations close to river mouth and below surface
Submerged sediments had lower concentrations than exposed
playa
DDE is predominant organochlorine pesticide in sediment
29
Selenium Ecorisk Birds
Elevated risk compared to other habitats Fish
Moderate risk of reduced hatching
Invertebrates
Risk higher with Alamo River, low salinity
Uncertainties Phytoplankton
Bioaccumulation rates in fish-eating birds Algae
Plants
Proportion of diet from SCH ponds
Reduce risk through management
Water
Use New River water Sediment
Higher salinity (35 ppt)
Flush ponds in first year
Selenium
Monitor SCH ponds
Ongoing research 30
Conclusions
General conclusions
Use CM tilapia, wild from Sea and from hatchery, to
accommodate variable conditions
Low oxygen at bottom and in spring and fall; cold in winter
Selenium - moderate risk for some bird species that breed
at Sea, can be reduced with management
Weak, dispersive soils - challenging for construction, berms
Remaining uncertainties and data gaps
Soil dispersion in saline water
Selenium transfer from fish to birds
Selenium management using constructed wetlands
31
Adaptive Management
Plan
Goals & objs,
alternatives
Adapt, Learn Design
Decision-making Physical designs,
framework, operations plan
communications
Evaluate Implement
Analysis, data Construct and
management operate ponds
Monitoring
Water quality,
fish & birds, Se
32
Questions and Discussion
33
Species Conservation Habitat Project
Crafting the Alternatives
34
Prior Alternatives
New River, gravity diversion (2,460 acres)
New River, pumped diversion (2,260 acres)
Alamo River, gravity diversion (2,420 acres)
Alamo River, pumped diversion (2,860 acres)
New and Alamo River, gravity diversion (4,880 acres)
New and Alamo River, pumped diversion (5,120 acres)
35
Factors Used to Refine SCH Alternatives
Stakeholder input
Existing and proposed land uses
Special studies
Geotechnical information
Costs
36
Current Alternatives
Combinations of New and Alamo River sites eliminated
Too costly
SCH pond footprints modified
Red Hill Bay eliminated at Alamo River due to NWR plans
NWR Unit 1 A/B in but will coordinate with NWR
Far western pond at New River truncated due to high cost
for small amount of habitat, drains
Ongoing coordination with geothermal companies to
ensure that design does not preclude geothermal
development
Not under DSOD jurisdiction as designed
37
Alternative 1, New River, Gravity Diversion
2,500 acres
Independent ponds for West New and East New
Cascading ponds for West New and East New (berm @
-236)
38
39
Alternative 2, New River, Pumped
Diversion
2,100 acres
Independent ponds for West New and East New
Far West New extended pond, but truncated from
original skinny extension west
40
41
Alternative 3, New River Combination,
Pumped Diversion
2,900 acres
Independent ponds for West New, East New, and Far
West New
Cascading ponds for West New, East New, and Far
West New (berm @ -236)
42
43
Alternative 4, Alamo River, Gravity
Diversion
2,290 acres
Independent ponds for Morton Bay
Cascading pond for Morton Bay that includes Mullet
Island (berm @ -239)
44
45
Alternative 5, Alamo River, Pumped
Diversion
2,080 acres
Independent pond for Morton Bay
Wister Beach extended pond
46
47
Alternative 6, Alamo River Combination,
Pumped Diversion
2,940 acres
Independent ponds for Morton Bay and Wister Beach
extended pond
Cascading ponds for Morton Bay and Wister Beach
extended pond (berm @ -239)
48
49
Next Steps
EIS/EIR will identify the environmentally superior
alternative and lead agencies’ preferred alternative
Corps of Engineers 404(b)(1) analysis will identify the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA)
Design will continue to be refined based on
Input from technical studies
Input from Stakeholders, SCH Team
Available budget and projected costs
Planned land uses
Constructed acreage may be less than evaluated in
EIS/EIR due to budget considerations
50
Questions and Discussion
51
Salton Sea
Financial Assistance Program
52
Financial Assistance Program
General
$3 million to local entities for habitat
restoration and research projects
FAP will be competitive proposal solicitation
process
Applications will be made online through
DWR’s Bond Management System
Proposals must be consistent with Salton Sea
Restoration Act
53
Financial Assistance Program
Schedule (Subject to Change)
June 2011: Public review of draft solicitation
package
August 2011: Public release of final FAP
Proposal Solicitation Package and Guidelines
August 2011: Conduct applicant workshops
Applicants have 2 months to prepare
proposals
December 2011: Review panel to make
recommendation for funding
54
Questions and Discussion
55
Stakeholder Feedback
and
General Discussion
56
SCH Information Dissemination
Website (www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea)
Stakeholders meetings/workshops
Periodic newsletters
Public meetings
57
Contact Information
Co-Program Managers/CEQA Leads
Kent Nelson, DWR Program Manager
(916) 653-9190
knelson@water.ca.gov
David Elms, DFG Project Manager
(760) 200-9372
delms@dfg.ca.gov
NEPA Lead
Lanika Cervantes, Corps Project Manager
(760) 602-4838
Lanika.L.Cervantes@usace.army.mil
58