Revive's Grasslands Bypass Project Comments

Revive the San Joaquin submitted the following public comments to Judi Tapia, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Grasslands ByPass Project.  The Proposed Project is asking for an additional 10 years to comply with state water quality and environmental regulations.


Revive the San Joaquin’s Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Grasslands Bypass Project 2010-2019

Revive the San Joaquin (RSJ) is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization established to protect and restore the San Joaquin River.  Our organization is a community-based, grassroots organization working towards restoration, conservation, and successful implementation of the San Joaquin River Settlement Agreement.  Our organization represents a broad range of citizens, communities, organizations, and stakeholders interested in achieving river restoration goals and promoting an increased community stewardship for the San Joaquin River.

The greatest concern about the Proposed Action and the Alternative Actions are that none of them solve the problem.  Discharge of Selenium, boron, salts, and other toxic and soil agricultural byproducts will continue to be discharged into the environment and water supply channels.  The Proposed Action merely postpones responsibility to solve this problem again for another 10 years. 

The next greatest concern about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is that it does not adequately address water quality and how it will affect the return of salmon and other fish in the San Joaquin River above the Merced River confluence. 

The findings found in section “6.1.4.5.1 Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run Chinook Salmon” are inconsistent with the Stipulation of Settlement in NRDC v. Rodgers (CIV-S- 88-1658-LKK/GGH) (Settlement).  Section 6.1.4.5.1 states that CDFG operates a barrier across the San Joaquin River preventing fall-run salmon from accessing Mud Slough or the Grassland wetlands.  While this may have been the case for 2008, the Hills Ferry barrier will not, if isn’t completely removed, be used in the same manner that it is now through the Proposed Action timeline of 2019.  The Interim flows for salmon restoration begin in 2009 and full restoration flows begin by January 1, 2012.

In February, 2008, the San Joaquin River Restoration Program Technical Advisory Committee recommended that the Hills Ferry barrier use be diminished and eventually removed altogether.  See the attached document, “Recommendations on Restoring Fall-run Chinook Salmon to the Upper San Joaquin River” (pg. 15) (Hereinafter, Recommendations).

The DEIR does not address mitigation measures for Spring-run, fall-run, and late-fall run salmon from entering Mud Slough or the Grassland wetlands when migration begins in the Upper San Joaquin River.  Salmon have found their way into Mud Slough in previous years.  The Recommendations report described observations made in the 1970’s when the Hills Ferry barrier did not exist, “…adult fall-run Chinook salmon commonly turned westward into Mud Slough and Salt Slough, where substantial agricultural return flow existed in the fall.”  (See, Recommendations, section 3.2.2.6 “Barrier management during Reintroduction Period and Interim Population Period,” pg. 25).

No mitigation measures are addressed for Selenium and other toxic constituents entering the San Joaquin River at Mud Slough specifically affecting adult salmon passing upstream towards Friant Dam and juvenile salmon living throughout the river.  The San Joaquin River Restoration Program denotes this area as Reach 5.  (See, San Joaquin Program Area Map.)  This same area is within the Project Area and watershed of the Grasslands Bypass Project.   

The DEIR does offer mitigation measures for Mud Slough Selenium discharge by converting acreage into wetlands.  However, this measure is limited to wildlife species and excludes fish.  (DEIR, Mud Slough Mitigation, pg. 2-12).  Note that Chinook salmon are listed in the DEIR Appendix Table E-1a as Threatened.  Without mitigation for Chinook salmon at Mud Slough this vulnerable species will continue its decline in numbers.

The DEIR Special-Status Species section 6.1.4 is misleading and incorrect.  In table 6-2 the Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon is listed, but the special status code “FC” is the only code in the table without a legend.  Additionally, the salmon is listed as “np” or “no potential to occur.”   With interim flows beginning in 2009 and salmon runs slated for 2012 it is hard to imagine fall-run Chinook salmon have “no potential to occur.”

The DEIR fails to discuss spring-run Chinook salmon at all.  The only mention of spring-run Chinook salmon in the DEIR occurs in a footnote at the bottom of page 6-20: “FN1 Other races of Chinook salmon include winter-run and spring-run. These runs are found in the Sacramento River and/or its tributaries and do not use the Project Area. These races are not discussed further in this document.”  This DEIR footnote statement did not adequately discuss and investigate any impact of selenium and other constituents to spring-run salmon.  In Senate Bill S. 161 The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (SJRRSA) the reintroduction of Central Valley spring-run Chinook is mandated.  (See, SJRRSA sec. 111(b)).  Assuming arguendo, that the DEIR treats the possibility of spring-run Chinook in the project area as “speculative” a thorough investigation still needs to be conducted before the impact is deemed too speculative for further analysis. See, 14 Cal Code Regs §15145.

The DEIR fails to adequately assess impacts to Chinook salmon before restoration even begins.  The selenium discharges into the San Joaquin River will severely affect salmon at projected thresholds under the Proposed Action.   The DEIR stated in Appendix E.2.1.2, “Reproductive impairment may occur at lower selenium concentrations, but too few data are available to do a similar analysis on this effect. Therefore, this threshold may not fully protect sensitive coldwater fish species.”  However, there is data available.  Experts at the Fish & Wildlife Service published a report demonstrating juvenile Chinook salmon having a mortality rate of 20% with a bioaccumulation of just 2.5ug/g.  At 7.9ug/g the mortality rate jumps to 59%.  (See, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Species at Risk from Selenium Exposure in the San Francisco Estuary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Environmental Contaminants Division. Sacramento, California. March 2008, pg. 32).

The DEIR acknowledges the San Joaquin River Restoration Program in the Cumulative Effects section for Alternative Action, specifically,  4.2.3.7 “San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement” (pgs. 4-67 & 4-68).  Different flows are assessed as applied to Alternative Action and the River Restoration Program, but nothing is mentioned about the effects on fish and salmon.

Improper Procedure for Incorporating Material

The DEIR states Project Alternatives that were considered and rejected in section 2.4.1 (pgs. 2-24 & 2-25).  A table is given with the title of each alternative in a list and contains no description.  The section then refers the reader to an Alternatives Report incorporated by reference into the DEIR for a detailed explanation and evaluation.  The section does not state where the incorporated document will be available for inspection as required by 14 Cal Code Regs §15150(b). 

An explanation and evaluation of each Project Alternative is material that contributes directly to analysis of the problem addressed in the DEIR.  Therefore, this information should be included in the EIR itself.  See, 14 Cal Code Regs §15150(f).

Inadequate Alternative Actions

The DEIR does not mention adequate alternatives that will substantially or entirely eliminate toxins in agricultural discharge.

The DEIR proposes a three phase plan to use the GDA, the SJRIP reuse facility and building a  treatment facility to reduce toxic contaminants.  This plan has been in place for at least the past ten years and has not been completed.  Now, another ten years is requested to complete the three phase program which still has no guarantee of being completed.  In addition, it is not sustainable over the long term and requires millions of dollars per year just to operate.

The DEIR failed to consider supporting commercial hydroponics as an alternative action.  Benefits of commercial hydroponics on agricultural land include:
1)    Much less water needed to operate hydroponic farming.  Water is automatically recycled back into the system.  Result is lower water needs and operating costs.

2)    Higher crop yields – Top growing hydroponics facilities in the US and Canada report average yields of more than 650,000 pounds of tomatoes per acre.

3)    Virtually eliminates agricultural runoff and fertilizer discharge due to recycling.

4)    If greenhouse hydroponics is utilized it eliminates the need for pesticides. Integrated Pest Management is much more effective.  IPM results in a zero discharge of harmful pesticide chemicals.

5)    Dramatically reduces fossil fuel use and improves air quality.  (no tractors, plows)

6)    Greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface.

7)    Greenhouse hydroponics substantially reduces economic risks such as weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, and pests.

8)    Hydroponic farming increases the quality of the food produced.

9)    Hydroponic farming is a closed system with no soil contact. This eliminates selenium, salt, boron, and other constituent threats to discharge.

10)     There are no weeds in hydroponic farming.

11)     Farmers keep their land and create sustainable jobs.

Instead of spending over $35 million dollars treating water for four years, a smaller investment can be made into sustainable commercial hydroponic infrastructure for agricultural land.  (See, DEIR pg. 8-11).  Hydroponics has been proven to use much less water translating into lower costs for farmers and higher profit returns.  Commercial hydroponics is also the far superior environmental alternative.

Finally, a normal DEIR should not exceed 150 pgs and a complex DEIR should not exceed 300 pages.  14 Cal Code Regs §15141 and Pub Res C §21003(b)-(c).  The length of this DEIR is 382 pages. It is too long and complex which discourages the public from understanding and reading the document.

http://www.revivethesanjoaquin.org/content/extension-sought-toxic-discharge-san-joaquin-river

Final Deadline to submit written comments is March 16, 2009.