Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - California Department of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. Project Description and Objectives improve reliability and flexibility of SWP water supplies in conjunction with local supplies. The primary focus of the Monterey Amendment is on how the Department will allocate and how the contractors may be able to increase the flexibility and reliability of the available SWP water. The Monterey Amendment does not increase Delta exports beyond permitted limits. The terms of the long-term water supply contracts, including the Monterey Amendment, do not determine how the Department will operate the SWP facilities to meet regulatory requirements, but determine how SWP supplies and costs are allocated among the contractors. The terms may also determine how exported water is managed and where SWP contractors might store SWP water (if it is to be stored) if they have been allocated sufficient SWP water to store after meeting current needs. To the degree that hydrologic and regulatory conditions permit, the Department will pump available water from the Delta to meet operational and contractor needs. The Monterey Amendment cannot and does not change hydrologic conditions or regulatory requirements in effect at the time of export, including applicable permits and constraints to protect water quality and listed fish species. The primary elements of the Monterey Amendment relate to arrangements between and among the contractors and the Department with regard to the SWP long-term water supply contracts. These include how SWP financing rates are restructured; how SWP water is allocated among contractors; how water supply management practices regarding water deliveries can be facilitated in conjunction with local supplies; and transfer of the KFE property to the KCWA to be developed and used as a local groundwater storage facility. See FEIR Subsection 4.2.1.1. The Department operated the SWP in accordance with the long-term water supply contracts for more than 30 years prior to the Monterey Amendment. The changes made to the long-term water supply contracts by the Monterey Amendment are probably the most substantial changes since the agreements were signed in the early 1960’s. However, they do not change the basic purpose of the SWP which is to divert and store surplus water during wet periods and distribute it to 29 contracting agencies. The changes included in the Monterey Amendment, while significant for the contractors and the Department, do not “fundamentally change” the SWP’s “essential mission nor its statewide environmental accountability.” The water available to the SWP continues to be delivered to the same urban and agricultural contractors and the SWP continues to operate in accordance with environmental regulatory constraints, including requirements for water quality and endangered species protection. The KWB Lands are to be used by KWBA as a locally-owned water bank for the same basic purpose as the state-owned water bank proposed for that land before the transfer – to store surplus water for water users during years of abundant supply for extraction and use in dry years and subject to environmental use permits which regulate the terrestrial impacts of the use of the lands for this purpose. The SWP designates water for environmental purposes before allocating water to the contractors. DEIR Subsection 6.2.3 lists the considerations that go into allocations to contractors. Prior to the allocations to contractors, the Department evaluates the expected Delta conditions for the year, schedules its operations to assure adequate flow and temperature compliance on the Feather River, and provides for sufficient water to meet all applicable Delta constraints in conjunction with export pumping operations. In addition, the SWP provides water to meet recreation, fish and wildlife obligations of the SWP. After providing for these environmental requirements, water is allocated to the contractors. Ongoing conditions and activities are part of the “environment” in which the proposed project will operate and may affect the magnitude of impacts of the proposed project on the environment. Changing conditions, such as changes in demand, demand reduction, climate change and other Final Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Monterey Plus 5-4
5. Project Description and Objectives hydrological conditions, and environmental constraints can be characterized as a change in future conditions under which the proposed project will operate. The proposed project does not cause these changes to occur. These ongoing and changing conditions and their effect on the proposed project or the proposed project’s effect on them were discussed in the DEIR in relevant Sections of Chapters 7 and 10. The proposed project would not result in added Delta diversions above levels permitted at the time of diversion. Changing conditions may result in less water available to the SWP for export and, therefore, fewer impacts than those disclosed in the DEIR. See FEIR Subsection 6.2.2.2 on changing conditions. See also FEIR Subsection 14.2.3 on types of water and demand and FEIR Subsection 7.2.2.1.3 on environmental compliance. The EIR Does not Need to Include Broader Objectives Some comments suggested that the Department was obligated to consider project objectives that would balance contractors’ and environmental objectives or allocate a portion of the water available to the SWP for environmental purposes. Neither the Court in PCL v. DWR nor the Superior Court’s Order on remand, nor the terms of the Settlement Agreement suggests that the Department is obligated to change the basic approach to the SWP to require the Department to consider such broad objectives. Although CEQA requires an agency to consider mitigation measures and alternatives that would meet its project objectives, it does not require an agency to examine a project and objectives that are completely different from the one it has chosen to pursue. See DEIR Subsection 11.2.3 and FEIR Subsections 11.2.3 and 11.2.4 for more discussion on alternatives that were rejected as different projects with different objectives than those of the Monterey Amendment. As the California Supreme Court said in In re Bay-Delta (page 1163), “[T]he process of selecting the alternatives to be included in the EIR begins with the establishment of project objectives by the lead agency. ‘A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings…The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project.’” The Supreme Court reaffirmed the directions in Laurel Heights and Citizens of Goleta Valley that the lead agency has the authority and responsibility to initially frame the scope of its proposed purpose and objectives. The lead agency cannot make the objectives so narrow that there is only one project that meets the objectives. Beyond that caveat, however, the lead agency is free to limit its proposed objectives to the issues it wants to address and is not obligated to look at broader issues or concerns. Again in In re Bay-Delta (page 1166), the court said that although “…a lead agency may not give a project’s purpose an artificially narrow definition, a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose, and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal. For example, if the purpose of the project is to build an oceanfront resort hotel …or a waterfront aquarium…. a lead agency need not consider inland locations.” Although the Department is the lead agency, the Department cannot make a unilateral decision because the proposed project involves changes to a contract, i.e., the long-term water supply contract, and requires the concurrence of the other contracting parties. Even if the Department could unilaterally impose changes of the nature suggested by the comments or the Department and the contractors could mutually change the water supply contracts in a way that would allocate or leave more water for the environment, CEQA does not require the Department to consider or make these changes within the context of this EIR. The Department has chosen in this EIR to keep the objectives limited to ones that deal with issues and conflicts between and among the Department and the contractors and leave resolution of broader issues relating to Final Environmental Impact Report February 2010 Monterey Plus 5-5
Page 1:
Final Environmental Impact Report M
Page 5:
EIR COMMITTEE Ernest Conant, Young
Page 9:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 12 and 13:
APPENDICES A. Comment Letters B. Hi
Page 14 and 15:
FIGURES FEIR Figures Page 7.2-1 Est
Page 17 and 18:
GLOSSARY Acre-Foot Volume of water
Page 19 and 20:
Racanelli Decision Special Status S
Page 21 and 22:
CWA Clean Water Act CWC California
Page 23:
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION The De
Page 29 and 30:
1 Introduction • Permanent transf
Page 31 and 32:
1 Introduction less than significan
Page 33 and 34:
1 Introduction Chapter 17 - Miscell
Page 35:
San Francisco Public Library 100 La
Page 39 and 40:
2. CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR TEXT, F
Page 41 and 42:
2. Changes to the Draft EIR Text, F
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
TABLE 6-3 2. Changes to the Draft E
Page 47 and 48:
TABLE 6-7 2. Changes to the Draft E
Page 49 and 50:
TABLE 6-10 2. Changes to the Draft
Page 51 and 52:
TABLE 6-12 2. Changes to the Draft
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 7.3-10, Table 7.3-3, is revise
Page 61 and 62:
TABLE 7.3-5 2. Changes to the Draft
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 7.3-37, Table 7.3-19 is revise
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 7.10-5, the endnote numbers ar
Page 75 and 76:
Page 8-8, the first paragraph is re
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
TABLE 8-3A 2. Changes to the Draft
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 11-33, Table 11-23 is revised
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91:
Page 95 and 96:
3. INDEX TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Page 97 and 98:
3. Index to Comments and Responses
Page 99 and 100:
FEIR TABLE 3-1 3. Index to Comments
Page 101 and 102:
Letter Number Name Agency / Affilia
Page 103 and 104: Letter Number Name Agency / Affilia
Page 113 and 114: FEIR TABLE 3-1 3. Index to Comments
Page 121: 4. INTRODUCTION AND PROCESS
Page 124 and 125: 4. Introduction and Process The DEI
Page 126 and 127: Transfer of KFE Property 4. Introdu
Page 128 and 129: 4. Introduction and Process continu
Page 130 and 131: 4. Introduction and Process trustee
Page 132 and 133: 4. Introduction and Process Of the
Page 134 and 135: 4. Introduction and Process Article
Page 136 and 137: TABLE 6-3 4. Introduction and Proce
Page 138 and 139: Response to Comment 30-2 4. Introdu
Page 140 and 141: 4. Introduction and Process contrac
Page 142 and 143: 4. Introduction and Process The com
Page 144 and 145: Response to Comment 30-79 4. Introd
Page 146 and 147: Response to Comment 30-135 4. Intro
Page 149: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIV
Page 152 and 153: 5. Project Description and Objectiv
Page 168 and 169: Response to Comment 30-19 5. Projec
Page 173: 6. ANALYTICAL METHODS
Page 177: 6.0 METHODOLOGY This chapter respon
Page 181 and 182: 6.1.1 Introduction 6.1 BASELINE The
Page 183 and 184: projected impacts of the proposed p
Page 185 and 186: 6.1 Baseline to the public and deci
Page 187 and 188: 6.1 Baseline unrelated Table A tran
Page 189 and 190: 6.1 Baseline less or more in the fu
Page 191 and 192: 6.1 Baseline Some comments also sta
Page 193 and 194: 6.1 Baseline based on service needs
Page 195 and 196: 6.1 Baseline Representatives and fo
Page 197 and 198: 6.1 Baseline existing facilities an
Page 199: 6.2 CHANGED CONDITIONS
Page 202 and 203: 6.2 Changed Conditions demands for
Page 204 and 205:
6.2 Changed Conditions analysis of
Page 206 and 207:
6.2 Changed Conditions available (D
Page 209:
6.3 METHODS
Page 212 and 213:
6.3 Methods features outlined in th
Page 214 and 215:
FEIR TABLE 6.3-1 6.3 Methods ANALYT
Page 216 and 217:
FEIR TABLE 6.3-1 ANALYTICAL METHODS
Page 218 and 219:
6.3 Methods Some comments state tha
Page 220 and 221:
6.3 Methods simulate the complex SW
Page 222 and 223:
6.3 Methods analysis of historical
Page 224 and 225:
6.3 Methods Other comments state th
Page 226 and 227:
6.3 Methods The DEIR used CALSIM II
Page 228 and 229:
6.3 Methods A state-owned KFE was i
Page 230 and 231:
6.3 Methods to deliver with its exi
Page 232 and 233:
6.3 Methods what real time operator
Page 234 and 235:
6.3 Methods longer periods of time
Page 236 and 237:
See also Response to Comment 16-10
Page 238 and 239:
6.3 Methods The comment indicates t
Page 240 and 241:
6.3 Methods The CALSIM II-based ana
Page 242 and 243:
6.3 Methods Subsection 6.3.2.1. Thi
Page 244 and 245:
Response to Comment 22-6 6.3 Method
Page 246 and 247:
Response to Comment 22-10 6.3 Metho
Page 248 and 249:
Response to Comment 22-27 6.3 Metho
Page 250 and 251:
6.3 Methods It also states that the
Page 252 and 253:
6.3 Methods validation of CALSIM II
Page 254 and 255:
6.3 Methods analyses in the DEIR, i
Page 256 and 257:
6.3 Methods significantly. In the D
Page 258 and 259:
6.3 Methods month that the water-ye
Page 261:
7.0 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYTICAL SECT
Page 265:
7.1 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER H
Page 268 and 269:
7.1 Surface Water and Groundwater H
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Response to Comment 16-75 7.1 Surfa
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 283 and 284:
7.2.1 Introduction 7.2 FISHERIES IM
Page 285 and 286:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts The DEIR reco
Page 287 and 288:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts a new USFWS B
Page 289 and 290:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts 2007 interim
Page 291 and 292:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts decreased wat
Page 293 and 294:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts at Banks Pump
Page 295 and 296:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts Monterey Amen
Page 297 and 298:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts percent (or a
Page 299 and 300:
Reliance on Existing Regulatory Pro
Page 301 and 302:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts actions, incl
Page 303 and 304:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts applied for m
Page 305 and 306:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts populations i
Page 307 and 308:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts abundances of
Page 309 and 310:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts Subsections 7
Page 311 and 312:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts impact, which
Page 313 and 314:
Response to Comment 16-85 7.2 Fishe
Page 315 and 316:
TABLE 7.3-19 AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOW C
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts The EWA Agenc
Page 321 and 322:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts mandated by n
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts Water transfe
Page 327 and 328:
FEIR TABLE 7.2-1 7.2 Fisheries Impa
Page 329 and 330:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts document prov
Page 331 and 332:
Response to Comment 36-1 7.2 Fisher
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
TABLE 7.3-3 7.2 Fisheries Impacts S
Page 339 and 340:
Fall-run: 7.2 Fisheries Impacts Sin
Page 341 and 342:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts 7.2.4.2 Decli
Page 343 and 344:
7.2 Fisheries Impacts various group
Page 345 and 346:
TABLE 7.3-14 7.2 Fisheries Impacts
Page 347:
7.3 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Page 350 and 351:
Response to Comment 16-29 7.3 Terre
Page 352 and 353:
7.3 Terrestrial Biological Resource
Page 354 and 355:
7.3 Terrestrial Biological Resource
Page 357 and 358:
7.4.1 Introduction 7.4 VISUAL RESOU
Page 359:
7.5 AIR QUALITY
Page 362 and 363:
Response to Comment 42-10 7.5 Air Q
Page 365 and 366:
7.6.1 Introduction 7.6 GEOLOGY, SOI
Page 367:
7.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Res
Page 371:
7.7.1 Introduction 7.7 RECREATION T
Page 375 and 376:
7.8.1 Introduction 7.8 ENERGY The f
Page 377 and 378:
7.8 Energy highlighted in Section 7
Page 379 and 380:
7.8 Energy Some comments asked for
Page 381 and 382:
7.8 Energy provided by Western Area
Page 383:
7.8 Energy through 7.8.2.5. See als
Page 387 and 388:
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. GROWTH-INDUCING
Page 389 and 390:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts extensiv
Page 391 and 392:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts M&I cont
Page 393 and 394:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts pages 8-
Page 395 and 396:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts growth i
Page 397 and 398:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts reductio
Page 399 and 400:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts Several
Page 401 and 402:
FEIR TABLE 8-1 8. Growth-Inducing I
Page 403 and 404:
8.2.4.3 Altered Allocation Procedur
Page 405 and 406:
Potential Population Supported by I
Page 407 and 408:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts predicta
Page 409 and 410:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts this Cha
Page 411 and 412:
Response to Comment 16-98 8. Growth
Page 413 and 414:
Response to Comment 30-63 8. Growth
Page 415 and 416:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts Monterey
Page 417 and 418:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts As discu
Page 419 and 420:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts only the
Page 421 and 422:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts groundwa
Page 423 and 424:
Response to Comment 64-3 8. Growth-
Page 425 and 426:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts � Curr
Page 427 and 428:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts supplies
Page 429 and 430:
TABLE 8-3B 8. Growth-Inducing Impac
Page 431 and 432:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts specific
Page 433 and 434:
8. Growth-Inducing Impacts would ha
Page 435:
9. RELIABILITY OF WATER SUPPLIES AN
Page 438 and 439:
9. Reliability of Water Supplies an
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
9.2.2 Terminology: Table A Amounts,
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Climate Change and Changes to Regul
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Response to Comment 21-54 9. Reliab
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Page 479:
10. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Page 482 and 483:
The fourth paragraph on page 10.1-2
Page 484 and 485:
10. Other CEQA Considerations CVP.
Page 486 and 487:
10. Other CEQA Considerations alter
Page 488 and 489:
10. Other CEQA Considerations been
Page 491:
11. ALTERNATIVES
Page 494 and 495:
11. Alternatives the changes as a w
Page 496 and 497:
As summarized on page 11-1 of the D
Page 498 and 499:
11. Alternatives CNPA4 all assume t
Page 500 and 501:
11. Alternatives Some comments aske
Page 502 and 503:
11. Alternatives project, the alter
Page 504 and 505:
11. Alternatives alternative that d
Page 506 and 507:
11. Alternatives environmental purp
Page 508 and 509:
11. Alternatives because it would n
Page 510 and 511:
11.2.4.1.4 Demand and Water Reliabi
Page 512 and 513:
11. Alternatives of more appropriat
Page 514 and 515:
11. Alternatives The only change re
Page 516 and 517:
11. Alternatives 11.2.4.2.6 Most In
Page 518 and 519:
11. Alternatives water being delive
Page 520 and 521:
11. Alternatives Thus, a potential
Page 522 and 523:
Response to Comment 17-8 11. Altern
Page 524 and 525:
11. Alternatives contractors dissat
Page 526 and 527:
11. Alternatives rather than Table
Page 528 and 529:
11. Alternatives 18(b) invoked. The
Page 530 and 531:
11. Alternatives comment questions
Page 532 and 533:
Response to Comment 36-19 11. Alter
Page 535:
12. CLIMATE CHANGE
Page 538 and 539:
12.2.1.1 Impacts of increased SWP P
Page 540 and 541:
12. Climate Change Some also sugges
Page 542 and 543:
12. Climate Change directed by Gove
Page 544 and 545:
12. Climate Change change is alread
Page 546 and 547:
12. Climate Change Some comments ap
Page 548 and 549:
12. Climate Change Decision Making
Page 550 and 551:
12. Climate Change which describes
Page 552 and 553:
12. Climate Change equaled 3,22 mil
Page 554 and 555:
12. Climate Change construction met
Page 557 and 558:
13.1 INTRODUCTION 13. ARTICLE 18 Th
Page 559 and 560:
13. Article 18 Amendment also elimi
Page 561 and 562:
13. Article 18 The history below, w
Page 563 and 564:
13. Article 18 should allocate supp
Page 565 and 566:
13. Article 18 groundwater replenis
Page 567 and 568:
13. Article 18 As stated in FEIR Su
Page 569 and 570:
Relative Delivery FEIR Figure 13-2
Page 571 and 572:
13. Article 18 As a result of this
Page 573 and 574:
13. Article 18 the Monterey Agreeme
Page 575 and 576:
13. Article 18 Delta pumping is sup
Page 577 and 578:
13. Article 18 Also see the Respons
Page 579 and 580:
Response to Comment 17-1 13. Articl
Page 581 and 582:
Response to Comment 21-10 13. Artic
Page 583 and 584:
13. Article 18 and without compensa
Page 585 and 586:
13. Article 18 proposed project, co
Page 587 and 588:
13. Article 18 on the reliability o
Page 589 and 590:
13. Article 18 translate into an av
Page 591:
13. Article 18 had less immediate d
Page 595 and 596:
14.1 INTRODUCTION 14. ARTICLE 21 Th
Page 597 and 598:
14. Article 21 water exceed availab
Page 599 and 600:
14. Article 21 When available, this
Page 601 and 602:
14. Article 21 The court also held,
Page 603 and 604:
14. Article 21 every year and these
Page 605 and 606:
14. Article 21 is for agricultural
Page 607 and 608:
14. Article 21 For signers of the M
Page 609 and 610:
14. Article 21 those impacts are di
Page 611 and 612:
14. Article 21 impact of the priori
Page 613 and 614:
Response to Comment 35-3 14. Articl
Page 615:
14. Article 21 As water quality and
Page 619 and 620:
15.1 INTRODUCTION 15. WATER SUPPLY
Page 621 and 622:
15. Water Supply Management Practic
Page 623 and 624:
Page 625 and 626:
Page 627 and 628:
Page 629 and 630:
Page 631 and 632:
Page 633 and 634:
Page 635 and 636:
Page 637 and 638:
Page 639 and 640:
Page 641 and 642:
Response to Comment 16-60 15. Water
Page 643 and 644:
Page 645 and 646:
Response to Comment 30-51 15. Water
Page 647 and 648:
Page 649 and 650:
Page 651 and 652:
Page 653 and 654:
Page 655 and 656:
Page 657 and 658:
Response to Comment 30-113 15. Wate
Page 659 and 660:
Page 661 and 662:
Page 663 and 664:
Response to Comment 30-125 15. Wate
Page 665 and 666:
Page 667 and 668:
Page 669:
16. KERN FAN ELEMENT
Page 672 and 673:
16. Kern Fan Element (KWB), as dist
Page 674 and 675:
16. Kern Fan Element Community Cons
Page 676 and 677:
16. Kern Fan Element including the
Page 678 and 679:
16. Kern Fan Element the agreement
Page 680 and 681:
16. Kern Fan Element operation of t
Page 682 and 683:
16. Kern Fan Element A major issue
Page 684 and 685:
16. Kern Fan Element implemented in
Page 686 and 687:
16. Kern Fan Element MOU). This agr
Page 688 and 689:
16. Kern Fan Element sources). Wate
Page 690 and 691:
16.3 RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL COMMEN
Page 692 and 693:
TABLE 11-23 16. Kern Fan Element EN
Page 694 and 695:
16. Kern Fan Element The comment re
Page 696 and 697:
16. Kern Fan Element ownership to a
Page 698 and 699:
16. Kern Fan Element though the Dep
Page 700 and 701:
Response to Comment 21-57 16. Kern
Page 702 and 703:
16. Kern Fan Element local water re
Page 704 and 705:
16. Kern Fan Element participants l
Page 706 and 707:
16. Kern Fan Element The Department
Page 708 and 709:
16. Kern Fan Element See the discus
Page 710 and 711:
Response to Comment 30-127 16. Kern
Page 712 and 713:
16. Kern Fan Element Regarding the
Page 714 and 715:
16. Kern Fan Element aquifers for l
Page 716 and 717:
16. Kern Fan Element studied or all
Page 718 and 719:
Response to Comment 65-1 16. Kern F
Page 721:
17. COMMON RESPONSES
Page 724 and 725:
17. Common Responses water from nor
Page 726 and 727:
17. Common Responses Some comments
Page 728 and 729:
17. Common Responses achievement of
Page 730 and 731:
17. Common Responses continues to o
Page 732 and 733:
17. Common Responses alternatives t
Page 734 and 735:
17. Common Responses Other than the
Page 736 and 737:
17. Common Responses offered on an
Page 738 and 739:
17. Common Responses provision and
Page 740 and 741:
17. Common Responses contractors. T
Page 742 and 743:
17. Common Responses water, includi
Page 744 and 745:
17. Common Responses drier years th
Page 746 and 747:
17. Common Responses each agency’
Page 748 and 749:
17. Common Responses capacity consi
Page 750 and 751:
17. Common Responses annual SWP del
Page 752 and 753:
17. Common Responses and the differ
Page 754 and 755:
17. Common Responses requirements t
Page 756 and 757:
17. Common Responses limits. Physic
Page 758 and 759:
17. Common Responses additional sto
Page 760 and 761:
17. Common Responses No SWP water w
Page 762 and 763:
17. Common Responses Therefore, the
Page 764 and 765:
17. Common Responses discussion of
Page 766 and 767:
17. Common Responses legislation be
Page 768 and 769:
17. Common Responses states that th
Page 770 and 771:
17. Common Responses regarding wate
Page 772 and 773:
17. Common Responses depending on y
Page 774 and 775:
17. Common Responses Water Faciliti
Page 776 and 777:
17. Common Responses Some comments
Page 779 and 780:
18. REFERENCES 18.1 Documents and P
Page 781 and 782:
18. References These documents are
Page 783 and 784:
18. References Fish and Wildlife Se
Page 785 and 786:
18. References The State Water Reso
Page 787 and 788:
18. References considers necessary
show all

Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - California Department of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?