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

12. Climate Change
Some comments appear to express a concern that local governments and other decision
makers might rely on the EIR delivery estimates in determining the reliability of SWP water.
Overstating the amount of water available could be a problem in documents that are relied upon
for determining water reliability. The values in this EIR analysis should not be used to estimate
current available SWP water or the reliability of future deliveries. There are other tools that are
intended to help determine the reliability of water such as Urban Water Management Plans and
the Reliability Report released by the Department. See FEIR Chapter 9 on water supply
reliability. See also FEIR Subsection 6.2.2.2.
12.3 RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS
Response to Comment 16-100
The Department agrees with the comment; however, no change to the text of the DEIR will be
made.
Response to Comment 16-101
The comment requests that the year identified in the title for Table 12-2 on page 12-13 of the
DEIR is changed from “2020” to “2050” to make it consistent with the note to the table showing
that the supply reductions shown are based on studies representing projected changes
centered around 2050. As stated on page 12-6 and 12-12 of the DEIR, climate models project
hydrologic conditions centered around 2050 and this was applied to the Table A allocations
modeled for 2020. Table 12-2 identifies the potential effects of climate change (centered
around 2050) on the Table A deliveries (calculated for 2020). Therefore, the Table is correct
and will not be revised.
Response to Comment 13-1
This comment requests that the DEIR include information on the proactive steps that the
Department has taken as part of Monterey Plus to mitigate climate change impacts through its
support of the Plumas Watershed Forum and the Feather River Watershed Management
Strategy. The Department support for the Plumas Watershed Forum and the Feather River
Watershed Management Strategy result from the Settlement Agreement which had a goal to
implement watershed management and restoration activities for the mutual benefit of Plumas
County FCWCD. The Forum’s goals as set forth in the Settlement Agreement were to improve
storage of water for augmented baseflow in streams; improving water quality (reduced
sedimentation) and streambank protection; improving upland vegetation management; and
improving groundwater retention and storage in major aquifers. As a result of the Forum’s
activities more than $2 million has been spent on programs to meet these goals. A number of
programs funded were meadow restoration projects.
A program review of the programs funded under the Forum was completed in 2008. Plumas
Watershed Forum Program Review (May 2008), http://www.countyofplumas.com/publicworks/
watershed/index.htm. Part of the review was directed towards the benefit of the programs for
State Water Project supplies. The review recognized that the upper Feather River watershed
restoration program—in the aggregate, including intervention and intervention-support efforts of
several organizations—is likely cost effective in augmenting base flow and improving water
quality and watershed condition and recommended increased intervention funding and longterm
restoration funding for the Upper Feather River Watershed. See Section 5.1 of the Plumas
Watershed Forum Program Review.
Final Environmental Impact Report February 2010
Monterey Plus 12-10