S a lton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Project Draft EIS/EIR

1. Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat ProjectDraft EIS/EIR California Natural Resources Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

2. What We Want to Accomplish Today • Review purpose and need for Species Conservation Habitat (SCH) Project • Present alternatives evaluated in Draft EIS/EIR • Accept oral or written comments on Draft EIS/EIR • Describe what comes after public comment period

3. Need for SCH Project • Declining surface water elevation will lead to loss of shallow water habitat and increased salinity • Increasing salinity will lead to fishery collapse • Fishery collapse will result in loss of food for fish-eating birds (pelicans, cormorants) • SCH ponds would provide salinity controlled, replacement habitat

4. Authorization for SCH California Fish and Game Code § 2932(b) Implementation of conservation measures necessary to protect the fish and wildlife species dependent on the Salton Sea, including adaptive management measurements pursuant to Section 2081.7. These conservation measures shall be limited to the Salton Sea…

5. Future Salton Sea Salinity and Elevation

6. Purpose of EIS/EIR • Disclose to decision-makers and public • Significant environmental impacts • Reasonable alternatives to avoid/minimize impacts • Identify • Environmentally preferable / Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (NEPA) • Environmentally superior alternative (CEQA) • Preferred alternative • Solicit comments on project/impacts

7. Alternatives Development PrinciplesAlternatives Must… • Provide habitat ASAP • Have sufficient and reliable water supply • Manage salinity, sediment, and selenium • Be compatible with other projects • Geothermal • USFWS habitat development • Agriculture • Use cost-effective structures and operations • Be “doable” and “durable”

8. Alternatives Development Process Project Need / Legislation DFG/DWR Stakeholders Consultants Special Studies EIS/EIR Alternatives/Impact Analysis Preferred Alternative Project Design

9. Developing Project Alternatives • Stakeholder/special interest involvement • Shared information about SCH Project • Identified concerns or conflicts with other uses • Identified solutions and opportunities(cooperative efforts) • Special studies • Biological • Geotechnical • Engineering • Cost considerations

10. Results of Stakeholder Involvement • Refined project description • Modified project design at Alamo River • Added mosquito control measures to operations • Confirmed SCH project would not preclude geothermal development • Confirmed SCH project would complement planned development • USFWS habitat • Air quality management

11. Results of Special Studies • Developed specialized construction techniques for weak soils • Identified performance and tolerance ranges for tilapia species • Identified target pond salinities to achieve desired biological performance • Refined a range of operations to maximize potential for success

12. Cost Considerations • Combinations of New/ Alamo River sites eliminated • Sites configured to maximize benefit at lowest cost • Sites mostly on IID property • Design based on simple construction techniques • Maximized use of existing topography • Ponds located close to suitable water sources • Operational flexibility to optimize water quality conditions

13. Location and Configuration of Alternatives Alamo River sites New River sites

14. Alt. 1, New River/Gravity Diversion 3,130 acres

15. Alt. 2, New River/Pumped Diversion2,670 acres

16. Alt. 3, New River/Pumped Diversion3,770 acres

17. Alt. 4, Alamo River/Gravity Diversion 2,290 acres

18. Alt. 5, Alamo River/Pumped Diversion 2,080 acres

19. Alt. 6, Alamo River/Pumped Diversion 2,940 acres

20. State’s Preferred SCH Alternative Alt. 3, New River/Pumped Diversion (3,770 acres)

21. Current Project Schedule • Draft NEPA/CEQA document – Summer 2011 • Draft permit applications – Fall 2011 • Final NEPA/CEQA document – Spring 2012 • Permits complete – Summer 2012 • Final design – Fall 2012 • Begin construction – Spring 2013 • Complete construction – Summer 2014

22. How to Submit Comments • At today’s meeting • Verbally • Written on comment form • Electronic comment • E-form provided on DWR Salton Sea website • Mail written comments

23. To Comment Today • Verbal comments • Give name and affiliation, if any • Speak clearly so concerns are understood • Be succinct so others have time to comment • Turn in comment form

24. To Comment after Today • Electronic comment form (preferred method) • www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/ • In left margin, click on “DEIS/EIR Comment Form”

25. Preferred Way to Submit Comments

26. e - Comment Form

27. Written Comments • Ms. Lanika Cervantes, Corps Project ManagerU.S. Army Corps of EngineersLos Angeles District, Regulatory Division6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 105Carlsbad, CA 92011 • OR • Mr. David Elms, Deputy Regional ManagerCalifornia Department of Fish and Game 78078 Country Club Drive, Suite 109Bermuda Dunes, CA 92203

28. Guidance for Commenting • Focus on scope and content of EIS/EIR • Goals and objectives • Alternatives • Affected environment • Impact analysis • Be specific • Refer to sections and line numbers where appropriate

29. END Thank you for your interest. Please give us your comments.