Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Resolution in Support of the California WaterFix and California EcoRestoreOSEWP0 e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH <,FoRNP City Council Staff Report November 14, 2017 Agenda Item No. 4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: George Murdoch, Municipal Operations Director - 949-644-3011, gmurdoch@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Joshua Rosenbaum, Senior Management Analyst PHONE: 949-644-3057 TITLE: Resolution in Support of the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore ABSTRACT: An important water supply to Southern California is the State Water Project, which supplies approximately 30 percent of Orange County's water. For South Orange County water agencies that do not have access to groundwater the percentage is even higher. The California Bay Delta conveyance system has had a number of challenges over the recent years. The status quo is yielding a continuing degradation of the Delta systems, levee integrity and water supply reliability. Equally concerning is the ecological health of the Delta and fish species. The California WaterFix and EcoRestore initiatives address water reliability and ecological restoration solutions. RECOMMENDATION: a) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-70, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Supporting the California WaterFix for Improvements to the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta Water Delivery System and the California EcoRestore Program for Delta Habitat Restoration. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 4-1 Resolution in Support of the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore November 14, 2017 Page 2 DISCUSSION: As a critical source of water supply, the California Bay Delta provides approximately 30 percent of Southern California's water supply annually and supplies water for approximately 25 million people. That number is higher in South Orange County, which relies heavily on imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In partnership with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), the City of Newport Beach participated in the recent Orange County Water Reliability Study (Study) evaluating scenarios and projects that enhance or sustain water supplies to the region. Modeling shows the California WaterFix initiative, as currently proposed, represents the most cost-effective, large-scale reliability solution to improving Orange County's water supply reliability over the next 25 years. The supply analyses in the Study assumed that the California WaterFix results in "recovery" (i.e., prevents the future loss) of historical supplies in the amount of 440,000 acre-feet per year on average. MWDOC Directors in December passed a resolution of support for the California WaterFix, which is approaching the final stages for its permits and environmental documents (EIR/EIS and Record of Decision). The profile and level of support for these two programs needs to be raised. More than 100 alternatives were considered during a 10 -year study period that drew 30,000 public comments before Plan 4A, the WaterFix, was recommended. The California WaterFix involves construction and design of three new water intakes north of the Delta and two, 32 -mile, 9,000 cubic feet per second(cfs) underground tunnels that will provide operational pumping flexibility and protect against water supply disruption. However, much remains to be determined, especially with respect to the financing, regulatory certainty and operating criteria for the project. In addition to water management and quality benefits, a large and growing consensus understands that the Delta is in an unsustainable position and needs to be "fixed" to accommodate the many competing interests for the future, especially with regard to ensuring the area is a sustainable ecosystem. The status quo is yielding a continuing degradation of the Delta systems, levee integrity and water supply reliability. The companion initiative to the California WaterFix is the EcoRestore, which seeks to achieve the State's co -equal goal of habitat restoration and reliability of supplies. EcoRestore is initially charged with 30,000 acres of restoration efforts under an accelerated effort by 2020 to improve habitat conditions for fisheries migration, restore tidal and non -tidal wetland habitat for native wildlife, and improve connectivity among existing grassland and other natural habitats. HFA Resolution in Support of the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore November 14, 2017 Page 3 Success in the Delta continues to rely on the implementation of the California WaterFix and EcoRestore to achieve the co -equal goals. The ecological health of the Delta and fish species are fundamentally linked to the reasonable use and export of water supplies. Although total restoration of the Delta to the historical past is not possible, there can be significant improvements in how best to approach the management of the Delta's combined water and land resources in a manner that will realistically achieve improvements in both water supply reliability and ecosystem protection of the Delta's endangered or threatened aquatic species. Based on these proposed improvements in system conveyance and habitat restoration, staff recommends the City adopt a support position for the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore and Preferred Alternative (No.4A) as described in the environmental documents, with reasonable adherence to the current, public operating criteria and cost allocation principles and assumptions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Resolution No. 2017-70 Attachment B — California WaterFix Frequently Asked Questions 4-3 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 2017- 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA WATERFIX PROGRAM FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SACRAMENTO -SAN JOAQUIN DELTA WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM AND THE CALIFORNIA ECORESTORE PROGRAM FOR DELTA HABITAT RESTORATION WHEREAS, the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta ("Delta"), formed by the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers as they come together and flow into San Francisco Bay, is a major water hub for California's water supply system for the majority of the State, including thirty percent (30%) of the supplies for Southern California, and therefore underpins the overall economy of California; WHEREAS, the Delta historically was a complex and dynamic natural system driven by tidal fluctuations and natural marsh flooding that has been highly altered over the last one hundred (100) years, with many of the levees and islands reclaimed from former marshlands for development or farming. As the Delta was never intended to be a water conveyance facility, the Delta is not sustainable as it exists today and changes must be made to stabilize conditions; WHEREAS, from a fisheries, farming and water -management perspective, the Delta will continue to decline at an increasing rate due to the ongoing impacts of the environment, farming, and artesian conditions as well as levee failures becoming more frequent and more expensive to mitigate or repair as time passes; WHEREAS, twenty-five (25) million residents rely on water from the Delta, and local conservation cannot replace the water the Delta has historically supplied to Southern California even though that amount is only four percent (4%) of the annual average Delta flows; WHERAS, no practical and economically efficient way exists to improve existing levees to keep pace with the environment, farming, artesian conditions or to prevent levee collapse during a large earthquake. The consequences to the Delta ecosystem, the water supply and the California economy would be immediate, severe and negative if a large earthquake were to occur, WHEREAS, approximately fifty-five (55) years ago, voters approved the State Water Project ("SWP"), which was never completed and does not include an independent conveyance facility that would allow increased capture and storage of water during periods of high flows and would also minimize conflicts with fisheries; WHEREAS, as the result of federal court decisions, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinions, as well as other regulatory E Resolution No. 2017 - Page 2 of 4 constraints to protect native species in the Delta, the SWP has not been able to collect, store, and deliver an estimated volume of 3.6 million acre-feet of water since 2008; WHEREAS, although restoration of the Delta to the conditions of the historical past is not possible, much has been learned through scientific studies about what is needed to improve the management and utilization of the Delta to enhance fish, wildlife and water management for the future; WHEREAS, Governor Brown has proposed the California WaterFix and California EcoRestore programs as the preferred alternatives for managing the Delta's combined water and land resources in a manner that will realistically achieve improvements in both water supply reliability and ecosystem protection for the Delta; WHEREAS, the proposed California WaterFix and EcoRestore programs will help with water supply reliability by improving essential Delta ecosystem functions so that populations of endangered or threatened aquatic species will be strengthened; WHEREAS, the California WaterFix program includes construction of three (3) intakes north of the Delta, two (2) thirty-five (35) mile tunnels up to 150 feet below the Delta and Clifton Court fore bay modifications, all of which will provide operational pumping flexibility and protect against water supply disruption due to changes in sea levels, earthquakes and flood events. The three (3) new intakes north of the Delta will improve environmental conditions in the Delta by reducing reverse -flow conditions, minimizing the trapping of migrating fish, and reducing diversions during critical fish migration periods, which will all allow more operational flexibility to enhance water deliveries especially during wet periods; WHEREAS, improving the SWP system can increase regional storage reserve levels. These storage reserves are used to protect the region from devastating effects of drought and other emergencies. The California WaterFix will help ensure that Orange County will have sufficient supplies at critical times when we need them; WHEREAS, the California EcoRestore program will pursue more than 30,000 acres of critical Delta restoration over the next five (5) years, including the improvements of habitat conditions for fisheries migration, restoring tidal and non -tidal wetland habitat for native wildlife, and improving connectivity among existing grassland and other natural habitats; WHEREAS, in partnership with the Municipal Water District of Orange County ("MWDOC"), the City of Newport Beach participated in the recent 2016 Orange County Water Reliability Study ("OCWRS") to evaluate scenarios and projects that enhance or sustain water supplies to the region. The OCWRS revealed a number of important findings with implications for the county's water reliability, including that by 2030 projected water shortages would be too frequent and overall reliability would not be sustainable without new supply and system investments by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ("MWD"), its member agencies and Orange County; 4-5 Resolution No. 2017 - Page 3 of 4 WHEREAS, implementation of the proposed California WaterFix and California EcoRestore programs, as currently proposed, represents the most cost-effective large- scale reliability solution to improve regional water supply reliability for all of Southern California over the next twenty-five (25) years. The OCWRS indicates the California WaterFix program will result in "recovery" of historical supplies in the amount of approximately 440,000 acres per year on average and notes that adjustments to the project costs or supply development could result in changes to this recommendation; WHEREAS, in December 2016, the MWDOC Board of Directors adopted a resolution of support for the California WaterFix program, which is approaching the final stages for its permits and environmental documents. More than one hundred (100) alternatives were considered during a ten (10) year study period that drew thirty thousand (30,000) public comments before the California WaterFix program was recommended; WHEREAS, Orange County ratepayers have invested millions of dollars to build and maintain the SWP as well as portions of MWD's regional storage, distribution and treatment systems that take delivery of SWP supplies. Modernizing the system through the California WaterFix program will protect this investment for decades to come; WHEREAS, moving forward with the California WaterFix program is the most cost- effective investment of the ratepayers' dollars to maintain and continue economic vitality for the region, and all of the costs for the California WaterFix program will be paid for exclusively by water agencies benefiting from the program; and WHEREAS, doing nothing in the Delta is far costlier to the businesses, residents and economy in the State of California and Orange County than investing in the proposed California WaterFix and California EcoRestore programs. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council does hereby support the California WaterFix program for improvements to the Delta water delivery system and the California EcoRestore program for Delta habitat restoration, as each are generally described in their environmental documents with reasonable adherence to the current public operating criteria and cost allocation principles and assumptions therein. Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Resolution No. 2017 - Page 4 of 4 Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2017, Kevin Muldoon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE t� Aaron C. Harp W t -I City Attorney UrA Updated August 2015 California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)/Recirculated Environmental Analysis Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is the purpose and need for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? The California Department of Water Resources' (DWR's) primary purpose in proposing California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) is to make the physical and operational improvements to the California's main water delivery system in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta (Delta) that will protect water supplies, restore and protect ecosystem health, and improve water quality within a stable regulatory framework. The Delta has long been an important resource for California, providing municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational uses, fish and wildlife habitat, and water supply for 25 million Californians. However, the Delta is in crisis. There is an urgent need to improve the conditions for threatened and endangered fish species within the Delta. Improvements to the conveyance system are needed to respond to increased demands upon and risks to water supply reliability, water quality, and the aquatic ecosystem. 2. What is the new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) preferred alternative? California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) has been identified as the new CEQA and NEPA Preferred Alternative, replacing Alternative 4 (the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan). Alternative 4A includes an underground conveyance facility, three northern intakes capable of diverting a combined total of up to 9,000 cubic feet per second, and mitigation measures and environmental commitments to meet the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7, section 2081(b) of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and other environmental requirements. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) achieves the co -equal goals by securing state water supplies from climate change and seismic risk, and improving operations and environmental conditions to benefit fish species. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) was developed in response to public and agency input, as well as an interest in exploring multiple regulatory approaches (e.g. Section 7 consultation) to achieving the dual goals. 3. Who are the lead agencies for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? The Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplement Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/SDEIS) associated with California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) is a joint document prepared by DWR as the CEQA lead 1 i; agency and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as the NEPA lead agency. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) serve as NEPA cooperating agencies, and the lead agencies will consult with NMFS and USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife serves as a CEQA responsible and trustee agency and will be considering the issuance of the Section 2081(b) permit after EIR/EIS approval. 4. Why is there a recirculated environmental document? The RDEIR/SDEIS has been prepared to provide the public and interested agencies an opportunity to review engineering refinements made to the water conveyance facilities; to introduce new sub -alternatives (Alternatives 4A, or California WaterFix, 2D and 5A); and, to include updated environmental analyses that in part were conducted in response to issues raised in the more than 12,000 comments received on the 2013 Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Draft EIR/EIS. S. What is the difference in the regulatory strategy between the BDCP (Alternative 4) and California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? DWR's initial regulatory strategy proposed a habitat conservation plan, presented as Alternative 4 in the 2013 BDCP Draft EIR/EIS (i.e. a conservation plan that seeks 50 -year permits as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) through Section 10 of the ESA and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) through the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA)). The proposed habitat conservation plan would provide for both broad -scale regional habitat restoration and new Delta water delivery infrastructure for the State Water Project (SWP). California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) reflects an alternative regulatory strategy (through federal ESA Section 7 consultation and the CESA Section 2081(b) permit process) to meet the project purpose and need and includes the new Delta water delivery infrastructure for the SWP, the same as proposed in Alternative 4, without a habitat conservation plan. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) allows for other state and federal programs to address broader habitat conservation efforts over a shorter timeframe. Both Alternative 4 and 4A propose new infrastructure (updated in the RDEIR/SDEIS) to modernize the SWP's water delivery system to address water supply reliability needs in conjunction with related ecosystem improvements, such as significantly reducing reverse flows and direct impacts to fish species associated with the existing south Delta intakes. 6. Why did the state select the alternative regulatory strategy of California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) as the preferred alternative? California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) would allow for an alternative implementation strategy for the new Delta water delivery infrastructure under 6 • Section 7 of the ESA and Section 2081(b) of CESA, and reflects the lead agencies interest in exploring alternate regulatory approaches that could facilitate expeditious progress on Delta solutions. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) was developed in response to input from the 2013 BDCP Draft EIR/EIS comment period as well as from agencies' comments regarding the challenges with meeting the standards required to issue long-term assurances associated with compliance with Section 10 of the ESA and the NCCPA. These challenges relate to the difficulties in assessing species status and issuing assurances over a 50 -year period, in light of climate change, and accurately factoring in the benefits of long-term conservation in contributing to the recovery of the covered species. There were also questions raised as to the ability to implement large-scale habitat restoration and an interest in early implementation of certain restoration actions, untethered to the water infrastructure approval. 7. What is the difference between ESA Section 7 consultation and Section 10 permitting? What is the difference between compliance with the NCCPA and Section 2081 CESA permitting? A project's compliance with the Federal ESA varies depending on federal agency involvement and the project's potential effects to listed species. Where a project is proposed by a non-federal entity and the proposed project would "take" a listed species, Section 10 of the ESA provides USFWS and NMFS with the authority to issue incidental take permits with an approved HCP. Where a project would involve the take of a species listed under CESA, the California Fish and Game Code provides the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) with the authority to allow for take of listed species and issue assurances for a larger list of covered species, with an approved NCCP and through a Section 2081(b) incidental take permit. The primary requirement for issuance of the incidental take permit is that the action must minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed take. Where long-term assurances are sought for a range of actions affecting a large list of covered species (as with the BDCP), the HCP/NCCP necessarily requires detailed documentation as to the potential effects to those species, sufficiency of mitigation for those effects, and sufficiency of funding for that mitigation over the entire permit term. Like the BDCP, these types of HCPs/NCCPs can also require a complicated Implementation Agreement to specify management actions over the life of the permit. Section 7 of the ESA requires that federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 may require formal consultation with USFWS and NMFS where the federal action could adversely affect a listed species, including where take could occur. Through formal consultation, USFWS and NMFS issue biological opinions that may, among other things, authorize the 4-10 taking of the listed species. Measures may be required as part of the opinion to minimize the impacts of take; however, because no long-term assurances are issued for a large list of covered species, the same level of detailed documentation as to the potential effects to species, sufficiency of mitigation for those effects, and sufficiency of funding for that mitigation over the entire permit term is not required. The duration of the ESA authorization under Section 7 does not have a "permit term" or Implementation Agreement and instead the authorization and management of actions relate to the triggers for re-initiation of consultation. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) is not presented as habitat conservation /natural community conservation plans according to ESA Section 10 and the NCCPA. A 50 -year permit and long term assurances are not being sought and the proposed BDCP habitat restoration and stressor reduction measures (i.e., CM2 through CM21) that are presented in the Draft BDCP (and proposed to meet that stringent requirements of Section 10 of the ESA and NCCPA) are not carried forward fully for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A), except where elements of the former conservation measures are retained to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed project in compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and other environmental regulatory permitting requirements. Under the proposed California WaterFix (Alternative 4A), compliance with the federal ESA would be achieved by Reclamation, and DWR as the permit applicant, under Section 7 through formal consultation with the USFWS and NMFS. Under California WaterFix (Alternative 4A), take authorization for state -listed species would be obtained by DWR through Section 2081(b) of CESA and DFW's incidental take permit process. 8. Why is the BDCP still referenced in the environmental analysis? All alternatives will be included for decision -makers to consider. The alternatives, including Alternative 4 (BDCP), and the environmental analysis in the 2013 BDCP Draft EIR/EIS, along with the additional alternatives and environmental analysis contained in the RDEIR/SDEIS and comments received on the both documents, will be considered in agency decision-making when preparing the Final EIR/EIS and determining whether to approve the proposed project. The analysis for Alternative 4 also forms the basis for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) due to the overlap in the proposed conveyance facilities. California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) has been added to the environmental analysis as the new CEQA and NEPA preferred alternative. No final decisions have been made regarding the proposed action or in selecting an alternative; those decisions will only occur after the completion of the environmental review process. 9. What has changed since the 2013-2014 Public Draft EIR/EIS? The recirculated environmental documents cover several substantive changes, including: 4 4-11 • Introduction of three new sub -alternatives -- Alternative 4A (California WaterFix) as the new preferred alternative, Alternative 2D, and Alternative 5A. These alternatives were designed to reduce environmental effects, respond to public and agency input, and explore multiple regulatory approaches. • Design modifications to Alternative 4 (also applied to Alternatives 4A, 2D and 5A) to reduce impacts to Delta communities, minimize disturbances or dislocation to greater sandhill cranes, and improve the long-term reliability and operation of the conveyance facilities. • Updated Fish and Aquatic Habitat analysis to include additional rationale for impact conclusions and methods for determining impacts. • Additional Water Quality analysis and modeling to more accurately characterize the potential for exceedances of water quality standards, resulting in the reduction of several water quality impacts to less than significant. • Inclusion of downstream effects, including an assessment of water quality and fish and aquatic resources in the San Francisco Bay. • Updated engineering, construction assumptions, performance standards, and air quality models for the Air Quality, Health Risk Assessment, Traffic and Noise impact analysis. • Updated analyses of water facility construction to include geotechnical investigations • Inclusion of Additional NEPA Determinations — includes NEPA determinations on conclusions previously deemed "No Determination." 10. Will the public have an opportunity to comment? Yes. The public can comment on the recirculated environmental analysis from July 10, 2015 through August 31, 2015. Comments received on the RDEIR/SDEIS will be considered in the Final EIR/EIS and decision-making process. 11. What is the proposed operational structure for the conveyance facilities? Implementation of California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) will include operations of both new and existing water conveyance facilities ("dual conveyance") once the new north Delta facilities are operational. The dual conveyance facilities will be operated as directed by California WaterFix environmental compliance requirements, and in compliance with the USFWS (2008) and NMFS (2009) Biological Opinions and D-1641 guidelines. These operations may be subject to adjustments through an adaptive management process consistent with and similar to the program already described in the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions. The proposed project incorporates existing criteria from the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions (including Fall X2) and adds additional criteria for spring outflow and new minimum flow criteria at Rio Vista from January through August. 4-12 12. Will habitat restoration/protection be proposed as part of California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? Based on ongoing review of potential construction and operation impacts, mitigation for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) construction and operation will include about 2,300 acres of habitat restoration and up to 13,300 acres of habitat protection (e.g. conservation easements). This additional acreage will focus primarily on preserving the existing cultivated lands habitat and working landscape values in the Delta. DWR and Reclamation anticipate these revised acreage targets for habitat restoration and protection will be the maximum amount required for mitigation. Final determinations will be based on actual project impacts and consultation with fish and wildlife agencies. All habitat restoration and protection costs for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) will be paid for exclusively by water agencies benefiting from the project. 13. What additional habitat restoration does the state of California plan to implement? Separate from California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) and over the next 5 years, California will pursue more than 30,000 acres of critical Delta habitat restoration under the California EcoRestore program, pursuant to pre-existing regulatory requirements such as the 2008 and 2009 Biological Opinions and various enhancements to improve the overall health of the Delta ecosystem. Proposition 1 funds and other state public dollars will be directed exclusively for public benefits unassociated with any regulatory compliance responsibilities. 14. What is the anticipated yield for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? California WaterFix (Alternative 4A) is estimated to include an average annual yield of 4.9 million acre-feet and provides the greatest complement to local water supply projects by allowing the safe capture of water in wet and above - normal years so that it can be stored and used in dry years. 15. What is the anticipated cost for California WaterFix (Alternative 4A)? The cost to fix California's primary water delivery system is estimated at $14.9 billion — or about $5 a month for urban water users — and will be paid for by public water agencies that rely on the supplies. 16. When will the lead agencies respond to my comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and the recirculated environmental document? DWR and Reclamation, as the state and federal lead agencies, will consider and prepare responses to all substantive comments received during the public review periods for the Draft EIR/EIS (December 13, 2013 through July 29, 2014) and RDEIR/SDEIS (July 10, 2015 through October 30, 2015). (On July 22, 2015, lead agencies announced an extension of the comment period to October 30, 2015.) Responses will appear in the Final EIR/EIS, which is the next milestone in M. 4-13 the environmental planning process. Comments will be sorted, coded, and logged into a tracking system, categorized by subject area, and then a response to the comment will be drafted. The comments will be assessed both individually and collectively and the Final EIR/EIS will include copies of the comments received and the responses prepared. If the EIR/EIS was changed in response to comments, these changes will be referenced in the responses. 17. When can the public expect a Final EIR/EIS? Following completion of the RDEIR/SDEIS public review period, DWR and Reclamation will prepare a Final EIR/EIS. The timing associated with preparation and publication of the Final EIR/EIS will depend on the volume and nature of the comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS and RDEIR/SDEIS. To allow sufficient time to adequately meet all requirements associated with completion of a Final EIR/EIS, it is anticipated this document will be available in late 2015 or early 2016. 7 4-14