5-468

Letter - L13Page 5

Response to Comment L13-20Long-term fallowing is defined as non-rotational fallowing for greaterthan 4 years. This change is indicated in this Final EIR/EIS insubsection 3.5 in Section 4.2, Text Revisions.

The maximum acreage that would need to be fallowed to implement thevarious components of the Proposed Project and alternatives are listedin the table below. In Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR/EIS, impacts toagricultural resources were found to be significant and unavoidable, ifnon-rotational fallowing is implemented.

5-469

Response to Comment L13-20 (continued)

Components of the Proposed Project and Alternatives Maximum Fallowing Acreage* (acres)Proposed ProjectWater Conservation and Transfer 50,000HCP 25,000IOP 9,800TOTAL 84,800Alternative 1: No ProjectWater Conservation and Transfer 0HCP 0IOP 0TOTAL 0Alternative 2: 130 KAFY On-farm Irrigation System Improvements OnlyWater Conservation and Transfer 22,000HCP 25,000IOP 9,800TOTAL 56,800Alternative 3: 230 KAFY All Conservation MeasuresWater Conservation and Transfer 38,000HCP 25,000IOP 9,800TOTAL 72,800Alternative 4: 300 KAFY Fallowing OnlyWater Conservation and Transfer 50,000HCP 25,000IOP 9,800TOTAL 84,800Table Notes:*The fallowed acreage figures are based on a water conservation rate of 6 AF per acre of fallowed land. Note that the water conservation rate of 5.63 AF per acre of fallowed land thatwas used in the socioeconomic analysis (Section 3.14, Socioeconomics in the Draft EIR/EIS) is derived from historic water deliveries as estimated by the IIDSS. This value was roundedto 6 AF per acre when used in all other sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. The resulting calculation of the number of acres required to be fallowed is an approximate number which couldvary by up to 10 percent depending on the actual acres fallowed and the historic water use of the specific farms fallowed.

Response to Comment L13-21Please refer to the following Master Responses in Section 3 of the present document: Air Quality—Salton Sea Air Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan; Air Quality—Air Quality IssuesAssociated with Fallowing; Air Quality—Health Effects Associated with Dust Emissions, and Air Quality—Consistency with the State Implementation Plan for PM10.

Response to Comment L13-22The EIR/EIS does not propose measures to offset the evaporation/transpiration of water because it is not considered to be an environmental impact. Evaporation and transpiration areconsidered in all of the modeling of the LCR, the IID water service area, and the Salton Sea. Therefore the accounting of reduced inflows and associated make-up water for mitigationtakes evaporation losses into account. No feasible measures are available to reduce evaporation and transpiration in the IID water service area, the LCR, or the Salton Sea.

5-470

Response to Comment L13-23Please refer to the following Master Responses in Section 3 in this Final EIR/EIS: Air Quality−−Salton Sea Air Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan; Air Quality−−Air Quality IssuesAssociated with Fallowing; and Air Quality−−Wind Conditions at the Salton Sea.

Response to Comment L13-24Comment noted.

5-471

Letter - L13Page 6

Response to Comment L13-25The Environmental Justice section in the Draft EIR/EIS has beensubstantially revised to address this comment and other comments onthis section. The new section is located in this Final EIR/EIS insubsection 3.15 under Section 4.2, Text Revisions.

With regard to the comment on mitigation measures, with the exceptionof socioeconomic impacts due to fallowing in the Imperial Valley, suchmeasures have been proposed for potential adverse effects due to theProposed Project, as necessary and applicable. (For information on theair quality and sport fishery mitigation measures in the Salton Seasubregion, refer to the Master Responses on Air Quality Salton SeaAir Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan and Recreation Mitigationfor Salton Sea Sport Fishery in Section 3 of this Final EIR/EIS). The IIDBoard will make a decision on mitigation for socioeconomic impacts dueto fallowing in the Imperial Valley if and when it approves the ProposedProject or an alternative to the Proposed Project. The groundwaterimpacts in the Coachella Valley have been determined to be significantand unavoidable. Agricultural resources impacts have also beendetermined to be significant and unavoidable if permanent/long-termfallowing is employed as a conservation measure in the ProposedProject.

Response to Comment L13-26Comment noted.

Response to Comment L13-27See response to Comment L13-10.

Response to Comment L13-28See response to Comment L13-10.

Response to Comment L13-29The commenter does not specify how the Draft EIR/EIS fails toadequately address the archaeological and cultural resources impactsof the Proposed Project. We believe the EIR/EIS is a good faith andreasonable effort to identify and assess the impacts to archaeologicaland cultural resources from implementation of the Project based uponavailable information and assessment methods. Such impacts areincluded in the Draft EIR/EIS in Section 3.8, Cultural Resources.

5-472

Letter - L14. Community Advisory Commission. Signatory -J.R. Dick Kershaw.

5-473

Letter - L14Page 2

Response to Comment L14-1The text of Section 3.15 has been revised to address issues related toEnvironmental Justice. Refer to subsection 3.15 under Section 4.2, TextRevisions of this Final EIR/EIS. With regard to the comment onagricultural tailwater as a beneficial use for the Salton Sea, asdescribed in Section 1.4.3 and Section 2.2.3.4 in the Draft EIR/EIS, IIDholds the rights to Colorado River water use in the Imperial Valley intrust for landowners within the IID water service area. The Salton Sea isan agricultural drainage repository that has no legal entitlement toColorado River water.

5-474

Letter - L14Page 3

Response to Comment L14-2Comment noted.

Response to Comment L14-3Comment noted.

Response to Comment L14-4In response to comments, the text of Section 3.15 has been revised.The changes are indicated in subsection 3.15 in Section 4.2, TextRevisions in this Final EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment L14-5Please refer to the Master Response on Air Quality Salton Sea AirQuality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan in Section 3 of this FinalEIR/EIS.

Response to Comment L14-6The specific conservation methods to be implemented under theProposed Project have not been determined. As noted in the DraftEIR/EIS in Section 2.2.3.1, the conservation program could include apotentially broad and varying range of conservation measures toprovide maximum flexibility to the IID Board to adopt the program tochanging circumstances, methods, and participants over the lengthyProject term. Assumptions were made for modeling purposes thatwould capture the full range of potential impacts. The impacts of theconservation program ultimately adopted will fall somewhere within thisrange.As described in the Draft EIR/EIS, depending on the eventualimplementation of the water conservation program, there could eitherbe beneficial or adverse impacts to the regional economy. If water isconserved using on-farm and water delivery system improvements, it isanticipated that there would be beneficial effects to regionalemployment; therefore, there would not be any adverse effects tomitigate. If fallowing is used to conserve all or a portion of the water tobe transferred, there would be adverse effects to the regional economyand farm workers as identified in the Draft EIR/EIS.

The IID Board will consider whether to implement socioeconomicmitigation measures when it considers whether to approve theProposed Project or an alternative to the Proposed Project.

5-475

Letter - L14Page 4

Response to Comment L14-7The commenter notes that IID should not proceed with the Projectunless it is indemnified and protected from unanticipated problems. TheEIR/EIS process is designed to identify, to the extent possible, theProject impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. We note that theImplementation Agreement for the HCP is expected to limit liability forunforeseen circumstances pursuant to the "No Surprises Rule"implementing Section 10 of the federal ESA. It is anticipated that the IIDBoard will evaluate the risks and costs of the Project before committingto proceed and that farmers will evaluate the advantages anddisadvantages in the voluntary on-farm program before deciding toparticipate.

Response to Comment L14-8The commenter states that mitigation costs should be borne by partiesother than IID. It is anticipated that the contribution of other partiestoward mitigation costs will be evaluated by the IID Board at the time itconsiders whether to approve the Project.

Response to Comment L14-9The EIR/EIS is intended to identify all mitigation measures which shouldbe implemented in connection with the Proposed Project.

It is anticipated that mitigation measures to be implemented by farmers inconnection with the on-farm conservation program will be included in thecontracts between IID and participating farmers. The comment that theseon-farm costs should be included in calculating costs for purposes ofexercising any IID termination right or "off-ramp" is noted.

It is anticipated that the IID Board will evaluate the risks and costs of theProject before committing to proceed and that farmers will evaluate theadvantages and disadvantages of the voluntary on-farm program beforedeciding to participate.

Response to Comment L14-10Comment noted. It is anticipated that the IID Board will evaluate therisks and costs of the Project before committing to proceed, and thatfarmers will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of thevoluntary on-farm program before deciding whether to participate.

5-476

Response to Comment L14-11It is anticipated that the IID Board will consider the costs and risks of the Proposed Project at the time it considers whether to approve the Project. The comment that considerationshould be given to the costs and effect of early termination is noted.

Response to Comment L14-12Comment noted. It is anticipated that on-farm conservation will be voluntary and will provide appropriate compensation for reduced water deliveries. The right to compensation for the"taking" of private property or rights appurtenant to ownership of private property depend upon the individual circumstances at the time of an alleged taking.

Response to Comment L14-13This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR/EIS; therefore, no response is required.

Response to Comment L14-14Comment noted.

Response to Comment L14-15Comment noted.

Response to Comment L14-16In response to comments, the text of Section 3.15 has been revised. The changes are indicated in subsection 3.15 in Section 4.2, Text Revisions in this Final EIR/EIS.

5-477

Letter - L14Page 5

Response to Comment L14-17In response to comments, the text of Section 3.15 has been revised.The changes are indicated in subsection 3.15 in Section 4.2, TextRevisions in this Final EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment L14-18In response to comments, the text of Section 3.15 has been revised.The changes are indicated in subsection 3.15 in Section 4.2, TextRevisions in this Final EIR/EIS.