Transcription

Certification of ConsistencyStep 1 - Agency ProfileA. GOVERNMENT AGENCY:Local AgencyGovernment Agency:California Department of Water ResourcesPrimary Contact:Heather GreenAddress:3500 Industrial BlvdCity, State, Zip:West Sacramento, CA 95691Telephone/Fax:(916) 376-9762E-mail Address:[email protected] GOVERNMENT AGENCY ROLE IN COVERED ACTION:Will Approve / Will Carry Out / Will FundStep 2 - Covered Action ProfileA. COVERED ACTION PROFILE:ProjectTitle: Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration And Flood Improvement ProjectB. PROPONENT CARRYING OUT COVERED ACTION (If different than State or Local Agency):Proponent Name:EIP III Credit Co., LLCAddress:2330 Marinship Way, Suite 120City, State, Zip:Sausalito, CA 94965C. OPEN MEETING LAWSAgencies whose actions are not subject to open meeting laws (Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act [Gov. Code sec 11120 et seq.]or the Brown Act [Gov. Code sec 54950 et seq.]) must post their draft certification on their website and in their office for publicreview and comment, and mail to all persons requesting notice (Administrative Procedures Governing Appeals, Rule 3). A stateor local public agency that is subject to open meeting laws is encouraged to post the draft certification on their website and inthe office for public review and comment and to mail to all persons requesting notice.Any state or local public agency that is subject to open meeting laws with regard to its certification is also encouraged to takethose actions. It is encouraged to upload any evidence that the project, plan or program went through for public review andcomment as part of a Bagley-Keene or Brown Act meeting.Is your agency subject to open meeting laws (Bagley-Keene Open MeetingAct [Gov. Code sec 11120 et seq.] or the Brown Act [Gov. Code sec 54950et seq.])? (Note: Select "Yes" if your agency or organization is subject toNoopen meeting laws. Select "No" if your agency or organization is notsubject to open meeting laws.)If your agency is not subject to open meeting laws (Bagley-Keene OpenMeeting Act [Gov. Code sec 11120 et seq.] or the Brown Act [Gov. Codesec 54950 et seq.]) did your agency, at least 10 days prior to theYessubmission of a certification of consistency to the Delta StewardshipCouncil, post the draft certification on your website and in the office forpublic review and comment, and mail the draft certification to all

persons requesting notice?Any state or local public agency that is subject to open meeting laws with regard to its certification is also encouraged to takethose actions. It is encouraged to upload any evidence that the project, plan or program went through for public review andcomment as part of a Bagley-Keene or Brown Act meeting.Note: Any public comments received during this process must be included in the record submitted to the Council in case of anappeal.D. COVERED ACTION SUMMARY: (Project Description from approved CEQA document may be used here)The Proposed Project would restore within the Proposed Project Site approximately 3,165 acres of tidal wetland habitat,including habitat that is beneficial to Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), and other fish and wildlife species. The ProposedProject was designed to provide multiple benefits, including improved flood conveyance. It would widen a portion of the YoloBypass to increase flood storage and conveyance, increase the resilience of levees, and reduce flood risk. Flood improvementelements as proposed are consistent with the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, which calls for multi-benefit projects thatexpand the Yolo Bypass while incorporating ecosystem-enhancing features. To accomplish this, a new setback levee would beconstructed to the east of Duck Slough and south of Liberty Island Road. The Shag Slough Levee would be breached in ninelocations to provide tidal inundation to the areas within the Bowlsbey and Liberty Farms Properties. The Vogel Levee wouldalso be breached in two locations to provide tidal inundation to the areas within the Vogel Property. These breaches would alsoallow food for Delta Smelt that is produced within the new tidal wetland areas to be exported to the waterways of the CacheSlough Complex. The Shag Slough Levee would also be lowered at two locations to allow floodwaters from the Yolo Bypass tobe conveyed across and stored within the Proposed Project Site during flood events. The Cache/Hass Slough Levee wouldundergo a series of improvements, remain in place, and function as a training levee to maintain stage differences between theProposed Project Site and Cache and Hass Sloughs. Upon completion, the Proposed Project would protect approximately 3,400acres of open space in perpetuity, including approximately 3,165 acres of tidal marsh and subtidal habitats and 149 acres ofseasonal floodplain habitat in Solano County, California, and a very small portion of Yolo County, California. Restoring thesehabitats will increase food availability for Delta Smelt, Steelhead – Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS)(Oncorhynchus mykiss), Chinook Salmon – Sacramento River winter-run Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Oncorhynchustshawytscha), Chinook Salmon – Central Valley spring-run ESU, Green Sturgeon – Southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris), andLongfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), known hereafter as “Target Protected Fish Species,” as well as other native fisheswithin the Project Site and the surrounding Cache Slough Complex. It will also provide rearing habitat for Delta Smelt andsalmonids, provide potential spawning habitat for Delta Smelt, and create habitat conditions for other aquatic and terrestrialwetland-dependent species, such as giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), that utilize the combination of Sacramento-SanJoaquin River Delta habitat interfaces (i.e., Delta-freshwater, aquatic-tidal, marsh-floodplain, seasonal wetland-lowlandgrassland). Additionally, the Proposed Project would create over 40,000 acre-feet of transitory flood storage at the Deltaconfluence. The Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration and Flood Improvement Project was developed to partially fulfill arequirement under the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Delta Smelt Biological Opinion on the CoordinatedOperations of the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (2008 USFWS BiOp) to restore 8,000 acres of tidalhabitat. Restoration of tidal habitat also would provide access for salmonid rearing at the Project Site and therefore wasexpected to be credited toward a restoration requirement in the 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) BiologicalOpinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project (2009NMFS BiOp). These restoration requirements in the 2008 USFWS BiOp and 2009 NMFS BiOp were carried forward as baselineconditions in the USFWS Biological Opinion for the Reinitiation of Consultation on the Coordinated Operations of the CentralValley Project and the State Water Project (2019 USFWS BiOp) and the NMFS Biological Opinion on Long Term Operation of theCentral Valley Project and the State Water Project (2019 NMFS BiOp), which are the currently effective biological opinionsgoverning coordinated operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. The 8,000-acre tidal restorationrequirement also is a condition (Condition 9.1.1) of the Incidental Take Permit for Long-Term Operation of the State WaterProject in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (2081-2019-066-00) (2020 LTO ITP), issued by the California Department of Fishand Wildlife on March 31, 2020. The 2020 LTO ITP is DWR’s California Endangered Species Act authorization to carry outongoing State Water Project operations. The following names/locations in this project description describe specific areas, aswell as levees and sloughs, within and adjacent to the Proposed Project Site: Bowlsbey Property – Approximate 1,644-acre

property in the northwestern portion of the Proposed Project Site bounded by Liberty Island Road to the north, Shag Slough tothe east, Lookout Slough to the south, and Duck and Hass Sloughs to the west. Liberty Farms Property – Approximate 1,678acre property in the southeastern portion of the Proposed Project Site bounded by Lookout Slough to the north, Lookout andCache Sloughs to the west, the cross levee to the south, and Shag Slough to the east. Vogel Property – Approximate 55-acreproperty in the southwestern portion of the Proposed Project Site bounded by the Bowlsbey Property to the north and CacheSlough to the south, east, and west. Shag Slough Levee – State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC) levee on the west side of ShagSlough, which borders the eastern boundaries of the Bowlsbey and Liberty Farms Properties. The Shag Slough Levee is part ofthe Yolo Bypass West levee system. Cache/Hass Slough Levee – SPFC levee located on the north side of Cache and HassSloughs, which borders the southern boundaries of the Bowlsbey and Liberty Farms Properties. The Cache/Hass Slough Levee ispart of the Yolo Bypass West levee system. Cache/Hass Slough Training Levee – The Proposed Project includes improvementsto the stability of the Cache/Hass Slough Levee and the Cross Levee. The improved levee would function to maintain stagedifferences between the Proposed Project Site and waters in Cache/Hass Slough during bypass flooding events. The Cache/HassSlough Training Levee refers to the Cache/Hass Slough Levee and the Cross Levee in their modified post-project state andaltered function. Duck Slough Setback Levee – Proposed SPFC setback levee proposed as part of the Yolo Bypass levee system,located on the eastern side of Duck Slough and the southern side of Liberty Island Road. Cross Levee – SPFC levee on thesouthern end of the Proposed Project Site, runs roughly west-east between Cache and Hass Sloughs. Vogel Levee – Existingagricultural levee located on the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of the Vogel property. Lookout Slough – Manmade drainage/water control channel that separates the Bowlsbey and Liberty Farms Properties. Lookout Slough is notconnected to Cache Slough and is not open to tidal inundation. Duck Slough – Man-made drainage/water control channel thatforms the western boundary of the Bowlsbey Property. Duck Slough is not connected to Hass Slough and is not open to tidalinundation. Sycamore Slough – Remnant of a historical slough, which is no longer connected to Hass Slough and is not open totidal inundation. ATT 17 DEIR ChIII Project Description.pdfE. STATUS IN THE CEQA PROCESS:Final Certified DocumentF. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER:(ifapplicable)2019039136G. COVERED ACTION ESTIMATED TIME LINE:ANTICIPATED START DATE: (If available)04/01/2021ANTICIPATED END DATE: (If available)04/01/2024H. COVERED ACTION TOTAL ESTIMATEDPROJECT COST: 120,000,000I. IF A CERTIFICATION OF CONSISTENCY FOR THIS COVERED ACTION WASPREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED, LIST DSC REFERENCE NUMBER ASSIGNED TOTHAT CERTIFICATION FORM:J. Supporting Documents:ATT 1 CEQA NOD.pdf, ATT 2 DEIR ChIV.G Hydrology Water Quality.pdf, ATT 3 FEIR Ch2 Revisions to DEIR.pdf, ATT4 FEIR AppX RMA Lookout Slough Report.pdf, ATT 5 FEIR Ch3 Response to Comments.pdf, ATT6 DEIR ChIV.B Agriculture Forestry.pdf, ATT 7 CAP Mitigation Equivalence Table.pdf, ATT 8 Draft Lookout SloughAMMP.pdf, ATT 9 DEIR AppF Lookout Slough BRA.pdf, ATT 10 DEIR AppP Tidal Hydro Hydraulic Analysis.pdf, ATT11 Lookout Slough 100% BODR.pdf, ATT 12 TM Restoration Guidance Delta Smelt.pdf, ATT 13 DEIR ChV CumulativeImpacts.pdf, ATT 14 DEIR AppO Baseline Study Flood Conveyance.pdf, ATT 15 Hydrologic Hydraulic System Analysis.pdf,ATT 16 DEIR AppS Potential Salinity Impacts.pdf, ATT 17 DEIR ChIII Project Description.pdf, ATT 18 USFWSAvoidance Minimization Measures.pdf, ATT 19 DEIR ChII Executive Summary.pdf, ATT20 DEIR AppR Hydrologic Hydraulic Risk.pdf, ATT 21 DEIR ChIV.D Biological Resources.pdf, ATT 22 DEIR ChIV.A ImpactsFound to be LTS.pdf, ATT 23 DEIR ChIV.I Public Services.pdf, ATT 24 DEIR AppE Good Neighbor Checklist.pdf, ATT

25 FEIR Ch1 Introduction.pdfStep 3 - Consistency with the Delta PlanDELTA PLAN CHAPTER 2G P1/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002 - Detailed Findings to Establish Consistency with the Delta Plan.G P1/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002 identifies what must be addressed in a certification of consistency filed by a State or localpublic agency with regard to any covered action and only applies after a "proposed action" has been determined by a State orlocal public agency to be a covered action because it is covered by one or more of the regulatory policies listed under DeltaPlan Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7 of this form. Inconsistency with this policy may be the basis for an appeal.A certification of consistency must include detailed findings that address each of the regulatory policies identified in Cal. CodeRegs., tit. 23, §§ 5002-5013 and listed on this Form that is implicated by the covered action.As outlined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002 (b)(1), the Delta Stewardship Council acknowledges that in some cases, basedupon the nature of the covered action, full consistency with all relevant regulatory policies may not be feasible. In those cases,the agency that files the certification of consistency may nevertheless determine that the covered action is consistent with theDelta Plan because, on whole, that action is consistent with the coequal goals. That determination must include a clearidentification of areas where consistency with relevant regulatory policies is not feasible, an explanation of the reasons why it isnot feasible, and an explanation of how the covered action nevertheless, on whole, is consistent with the coequal goals. Thatdetermination is subject to review by the Delta Stewardship Council on appeal.Specific requirements of this regulatory policy:a. G P1(b)(1)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(1) - Coequal GoalsAs outlined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002 (b)(1) , the Delta Stewardship Council acknowledges that in some cases, basedupon the nature of the covered action, full consistency with all relevant regulatory policies may not be feasible. In those cases,the agency that files the certification of consistency may nevertheless determine that the covered action is consistent with theDelta Plan because, on whole, that action is consistent with the coequal goals. That determination must include a clearidentification of areas where consistency with relevant regulatory policies is not feasible, an explanation of the reasons why it isnot feasible, and an explanation of how the covered action nevertheless, on whole, is consistent with the coequal goals. Thatdetermination is subject to review by the Delta Stewardship Council on appeal.Is the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?N/AAnswer Justification:The Proposed Project is consistent with the relevant regulatory policies asdescribed in the following sections and attachments. Additionally, theProposed Project is consistent with the Delta Plan’s Coequal Goals throughrestoration of native ecosystem habitats and functions, protectingapproximately 3,400 acres of open space in permanence comprisingapproximately 3,165 acres of tidal marsh and subtidal habitats and 149 acresof seasonal floodplain habitat, partially fulfilling DWR’s State WaterProject/Central Valley Project restoration obligations. The Proposed Projectdirectly supports ecosystem health, one of the Delta Plan’s Coequal Goals.The second of the Delta Plan’s Coequal Goals, water supply reliability, is notsignificantly changed by the Proposed Project. Current irrigation use wouldbe discontinued on 1,364 acres of irrigated pastureland, reducing demandfor water pumped from Cache, Hass, and Duck Sloughs. During the ProposedProject’s three-year construction period, work activities would use surfacewater sourced from existing entitlements from adjacent sloughs, which

would be adequate to serve the Proposed Project’s water needs, includingduring dry and multiple dry years. Following completion of construction, theProposed Project area would consist of native ecosystem which would notrequire application of water and would be resilient to changes inprecipitation. The tidal marsh plain would be constructed at elevations whichwould facilitate regular inundation by tidal waters, and the proposed tidalchannel system would naturally convey water throughout the site.Therefore, after the Proposed Project’s construction, on-site Delta waterswould be sufficient for the designed habitat functions. Furthermore, theProposed Project would have minimal, if any, impact on water availability orwater quality for nearby development. As further detailed in Attachment 2 –Draft EIR, Chapter IV.G, Hydrology and Water Quality, Attachment 3 - FinalEIR, Chapter 2, IV.G., Attachment 4 – Final EIR, Appendix X - ResourceManagement Associates Lookout Slough Tidal Habitat Restoration and FloodImprovement Project Modeling, and Master Response #1 in Attachment 5 –Final EIR, Chapter 3 Response to Comments, hydrodynamic and water qualitymodeling for the Proposed Project found that changes to the area’s floodregime and tidal prism were unlikely to affect diversion use, and would havelittle effect on water quality or availability for nearby properties and otheruses. For agricultural operations and municipal water facilities’ use, includingRD 2068’s agricultural diversion, the State Water Project’s Barker SloughPumping Plant, the City of Vallejo’s Cache Slough Pumping Plant, and privateagricultural diversions, RMA modeling results showed that the ProposedProject is predicted to cause both decreases and increases in salinity andbromide concentrations (using electrical conductivity [EC] as a surrogate forsalinity) both seasonally and spatially. Predicted EC was converted tobromide using numerical relationships between EC and bromideconcentration. For additional information see response to ER P1. The salinityanalysis includes reference to background concentrations and applicablewater quality objectives. The standards for salinity in the Delta are set by D1641 and no standards are in effect for bromide, although it has beenrecognized as a constituent of concern warranting additional study andevaluation. RMA modeling results did not indicate any instance of noncompliance with D-1641 standards and no violations of D-1641 chloridestandards are identified for any of the locations modeled, including theContra Costa Water District (CCWD) intakes. The Proposed Project is notpredicted to cause non-compliance or make non-compliance with the D-1641salinity standard more likely for agricultural, municipal, or fish and wildlifebeneficial uses. Thus, the Proposed Project would not violate any waterquality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantiallydegrade surface or groundwater quality. Irrigation and agriculture-relatedinfrastructure are among the improvements to be funded to offset theProposed Project’s impacts to farmland, discussed in detail in Attachment 6 –Draft EIR, Chapter IV.B, Agriculture and Forestry, Attachment 3 – Final EIR,Chapter 2, IV.B., and Master Response #2 in Attachment 5 – Final EIR,Chapter 3 Response to Comments These improvements include off-siteenhancements to the adjacent Zanetti property, where irrigation capabilitieswould be augmented on 320 acres and new irrigation infrastructure installedon 440 acres currently not irrigated. The additional demand for irrigationwater resulting from these off-site improvements would depend on anumber of factors and is difficult to estimate at this time. However, DWRexpects the new irrigation water use would be lower than the amount used

to irrigate the Bowlsbey Property’s farmland that would no longer be inproduction due to the Proposed Project, resulting in an overall reduction inwater demand. The Proposed Project supports significant gains in ecosystemhealth and is consistent with maintaining water supply reliability. Therefore,DWR has determined that the Proposed Project is consistent with theCoequal Goals policy of the Delta Plan, and with each of the regulatorypolicies contained in Article 3 relevant to the covered action. ATT2 DEIR ChIV.G Hydrology Water Quality.pdf, ATT 3 FEIR Ch2 Revisions toDEIR.pdf, ATT 4 FEIR AppX RMA Lookout Slough Report.pdf, ATT5 FEIR Ch3 Response to Comments.pdf, ATT6 DEIR ChIV.B Agriculture Forestry.pdf, ATT 16 DEIR AppS PotentialSalinity Impacts.pdf, ATT 2 DEIR ChIV.G Hydrology Water Quality.pdf, ATT3 FEIR Ch2 Revisions to DEIR.pdf, ATT 4 FEIR AppX RMA Lookout SloughReport.pdf, ATT 5 FEIR Ch3 Response to Comments.pdf, ATT6 DEIR ChIV.B Agriculture Forestry.pdf, ATT 16 DEIR AppS PotentialSalinity Impacts.pdfb. G P1(b)(2)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(2) - Mitigation MeasuresG P1(b)(2)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(2) provides that covered actions not exempt from CEQA, must include allapplicable feasible mitigation measures adopted and incorporated into the Delta Plan as amended April 26, 2018, (unless themeasure(s) are within the exclusive jurisdiction of an agency other than the agency that files the certification of consistency), orsubstitute mitigation measures that the agency that files the certification of consistency finds are equally or more effective. Formore information, see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, and Delta Plan Appendix O, Mitigation Monitoring and ReportingProgram, which are referenced in this regulatory policy.Is the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?YesAnswer Justification:The Proposed Project includes all applicable feasible mitigation measuresadopted and incorporated into the Delta Plan as amended April 26, 2018, orsubstitute mitigation measures that DWR finds are equally or more effective,as detailed in the Attachment 7 - Mitigation Equivalency Table. ATT 7 CAPMitigation Equivalence Table.pdfc. G P1(b)(3)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(3) - Best Available ScienceG P1(b)(3)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(3) provides that, relevant to the purpose and nature of the project, allcovered actions must document use of best available science. For more information, see Appendix 1A, which is referenced inthis regulatory policy.Is the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?YesAnswer Justification:An iterative design process occurred regarding the tidal marsh and otherrestoration features for the Proposed Project in consultation with fisheriesbiologists, hydrologists and other scientists. The design process included aseries of design review meetings that facilitated the collection andincorporation of feedback from the Project sponsor, regulatory agencies,stakeholders, and scientists. The process involved a review and evaluation ofhistorical and regional precedence for the tidal marsh design; utilization ofscience-based channel design software to produce channel layouts withrefined curvature and sinuosity; development of a surface model withchannel design integrated into the base topographic surface; and

hydrodynamic and particle tracking modeling. Design resources included: Biological Resources Assessment (BRA): Lookout Slough Restoration Project.WRA, Revised December 2019. (Attachment 9) Basis of Design Report –Tidal Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis: Lookout Slough Restoration Project,Environmental Science Associates, January 2019. (Attachment 10) LookoutSlough Tidal Habitat Restoration and Flood Improvement Project: 100% Basisof Design Report. Wood Rodgers, December 20202019. (Attachment 11) Technical Memorandum – Restoration Guidance for Delta Smelt. WRA, 2017.(Attachment 12) Effects on regional water quality salinity and bromide wereanalyzed using predictive regional models developed over the last 20 yearsand used by multiple agencies such as the Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California, State Water Contractors, Contra Costa Sanitary District,California Department of Water Resources, and other state agencies, toachieve a very strong predictive capacity (e.g. R2 typically greater than 0.85)when compared to observed salinity conditions throughout the Delta andSuisun Bay (Attachment 4, Attachment 16). As further described inAttachment 5 (Final EIR, Chapter 3 Response to Comments) the bestavailable science indicates the Proposed Project would not raise dissolvedorganic carbon (DOC) and affect the quality of water treated at watertreatment plants for the following reasons: the lack of impact from thenearby Liberty Island restoration; the limited potential for water particlesfrom the Proposed Project reaching the NBA intake; and the potentialenvironmental processing of DOC on the Proposed Project Site. In addition,the potential effects of methylmercury were analyzed using the bestavailable and up-to-date science and the Proposed Project was found to notbe a source of methylmercury and would have a less-than-significant impacton methylmercury concentrations in the Delta (Attachment 5 – Final EIR,Chapter 3 Response to Comments). Adaptive management of the ProposedProject through the Draft Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plan(AMMP) will be based on input from monitoring data in conjunction withadaptive review of whether restoration goals and objectives are beingachieved. The AMMP is structured around conceptual models of tidalwetland function with respect to smelt and salmon (Sherman et al. 2017).The models derive from peer-reviewed literature and government agencyreports describing studies throughout the estuary and relevant ecosystemselsewhere. The methods and sampling strategy described are designed toprovide data that are comparable across restoration projects and withongoing regional monitoring surveys. Comparable data from the channelsadjacent to the Proposed Project Site and reference sites would facilitateproject monitoring as well as the eventual assessment of restorationprogram effectiveness. Proposed Project monitoring and adaptivemanagement strategies are subject to adjustment as new data and scientificinformation arises. Data comparability and transparency would bemaintained throughout the evolution of the project and its monitoringperiod. ATT 4 FEIR AppX RMA Lookout Slough Report.pdf, ATT 8 DraftLookout Slough AMMP.pdf, ATT 9 DEIR AppF Lookout Slough BRA.pdf, ATT10 DEIR AppP Tidal Hydro Hydraulic Analysis.pdf, ATT 11 Lookout Slough100% BODR.pdf, ATT 12 TM Restoration Guidance Delta Smelt.pdf, ATT16 DEIR AppS Potential Salinity Impacts.pdfd. G P1(b)(4)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(4) - Adaptive Management

G P1(b)(4)/Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (b)(4) provides that an ecosystem restoration or water management coveredaction must include adequate provisions, appropriate to its scope, to assure continued implementation of adaptivemanagement. For more information, see Appendix 1B, which is referenced in this regulatory policy. Note that this requirementmay be satisfied through both of the following:(A) An adaptive management plan that describes the approach to be taken consistent with the adaptive managementframework in Appendix 1B; and(B) Documentation of access to adequate resources and delineated authority by the entity responsible for the implementationof the proposed adaptive management process.Is the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?YesAnswer Justification:The Proposed Project includes an adaptive management and monitoring plan(AMMP) that is consistent with the Delta Plan Appendix 1B adaptivemanagement framework, included in full as Attachment 8. DWR isresponsible for ensuring management and monitoring activities arecompleted, maintaining records, reporting, and coordinating and approvingany research activities proposed on the Project Site. Various groups withinCDFW and DWR, as well as qualified consultants are responsible forspecialized monitoring as described in the AMMP. For a detailed listincluding adaptive management tasks and responsible parties, please seeTable 11. Parties Responsible for Specific Monitoring and AdaptiveManagement in the AMMP. Long-term management activities will be fundedthrough DWR’s State Water Project operations and maintenance budget forperpetual operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project. ATT 8 DraftLookout Slough AMMP.pdfDELTA PLAN CHAPTER 3WR P1 / Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5003 - Reduce Reliance on the Delta through Improved Regional Water Self-RelianceIs the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?N/AAnswer Justification:This policy is not applicable because water suppliers would not receive wateras a result of the Proposed Project and DWR is not a water supplier.WR P2 / Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5004 - Transparency in Water ContractingIs the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?N/AAnswer Justification:The Proposed Project does not involve water supply or water transfercontracts from the State Water Project or Central Valley Project.DELTA PLAN CHAPTER 4Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (c) - Conservation MeasureCal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 5002, subd. (c) provides that a conservation measure proposed to be implemented pursuant to anatural community conservation plan or a habitat conservation plan that was: (1) Developed by a local government in theDelta; and (2) Approved and permitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to May 16, 2013 is deemed to beconsistent with the regulatory policies listed under Delta Plan Chapter 4 of this Form (i.e. sections 5005 through 5009) if thecertification of consistency filed with regard to the conservation measure includes a statement confirming the nature of theconservation measure from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Is the covered action consistent with this portion of the regulatory policy?N/AAnswer Justification:The Proposed Project is not proposed pursuant t

C. OPEN MEETING LAWS Agencies whose actions are not subject to open meeting laws (Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act [Gov. Code sec 11120 et seq.] . ATT 1_CEQA NOD.pdf, ATT 2_DEIR_ChIV.G_Hydrology_Water Quality.pdf, ATT 3_FEIR_Ch2_Revisions to DEIR.pdf, ATT 4_FEIR_AppX_RMA Lookout Slough