Memorandum

To: Chief Environmental Compliance Branch, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, SouthCentral California Area Office, Fresno, California

From: Chief San Joaquin Valley Division, Endangered Species Program, Sacramento Fish

and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California

Subject: Informal Consultation on the Central Valley Project Cross Valley Contractors Interim

Renewal Contracts 2020-2022 (19-044)

This memorandum is in response to the US. Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation)

November 29, 2019, request for concurrence with the determination that the proposed execution of

Central Valley Project (CVP) Interim Renewal Water Service Contracts (IRCs) for Cross Valley (CV)

Contractors and Article 5 Exchanges, from March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2022, may affect, but is

not likely to adversely affect QNJLAA) the federally-listed as endangered Buena Vista Lake ornate

shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat

(Dzpodomy nitratoides nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia si/a), Kern mallow (Bremaiche

kernensis), and San Joaquin woolly-threads (Monolopia condonii). The districts involved in the CV IRCsand Article 5 Exchanges are located within Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and Kings Counties. Your request

was received in our office on December 1 8, 201 7. This response is provided under the authority of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and in accordance

with the implementing regulations pertaining to interagency cooperation (50 CFR 402).

The federal action on which we are consulting is the two year-renewal of CV IRCs beginning on

March 1, 2020, and ending February 28, 2022, as well as potential Article 5 Exchanges involving the

CV IRC districts and other CVP and non-CVP recipients. Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(j), you

submitted a Biological Evaluation (BE) for our review and requested concurrence with the findings

presented therein. These fmdings conclude that the proposed project may affect, and is NLAA the

Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard

lizard, Kern mallow, and San Joaquin woolly-thieads.

Reclamation has requested initiation of informal consultation under the Act. In considering your

request, we based our evaluation on the following information: (1) the November 29, 2019, request

for consultation, (2) a BE for the CV IRCs dated November 2019, (3) Central Valley Project Habitat

Mapping Program (CVPHMP) land use change maps between 2006 and 201 1 for CV IRC districts

and Article 5 Exchange participants provided by Reclamation’s Regional Office to the Service on

January 6, 2016, (4) information provided by Reclamation’s South Central California Area Office for
or is highly disturbed. These determinations of 

no effect

are also based on an environmental

commitment stipulating that “no native or untilled land (fallow for three consecutive years or more)

may be cultivated with this water,” with proposed changes to the contract service area requiring

“separate environmental documentation and approval” (land conversion commitment).

Reclamation is requesting concurrence with NLAA for those species that could occupy or colonizelands that are fallowed for less than three years within the CV IRCs and Article 5 Exchanges: theBuena Vista Lake ornate shrew, San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard,Kern mallow, and San Joaquin woolly-threads. These species were considered able to move onto, or

sprout from the seedbanks on, lands that could be fallowed less than 3 years and could potentially be

affected by such fallowed lands being brought back into production. The information provided forthis consultation, as well as the short duration of this project and land conversion commitment in

provides the basis for the Service to concur with Reclamation’s determination that the CV IRCs and

Article 5 exchanges are NLAA the species listed above.

The Service’s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office issued a biological opinion on long-term renewal

of the Friant and CV CVP water service contracts (Friant BiOp) on January 1 9, 2001 (File No. 01-F0027). As part of that consultation, the Friant Division and CV contractors sought and received

Applicant status under the Act. Reclamation, however, has not yet executed the long term contracts

for the CV contracts. Compliance with the Act for the CV IRCs is governed by the commitments

made in the Ftiant BiOp. For the purposes of this consultation, and as outlined in the BA for this

action, all conservation measures and Applicant commitments described in the Friant BiOp apply to

CV IRCs for the period of March 1 , 201 8 through February 29, 2020, or until long-term contracts

for the CV contractors are executed, whichever comes first. These measures are summarized in

Appendix B. Interim contract renewals of CV water service contracts will not result in additional

adverse effects to listed species beyond those analyzed in the Friant BiOp. We therefore are only

considering Reclamation’s concurrence request for listed species within Article 5 exchange recipient

districts and on lands fallowed for less than 3 years within CV IRC.

The consultation history, prior to the current proposed project, was identified in detail in previous

consultations on these contracts and is hereby incorporated by reference (Service Files Nos., 00-F0056, 02-F-0070, 04-F-0360, 06-F-0070, 0$-F-0944-1 and -2, 12-1-0255, 14-1-0040, and 16-1-0341).

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Other Reclamation Consultations

Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the CVI? and State Water Project (OCAP)

The effects of water exports from the Delta on protected species are addressed separately by NMFS

and Service in consultations on continued long-term operation of the CVP and State Water Project

(SWP) referred to as OCAP. Biological opinions on OCAP have been issued by NMFS (2009) and

Service (December 15, 2008, Service File 0$-F-14$1-5) for the effects of the continued long-term

operation of the CVP and SWP. However, since that time, the United States Court, Eastern District

of California remanded the OCAP BiOps and Reclamation was ordered by the Court to comply
Changes to County of Fresno Service Area #34

The Service has been involved in several consultations involving County of Fresno Service Area #34

(a CV IRC contractor). The Service completed a formal consultation on January 7, 2009 on the

proposed Mifierton New Town (MNI) Tract 4870 change in service area (File 0$-F-124$). On

March 21, 2014 the Service completed a reinitiated formal consultation on Milerton New Town

Tract 4870 to increase the size of the action area. The Service also completed formal consultation

with Reclamation on August 2$, 2015 on the authorization of three long-term water transfers to

Fresno County from Arvin-Edison Water Storage District and Terra Bella Irrigation District (Friant

contractors) and the Lower Tule River Irrigation District (a Friant and CV IRC contractor) for a

proposed development in the Milerton New Town Specific Plan Area (MNTSPA; File No. 09-F

0$73). The MNTSPA considered in that consultation does not include the $$ acres that were

considered in the formal consultation on Mifierton New Town Tract 4570.Project Description

This informal consultation is a reinitiation of previous consultations on IRCs that involved these CV

contracts, and those consultations are included here by reference (Service File Nos., 00-F-0056, 02-

F-0070, 04-F-0360, 06-F-0070, 0$-F-0944-1 and -2, 2012-1-0255, and 2014-1-0040, and 2016-I0341). This consultation on CV IRCs, detailed in Table 1, was established pursuant to Section

3404(c) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) and addresses the effects of the

proposed renewal of the CV IRCs for a two-year period from March 1 , 201 5 to February 29, 2020.

The water supplied through these contracts wifi be used within the CVC districts and may be

exchanged to other districts, as shown in Figure 1 , for agricultural, municipal, and industrial

purposes, and will not exceed water allocations determined by existing CVP operations criteria.

Interim CVP water contract renewals are consistent with the tiered implementation of the CVPIA,

as described in the biological opinion on Implementation of the CVPIA (Service File 9$I20124).

This consultation addresses the effects of the proposed renewal of eight IRCs in the CV Unit of the

CVP, which are executed in accordance with Section 3401 (c) of the CVNA for a maximum periodof 2 years. Some of the CV contractors are composed of several subcontractors. Altogether, thereare fifteen water suppliers within the group known as the CV contractors. Under the IRCs, CV

contractors can receive up to 125,300 acre-feet/year of CVP water. The CV contract service areasare located along the eastern side of the southern San Joaquin Valley. The water delivered for these

IRCs will be used for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes, and will not exceed water

allocations determined by existing CV]? operations criteria established in the OCAP BiOps.

1 see: http://www.fws.gov/sthaydelta/documents/APPELLATE-315077-vl-Deka_smelt_II_--_panel_decision.pdf.

2 The ROD and Final EIS for OCAP are available at:http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_ptojdetails.cfm?Project_1D21883
CV contractors

exchange arrangements with individually proposed exchange partners for the 201$

and 2019 contract years (March 1, 2018 through February 29, 2020) for up to the full CV

contractors’ CVP contract supply of 128,300 acre-feet/year. Beginning in 1 975, the frrst CV
Irngatton District

Kem-Tulare Water 14-06-200-8601A-1R16 40,000 Agriculture and M&I 2/29/2020

District (KTWD)5

Kern-Tulare Water 14-06-200-$367A-1R16 13,300 Agriculture and M&I 2/29/2020

District (Rag GulchWater District)4Lower Tule River 14-06-200-8237A-1R16 31,102 Agriculture and M&I 2/29/2020

Irrigation DistrictPhdey Irrigation 14-06-200-823$A-1R16 31,102 Agriculture and M&I 2/29/2020

District

Tn-Valley Water 14-06-200-8565A-W16 1,142 Agriculture and M&I 2/29/2020

District

Total 128,300

contractors entered into three-party contracts with Reclamation and the Department of Water

Resources cDWR). Pursuant to these contracts, Reclamation provided long-term water service and

DWR provided conveyance for the CV contractors. Although the CV contractors are situated on

the eastside of the San Joaquin Valley amid the Friant Division CVP contractors (who receive their

c-v-P supplies from the San Joaquin River stored in Millerton Lake via the Friant Kern Canal), for

the CV contractors CV]? water is not delivered from the San Joaquin River but is pumped from theDelta by the DWR and/or Reclamation. Reclamation may store the water in San Luis Reservoir and

convey it In the San Luis Canal (SLC)/Califomia Aqueduct for delivery to the CV contractor(s).

Due to direct conveyance hurdles, Reclamation envisioned that the CV contractors would obtain

their CVP supplies via exchanges.

3 County of Fresno includes County Service Area #34.

4 County ofTulare subcontractors include Alpaugh Irrigation District, Atwell Island Water District, Hills Valley

Irrigation District, Saucelito Irrigation District, Stone Corral Irrigation District, City of Lindsay, Strathmore Public Utility

District, Styrotek, Inc., and the City of Visalia.

5 KTWD and Rag Gulch Water District have consolidated their two districts into one district, under KTWD’s name

through a contract assignment of Rag Gulch Water District’s assigned IRC (for 13,300 AF). As part of that assignment,

KTWD has committed to maintain the effective separation of the two districts in terms of how much water is delivered

and applied where, until the long-term water service contracts are negotiated and appropriate environmental complance

is completed.
‘

\c Fresno _:EL . :ç, \%%

L; LL ‘P :i : ) :

%b%& kL N:: TGIa e I1

•Kin ‘

. i%•% ,.‘ .‘ ? .

•- 2: -‘p I .. T .‘ • t• - .. MW1id.y

_

.. Avcng I • \

-

.. ç;. :. • c.’i

• I: •‘_::iH%:’ :‘ .‘ •.

-._1_, ! - : Monterey •:f’:i ) i :r

:EzZrL z:--:7i;J

\ L (:z:LTeId : ;jrE?f ta;LuIs ‘b-n Luis Obispo 1 fl ‘i’ ( pt%spo ? L_1L__ ----

-

I - ‘1: *:;

I V - - 9€, I i— ‘.. 0

‘•\ .\ Santa Barbara - I \ I nt rmap.JNCREMENT P:NRan, Esñ I I Japan ETt Esri China (Hor?g KongrEsri Koreri TliiIaniaF apm India

I : ‘L

. ; NGCC ‘OpenStretMap conlobdtors, and the GIS Ummuntty I L1flC.1

0 1 0 20 30 40 —— Consolidated POU (CPOU) Canals

— — Miles Friant Irrigated and M&I POU Rivers

Cross Valley Contractors

17-020 Cross Valley IRC’s 201 8-2020 State Water Project Contractors

U.S. Department ofthe Interior Private Water Districts N Bureau of Reclamation

A Mid-Pacific Region Other Water Users ( .) CVP Contractors
furnished to the Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be conveyed by DWR anddelivered to the Contractor by direct delivery via the Cross Valley Canal and/or by exchange

arrangements involving Arvin-Edison Water Storage 1)istrict or others. The parties further

acknowledge that such exchange arrangements are not transfers subject to Section 3405(a) of

CVPI.A. Notwithstanding Article 9 of this Contract, such exchange arrangements, other than

the previously approved exchange arrangements with Arvin-Edison Water Storage District,

shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for approval in accordance with principles

historically applied by the Contracting Officer in approving Cross Valley exchange

arrangements. DWR shall have no obligation to make such exchange arrangements or be

responsible for water transported in facilities that are not a part of the SWP.

The proposed project would also include the continued historical exchanges between the CV

contractors and Arvin Edison Water Storage District (AEWSD). A description of other CVPcontractors and non-CVP contractors that are potential exchange partners can be found in

Appendix C. Some of these districts have sub-entities which may include CV]? and/or SWP

contractors. In some cases, the diversions of non-CVP water from rivers, creeks and ditches, is

based on the total runoffin any given hydrological season. The districts receive a percentage of therunoff and no specific limit exists to the total annual supply. The total amount of non-CVP water is

difficult to quantify; therefore, average water supplies are depicted.

Due to varying hydrological conditions, loss due to evaporation and/or seepage, differences in the

value of water, and/or timing, imbalanced exchanges could occur. Consistent with historical

practices, under the proposed project, imbalanced exchange arrangements would be permitted but

limited to a ratio of 2: 1 . Proposed exchange arrangements exceeding this amount are not within the

scope of this analysis and subsequent environmental review(s) would be required. Possible exchangescenarios and mechanisms are identified in Appendix C.

CV]? water may be wheeled under Article 55 of a SWP contract as one component of the exchange.

Article 55 of the SWP contracts allows for the SWP contractor to convey non-SWP water in their

increment of capacity in the Aqueduct. Under this scenario, a SWP contractor would request DWR

to convey a CV contractor’s CVP water, if capacity exists, in the Aqueduct.

CV]? water is tracked from its origin to its fmal disposition (end use) and does not lose its federalcharacteristics under the California water rights permits. Water supplies will be used in

compliance with the applicable water rights permits and conform to the applicable purpose and

place-of-use of the associated water rights permit.

Project Area

The CV districts or sub-entities and recipient districts of Article 5 Exchanges included in the

proposed project are located in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV), in parts of Fresno,

Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties (Figure 1). The action area encompasses all the areas of the listed
southern Kern County where the Tehachapi Mountains ring the southern end of the Central Valley.

The eastern edge of the action area extends slightly into the Sierra Nevada foothills. Its boundary

line meanders from 5 to 20 miles east of Highway 99. The western boundary extends to the foothills

of the Diablo Range, and roughly follows Interstate 5 from its intersection with Highway 41

southward.

Conservation Measures

For the purposes of this consultation, and as ouffined in the BA for this proposed project, the

conservation measures found in Appendix B from the CVPIA BiOp apply to the CV IRCs for the

period of March 1 , 2020, through February 28, 2022, or until long-term contracts are executed,

whichever occurs first. In addition, the following commitments are part of the proposed project:

. The exchanged water may be applied only to lands located within the appropriate Place of

Use boundaries6;

. No native or untilled land (fallow for three consecutive years or more) may be cultivated

with this water;

. No new construction or modification of existing facilities is to occur in order to complete

the proposed project;

. No changes in the point of diversion or places-of-use without prior approvals from the State

Water Resources Control Board, Reclamation, and/or DWR as applicable;

. Transfers associated with the exchange arrangements must not alter the quality of water or

the hydrological regime of natural waterways or natural watercourses such as rivers, streams,

creeks, lakes, ponds, pools, or wetlands, etc., in a way that may have a detrimental effect on

fish or wildlife or their habitats; and

. All exchanges must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations,

permits and policies.

. Reclamation will review each transfer associated with the exchange proposal for compliance

with the above conditions to determine that the action is consistent with the criteria

described within this analysis prior to approval and execution of the action.

Any transfer with an exchange proposal will requite an approval letter from the Contracting Officer.

The approval letter will include requirements for compliance with all environmental commitments

associated with the proposed project. An Environmental Commitment Plan (ECP) will be providedto all participants in the exchange arrangements as part of the approval process which will requireannual verification during the term of the IRC.

6 There are three relevant Places of Use: the Consolidated Place of Use, the Friant, Ag only Place of Use, and the Friant

Ag & M&I Place of Use. The Cross Valley contractors would get some friant water and thus the Friant Places of Usewould apply to them. I lowever, the exchangees would receive delta water, and thus the Consolidated Place of Use

would apply for those districts.
consultations, specifically to ensure that project water is not used in a manner that adversely

affects listed, proposed or candidate species. The Service considers the scope of this

conservation measure to include the assurance that project water will not be used in whole

or in part to facilitate the conversion of existing natural habitat to agricultural or other

purposes and this determination is essential to the conclusions made regarding the overall

effects of the proposed project. If this fundamental assumption is not valid, then the effects

analysis and conclusion of this consultation will need to be reviewed.

2. Reclamation will continue to implement in a timely manner relevant environmental

commitments, conservation measures, and terms and conditions from other biological

opinions as appropriate. These commitments include implementation of the CVPIA and

Friant BiOps. Other CVP-related, non-CVPIA actions benefiting fish, wildlife, andassociated habitats and related to effects of IRCs will continue, with at least current funding

levels, including:

a. the Central Valley Habitat Monitoring Program’s Comprehensive Mapping;

b. implementation of the Central Valley Habitat Monitoring Program’s Land Use

Monitoring and Reporting; and,

c. CVP Conservation Program and CVPIA B(1)(other) Habitat Restoration Program.

3. The analysis for this determination is based on the assumption that CVP water contract

amounts and deliveries will remain consistent with those provided and analyzed in the Final

PETS for CVPIA and the 200$ OCAP biological opinion.

CVPHMP Mapping

The CV IRCs remain subject to the conservation measures, Applicant Commitments, and nondiscretionary terms and conditions, as applicable, in the CVPIA and Friant BiOps. The CV IRCs

also remain subject to conservation measures, Applicant Commitments, and non-discretionary termsand conditions from the formal consultation and reinitiated consultation on the Mifierton new Town

Tract 4$70 Change in Service Area for the Water Service Contract for the County of Fresno, ServiceArea No. 34 (File No. 0$-F-124$) and the ftrmal consultation on Long Term Water Transfers for

Mifierton New Town Specific Plan Area (File No. 0$-F-0$73), as County of Fresno is one of the CV

contractors included in this consultation.

We note that Reclamation’s determinations are based on Reclamation’s conclusion that CV]? IRC

deliveries do not result in land use changes that would adversely affect federally-listed species or

critical habitat. The Service’s most current information, based on the 2006-201 1 mapping data and

the December 201 7, BA analysis, indicates that land conversion occurred within the CV service area

between 2006-201 1 and 2010-2017 as an indirect effect of CVP water deliveries, conveyance,

storage, and exchanges. However, it is the Service’s understanding that the commitments included in

the proposed project, and summarized in Appendix B, will be implemented and no further land
assumption rn the BA for these IRCs that 

no losses ofnative lands or landsfallowed and untilledfor three or

moreyears” have occurred.

Determination

We concur with Reclamation’s NLAA determinations for the Buena Vista Lake shrew, San Joaquin

kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Kern mallow, and San Joaquin woollythreads or critical habitat designated for these species. Our concurrence is based on the short-term

nature of the federal action and the assumption that environmental commitments in the proposed

project will be implemented.

Our concurrence with your NLAA determination concludes consultation for this action. Therefore,

unless new information reveals effects of the proposed project that may affect listed species in amanner or to an extent not considered, no further action pursuant to the Act is necessary. If you

have questions or concerns regarding this action, please contact Patricia Cole, San Joaquin ValleyI)ivision Chief, at the letterhead address or at (916) 414-6544.

Attachments

cc:

Craig Bailey, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fresno, California
( 

trekasei)

California clapper rail KaThis loizgirostris obsoletus 1ndangered None

California condor Gjimnogyps californianus Endangered I)esignatedCalifornia jeweiflower Caiilanthus californicus Endangered NoneCalifornia red-legged frog Kane aurora drajtonii Threatened 1)esignated

California tiger salamander Ambjstoma californiense Threatened Designated

Coastal California Polioptila ca/ifornica calfornzca Threatened I)esignated

gnatcatcher

Conservancy fairy shfimp Branchinecta conservatio Endangered I)esignated

Delta smelt Hjipomesus tranrpadficus Threatened I)esignated

Desert tortoise Gopherus agassizji Threatened Designated

lresn() kangaroo rat Dpodornjs nitratoides exilis Endangered Designated

Giant garter snake Thamnophisggas Threatened None

Giant kangaroo rat Dpodomjis ingens Endangered None

Greene’s tuctoria Tuctoriagreenei Endangered I)esignated

Hairy Orcutt grass Orcuttiapilosa Endangered DesignatedHaitweg’s golden sunburst Pseudobahia bahifolia Endangered None

Hoover’s spurge C/]arnaesjce hooveri Threatened DesignatedKeck’s checker-mallow Sidalcea keckil Endangered Designated

(checkerbloom)

Kern mallow Erernaiche kernensis Endangered None

Kern primrose sphinx moth Euproserpimis e;tteie Threatened NoneLahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhj;zchus clarki henshawi Threatened None

Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellipusillits Endangered DesignatedLittle Kern golden trout Oncorhjmchus mjikiss (auabonita whitel Threatened DesignatedLonghorn fairy shrimp Branc/jinectu longiantemia Endangered Designated
North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed None

threatened

Owens pupfish Cjpuinodon radiosus Endangered NoneOwens tul chub Gila bicolor siyderi Endangered None

Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhjnchus clarki seleniris Threatened NonePalmate-bracted bird’s-beak Crdylanthuspalmatus Endangered NoneRiparian brush rabbit Sjiivilagus bachmam nbarus Endangered NoneRiparian woodrat (San Neotomafuc-ipes nbaiia Endangered None

Joaqurn Valley woodrat)

San Bernt() evernng- Camissonia benitensis Threatened None

primrose

San Joaquin adobe sunburst Pseudobahiapeirsonii Threatened None

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Orcuttia inaequalis Endangered Designated

grass

San Mateo thornmint Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonli Endangered None

Sierra Nevada bighorn Ovis canadensis californiana Endangered Designated

sheepSierra Nevada yellow-legged Rana sierra Endangered Proposed

frogSouthwestern willow Empidonax trail/i extirnus Endangered I)esignated

flycatcherSpringville clarkia Clarkia ipringvillensis Threatened None

Succulent owl’s-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Threatened Designated

Valley elderberry longhorn Desrnocerits ca%fornicus dimorphus Threatened Designated

beetleVernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta ynchi Threatened Designated

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp LepiduruspackardI Endangered Designated

Western snowy plover Cbaradiius alexandrimis nivosus Threatened Designated

Service Contract Renewals Biological Opinion (O1

F

0027) and the CV1?IA Biological Opinion (98

F-0124) that are relevant to the CV IRCs and associated Article 5 Exchanges [Note: numbering is

preserved from the source documents].

2001 Friant/Cross Valley BiOp

5. Identify and map endangered species habitat in CVP contractor service areas and provide to

contractors.

Phase I -A 1993 landcover database or basemap will be developed using the best available existinglandcover data and satellite imagery.

Phase II -will determine areas of habitat change by comparing 1 993 image data to year 2000 image

data. Based on available GIS datasets and spectral change analysis, a preliminary change map will becreated to guide sampling and remapping efforts in phase III.

Phase III -will create an updated landcover database representative of landcover and habitat

conditions for year 2000. This process may include:

. Field sampling to determine the cause of change and identification of habitat

types in change areas.

. Acquisition of large scale, orthorectifled digital aerial photography for

verification and remapping purposes.

. Additional mapping efforts in areas where existing datasets from 1 993 are not

adequate to meet the needs of this project.

. GIS analysis for habitat change monitoring.

Additionally, Reclamation and the Service commit to revisit and update the land cover database for

year 2000 every 5 years for monitoring and trends analysis purposes.

6. Monitor land use change and ongoing activities within Districts receiving CVP water.

a. Monitor land use changes and ongoing activities in the Districts to ensure thatproject Water is not used in a manner

that adversely affects listed, proposed, and candidate ipeties.7. Landowners obtain Service/Reclamation approval prior to taking actions on endangered species

habitat with no federal involvement.

8. Ensure section 7 consultation on future actions impacting endangered species where there is

federal involvement. The Friant Division and Cross Valley Unit CVP water contractors, whose

contracts are currenfly up for renewal, have also made “Applicant Commitments” that they will not

deliver CVPIA Project Water for the purpose of converting any native lands to agricultural or M&I

uses unless and until appropriate ESA compliance has determined that such conversion will not

likely affect protected species or appropriate mitigation has been provided.

1 8. Identify and analyze impacts of all water assignments executed since 1 991 for Friant and 1995

for Interim contractors, and coordination on future assignments to ensure ES.A compliance.
1 . Long

term contracts will be renewed, and Reclamation will complete tiered site specific

consultations with the Service. No CVP water will be delivered or applied outside current contractservice areas until either formal or informal consultation, as appropriate, is complete. Once formalsite specific consultation has occurred that is in compliance with this opinion, it is assumed that

changes in land-use practices, and impacts to listed and proposed species, in the districts have been

addressed.

4. Reclamation and the Service will write a joint letter to the water districts, any member agencies,

Planning Departments of cities or counties within the districts using CVP water, and otherresponsible parties regarding requirements under the ESA. The letter will include: (1) a discussion ofReclamation’s need to ensure that CVP water is not used in a manner which could jeopardize the

continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification ofdesignated critical habita% and (2) an explanation of the prohibitions described under Section 9 of the

ESA in regard to take. The letter will discuss the appropriate protection measures as described hereand in subsequent contract renewal consultation and will be completed within 60 days of execution

of long-term contracts.9

5. Conservation strategies will be in place for the districts or areas receiving CV]? water. The types

of strategies that could be accepted are: Habitat Conservation .Plannin as described in section 1 0(a) of

the ESA; programmatic land management actions that include protection of listed and proposed

species; requirements resulting from site specific Section 7 consultation; or an expansion of theexistifig CVP Conservation Program that adequately compensates for the direct and indirect effectsof increased water delivery to an area.1°

6. Reclamation will, subsequent to a determination of may affect to listed species and/or adverse

modification to designated critical habitat in consultation with the Service’s SFWO Endangered

Species Division, consult on all federal actions that result in changes in purpose of use for CVP

water contracts, including changes from Agriculture to Agriculture/Municipal and Industrial

purposes.

7. The Service and Reclamation will work together to convey information to the water districts, and

individual water users (as appropriate), on listed species needs. Reclamation will establish an

7 Reclamation and the Service have in practice been using this definition of “native lands”: lands nevet tilled or lands

fallowed and unfilled for three or more years.

8 These apply to CV IRCs as well.9 Letters were already sent to CVCs and Friant Contractors, but an Environmental Commitment Program form would

be used for the interim contract renewal that would inform districts of the required commitments.

10 This would take the form of “requirements resulting from site specific Section 7 consultation” in this case.
1 0. Reclamation and CVP contractors will comply with all applicable opinions related to the CVP.

flow standards that form the environmental baseline of the 1995 OCAP biological opinion will be

met, and Reclamation will take no discretionary actions (e.g. new contracts, contract amendments,

facility construction) that would incrementally increase diversions and alter hydrologic and

environmental conditions in the Delta until any requited consultation is reinidated and completed.

1 1 . Contractors are required to conform with any applicable provisions of any biological opinions

addressing contract renewal so as to prohibit the use of CVP water that results in unauthorized take

or conversion of wildland habitat determined to have the potential to be occupied by listed species,or violation of any terms of the contracts pertaining to the conservation of listed species. Allcontracts (or related biological opinions) will also stipulate Reclamation will not undertake anydiscretionary action allowing the delivery of CVP water to native habitat for listed species depicted

on the maps attached to the 1 8-month notices unless clearance pursuant to the ESA has been

obtained from the Service.

1 3. Reclamation will make certain that applicable measures to ensure ESA compliance for the

renewal of CVP water service contracts are provided within the text of new and/or amended longterm water contracts and related actions.

14. Reclamation will provide information related to proposed new water assignments of Project

water to the Service’s SFWO Endangered Species I)ivision prior to execution of the assignment.

F. Commitments Associated with Conservation Programs

Comprehensive Mappin& and Land Use Monitoring and Reporting Program

. Monitoring will be used to assess the condition and impacts of Reclamation actions on listed

species. Reclamation and the Service are actively developing a monitoring strategy based on

the comprehensive mapping program. The land cover database for year 2000, described in

Phase III, will be revisited every 5 years for monitoring purposes.

. The Comprehensive Mapping Program will be implemented immediately to test and track,

for the purpose of validating over the life of the project, the assumptions made in this

biological opinion that the baselines of the species in Appendix A are stable or increasing.

. For any species affected by the CVI? that are continuing to decline, the Service and

Reclamation will immediately assess critical needs for the species and determine whether it

is appropriate to expand the Conservation Program or implement other conservation measures.Any native habitat converted to agricultural or municipal/industrial use within the water

service area without prior biological surveys, as required by Reclamation prior to the delivery

11 Addressed by the Environmental Commitment Program form.
y

p

Service’s SFWO Endangered Species Division, dependent on lead agency status, clear descriptions

of proposed CVI? or CVPIA actions, specific areas that may be affected directly or indirectly by

these actions, the manner in which the actions mqy tffict any listed species or designated critical habita%and other relevant reports and information. Reclamation and the Service will also identify any and all

interrelated and interdependent actions and measures related to the proposed CVP or CVPJA

action. In those situations where the lead agency, or the Service’s SFWO Endangered Species

Division, determines that an action mqy affect listed species or may adversely modify designated critical

habita% Reclamation and/or the Service will initiate informal or formal consultation as appropriate.

8. Reclamation and the Service will work together to develop means to more effectively facilitate

ESA compliance through the coordination of activities and commitments discussed in this Project

Description. This coordination will include establishment of a process within 3 months of this

biological opinion that will provide necessary information to the Service’s SFWO Endangered

Species Division in situations where a determination of no affect has been made, sufficiently in

advance, to enable the Service’s review.

13. Reclamation will establish a tracking program to assure conditions necessary for compliance

with ESA are met within areas affected by the delivery of CVP water. Where Reclamation and/or

the Service believe there are adverse affects on listed species, a conservation strategy will be required to

be in place for the district or area to receive the contract water. The types of strategies that could be

accepted are: Habitat Cnservation Planning, as described in Section 1 Oa of the ESA; requirements

resulting from a Section 7 consultation, programmatic land management actions that include

protection of listed and proposed species, implementation of site specific conservation measures, or an

expansion of the existing CVP Conservation Program that adequately compensates for the directand indirect effects of increased water delivery to an area. Other actions that include components ofthe above strategies could also be accepted.
Arvin-Edison Water Storage DiStflCt 40,Ot)t) 311,675 Kern River $9,900 Yes

I)elano-Earlimart Irrigation I)istrict 10$,$00 574,500 0 * White River

channel

Exeter Irrigation District 11,100 19,000 0 * Yokohl CreekFresno Irngation District 0 75,000 Kings River * Yes

$00,000

Garfield Water District 3,50t) 0 0 * Unknown

I•iills Valley Irrigation District 1,250 0 0 * Unknown

Ivanhoe Irrigation I)istrict 6,5t)0 5t)t) Wutchumna Water ST Johns River

Company Stock and Cotton Creek

3,950

STJohns RiverCotton Creek

Kaweah I)elta Water Conservation 1,200 7,400 Kaweah River Cross Creek,District Recharge basins

Cottonwood CreekCross Creek

Kings River‘fule River

Kern ‘lulare Water District 0 5,000 Kern River * Unknown

Lewis Creek Water 1)istrict 1,200 0 0 * Unknown

Lindmore Irrigation District 33,000 22,000 0 21,000 Yes

Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District 27,500 0 Wutchmna Water 15,000 Unknown

Company StockS45,000

Lower Tule River Irrigation District 61,200 235,000 Thle River 70,000 * Unknown

31,102 CV

Portervifie Irrigation District 15,000 30,000 Tule River 12,900 0 No

Average, Porter

Slough
Shafter-Wasco Irrigation I)istrict 5t),000 39,600 t) * 0Southern Sanjoaquin Municipal Utility 97,000 45,000 0 0 Post) Creek and

I)istrict other foothill

runoff creeks

Stone Corral Irrigation District 10,Ot)0 t) 950 via exchanges * Unknown

with other CYP

Contractors

Tea Pot Dome Water I)istrict 7,20t) 0 0 0 0

Terra Bella Irrigation I)istrict 29,t)00 0 t) 0 I)eer CreekTn-Valley Water District 400 0 0 0 0

Tulare Irrigation I)istrict 3t),000 141,0t)t) t) 0 0

*ihe safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. 1-lowever, toe safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be one AF ofwater for every

acre of land.

Others

Below is a list of non-CVP potential exchangees:

Buena Vista Water Storage District Kings County Water District

Cawelo Water District Kings River Conservation DistrictConsolidated Irrigation District Lakeside Irrigation District

Corcoran Irrigation District liberty Water District

Deer Creek & Tule River Authority North Kern Water Storage District

Kaweah Delia Water Conservation District Kern Water Bank Authority

Kern County Water Agency Semitropic Water Storage District

Kern Delta Water District Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage DistrictTulare Lake Basin Water Storage District

Some of these districts have sub-entities which may include CVP and/or SWP contractors. A

complete narrative description of CVP contractors and non-CVP contractors that are potential

exchangees is found in Appendix D.

In some cases, the diversions of non-CV1? water from rivers, creeks and ditches, is based on the

total runoff in any given hydrological season. The districts receive a percentage of the runoff and no
238,Ot)O

Class 2

Pixley Irrigation 1)istrict 31,102 T)eer Creek * Vi Deer Creek

Portervifie Irrigation District 15,000 Class 0 Tule River 12,900 0 Yes

1 Average, Porter

Slough

30,t)Ot) Class2

Saucelito Irrigation District 21,500 Class lOt) 3,200 * I)eer Creek only

1 when CVP water is

CVC diverted from FKC

32,800 Class Supply

9

Stone Corral Irrigation District 1O,t)OO Class t) 95t) M5/y via 3,200 Unknown

1 exchanges with

other CVPContractors

Terra Bela Irrigation District 29,000 Class 0 0 0 I)eer Creek

The safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. I lowever, the safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be 1 AF of

water for every 1 acre of land.Table 3. Kern County Water Agency

Kern County Water Agency CVP2 Other Surface Supply Ground- Ground-water

water Safe Recharge

Yield

Befridge Water Storage District1 N SWP n/a NoneBerrenda Mesa Water District1 N SWP n/a NoneBuena \Tista Water Storage District Y 5Wl 0.3 ac/ft Yes

Kern River

Cawelo Water District Y 45,000 AF/y SW]? 0.3 ac/ft Limited Poso

Creek,

Wet years only Poso Creek Recharge basins

27,000 Kern River

Reclaimed oil field water
Kern Delta Water District Y Kings River 0.3 ac/ft Yes

Kaweah River

Lost Hills Water District1 N SWP n/a NoneNorth Kern Water Storage District Y SWP t).3 ac/ft Yes

Kern

Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage Y SWI 0.3 ac/ft YesDistrict

Kern River

Semitropic Water Storage District Y SWP 0.3 ac/ft limited

Poso CreekMetropolitan Water District

Tehachapi-Cummings Co. Water N SWP * YesDistnct1

Local streams

Tejon-Castac Water l)istrsct1 N SWP n/a None

Local streams

West Kern Water l)istrict N SWl n/a None

Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water N SWP Unknown

Storage District

Local streams

‘Outside the Consolidated CVP Place of Use for Delta water and excluded from this EA and approval process.

2Surplus CVI flood water when available.

*The safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. Flowever, the safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be one AF of water for everyacre of land.
Semitropic Water Storage I)istrict Y SWP * Yes

Poso Creek

Tejon-Castaic Water District1 N $WI * YesWestside Mutual Water Company Y SWP * Yes

Wheeler Rldge-Mancc)pa Water N SWP Yes

Storage District

Local streams

Outside the CVP Place of Use and cxc uded from this FA and approval process.

2Surplus CVP flood water when available.

*The safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. However, the safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be one AF ofwater for every

acre of land.

Table 5. Kings River Conservation District

Kings River Conservation CVP Other Surface Supply Ground-water Ground-water

District Safe Yield Recharge

Alta Irrigation District N Kings River *

Clark’s fork Reclamation Distnct N Kings River * *

No. 2t)69

Consolidated Irngation I)istnct 215 Kings River * Yes

Water

Corcoran Irrigation District N Kings River * *

Empire West Side Irrigation N Kings River, SWP * *

District

Fresno Irrigation District 2, 3 Kings River, CYP * *

James Irrigation District 2, 3 CVP via exchange for Kings * *

River

Kings County Water District 2 SWP, Kings and Kaweah Rivers * *

Kings River Water D;stnct 2 Kings River * *Laguna Irrigation District 800 Kings River * *

AF/y,

Lakeside Irrigation Water District 2 Kings River, St. Johns, Cross * Cross Creek,

Creek recharge basin
Riverdale Irrigation I)istrict N Kings River * *

Salyer Water District N 0 * *

Stratford Irrigation District N Kings River * *

Tranquility Irrigation District 2, 3 CVP via exchange for Kings * *

River

Tulare Lake Reclamation District N IKmgs River, SWP * *

No. 761Burrel I)itch Company N Kings River via Murphys Slough * *

Corcoran Irngation Company N Kings River via Lakelands Canal * *Crescent Canal Company N Kings River via Crescent Canal * ‘K

John Heirilen Mutual Water N Kings River * *

Company

Last Chance Water Ditch Company N Kings River via Last Chance ‘K *

Ditch

Lemoore Canal and Irrigation N Kings River via Lemoore Canal ‘K *CompanyLiberty Canal Company N Kings River via Liberty Canal ‘K ‘K

Liberty Mill Race Company N Kings River via Murphys Slough * *

Lovelace Water Corporation N Kings River South Fork Canal * *

and Tulare Lake Canal

Peoples Ditch Company N Kings River via operations of ‘K ‘K

People’s Weir

Reed Ditch Company N Kings River via Murphys Slough ‘K ‘K

Southeast Lake Water Company N Kings River ‘K *Stinson Canal and Irrigation N Kings River via Stinson Canal ‘K *

Company

Tulare Lake Canal Company N Kings River via Tulare Lake Canal * *

Upper Sanjose Water Company N Kings River ‘K *

‘Outside the CVP Place of Use and exciuded from this EA and approval process.

25lis CV]? flood water when available.

3Long-tenn CVP Contractor

MiU Creek, Sand Creek, and Wahtoke Creek arc tributary to the Kings River and provide conveyance and supplies to some districts.

*The safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. However, the safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be one AF of water for every

acre of land.
15,t)OO Ably (5,145 average) Kings River

6,t)Ot) AF/y (975 average) Tule River! Deer Creek

6t),t)Ot) Ably (7,787 average) Tulare Lake Flooding35,000 groundwater

Melga WD

SWI and Kings, Tule, Kaweah Rivers, Kern River

*‘Ihe safe groundwater yield is difficult to quantify. However, the safe yield of groundwater is generally considered to be one AF of water for every

acre of land.
AWTP transfer to Westlands Water 4 000 1 000 DistrictTransfer for IRC exchange to Rosedale 23 985 Rio Bravo Waster Storage District

County of Fresno - - - - - Transfer for IRC exchange to An- 120 1 200 1 350 Edison Water Storage District ‘

Hills Valley Irrigation District . 641

Transfer for IRC exchange to A- 630 1 338 1 506 Edison Water Storage District ‘

Pixley Irrigation District - - . - - AWTP transfer to Del Puerto Water 097 5 123 District

AWTP transfer to Wesfiands Water 12 441 7 350 DistrictTransfer for IRC exchange to Tulare 4,528Lake Basin Water Storage District

Lower Tule River Irrigation District

Transfer out to Del Puerto Water 097 5 123 District

Transfer to Westlands Water District 12,441 7,350

Transfer for IRC exchange to Tulare 4 528 Lake Basin Water Storage District

Tn-Valley Water District 300 - - - - - Transfer for IRC exchange to Arvin- 457 Edison Water Storage District

Transfer to San Luis Water District 514

County of Tulare - - - - - Transfer for IRC exchange to Arvin- 062 Edison Water Storage I)istrict

Delivery to subcontractor: Alpaugh

Irrigation District

Delivery to subcontractor: Atwell

Island Water District

Delivery to subcontractor: Strathmore 300 Public Utility District

Delivery to subcontractor: Styro-Tek,

Inc.

Delivery to subcontractor: City of 300 Visalia

Annual Total (AF) 1,095 0 1,182 2,194 18,876 49,877 641 51,111