TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1

II. RELATIONSHIP TO CALFED AND THE TRINITY RIVER MAINSTEM FISHERY

RESTORATION PROGRAM ............................................ 3

III. DECISION ............................................................. 5

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ......................................... 13

V. BASIS OF DECISION ................................................... 17

VI. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............................................ 26

VII. IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ... 32

VIII. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL PEIS ............................ 35

IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................... 35

X. CONCLUSION ......................................................... 36
1

I. INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) of the Department of the Interior (Interior), Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), documents the Decision

for implementing provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), as analyzed

in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), dated October 1999. This

Decision is a hybrid of alternatives that were analyzed in the Final PEIS. 

The CVPIA amends previous authorizations of the California Central Valley Project (California,

CVP) to include fish and wildlife protection, restoration, and mitigation as project purposes

having equal priority with irrigation and domestic water supply uses, and fish and wildlife

enhancement having an equal priority with power generation.

The CVP is one of the largest water storage and conveyance systems in the world. The project

includes 20 dams and reservoirs capable of storing 11 million acre-feet of water, 11 power plants,

500 miles of major canals and aqueducts, three fish hatcheries, and various related facilities. The

CVP conveys about 20 percent of the state’s developed water from the Sacramento, Trinity,

American, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin rivers to agricultural and municipal water users and

wildlife refuges in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Over the past 150 years, competition for water has escalated within the tributary area of the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Agricultural and municipal development, as well as construction

and operation of water systems such as the CVP, the State Water Project, and local projects and

levee systems have reduced water quality and habitat that supports fish and wildlife resources in

the Central Valley. Through the CVPIA, Interior will be implementing programs to help restore

environmental conditions altered by the CVP.

For nearly three-quarters of the last century, California has depended on the CVP for a large part

of its water needs, particularly for agriculture. Plagued by consecutive years of drought followed

by wet years often bringing floods, the state relies heavily on CVP dams and reservoirs to help

balance and control its water resources.

The Federal action taken by Interior is to implement provisions of the CVPIA. The general

purposes of the CVPIA, and the action proposed by Interior, were identified by Congress in

Section 3404 of CVPIA, as follows:

• to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley

and Trinity River basins of California;

• to address impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife, and associated habitats;

• to improve the operational flexibility of the Central Valley Project;

• to increase water-related benefits provided by the Central Valley Project to the State of

California through expanded use of voluntary water transfers and improved water

conservation;
2

• to contribute to the State of California’s interim and long-term efforts to protect the San

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary;

• to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project

water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agriculture, municipal and industrial

and power contractors.

These purposes respond to a Congressionally identified need to modify the existing water

operations and physical facilities of the CVP.

The Final PEIS analyzed the impacts of implementing various provisions of the CVPIA in the

Central Valley and coastal areas of California over a 30-year study period.

STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE DECISION

On October 30, 1992, President Bush signed into law the Reclamation Projects Authorization and

Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575) that included Title XXXIV, the CVPIA. The

CVPIA amends the previous authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection,

restoration, and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic

uses and fish and wildlife enhancement as a project purpose equal to power generation. The

CVPIA identifies a number of specific measures to meet these new purposes and directs the

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to operate the CVP consistent with these purposes, to meet

the Federal trust responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of federally recognized Indian

tribes, and to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of CVP water. 

Section 3409 directs the Secretary to complete a PEIS to analyze the direct and indirect impacts

and benefits of implementing CVPIA. The CVPIA also directs the Secretary to renew existing

CVP water service and repayment contracts following completion of the PEIS and other

environmental documentation, as may be needed.

The PEIS was prepared pursuant to regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. NEPA provides a commitment that Federal agencies will

consider the environmental effects of their actions. It also requires that an EIS be included in

every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. While NEPA does not impose

substantive duties on the agencies, it does recognize “the interrelations of all components of the

natural environment,” “the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental

quality,” and “the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding

generations.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331.
3

II. RELATIONSHIP TO CALFED AND THE TRINITY RIVER MAINSTEM FISHERY

RESTORATION PROGRAM

As the CVPIA is being implemented, other concurrent programs affecting California’s water

resources are similarly being developed and implemented. Actions being considered under two of

these programs, CALFED and the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program, were

appropriately included in evaluations of the Final PEIS. Because their inclusion was identical in

all Final PEIS alternatives, they are likewise considered in this Decision.

CALFED: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort amongst the public and State

and Federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibility in the Bay-Delta system. 

The concept for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program was proposed in 1994 by President Clinton’s

Administration and Governor Pete Wilson, as part of the Bay-Delta Accord, to develop and

implement a long-term comprehensive plan to restore ecological health and improve water

management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. To practicably achieve this purpose, the

task of CALFED is fourfold: 1) to restore the ecological health of a fragile and depleted BayDelta estuary; 2) improve the water supply reliability of the State’s farms and growing cities that

draw water from the Delta and its tributaries, including 7 million acres which are amongst the

world’s most productive farmlands; 3) protect the drinking water quality of the 22 million

Californians who rely on the Delta for their supplies; and 4) protect the Delta levees that ensure

its integrity as a conveyance and ecosystem. CALFED functionally consists of several programs

designed to address these goals: Ecosystem Restoration, Water Quality, Water Transfers, Levee

System Integrity, Watersheds, Water Use Efficiency, and Water Management Strategy. Portions

of CVPIA’s restoration efforts are currently being coordinated with CALFED’s ongoing

Ecosystem Restoration Program.

Implementing CALFED could change Bay-Delta operations criteria, provide additional

conveyance and storage facilities that would effect Delta exports, and identify future actions that

may need to be met by the CVP and other water rights holders. Because the outcome of the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program EIS/EIR was not known at the time the PEIS was developed, a

conservative assumption was used in the Final PEIS that Bay-Delta Plan Accord criteria would be

used as the long-term Delta plan. Implementation of the CVPIA, including sections 3406(b)(2)

and (b)(3), would then be in addition to this plan.

CALFED agencies have recently issued a Final Programmatic EIS/EIR and Record of Decision

calling for a broad range of projects. Implementing these actions will depend on CALFED

concluding subsequent site-specific analyses. A portion of Ecosystem Restoration actions

identified in the CALFED ROD meet the goals and objectives of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act, providing for a possible overlap of actions with those provided by this Decision

and the possible joint funding of those actions through application of the Restoration Fund

established under section 3407 of the CVPIA. CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program also

receives state and local funding; in some cases CALFED approves the expenditure of non-federal

funds for Federal agencies to acquire and restore land.
4

Many of the actions within CALFED and the CVPIA address the same natural resource and water

management problems and have the same or similar objectives. While developed under separate

authority, as both programs are implemented there will be, by necessity, close coordination and a

focus on functional integration to achieve common goals and avoid duplication of effort.

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program: Congress authorized construction and

operation of the Trinity River Division by statute in 1955 (P.L. 84-386) including direction to the

Secretary “to adopt appropriate measures to insure the preservation and propagation of fish and

wildlife.”. The construction and operation of the Trinity River Division resulted in unintended

detrimental impacts to the Trinity River and its fisheries resources. 

A 12-year study was initiated in 1981, to be completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which

called for “summarizing the effectiveness of restoration of flows and other measures including

intensive stream and watershed management programs.” In 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish

and Wildlife Management Act (P.L. 98-541) was enacted, directing the Secretary to implement

measures “to restore natural fish and wildlife populations to levels approximating those which

existed immediately prior to the construction of the Trinity Division.” The Fish and Wildlife

Service’s study, the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study, was completed in 1999. The CVPIA, in

Section 3406(b)(23), recognizes the importance of this concurrent program to protect and restore

the Trinity River fishery in order to meet the Federal Government’s trust responsibility to the

Hoopa Valley Tribe.

The Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program (Trinity Program), in a separate

EIS/EIR process, evaluated and analyzed a range of alternatives, including recommendations from

the above Fish and Wildlife Service study, to restore and maintain the natural production of

anadromous fish populations of the Trinity River mainstem downstream of Lewiston Dam. The

Trinity Program was evaluated in a separate NEPA process from the Final PEIS for CVPIA and

the Record of Decision for that program was signed by Secretary Babbitt on December 19, 2000. 

The alternatives considered in that process included many factors, including several different

instream flow release patterns. Changes in instream flow release patterns affect the amount of

water that can be exported to the CVP from the Trinity River. Changes in the amount of CVP

exports from the Trinity River has the potential to affect how the CVP is operated. Therefore, to

provide an appropriate analysis of changes in CVP operations for Final PEIS alternatives, it was

necessary to develop an assumption for instream fish flow releases in the Trinity River. For this

purpose, the Service developed an instream fisheries flow release pattern for the Trinity River,

found in Attachment G of the Final PEIS. This release pattern was developed prior to the release

of the Draft Trinity River EIS/EIR and is therefore slightly different than the alternative selected

in the Trinity River Record of Decision. However, these assumed flows in the Final PEIS for

CVPIA are very similar in magnitude and timing to that which was evaluated in the Trinity River

Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program EIS/EIR. This instream fisheries flow release pattern was

incorporated into all analyses for the Alternatives and Supplemental Analyses in the Final PEIS.

III. DECISION
5

Reclamation and the Service will implement the CVPIA in a manner similar to the Preferred

Alternative identified in Chapter 2 of the Final PEIS with some modifications (differences between

the Preferred Alternative and this Decision are on Table 1, page 11). The Preferred Alternative

included actions that were divided between Core and Multiple Option programs in order to help

develop a range of actions or programs to meet the purposes of the CVPIA and implement its

provisions consistent with assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS. This Decision includes

the decision to implement, on a programmatic-level, the following actions and program-level

guidance. Reclamation and the Service will undertake the following:

CVP Contract Renewal -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3404(c) 3405(b)

 & (e)

Proceed with the process of long-term renewal of CVP water service contracts,

including terms for water measurement and conservation, that will result in their

renewal for a 25 year period.

Water Transfers -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3405(a) Allow transfer of CVP water subject to conditions detailed in Section 3405(a). This

decision does not implement any specific transfers, but establishes that CVP water

generally will be transferrable. Costs on water transfers will be imposed equal to

the cost of service for municipal CVP water, and the higher cost of service or full

cost for agricultural CVP water. Costs of transferred CVP water and all other

water supplies will include the cost to the seller to make the water available,

including the amount of lost income. Consistent with Section 3407(d)(2)(A), an

annual $25/acre-foot charge (1992 dollars) will be added to CVP water sold or

transferred to any State or local agency or other entity which has not previously

been a CVP customer and which contracts with the Secretary or any other individual

or district receiving CVP water to purchase or otherwise transfer any such water for

its own use for municipal and industrial purposes. The mitigation and restoration

payment will be increased from $6 to $12 (1992 dollars) for the transfer of

agricultural CVP water to CVP municipal water users.

CVP Water Pricing -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS, with the 

 exception of 1c

3405(d) Implement water pricing, at a minimum, based on the “80/10/10 Tiered Water

Pricing up to Full Cost Approach” and the use of the Ability-to-Pay policies.
1 The Decision on Implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act, released on October 5, 1999, did not specifically provide mechanisms to reduce or

eliminate impacts associated with implementing section 3406(b)(2) of the CVPIA; however, it did state,

“Interior’s policy is that (b)(2) actions will not be permitted to adversely affect the State Water Project

(SWP), operated by DWR, and that any adverse impacts will be made up.”

6

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final 

 PEIS

3406(b)(1) Develop and complete the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) with a

goal of taking reasonable efforts to ensure that, by the Year 2002, natural

production of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and streams will be

sustainable on a long term basis at levels not less than twice the average levels

attained during the period from 1967 through 1991. Proceed with implementation of

improvements for anadromous fish restoration established in the Revised Draft

Restoration Plan (“Plan”) for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, dated

May 30, 1997. Specific actions to improve anadromous fish flows are provided in

sections 3406 (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this Decision. Information from all monitoring

efforts, including the Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP)

[3406(b)(16)], explained below, will be used to assist in the adaptive management of

the AFRP. In addition, Interior will use partnerships with other Federal, State, and

private entities to meet the overall goals. Inclusion in, and evaluation and

consideration of the Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program in the PEIS

and this Decision allows for finalization of the Plan without further programmatic

level NEPA documentation. However, specific projects called out in the Plan may

require further site specific NEPA documentation prior to their implementation.

CVP Reoperation -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(1)(B) Reoperate the CVP, as needed, to achieve the goals of the Anadromous Fish

Restoration Program (AFRP) [section 3406(b)(1)] without affecting fulfillment of

CVP contractual obligations.

Habitat Restoration Program -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(1) “Other” Carry-out a Habitat Restoration Program developed pursuant to guidance on

implementing the Section 3406(b)(1) “other” Program in the Final PEIS (Chapter II,

Page II-22).

CVP Dedicated Water -- Evaluation provided in analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(2) Dedicate and manage CVP yield for fish and wildlife in accordance with Interior’s

Decision on Implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project

Improvement Act1, released on October 5, 1999 [henceforth referred to as “(b)(2)

water”].
7

Supplemental Water Acquisition -- Evaluation provided in analysis of Alternative 3 and 4 in the Final 

 PEIS

3406(b)(3) Target average annual fish and wildlife water acquisitions for use on the San

Joaquin and Sacramento rivers tributaries at approximately 200,000 acre-feet/year.

Structural Modifications -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(4-6),

3406(b)(11,17),

& 3406(b)(20)

Proceed with modifications to facilities, including: Tracy and Contra Costa Pumping

Plants fish protection, Shasta Temperature Control Device, Coleman National Fish

Hatchery, Keswick Dam Fish Trap, Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District

Diversion, and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Diversion fish screen facility.

Anadromous Fish Flow Pulses -- Evaluation provided in analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the 

 Final PEIS

3406(b)(8) Interior will make the best use of flow pulses to increase the survival of migratory

anadromous fish moving into and through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and

Central Valley rivers and streams as provided by existing operations or under

sections 3406(b)(2) and (3) of the CVPIA, and as provided in the Decision on

Implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act, released on October 5, 1999.

Elimination of Flow Fluctuations – Evaluation provided in analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the 

 Final PEIS

3406(b)(9) Actions to limit flow fluctuations will be provided by existing operations or under

sections 3406(b)(2) and (3) of the CVPIA, and as provided in the Decision on

Implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement

Act, released on October 5, 1999.

Clear Creek Restoration -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(12) Proceed with habitat improvements and structural actions on Clear Creek, including

the improvement of fish passage and access at McCormick-Saeltzer Dam.

Gravel Replenishment -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(13) Implement non-flow stream restoration actions focused on anadromous fish

spawning gravel replacement in the Stanislaus, American, and Sacramento rivers

Assessment and Monitoring -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(16) Implement the Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring Program to monitor fish

and wildlife resources to assess the effectiveness of actions implemented to restore

fish, wildlife, and associated habitats pursuant to section 3406.

Anadromous Fish Screen Program -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(b)(21) Provide measures to avoid fish loss at diversions, including construction or

modification of screens, bypasses, fish ladders, and diversions.
2

“Level 2" refuge water supplies are the average historic water supply levels, based upon

deliveries between 1978 and 1984, identified in the 1989 Refuge Water Supply Study and two-thirds of the

water needs identified in the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan.

3

“Level 4" refuge water is the amount of water necessary to fully develop the refuges identified in

the 1989 Refuge Water Supply Study, and the remaining one-third of the water needs as described in the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan.

8

Seasonal Agricultural Field Flooding -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final 

 PEIS

3406(b)(22) Conduct seasonal agricultural field flooding of up to 80,000 acres per year

consistent with the CVPIA. 

Refuge Water Supply -- Evaluation provided in analysis of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3406(d)(1, 4, 5) Assure firm, reliable water supplies of suitable quality are provided to authorized

Central Valley National Wildlife Refuges, Wildlife Management Areas, and the

Grassland Resource Conservation District to maintain and improve wetland habitat

to meet historic refuge annual supplies available prior to the CVPIA (Level 22

). 

These supplies will be subject to shortages based on “hydrologic circumstances”

defined as critically dry years under the Shasta Inflow Index criteria. When imposed,

these reductions shall not exceed 25-percent of Level 2 supplies.

3406(d)(2, 4, 5) Increase refuge water supplies by the incremental level required for full habitat

management (Level 43) through voluntary measures which do not require

involuntary reallocation of project yield. These incremental supplies will be subject

to shortage allocations based on the priority or priorities which applied to the water

prior to its transfer for refuge purposes.

Restoration Fund -- Included in evaluations provided in analyses of all alternatives in the Final PEIS

3405(f) & 3407 Collect donations and revenues provided under the provisions of the CVPIA into the

Restoration Fund as provided by the CVPIA.

Land Retirement Program -- Evaluation provided in analysis of the Preferred Alternative in the Final 

 PEIS

3408(h) Purchase and retire lands from willing sellers using funding provided by the CVPIA. 

Conduct a Demonstration Study on 15,000 acres in the San Joaquin Valley and use

the findings to guide continued retirement and management of lands in an

appropriate manner. Retired lands, dependent on the Study results, could remain

vacant, contain minimal farming, and/or be revegetated with native vegetation and

host reintroduction of special-status species.

Prior to implementation, each program and action will be evaluated to determine if additional

NEPA analysis is necessary. Depending on that evaluation, either additional NEPA

documentation will be prepared, or a finding made that no significant changes in actions or 
9

circumstances has occurred, or substantial new information has been obtained since the Final

PEIS.

CVPIA SECTIONS NOT INCLUDED IN DECISION

Implementation of all of the sections of the CVPIA are not included in this Decision. Additional,

separate or tiered NEPA analysis may be required to implement many of the CVPIA provisions

not included in this Decision. Upon completion of these studies and the gathering of additional

information, which is dependent upon the availability of funds, an evaluation will be made as to

the level of NEPA compliance and authority necessary for implementation. The following list

explains why certain sections were not included in this Decision. 

CVPIA Actions Required by Other Regulations

3405(c) and

3406(b)(7)

Water Quality, Flow Standards and Diversion Limits: All water quality and flow

standards, and objective and diversion limits set forth in all laws and judicial

decisions that apply to the CVP are assumed to be met. Additional NEPA

analysis may be necessary if this is not the case.

CVPIA-Related Studies Where the Outcome Is Speculative at this Time

3406(b)(19) CVP Carryover Storage Evaluations: The impact of modifying Shasta and

Trinity River reservoirs will be evaluated. If reoperation differs substantially

from that examined in Final PEIS alternatives, specifically differences in water

supplies and stream flows as compared to the range evaluated in the Final PEIS,

additional NEPA analysis may be required prior to implementation.

3406(e) Supporting Investigations: This action addresses a number of studies to be

initiated to address various methods for improving anadromous fish survival.

Depending on their findings, additional NEPA analyses may be required prior to

implementation of any action.

3406(g) Ecosystem and Water System Operations Models: As models are developed to

evaluate ecologic and hydrologic effects of existing and alternative operations of

public and private water facilities and systems in the Central Valley and Trinity

River watersheds, additional NEPA analysis may be required prior to

implementation of any associated actions.

3406(c)(1 and 2) San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers Studies: These are studies. Depending on

their findings and recommendations with regards to actions which may be taken to

improve streamflow, channel, riparian habitat, and water quality; future NEPA

analyses may be required.

3406(d)(6) Investigate Means to Improve Water Supplies to Privately-owned Wetlands: This

independent investigation will lead to a Report to Congress. Depending on its

findings and recommendations, evaluations under NEPA may be required prior to

implementation of any recommended actions in the report.
10

Insufficient Information Currently Exists to Complete Adequate Analysis Allowing for

Implementation

3404(a) New Contracts: As appropriate, further NEPA analysis will consider CVP-wide

or site-specific water supply impacts and examine the impacts of providing this

water on lands not currently served by CVP water or in the CVP service area.

3406(b)(10) Red Bluff Diversion Dam: When evaluations are complete, a decision will be

made separate from this Decision regarding the best operation of the Red Bluff

Diversion Dam. Operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam is assumed, as in the

No Action Alternative, to be gates open from mid-September through mid-May,

as required by the winter-run chinook salmon biological opinion, and gates closed

mid-May through mid-September. Diversions were at No-Action Alternative

levels.

Section 3406

(b)(14) & (15)

Delta Barriers: Appropriate operation of fish barriers in Georgiana Slough and

Old River are being evaluated in separate processes, including CALFED, and are

not defined in this Decision. However, the general benefits of their

implementation is assumed. Specific actions and operations may require

additional NEPA evaluations.

3406(b)(18) Restoration of Striped Bass Fishery: Specific actions taken to restore the striped

bass fishery, including improvements to streambeds and channels and the

development of a flow improvement program, would require additional NEPA

documentation to evaluate possible impacts on surface water and groundwater

supplies, water quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, soils, and cultural resources. 

It may also be necessary to examine potential impacts on the interaction between

the CVP and SWP operations.

3408(b) Use of Electrical Energy for Fish and Wildlife Purposes (such as energy for

pumping on refuges): Future NEPA analyses would evaluate impacts to available

energy for sale to preference power customers, as appropriate, and the need to

acquire additional energy for CVP operations and preference power customers.

3408(c-d) Contracts for Additional Storage and Delivery of Water and Use of Project

Facilities for Water Banking: These provisions address the shortage and delivery

of CVP water and non-project water for beneficial purposes, including fish and

wildlife and use of CVP facilities for water banking. Future NEPA analyses

would evaluate impacts on such things as water supplies to CVP and SWP water

users; and changes to CVP power generation, reservoir recreation, fisheries,

water quality, and economics.

3408(i) Water Conservation: Water conservation projects or measures provided for under

section 3408(i) may require additional NEPA evaluations once these actions are

known.
11

3408(j) Project Yield Increase: This provision requires the development of a plan to

increase the yield of the CVP by the amount dedicated to fish and wildlife

purposes under the Act. The plan is to address various options stipulated in the

Act. NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to implementation of plan actions. 

3412 Extension of the Tehama-Colusa Canal: This provision addresses the extension

of the Tehama-Colusa Canal and the change in the service area to be served by

the canal. Future NEPA analysis would address the site-specific impacts of

construction of the canal extension and impacts of water use.

No Action Alternative and Cumulative Actions With Separate NEPA Underway or Completed

3406(b)(6) Shasta Temperature Control Device: The benefits of operating the Shasta

Temperature Control Device were included in CVP operation modeling in the No

Action and other Alternatives in the Final PEIS, including implementation of

sections 3406(b)(2) and (3). Section 3406(b)(6) is included here because it is

assumed it would be completed without the CVPIA using alternative fund

sources. Actual NEPA analysis and associated decision(s) for this structure were

provided separately from this Decision.

3406(b)(23) Instream Flow Releases in Trinity River: Changes to instream flow releases in

the Trinity River are analyzed in a separate EIR/EIS. Decisions relative to

Trinity River flows were made in a separate ROD, signed on December 19, 2000,

based on that EIR/EIS.

3406(d)(5) Construction of Conveyance Facilities for Refuges: This action involves

construction of conveyance facilities for levels 2 and 4 water supplies. Separate

NEPA documentation is being prepared to evaluate impacts on fisheries,

vegetation, wildlife, water supply, land use and the local economy.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND DECISION

The differences between the programs and actions listed in the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 2

of the Final PEIS and this Decision are listed below by provision of the Act on Table 1.

TABLE 1. Differences Between the Preferred Alternative and This Decision
12

CVPIA Section Decision Preferred Alternative

3406(b)(1) This Decision identifies the Revised

Draft Restoration Plan for the

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program

(released May, 1997) as the guide for

implementing non-flow improvements for

anadromous fish restoration under

section 3406(b)(1). 

The alternatives in the Final PEIS

identified Appendix F, Table F-1 (NonFlow Fish Management Actions Under

Anadromous Fish Restoration

Program) as the non-flow

improvements for anadromous fish

restoration under section 3406(b)(1).

Discussion - Because the entire Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration

Program is included in Attachment F, and no additional differences are expected, the impacts and

benefits of implementing this Decision are included in the analyses in the Final PEIS. However, because

adaptive management was included in the Revised Draft Plan, allowing for appropriate adjustments in

implementation, it is assumed actual implementation will be more effective and efficient under this

Decision. Adaptive management allows resource managers to alter actions based on their measured

effectiveness. Monitoring programs will be the foundation of the adaptive management approach.

CVPIA Section Decision Preferred Alternative

3406(b)(3) Target average fish and wildlife water

acquisition on the San Joaquin and

Sacramento rivers tributaries were

increased in the Decision to

approximately 200,000 acre-feet to assist

meeting increased flow needs like those

identified in associated AFRP processes

and within the ROD for the San Joaquin

River Agreement. 

The Preferred Alternative in the Final

PEIS used the identified flow needs in

the preliminary San Joaquin River

Agreement that, when added to

supplemental Sacramento River basin

anadromous fish flows, totaled

approximately 140,000 acre-feet.

Discussion - The effects associated with this increase are within the Final PEIS analyses completed for

Alternatives 3 and 4.

 TABLE 1. Differences Between the Preferred Alternative and This Decision (Continued)
13

CVPIA Section Decision Preferred Alternative

3406(d)(1-5) This Decision identifies that Level 2

refuge water supplies will be subject to

hydrologic shortages described by the

Shasta Index with a maximum shortage

of 25% of the total amount. Such

reductions shall not exceed in percentage

terms, the reductions imposed on

agricultural service contractors. 

The Preferred Alternative in the Final

PEIS included the State Water

Resource Control Board’s 40-30-30

Index as the means to define shortages

to Level 2 refuge water supplies and to

provide a greater range to the PEIS

analysis when considered together with

the Draft PEIS alternatives, which

included the Shasta Index. 

Discussion - Use of the Shasta Index to evaluate refuge water supply shortages in the Decision is a

change from the Preferred Alternative; however, the Shasta Index was used to evaluate refuge water

supply shortages in the Draft PEIS. Analyses in the Preferred Alternative, when compared to analyses

in this Decision, identified a minimal increase in the number of years of refuge water supply shortages (2

years) over the 70 year period of analysis.

CVPIA Section Decision Preferred Alternative

3408(h) The completion and use of a Land

Retirement Demonstration Study is

included in this Decision.

Completion and use of the Land

Retirement Demonstration Study was

not specifically identified as a part of

the alternatives in the Final PEIS.

Discussion - Completion of the Land Retirement Demonstration Study will provide guidance for future

implementation of the overall retirement program, better providing for its adaptive management.

While it is estimated that consideration of Demonstration Study guidance would result in a program

within the alternative analyses in the Final PEIS (Alternatives 1-4, Supplemental Analysis 1h, and the

Preferred Alternative), its use is expected to result in a more effective and efficient overall retirement

program. In addition, action-specific NEPA documentation has been prepared for the Demonstration

Study.

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The alternatives were developed to evaluate a range of actions or programs to meet the purposes

and implement the provisions of the CVPIA. Six alternatives (No Action Alternative, Alternatives

1-4, and the Preferred Alternative) and 15 Supplemental Analyses that expand on or added to the

main alternatives were considered in making this Decision.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
14

The No-Action Alternative reflected conditions in the Year 2025, as if the CVPIA had not been

adopted, and provided a baseline for assessing other alternatives. It included projections

concerning future growth and land use changes based on projections from the State Department

of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 160-93, including lands projected to be retired in accordance

with the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Plan. The No-Action Alternative included existing CVP

facilities and changes in CVP operational policies which were being evaluated concurrently. The

existence of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord and the winter-run Biological Opinion are assumed in the

No-Action. The No-Action Alternative also included assumptions concerning concurrent but

separate issues, such as the assumption that ocean harvest limitations for sport and commercial

salmon fishing would be consistent with 1992 policies and would be evaluated in a separate

process by NMFS and other groups. Another assumption included in the No-Action Alternative,

and being addressed as a separate program, was the U.S. Department of Agriculture farm

commodities program. The No-Action Alternative assumed this program would not vary from

1992 policies.

Based on the Supplement to the Draft PEIS (June 1999), the No-Action Alternative was revised

as a result of corrections to hydrologic modeling. The Revised No-Action Alternative makes

assumptions similar to the Draft PEIS No-Action Alternative, but has different impacts because 

of the changes to the hydrologic modeling. The Preferred Alternative was analyzed in comparison

to the Revised No-Action Alternative.

ALTERNATIVE 1

Alternative 1 included Core Programs as do the other five action alternatives, including the

Preferred Alternative. These Core Programs addressed contract renewal; water measurement and

conservation; collection and expenditure of the Restoration Fund; anadromous fish protection,

restoration and enhancement by modifying various facilities and improving instream habitats by

implementing non-flow anadromous fish actions; and protection, restoration, and enhancement of

additional fish, wildlife, and associated habitats through implementation of the Habitat Restoration

Program, seasonal agricultural field flooding, and land retirement. Additionally, CVP power

generation and water conservation programs would be similar in all alternatives. 

In addition to Core Programs, Alternative 1 used reoperation of the CVP to provide greater

benefits for fish and wildlife and used (b)(2) water to meet the CVP share of the Bay-Delta Plan

as well as the (b)(2) Instream Components. Alternative 1 also implemented the Contract-to-FullCost tiered pricing rate, which begins at the contract rate for the first 80-percent, the average

between contract and full-cost rates for the next 10-percent of water, and full cost for the final 

10-percent of water. Alternative 1 did not acquire water for instream flow improvements or make

permanent structural improvements to the Old River Barrier or Georgiana Slough. It did provide

Level 2 refuge water supplies with the shortage provision based on the Shasta inflow index with a

maximum shortage of 25-percent. Supplemental analyses for Alternative 1 are listed below.

Supplemental Analysis 1a - Under 1a, a (b)(2) Delta Component would join the Bay-Delta

and Instream Components in the project reoperation and use of (b)(2) water.
15

Supplemental Analysis 1b - This Supplemental Analysis would add structural

improvements in the Delta to protect young salmon and other fish as they migrate through the

Delta. Modified operation at the Delta Cross Channel, permanent structures at Georgiana

Slough, and a seasonally operated barrier at Old River would potentially improve survivability

of young fish as they migrate downstream.

Supplemental Analysis 1c - All main alternatives change current water pricing in some

manner. Supplemental Analysis 1c built on Alternative 1 by implementing the tiered pricing

requirement of the CVPIA through the Full-Cost-Plus method. The first 80-percent of contract

allocation would be priced at full cost, the next 10-percent of allocation would be 110-percent of

full cost, and the final 10-percent of allocation would be 120-percent of full cost.

Supplemental Analysis 1d - Supplemental Analysis 1d built on the refuge water supply

element of Alternative 1 by eliminating the shortage provision. In Supplemental Analysis 1d,

refuges would receive full Level 2 supply in all years.

Supplemental Analysis 1e - Water transfers would be between willing seller and buyer

and, therefore, are not mandated by the CVPIA. Supplemental Analysis 1e would integrate the

expected benefits of transfers to the main alternative with fees specified by the CVPIA and

allows transfer of CVP water to non-CVP users.

Supplemental Analysis 1f - This Supplemental Analysis would be similar to 1e in its

purpose, but would add a $50/acre-foot fee on all CVP transfers, with the additional funds

added to the Restoration Fund. This Supplemental Analysis and others that impose the

additional fee would require additional Congressional authorization.

Supplemental Analysis 1g - Supplemental Analysis 1g would remove the current ability-topay policy applied to the 80/10/10 Contract-to-Full-Cost tiered pricing policy implemented in

the main Alternative 1.

Supplemental Analysis 1h - Restoration Funds would be used under this alternative to

develop and implement a formal Revegetation Program for the retired lands. This Supplemental

Analysis increased the use of the Restoration Funds for habitat restoration and enhancement.

Supplemental Analysis 1i - Supplemental Analysis 1i provided year-round opening of the

Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates. This alternative would improve operational flexibility and

provided greater balance among water supply and fish and wildlife demands. Diversions to the

Tehama-Colusa Canal would not change from previous alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 2

Alternative 2 built on the main Alternative 1 by acquiring, from willing sellers, 60,000 acre-feet of

water on both the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, 50,000 acre-feet on the Merced River, and an

undetermined amount on Upper Sacramento River Tributaries. The acquired water would be

used to improve fishery conditions on rivers tributary to the Delta. In addition to assisting in

meeting target flows for the streams, the water would also be used to increase flows through the

Delta and would not be exported. Refuge water supplies would be increased to Level 4 through

water purchased from willing sellers, subject to hydrologic shortages based on the priority or
16

priorities which applied to the water prior to its transfer. Supplemental Analyses for Alternative 2

are listed below. 

Supplemental Analysis 2a - Supplemental Analysis 2a, like alternative 1b, would add

structural improvements in the Delta to protect young salmon and other fish as they migrate

through the Delta.

Supplemental Analysis 2b - This Supplemental Analysis would allow transfers from CVP

to non-CVP water users and included fees specified in the CVPIA, similar to Supplemental

Analysis 1e, but would build on Alternative 2.

Supplemental Analysis 2c - Supplemental Analysis 2c would be similar to 1f, in that it

added a $50/acre-foot fee to all transfers of CVP water. Like 2b, however, Supplemental

Analysis 2c would be additive to the main Alternative 2.

Supplemental Analysis 2d - Supplemental Analysis 2d would be similar to Supplemental

Analysis 1c as it implemented the tiered pricing requirement of the CVPIA through the FullCost-Plus method, but would build on Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3

Alternative 3 continued to build on the previous alternatives by retaining all of Alternative 1 and

the Refuge Water Supply provision of Alternative 2, and added to the volume and number of

streams on which water would be acquired. Under this alternative, up to 200,000 acre-feet would

be acquired on each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers; 30,000 acre-feet on the

Calaveras River; 70,000 acre-feet on the Mokelumne River; and 100,000 acre-feet on the Yuba

River. An undetermined amount of water would also be acquired on Upper Sacramento River

Tributaries. Alternative 3 was further distinguished from Alternative 2 in that acquired water

would not be specifically used to increase in-Delta flows. As a result, acquired water would be

available for export under Alternative 3 once requirements of the Bay-Delta Accord have been

met. The Supplemental Analysis for Alternative 3 is listed below. 

Supplemental Analysis 3a - This Supplemental Analysis would repeat the water transfer

implementation as in Supplemental Analyses 1e and 2b, which included only fees specifically

mandated by the CVPIA.

ALTERNATIVE 4 (Environmentally Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 4 built on Alternative 3 by adding the Delta Component of the AFRP to the

reoperation and (b)(2) water program, and used the acquired water for Delta flow increases. 

This acquired water would not be available for export from the Delta. Alternative 4 completed

the upper range of water acquisition and instream uses for fish and wildlife restoration. It would 

provide the same acquisition levels in all streams as Alternative 3 and, like Alternative 2, provided

for no export of acquired water. Alternative 4, like Alternatives 1 through 3, also incorporated

other actions benefitting the environment, including implementation of the Habitat Restoration

Program, seasonal agricultural field flooding, and land retirement. Because Alternative 4 would
17

provide the greatest benefit to the environment, it is the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. 

The Supplemental analysis for Alternative 4 is listed below. 

Supplemental Analysis 4a - This Supplemental Analysis would repeat the water transfer

implementation as in Supplemental Analyses 1e, 2b, and 3a, which included only fees

specifically mandated by the CVPIA.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Preferred Alternative would use reoperation of the project as provided in Alternative 1 and

added, from willing sellers, purchases of about 110,000 acre-feet/year on San Joaquin River

tributaries based on the preliminary San Joaquin River Agreement, and purchases about 30,000

acre-feet/year on Sacramento River Tributaries. Approximately 50-percent of this acquired water

would be managed to improve flows in the Delta, and approximately 50-percent could be

exported if the Bay-Delta Plan conditions were met. Level 2 refuge water supplies are provided

subject to hydrologic shortages described by the California State Water Resource Control Board’s

40-30-30 Index with a maximum shortage of 25-percent. Refuge water supplies would be

increased to Level 4, as in Alternatives 2 through 4, with hydrologic shortages based on the

priority or priorities which applied to the water prior to its transfer. The Preferred Alternative

would reoperate CVP facilities and would release CVP water in the Sacramento, American,

Stanislaus, and lower San Joaquin rivers, Clear Creek, and in the Delta consistent with the

October 5, 1999 Decision on implementing Section 3406(b)(2). The potential for water transfers

would be improved, retired lands would be revegetated, and animal reintroduction programs

would be implemented to improve the land for special-status species.

V. BASIS OF DECISION

Reclamation and the Service selected this Decision based on the ability of its actions and

programs to meet the purposes of the CVPIA consistent with assumptions in analyses of the

CVPIA PEIS, other Federal and State requirements such as the Federal Endangered Species Act,

and on evaluations provided in the Final PEIS. 

ABILITY TO MEET CVPIA PURPOSES

Alternatives to implement the CVPIA were developed to meet its purposes as defined in section

3402 of the Act, and were identified in section I. INTRODUCTION of this Decision. The Final

PEIS viewed these purposes as objectives in the development of Core and Multiple Option

programs to implement various sections of the CVPIA. The comparison of different

implementation methods within alternatives to these objectives is summarized in Table II-11 of

the Final PEIS. The extent to which this Decision will, and the alternatives in the Final PEIS

would, meet these objectives is discussed below. For the purpose of this programmatic

comparison to the purposes of the Act, the Preferred Alternative and this Decision are very

similar, if not identical in many areas.
18

Improvements to Fish and Wildlife Resources [Section 3402(a) and (b)]: This Decision

provides the greatest benefit for fish and wildlife resources consistent with reasonable assumptions

in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS. Within those reasonable assumptions, this Decision more

effectively includes methods to meet the objectives in sections 3402 (a) and (b) to protect,

restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity River

basins and address impacts of the CVP, than any specific alternative evaluated in the Final PEIS. 

All alternatives and this Decision include implementation of various flow and non-flow actions for

anadromous fish restoration, improved water supplies to refuges, and restoration efforts for other

fish and wildlife resources as a result of implementing the Habitat Restoration Program [section

3406(b)(1) “Other”]. Anadromous fish restoration under this Decision and the Preferred

Alternative provide flow improvements in Central Valley rivers, streams, and the Delta by

including reoperation of the CVP as provided under section 3406(b)(1)(B), use of (b)(2) water,

and water acquired from willing sellers [section 3406(b)(3)]. These methods were included in

other Final PEIS alternatives in different ways that were related to changes in instream flows and

Delta outflows. 

 

In addition to these actions, this Decision provides supplementary actions that will more

adequately meet the objectives of section 3402 (a) and (b) mentioned above. These actions

provide for additional San Joaquin River tributary and mainstem flows, and more effective and

efficient implementation of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program [3406(b)(1)] and the Land

Retirement Program [3408(h)].

Additional San Joaquin River Tributary and Mainstem Flows: Providing additional flows in the

San Joaquin River tributaries and mainstem will improve instream conditions, and in many cases,

the aquatic conditions in the Delta. Increased flows will increase instream and Delta habitat

values for many aquatic species, including anadromous fish. 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program: Implementing the AFRP, as identified in this Decision,

will provide more effective and efficient restoration and enhancement for anadromous fish

because the Decision specifically provides for adaptive management of the Program. Appropriate

monitoring, including use of CAMP, in this adaptive management effort will provide the most

appropriate restoration possible consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA

PEIS. Additionally, the Revised Draft Restoration Plan used to implement the AFRP received

major public review and comment beyond that for the Final PEIS.

Land Retirement Program: The restoration and enhancement of retired lands will be more

appropriate and efficient after completion and incorporation of the Demonstration Study results as

provided in this Decision. This will provide greater success in restoration efforts and may 

provide a savings, which could allow for an expansion of the Land Retirement Program with

subsequent additional NEPA as appropriate.
19

The degree to which the Final PEIS alternatives improved conditions for fish, wildlife, and

associated habitats varied with specific elements of the alternatives, but all alternatives and this

Decision meet a basic objective for improvement of these resources. The alternative which

resulted in the greatest benefit for fish and wildlife was Alternative 4 because it would have

acquired the greatest amount of water to increase instream flows and Delta outflows. However,

the large amount of acquired water in Alternative 4 would not be consistent with reasonable

assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS.

Improvements to Operational Flexibility [Section 3402 (c)]: Improvements to operational

flexibility as addressed in section 3402(c), to meet all purposes of the CVP, are difficult to define. 

The purposes of the CVP include irrigation and domestic water supply; mitigation, protection,

and restoration of fish and wildlife; power generation; flood control; recreational opportunities;

navigation on the Sacramento River; and fish and wildlife enhancement. Each of these purposes

could require different operational criteria which may result in conflicts, as well as both beneficial

and adverse impacts. For example, reservoir releases in the fall to provide storage for flood

control would increase flood control flexibility, but would also decrease water storage which may

be needed later in the year for deliveries to agricultural and urban water users, to meet

downstream fish and wildlife needs, or for power generation during the next summer if

precipitation is low.

Irrigation and Domestic Water Supply and Power Generation: Under this Decision, and the

alternatives in the Final PEIS, the overall flexibility of CVP water supply operations for irrigation

and domestic water supply and power generation are reduced as a result of efforts to achieve a

reasonable balance among competing demands for all uses of CVP water [section 3402(f)]. When

compared to the existing condition, its important to note many water supply-related impacts

occurred as a result of assumptions in the No Action Alternative.

Operational flexibility, with respect to water supplies and power generation, was severely reduced

under the No-Action Alternative as compared to recent conditions, due to non-CVPIA actions. 

Recent requirements established through the winter-run chinook salmon and Delta smelt

biological opinions and through the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, reduced operational flexibility to

provide improvements in water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Operational flexibility was

further reduced under the No-Action Alternative due to the requirement for delivery of water

from CVP-controlled streams to water rights users. Diversions for water rights holders are

projected to increase by more than 200,000 acre-feet of water over recent conditions, as

described in the Pre-CVPIA Conditions and No-Action Alternative technical appendices. The

projected increases in diversions would primarily be used for municipal uses, which would change

the storage and release patterns from the reservoirs. As discussed in the Pre-CVPIA Conditions

and Surface Water and Facilities Operations technical appendices, under the No-Action

Alternative, delivery of CVP water to water service contractors in many months in drier 

water years is incidental to operations for the Bay-Delta Plan Accord, biological opinions, water

rights holders, water rights contractors, and water rights exchange contractors.
20

Although overall flexibility of CVP water supply operations are reduced further, when compared

to the No Action Alternative, water delivery impacts are minimized in Final PEIS analyses, to the

greatest extent possible, using available hydrologic models in an iterative manner. 

Within Final PEIS alternatives, modeled instream flow releases from CVP reservoirs were not

specific enough to provide power generation operations on an hourly time step, the level

necessary to adequately optimize CVP power generation. As a result, Final PEIS alternatives did

not attempt to quantitatively optimize CVP power generation. Because the instream flow releases

from CVP reservoirs are similar in this Decision and Final PEIS alternatives, CVP generation is

considered similar in all.

The greatest amount of water supply operational flexibility in Final PEIS alternative analysis

occurred in Alternative 3 because this alternative acquired the largest amount of water for

instream flows and allowed export of this water to users located south of the Delta. However, the

large amount of acquired water in Alternative 3 would not be consistent with reasonable

assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS, and export of all of the acquired water could result

in more adverse impacts to fish in the Delta than under any of the other Final PEIS alternatives. 

This Decision provides the most operational flexibility while minimizing adverse impacts to Delta

fisheries within the funding limits of the CVPIA.

Fish and Wildlife Protection, Restoration, Mitigation, and Enhancement: This Decision and

other alternatives in the Final PEIS improve operational flexibility for fish and wildlife. The

Decision provides the greatest improvement consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of

the CVPIA PEIS, based on increased flows in the San Joaquin River tributaries and mainstem and

improved efficiency and effectiveness in implementing the Anadromous Fish Restoration and Land

Retirement programs. Other alternatives in the Final PEIS improved conditions to varying

degrees depending upon the methods used to increase instream flows and Delta outflows. 

Flood Control and Navigation: This Decision, the Preferred Alternative, and other Final PEIS

alternatives do not attempt to change flood control or navigation criteria used for CVP operations

because these criteria are established through separate processes which involve evaluation of

public safety by Federal and State agencies. This Decision, like the other alternatives in the Final

PEIS, does not change existing operational flexibility for flood control or navigation. However,

implementing this Decision will tend to improve the overall flood control capability of CVP

reservoirs by lowering their end of September storage levels, reducing summer releases necessary

to evacuate flood control storage, and reducing the frequency of snow-melt induced flood control

releases. Reductions in storage may result in impacts to CVP contract deliveries and instream

fisheries habitat during some periods for some species in some rivers. Navigation on the

Sacramento River will not be affected as minimum requirements are met in all alternatives and this

Decision.

Recreational Opportunities: This Decision and other Final PEIS alternatives improved

recreational opportunities associated with birdwatching and hunting at refuges and fishing in

rivers, streams, and in the ocean. Recreational opportunities at refuges associated with the
21

CVPIA would be the same under this Decision, the Preferred Alternative, and Alternatives 2, 3,

and 4, because they provide levels 2 and 4 refuge water supplies. 

Recreational opportunities at CVP controlled reservoirs would slightly decrease as surface

elevations would fall below the levels at which recreation opportunities become constrained more

often during peak- and off-season periods. Lower surface elevations would decrease recreation

opportunities by limiting the availability of boat ramp access and reducing the reservoir’s surface

elevation below the level at which boating becomes constrained and shoreline activities decrease. 

Recreational opportunities at Lake Oroville would increase as surface elevations would generally

be maintained at higher levels during peak- and off-season periods. Higher surface elevations

would benefit recreation opportunities by increasing the availability of boat access and maintaining

the lake level above the level at which boating becomes constrained and shoreline activities

decrease.

The flows on the American River, below Nimbus Dam, would increase and more frequently fall

within the optimal range for all boating activities. However, these increased flows would more

frequently cause a decrease in optimal conditions for swimming.

The maximum improvement for recreational opportunities is under Alternative 4 because, in

addition to the provision of levels 2 and 4 refuge water supplies and implementation of the Habitat

Restoration Program, improvements to fishery conditions are the greatest of all the alternatives

considered as a result of increased acquired water and restrictions on its pumping in the Delta. 

However, the large amount of acquired water in Alternative 4 would not be consistent with

reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS. Since this Decision provides the

greatest benefit for fish, wildlife, and habitats within reasonable assumptions of the CVPIA PEIS,

it also provides the greatest recreational opportunities within those assumptions. 

Improved Benefits due to Water Transfers and Water Conservation [Section 3402(d)]:

This Decision and all alternatives in the Final PEIS include water conservation for municipal and

on-farm uses as assumed in DWR Bulletin 160-93; and conservation plans completed under the

1982 Reclamation Reform Act with implementation of all cost-effective Best Management

Practices that are economical and appropriate, including measurement devices, pricing structures,

demand management, public information, and financial incentives. Possible benefits include more

accurate tracking of water use, water conservation, and reduced agricultural drainage.

This Decision and the Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS includes water transfers under the

CVPIA for municipal and agricultural purposes. Supplemental Analyses 1e, 1f, 2b, 2c, 3a, and 4a

included the same water transfer considerations as this Decision and the Preferred Alternative. 

Individual water transfers would be considered on a site-specific basis, for which separate

environmental documentation would be completed. It was assumed that water transfers would

not impact ongoing water supply operations of the CVP or other water purveyors, or if impacts

did occur, they would be mitigated. The analyses indicate that a water market exists for

transferred water and that water transfers would occur with or without the CVPIA. The analyses

shows that if transfers occur under the CVPIA, the demand would not change but would be met
22

more frequently by the sale of water from CVP users as well as from water rights holders to

improve water supply reliability of water buyers. The analyses also indicate that if additional

charges are added to the transferred CVP water, the transfer market would be limited.

Contribute to Protection of the Bay-Delta Estuary [Section 3402(e)]: This Decision will, as

would Final PEIS alternatives, contribute to improvement of water quality and biological

conditions in the Bay-Delta estuary, as provided under section 3402(e), due to reoperation of the

CVP provided under section 3406(b)(1)(B) and use of (b)(2) water. Additionally, this Decision

will, as would Final PEIS alternatives, provide for additional benefits through the application of

supplemental water acquired under section 3406(b)(3). The greatest improvement would occur

under Alternative 4 because this alternative acquired the largest amount of water for increasing

instream flows and Delta outflows. However, the large amount of acquired water acquired in

Alternative 4 would not be consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA

PEIS. This Decision provides the greatest benefit for fish, wildlife, and habitat in the Delta,

consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS, as a result of increased

San Joaquin River flows into and potentially through the Delta, and a more effective and efficient

AFRP.

Achieving a Reasonable Balance Among Competing Demands for CVP Water [Section

3402(f)]: Achieving a reasonable balance among competing uses is a principal purpose of the

CVPIA, as provided under section 3402(f). Each Final PEIS alternative combined various

elements that modified this balance to some degree, thereby providing the decision maker a

reasonable range of choices based on analyses in the Final PEIS and associated public

involvement. Supplemental Analysis 4a provided the greatest balance between competing

demands because water transfers to Interior would provide improved instream and Delta aquatic

habitat conditions, and water transfers to municipal and agricultural users would allow users to

meet water demands if the water prices are appropriate. However, Supplemental Analysis 4a

would not be consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS. This

Decision provides the greatest level of a reasonable balance among competing demands because it

renews CVP contracts and provides for increased instream flows and Delta outflows, refuge

water supplies, and water transfers consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the

CVPIA PEIS.

FUND AVAILABILITY AND COST EVALUATION

Assumptions regarding the general need and availability of funds to implement actions and

programs of the CVPIA were included in the analysis of the Final PEIS. A comparison of the

costs for implementing those actions and programs is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Estimated Annual Alternative Implementation and Impact Costs in California
23

Alternative

Implementation

Cost 

(millions)

Reduction in Placeof-Work Income

(millions)

Reduction in Output

for all Sectors

(millions) Job Losses

Alternative 1 $74 $80 $183 2,790

Alternative 2 $84 $100 $241 3,550

Preferred

Alternative $90 $106 $223 2,720

Alternative 3 $148 $27 $143 2,060

Alternative 4 $148 $195 $457 6,540

Note:

(1) Impact and costs for this Decision are within the analyses of the CVPIA PEIS and are

projected to be slightly greater than those identified for the Preferred Alternative.

(2) All estimates are annual averages of the total direct, indirect, and induced impacts found in

Chapter IV of the PEIS.

(3). Reductions in Place-of-Work Income contains costs associated with M&I water deliveries.

Estimated Alternative Funding Needs

Alternative implementation funding needs were established by first developing cost estimates for

implementing baseline fish and wildlife restoration actions as provided in section 3406(b) and

partially listed in Attachment F. These funding needs would then be met, as possible and

appropriate, using combinations of funding statutorily available through the CVPIA and/or

estimated to be available through Congressional appropriations. 

Estimated Available Funding

For many of the non-flow restoration actions in the Preferred Alternative, it was

assumed the following fund sources and amounts were available: 1) application of the long-term

collection of an average annual total of up to $50 million/year (1992 dollars), as provided in

section 3407, and placed into the Restoration Fund; application of state funds provided to meet

cost share requirements outlined in the CVPIA (approximately $18 million annually), and 3)

application of other federal funds whose availability was determined to be reasonable

(approximately $22 million annually). Other mixes of funding were provided for other

alternatives in Table II-10 of the CVPIA Final PEIS. All fund sources will require appropriation

by the appropriate state or federal governing body. This decision should not be construed to limit

the amount of funds necessary or otherwise available to implement this Decision. 

Because other federal, state, and local programs are currently evaluating projects similar to

programs included in PEIS alternatives, the total funds available through all sources may be

greater than $50 million/year assumed to be provided by the Restoration Fund. Assumptions

within the analyses of the CVPIA PEIS identified a total funding capability of about 100-200

million/year, “available” to fund those projects or portions of projects to be funded by the

“Restoration Fund.” 
24

Estimated Implementation Impact Costs

The impact of implementing alternatives identified in the CVPIA PEIS was calculated and

provided in several places within that document, most notably Chapter IV, Environmental

Consequences. Comparison of that information, reasonable estimates of funding availability, the

above information on the costs of the alternatives, and, first and foremost, each alternative’s

ability to meet the purposes of the CVPIA, were considered in this Decision.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Reclamation and the Service have completed consultations with the Service and the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, addressing

potential effects to those listed species that may be affected by this Decision. As a result of these

formal consultations, both the Service and NMFS have indicated that the proposed action

(Decision) would not jeopardize the existence of any listed species or adversely modify designated

critical habitat. These determinations are based in part upon the following:

• commitment of Reclamation to operate the CVP consistent with existing biological

opinions which address water operations; 

• commitment of Reclamation and the Service to implement all actions described in the

Project Description of the biological opinion for implementing the CVPIA (file 1-1-98-

F-0124) in their entirety.

• commitment of Reclamation and the Service to continue the fish and wildlife protection,

restoration, and enhancement efforts identified in the No Action Alternative of the Final

PEIS;

• implementation of CVPIA programs in a manner that either directly or indirectly

addresses many of the needs of listed species; and 

• commitment of Reclamation and the Service to consult on any programs/activities

associated with implementation of the CVPIA that may affect listed species.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Reclamation or the Service, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8, have, and will continue to coordinate

compliance of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for actions covered by the CVPIA with the

requirements of Subpart B of 36 CFR 800, and as part of this process of coordination, used the

NEPA process and associated documentation to supplement compliance with Subpart B. At the

planning stage for any action comprising an undertaking, Reclamation or the Service will

determine and document an area of potential effects (APE) in accordance with the definition set

forth in 36 CFR800.16 (d). Reclamation or the Service will consult with the California State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(Council) pursuant to regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the National

Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) to resolve any adverse effects of each undertaking on
25

historic properties within the APE, except for those provided for under prior agreement.

SUMMARY

The No Action Alternative was not a feasible alternative because it would not meet the purposes

of the CVPIA as defined in section 3402. The No-Action Alternative is only used as a basis for

comparison of other alternatives and includes projects and policies that would either be impacted

by the CVPIA or that would impact implementation of the CVPIA.

Alternative 1 through 4 were not chosen for implementation because they did not provide the

greatest benefits for fish and wildlife, the greatest improvement to operational flexibility, or the

greatest level of a reasonable balance among competing demands for CVP water consistent with

reasonable assumptions in the analyses of the CVPIA PEIS

Of all alternatives in the Final PEIS, the Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS provided the

greatest benefit for fish and wildlife, consistent with reasonable assumptions in the analysis of the

CVPIA Final PEIS. The Preferred Alternative was defined in response to results of the Draft

PEIS analyses, public comments received on the Draft PEIS and the supplement to the Draft

PEIS, public comments received on related Administrative Proposals, and results of interim

implementation of several CVPIA provisions. The Preferred Alternative was constructed to

implement the CVPIA in a manner that best balances environmental benefits, affordability, and

technical feasibility. By increasing the overall water-related benefits provided by CVP and by

addressing impacts of the CVP on fish and wildlife resources, the Preferred Alternative would

also contribute to the overall economic and environmental sustainability of California. 

Implementation of the CVPIA would result in a variety of impacts to the regional economy and

social conditions in a large area of California. The Preferred Alternative did not include

provisions that would either clearly exceed reasonable assumptions in the analyses of the CVPIA

PEIS or require additional Congressional authorization.

This Decision builds on the Preferred Alternative by increasing flows in the San Joaquin River,

improving efficiency and effectiveness of the AFRP through adaptive management, and by

providing a Land Retirement Demonstration Study that will result in more effective and efficient

implementation of the long term Land Retirement Program. This Decision provides the greatest

benefit for fish and wildlife, within the funding limits of the Act, including the following:

• The combined effects of increased instream flows, lower instream water temperatures, habitat

restoration, and structural improvements will improve food web and habitat quality and

quantity, improve fish passage and access, reduce water diversion effects, and increase

anadromous fish survival in Central Valley rivers, their tributaries, and the Delta.

• Level 2 water deliveries will improve wetland management for water birds and shore birds. 

Additional wetland management improvements will occur as a result of water acquisition under

section 3406(b)(3), and minor wetland benefits will occur as a result of changes in river

hydrologies associated with anadromous fish restoration efforts.
26

• Retirement of agricultural land will improve the distribution and number of common wildlife,

provide potential habitat for special-status species associated with grassland and alkali desert

scrub habitats, and will reduce the use of herbicides and insecticides on these lands which will

provide additional benefits to fish and wildlife. 

• Increased spring flows on the tributaries to the San Joaquin River will improve riparian habitat

for riparian-dependent species along the San Joaquin River, and riparian restoration on the

Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries will improve habitat for dependent

common and special-status fish and wildlife species.

• Implementation of the (b)(1) “other” Program will provide additional restoration and

enhancement actions for species and habitats impacted by the CVP and not specifically

addressed in section 3406 of the CVPIA. 

This Decision also improves operational flexibility, and will improve water quality and biological

conditions in the Bay-Delta due to CVP reoperation, (b)(2) water management, and acquisition of

supplemental water for fish and wildlife under section 3406(b)(3) as provided under section

3402(e). This Decision provides the greatest level of a reasonable balance among competing

demands for CVP water because it provides increased instream flows and Delta outflows, refuge

water supplies, and water transfers consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the

CVPIA PEIS, while minimizing, as possible, impacts to CVP deliveries and power generation.

VI. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

This Decision was determined to have the following impacts, briefly described below within

appropriate resource and issue areas listed in the Final PEIS. These impacts and mitigation

measures were listed on table II-16 in the Final PEIS. Many of these impacts could be mitigated

by avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or compensating for the impacts.

SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES AND FACILITIES OPERATIONS

Impact –Reduction in CVP water service deliveries. The Final PEIS discusses reduction in

CVP water service deliveries in the Surface Water Analysis. Implementation of the operational 

measures in the CVPIA will result in less water being available to water service contractors due to

dedication of water to fish and wildlife restoration.

As discussed in Chapter IV of the CVPIA PEIS, the impacts may be reduced if methods to

increase the CVP yield are implemented, consistent with the Decision on Implementation of

Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, released on October 5, 1999,
4

 The Administrative Final Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan [section 3408(j)] includes the

following methodologies to increase CVP yield and/or lessen impacts to CVP users:

• management of water demand through such things as modified agricultural cropping, improved

irrigation performance, drainwater reclamation, canal lining and piping, spill reduction,

installation of non-leak gates, and appropriate riparian vegetation removal; 

• urban water reuse;

• additional surface water storage and conveyance;

• increased conjunctive use;

• weather modification and snowpack management;

• desalination; and 

• water importation.

5

 The December 29, 1999, California State Water Resource Control Board’s Revised Water Right

Decision 1641 includes decisions on the following:

• implementation of Water Quality Objectives for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta Estuary;

• petition to Change Points of Diversion of the Central Valley Project an d the State Water Project

in the Southern Delta; and 

• petition to Change Places of Use and Purposes of Use of the Central Valley Project

6

“Authorization” here and in similar statements throughout this Decision refers to additional

Congressional authorization as would be necessary to take an action and aligns with the statement on page

25, that the “Preferred Alternative in the Final PEIS did not include provisions that would either clearly

exceed the reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS or require additional Congressional

authorization.”

7

Framework Agreement (CALFED’s Water Future: A Framework for Action) - California’s

Governor Gray Davis and U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt released the CALFED Bay-Delta Program

(CALFED) Action Plan on June 9,2000. This framework document, the result of extensive negotiations,

will includes a broad array of water management and ecosystem restoration proposals.

27

including possible recommendations developed under section 3408(j)4

 of the CVPIA, and

concepts such as those discussed in the December 29, 1999, California State Water Resource

Control Board’s Revised Water Right Decision 16415.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this impact to be significant and support

continued evaluation and appropriate implementation of many of the measures mentioned

above. When and if these are developed and implemented, they could substantially lessen

the impacts to CVP water supplies. The results of implementing such measures as

identified in the Final PEIS, depending on method of replacement, will provide some

degree of impact reduction by increasing available water supplies to CVP users. The

extent of reduction in impacts to CVP water supplies will depend on many factors,

including the availability of funds, authorization6

, and level of participation from nonfederal entities. While not mitigation for this Decision, the CALFED Program may also

help lessen the impacts to CVP water service deliveries through completion and

implementation of the Framework Agreement7

.
8

 “Joint Point of Diversion” is the joint use of each other's points of diversion of water in the

southern Delta by the California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

28

Impact–Reductions in State Water Project (SWP) deliveries. The Final PEIS discusses a

slight reduction in SWP water service deliveries in the Surface Water Analysis. Implementation

of operational measures in the CVPIA may result in reductions in SWP deliveries in some years

due to assumed SWP cooperation in decreasing Banks Pumping Plant exports to meet the San

Joaquin River Agreement, and as identified in the Decision on Implementation of Section

3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, released on October 5, 1999. The

amount and frequency of the reduction in SWP deliveries depends on the level of cooperation

undertaken by the SWP.

The impacts can be mitigated by implementing concepts such as the “Joint Point of Diversion”8

and/or water purchases.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find measures like those mentioned above to be

feasible and may substantially lessen impacts to SWP water supplies. The extent of the

reduction in impacts to SWP water supplies will depend on many factors, including the

availability of funds, authorization, and level of any necessary non-federal participation. 

Additionally, while not mitigation for this Decision, the CALFED Program may also help

lessen the impacts to SWP water service deliveries through actions identified in the

CALFED ROD, issued August 28, 2000.

GROUNDWATER

Impact–Reduction in groundwater levels and associated increase in land subsidence.

Implementation of this Decision will result in a greater dependency on groundwater supplies by

CVP water service contractors. The increased dependency on groundwater will result in

increased rates of groundwater overdraft in some areas of the Central Valley, resulting in

increased rates of subsidence along the western edge of the Central Valley.

The impacts might be reduced by implementing methods to increase supply, including possible

recommendations developed under section 3408(j) of the CVPIA, concepts such as “Joint Point

of Diversion” and assisting in the development of groundwater management plans. In areas with 

subsidence, affected structures and grading may need to be modified for impacts which can occur

in addition to ongoing subsidence rates under pre-CVPIA conditions.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this impact to be significant and support

continued evaluation and the possible implementation of many of the appropriate impact

reduction measures mentioned above. When and if these measures are developed and

implemented, they could avoid or substantially lessen impacts to groundwater and land

subsidence. The impacts, depending on actions taken, may be reduced by improving

surface water supply reliability as provided by actions in the CVPIA, by CALFED, and by
29

improved groundwater management. The extent of the reduction in impacts to

groundwater will depend on many factors, including the availability of funds,

authorization, and level of necessary non-federal participation.

FISHERY RESOURCES

Impact–Increased temperatures in the American River. Implementation of this Decision will

result in lower average storage elevations in Folsom Reservoir. The lower storage will result in

higher temperatures in downstream releases and impacts upon the fishery. 

These impacts can be mitigated by modifying the outlet works on Folsom Dam.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this mitigation measure to be feasible and will

avoid or substantially lessen the environmental impacts on American River water

temperatures from implementing this Decision. The impacts will be mitigated by improved

control of downstream temperatures, facilitated by greater selection of outlet releases. 

Planning activities for the outlet modification are currently underway by Reclamation.

Impact--Increased temperatures in the Sacramento River. Implementation of this Decision

will increase the frequency of exceeding temperature requirements for the winter-run chinook

salmon during drier years.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service have determined this impact will be addressed

through compliance with the Biological Opinion provided to Interior by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service associated with Section 7 consultation under the Federal

Endangered Species Act.

Impact–Reduction in Sacramento River flows. Implementation of this Decision will change

flow patterns in the Sacramento River. Because limited water supplies exist in the basin, this

Decision focuses Sacramento River flow patterns in a manner resulting in possible adverse affects

on spring-run chinook salmon.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service have determined this impact will be addressed

through compliance with the Biological Opinion provided to Interior by the National

Marine Fisheries Service associated with Section 7 consultation under the Federal

Endangered Species Act.

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND LAND USE

Impact–Reduction in irrigated acreage within the Central Valley. Implementation of this

Decision will result in a total reduction in irrigated acreage of approximately 54,000 acres: an

approximate 45,000 acre reduction in the Central Valley (less than 1-percent), and an 

approximate 9,000 acre reduction (about 9-percent) in lands irrigated by water from all sources in
30

San Benito and Santa Clara counties.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find no practicable measures exist to mitigate for

this impact. However, some of the effects of this reduction will be substantially lower

than might be expected because a major portion of the reduced acreage is a result of land

acquisition, from willing sellers, under the Land Retirement Program.

Impact–Orchard damage along the Stanislaus River. Implementation of this Decision will

result in a greater frequency of flows above 1,500 cfs in the lower Stanislaus River which may

cause groundwater elevation and root rot to trees located along the river. 

These impacts, if they occur, can be mitigated by obtaining an easement that addresses the high

ground water impact in the potential damage areas.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this mitigation measure to be feasible. When

developed and implemented, these efforts will mitigate, as appropriate, for the impacts of

this Decision on orchards along the Stanislaus River by obtaining easements to offset crop

losses, as appropriate.

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT POWER RESOURCES

Impact–Reduction in CVP power generation, shift of power generation to months where

the value of power is lower, and an increase in the total cost of power. Implementation of

this Decision will result in a reduction of CVP power generation during peak power demand

periods in summer months. This may result in the need for the Western Area Power

Administration to purchase power to meet Preference Power Customer’s needs.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find there is no practicable mitigation measure for

these impacts.

RECREATION

Impact–Potential periodic reductions in boating and shoreline use opportunities in portions

of Shasta Lake, Folsom Reservoir, and New Melones Reservoir. Implementation of this

Decision will result in reduced reservoir levels, especially in critical years. These reduced

reservoir levels will adversely impact use of boat ramps and shore facilities. 

These impacts can be reduced by constructing or extending boat ramps and facilities for beach

use, dependent upon the availability of funds.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this measure to be feasible and will reduce or

substantially minimize impacts to reservoir boating and shoreline use. The impacts can

 be reduced by extending boat ramps and moving shoreline structures in drier years as
31

funding and authorization become available.

Impact–Potential periodic reductions in swimming opportunities in the American River

below Nimbus Dam. Implementation of this Decision will result in increased flows during

several months with increased velocities that would make swimming dangerous. 

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find there is no practicable mitigation measure for

these impacts at this time. By participating in recreational planning and implementation

efforts on the American River, Interior may help substantially minimize these impacts to

American River swimming opportunities below Nimbus Dam. 

REGIONAL ECONOMICS

Impact–Additional charges to CVP water and power users due to Restoration Fund

collection. The Final PEIS discusses changes in user charges and their impacts in the Agricultural

Economics and CVP Power analyses. Implementation of the Decision to collect Restoration Fund

charges would result in increased costs for CVP water and power supplies. Assuming

Congressional appropriation, additional charges would total $30 million per year on a 3-year

rolling average. The additional charge would be divided between water and power users, and

would vary based upon the amount of CVP water supplies available.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this impact significant and unavoidable. The

CVPIA requires the collection of additional charges to assist in the funding of the

Restoration Fund.

MOSQUITOS

Impact–Potential increase in mosquito abundance. Implementation of this Decision will

increase wetland areas in the Central Valley which may result in an increased mosquito

population. 

These impacts can be mitigated with the provision of additional abatement actions by existing

mosquito abatement districts in the Central Valley. Additionally, refuge operations are typically

managed to assist in the control of mosquitos.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find these mitigation measures to be feasible and

will avoid or substantially minimize, as appropriate, the impacts of any associated possible

increase in mosquito abundance. The impacts will be reduced or removed by mosquito

abatement districts in the Central Valley continuing to carry out abatement controls in

their local area in accordance with existing agreements and requirements with wetland

managers for National Wildlife Refuges and State Wildlife Management Areas.

SOCIAL CONDITIONS
32

Impact–Reduction in agricultural related jobs due to reduction in irrigated acreage.

Implementation of this Decision may result in less agricultural productivity, for a variety of

reasons, leading to a possible reduction in agricultural related jobs. 

These impacts might be reduced by providing job training, dependent upon the availability of

funds and authorization.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find these sorts of measures to be feasible. When

and if developed and implemented, they could reduce, eliminate, or substantially minimize

impacts to agricultural jobs. The extent of the reduction in impacts to agricultural jobs, as

can be provided by job training, is dependent on many factors, including the identification

and availability of funds, authorization, and level of participation. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impact–Increase in potential for disturbance to Cultural Resources due to increased

exposure and recreational opportunities at refuges. Implementation of this Decision could

result in increased visitor use at refuges which may increase the potential for vandalism to cultural

resources. 

Because National Wildlife Refuges are already required to comply with Federal laws protecting

cultural resources, these impacts will be mitigated as appropriate. If necessary, additional

measures will be developed per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in 

consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and State Historic Preservation

Officer.

Finding. Reclamation and the Service find this mitigation measure to be feasible and will

avoid or substantially minimize impacts to cultural resources. The impacts can be

mitigated by reducing access, as appropriate, to critical areas of a refuge, or other actions

as required by appropriate Federal legislation.

VII. IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION AND ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMITMENTS

Reclamation and the Service have adopted all feasible and reasonable means to avoid or minimize

adverse environmental impacts from implementing the CVPIA as outlined in this Decision. The

CVPIA, as provided in sections 3406(a) and 3406(b)(1), in and of itself, was enacted in large part

to address the fish and wildlife impacts of the CVP. Because it is the intent of the CVPIA, among

other purposes (3402), to protect, restore and enhance fish, wildlife and associated habitats; and

provide a reasonable balance among competing demands for the use of CVP water, including the

requirements of fish and wildlife, agriculture, municipal and industrial and power contractors;

Reclamation and the Service commit to full implementation of the CVPIA, as elaborated in this

Decision, in a manner providing the greatest benefits for fish, wildlife, and associated habitats
33

consistent with reasonable assumptions in analyses of the CVPIA PEIS. 

Table II-16 of the Final PEIS summarizes potential mitigation measures that could be

implemented to reduce adverse impacts of implementing the CVPIA, and Reclamation and the

Service commit to participation in processes, either as a result of implementing the CVPIA or in

related programs, that attempt to lessen these listed impacts. Because this is a programmatic

Decision, appropriate mitigation for specific actions and programs will be developed as those

actions and programs are implemented. Subject to appropriation of funds, impact-specific

Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for this Decision are as follows:

SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES AND FACILITIES OPERATIONS

Reclamation and the Service commit that reductions in SWP deliveries, as a result of

implementing section 3406(b)(2) actions, will not be permitted to adversely affect the State

Water Project (SWP), operated by DWR, and any adverse impacts will be made up through

implementation of the “Joint Point of Diversion” water purchases and exchanges.”

FISHERY RESOURCES

• Reclamation commits to mitigating the increased temperature in the American River by

modifying the outlet works on Folsom Dam, as authorized by Congress.

• Reclamation and the Service commit to addressing temperature impacts on listed anadromous

fish species in the Sacramento River through compliance with the Biological Opinion provided

to Interior by the National Marine Fisheries Service associated with Section 7 consultation

under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

• Reclamation and the Service commit to addressing flow impacts on listed anadromous fish

species in the Sacramento River through compliance with the Biological Opinion provided to

Interior by the National Marine Fisheries Service associated with Section 7 consultation under

the Federal Endangered Species Act.

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND LAND USE

Reclamation and the Service commit to mitigating orchard damage along the Stanislaus River

by obtaining easements to offset crop losses, as appropriate.

MOSQUITOS

Interior commits to a process that will mitigate, as appropriate, potential increases in mosquito

abundance on National Refuges by working with appropriate mosquito abatement districts that

carry out abatement controls in their local areas in accordance with existing agreements and

commits to work with managers for State Wildlife Management areas as appropriate.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Reclamation and the Service will mitigate any possible impacts to cultural resources through the

identification of adverse effects and compliance with existing Federal law, regulations, and prior

agreements. Reclamation and/or the Service will consult with the State Historic Preservation

Officer (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to identify and implement any

required mitigation measures.
34

MISCELLANEOUS COMMITMENTS

Reclamation and the Service commit to evaluating other identified impacts resulting from

implementing this Decision and reasonable and appropriate actions that help to reduce these

impacts will be implemented as authorization, funding, and participation by non-federal partners

becomes available.

Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for long-term management of CVPIA

implementation associated with this Decision are as follows:

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Reclamation and the Service commit to continued implementation of fish and wildlife mitigation,

restoration, and enhancement programs, actions, and projects listed as part of the Project

Descriptions for existing processes and this Decision, including, but not limited to, commitments

made during Section 7 Consultations in the Biological Opinion Addressing Operations of the

CVP and Implementation of the CVPIA from the Service (CVPIA, Service File #1-1-98-F0124, dated November 22, 2000) and the Biological Opinion for Implementation of the CVPIA

from the NMFS (dated, November 14, 2000). Additionally, it is understood that all actions to

implement the CVPIA will include diligent consideration of the needs for special-status species

and will adhere to all requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Reclamation and the Service commit in this ROD to use an Adaptive Management Program,

using information collected from multiple sources, to evaluate the effectiveness of actions

designed to restore and enhance anadromous fish, wildlife, and associated habitats, and to help

make needed adjustments to those actions and improve program results so that the purposes of

CVPIA can be achieved. Multiple monitoring processes will be used to collect and analyze data

to determine the success of implementing the CVPIA including: 

• CVPIA action-specific monitoring, to assess an individual actions results and

effectiveness; 

• ecosystem-level monitoring provided under section 3406(b)(16), the Comprehensive

Assessment and Monitoring Program (CAMP), to assess overall effectiveness of actions

and categories of actions under section 3406(b); and

• monitoring data from many related efforts including the Comprehensive Monitoring,

Assessment and Research Program (CMARP), developed for CALFED and the

Interagency Ecological Program (IEP), a consortium of 9 state and Federal agencies

developed to provide information on factors affecting ecological resources in the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary that will allow for its more efficient management.

This information will be used to modify, if necessary, the actions associated with implementing

this Decision. For example, the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program will be reviewed and

revised, if necessary, every five years to assure better alignment with its goals and objectives

and to allow Interior to meet the purposes of the CVPIA.
35

MITIGATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS MONITORING AND

ENFORCEMENT

A Mitigation and Environmental Commitments Monitoring and Enforcement Plan will be jointly

developed by Reclamation and the Service after signing this Decision that will ensure identified

measures are accomplished, including those identified as a result of Section 7 consultations

under the Endangered Species Act. This plan will include the following:

• A summary of appropriate mitigation measures, including environmental mitigation and

enhancement, associated with this Decision.

• An Environmental Commitments Program including Environmental Commitment Plans

(ECP); if necessary, a program for managing the outcome of the Decision;

environmental commitment checklists (ECC), and post activity environmental

commitment summaries.

• Actions Reclamation and the Service will take if monitoring shows mitigation and

environmental commitments are inadequate or unsuccessful.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT

Because this Decision was not specifically an alternative in the PEIS, the existing understanding

in that document between the Service and Reclamation, relative to consultation under the Fish

and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), is supplemented by Attachment A. No further

consultation is necessary under the FWCA for actions and programs identified in the PEIS at

this programmatic level. It is understood future coordination and consultation under the FWCA

will be completed as required for tiered actions.

VIII. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE FINAL PEIS

Reclamation and the Service have received no formal comments on the Final PEIS.

IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The issues addressed by the CVPIA are complex and often interrelated. To ensure constructive

public input, a substantial public involvement program was provided to educate the public about

water issues, CVP operations, instream flow management, fish species behavior, habitat

management, CVPIA provisions, pricing and repayment policies, and the potential effects of the

CVPIA. This public involvement process was divided into four phases: scoping, project

development, alternatives refinement with ongoing project development, and preparation of the

Draft and Final PEIS’s. These phases included a host of public involvement “tools”, including

meetings, workshops, and briefings; release of information materials, including plans, reports,

booklets, briefing packets, and a periodic newsletter; and on-going activities, including a 24-hour

telephone message line, an Internet website, mailing lists, and media relations.
36

X. CONCLUSION

In view of the proceeding discussion, we find that any adverse effects of implementing the

Decision have been avoided and/or minimized to the extent practicable, and this Decision best

meets the overall objectives and is consistent with the legislated mandate of the CVPIA. 

Implementation of this Decision is consistent with all applicable laws, regulations, national policy,

administrative directives, and is in the overall public interest.
ATTACHMENT A

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT

RECORD OF DECISION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT