United States Department of the Interior

~~,.~AT~IEJ4•roP ThEj~~

APR16 ~98

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

911 N.E. 11th Avenue

Portland OR 972324181

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation

Mid-Pacific Region

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento CA 95825-1898

Subject: Final CVFLA Administrative Proposal on Refuge Water Supplies

Dear Interested Party:

In September 1995, the Department ofthe Interior (Interior) invited the public to identify their

concerns regarding implementation ofthe Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).

To facilitate public input and discussion, Interior representatives held a series ofpublic meetings

between September 1995 and April 1996. During these meetings, 12 major areas ofconcern

were identified, and individuals volunteered to form work teams and discuss the specific issues

pertaining to those areas. In April 1996, Interior committed to the preparation ofAdministrative

Proposals to address the principal issues raised by stakeholders during the public forum and

work team meetings.

To that end, Interior circulated forreview by interested parties a draft Administrative Proposal

on Refuge Water Supplies on July 12, 1996, and a revised draft on March 20, 1998. Enclosed

is the final Adminis~ative Proposal on Refuge Water Supplies which reflects key comments

received on the draft proposals as well as previously raised concerns.

Copies ofthis final proposal can be accessed on the Mid-Pacific Region’s home page at

http:/www.mp.usbr.gov or can be obtained by calling Ms. AJisha Sterud at 916/978-5195 or

TDD 916/978-5608.

Sincerely,

‘1 A’’ Mich . Spear

1/

Regional Director

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

ACI1NG ger K.. Patterson

Regional Director

U.S. Bureau ofReclamation

Mid-Pacific Region

Enclosure

.~— —~-~
CYPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WAThR

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

INTRODUCTION

In September 1995, the Department ofthe Interior(Interior) invited thepublic to identify their

concerns regarding implementation ofthe Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title

XXXIV ofPublic Law 102-575 (CVPIA). To facilitate input and discussion, represetitatives of

Interior held a series ofpublic meetings between September 1995 and April 1996. During these

meetings, 12 major areas ofconcern were identified, and individuals volunteered to form

working groups to discuss specific issues pertaining to those areas. In April 1996, Interior

committed to the preparation of“Administrative Proposals” to address the principal issues raised

by stakeholders during the public forum and working group meetings. To that end, Interior

circulated draft Administrative Proposals on Refuge Water Supplies on June 12, 1996, and

March 20, 1998, forreview by interested parties. Written comments on the draft proposals were

received from urban, agricultural, and environmental stakeholders and the general public. This

final Administrative Proposal on Refuge Water Supplies has been revised to reflect the key

comments on the draft proposals as well as previously raised concerns. Responses to specific

comments are provided in the attached appendices.

BACKGROUND

Section 3406(d) ofthe Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) authorizes and directs

the Secretary ofthe Interior to provide firm water supplies ofsuitable quality to certain national

wildlife refuges in the Central Valley of California, certain State of Californiawildlife

management areas, and the Grassland Resource Conservation District (Grassland) (collectively

referred to below as “refuges”) in accordance with the 1989 Report onRefrge Water Supply

Investigations (Water SupplyReport) and the 1989 San Joaquin Basin Action Plan/Kesterson

Mitigation Plan (Action Plan). The Water SupplyReport describes the water supply

requirements forwetland habitat management for migratory birds ofthe Pacific Flyway and

resident wildlife resources. TheAction Plan provides forthe acquisition and management by

appropriate Federal and State agencies of23,500 acres of private lands within the northern San

Joaquin River Basin, and includes baseline information on wetland habitat, water rights, annual

water needs, wildlife and public use potential, plus development and operational cost estimates.

These firm watersupplies must be provided at the refuge boundaries and are described in terms

oftwo levels -- Level 2 and Level 4 -- in the Water Supply Report and astwo-third water

supplies and full habitat water supplies in the Action Plan. Level 2 supplies are defined in the

Water Supply Report asthe historic annual average water deliveries to eachrefuge prior to

enactment ofthe CVPIA and two-thirds ofthe watersupplies identified forthe ActionPlan

Lands. The Level 2 supply amount totals 404,221 acre-feet and is required to be provided to the

refuges upon enactment ofthe CVPIA. Level 4 watersupplies are that incremental addition

needed for full habitat development ofwetland areas addressed in both the Water Supply Report

and the Action Plan. Level 4 watersupplies amount to an additional 163,259 acre-feet above

April 16, 1998

1
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

Level 2 watersupplies and must be acquired from willing providers in not less than 10 percent

increments per yearto ensure that full refuge water supplies are available in the year 2002.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES

The Refuge Water Supply Workteam (Workteam) identified five issues ofconcern to water users

regarding the implementation ofthe Refuge Water Supply Program. Interior, represented by

Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), has consolidated these five issues to

three areas ofconcern surrounding delivery ofrefuge watersupplies: (a) the impacts to conveyance

capacity within the Central Valley Project (CVP) facilities, specifically CVP capacity south ofthe

Delta resulting from delivery ofLevel 2 watersupplies; (b) the development ofBest Management

Practices/Efficient Use Plans for refuges; and (c) the conditions under which Level 2 watersupply

shortages are imposed upon refuges. Each ofthese issues is discussed below.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND INTERIOR PROPOSALS

Conveyance Capacity

Stakeholder Views. Section 3406(d) ofthe CVPIA directs the Secretary ofthe Interior to provide

firm Level 2 water supplies to Central Valley refuges and wildlife habitat areas, and to endeavor to

diversify the sources ofrefuge water supplies in order to minimize possible adverse effects upon CVP

contractors. CVP contractors, principally contractors using CVP water for agricultural purposes

south ofthe Delta, have raised concerns about the impacts that delivery ofLevel 2 water supplies will

have on the capacity ofCVP pumping and canal facilities to deliver agricultural supplies. They are

concerned that, in most years, they will receive reduced CVP water deliveries when delivery ofLevel

2 supplies is combined with operation and pumping restrictions under the Bay-Delta Accord,

Endangered Species Act, and other statutory CVPIA requirements. In an average water year, the

contractors believe that agricultural deliveries will be reduced by approximately 8 percent or 150,850

acre-feet. Based on language in Section 3406(d)(5) ofthe CVPIA which authorizes and directs the

Secretary ofthe Interiorto construct oracquire conveyance facilities, conveyance capacity, and wells

as are necessary to implement the provisions ofthe CVPIA, the agricultural contractors suggest that

Interiorpursue an agreement for conveyance ofLevel 2 water supplies through the State Water

Project (SWP) facilities, to reduce conveyance capacity impacts to agricultural deliveries from CVP

facilities.

Private waterfowl interests question the m~gnitude ofthe impact to agricultural contractors when

deliveries to refuges in the years prior to enactment ofthe CVPIA are taken into account. They assert

that these supplies historically have been pumped and conveyed through CVP facilities without

significant impact to other contractors. Other environmental interests are concerned about the

April 16, 1998

2
CYPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

impacts that additional Delta export pumping might have on the measures to protect the resources of

the Bay-Delta,’ should additional capacity be used.

Discussion. The potential to use SWP facilitiesto export Level 2 watersupplies from the Delta was

first investigated by Reclamation and the Service in 1994. The Workteam formed a subcommittee in

1996 to work with CVP and SWP operations staffto determine ifusing SWP facilities was feasible.

In 1994 and again in 1996, the State representatives stated they were willing to convey refuge water

supplies through their facilities as long as excess capacity is available, SWP contractors are not

adversely impacted, Delta requirements are met, and the SWP is compensated for use ofits facilities.

Discussions ofa one-to-five year agreement to convey Level 2 water supplies through the SWP

facilities on an if-and-when available basis have been initiated to assess concerns ofinterested

stakeholders and to work towards a possible long-term agreement.

In addition, the final Administrative Proposal for Management ofSection 3406(b)(2) Water (800,000

acre-feet), Appendix C, Tool Box Measures, which was released on November 20, 1997, discusses

the Joint Point ofDiversion as a focal point ofaddressing conveyance constraints downstream ofthe

Tracy Pumping Plant. One ofthe recognized benefits ofthe use ofthe Joint Point ofDiversion would

be facilitating the delivery ofwater supplies to refuges south ofthe Delta in a way that minimizes

impacts to agricultural contractors.

InteriorResponse: Section 3406(d)(5) authorizes the acquisition ofcapacity from non-Federal

sources forthe conveyance ofrefuge water supplies. Interiorrecognizes the multiple demands being

placed on the CVP facilities and is committed to working with the State and otherstakeholdersto

develop a conveyance agreement for use ofSWP facilities to facilitate delivery of Level 2 refuge

watersupplies and minimize impacts on contractors, while at the same time protecting the resources

ofthe Delta. However, the quantity ofrefuge watersupplies conveyed in CVP facilities will not

decrease during those years or circumstances when capacity ofSWP facilities is not available.

Best Management Pracffces/WaterUse Efficiency Plans

Stakeh older Views. The CVPIA directsthe Secretary ofthe Interior to provide water supplies to

specific Central Valley refuges in accordance with the water supply needs quantified in the Water

Supply Reportand theAction Plan. CVP agricultural contractors believe the Water Supply Report is

flawed and was prepared without adequate participation and input from all sectors ofthe water

contractor community. They assert that ifsuch participation had been provided, the water needs

quantified in the Water Supply Report may have been different. The agricultural interests also

1 This issue concernsthe interpretation ofthe Bay-DeltaAccord baseline which

is being addressed by a separate interagency workgroup.

April 16, 1998
CYPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

believe that a complete reevaluation ofthe Water Supply Report is necessary to properly update the

refuge watersupply needs.

Discussion. The Water Supply Report was the culmination ofinformation collected in the mid1980’s. The intended purpose ofthe Water SupplyReport, as stated in the executive summary, was,

.... . to provide information and resource data which, when combined with appropriate information

from related investigations.., will be the basis for selecting recommended plans for water delivery

to each ofthe 15 refuges.” Interiorrecognizesthat the additional planning efforts were not completed

prior to the enactment of CVPIA; however, it is Interior’s position that the Water Supply Report

analysis ofrefuge water needs remains adequate for determining refuge watersupply needs. Interior,

along with the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) and the Grassland Resource

Conservation District/Grassland Water District (Grassland), also recognizes that resource needs and

management tools change over time and believes that the development ofwetland “best management

practices” is appropriate to ensure refuge water supplies are being used effectively to meet wetland

and wildlife resource requirements.

In September 1995, the Service’s refuge managers began developing a water management strategy for

Federal refuges in the Central Valley. This strategy will provide an ecoregion overview and include

efficient use practices under current and optimum water supply conditions. Monitoring and

assessment ofimplementation and resource response will be addressed in the final document. A

preliminary draft ofthe strategy has been completed and is undergoing review in the Service’s

Portland Regional Office. It will be incorporated into the information collection process discussed

below under “Interior Response.”

The CDFG developed habitat management standards for their Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) in

1991 with the goal ofproviding a diversified healthy wetland ecosystem and effective use of

available water supplies. Each WMA manager prepares an annual management plan based on the

standards by early February. The plans include information on how the WMA is meeting the

standards. A Habitat Management Committee, comprised ofCDFG wetlands experts, conducts a

field review ofeachWMA in July or August to evaluate the quality and diversity ofhabitat. The

CDFG holds meetings with the public following the fieldreview to discuss any concerns or

suggestions regarding the WMA.

Grassland began development ofa Best Management Plan/Efficient Use Plan in early 1996, using

existing Reclamation criteria. Grassland is using those provisions ofthe criteria that apply to water

conveyance systems they manage as well a~s to wetland management. Grassland is also cooperating

with Interior in the refinement ofa wetlandmanagement model developed by Colorado State

University. The goal is to incorporate Service-developed Geographical Information System data for

the Grassland area and to use the model to develop water management scenarios. The Best

Management Plan/Efficient Use Plan, along with GIS data and the wetland management model, will

help Grassland improve both short- and long-term water delivery efficiency forthe best management

April 16, 1998

4
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

ofwetland habitat. In addition, Grassland will continue to expand its educational outreach to private

landowners about the value ofdeveloping BMPs which maximize habitat management potential

through efficient use ofCVPIA water.

InteriorResponse. The three agencies — Interior, CDFG, and Grassland -- are each focused on

incorporating all existing andnew biological data into wetland management in order to maximize

their ability to meet the fish and wildlife resource requirements on each wetland area. In recognition

ofthe need for a coordinated approach, the three agencies, with contractual assistance, have initiated

the development ofan Interagency Coordinated Program (ICP) for optimumwater use planning for

wetlands ofthe Central Valley. The ICP will provide a common methodology to water-use planning

for all wetland areas receiving water supplies as authorized by the CVPIA. This will include the

types ofwetlands managed, water supplies available under the CVPIA, expected resource benefits,

efficient-use actions and facilities to accomplishgoals and objectives, and a plan for public

involvement in the planning process. The ICP, begun in March 1997 and scheduled to be completed

by May 1998, is being developed through an interactive process working with CVPIA program

managers, wetland habitat area managers, and stakeholders. The objective is a logical and reasonable

approach to assuring optimum and effective use ofwetland water supplies to meet the requirements

for wetland resources and the CVPIA. The ICP will provide an update ofinformation as well as a

format and outline for preparation ofindividual refugewater management plans that will serve as

guidelines for scheduling refuge water deliveries provided under CVPIA.

Interior intends forthe management planning effort that results from the ICP process to assure that

water is used to efficiently meet wetland resource needs. Should any watersavings be identified for a

particular refuge and planning period, the water will be used to meet other wetland/refuge identified

needs.

Refuge Shortage Provisions

The CVPIA allows fortemporarily reducing Level 2 refuge water supplies whenever reductions due

to hydrologic circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries ofCVP water. The provision

affords discretion to the Secretary ofthe Interior and limits the reduction to not more than 25 percent

ofLevel 2 water supplies. Interior issued a policyregarding the shortage provisions for Level 2 water

supplies in September 1995 that uses the Shasta Index2 as a triggermechanism.

2 The Shasta Index refers to criteria included inwater right contracts along the Sacramento

River and the San Joaquin River. According to this shortage criterion, whenthe forecasted inflows to

Shasta Lake fall below a defined threshold, a water year is definedas “critical” and water deliveries to

these water right contractors may be reduced from 100 percent to 75 percent of contractual entitlement

for the Sacramento River entities, to a critical yearschedule based on a reduced annual supplyof 650,000

acre-feet forthe San Joaquin ExchangeContractors.

April 16, 1998

5
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

Stakeholder Views. The key issues raised are whether the present “trigger” ofhydrologic

circumstances is appropriate, and whether the “cap” of25 percent is appropriate regardless ofthe

language ofthe statute. Stakeholders posed the following questions: should shortages be (a) the

same asfor agricultural service contractors, (b) related to the Shasta Index, (c) different forrefuges

north and south ofthe Delta, (d) discretionary, (e) greater than 25 percent (mimic agricultural service

contractors), or (f) capped at all?

The Workteam had one major discussion on this issue and no majorpositions were articulated or

documented; however, the issue was recognized as one ofkey importance to all stakeholders. They

agreed that discussions should be deferred until Interior proposes a possible approach for

consideration.

InteriorResponse. During the course ofreviewing this issue and due to the complexity ofrefuge

water supply delivery options, Interior looked at several approaches to finding a reasonable means of

addressing concerns raised by stakeholder representatives. Interior looked carefully at the provisions

ofthe CVPIA for further guidance.

Section 3406(d)(4) states,

“The Secretary may temporarily reduce deliveries ofthe quantity ofwaterdedicated under

paragraph (1) ofthis subsection up to 25 percent ofsuch total whenever reductions due to

hydrologic circumstances are imposed upon agricultural deliveries ofCentral Valley Project

water; Provided, Thatsuchreductions shall not exceed in percentage terms the reductions

.imposed on agricultural service contractors.”

There are a number ofhydrologic circumstancesthat must be taken into consideration when

determining the effect on water deliveries and the imposition ofshortages to refuge CVP Level 2

watersupplies. These include the estimated amounts ofrainfall,snowpack, reservoir inflow and

storage, and in-stream flow contributions. Hydrologic circumstances are evaluated by Reclamation

during the water forecasting process usedto classify the overall water-year type (wet, above normal,

below normal, dry, and critical) and when determiningCVP water supply availability to all CVP

water users including wetland habitat areas.

The Secretary is required by Section 3406(d) to ensure delivery offirm Level 2 water supplies to

State and Federalrefuges and to Grassland. Thatsupply isto be provided either directly or through

long-term contractual agreements and is to be a reliable supply. The Level 2 quantity called for in

the CVPIA is 404,221 acre-feet. However, the Secretary has the discretion to temporarily reduce the

404,221 acre-feet by up to 25 percent when reductions due to hydrologic circumstances are imposed

on agricultural deliveries ofCVP water.

April 16, 1998

6
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAL SUPPLIES

At the present time, approximately 47,000 acre-feet ofcurrent Level 2 supplies comes fromnon-CVP

sources. Some ofthe non-CVP sources ofsupply for Level 2 water may be reduced by more than 25

percent in years when CVP Level 2 supplies could be reduced by 25 percent orless or may not be

available in the future. Inthose instances when non-CVP supplies are not available or are reduced by

more than 25 percent, Interior would make up the supply difference with CVP suppliesto ensure that

Level 2 watersupplies from all sources are not reduced by more than 25 percent. To reduce the

impact ofmaking up such shortages, Interior believes that refuges with non-CVP supplies must use

those supplies in a mannerthat protectstheirlong-term availability.

Currently, deliveries ofLevel 2 water do not total 404,221 acre-feet due to constraints in off-refuge

conveyance facilities, district operational limitations, or on-refuge distribution systems which are

unable to deliver all the authorized water. Therefore, additional increments ofLevel 2 water supplies

will be added in phases over approximately the next five years as those conveyance and operational

constraints are removed. Interior is committed to removing the constraints. Reductions ofCVP

refuge water deliveries will be based on critically dry water year classifications as determined by

Reclamation for allocation ofCVP water, subject to the 25 percent cap on refuge water supply

reductionsfor Level 2 water supplies.

By April 1, 1999, Interior(Reclamation) intends to enterinto long-term contractual agreements with

the three agencies that are authorized to receive Level 2 refuge watersupplies (the Service, CDFG,

and Grassland). These agreements will incorporate the above watershortage provision policy for

Level 2 water supplies, and applicable provisions resulting from the ICP process discussed above.

Whenever reductions are applied to Level 2 refuge water supplies, the remaining Level 2 supplies,

including non-CVP sources, will be pooled. Interior and the refuge management entities will

collaboratively allocate and schedulethe remaining pooled supplies to meet the highest priority

refuge needs, provided that no individual refuge will receive more Level 2 water than would have

been available at a full Level 2 supply, or be reducedby more than 25 percent.

Although shortages may be imposed on Level 2 watersupplies, meeting the fish and wildlife resource

objectives ofeach geographic area in critically dry years continuesto be a priority. Interior is

committed to using its best efforts to obtain the Level 4 watersupply increment from water right

holders who possess senior water rights to ensure that reductions due to hydrologic circumstances in

Level 4 water supplies are minimized. The Level 4 incremental long-term refuge watersupply

shortages will be imposed in accordance with the sourcesfrom which it is acquired, as provided in

the CVPIA.

April 16, 1998

7
GVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAl STTPPTTFS

APPENDIX A - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

ON JULY 12, 1996, DRAFT

~Qzflrn~nI:We support the position in the draft Administrative Proposal ofusing SWP facilities

to convey Level 2 refuge watersupplies. We also need your assurance that refuge water supply

needs will be met with timely deliveries. We suggest that any modeling include year-round

volume and monthly increasesregarding capacity in State facilities in wet years.

Response: Interior is committed to meeting the requirements ofthe CVPIA for the wetland and

habitat areas ofthe Central Valley. The use ofSWP facilities to help convey refuge water is to

meet the intent ofthe CVPIA to minimize possible adverse impacts to CVP contractors.

Comment: We are concerned that the use of State facilities for conveyance ofrefuge water will

result in additional exports from the Deltato the westside ofthe San Joaquin Valley, thereby

degrading the water quality of needed water. Also, additional water may be needed for dilution

ofsalts that enter the San Joaquin River. We propose using the Land Retirement Program to

obtain refuge water supplies.

Response: The use of SWP facilities to convey Level 2 refuge water supplies will require an

agreement between the State of California and the United States as well as necessary permit(s)

from the State of California Water Resources Control Board. Such an agreement and subsequent

permitting process will require environmental analysis. Full evaluation ofany impacts to the San

Joaquin River’s water quality and quantities will be included in the environmental analysis.

Comment: The impact upon present and future salinity ofthe San Joaquin Rivershould be a

major consideration of the Best Management Practices/Water Use Efficiency Plans. Greater

efficiency could result in higher salinity in the San Joaquin River requiring greater amounts of

water for dilution from “areas of origin.”

Response: Interior shares your concerns for the water quality in the San Joaquin River. The

Interagency Coordinated Program for Water Management Planning (ICP) will provide a format

and guidelines for water management planning for wetland and habitat areas ofthe Central

Valley. One ofthe considerations that has been recognized and included will be refuge drainage

and water quality. However, because refuges contribute only a small portion ofthe return flows

to the San Joaquin River, the larger issue ofwater quality may best be addressed through the

CALFED Bay-Delta Program which will look at the entire watershed to help resolve the issue.

Comment: Deliveries to refuges prior to the CVPIA were possible and had less impactsince

there were not winter-run chinook salmon and smelt outflow requirements, take limits, et cetera

and there was no Bay-Delta obligation beyond D-1485.

8 April 16, 1998
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT ST rPPT IFS

Response: Interioracknowledges that the conditions thatwere presentprior to enactment ofthe

CVPIA and the Biological Opinions enabled waterto be exported to meet most ofthe demands

south ofthe Delta, although available supplies neverreached Level 2 requirements. The intent of

an agreement to use SWP facilities to conveyLevel 2 refuge watersupplies is an attempt to

minimize any possible adverse impacts to CVP agricultural waterservice contractors.

Comment: Conveying refuge water in the Delta-Mendota Canal decreases the delivery capacity

needed to meet agricultural service contractors’ demands or to refill San Luis Reservoir. The

CVPIA requiresthat additional conveyance be obtained from non-Federal facilities. The

Administrative Proposal should specifically state that additional conveyance capacity obtained

for delivery ofrefuge supplies will be acquired from non-Federal entities.

Response: Interior’s solutionto reach agreement with the State for use ofits facilities to convey

Level 2 refuge water supplies is consistent with the requirements ofCVPIA. As the incremental

refuge Level 4 watersupplies are acquired, capacity to convey the water will be included in the

individual acquisitions.

Comment: The use ofState facilities to deliver refuge watersupplies should neither compromise

nor put at risk the delivery ofthat water during varying water-year types or when capacity in

SWP facilities is not available.

Response: As the final Administrative Proposal makes clear, the provision ofLevel 2 refuge

watersupplies is a legal mandate ofthe CVPIA. The use of State facilities is an attempt to

minimize possible adverse impacts on other CVP contractors. When SWP capacity is not

available, the quantity ofrefuge watersupplies conveyed in CVP facilities will not decrease.

~Qrnn2~nt: We support Interior’s efforts to evaluate efficiency ofwater use on refuges. Any

management plan must provide for maximum benefit to wildlife. Any watersavings must first

be allocated to help meet other fish and wildlife restoration goals ofthe CVPIA.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal addresses all fish, wildlife, and other wetlanddependentresource needs on refuges. It is not known ifthe watermanagement planning and

implementation will result in reducedwater needs for refuges. However, ifwater is conserved,

then either less waterwill need to be acquired to meet the Level 4 incremental supply, orthe

conserved water will be used to meet other identified wetland/refuge needs.

Comment: It is good that the Fish and Wildlife Service is undertaking a review ofits water

management practices on refuges; however, it is equally important to continually reassessthe

perceived needs ofthe species and the assumptions underlying that analysis as we learn more

from scientific endeavor and experience.

9 April 16, 1998
GYPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT STTPPT IFS

Response: The final Administrative Proposal indicates that Interiorwill contractwith entities

and/or individuals to update information regardingwetlands management on Central Valley

refuges -- Federal, State, and private -- and to identif~’ water management practices specific to

wetlands as well as those common to all water use. This information will result in an

interagency-coordinated approach to wetland watermanagement planning and will piivide a

format and outline for planning that will be adaptive to changing knowledge and conditions.

Comment: We want Interiorto consider the biological needs ofwaterfowl, fish, and other

wetland-dependent species when considering refuge water reductions. The CVPIA provides

water to about 50 percent ofthe wetland habitat in the Central Valley; Interiorshould consider

those wetlands outside the purview ofthe CVPIA that lack firm watersupplies when reviewing

shortages to refuges.

Response: Interior will continue to place the highest priority on meeting the fish and wildlife

resource objectives forrefuges in the Central Valley as indicated in the final Administrative

Proposal. Interioris currently investigating the water supplies to remaining private wetlands and

wetlands restored under the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture goals and objectives as directed

in Section 3406(d)(6)(A) and (B). A report on the findings ofthis investigation is scheduled to

be provided to Congress in 1998.

Comment: The draft Administrative Proposal ignores the expresslimitation ofrefuge water

supply reductions due to hydrologic circumstances. We feel that agricultural service contractors’

reductions are more operational than hydrologic and it is unfair to impose equivalent percentage

shortages on refuge water under similar circumstances.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal has been modified to explain when deliveries of

Level 2 refuge watersupplies may be reduced.

Comment: We strongly oppose Interior’s draft Administrative Proposal to link refuge water

allocations to agricultural service contractors. Biological factors must be the primary emphasis

when developing a “trigger” forreduced water allocations to refuges. The CVPIA does not

mandate shortages to refuges whenever reductions are imposed on agricultural service

contractors. We suggest that Interior develop a profile for the various refuges and then determine

their capability to meet their wildlife purposes and objectives during periods ofreduced water

supplies.

Response: Interior is committed to meeting the refuge water supply directives of CVPIA. The

final Administrative Proposal has been clarified to explain how Interiorinterprets hydrologic

circumstances that may necessitate reducing refuge Level 2 water supplies.

10 April 16, 1998
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PRCT)PC)SAT STTPPT IFS

Comment: The acquisition ofwaterto obtain additional Level 2 supplies by use ofthe

Restoration Fund isinappropriate and would shift funds for other fish and wildlife restoration

measures.

U.-

Response: Interior is committed to meeting the refuge watersupply directives oftheCVPIA.

The final Administrative Proposal has been revised to reflect that in those instances when nonCVP supplies are not available or are reduced by more than 25 percent, Interior would make up

the supply difference with CVP supplies to ensure that Level 2 water supplies from all sources

are not reduced by more than 25 percent.

11 April 16, 1998
GVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT. STTPPT IFS

APPENDIX B-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

MARCH 20,1998, REVISED DRAFT

U. £~rnin~nI: The Administrative Proposal places the entire burden of Level 2 deliveries south of

the Delta on one group ofCVP water service contractors, despite the availability ofCVP water

other than water exported at the Delta. Most ofthe refuges which receive CVP water south of

the Delta would have historically received the benefit offlows from the San Joaquin River.

However, those CVP contractors that currently use San Joaquin Riverflows, the Friant Division

contractors, have nothad to share the CVP obligation to deliver water to those refuges. Through

the use of exchanges, the Friant Division could share in such obligations.

Response: Interior will continue to look for opportunities to diversify sources ofsupply for

Level 2 water.

Comment: The use of a Joint Point ofDiversion as a (b)(2) tool would limit its utility in

mitigating the impacts ofthe reallocation to refuge water.

Response: Interior’s final Administrative Proposal for implementing Section 3406(b)(2) includes

the use of a Joint Point ofDiversion to mitigate potential adverse effects, if any, on CVP

contractors. Implementationof a Joint Point of Diversion provides increased capacity to export

water from the Delta during fall and winter months when excess water exists and when the BayDelta standards, Delta Actions pursuant to Section 3406(b)(2), and Endangered Species Act

requirements are being met. As a result, the Joint Point ofDiversion increases Interior’s

flexibility in providing both agricultural and refuge supplies.

Comment: The development ofthe ICP is commendable; however no notices have been received

offollow-up meetings to the fall 1997 ICP meeting. It is unclear whether the May 1998

completion date identified in the Administrative Proposal will be met.

Response: The Interagency Coordinated Program for Water Management Planning (ICP) Draft

Task Force Report will be distributed to interested parties by April 24, 1998, and a follow-up

public workshop forinterested stakeholders will be noticed formid-May.

Comment: The Investigation Report analysis was inadequate for detennining refuge water

supply needs. The detennination ofneeds was subjective regarding both Level 2 and Level 4.

Level 2 was purportedly based on average water supplies received by the refuge prior to the

study. There were not, in fact, reliable recQrds ofactual delivery quantities on which to base

such numbers. It was reported that Level 4 water needs amounted to a refuge managers”wish

list” with little or no documentation or critical review as to howorfor what purpose the water

would be used. That is undoubtedly why additional planning was called for in the Investigation

Report. Interior’s positionregarding the adequacy ofthe needs analysis is disingenuous and

without merit.

12 April 16, 1998
CYPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT ST TPPT IFS

Response: In the final Administrative Proposal, Interiorrecognizesthat additional planning

efforts were not completed priorto the enactment ofCVPIA. However, it is Interior’s position

that the Water Supply Report analysis ofrefuge waterneeds remains adequate for determining

U. refuge watersupply needs. Interior, along with the California Department ofFish and Game and

the Grassland Resource Conservation District/Grassland Water District, believes that ~the

development ofwetland “best management practices” is appropriate to ensure refuge water

supplies are being used effectively to meet wetland and wildlife resource requirements.

Comment: Interior compounds its decision about the needs analysis by stating that ifit isproved

wrong by the implementation ofefficient wateruse measures, it will reallocate the water to other

wetland/refuge uses ratherthan allowing it to go back to the agricultural uses fromwhich itwas

taken.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal addresses all fish, wildlife, and other wetlanddependent resource needs on refuges. It is not known ifthe water management planning and

implementation will result in reducedwater needs forrefuges. However, ifwater is conserved,

then either less water will need to be acquired to meet the Level 4 incremental supply, orthe

conserved water will be used to meet other identified wetland/refuge needs.

Comment: Interior is applying discretionary provisions of3406(d)(4) in a manner that most

adversely impacts agricultural water service contractors. Agricultural water service contractors

take reduction in contract deliveries even in wet years. Limiting reduction to refuges to critically

dry years as determined by Reclamation is unreasonable. Maintaining refuge supplies at 100

percent while agricultural water service contractor supplies are reduced causes the allocation

shortfali to be worse by at least 5 percent. Ifthe proposed criteria are applied, refuges will not

take a shortage until waterservice contractors have received a reduction ofat least 50 percent and

probably 75 percent.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal clarifies how Interiorinterprets “hydrologic

circumstances” under which reductionsto refuge Level 2 water supplies may be imposed. As it

considers ways to mitigate any potential adverse effects on CVP contractors, Interior is looking

beyond the CVPIA. Notably, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program has been moving quickly

towards developing and finalizing a preferred alternative for a broader resolution to the many

competing interests in California water. Further, the Toolbox Group discussions related to

implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) ofthe CVPIA have developed a number ofideasfor

enhancing watersupplies in the nearterm and in the longer term.

Comment: It is unclear from the Administrative Proposal howthe pooling ofavailable supplies

when reductions are applied to Level 2 refuge supplies will be implemented and whether it will

have a further negative effect on water supplies. The concept ofpooling available supplies to

maximize the benefits oflimited supplies makes good water management sense, we would object

13 April 16, 1998
CVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT STTPPT IFS

to any such action which would have the effect offurther reducing supplies to waterservice

contractors.

U.

Response: Interior is committed to a collaborative process to allocate the “pooled” Level 2

supplies. Pooling of watersupplies following imposition ofshortages is to assure highest fish

and wildlife resource needs on the refuges are maintained. The final disposition scheduling of

Level 2 water will be the result ofcollaboration ofthe refuge managers and CVP water supply

operators.

~rnrn~nI: The CVPIA’s mandate to provide reliable, high quality supplies ofCVP water every

year to wildlife refuges in the Valley has been a remarkable restoration success story. Because of

the CVPIA, these refuges have begun to rebound significantly afteryears ofhabitat degradation.

Any weakening ofInterior’s current proposal could greatlyjeopardize this progress.

Response: Interior shares your concern and is committed to meeting the requirements ofthe

CVPIA forthe wetland and habitat areas ofthe Central Valley.

Comment: The statement in the Administrative Proposal that “one ofthe recognized benefits of

the use ofthe Joint Point ofDiversion would be facilitating the delivery ofwatersupplies to

refuges south ofthe Delta” in inaccurate. Joint Point ofDiversion would facilitate the delivery

of water to south ofDelta agricultural water contractors, not to south ofDelta refuges.

Response: Interior’s final Administrative Proposal for implementing Section 3406(b)(2)

includesthe use ofa Joint Point ofDiversion to mitigate potential adverse effects, if any, on CVP

contractors. Implementation ofa Joint Point ofDiversion provides increased capacity to export

water from the Deltailuring fall and winter months when excess water exists and when the BayDelta standards, Delta Actions pursuant to Section 3406(b)(2), and Endangered Species Act

requirements are being met. As a result, the Joint Point ofDiversion increases Interior’s

flexibility in providing both agricultural and refuge supplies.

Comment: We believe that resource needs and management tools may change over time and that

the ICP will be an important means ofidentifying ways offurther enhancing resource benefits

using refuge water authorized by the CVPIA.

Response: The ICP will result in an interagency-coordinated approach to wetland water

management planning and will provide a format and outline for planning that will be adaptive to

changing knowledge and conditions.

Comment: In the event that water savings are not needed to meet fish and wildlife needs on the

15 refuges covered by the CVPIA, then Interiorshould use such water to help meet the habitat

needs ofthe 120,000 acres identified in Section 3406(d)(6) ofthe CVPIA (Central Valley Habitat

Joint Venture lands).

14 April 16, 1998
GVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT ST TPPT IFS

Response: The final Administrative Proposal addresses all fish, wildlife, and other wetlanddependent resource needs on refuges. It is not knownifthe water management planning and

implementation will result in reduced water needs forrefuges. However, ifwater is~conserved,

U.

then either less water will needto be acquired to meet the Level 4 incremental supply, orthe

conserved water will be usedto meet other identified wetland/refuge needs. _

Comment: The refuge shortage provisions in the RevisedDraft Administrative Proposal

represent a reasonable compromise between the currentpolicy, which is tied to the Shasta Index,

and the policy proposed by Interiorin the July 1996 Draft Administrative Proposal, which linked

refuges to shortages experienced by agricultural service contractors.

Response: Interior is committed to meeting the refuge water supply directives ofCVPIA for the

wetland and habitat areas ofthe Central Valley.

Comment: The cooperative (water service) agreements referred to on page 7 ofthe

Administrative Proposal should be changed to contractual agreements to be consistent with the

language of Section 3406(d)(l) ofthe CVPIA.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal reflects Interior’s commitment to meeting the

refuge water supply directives ofthe CVPIA. The Secretary will provide firm Level 2 supplies

either directly orthrough contractual agreements with other appropriate parties.

Comment: We urge Interiorto develop a schedule for completing as soon as possible but no

later thanApril 2003 the required work associated with refuge conveyance facilities.

Response: Interior is committed to removing conveyance and operational constraints as

promptly as possible so that additional increments ofLevel 2 watersupplies can be added in

phases until the system is capable ofdelivering the full 404,221 acre-feet ofLevel 2 water.

Comment: The Final Administrative Proposal should clearly state that Restoration Fund monies

will not be used to purchase the CVP water needed to make up the shortage difference between

refuges receiving non-CVP water and refuges receiving CVP water.

Response: Interioris committed to meeting the refuge watersupply directives ofthe CVPIA.

In those instances when non-CVP supplies are not available or are reduced by more than 25

percent, Interiorwould make up the supply difference with CVP supplies to ensure that Level 2

water supplies from all sources arenot reduced by more than 25 percent.

Comment: Ifrefuge water supplies are provided by way ofgreater ground-water pumping, the

amount ofsalts entering the San Joaquin River orto be disposed ofcould be substantially

increased eventhough export levelsremain the same or are decreased.

15 April 16, 1998
GVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPC)SAT STTPPT IFS

Response: Interiorshares your concerns for the water quality in the San Joaquin River. The ICP

will provide a format and guidelines for water management planning for wetland and habitat

areas ofthe Central Valley. One ofthe considerations that has been recognized and in~luded will

be refuge drainage and water quality. However, the larger issue ofwater quality may best be

addressed through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program which will look at the entire watershed to

help resolve the issue.

Comment: Ifrefuge water supplies are obtained from east side tributaries, it should be required

that deliveries be scheduled to assure that the mean daily salinity ofthe San Joaquin River during

the irrigation season will not be adversely impacted.

Response: Interiorshares yourconcerns for the water quality in the San Joaquin River. The ICP

will provide a format and guidelines for water management planning for wetland and habitat

areas ofthe Central Valley. One ofthe considerations that has been recognized and included will

be refuge drainage and water quality. However, the larger issue ofwater quality may best be

addressed through the CALFED Bay-Delta Program which will look at the entire watershedto

help resolve the issue.

Comment: Exports from the Delta including those for refuges should be limited to water which

is truly surplusto the needs within the Delta, the other watersheds in which the water originates,

and the areas immediately adjacent which can be conveniently served. Refuges and other needs

within the area oforigin should be fully met prior to any export. Shortages should be allocated

first to the export areas.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal addresses all fish, wildlife, and other wetlanddependent resource needs on refuges. Interior is committed to meeting the refuge water supply

directives of CVPIA for the wetland and habitat areas ofthe Central Valley.

~Qrnzn~at: The refuge water supply should be obtained through land retirement on the west side

ofthe San Joaquin Valley to avoid increasing the salt loading in the valley orfurther degrade the

San Joaquin River. The land retirement we envision should be adequately compensated.

Response: Interioris pursing the acquisition ofLevel 4 water supplies through various means

including the land retirement program.

Comment: Many satellite refuges bordering the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge are short

ofwater and cannot be properly maintainec~. While the Government has made these waterfowl

easement purchases, it has never made any attempt to improve the water supply.

Response: Interior is committed to meeting the refuge water supply directives ofCVPIA and is

currently investigating the water supplies to remaining private wetlands and wetlands restored

under the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture goals and objectives as directed in Section

16 April 16, 1998
GVPIA ADMINISTRATIVE REFUGE WATER

PROPOSAT ST JVPT IFS

3406(d)(6)(A) and (B). A report on the findings ofthisinvestigation is scheduled to be provided

to Congress in 1998.

~‘ Comment: It has beennearly 10 years since the basic study on refuge supply needs was

completed. In the interim, benefits andresponses within the Central Valley refuges should have

been observed. There should have been information asto therelationship between Central

Valley refuges and otherparts ofthe migratory flyway and process. What was observed should

be documented, learned from, and expanded upon. There is also likely to be data that indicates

that certain assumptions and practices are notbeneficial and those should be discontinued.

Response: The ICP will result in an interagency-coordinated approach to wetland water

management planning and will provide a format and outline forplanning that will be adaptive to

changing knowledge and conditions.

Comment: The Department ofthe Interior should choose to take a different course than the one

referenced here as it begins its effort to developthe necessary legal basis forCVPIA

implementation through a formal Rulemaking Process and as it assembles the appropnate

scientific evidence for its ecological decision making and program execution.

Response: Interior will pursue rulemaking on this section ofCVPIA to the extent it is so

warranted.

Comment: We support the policy decisions outlined in the March 20, 1998, Revised Draft

Administrative Proposal and urge Interior to finalize the proposal in its current form.

Response: The final Administrative Proposal reflectsInterior’s commitment to meeting the

refuge watersupply directives ofCVPIA for the wetland and habitat areas ofthe Central Valley.

17 April 16, 1998