Central Valley

Project

Improvement Act

October 1999

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

US Fish & Wildlife Service

Sacramento, California

Final Programmatic

Environmental

Impact Statement

Executive

Summary
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Definition of the Study Area and Study Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Description of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Description of PEIS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Multiple Option Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Development of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

PEIS Alternatives Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Summary of Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PEIS Public Involvement Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Post Draft PEIS Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Final PEIS: What Happens Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table of Contents
1

On October 30, 1992, the President signed into law the

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of

1992 (Public Law 102-575), which included Title XXXIV, the

Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA

amends previous authorizations of the California Central

Valley Project (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.

This document summarizes the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) which addresses the

potential impacts of implementation of the Central Valley

Project Improvement Act. The PEIS was prepared pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) for the Department of the

Interior.

Central Valley Project Water Facilities

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.

The CVP operations affect the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta. These operations must be coordinated with the State

Water Project (SWP), which also conveys water through the

Delta. The SWP conveys water from the Feather River to

SWP agricultural and municipal water service contractors

and water rights contractors in the Sacramento and San

Joaquin valleys, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Central

and Southern California Coastal areas.

The CVP and SWP are operated in accordance with their

respective water rights permits and licenses administered

by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Operation of the two projects is managed through the

Coordinated Operating Agreement (COA). The CVP and

SWP, under their water rights permits, are required to meet

water quality standards and the needs of senior water

rights holders. Under the existing Biological Opinions

issued under authority of the Federal Endangered Species

Act, the two projects must also operate in a manner that is

not likely to jeopardize the endangered winter-run chinook

salmon and threatened Delta smelt.

Introduction
2

Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need for the Federal Action

The Federal action to be taken by the Department of the

Interior (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 3402.

These purposes respond to a need to modify the existing

water operations and physical facilities of the CVP. 

Purpose and Use of the Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

The purpose of the PEIS is to evaluate the impacts of

implementing the CVPIA. The PEIS addresses the CVPIA’s

region-wide impacts on communities, industries,

economies, and natural resources and provides a basis for

selecting a decision among the alternatives. Because it is a

programmatic document, the PEIS presents a system-wide

analysis, rather than presenting detailed analyses of specific projects and sites.

While the Final PEIS examines the "big picture" of the

CVPIA, a more detailed evaluation will also be done for

many of the actions as they are implemented. The PEIS will

be used as a basis for tiered environmental documentation

to be completed prior to long-term implementation of

some CVPIA provisions.

Provisions of the CVPIA that are addressed

in this PEIS include:

■ CVP water contract renewals

■ Water transfers

■ Tiered water pricing

■ CVP operational changes

■ Fish and wildlife water dedication and management

■ Fish and wildlife water acquisitions

■ Fish and wildlife habitat improvements

■ Refuge water supplies

■ Land retirement

■ Facility modifications

The proposed action would not include programmatic

implementation of increased instream fish flows in the

Trinity River. That program is being analyzed in a separate

and concurrent EIR/EIS. This PEIS includes assumptions

about Trinity River flows solely for the purpose of programmatic analysis of the proposed action.
3

Definition of the Study

Area and Study Period

Study Area

The Study Area for the PEIS includes the Central Valley and

coastal areas in California. Criteria for defining the Study

Area were developed through an extensive public scoping

process and includes:

■ Areas that include CVP facilities, CVP water users, or

water rights holders affected by CVP operations.

■ Areas that could be directly impacted by changes in CVP

operations or actions implemented under the CVPIA.

■ Areas that could be directly impacted by water transfer

programs that involve CVP water users or CVP facilities.

Study Period

The PEIS analyzes projected conditions in the Year 2025

which allows for the period to complete the environmental

documentation and the term of 25 years for the long-term

water service contracts. 

CVPIA P URPOSES (SECTION 3402)

a. to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife,

and associated habitats in the Central Valley

and Trinity River basins of California; 

b. to address impacts of the CVP on fish, wildlife,

and associated habitats;

c. to improve the operational flexibility of the CVP;

d. to increase water-related benefits provided by

the CVP to the State of California through

expanded use of voluntary water transfers and

improved water conservation;

e. to contribute to the State of California’s interim

and long-term efforts to protect the San

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Estuary; 

f. to achieve a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of CVP water, including the

requirements of fish and wildlife, agriculture,

and municipal, industrial, and power contractors.
4

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

Joaquin Delta. Particularly in recent decades, population

growth, with its attendant municipal and economic development, has placed increasing pressure on water resources. 

Agricultural and urban water demands have contributed to

groundwater depletion. Wastewater discharge and contamination in runoff have affected water quality in Central

Valley rivers and the 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 also sharply reduced

habitat that supports fish and wildlife resources in the

Central Valley.

As early as the 1920’s, California began seriously planning major public works projects that would allow greater

use of the State’s water resources through storage and

diversions. Originally envisioned as part of the State Water

Project, several of the cornerstone facilities, such as Shasta

and Friant dams, were pursued under Depression-era federal policies. In the 1930’s, the Bureau of Reclamation was

authorized to construct the CVP with multiple objectives

including navigation, flood control, water for agricultural

and municipal use, and power to support these purposes.

Background
Changes Due to Water Resource Projects

The CVP and other water projects have helped make the

Central Valley the richest agricultural region in the nation.

Low-cost water and power have also brought manufacturing, service, commerce, entertainment, and defense industries to the state, along with millions of jobs. Economic

growth created increasing demand for goods and services

that led to the large-scale conversion of natural habitat to

agriculture and other uses.

Prior to the development of water resource projects in

California, most anadromous fish migrated upstream to

spawn from fall through spring. Storm flows also helped to

move fish back downstream from spawning areas in the

upper reaches. Runoff from rain and snow also repelled

saltwater intrusion in the Delta.

Water resource projects throughout the Central Valley

and foothills modified the flow patterns by shifting peak

river flows to summer months, and highly impacting spawning and rearing conditions for anadromous fish species. In

addition, reservoirs and diversions altered the temperature of

some stream reaches, blocked fish passage to some colder

water stream reaches that were needed for spawning and

rearing, and entrained juvenile fish in the diversions. 

Water resource development in California has, in general, led

to expansion of both the demand and supply that impact water

resources and the ecosystems that are dependent on them.

Through the CVPIA, Interior will be implementing the programs

to help restore environmental conditions altered by the CVP.
6

The alternatives were analyzed for their impacts in comparison to a

No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative reflects conditions

expected to exist in the Year 2025 if the CVPIA had not been adopted

and provides a basis for comparison of other alternatives. It includes

existing facilities and land uses, as well as projections concerning

future growth, land use changes, and changes in CVP operational policies which are being considered and have undergone separate environmental documentation. The No-Action Alternative also includes

assumptions concerning concurrent, but separately evaluated issues.

One example is the assumption that ocean harvest limitations for sport

and commercial salmon fishing would be consistent with 1992 policies. The PEIS recognizes that those issues may be evaluated in a separate process, but not by the PEIS.

Assumptions for Physical Features 

Under the No-Action 

Existing physical features of the CVP constitute the starting point for

defining the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative also

includes projects that would have been implemented without adoption of the CVPIA. The criteria for inclusion of the future facilities in

the No-Action Alternative required that the project have:

■ Authorization and funding for design;

■ Final environmental documents, permits, and approvals; and

■ Initial authorization and funding for construction without

CVPIA.

Assumptions for Operations 

Under the No-Action Alternative

The operational and regulatory policies and assumptions included in

the No-Action Alternative were already in existence or were being

developed prior to the adoption of CVPIA. The No-Action Alternative

includes assumptions about results of ongoing evaluation processes

for these policies. For example, the No-Action Alternative includes

assumptions for implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Accord. 

■ All Existing Facilities and Land Uses

■ Shasta Temperature Control Device funded

by non-CVPIA funds. Facilities under construction during Draft PEIS preparation

■ Bay-Delta Plan per SWRCB 

Water Rights Decisions

■ CVP Water Contract Renewals

■ Level 2 Refuge Water Supplies from 

Historic Sources

■ Trinity River Instream Flows of 340,000

acre-feet/year

■ Increased Water Rights Demands per

Department of Water Resources Bulletin

160-93

■ Service/Reclamation Conservation Program

■ Implement CVP Conservation Program to

benefit priority and special status species

■ All Existing Facilities

■ Shasta Temperature Control Device

■ State Water Project Coastal Aqueduct

■ Metropolitan Water District Eastside

Reservoir

■ Contra Costa Water District 

Los Vaqueros Reservoir

■ Coleman Fish Hatchery

■ Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge

■ Old River Barrier

No-Action Alternative Definition

No-Action Alternative Physical Features

Description of the 

No-Action Alternative
7

The CVPIA modifies the operation, management, and physical features of the CVP. The PEIS analyzes a full range of

implementation options across various scenarios. A public

scoping process helped identify two types of implementation provisions in the CVPIA: core programs and multiple

option programs.

Core programs have a single method of implementation at

the programmatic level and are the same in all action alternatives.

Multiple option programs have multiple implementation

methods at the programmatic level and vary among action

alternatives. The multiple option programs include CVP

water system operations, CVP water pricing, and fish and

wildlife habitat improvements (including water acquisition

from willing sellers). Supplemental Analyses were developed to address additional actions under the base alternatives to provide additional comparisons.

The core programs and multiple option programs were used

to formulate the Preferred Alternative, as well as the four

other Alternatives and 15 Supplemental Analyses. 

Description of 

PEIS Programs

CVP Water Contract Renewals (Section 3404(c))

Water Measurement (Section 3405(b))

Water Conservation (Section 3405(e))

(b)(1) “other” Program (Section 3406(b)(1))

Tracy and Contra Costa Pumping Plants 

Fish Protection Facilities Modifications 

(Section 3406(b)(4-5))

Shasta Temperature Control Device 

Construction (Section 3406(b)(6))

Coleman Fish Hatchery Modifications 

(Section 3406(b)(11))

Clear Creek Restoration and Structural 

Modifications (Section 3406(b)(12))

Non-Flow Habitat Restoration Programs on 

Central Valley Streams (Section 3406(b)(13))

Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District 

Diversion Modification (Section 3406)(b)(17))

Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Diversion 

Modification (Section 3406(b)(20))

Fish Screens/Bypasses on Central Valley Streams

(Section 3406(b)(21))

Seasonal Field Flooding of up to 80,000 Acres 

(Section 3406(b)(22)) 

Increased Minimum Trinity River Flows (Section

3406(b)(23))

Purchase 30,000 Acres of Retired Lands from 

Willing Sellers (Section 3408(h))

Core Programs in All Alternatives
8

Multiple Option

Programs

Fish and Wildlife Management Programs

One of the programs having multiple implementation

options is the Fish and Wildlife Management Program. This

program includes actions to improve habitat, as defined by

the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP), and

refuge water supplies. The program associated with refuge

water supplies was defined in the 1989 Refuge Water

Supply Study and the San Joaquin Basin Action Plan completed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation).

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program

The AFRP’s goal is to undertake reasonable efforts to sustain the natural production of anadromous fish in the

Central Valley rivers and streams by the year 2002, at numbers double the average levels exhibited during the period

from 1967 through 1991. The objectives of the AFRP are to:

■ Obtain the best available scientific and commercial data;

■ Develop a long-term Restoration Plan that identifies the

general approaches and actions to attain the goal; and

■ Develop short-term implementation plans as tiers to the

Restoration Plan. 

The PEIS alternatives incorporate instream and Delta habitat and flow improvements, which are major elements of

the AFRP. The flow improvements were based upon information developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) in October 1996. The following three tools were

identified in the CVPIA to improve flows.

■ Reoperation of the CVP in accordance with Section

3406(b)(1)(B) Reoperation is defined as changes in CVP

operations that do not impact water deliveries to CVP

water users. 

■ Dedication of 800,000 acre-feet of CVP water in

accordance with Section 3406(b)(2) The "(b)(2) Water

Management" is defined as operation of the CVP in a

manner that would allow the CVP to dedicate and manage 800,000 acre-feet/year of CVP yield for fish and

wildlife purposes. For the PEIS, the (b)(2) Water

Management included an instream component for CVPcontrolled streams, a Bay-Delta Plan component for the

CVP, and an additional Delta component.

■ Water acquisitions in accordance with Section

3406(b)(3) Water acquisitions from willing sellers would

be used to provide increased instream flows in specific

months to improve habitat, in accordance with preliminary information developed by AFRP. The acquisition

targets vary among action alternatives.

Refuge Water Supply

Many refuges historically received water supplies from

multiple sources such as irrigation return flows and temporary annual water contracts. In years preceding the

CVPIA, water conservation programs and increased

demand for water reduced the reliability of these sources.

The CVPIA provides for a firm water supply for Central

Valley wildlife refuges from existing CVP yield at the levels

described in the 1989 Refuge Water Supply Study and the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan. The refuges include both

National Wildlife Refuges and state-owned Wildlife

Management Areas.

■ All alternatives, except the No-Action Alternative, provide firm Level 2 CVP water supplies to 21 refuges. Level

2 water supply is the average historic water delivery

between 1978 and 1984.

■ The Preferred Alternative, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and the

associated supplemental analyses, also include firm Level

4 CVP water supplies. Level 4 is the water supply needed

to fully develop the refuges as defined in the 1989

Refuge Water Supply Study and the San Joaquin Basin

Action Plan.
9

Water Pricing

The PEIS analyzed three different methods of implementing tiered water pricing. Tiered water pricing is an incremental pricing system required by the CVPIA in which

water costs rise with increased demand. Two of the options

include the Ability-to-Pay policy, which forgives a portion

of the capital repayment obligations. The third option

would not include this policy.

Three water pricing options were considered in the PEIS.

They range from water priced at the contract rate to water

priced at full cost plus 20% without the Ability-to-Pay policy applied to the option.

Water Transfer Programs

The CVPIA provides for water transfers between willing

buyers and sellers, but does not mandate such transfers.

The PEIS analyzed the opportunities for water transfers and

the way other CVPIA provisions affect these transfers. 

The PEIS makes assumptions about the volume of transferred water based on the following assumptions:

■ All CVP water would be transferable; 

■ Transfers would be limited by existing conveyance

capacity and no new groundwater or recharge would be

used to expand conjunctive use programs; and

■ The cost of the transferred water would be equal to the

capital plus operation and maintenance costs and the

net income lost as a result of the transfer.

Development of 

the Alternatives 

The PEIS evaluated various alternatives for implementing

the provisions of the CVPIA. These alternatives were developed through an extensive public scoping effort and

screening process. The alternatives evaluate a range of

actions or programs to meet CVPIA objectives. Multiple

option programs provided the variability and flexibility

needed to create such a range. The PEIS analyzed a NoAction Alternative, 5 Main Alternatives, including a

Preferred Alternative, and 15 Supplemental Analyses.

The alternatives include implementation of the following programs:

■ Anadromous Fish Restoration Program with flow and

non-flow restoration methods and fish passage

improvements;

■ Reliable Water Supply Program for refuges and wetlands

identified in 1989 Refuge Water Supply Study and the

San Joaquin Basin Action Plan;

■ Protection and restoration program for native species

and associated habitats;

■ Land Retirement Program for willing sellers of land

characterized by poor drainage; and

■ CVP Water Contract Provisions for contract renewals,

water pricing, water metering/monitoring, water conservation methods, and water transfers.

The Alternatives were compared to the No-Action

Alternative for their impacts.
10

PEIS Alternatives Defined

The PEIS includes a No-Action Alternative, 5 Main Alternatives,

including a Preferred Alternative, and 15 Supplemental Analyses.

The alternatives were developed in a building block fashion to

reflect various levels of implementation that may occur depending on the level of willingness to participate and partner in the

CVPIA programs. The Supplemental Analyses were analyzed to

determine the impacts similar actions would have on the main

Alternatives. Many of the Supplemental Analyses’ actions are similar, but their outcomes differ depending on the main alternative

with which they are combined.

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative was defined in response to the results of

the Draft PEIS analysis, public comments received on the Draft

PEIS and the Supplement to the Draft PEIS, public comments

received on related Administrative Proposals, and the results of

early implementation of several CVPIA provisions. The Preferred

Alternative was constructed to implement CVPIA in a manner that

best balances environmental benefits, affordability, and technical

feasibility. As such, it does not include provisions that would

clearly exceed the funding mechanisms of CVPIA, and require

additional congressional authorization.

The Preferred Alternative includes Core Programs to meet

CVPIA objectives. The Core Programs address contract renewal,

water measurement and conservation, modification of various

facilities and habitat to protect fish, seasonal field flooding, and

land retirement. The Preferred Alternative uses reoperation of the

project, under Section 3406(b)(1)(B), to provide greater benefit to

fish and wildlife. The Preferred Alternative uses (b)(2) water to

meet the CVP share of the Bay-Delta Plan, Instream Components,

and Delta Components. The Preferred Alternative also implements

Contract-to-Full-Cost tiered pricing rate, with the ability to pay

policy, which begins at the contract rate for the first 80%, the

average between contract and full-cost rates for the next 10% of

water, and full cost for the final 10% of water.

The Preferred Alternative includes acquisition of up to 110,000

AF of water from willing sellers on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and

Merced rivers and up to 30,000 AF on the Sacramento River tributaries. The acquired water would be used to increase the

instream flows and partially to increase Delta outflow. CVP water

would be used to provide reliable Level 2 refuge water supplies.

Water acquired from willing sellers would be used to provide level

4 refuge water supplies. The Preferred Alternative includes retirement and revegetation of drainage problem lands.

The Preferred Alternative also includes provision for transfer of

water between willing buyers and sellers, with no additional

transfer fees.

Studies concerning Delta barriers, improvements at Red Bluff

Diversion Dam and other CVPIA provisions are currently underway. Due to the status of these studies, the Preferred Alternative

recognizes the benefits of these programs, but does not include

specific recommendations.

Alternative 1

This Alternative includes Core Programs to meet CVPIA objectives. The Core Programs are implemented in all five main alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative and address contract renewal, water measurement and conservation, modification of various facilities and habitat to protect fish, seasonal

field flooding and land retirement. In addition to Core

Programs, Alternative 1 uses reoperation of the project to provide greater benefit to fish and wildlife. Alternative 1 uses (b)(2)

water to meet the CVP share of the Bay-Delta Plan as well as

(b)(2) Instream Components. Alternative 1 also implements

Contract-to-Full-Cost tiered pricing rate, which begins at the

contract rate for the first 80%, the average between contract

and full-cost rates for the next 10% of water, and full cost for

the final 10% of water.

Alternative 1 does not acquire water for instream flow

improvements or make permanent structural improvements to

Old River Barrier or Georgiana Slough, but it does provide Level

2 refuge supplies with a shortage provision based on the Shasta

inflow index.

Supplemental Analysis 1a

Supplemental Analysis 1a, as do all supplemental analyses’

actions, builds on or adds to the main Alternative. Under

Supplemental Analysis 1a, the (b)(2) Delta Component of the

AFRP is added to the Bay-Delta and the Instream Components

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

Supplemental Analysis 1b

This alternative adds 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 and

permanent structures at Georgiana Slough and a seasonally

operated barrier at Old River will 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 builds on Alternative 1 by implementing the tiered pricing requirement of the CVPIA through the

Full-Cost-Plus method. The first 80% of contract allocation is

priced at full cost, the next 10% of allocation is 110% of full cost,

and the final 10% of allocation is 120% of full cost.

Supplemental Analysis 1d

Supplemental Analysis 1d builds on the refuge water supply

element of Alternative 1 by eliminating the shortage provision.

In Supplemental Analysis 1d, refuges will receive full Level 2

supply in all years.
11

Supplemental Analysis 1e

Supplemental Analysis 1e includes fees for the transfer of CVP

water, as specified by the CVPIA, and allows transfer of CVP

water to non-CVP users.

Supplemental Analysis 1f

This alternative is similar to Supplemental Analysis 1e in its purpose, but would add a $50/acre-feet (AF) fee on all CVP transfers, with the additional funds added to the Restoration Fund.

This alternative and others that impose the additional fee would

require additional Congressional authorization.

Supplemental Analysis 1g

Supplemental Analysis 1g removes the current ability-to-pay

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 alternative increases the use of the Restoration Funds

for habitat restoration and enhancement.

Supplemental Analysis 1i

Supplemental Analysis 1i provides year-round opening of the

Red Bluff Diversion Dam gates. This alternative will improve

operational flexibility and provide greater balance among water

supply and fish and wildlife demands. Diversions to the TehamaColusa Canal do not change from previous alternatives.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 builds on Alternative 1 by acquiring, from willing

sellers, 60,000 AF of water on both the Stanislaus and Tuolumne

rivers, 50,000 AF on the Merced River, and an undetermined

amount on Upper Sacramento River Tributaries. Refuge water

supplies are increased to Level 4, subject to hydrologic shortages, through water purchase from willing sellers.

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.

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 alternative allows transfers from CVP to non-CVP water users

and includes fees specified in the CVPIA, similar to Supplemental

Analysis 1e.

Supplemental Analysis 2c

Supplemental Analysis 2c is similar to 1f, which adds a $50/AF fee

to all transfers of CVP water.

Supplemental Analysis 2d

Supplemental Analysis 2d is similar to alternative 1c as it implements the tiered pricing requirement of the CVPIA through the

Full-Cost-Plus method.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 continues to build on the previous main Alternatives

by retaining all of Alternative 1 and the Refuge Water Supply

provision of Alternative 2 and adds to the volume and number of

streams on which water is acquired.

Alternative 3 will acquire 200,000 AF on each of the

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers; 30,000 AF on the

Calaveras River; 70,000 AF on the Mokelumne River; and 100,000

AF on the Yuba River. An undetermined amount of water will also

be acquired on Upper Sacramento River Tributaries.

Alternative 3 is further distinguished from Alternative 2 in

that acquired water is not specifically used to increase in-Delta

Flows. As a result, acquired water is available for export under

Alternative 3 once requirements of the Bay-Delta Accord have

been met.

Supplemental Analysis 3a

This alternative repeats the water transfer implementation, as in

Supplemental Analyses 1e and 2b, which includes only fees

specifically mandated by the CVPIA.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 builds from Alternative 3 by adding the Delta

Component of the AFRP to the reoperation and (b)(2) water program and using the acquired water for Delta flow increases.

Acquired water is not available for export from the Delta.

This Alternative completes the upper range of water acquisition and instream use. It provides the same acquisition levels in all

streams as Alternative 3 and provides no export of acquired water

as in Alternative 2.

Supplemental Analysis 4a

This alternative repeats the water transfer implementation as in

Supplemental Analyses 1e, 2b, and 3a, which includes only fees

specifically mandated by the CVPIA.
12

The alternatives were analyzed to determine the potential

for adverse and beneficial impacts associated with implementation of the various CVPIA programs. Impacts under the

alternatives, as compared to the No-Action Alternative, are

the result of changes in water facilities operations and deliveries, and structural improvements which, in turn, directly or

indirectly affect surface and groundwater, power resources,

fish and wildlife, vegetation, agricultural land use, recreational opportunities, the regional and local economy, social

conditions, and cultural resources. Changes to other resource

areas could not be defined at the programmatic level.

Changes in Water Facilities 

Operations and Deliveries

Changes to CVP operations are similar in all alternatives

and were primarily related to 1) assumed reduced diversions from the Trinity River Basin to the Sacramento River;

2) increased releases from Shasta Lake in fall, spring, and

summer to meet target flows and to meet requirements in

the Sacramento River that had been partially met by water

from the Trinity River Basin; 3) increased flows on Clear

Creek in non-critically dry years; 4) reduction in summer

releases from Folsom Lake to increase storage in September

and to stabilize flows from October through February in

the American River; and 5) increased instream flows in the

Stanislaus River during non-critically dry years. 

Primarily as a result of assumed decreased Trinity River

Basin diversions to the Sacramento River and (b)(2) Water

Management, average annual CVP exports in the Delta

decrease. CVP operations in the Delta under the Preferred

Alternative include a combination of instream releases and

water acquisitions to increase Delta outflows during some

periods and export limitations. The CVP operations in the

Delta are similar in Alternatives 1 and 2 and Supplemental

Analyses 1b through 1i and 2a through 2c. Under

Alternative 3 and Supplemental Analysis 3a, acquired water

could be exported and, therefore, the annual exports by

both the CVP and SWP increase as compared to other alternatives. Under Alternative 4 and Supplemental Analyses 1a

and 4a, Delta exports are reduced as compared to the other

alternatives due to the implementation of (b)(2) Water

Management in the Delta in addition to the Bay-Delta Plan

and use of acquired water in the streams and in the Delta.

The alternatives have varying effects on CVP water deliveries. Water deliveries to CVP water service contractors are

less in each of the alternatives as compared to the No-Action

Alternative. Water deliveries to the water rights contractors

and exchange contractors do not change between the NoAction Alternative and the other alternatives. CVP water

operations could vary significantly under Supplemental

Analyses 1c and 2d as compared to the other alternatives.

Under these alternatives, CVP water service contract demands

are reduced by 570,000 acre-feet/year due to the high price

of CVP water under the alternatives. The water could be reallocated to other CVP contractors, used to meet other fish and

wildlife needs, or transferred by the CVP contractors with

reduced demands. If this water is used by other CVP contractors or transferred, CVP operations may not change noticeably. If the water is used for fish and wildlife needs, reservoir

storage and stream flows may change significantly.

Several alternatives call for water acquisitions to

increase instream flows in the river where the water is

acquired and also in downstream rivers and in the Delta.

For the water acquisition actions under the Preferred

Alternative, water generally would either be released in the

spring or stored for release in the fall. Similar operations

are assumed for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and Supplemental

Analyses 2a through 2d, 3a, and 4a.

Changes in Groundwater Resources

Impacts on groundwater result from changes in surface

and groundwater use, crop mix and irrigation techniques,

and stream flows.

Summary of Impact

Assessment
13

Groundwater depth increases in the Sacramento

Region, San Joaquin Region and the Tulare region under

the Preferred Alternative. In Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the

groundwater depth would increase in Sacramento, San

Joaquin, and the northern Tulare Lake regions. Depth

would decrease in the southern Tulare Lake region. All

regions would have a depth increase in Alternative 4.

Changes in Power Resources

Changes in CVP operations, especially increased flows in

the Trinity River Basin, shift patterns of CVP power generation. Under all alternatives, generation shifts from summer months to the spring and fall months when the

demand for hydropower is less. Overall, generation is

reduced. The cost of replacement power to meet summer

month loads may increase the overall cost of power supplies to CVP preference power customers. Under the

Preferred Alternative, CVP loads are reduced. CVP loads

were reduced in all other PEIS Alternatives. 

Changes in Fishery Resources 

Conditions for fish in CVP-controlled rivers and the Delta

generally improve under all alternatives and supplemental

analyses as a result of increased flows and non-flow

actions such as fish screen and fish passage improvements,

habitat restoration, improved water quality, and predator

control. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, flows and habitat for

fish are increased on the Sacramento, American,

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers, Clear Creek and

tributaries to the Sacramento River as compared to the

No-Action Alternative. Fishery conditions in the Delta

would improve due to increased Delta inflows and outflows, reduced pumping and additional fish protections.

Under Alternative 1 and Supplemental Analyses 1a

through 1i, flows for fish are increased on CVP-controlled

rivers, and reservoirs are reoperated to reduce short-term

flow fluctuations. These actions generally improve environmental conditions although adverse effects occur on

some streams for some species. Supplemental Analyses 1a

and 1b improve fishery conditions in the Delta as compared to Alternative 1 due to increased Delta inflows,

reduced pumping, and additional fish protection.

Alternative 2, and Supplemental Analyses 2a through

2d include all the benefits of Alternative 1 and improve

conditions in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Merced, and the

lower San Joaquin rivers and in the Delta with respect to

temperatures, improved habitat, reduced losses to diversions, improved fish movement, and improved food web

support. Additional fish protection under Supplemental

Analysis 2a would further improve fishery conditions in

the Delta.

Alternative 3 and Supplemental Analysis 3a include all

benefits of Alternative 2 and further improve conditions

on the Yuba, Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne,

and Merced rivers and in the Delta.

Alternative 4 and Supplemental Analysis 4a include all

the benefits of Alternative 3 and add improvements to

passage, diversions, and flow in the Delta.

Changes in Vegetation and Wildlife

Under the Preferred Alternative, land fallowing and retirement would benefit special-status and other wildlife

species in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions.

Riparian restoration on rivers in the Sacramento River and

San Joaquin River regions has locally beneficial effects on

the extent and condition of riparian habitat. Level 2 refuge

water supplies increase wetland habitat available to

waterfowl and shorebirds. Flooding of up to 80,000 acres

of agricultural habitat during winter offers major benefits

to migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds,

including special-status species. Implementation of the

(b)(1) "other" program would benefit species not specifically identified in the CVPIA through habitat restoration,

maintenance, enhancement, and protection.

The impacts associated with implementing Alternative

1 and Supplemental Analyses 1a through 1i are similar to

the Preferred Alternative.

Impacts of Alternative 2 and Supplemental Analyses 2a

through 2d are similar to those of Alternative 1; in addition, higher spring flows on the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and

Merced rivers increase water levels in the San Joaquin

River at Vernalis, and benefit riparian habitat. Level 4

refuge water supplies allow optimal management of

refuges.
Impacts of Alternatives 3 and 4 and Supplemental

Analyses 3a and 4a are similar to those of Alternative 2,

plus additional agricultural land is fallowed and conservation easements may be acquired on a portion of the land.

Further, increased flows in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and

Merced rivers lead to greater improvements in riparian

vegetation on the San Joaquin River near Vernalis.

Changes in Agricultural Land Use and

Economics

Throughout the Central Valley, a reduction of irrigated

acreage and gross revenue reduction would be expected

under all alternatives, with the highest reductions occurring under Alternative 4.

In all alternatives, the total percentage change in irrigated acreage would be greatest in the San Joaquin River

region which includes the land retirement program. Land

retirement actions would also reduce irrigated acreage in

the Tulare Lake region. 

14
15

The provisions that would potentially affect agricultural

land use and economics include (b)(2) water management for

fish and wildlife, water acquired for stream flows and refuges,

water pricing, restoration payments, water conservation and

measurement, land retirement, and water transfers.

Changes in Recreational Opportunities 

Recreational opportunities under the No-Action

Alternative are about $145 million per year in recreationrelated expenditures at major reservoirs and refuges in the

Sacramento River region and about $85 million per year in

the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake regions combined.

Under the Preferred Alternative, recreational use at

major reservoirs changed less than 1 percent although

recreational use of refuges increased significantly. This

impact also occurred under all PEIS alternatives.

Recreational use of refuges increased over 60% with implementation of the Preferred Alternative as compared to the

No-Action Alternative. Recreation use at refuges increased

over 25% under Alternative 1 and Supplemental Analyses

1a through 1i and over 60% in all other alternatives, as

compared with the No-Action Alternative. 

Changes to Regional Economics 

and Social Conditions

By increasing water related benefits provided by the

Central Valley Project, the provisions of CVPIA would contribute to the overall economic and environmental sustainability of California. Implementation of CVPIA results

from a variety of impacts to the regional economy and

social conditions. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in the lowest

total estimated impact on jobs, approximately 0.04% loss

in the Central Valley, compared to the other PEIS alternatives. Impacts under all alternatives would be partially offset by increases in economic activity during the period of

construction of restoration actions. The loss of jobs also

would be partially offset by a slight increase in economic

activity due to increased revenues from water sales and

increased recreation expenditures. The job losses would not

be significant if distributed uniformly over an entire

region, such as in the Sacramento River region. However,

farm communities in the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake

regions on the Westside may be more severely affected.
16

Cultural Resources

Under some alternatives, including the Preferred

Alternative, cultural resources may be affected; however,

those impacts could not be quantified at the programmatic level. As project-specific documentation is undertaken,

those impacts can be properly assessed and mitigation

measures developed, as appropriate. 

Before implementing individual actions, Interior will

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act to account for the effects on historic

properties. Interior will develop mitigation measures pursuant to Section 106 and will consult with the Advisory

Council and State Historic Preservation Office.

Environmental Justice and 

Indian Trust Assets

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies analyze the impacts of alternatives to identify and evaluate

disproportionate impacts to minorities and low income

populations. The impacts of the Preferred Alternative and

other Alternatives occur throughout the Central Valley;

therefore, it is difficult to conclude that one social group

would be adversely affected to a greater extent by any of

the alternatives. The impacts reflect the type of labor

requirements required for agricultural production and skill

and education level. 

Reclamation policy is to protect American Indian Trust

Assets and to determine if alternatives would affect the use

and enjoyment of trust assets. None of the alternatives

would adversely affect reserved water rights, water quality

of the water rights, hunting and fishing rights, or noise

near a land asset. Increased stream flows associated with

the alternatives could positively affect Indian Trust Assets

located adjacent to rivers and the associated hunting and

fishing rights.

PEIS Public Involvement 

Summary

Public and stakeholder involvement was crucial in creating

an open and inclusive process to develop the CVPIA implementation program. Throughout the preparation of the

PEIS, meetings were held with the Cooperating and

Consulting Agencies, other agencies, interest groups, and

the public.

Preparation of the PEIS began during the Scoping phase.

Scoping served as a fact-finding process that helped identify public concerns and recommendations about the CVPIA,

the PEIS process, issues that would be addressed in the PEIS,

and the scope and level of detail for the analyses. Scoping

activities formally began in January 1993 after a Notice of

Intent to prepare the PEIS was filed in the Federal Register

and formally ended in April 1993 with the release of the

Scoping Report and the Public Involvement Plan. Public

participation continued, however, on an informal basis to

ensure that new issues and concerns were considered

throughout the PEIS process. 
19

Cooperating Agencies that 

Participated in Draft PEIS Preparation

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Water Resources

California State Water Resources Control Board

Hoopa Valley Tribe

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Marine Fisheries Service

Western Area Power Administration

Consulting Agencies That 

Participated in Draft PEIS Preparation

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

Agencies that Participated in 

Draft PEIS Preparation

Post Draft PEIS

Activities

Public Involvement continued after release of the Draft

PEIS. During a comment period that lasted over 200 days,

Information Forums and Public Hearings were held

throughout northern California. In addition, Interior continued to hold small group briefings on request.

Just prior to releasing the Draft PEIS in November 1997,

Interior discovered that PROSIM, one of the primary analytical tools used in the PEIS, included inconsistent hydrologic input data. Interior released the revised model,

PROSIM 99, at the PROSIM Workshop in November 1998.

In July 1999, Interior released the Supplement to the

Draft PEIS to display the impacts of using PROSIM99 with

the PEIS Alternatives. The evaluation showed no change in

the analyses. Information Forums and Public Hearings for

the supplement were held throughout northern California.
The PEIS is intended to provide the basis for a decision on

whether to implement at the programmatic level provisions

of CVPIA, including: 

■ Water contract renewals 

■ Water Transfers 

■ Tiered water pricing 

■ CVP Operations 

■ Fish and Wildlife Water Acquisition 

■ Fish and Wildlife habitat restoration

■ Water Acquisition to Increase Refuge Water Supplies

■ Land Retirement 

■ Facility Modifications

For many provisions, additional environmental documentation will be necessary to determine site-specific impacts.

The PEIS is designed to allow subsequent environmental

documents to incorporate PEIS analysis by reference and to

limit the need to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts of CVPIA. 

This PEIS will not provide the basis for a decision about

whether to implement (b)(2) water dedication and management or Level 2 refuge water supplies, because the

nature of these mandates does not require compliance with

NEPA before implementation.

This PEIS alone will not provide the basis for a decision

to implement the increased instream flows in the Trinity

River. That program is being analyzed in the Trinity River

Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS/EIR, a separate and concurrent NEPA document.

To obtain a copy the Final PEIS please contact:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

www.mp.usbr.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

www.fws.gov

Final PEIS What Happens Next?

20
U.S. Department of the Interior

As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior

has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources.

This includes fostering wise use of our land and water resources; protecting fish,

wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values

of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life

through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all

our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their

care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation

communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. Administration.

Bureau of Reclamation

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water

and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the

interest of the American public.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve,

protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit

of the American people.

MISSION STATEMENT